The 2147 year cycle is shown in this picture. This is pure physics and has no speculative content. The names of zodiac signs simply show the position of the equinoctial point.


My discovery is that the twelve ages of the Great Year shown in this diagram are precisely twelve times the length of the 178.9 year barycentric cycle produced by the outer planets.

The alternatives are
- Null hypothesis: No linkage between the barycentric cycle and the Great Year
- Hypothesis: Long term precessional cycle of the earth is entrained by the alignments of the outer planets, observable in regularity of solar system barycentre epitrochoid path.

The solar system barycentre epitrochoid pattern results from alignments of the outer planets as follows:

Jupiter-Saturn:
- 9.03 conjunction cycles in each 178.9 year barycentre period,
- 3.2% shift over 9 cycles
Jupiter-Uranus:
- 13.01 conjunction cycles in each 178.9 year barycentre period,
- 1.2% shift over 13 cycles
Jupiter-Neptune:
- 13.96 conjunction cycles in each 178.9 year barycentre period,
- 3.8% shift over 14 cycles
Jupiter-Pluto:
- 14.02 conjunction cycles in each 178.9 year barycentre period,
- 1.8% shift over 14 cycles
Saturn-Neptune:
- 5.00 conjunction cycles in each 178.9 year barycentre period,
- 0.02% shift over 5 cycles
To see how little the barycentre pattern changes, please see JimP’s chart below of the last two such cycles. You can easily see the obvious main 179 year pattern by comparing the shape at any two points separated by 179 years, eg 1745 - 1923.8.

This is all well known to astronomy. My new point is the observation of a precise harmony between the barycentre cycle and the Great Year of lunisolar precession of the terrestrial equinox - the basis of the so-called Ages of Pisces and Aquarius. These closely aligned patterns of the outer planets exhibit a direct harmonic relation to the Great Year. This harmonic correlation looks to be a basic rhythm of the solar system whereby Jupiter and the outer planets whip the earth like a gyroscope. Precession is primarily a function of the relation between the earth, moon and sun, but it appears from this observation that the precise frequency of precession, the 2147 year period of the Age, is a mathematical product of these cycles of the outer planets and the solar system barycentre, being precisely 12 times the barycentre period. For example, if the Saturn-Neptune cycle (exactly 1/5 of the barycentre cycle) is considered a unit, there are precisely 60 units in the 2147 year period of the age, and 720 units in the precessional Great Year period of 25764 years. It therefore appears the age imbeds the barycentric period in terrestrial cycles through systemic entrainment.The precision of the correlation suggests physical causation, although its scientific basis needs more study and my numbers should be checked.

But you're talking about something completely different now. I think it's an interesting question about whether the planets' movements are related to the Great Year, but that's an entirely different matter from whether human history moves in cycles.

About the history, I came up with an other idea for considering your hypothesis. How about choosing another number, say 1,000 years for convienience, and see if you can find historical parallels. If there are, then it would tend to reinforce the idea that one can read things into historical events.

__________________
As above, so below

This material on the physical planetary alignment relation to the 2147 year period was provided in response to the question, why 2147? I think it provides a good empirical answer. I thought about starting a new ATM (or general science?) thread on this planetary alignment material, as I can see why you say it is a different matter, but I do think it relates very closely. This finding on the relation between the SSB and the Great Year is new and interesting, and to some extent takes the discussion on from historical cycles, but it shows the natural basis for expecting to find the cycles I am describing and so is directly relevant here.

It is analogous to ocean tidal patterns: no one is surprised that crabs come out at the same phase of each tide; its just that when we look at such a slow cycle frequency as precession people find it very hard to get their heads around it, and also find it hard to view free people as subject to ecological cosmic cycles.

If anyone wants to study historical cycles with other frequencies then good luck to them. I see little point except as you say that this would be a useful comparator for the 2147 year phasing, especially if it could be somehow statistically quantified with a regression analysis, but that is beyond my skills. There would be merit in looking at history against the 179 year barycentre phases as that period is also part of the same natural harmonic cycle. My underlying aim here is to unpack how precession provides a framework for terrestrial cosmology, using historical correlations as a signpost.

PS: for any prime tragics out there, 2147 = 113 x 19

This is also similar to the argument that Dutch used.

