OMG, do you know what this means? Chinese food is the universal food because every other country has incorporated it. Coke must be the universal drink too!

What you miss Robert was without interaction with other cultures Japan was fine without these concepts. By your definition everything is universal because at some point if any other part of the universe wants to talk about something in your part they'll have to incorporate it into theirs in some manner.

Watch this...I'll make something universal between you and me. I'll call it "clipshardvedar" it is the feeling of wanting to eat chocolate covered post it notes when the moon is full and my ex brother in law is in jail.

Now for you to talk to me about "clipshardvedar" it must mean that it is universal.

The northern climate is dominate in our culture, I too live in Australia, because there is more land mass in the northern hemisphere during human evolution. Thus even here in Australia we still can relate to Santa as traveling on a flying snow sled even though it is 30^c outside. The fact that that the zodiac roughly follows the cycles of the moon isn't a big surprise. The fact that early Christianity had a habit of incorporating other traditions into itself is also not a huge surprise either. I'm surprised at how many Christians don't know that Christmas is most likely not the birth date of Jesus but an adoption of a few different festivals that occurred on that day.

WOW, really. You mean what has been happening for the last few hundred years is going to continue to happen? People aren't going to throw away their medicine, televisions and cellphones and believe in stuff like astrology?!?! In reality there will always be people will believe in things that have no basis in fact because they are really old beliefs and people like to believe in these types of things.

Honestly, this is stupid. I went to school with a boy that was born in the same hospital and was, get this, born the same time as me down to the minute. I mean what is the chance of that happening?! Seeing he was born in the same hospital and was the same age meant that we most likely lived near each other thus having the same school. Being born the same minute was a bit of a fluke but how big deal, we could have been born over an hour apart and still had the same ascendant.

We where 2 totally different people and the only thing we seemed to have in common was we where both above average in our grades and we both had brown hair and of course we lived 2 streets from each other and where born at the same time.

Add to this the fact that haven't the constellations shifted by about 2 signs in the last 2,000 years.

The 12 months where not always universal. They loosely fit lunar cycles but this is only a rough fit that will change over time.

You do realize that there are over 100 elements.

wow 3 * 4 = 12 and there are roughly 12 lunar cycles in a year...so what. There is more like 12.25 lunar cycles per year. No constellation is fixed with respect to the Earth on any large scale of time. Even over the last 2000 years the constellations have changed enough to be noticed by the naked eye.



The problem you have with constellations is that in ancient times people thought all those stars where on the same spherical plane and they are not. They are all at different distances and all have different proper motions. Come back in 5 million years and show me your constellations.

The fact that there are roughly 12 lunar cycles to the year and that there are 24 hours in a day and 12 goes into 365.25 roughly... so what?

There being 4 seasons is due to the axis of the earth in relation to the sun and we could just as easily divided the seasons up into 2, 6, 8, 12, 18, 24, or 365.25 seasons. There is no sharp seasonal boundary.

You read way to much into all of this. What, in your opinion, would happen if someone was born on Mars? What would happen in your opinion if someone was born in another solar system who's axis was 90 degrees from that of our solar system. What if they had a moon that had a cycle of about 15.2 times per their year? I bet their people would have 15 zodiac signs.

The fact is all the different flavors of zodiac don't agree with each other and all of the predictions are so vague as to fit almost anyone. Astrology is not science.

Response Part 1
OOOH! Please, tell us how your patent application goes. Don't feel bad that I won't hold my breath. I'm quickly coming to the realization that you view yourself at a level of Newton or better. You do know that "Canopus in Argos Archives" is science fiction, correct?


You do realize she only uses things like this as interesting plot devices. She doesn't actually subscribe to these things.

There is no border line between astronomy and astrology. Astrology subscribes meaning to celestial bodies in which they have no real relation. As it has been pointed out to you before making a correlation between people tending to be a bit sad and a star a couple of hundred ly away is stupid. It is more likely due to the fact that it is winter and thus there is less sunlight which has been scientifically shown to make people feel happier.

