A local cosmological near-constant number imbedded in the structure of the solar system forms a 178.867624:1 ratio between the main rhythm of the solar system centre of mass and the year on earth. Centre of Mass against Position of the Sun (COMPOS) charts 600 years of solar system centre of mass data. The number 178.867624 is derived by plotting all main turning points of this chart and averaging their period. This constant describes a main structure of time, a periodic cycle of the solar system resulting from the interaction of Sun, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. Uranus, as the fourth big planet, is slightly out of alignment with this basic underlying cycle, and produces the secondary wiggle moving backwards against the 179 year JSN permanent cycle. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune also slowly drift away from exact harmonic relations, but the main SSB 178.9 year cycle continues against these longer wave patterns.
Of interest for sunspot prediction dates, Jupiter-Saturn SSB Sunspot cycle posted by JimP at Jupiter influencing sunspots shows that a specific pattern of sunspots were aligned directly with the Jupiter-Saturn cycle in ~1893-1913 (my ‘cycle 3’) and also in the corresponding period 179 years before at ~1710-1730 (my ‘cycle 2’). I believe this pattern is of interest, as my COMPOS chart clearly shows the planets produced this same pattern at SSB cycles 1 (~1535-55) and 4 ( ~2070-90). Cycles 2 and 3 are those for which historical sunspot data exist.
As well, 178.867624 is 1/144th of the earth’s precessional period of ~25764 years. Ray Tomes has noted that harmonic cycles of period 2 and 3 are common in nature, making combined cycles of period 12 also common. The combined period of 3x4=12 SSB cycles closely matches 1/12 of the precession. This is an example of harmonic resonance in the solar system, entraining the precession period against the solar system barycentre.
My chart showing 178.867624 as a near-constant was first posted in response to Ray Tomes’ thread Explaining Planetary Alignments Relationship to the Sunspot Cycle . As Ray notes it presents a separate ATM idea.

So where does the Maunder Minimum fit into all this? Why was there a period of about 70 years (1645-1715) where there were practically no sunspots and no aurorae while the Sun continued to loop about the Solar System barycenter?

What we have here is yet another astrology and numerology thread. Move on. Nothing to see here.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

These cycles continued during the Maunder Minimum. Your comment that this is numerology is like saying that Planck's Constant is numerology.

Is there something significant about 178.867624? If it was a 180:1 I'd be impressed but 178.867624 doesn't seem in any way significant.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

That's very interesting

I'll take you out for a Dutch Treat.

Where did all of those significant digits come from? In physics, your answer can only be as precise as the least precise of the numbers used to obtain it.

And remember, precision is not the same as accuracy.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Accurate to 6 decimal places? can you show us your calculations please?

This is like in Star Trek when spock is always over precise in his 'approximate times. 'In approximately fourteen point six five seconds captain'

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

As long as you are carrying your magic number to nine significant figures, don't forget to allow for the perturbations right here on Planet Earth that could perturb its motions. A few examples:

Butterflies, including the migratory monarch butterflies.

Recurring boom-bust cycles of lemmings in Arctic regions.

The sudden redistribution of water when millions of toilets were flushed going into halftime at the Super Bowl.

Not to mention big shakes such as sporadic major earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

For all we know, the cumulative effect of these actions could alter our planet's spin and precession rates slightly, mucking up your calculations.

All thosde ships and aircraft moving around the planet. Millions of people moving into London every morning in the Rush hour etc.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Nice try at comparing good apples (Planck's Constant) to rotten oranges.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

As I explained, the solar pulse is a near-constant. The nine digits given are derived as the average SSB pulse for the 73 main stationary points from 1500-2099 (defined as period between similar wave peaks and troughs). These pulse points are almost all within one year of my magic number, with a quarter of them within 0.1 years. The source is NASA JPL ephemeris, which I understand is very precise and accurate for this dataset. I will analyse the data to quantify the rate of change in this number since 1500.

Cycles of periods of 2 and 3 would make combined cycles of 6 common, not 12.

