Rtomes

I am very glad to meet you. I will have to look at the pdf "The Case for Cycles" soon, as I will your papers.

Like you I noticed the harmonics in nature. I used harmonic models in my early research. In my latter work I down played the harmonic aspect thinking it would increase my odds of getting my paper accepted somewhere. But if you look it is still clearly there. As I used a standing wave model, that is no surprise.

I was thinking of putting my paper up for review here as well. Several other forums have recommended it as a good place to test and hone one's theory.

Charles

Hi Charles

I think that the people here are very reasonable in the way that they look at alternative theories, and it is a credit to the people that run the forum. I do feel that the ideas have been considered by many and not just rejected out of hand, which is such a common response to meet elsewhere. Having a separate ATM thread is a good idea as those that get high blood pressure from these things can easily avoid them.

Looking more deeply into is the next step. Over the 13 years I have had my material on the internet I have much positive feedback, and a number of people who are reasonably convinced, but only one person has really taken it up and set out to replicate the maths and test the ideas.

I look forward to your material being posted here. Please drop me a message when you do post it.

Regards
Ray

Although I feel that people here have given what I have to say a fair hearing, I don't think that so far it has really grabbed people - please let me know if I am wrong. From the 1960s, Dewey's common cycle periods plus his table of ratios of 2 and 3 combined with my 1980s realization that extending this by single ratios of 5 and 7 picked up many more of his common cycles. Here is the result:

Each figure is a cycle in years and they relate by exact rations of 2 horizontally and 3 vertically, with the three sections having ratios 13, 5 and 7 between them. A pattern exactly like this is developed by the harmonics theory, although there are a few extra periods predicted that are still not shown in this simplified layout.

Dewey stated that a cycle of 40 months was the most commonly reported cycle in America and determined its period to be 40.68 months. My 3.389 year period in the table agrees with that very well, being 40.67 months. I have also found a wheat cycle of 1.697 years.

In astronomy in the last two decades, a series of reports have been made of solar cycles that are very good fits to the above table.

Solar variations of 154 days and related periods

The Sun has been found to have a 154 day cycle in gamma ray flares, proton flares, solar wind, interplanetary magnetic field, sunspot areas and neutrino output. First reported in gamma ray flares in 1984 by Rieger et al, the cycle varies between 140 and 170 days and is most often reported as 154 or 155 days. The cycle is often associated with other cycles of periods near 28, 51, 78 and 103 days all of which are multiples of the solar rotation rate of 26 days (or 28 days as seen from the earth). Longer cycles of 1.28 and 2.14 years are also mentioned as associated, being 3 and 5 times the length of the 154 day cycle.

Arranged in the manner of the above table these are (in days):
464.2
1238 619 309.5 154.7 77.4
103.2 51.6 25.8

The various authors of these peer-reviewed papers are well aware of the harmonic relationships present. It can be seen as being related to the siderial solar rotation period, but the other periods are then sub-harmonics, which is difficult to explain. In the harmonics theory, all of tehse are connected with other known cycles and are the most energetic vibrations of the universe which tend to cause all other repetitive phenomena to come into resonance with them.