Astronomy is the science of, amongst other things, defining the actual physical properties of celestial bodies.

There is no more of a borderline between astrology and astronomy then there is between voodoo dolls and medicine.

And all of it is pretty meaningless because we know the earth isn't the centre at all. Being at the centre of something implies everything else revolves around you. This is why astrology fails because other things don't revolve around the earth and as time goes on the whole concept of the 12 constellations will change as all the proper motions will cause them to be a jumbled mess.

so you build a model that won't hold true for long time scales that you can make some vague correlations to that in the end isn't really isn't empirical because every time astrology is scientifically tested it fails as not being any better then chance or the predictions made are better explained in other, more simple, ways.

It is just a random chance and the LMC does not have any universal need to be there thus making the correlation mean squadoosh. You might as well say because you had a friend that lived next door who was a red head that people will give gifts to each other in the month of December.

And if the LMC wasn't there something else would be. Now it would be more interesting that if we looked out at that part of the sky and saw nothing for a far out as we can see.

perhaps you should focus on the real reason we have such cycles if they are at all important.

We have "harmonic" sin waves of location in relation to the sun do to our orbit of the sun, the rotation of the earth, orbit of the moon and to a lesser extent orbits of other planets. Distant stars that over time will fall on these "ascending" and "descending" parts of this "harmonic" sin wave doesn't mean anything.

Further making general broad categorizations of emotions to said "ascending...blah blah blah" brings what you are talking about further out from anything that could even be thought of as science.

translation, I am trying to build a model that will loosely fit some ancient knowledge that there is no actual proof of ever existing but gullible people will think what I'm saying is profound because it involves "ancient observations" that not only is there no evidence that it actually existed but that all archaeological evidence points to says that it probably didn't exist.

Please show all maths and data. I've seen an actual scientist say that the CMB is from neutral hydrogen in our local area because of some data that when eye balled looks vaguely like a pattern in the CMB in the same area but when actually analysis there is no correlation that can't be attributed to pure chance.

It has been pointed out to you before that the 12 months is due to a loose correlation of the lunar cycle which is more like 12.25 and not actually 12. Coming to some grand conclusion that every 48 years the cycle starts lining up again is meaningless and is only due to the current distance of the moon and as the distance of the moon increases, the length of day increases the correlation will fall further out of wack.

SOOOO much word salad. I'm still waiting for you to actually define all your terms.

Because we've almost arbitrarily chosen to have 12 months in modern times, because we’ve arbitrarily chosen to define 4 seasons and 4 goes into 12 and thus each season has 3 months, we should not assign emotional meaning to these numbers.

An assumption that has been shone by science to be not true.

What happens to your model when there are 13 lunar cycles in a year? What happens when the day is 26 hours instead of 24? What happens when the wobble of the earth is significantly different to what it is now?

Yet you try to attribute more to the Earth and its “current” location in relation to other celestial bodies that there is any reason too.

I think it is estimated at more of 3.5by but this really has no relevance. Over that 4 billion years, which makes your assertions even more absurd, the zodiac has changed drastically. Stars have come and gone. All the positions of the stars have been constantly changing. The sun has gone around the milky way about 20 times. Technically our solar system has done about 23 orbits.

Umm how do “genes” change their “adaptivity” which isn’t actually a word.
Please explain how random mutations, genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection, horizontal transfer and the many other factors in genetic evolution are effected by this precession. Please show your evidence that genetic change actually correlates to this cycle. Please explain what mechanism causes this shift in the rate of genetic change and finally please explain how you think any genetic change has a preferred point in time to be successful independent of the current environment it is in IE why, given the same environmental pressures, would a given genetic change be more or less likely to fixate within a population at one point on this 25,765 year cycle then any other point on that cycle

You’ve now left the realm of astronomy and are treading into biology where these ideas of yours are even more dubious. At least with astrology you are still talking about celestial bodies.

