Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
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.
|
Hi Warren. If you look at my OP chart, you will see yellow bars indicating the 179 year pattern. The main apparent wavelength of the chart is about 20 years, but if you actually look at it, you will see that all the turning points are in a 179 year phase. This applies to the 18 J-S turning points and also to other subsidiary points in each cycle. Hence we do not have a simple 179 year wavelength for the SSB, but a complex 19.8 year wavelength that follows repeating shape every nine waves. It is this 19.8 year period which I used to calculated the 136 points between 2000BC and 1000BC, at both peak and trough and the secondary points. This is 100% physics data crunching, although I am working fast and would appreciate if others could check my work. It is not by eye, but by mathematical formula: in a spreadsheet I put all dates in column A and radii in column B, then by formula in column C: =if(b2>b1,1,0) and column D: =if(c2=c1,a2,0) will return the exact turning point dates from JPL. I am only sharpening my ax in the way Abraham Lincoln did, in order the better to cut when I use it. I am not introducing bias, if you study the mathematics I have presented it is entirely objective and true.
Quote:
|
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.
|
This is a broader question/comment and I will return to it when I post graphs of the patterns over six thousand years of data.