References

Rieger, E, G H Share, D J Forrest, G Kanbach, C Reppin, and E
L.Chupp, Nature, 312, 623, 1984.
“A 154-day periodicity in the occurrence of hard solar flares”.
Bogart, R S, and Bai, T 1985, Ap. J. (Letters), 299, L51.
"Confirmation of a 152-day Periodicity in the Occurrence of Solar
Flares Inferred from Microwave Data''
Bai, T, and Sturrock, P A 1987, Nature, 327, 601.
"On the 152-day Periodicity of the Solar Flare Occurrence Rate"
Bai, T, and Cliver, E W 1990, Ap. J., 363, 299.
"A 154-Day Periodicity in the Occurrence Rate of Proton Flares"
Lean, J L, Astrophys. J., 363, 718, 1990. “Evolution of the 155 day
periodicity in the sunspot areas during solar cycles 12 to 22”.
Bai, T, and Sturrock, P A 1991, Nature 350, 141. "The 154-day and
Related Periodicities as Subharmonics of a Fundamental Period"
Sturrock, P A, and Bai, T 1992, Ap. J. 397, 337. "Search for Evidence
of a Clock Related to the Solar 154 Day Complex of Periodicities"
Bai, T 1992, Ap. J. Letters 388, L69.
"The 77-day Periodicity in the Flare Occurrence Rate of Cycle 22"
Bai, T, and Sturrock, P A 1993, Ap. J. 409, 476.
"Evidence for the Fundamental Period of the Sun: Its Relation to the
154-day Complex of Periodicities"
Cane, H V, I G Robinson, and T T von Rosenvinge, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 25, 4437-4440, 1998
“Interplanetary magnetic field periodicity of ~ 153 days”
http://news-service.stanford.edu/new...neutrinos.html
Twenty-eight day cycle found in ghostly solar neutrinos, team says
David F Salisbury
http://ourstar.bao.ac.cn/pdf/swb_asr_2005.pdf
Wavelet Analysis of Photospheric Magnetic Flux
W B Song, J X Wang
http://wave.asu.cas.cz/spm10/abstrac...ts_dbs_317.pdf
The near 160-day periodicity in the photospheric magnetic flux
M Carbonell, R Oliver, J L Ballester
http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/~kb/Pa.../Barcelona.htm
Proc. Conf. held Univ. Barcelona, 3–7 July 1995,
A Search for Periodicities in the Solar Flux at 127 MHz
G Gawroñska and K M Borkowski
Dewey, Edward R., “The 41 month Cycle in Industrial Common Stock
Prices”, Cycles Vol II No. 9, November 1951 pp 327-335. Reports
40.68 month cycle.

I failed to mention another astronomical connection in the above table. The .01765 year cycle listed is 6.446 days. When the rotation periods of the sun and planets are examined, they can be seen as dividing into two groups, being slower rotation and faster rotation. The slow rotation ones are found to suggest a formula of:where n is a small integer and k=6.446 days about with n being 1-pluto, 2:sun, 3:mercury, 6:venus. The faster ones fit when k=164 minutes about with n being 2:jupiter, 2:saturn, 3:earth, 3:mars.

The work of Russian astronomer Kotov in regard to the 160 minute related cycles is recommended.

Rtomes

I looked at all your links. If I had these some time back, it would have saved me a lot of work. Your home page is a treasure trove of links.

The sub-harmonics are easy to explain if you approach it from a quantum perspective up. From the smallest to the largest.

The small harmonics of particles combine through the Superposition principle into larger harmonics. Up to the scale you see. We have been approaching the same problem from other ends.

My paper is both a generic framework that many models can be used in, but also contains a theory itself. You would like the model of the electron I picked for a base. A relativistic, extended charge, standing wave, electron model based on QED by Dr. Milo Wolff. His electron model has not received the attention it deserves.

I will post my paper here soon,

Hi Aireal

Yes, I know Milo. When I first posted stuff on my theory I included a statement about particles being standing waves and he sent me an email saying welcome to the club. We have had contact from time to time since. There has been a group calling itself "WSM" (Wave Structure of Matter) with some others involved also. Many of them think that the waves are scalar waves, but I think that they are transverse waves which are not scalars. You might also enjoy the work of Gabriel La Freniere at http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm as he has made wonderfully clear animations of waves. These prove that de Broglie waves are produced by simple WSM waves at the Compton frequency of a particle when it moves relative to other matter (e.g. an observer) and shows clearly the structure of these, and many other things.

Regards
Ray

Rtomes

I am glad to hear that you have meet Milo and some of the others. I have been one of the admin on Geoff's WSM forum for over a year now, and a member of the forum before that.

My paper got started from trying to answer questions from visitors to the forum, and grew from there. You can find a lot of my early work on the WSM forum. The forum is closed for a few months while Geoff updates the site, forum included.

Milo, God bless him, has kept a cheerful outlook despite the resistance to his work from the mainstream. Geoff has gotten disappointed with the mainstream peer review process. He tries to stay upbeat, but gets depressed and anti-mainstream from time to time, which is evident in his site. Mike Harney and the others keep trying though.

I did not want to alienate mainstream scientists in my paper, so I took a different approach than Geoff. Instead of pointing out what they got wrong, I point out what they got right and try to show how it supports my concept. I also did not make my paper solely about my theory, but tried to build a basic framework for a unified theory where my theory could be swapped out for other models. This approach seems to be working.

Peter W. Milonni, one of the nations leading physicists working at Los Alamos is a good example. His book, The Quantum Vacuum, was one of my reference works. When I finished my first draft, I sent everyone I used as a reference a copy and my thanks. Peter Milonni was the first to respond.