Responce Part 2

You have no evidence that any of this happens but you want us to assess it against your ideas that aren’t even holding up to known astronomy? Look I could have an idea that invisible pink winged unicorns are responsible for the evolution of humans independent of all other species on the Earth but why should anyone care?

But these people are not separated by 2147 years. Drawing a correlation between 2 people in history is mildly interesting but attributing these people to celestial positions is a bit of a stretch.

Again because old religions incorporated other beliefs into their own means squadoosh.

Not only are the minimal they have been shown to have no effect that can be statistically observed.

Please show me one bit of our DNA that has a any correlation to either your 2,147 year cycle or your 25, 765. Hell show me one that correlates to any cycle greater then a year.

I’ll wait for you to point out something that matches this cycle. Seeing that we are lucky to have writings that we can study that go back just 3,000 years I’m curious to know how you make the claim about 25,765 years. Of course morphology within the homo line would be your best bet but then 25,765 years is a drop in the bucket. IE if you took DNA from any average person in the past 25,765 years and created a baby from that DNA you would not be able to tell that average person from any other average person of today.

Why 3? Why not 4? Why not 5? Why not 2? Hell why not 23?

I see you’ve answered that.... I still say it is a relatively arbitrary selection.

Anywhere you don’t consider scientific evidence you should be stopping yourself and asking why you are there when you talking about the physical world.

No what you are asking for is scientific support for which there isn’t any. Feel free to look into it but when problems with your idea are shown to you and you just ignore them or try to use word salad to confuse the lurkers then you are just being disingenuous at best.

So we should bring back burning people at the stake to get rid of witches then shall we?

Yet your speculations are any better?

Please give your definition of “organic structure”. Please state how it is different from “inorganic structure”

Only in your mind.

Define “temporal structures”

You know old != good. Old most often = not really understood. Hense we don’t bleed people to make them better. We don’t sacrifice virgins to stop volcanos from erupting. We don’t believe the earth is flat and that “hell” is actually under the earth. We don’t believe the sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot. We don’t believe that that the sun dies every night and is reborn the next day because it had sex with its mother.

It is not purely scientific. You see some general correlations with very few data point then you extrapolate out these to unsupported claims.

What how will we be “in tune with the cosmos”. What happened every other time in the last 3.5 billion years, or lets even go with just the last 1 million years, that primates have been “in tune with the cosmos”? How will we see a difference? How will our level of knowledge change with this cycle differently then what we would predicted without your idea?

This paragraph strikes me as pseudomathematical word salad. None of those three periods are 1/12 of a year. The first two are 1/4 each, and the third one is 1/2. Their end points coincide with the inflection and turning points, nothing more. What appears to be your line of thought is mathematically incoherent.

Why only three? Why not a fourth period from the lower turning point to the ascending inflection point, corresponding to the "fixed"? Did you run out of pet names? Why your choices of cardinal, fixed, mutable and (something for the fourth period)? Why not Dasher, Dancer, Prancer and Vixen; or perhaps Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen? (The trouble with those is that Rudolph gets left out.)

Now let us follow up on my last post by taking some digs at your feeble attempt at an analogy with musical instruments such as violin strings and organ pipes. As a musician and former would-be physicist, I feel moderately qualified to do so.

We know that a string at a given tension naturally resonates at a frequency inversely proportional to its length, and in small-integer multiples of that frequency. This is a result of the wave nature of the vibrations and the boundary conditions (fixed ends of the string) encountered by these waves. My horn oscillates in a similar resonant manner when actuated by the vibrations from my buzzing lips at the mouthpiece. In either case there is nothing dynamically special about the 12th harmonic. True, it makes a pleasing consonant combination with the fundamental tone, but so do the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 16th. The higher ones tend to be weaker and more difficult to sound because the mechanical limitations of the instrument prevent it from being an ideal harmonic oscillator.

Some types of organ pipes resonate only at the odd-numbered harmonics. They would suppress any attempt at getting them to vibrate at 12 times the fundamental frequency.