Because we find something that correlates on a supplied date means nothing if it will also correlate on many other dates.

I would agree that a correlation between the Barycenter cycle and Earths Precession would be interesting to examine further. I've actually found a similar statement made other places as well.

It's ties to to the history of Earth are dubious at best, however.

Apart from the Rome/US link, are there any other nations that existed at different times that share a common history? If the US is the new Rome, then who is or was the new Egypt? Or Babylon? Spain and Portugal probably had more of impact on the Western expansion than the rest of Europe, so where do they fall in all of this?

If it "works" for Rome and the US, then why does it not work for any other nation/empire?

As for this: Wait... What?

"The timing of parallels may vary"? How can than that make them parallels? Even if the general course of history between the two match up in a broad sense, the point of this, as I understand it, is that there are exact correlations at exact intervals.

What about Rome being founded 98 years (adjusted) before there were any territorial claims made in North America?

What about the fact that it was still over 200 more years before there was a permanent English Settlement?

Rome had existed as Rome for over 200 years before what would be the US would be settled by anyone, and 450+ before there was the first real progress made toward founding an independent country, let alone an empire by any use of the word.

I did, yes. I think the reason was that I was looking for something along the lines of a 4 year war, not a 17 year one. The timeline entry for 283 BC made it sound like it was just another significant battle rather than the end of a long standing war. Again, that "exact parallels" thing probably threw me off.

__________________
A Nerd can figure out how long it will take the original Enterprise traveling at warp 6.5 to travel from Regulus to Antares.
A Geek will think he can use that to pick up a girl in a bar.
A Dork knows he can't pick up the girl with it, but will hang around for hours anyway, just in case she asks.
She might. You never know.

I can understand that, but it's kind of important, because otherwise... I don't know, suppose that you want to find the distance between people in a crowd. So you measure the distance to the next person, and then the next person, etc. You will get a valid measurement. But suppose you want to show somehow that 20 meters is the right distance. So you take a tape measure and measure out 20 meters. And miraculously, you find a person somewhere along that circle. And you measure out another 20 meters, and find a person. So you conclude that people are 20 meters apart from each other. You can do that, but the chances of people taking it seriously are not so good. That's why it's important. Because a person like me, who isn't opposed to the possibility you're suggesting, would think, "OK, you may find parallels, but you would find parallels no matter what number you choose". If you can't show that your number is somehow more accurate than other numbers, then there's no reason not to believe that parallels would be found with any number you choose. 800 years will reveal parallels as well. And so will 700.

__________________
As above, so below

I see pure kinematics with no plausible dynamic explanation. If our Earth-Moon combination had the same total mass but a slightly different mass ratio, the precession period would be different while the planets would continue orbiting in an unchanged manner. Your precision would disappear in a puff of thought-process smoke.

You have shown nothing to make me conclude that the observed proportions are anything more than a coincidence.
This still looks like a warmed-over conglomeration of astrology and Pythagoreanism.

Well, it looks like there are now two topics to be discusses, which are slightly linked. One is the history, the other is the (non)significance of the great Platonic year and its twelveths (darn, that is a difficult word) and the motion of the barycenter of the solar system.

Now, the precession of the Earth is 25,765 years, and can completely be described by the torque on the Earth from mainly the Sun and the Moon and for a lesser extend by other solar system bodies. Now, the question is: when periodicity of the barycenter of the solar system is 179 years to return to its starting point, would it not be reasonable that this periodicity is also in the Earth's precession? The ratio of these to periods is ~144 of which, naturally, the square root is 12. But what does this mean?

First of all, I would expect that the precession of the Earth might vary a little in period through the 179 year cycle, or will it?????? What does the barycenter describe? It is the center of mass of the solar system, and naturally this moves around because the planets have different locations all the time, but does that mean that the distance Earth-Sun changes? No, that remains fixed through the orbit of both. So, basically, I do not have any inclination, at the moment, to suspect that the motion of the barycenter has any influence on the torque that the Sun and Moon (and other bodies) provide on the Earth in order to make it precess. However, the two are related in the fact that both the total torque and the motion of the barycenter are generated by the solar system bodies.

This leaves the fact that the ratio of the two, precession and barycenter period, is just coincidentally 144.