He read my paper and offered words of encouragement, and was glad that I gave careful consideration to the points in his book. Such words from a leading mainstream scientist helped to lift my spirits. The first draft of my paper was accepted here. http://www.wbabin.net/physics/laster.pdf

I will most likely do an update to it before I post it here for consideration. The more I do on it, the more that needs to be done it seems. Of course you know what I mean, one's work is never done.

If you look at my paper it deals with the atomic picture, I only briefly touch on the large scale view. You have done a lot of work in the very areas I did not do much. Feel free to use my paper if you wish in the development of your own work.

Charles

Ray, have you looked at the hexagonal storm on Saturn's north (?) pole? Every time I see a photo of it, all I can think is 'standing wave'.

I did see Saturn photos with this once. Of course low order harmonics like 6 are not as convincing as the 72nd harmonic which can be seen on Jupiter. The much higher order harmonics can be found on Earth I think, in clouds, rivers, mountains etc. The problem is that the best photos are not always properly labeled with scales, and my old science teacher at school would have failed all those people that make them available. ;-)

Someone pointed out that my single Earth photo showing clouds at ~34560 harmonic is not sufficient. I agree, it is necessary to analyze hundreds of photos and to make a histogram of the various scales at which repetition occurs very often. I have heard of Russian research that did this at all scales from about 1 mm to 1000 km and would love to get those results but have been unable to track them down.

If it confirmed harmonics theory in 2D on the Earth's surface this would be very convincing for looking at it in the wider Universe. I repeat that if there are people at Universities that would look at this seriously as maybe a thesis topic for a PhD, then I would be happy to arrange a scholarship and to assist with methodology. I do think that at the very least something useful would come out of it in terms of some scales being obviously more prevalent than others for natural repetition.

Hi Charles, has there been a WSM thread at all here? I know that it deals with the small scale rather than the astronomical scale, but atomic and cosmic events are connected even in standard physics. I think that it could be a useful ATM subject to have. If not here, then there is a physics forum also - does it have ATM forum? A good place to test ideas. Regards, Ray

Rtomes

Geoff's WSM forum is found here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/
And His site is found here. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
Geoff's site deals mainly with the cosmological aspects. My name on Geoff's forum is Aireal as well.

I and others have tried to start WSM threads on other forums to no avail.

Best regards
Charles

Ray

I was on a page today dedicated to the memory of Caroline Thompson. I sent several E-mails to people from that site. At the bottom of the page there was some pictures of a guy named Ray who looked a lot like you.

Were you that person I sent an E-mail to?

Charles

Ray - thanks for your ideas. These issues around harmonics have deep meaning for how we view the world. For example, your comment on the 4:5:6:8 ratio of the major chord seems innocuous until we realise that this natural ratio has been abandoned by the modern equal-tempered scale, in which each note is the semitone below raised to the power of the twelfth root of two. The twelfth semitone above each note, the octave, is always precisely double its frequency. However, what the equal temper gains in flexibility through surds it loses in beauty and accuracy, as the simple numbers you cite are not the ratios between piano notes. The natural major scale, based on harmonic relations, can be represented as frequencies of 24, 27, 30, 32, 36, 40, 45 and 48. The modern keyboard uses the surd ratios listed in the table below, because natural harmonics do not allow change of key. You can hear natural harmonies, with all their powerful resonance, in works such as Bruckner’s motets. This resonance is lost by the equal tempered scale.

In philosophical terms, the natural harmonies are like what Kant called the noumenon, the thing in itself, which he argued cannot be known. He said only the phenomenon, the thing as it appears to the mind, can be known. Seeing the phenomenon as akin to the well tempered scale could be a parable for how the scientific theory of knowledge has cut itself off from nature.
Natural Harmony / Absurd Modern Harmony
24 24
25.42711
27 26.93909
28.54097
30 30.23811
32 32.03616
33.94113
36 35.95937
38.09763
40 40.36303
42.76314
45 45.30597
48 48

Yes, and I have met with Caroline.