Why 3X4? You said Tomes noted cycles of 2 and 3 are common, not cycles of 2 cycles of 2. Which is what you need to get the four in there.


Ahhhh, this should be a doh! moment. IF your 178.GIGO is 1/144 of the earth's precession, shouldn't 12 cycles closely match 1/12 of the precession? After all, 12 X 1/144 IS 1/12. Nothing miraculous here.

Actually, this whole post is nothing more than numerological hogwash. As Celestial Mechanic so elegantly put it:

What we have here is yet another astrology and numerology thread. Move on. Nothing to see here.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Here is a picture showing the change in the solar pulse since 1590, a decrease of rate by 0.05 years per 179 year cycle. It shows the 2010 value of 178.925 is in far more precise alignment with the precessional figure than the 600 year average (178.86) given in the opening post. Rather than the 7-8 year error suggested by my initial calculations, this gives an error of 0.3 years (0.001%) of 144 SSB cycles against a precession period of 25765 years. The hypothesis of a connection between the SSB and precession can easily be tested if data is available for the change in rate of precession.


[Massive image removed by moderator - see attachment if you're interested.]

Attached Thumbnails

 

Bigger does not automatically equate to more accurate.

179 year cycle? What 179 year cycle?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Actually if one inverts the chart and revises the x and y units (x = time, y = $/gallon) it looks like this:

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

BTW, Robert, remember this post from Jim?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Obviously not.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

The date points for the 179 year cycle are as follows

Group 1
1516.133; 1524.336; 1532.985; 1544.294; 1554.71; 1563.611; 1573.275; 1585.111; 1593.833; 1601.366; 1610; 1611.836; 1616.982; 1625.253; 1632.63; 1639.613; 1646.391; 1650.713; 1656.272; 1664.307; 1671.81; 1678.955;

Group 2
1694.861; 1703.272; 1712.138; 1722.036; 1733.441; 1742.157; 1751.527; 1764.339; 1772.579; 1780.052; 1787.746; 1791.377; 1796.149; 1804.272; 1811.433; 1818.605; 1825.519; 1829.691; 1835.097; 1843.261; 1850.883; 1858.264;

Group 3
1873.568; 1882.275; 1891.127; 1900.441; 1912.324; 1920.904; 1929.694; 1943.863; 1951.383; 1958.772; 1966.302; 1970.506; 1975.202; 1983.238; 1990.313; 1997.649; 2004.821; 2008.667; 2013.855; 2022.122; 2030.063; 2037.839;

Part Group 4
2052.103; 2061.291; 2069.996; 2079.458; 2091.219; 2099.444;

These are the exact dates at which the SSB – Position of Sun distance is at maximum or minimum. Looking at my opening post chart it can readily be seen that the shape of the curve follows a 179 year pattern by comparing it at 1516, 1694, 1873 and 2052 or any other 3 or 4 dates from the same relative positions in the above groups. My next chart shows that the speed of these cycles is slowing with a steady clear trend of about 0.05 years per cycle. For example, the average period between similar station points for Groups 1-2 was 178.82. This has since slowed down so the average period between station points for Groups 3-4 is 178.92, which as I pointed out = 25765/144 to an error of 0.001%.

You've got twelve starting data points and somehow you've managed to transform those into a number that goes to 6 significant figures with an 0.001 % error factor (based on a 99/99 confidence interval I take it)?

See me after class, please.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

You misunderstand. I am using 72 starting data points. These show that the SSB cycle lengthened between 1590 and 2010 by 0.1 years from 178.83 years to 178.9256 years on a moving average basis.

The additional decimal points in the number 178.867624 are simply a long term average for the SSB cycle since 1500. Sorry for not having my presentation fully worked out in advance here, but this number has been superseded by my observation that this data shows a clear trend, as per my latest graph, massively improving the harmonic correlation to the precession. Using the revised 2010 number of 178.9256, including numbers to four decimal points improves the accuracy of the correlation.

The 0.001% error factor is derived as follows.