The precession of a spinning planet is not characterized by the sort of wave action and boundary conditions of harmonic resonators such as the aforementioned musical instruments. This is a dynamic difference that could not have been known to the ancient Greeks, who originally speculated on possible analogies. Our understanding of such dynamics has come a long way since then, mostly in the last three centuries.

In hindsight I have decided that the boldfaced words above were unnecessarily harsh. My bad. I always try to be firm but polite.

Mr Tulip,

If I may be so bold as to attempt to paraphrase and condense what others have said in their responses to your posts, and which you have ignored time and time again, your mapping of elements and the like to periods is arbitrary, and so cannot be used to infer anything meaningful.

For example, with your sine wave contentions, you have taken a continuous function, applied an arbitrary set of divisions on it to match the number of names that you want to see, and then claimed that this is somehow representative of the physical world. If anything, a sine wave can be broken down into about 6.3 "natural" pieces. Your taking it as having three makes no sense.

Your understanding of chemistry is also woeful. You keep claiming that there are four elements, but this knowledge is vastly out of date, so why do you continue to do so? To make this crystal clear, there are more than four elements, and neither earth, air, fire or water are any of them.

Water is the liquid phase of the molecule H₂O, earth is a mixture of clay, silt, and loam, air is a mixture of various gases (mainly nitrogen and oxygen), and fire, well, that's more of a concept, and is used to describe quite a range of chemical reactions.

This looks to be quite a critical flaw in your reasoning. Can you possibly address why your scheme only works if you pretend that chemistry stopped hundreds of years ago?

Hornblower, I get the impression that your repugnance for the subject matter here has blinded you to the mathematics. Of course dividing the ¼ year sine wave in three produces a period that is 1/12 of a year. Your comment illustrates how easily simple logic can be ignored. This discussion arose from the Canopus-Sol argument as a way of explaining how the ascending-descending motif of the Vedic Yuga marked by Canopus has a scientific basis in the shape of the Great Year of the twelve signs of tropical astrology. My choice of the names for the elements and qualities is simply conventional. The point is to show how the tropical signs relate to the annual sine wave function, so the unit of division of the waves matches the signs by analytical definition. A string vibrating at frequency 440 Hz produces a sine wave with the note A. The notes A and E are in perfect fifth harmony, produced by the one-third relation between their respective sine waves. The one-third harmonic caused by lightly touching the string (eg at the seventh fret of a guitar) produces a sine wave with triple the frequency, the note E at 1320 Hz. The one-twelfth harmonic, E 5280 Hz, is also an exact multiple of the one-half, one-third, one-quarter and one-sixth harmonics, and is contained in the resonant sound of each of these notes. Hence the 1/12 harmonic can be stronger than those you mention as it combines its factors.
In this material, which provides a path towards a mathematical explanation of the structure of the year and the great year, I have started from the tropical signs as a hypothesis, and asked what they could be. Clearly, the fact that astrological signs are too weak to enable statistical detection, apart from the contested material in The Astrology File by Gunther Sachs, shows that the one-third and one-quarter functions of the sine wave of the year are extremely weak. However, my point here is not the strength of the signal, which is completely swamped by mundane factors, but rather its mathematical possibility. I suspect this illustrates my point, that the even numbered harmonics are too strong because they are mutually reinforcing. What I was talking about was that an acoustic space reverberates with harmonic resonance, so it is fairly easy to produce a high E from a low A. The signs are a similar harmonic product of the year.
How do you know that? It reads as a dogmatic assertion based on the fact that science has not yet been able to find such a resonance. I remain of the view that the solstices and equinoxes, as turning and inflection points for the annual sine wave function, do in fact produce the twelve signs by harmonic resonance, and that this can be illustrated by the sand mandala experiment described above. My earlier posted Diagram of the precession over the last 2.5 million years shows how this stable rhythm has been exhibited for the entire evolution of humanity. The spring coil in this diagram has a sine wave function which is a product of the annual path of the sun through the signs. You just have to take a big enough view.
Northern Boy, thank you for this summary. You do not understand harmonics. My response to Hornblower above answers your comment about the sine wave, where the division in three equal parts is shown to be the basis of the musical harmony of the perfect fifth.
If you read my argument carefully, you would see that I am entirely supporting the mainstream view of modern science, while seeking to add to it in the neglected field of study of the long term cycles of the earth. I assert these long term cycles can be described in terms of the classical four elements of ancient times. I agree with you that it is slightly confusing to resurrect an old term which modern science has partly disproved, but it is actually common that words have two meanings. The term element is capable of covering both the atomic and the cyclic meanings. I am not arguing that these four cyclic elements are atomic. However, I do argue that the cyclic meaning is real and corresponds to the four quarters of a sine wave function.