Hi Robert
Yes, what you say is true. I have made an invention which I call AJI for Automatic Just Intonation which allows an electronic keyboard to be made that keeps perfect harmony. See my web site for details. However these matters are not directly related to the Harmonics Theory which I raise here which I believe is a description of the physical universe.
Regards
Ray

When I first posted to the group there were a number of comments that indicated that people were seriously looking at the material. More recently the comments have not been related to the Harmonics Theory. In posts 30, 33 and 34 I have given material directly related to a number of astronomical phenomena where the harmonics theory shows insights into what is happening that are not available through other means. There have been no comments on these. The matters raised are: regular patterns in Jupiter clouds matching predicted strong harmonics; a whole set of harmonically related cycles periods in the sun reported in the last 20 years or so that fit the established pattern of cycles which is explained by the Harmonics theory; rotational periods in the solar system that are similar to quantum formula and again fit the known pattern of cycles periods.

Again I show this graphic which is the envelope of the strongest harmonics and shows clearly the peaks at scale ratios of the order of 10^4.5 which accurately matches the distance scales of the sequence: Hubble scale, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, .... atoms, nucleons, (quarks?). There is no other basis in all of physics that suggests why matter forms into clumps at such large scale ratios with very little in between.

I do not know whether people do not understand the calculations and method (there is a lot there perhaps) or do not see that this is a remarkable result. Can people please tell me what is happening for them?

Ray

Ray

I have not had much luck with getting feedback from science forums either. However I did find one that might be useful. http://www.physicsforums.com/

Under the heading General Physics there is a sub forum titled Independent Research.

They are picky about how you present your theory on the forum, but they seem to give good feedback on the ideas presented.

I was thinking about checking them out for an evaluation of my work.

Over all, forums have not been of much use to me in my work. Often it seems like my time would be better spent working on my paper instead.

Charles.

It seems to me there are two rather important aspects that your analyses seem to overlook: incorporation of stated estimates of uncertainty in the input data you use, and formal statistical analysis (frequentist, Bayesian, Monte Carlo, ...) of the significance of what you claim to have found.

Perhaps I missed the parts in your published work where you did indeed address one or both of these. If so, please point to the relevant work; if not, then do you plan to address either (or both) in the near future? If not, why not?

Thanks Nereid

The work of other peoples that existed unknown to me when I did my original work was mostly catalogued by Edward Dewey. Most of the cycles determinations have an accuracy of the period of around 0.1% to 1% with a few being rather more accurate. You can see this in the periods that I found,using different time series in different countries and only partly overlapping time periods, compared to Dewey's:
Tomes 4.45, 5.9, 7.15, ~9 (the last a very wide peak)
Dewey 4.44, 5.92, 7.12, 8.88

I would take the various published reports in "Cycles" magazine as the biggest base of work, much of that republished in the "Cycles Classic Library Collection". The paper "The Case for Cycles" may be seen as a sort of sampler for this. The cycles by period length index shows a long list of cycles, but many are are simply listed as a 6 year cycle and so are not of much use. Perhaps of more use is Dewey's division into cycles with common period and found to have common phase (which he calls synchronicity). I don't know if I have that in an electronic form. The table with ratios of 2 and 3 contains only some of the commonly occurring cycles periods that he found. For example two common periods not contained in it are what he called the 40.68 month cycle, which is one that he determined more accurately from several centuries of data, and the 9.6 year cycle which is well known in the canadian lynx data of several centuries also. That cycle is always reported by Dewey in some dozen or more variables as either 9.6 or 9+2/3 years (he often worked in months and so got periods that were month related). The average of these is some 9.63 years.

When I eventually established the pattern of cycles that I list as ratios in a previous post with 4 digit accuracy, I linked in the 40.68 month cycle (my calculation gave 40.67 months) by a simple ratio of 7. That is an excellent agreement, and a bunch of solar cycles of 155 days and related that I mentioned all fit with this by divisions of 2 and 3. However the 9.6 year cycle was still an oddball.

Eventually I wrote a program that took the known cycles from Dewey and the longer geological cycles and compared them to the pattern forecast by the harmonics theory. I did a sort of cross correlation between the two as I varied the assumed number one universal cycle from 10^10 years (it had to be at least that long) upwards. Theer were just little wiggles until around 1.4*10^23 years when this huge very strongly significant pattern emerged. It didn't just fit the pattern Dewey found and my extensions but actually showed how the 9.6 year cycle fitted and gave a prediction of this as 9.638 years. This agreed well with the average of 9.63 which was probably accurate to +/-0.02 or thereabouts.

I cannot think of any cycles from about 1 week upwards that are commonly found (i.e in several different things) that do not fit the harmonics predictions based on the 1.4x10^23 years fundamental. However below 1 week the pattern is similar but does not actually fit the data. I do not know why that should be but can only speculate on it.

