Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
In this thousand year subset I found about 136 instances of this wave length in the SSB cycle.
|
How can you find 136 instances of a 179 year wave length within 1,000 years?!? At most, there can only be 5 such instances (1,000/179 = ~5.6). Therefore, your 136 instances are not independent samples. I want to see the standard deviation for a sample size of 5. Also, you are picking out your "instances" by eye, aren't you? If so, it's quite likely you are introducing bias, as you have an axe to grind. Nothing wrong with grinding axes, per se, but you need a statistical technique that can pick out these "turning points" automatically. I don't see that yet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
It is hard, for me at least, to imagine that life on earth could have evolved in the midst of this intricate gravitational pattern and not reflect it in any way.
|
Yeah, but it's even harder for practically everyone else to imagine how such tiny and noisy gravitational patterns could possibly have any effect at all on life on Earth. That's the problem with astrology in general: there's no scientific theory about how tiny, noisy gravitational anomalies caused by distant planets can have causal effects on life on Earth. Since there's no
scientific explanation for astrology, astrologers are forced to revert to seemingly (to us scientific materialists) crazy, New Age, spiritual explanations. However, the mere fact that there's no scientific explanation for a phenomenon doesn't imply that New Age explanations for it are true.