• SSB cycle moving average in 2010 = 178.9256 years
• Precessional cycle = 25765 years (= 179.9236 x 144)
• (2010 SSB cycle) 178.9256 x 144 = 25765.288 years
• Difference between these two figures = 0.001% suggesting direct harmonic correlation between SSB cycle and precession

PS – was it the attachment format or content that was a problem? It was only 12kb so should not be a download problem for people. I have to learn how to format attachments better. This one is 100% pure empirical.

How can you add those extra 3 places when all you have is an average?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Fair question, and I see now the six decimal points on the title of this thread, while empirically derived, are less useful than a moving average. Let me explain again.

1. 178.867624 = Average SSB period 1500-2099 (600 years)
2. 178.83 = Average SSB period 1500-1680 (180 years)
3. 178.92 = Average SSB period 1920-2100 (180 years)
4. #3 - #2 = 0.09 years slower over ~500 years.
5. #3 = Great Year/144 (current value)

I calculated points 2 and 3 in response to the query from Nowhere Man about the significance of the digits. My initial hypothesis was that the rate of change over 600 years would be too slow to detect, hence that a 600 year average would be useful. However, as shown in the subsequent chart I posted, the clear steady trend of ~0.1 year slower over 600 years means that #3 is more accurate as a current figure, so this has refined the claim.
The biggest departure from trend in this chart is a sudden slowing around 1750, otherwise all data points are right on the trend line.
Long term I suspect this data is a small part of a long cyclic pattern. It can’t have been slowing at this rate for ever. For example, the SSB cycle might slow down while the solar system expands and speed up while it contracts, in self-correcting gravitational phases of planetary orbit radius. Does anyone know?
I am simply trying to understand this near-constant SSB pattern in scientific terms. I have called it the pulse of the sun, and consider it is central to the structure of time because of its exact harmonic alignment to the Great Year of lunisolar precession. There is obviously immense potential for unfalsifiable speculation about this new discovery, but here I would like to discuss its scientific side. For example, is the rate of change of precession known?

Fair question, and I see now the six decimal points on the title of this thread, while empirically derived, are less useful than a moving average.

I don't think the argument is that your nine significant figure number is "less useful" but that it is far too precise considering how it was derived. I'm not even sure your five significant figure numbers are appropriately precise; they are based on data that is 500 years old and/or extrapolated into the future.

Remember that you should not claim a level of precision for your calculation that is greater than the level of precision of the data being used. If you can show that x significant figures is appropriate for the least precise data point, then your result should not exceed x significant figures.

I'd suggest three significant figures is appropriate given the source of the data points.

So, the SSB for your first period is 179; the SSB for your second period is 179.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Jim, Thanks for this comment. Because my numbers are derived solely from gravitational calculations they are more appropriately precise than you say.
The underlying planetary composition of the SSB 179 year period is the interactions of the Sun with Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune (J-S-U-N). Using the C = 1/(1/A - 1/B) formula provided by Hornblower at this post gives the following correlations between outer planetary cycles and the great year (GY) estimated at 25764 years:

1. Jupiter-Saturn: 9 cycles = 178.65 years: 178.65/GY/144-1 = -0.145%
2. Jupiter-Uranus: 13 cycles = 179.4 years: 179.4/GY/144-1 = 0.27%
3. Jupiter-Neptune: 14 cycles = 178.9034 years: 178.9034/GY/144-1 = 0.007%
4. Saturn-Uranus: 4 cycles = 181.1 years: 181.1/GY/144-1 = 1.217 %
5. Saturn-Neptune: 5 cycles = 179.35 years: 179.35/GY/144-1 = 0.241%
6. Uranus-Neptune: 1 cycle = 172.7 years: 172.7/GY/144-1 = -3.483%