I have not done formal statistics on the fit I found but it would be very significant (I do know statistics even if I don't know quasars). I suppose Monte Carlo methods could be used, but the known cycles are hardly random. It is very clear that the ratios of 2 and 3 exist. The reasons for this are understood to some extent as being from non-linear systems. The reports from many disciplines mention them ...
Economics, see Schumpeter (54, 18, 9 year cycles x3 and x2 ratios)
Many things see Dewey x2 and x3
Geology see G Williams "Megacycles" report of geological conference (600, 300, 150, 74, 37 million years x2 x2 x2 x2)
Solar cycles 155, 77, 52, 26 days and others x2 and x3 many times and even one x5 mentioned. I gave references to these recently.
Solar cycles ~180, ~90, ~44, 22, 11 years x2 x2 x2 x2
Weather see H H Lamb
Also Wheeler (and Chizhevsky) a variety of historical and social variables with ratios of 2 and 3.
Many of these people were not aware of almost all the others.

All the cycles listed above as references fit the harmonics theory calculation from a single base of 1.4...x10^23 years. There are no arbitrary parameters to vary. Every figure is within the error bounds that one might reasonably assign to the figures (many are not stated). When I used S Afanasiev's 586.24 million years geological period as a starting point it gave a period of 11.8622 years which is a common one on Earth and matches Jupiter's orbital period to 6 digit accuracy. I had long regarded Jupiter's period as the most reliable indicator for the cycles periods.

Please let me know if this is what you wanted and where you think that more information is needed. If necessary I can scan some of Dewey's stuff as I have the CCLC 4 volume set.

Regards
Ray

From the link, I note the following are having (possible) direct relevance to BAUT*:
22.19-year cycle double sunspot cycle; 247
12-month (52.18-week) cycle earth around sun; 65
9.5-year cycle moon variation; 96
6-year cycle solar activity; 325
9.1-year cycle solar constant values; 360
17-year cycle solar constant; 167
22.67- (22 2/3 )-year cycle solar radiation; 295
37-year cycle sunspot (11-year variation of) cycle; 115-116
11.1-year cycle sunspot maxima; 196-198
17-year cycle sunspot numbers (reversing); 167
9.3-year cycle sunspot numbers; 104; 270; 431; 434
11-year cycle sunspot numbers; 118; 196-198; 217-218; 224; 232; 237; 251; 741
42-year cycle sunspot numbers; 119; 224; 270; 528
11.094-year cycle sunspot numbers; 196; 213
79-year cycle sunspot numbers; 221
84+ -year cycle sunspot numbers; 221
11+ (SS-length) cycle sunspot numbers; 23
9.2-year cycle sunspot numbers; 291-292
6.1- or 6.2-year cycle sunspot numbers; 74
9.2- or 9.3-year cycle sunspot numbers; 86
9.9-year cycle sunspot numbers; 98; 109; 270
9.93-year cycle sunspot numbers; 98-99; 108; 270
9.11-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 102
9.708-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 107
22.2- (22 1/5 )-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 238; 241; 612; 748; 758
18-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 238; 251; 351; 354
17.92-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 251-253
17.93- or 17.94-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 254
6.1-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 77
6-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 77; 317
9.1-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 86
9.7-year cycle sunspot numbers; alternate cycles reversed; 96
20.8-year cycle sunspots alternate cycles reversed; 748
5.887-year (70.644-month) cycle sunspots alternate cycles reversed; 75
37.5- (37 1/2 )-year cycle sunspots; 115; 217-220
37.4-year cycle sunspots; 115; 218
80-year cycle sunspots; 119; 198; 201; 206; 215;
200-year cycle sunspots; 119; 198; 201-216
17-week (3.88-month) cycle sunspots; 119; 232; 270
22-year cycle sunspots; 122
11.1-year cycle sunspots; 201; 206; 215; 221-222
10.59-year cycle sunspots; 213; 270
11.73-year cycle sunspots; 213-215
83-year cycle sunspots; 221
89-year cycle sunspots; 221
42.8-year cycle sunspots; 225
5.625-year (67.5 month) cycle sunspots; 231; 270
17.166-week (3.915-month) cycle sunspots; 232-233; 492
10.8- to 11.4-year cycles sunspots; 265-275
10.45-year cycle sunspots; 268
10-year cycle sunspots; 270
11.13-year cycle sunspots; 270
11.17-year cycle sunspots; 270
11.25-year cycle sunspots; 270
11.37-year cycle sunspots; 270
11.4-year cycle sunspots; 270
12.9-year cycle sunspots; 270
13.0-year cycle sunspots; 270
13.5-year cycle sunspots; 270
4.8-year (57.6-month) cycle sunspots; 270
5.6 year (67.2-month) cycle sunspots; 270
7.3-year cycle sunspots; 270
7.6-year cycle sunspots; 270
8.1-year cycle sunspots; 270
8.36-year cycle sunspots; 270
8.4-year cycle sunspots; 270
8.5-year cycle sunspots; 270
8.7-year cycle sunspots; 270
11.15-year cycle sunspots; 273
5.4-5.6-year (64.8-67.2-month) cycle sunspots; 315
5.91-year (70.9 month) cycle sunspots; 590
18.2-year cycle sunspots; 611
8.76-year cycle sunspots; 63; 270
8.8-year cycle sunspots; 63; 270
8.94-year cycle sunspots; 63; 270
5.89-year (70.68-month) cycle sunspots; 7475; 119; 227-231
11.11-year cycle sunspots; 96; 117; 121; 241; 246; 254-259; 261; 264-275
22.22-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 117; 120; 241-249; 251; 254-259; 262; 264-275
37-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 119; 217; 234-240
22-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 120; 196; 241
37.5- (37 1/2 )-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 234-240
4-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 272
22.67- (22 2/3 )-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 292
18.2-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 54; 443; 612
8-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 56-57
17.75- (17 3/4)-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 581
17.66-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 63
5.91-year (70.9 month) cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 63; 558
17.67- (17 2/3 )-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 648
18.2-18.3-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 72
17.33- (17 1/3)-year cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 72; 166-169
5.9-year; (70.8-month) cycle sunspots; alternate cycles reversed; 73
17-week (3.88-month) cycle the sun; 402
5.5-year (66-month) cycle the sun; 74
17.724-year cycle variable star Scorpius V 381; 63; 648
3.4 year (40.8-month) cycle variation in solar radiation; 16
300-year cycle variation of length of sunspot cycle; 749
37.5- (37 1/2 )-year cycle variation of length of the sunspot cycle; 749