The claim that: The precision of the correlation suggests physical causation, although its scientific basis needs more study and my numbers should be checked. does not hold, as I showed in another thread using some spurious correlation between the shirt I chose to wear that day and receiving an email. Only, when based on a real mechanism can correlation imply causation.

Also, the Earth is not "whipped like a gyroscope" by Jupiter or Saturn. As is well known (even wiki knows this!) the main reason for the Earth precession is the torque by the Sun and the Moon, as I already said above. I think Celestial Mechanics had one of his nice dialogues precisely on this topic.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Guess he's never played with a gyroscope.


added: I see he has but still it eludes him. Truth, the tighter you squeeze it the less you have.

It's like the Bible Codes.


Even if we gave him that all the events matched perfectly, I am at a loss to see what that would prove except that humans do the same thing age after age. After all the range of human behavior is limited, so patterns are bound to repeat.

We know that the year exists. We can measure our geometry quite accurately and show how the geometry changes in a cyclical fashion. From our understanding of physics we even have an understanding of the mechanism by which this cycle affects weather. However...

If you limited yourself to observing snowfall data at my current location over two annual cycles you would be hard pushed to make any real estimate of the cyclical behaviour of snowfall. For example the first decent snowfall of the season has actually occurred on the first day of spring. As you only appear to be covering human history over less than two of your hypothesised cycles, I cannot see how you can make any claims regarding a historical cycle of 2147 years.

It's "twelfths," Tusenfem, but you're right; it's not an easy word.

I believe I have a few direct questions on the table. There have been two posts from Robert; my questions have been left unanswered.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The reason why there should be parallels is that the earth has had a consistent precessional cycle since life began, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that this regular cosmic terrestrial pattern should be exhibited in things which have evolved within it. Dutch uses Platonic solids rather than natural cycles. I can’t see what the scientific basis of his ideas might be.
No.
This material is consistent with tropical western astrology but does not rely on it. For example, there are exactly sixty Saturn-Neptune conjunctions every 2147 years. This is just one cosmic rhythm which is imbedded in the structure of the solar system, and hence of course the evolution of the earth. I find astrological speculation about the meaning of this and other outer planetary cycles interesting, more so in that they come together precisely twelve times every age. Yes
No. If you can present records of equivalent detail to Ancient Rome and the modern West then I would be interested to look at them. China or India may be candidates.
N/A
This is a complex question. I am arguing that long term causal cycles of the solar system are exhibited in human history, in the only parts of that history where the records are sufficiently detailed to test the claim and where there is an arguable causal dependency between one and the other civilization over a >2147 year period. For example, if we are now at the point of history equivalent to 140BC, then we can look at what happened then to explore possible parallels and lessons. There is an accidental and voluntaristic dimension to history which can distort the sort of deterministic fatalist path implied by the method I am exploring. If a strong personality or ‘great man’ pushes against the tide, as it were, I would think this could significantly shift the outcome. Overall, my view is that the broad parallels between the development of Rome and USA are strong, and that these parallels are exhibited precisely in some cases and with some latitude in others.
That the institutions of one in large part evolved from the institutions of the other.
Yes
Yes. For example, if records were available, it would be interesting to compare Rome and Egypt.

Yes, well, I still can't see what the scientific basis of yours is, and I assure you, I'm not alone. Further, I don't think it's reasonable that human history should in any way be influenced by things that happen off the Earth, leaving aside the obvious influence of, well, the Sun and the Moon. Further, that cycle has, I assume, been consistent since before life began as well, since the planet formed. I could be wrong on that, of course; I'm really only pointing out errors in your history, not your science. However, if I'm right, why should its influence only be seen in life? Shouldn't its influence be in everything?

Interesting is one thing. Actually having evidence about it is quite another.

Good so far . . . .

No. No, that doesn't work. It is your job to find that evidence. There are plenty of records from quite a few civilizations stretching back well over 2000 years. China and India are indeed candidates. But it's not my job to find the evidence for you. It's your job to find it for yourself and present it to us, and it astonishes me that you wouldn't bother doing so before declaring yourself correct.

Yeah, I'm looking for a number. Further, if you admit that human forces can alter your cycle, why assume there's a cycle in the first place? The fault, dear Robert, is not in our stars but in ourselves.

So the Aztec, Mayan, Toltec, and Olmec civilizations should be roughly parallel. You'll find, however, that they aren't.

