Thread: 178.867624
View Single Post
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 05-May-2008, 03:16 PM
Robert Tulip Robert Tulip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
A pretty picture such as yours does nothing to resolve my misgivings about your line of thought. All you are showing is a pattern of motion of the Sun and planets whose period is approximately 1/144 of our best estimate of the precession period. I would wish to see an analysis of many such precessional cycles to see whether or not that ratio might converge on exactly 1/144, or at least librate around it. Since we have no useful observations over more than a small fraction of one precession cycle, we are stuck. In a nutshell, still no compelling reason to suspect any sort of resonant dynamic causality.
The diagram is not just a pretty picture; it is an empirical model of a core structure of time for the solar system. My understanding is that there is unlikely to be significant error in these numbers, as they are based on scientific measurement of the stable periodic orbits of the gas giants. This diagram helps to explain the SSB pulse rate diagram over 1100 years from 2100BC to 1000BC, as over this period the 178.9 year period depicted in the Sun Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune model recurs six times sequentially and about 50 times in overlap. The JSN cycle, the main component of the temporal structure, shifts by about 0.2 years per cycle, or 0.4 degrees.

You suggest the uncertain variability of the precessional speed means this finding of a permanent stable SSB cycle gives no reason to suspect resonant dynamic causality. After looking further into this it appears you are right. To investigate this I have been researching reference material on precessional speed, starting with the Wikipedia page of calculated precession values . This also links to an article on variability of the precessional period with a graph of 13 models of the precession period over 65,000 years. Although the site is astrological, the science of this article looks accurate. This graph shows that by all models the rate of precession is speeding up and the length of the great year is shortening by about 11 years per century. The general precession value was about 4980 arcseconds per century at the time of Christ, compared to the current value of 5029.3 arc seconds. In Great Years, these figures indicate a speeding up over 2000 years from 26024 years in year 0 to 25769 years in 2008.

Translated to the SSB equivalent 179 year period through division by 144, this data shows the precession has speeded up from 179.35 years in year 1500 to 178.95 years 2000. Unfortunately for my theory, this trend is in the opposite direction of the SSB data which showed slowing down from 178.83 to 179.2 years over the same period. However, this absence of immediate resonant dynamic causality does not rule out a resonant relationship entirely. The Wikipedia source above states that “Over longer time periods, that is, millions of years, it appears that precession is quasiperiodic at around 25,700 years; however, it will not remain so. According to Ward, when, in about 1,500 million years, the distance of the Moon, which is continuously increasing from tidal effects, has increased from the current 60.3 to approximately 66.5 Earth radii, resonances from planetary effects will push precession to 49,000 years at first, and then, when the Moon reaches 68 Earth radii in about 2,000 million years, to 69,000 years.”

Given the stability of planetary orbits, it seems the SSB is also periodic around 25,700/144. This relation with precession may be coincidental rather than causal, but the fact remains that two constant weak factors in our environment are in close harmonic relation to each other. There seems to be less science here than I had hoped, but it remains valid to describe the SSB cycle as the house of the age, presenting an empirical cycle dividing the great year.