Did I miss any?

It's not clear to me what the sources of these numbers are, perhaps the number(s) at the end of each line is a code, or reference?

Where there is more than one entry for the same label (phenomenon?) (e.g. there are >25 'sunspots' lines), is each line counted as a 'cycle'? I.e., using 'sunspots' as an example, there are >25 different 'cycles' for 'sunspots'?

"Jupiter's orbital period" is not in this list. What other astronomical 'cycles' did you use in your analyses (excluding those relating to only the Earth)?

Are nuclear, atomic, and molecular transitions 'cycles'? Are they within the scope of your idea?

*I have excluded geophysical phenomena, and also aurorae.

Yes, that is a reference to the CCLC page number in the largest volume where there is a full article. There is also another index to a volume listing 1300 abstracts published in various journals or wherever. More recently in 1994 John T Burns has published "Cycles in Humans and Nature: an annotated bibliography" Magill Bibliographies ISBN 0-8108-2831-6 which has close to another 1000 references, and they are generally more consistently in keeping with modern scientific practice.
No, that is 25 references to one cycle in one thing. Generally the cycles called common cycles are found in multiple things. Both the 11 and 22 year cycles are reported in other things also and would qualify.
I did not use any orbital periods at all. However there are some other interesting relationships between the giant planets periods and tyhe common cycles. If a frequency f is defined as aJ+bS+cU+dN where J, S, U, N are the planets orbital frequencies (i.e 1/periods) and a, b, c, d are each -1,0,+1 then you get 40 unique frequencies (omitting -ve ones an 0). Of these 40 frequencies when converted to periods, Quite a few are very close to the common cycles periods with 35.6, 17.8 and 8.9 years occurring twice each.
Yes, but in my analysis for the longest cycle I did not use this data.