Okay so far . . . .

And here's where you have problems. Yes. You should do that; you'll find records are available. That is, if you had bothered researching more than a cursory glance at US and Roman history. It is quite obvious that you didn't. You aren't even aware of how many records exist. You are forming a pattern based on what you see between two conciously-chosen civilizations. You don't, I hope, deny that fact. However, so far as I can tell, so far as you've demonstrated at all, you haven't looked into any other civilizations to show whether your pattern exists in them. You haven't even looked to see if you can. And that is why no one here believes you. You are drawing on too small a data set. There have been, by some estimates, a couple of dozen or more civilizations in world history, and that's just the ones since the development of writing. Out of those, again, you have chosen two. You haven't looked into the others, and you don't know if you can. Come back when you've finished your research.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Thanks Gillian, but I suspect my lack of Olmec scholarship is hardly the reason my claims are not believed. Your allusion to Shakespeare’s line from Julius Caesar contains a better pointer, namely the implicit modern enlightenment assumption that human life can be understood as entirely separate from the cosmos, a view which has given us the wonders of modern technology as well as the risk of planetary destruction. The cosmic ontology underpinning my work assumes, quite validly, that we cannot understand human life separately from a broader cosmic context, and that integration of life and culture into a cosmic framework is essential and possible. I take this cosmic context to be the solar system rather than the stars. I know this is a disreputable and repugnant idea for those wedded to older paradigms of objectivity, but that does not make it wrong or less objective.

I confess I had not heard of the Olmec civilization, and would be thrilled to hear of actual dates of events as exist for Rome, and of successor civilizations with a continuity over separate ages as exists between the modern west and ancient Rome. As I have said, this data does not exist to my knowledge for pre-Columbian American cultures, so they will be very difficult to use as examples. Your call for me to delve into historical byways misses the point regarding the existence and nature of the precessional cycle. I need to repeat in simpler terms things I have already said. Precession is a real cycle. There is no doubt it is real. This is why I assume there is a cycle. We are part of this cycle because we are part of the solar system. The issues are how it is manifest in human history, and how the ~25800 year cycle can be shown to have sub-cycles.

There are more Roman examples which could be explored for modern parallels, for example Fabius Maximus is similar to Franklin Delano Roosevelt in refusing to fight for many years against a formidable foe (Hannibal & Hitler). The starting point, as a matter of historical interpretation, is to get a sense of what events are most important, and of the broad sequence of civilisational evolution, as I have presented here already. We can readily see that the event which propelled Rome into domination of the Mediterranean, the defeat of Hannibal, is precisely one age before the events which propelled the USA into domination of the world – the defeat of Germany and Japan. Just on this basis, and the cosmic indicator given by the physical nature of precession, it is reasonable to explore how ancient Mediterranean history was like an incubator for the modern world, using the separation by one age as an analytical reference point.

A further point on the barycentric 178.9 year cycle caused by patterns of the outer planets. With the longer precessional cycle, we can look at the biggest events and see how they reverberate in world history after one phase. We can do the same for the barycentre. The biggest event in modern history is the French Revolution, marked by the storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789. This event was precisely one barycentric cycle before May 1968, when the Sorbonne was closed by student protest. These biggest events have this apparent prima facie reverberation against cosmic cycles, suggesting a productive analytical research program to investigate the structure of time. Of course, the 1960s differ massively from the 1780s, but it is a reasonable hypothesis that within these differences a cosmic causal factor pushed through and made itself manifest in the biggest events.

In a previous thread on Precessional Cosmology I provided the following picture and related discussion which indicated why the twelfth division of the great year is likely to be significant.


Together with the 1/144th division producing the barycentre, this evidence looks to me to be strong for the physical existence of the age. Together with the observation that the single main events for the dominant powers of the ages of Aries (Rome) and Pisces (USA) occurred at precisely the same time in the cycle, I think the case is persuasive. I accept that it will not be compelling until a fair bit more yakka is done to establish a causal mechanism explaining the correlations. (But is there not some question remaining regarding the causal mechanism for gravity?)

I think your questions introduce extraneous material which distracts from the central case, but this is still very helpful to force greater clarity and to show how previous explanation has not been sufficiently precise, complete and logical.