(Note: these numbers are from the formula and have small errors. Also, the GY is variously cited as 25764 and 25765 years – consistent with the slowing trend I have found here.)
My question is how planetary cycles interact with each other to produce a main stable pattern in the SSB. My finding is that using the SSB moving average reduces the GY phase errors in this list to 0.001%.
Over any given period the six cycles listed will produce SSB-POS radius peaks with average period around 179 years. This average can be decomposed to find more significant decimal places. This method is entirely scientific. From the data I have presented here, it appears the speed of the SSB has slightly slowed from 178.83 to 178.92 years per cycle over the last 500 years. I would like to obtain a much longer dataset to analyse cyclic periodicity in the SSB period.
A further point about the main cycle observed in my OP chart, mainly produced by the Jupiter-Saturn 19.7 year cycle. J-S have a 178.7 year period, slightly shorter than the cycle I am claiming to have found. The reason for this gap is that all the other cycles listed, with notable exception of Uranus-Neptune, are slightly more than 178.9. Hence, the J-S cycle, with discrepancy of 0.2 years, should also produce a longer wavelength that precesses against the SSB wave pattern about every 1000 cycles. This is just what I predict can be seen in the J-S shape as discussed at the OP and at Post 5 point 4 above. We can see this feature much more clearly in the main SSB secondary wave pattern which I understand is a function of the U-N 172 year pattern. The point is that there is an underlying wave pattern of the movement of the sun which requires five significant figures (ie 178.83 to 178.92) to see the trend. And, the fifth significant figure puts the current value into exact phase with lunisolar precession, a correlation which I hope to show is significant.
I debated some of these issues here with RTomes. My view is that the sun itself has a regular 179 year cycle, and Ray’s claim that the U-N factor produces cycles of fluctuating wavelength is very hard to conceptualise.

That's image shack.

I finally got it to behave after blocking all cookies and having had the pop up blocker on forever. Still loads slow though.

You might turn off the pop up blocker and let the pop ups appear- then close them. That may help prevent lock ups.

Works fine (and fast) for me - FF3 beta 5 with adblock plus.

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

Works just fine for me, too, using Opera whatever-the-current-version-is.

__________________
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!"

Now Warren, I hope you are not trying to derail my thread. I take no responsibility for the totally irrelevant chart that our dinosauric friend attached. You should look at my attachments, not his. Admittedly there is more brain-strain in the numbers I gave, but they are up for falsification.

Okay, so the numbers that you put in have errors, e.g. the periods of planets have errors in them, event hough we know them reasonably well.

e.g. the orbital period of Jupiter is 4332.71 days, which would mean (divide by length of year 365.2425 days) that you have 11.86 years. Even though we know the year up to 4 decimals, we can only carry 2 decimals at the most here. I do not know the error margins on these numbers (i.e. the orbital periods of the outer planets), they will most likely be in the last decimal so rule of thumb would be an error of 0.005 days, half the last decimal.

These errors in your input data work through in your answer from the equation that you use:

C = (A^-1 - B^-1)^-1

If both A and B have error margins delA and delB one can easily determine the error in C though:

dC = (dC/dA)_(AB) delA + (dC/dB)_(AB)delB

I will let you do the differentiation for yourself, as it would involve too much typing at the moment. Then you have the error in your beat-frequency C.

Then your GY has an error range, which magically has decreased to 1 year, I thought the spread was larger than that actually, from previous post.

So, when you do this, I think that the accuracy of your shift of the GY or the SSB period disappears in the error that is in your determination of C and all other things.

Now I saw that stuff before here but I have no idea what you mean by:

178.65/GY/144-1 = -0.145%

you divide the 178 years by the GY and divide that by 144 and subtract 1 (or divide by 144-1=143???), or what is this supposed to show here? According to my calculator this "equation" gives a number of -0.99 (you cannot get 3 decimals when your 178.65 has only 2 decimals!! and actually as the GY has NO decimals, this means NO decimals may be carried).

I guess you want to calculate how much your period 178.65 deviates from the GY after 144 periods have passed. Then I would suggest writing this as follows:

{(144 * period - GY) / GY} * 100% = 0.15 % (me being generous here with the number of decimals)

So basically I see a lot of wannabe math, but accuracy is claimed which does not exist.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)