I have only found ratios linking cycles from 586 million years through to 6.44 days. The remaining known cycles are in a series of groups with gaps between them. The groups internally have many ratios of 2 and 3 and the other odd prime. However the groups are either too far apart or have insufficient accuracy to link them together. e.g. after the 6.44 day cycle the next group consists of the following cycles: 160 80 40 20 minutes and 11.6, 5.8, 2.9 minutes. These are linked by a ratio of 7. Many of the figures are only accurate to +/-5% although some are measured very accurately like the solar 160 minute cycles which is something like 160.010 minutes but it is only one figure. However other determinations give a cycle of more like 164.9 minutes and it is hard to know if it is really the same cycle. Based on these figures the ratio between the 6.44 day cycle and the 160-165 minute one could be anything from 56 to 58 and I like to get a value that is within 0.02 of an integer to feel that it really is an integer.

Of course atomic transitions are known very precisely and in many cases have almost exact ratios but in others the ratios depend on atomic masses that vary by almost 1% from consistency. I have a lot of material relating to atomic stuff if you want me to present it. The ultimate frequencies are the Compton frequencies of particles which I take to be the actual vibration rates of the particles with the Compton wavelengths therefore the standing wave lengths of the particles. This assumption will lead to all of de Broglie's results for particles moving relative to an observer because of the beat or Moire frequencies between the moving particle and the stationary ones. I do think that de Broglie did understand in this way, but modern physicists do not seem to.

The most interesting thing about the particle frequencies (or energies or masses if you like) is that an analysis using Kotov's method of communality shows that as well as the many 2 and 3 ratios and a couple of others, ratios of 17, 19 and 23 do occur in the correct order for the Harmonics theory, but not in the expected place in the whole scheme.
These are often correlated with solar cycles anyway.

Thanks for the clarifications.

In the case of "sunspots", the list seems to have the following unique, non-overlapping 'cycles'*:

years:
4.8
5.4-5.6
5.625
5.89
5.91
7.3
7.6
8.1
8.36
8.4
8.5
8.7
8.8
8.94
10
10.45
10.59
10.8 }
11.1 }
11.11 }
11.13 } 2 x [5.4-5.6]
11.15 }
11.17 }
11.25 } 2 x 5.625
11.37
11.4
11.73
12.9
13.0
13.5
18.2
22 } 4 x [5.4-5.6]
37.5- (37 1/2 )
42.8
76 } 10 x 7.6; 14 x [5.4-5.6]
80 } 8 x 10
83 } 15 x [5.4-5.6]
89 } 16 x [5.4-5.6]
200 } 20 x 10

weeks:
17 weeks
17.166

Are these all 'cycles'? If not, what are they?

How many of these did you use in your analyses?What astronomical cycles did you use?Why choose just those four?

Why exclude Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars?

Why exclude the orbital frequencies of the ~250 exoplanets discovered to date?

If the predictions are "exact", surely the only valid test is whether the error bars on the derived "common cycles periods" contain the exact (predicted by the harmonics idea) ones? If not, then why not?
I'd rather focus on that which is directly within BAUT's scope, at least for now.

*With a few exceptions, no ranges are given, and no estimated uncertainties either.

ETA: I've highlighted the 'sunspots' cycles which are integer multiples of other cycles (within the stated ranges).

But that was in reponse to your question about that.

What is the scope of BAUT here? This is ATM, sure, but BAUT itself has a general science section, and it's possible that a theory's application in one area could expose its weaknesses (or strengths) in another.

Indeed it was.That may be so.

Here's what rtomes wrote (in answer to my question; my bold): "Yes, but in my analysis for the longest cycle I did not use this data."

Here's how I responded (my bold): "I'd rather focus on that which is directly within BAUT's scope, at least for now."

IOW, the nuclear, atomic, and molecular transitions were not (directly) used, by rtomes, for the work being presented in this ATM thread. As my interest in challenging the ATM ideas presented here is focussed on astronomy, with this answer in hand, I feel such aspects are secondary (at least for now).

Of course, any other BAUT member may take a different view, and have different rathers ... if you're interested in asking questions about nuclear, atomic, and molecular transitions and the ATM idea being presented by rtomes in this thread, why not just ask?

May I close by thanking you for highlighting an ambiguity in my response; I should have referred directly the the special BAUT rule covering this ATM section (extract): "we ask you to keep your topics about space and astronomy."

YWExcept for the the Babbling, Games, and Science sections, I guess

Odd isn't it?

IIRC, the discrepancy has been pointed out at least once before, in an About BAUT thread ...

Just providing a link to the relevant section

While all these have been reported in the Sun, I would regard a few as a bit flaky. Ones that are well established would be 17.16 weeks, 5.5, 8.45, 10.0, 10.45, 11.1, 11.8, 12.9, 22.2, ~44, ~89, ~200 years and maybe Dewey's 18 year one. I have seen (nearly) all of these in multiple places and verified them for myself. However many are present in only sunspots and so would still not qualify in Dewey's common cycles table, although quite a few would. The 17 weeks, 5.5, 10.0, 11.1, 11.8, 22, 44, 89 are all reported in other things as well as is the 5.9.

The following are the periods that I used in my longest cycle estimation. They are an attempt to represent the range from 600 MY to a month. Some of the middle range are less well established ones in order to bring in the links. MY=million years, Y=years, D=days
MY 586.2385,568.5,175.6,168.2,156.6,89.5,77.9
MY 26.7,2.22,1.11
MY 0.469,0.231,0.1868,0.1506,0.118
Y 111000,55500,25710
Y 4634,2317,772,177.9,59.5,53.6,35.58,19.86,17.79,11 .86,8.9
Y 5.93,4.45,3.95,3.39,2.97,2.22,1.98,1.48,0.99,0.74, 0.66,0.33
D 155,25.4
The 1st line of MY cycles are geological cycles according to S Afanasiev.
The next line is the mass-extinction cycle plus two astronomical cycles, the distance to Andromeda galaxy (this is light years rather than years) which is also I think a galaxy quantum. The 1.11 MY is a long term solar system energy exchange cycle inn the outer planets. The next three are astronomical cycles of planetary orbital interactions and precession of equinoxes. The next three are long term alignments of the outer planets and climate cycles according to H H Lamb. Most of the rest are Dewey's common cycles except the last two which are the 155 day solar cycle and the Sun's rotation period in days.

The most fascinating thing is that I didn't put the 9.6 year cycle in and yet the solution predicts that cycle. There are no obvious connections to that cycle in the list.

This was done a while back, and if I was doing it again now (which I can easily enough do as I have the program code) I would use a list where the criteria were better for presenting to scientists rather than satisfying myself. But the selection was not done to get a particular result, rather to cover the full range of cycles. Ideally I would have more in the range from 160 minutes to 6 days range also, then it would make sense to include the minute range cycles as well.


Here is a graph showing all the cycles reports in that list (I think, it might be an alternative version as there are two) on a log scale. Dewey did it on a linear scale which is next to useless. You can see that some values appear many more times.

The remark about the four giant planets was by way of a side track. It played no part in the main analysis. If we are concerned with the strongest harmonics, then the massive planets should represent them. The inner planets are much less massive. The giant planets represent the bulk of the angular momentum in the solar system. I have done some analysis for exoplanets and Kotov has done analysis of binary stars and other things. He finds a significant 160.0 minute period in binary stars. He is the only astronomer (and a few of his colleagues) that I am aware of that has realised the significance of pervading periodicities inn astronomy.

I am really happy to give all emphasis to the astronomical aspects. However the Harmonics theory (as with standard physics) has many connections between the large and small, so there is some point in mentioning other things. I just want to mention two more things from the atomic scale which is relevant to spectra which of course are very important in astronomy.

I have been using Kotov's method (that calls it communalities if you want to search for his papers on it) for finding periodicities in lists of values. e.g. Kotov uses to find the 160 minute cycle in binary stars.

When I put in a bunch of wavelengths for Hydrogen second spectrum from a text book, the resulting communalities show a series of peaks with musical relationships to each other and one of the peaks is at exactly 34560 times the Bohr radius for hydrogen. This is very significant because the 34560 harmonic is an extremely strong one.

When I used all the bond lengths for the elements and did Kotov's analysis, the strongest communality was a value which when divided by the Bohr radius gave 137, the inverse fine structure constant.

This shows that Harmonics theory should be able to mesh OK with standard physics and so I was hesitant about using the ATM forum. However it certainly clashes with big bang theory. Harmonics theory cannot be correct if the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. It has to have had multiple cycles of something over 10^10 years to establish all the different scales that we see. (I think)

I think it was important to raise the issue of where harmonics theory agrees with and disagrees with standard theories. I think that Narlikar's theory is an acceptable alternative to standard physics - it simply allows particle masses to vary and sees them as being a result of interaction with other matter. From that the big bang is then seen to be not needed an harmonics theory meshes perfectly. The domain of teh theory is different to the domains of other theories, just as QM and GR have different domains.