I will come back later to respond to comments from Wayne Francis.

So call them A, B, C and D.

By using terms like "air" and "Earth" you, by default, ascribe meaning to the names.

What real scientific and has-an-effect-on-anything relevance do the four "elements" have in your cycle other than as names?

If you don't want this treated as astrology, stop making it look like astrology.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Robert Tulip, I would like a response to my questions quoted above the next time you come into this thread, please. This post was on the previous page so you may have missed it.

If I were mathematically illiterate I might be blind to the mathematics in this discussion, but my sense of repugnance for incoherent writing does not cause any such blindness.

The second sentence in the uppermost paragraph asserts that the three periods with the fancy names are each 1/3 of a quarter. The next sentence appears to describe the first one alone as being at least a quarter in duration. Thus the two sentences appear to be contradictory, and I stand by my overall evaluation of your remarks as being mathematically incoherent.

I am not going to waste my time trying to slog through your lengthy posts, with all of their archaic verbal clutter, or try to make sense of your visually cluttered diagrams. Please post a simple sine wave, clearly mark the segments you call cardinal, fixed and mutable, and try to explain why you think they are anything more than a mathematical curiosity. Please try to do it in as few words as possible, rather than clutter it up with a lot of what many of us find to be verbal fog.

No dogma here, just basic physics. I could explain it in full but it would mean copying or paraphrasing entire chapters of a physics textbook to do it justice. You might as well Google these topics. The burden is on you to show us what you think an orbiting and/or precessing planet has in common with the dynamics of a vibrating string or organ pipe.

The attached six month sine wave diagram helps to answer this question. It shows an overlay for a period of six months of the sine waves with period 12, 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1 month. These waves are mutually reinforcing at periods separated by one month, mapping on to musical harmonics separated by octaves and perfect fifths.

How I see this against the annual cycle is that each of the four solstices and equinoxes is a new starting point. The overlay of integer fractional waves on to each of these four starting points further reinforces the monthly period of the signs, generating the twelve cusps just by division of these four annual solstice and equinox waves by three. The addition of higher fraction waves, from 5 and up, does generate reinforcing harmonics, but not with anywhere near the strength of the cycles that are factors of 12. My point here is that the twelfth harmonic of a natural wave has unique power due to its whole number factors which also contribute to it. This month cusp cycle can usefully be disassembled by seeing the twelve months as made up of two concurrent cyclic wave functions, 1234 (elemental four month cycle) and 123 (quality three month cycle). These wave series have twelve unique combinations, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44 corresponding to the twelve signs of the zodiac.

I agree with you that it is very difficult to turn this mathematical structure into a form amenable to scientific investigation. However, this description shows how the tropical signs can be defined simply by their cyclic relation to the annual cycle, for example period 42 occurs at the same dates each year, starting and ending at points one third of the year from a solstice or equinox. As I said before, this is the annual emergent logical cycle of the earth. The long term cycle of the Great Year seems to me also to be amenable to such mapping. I remain of the view that statistical research will be able to detect these weak sign patterns at the annual level once resources are devoted to analysis of large enough datasets.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Oh dear, it's hard to know how to respond to something like this. I'll therefore just type a very short reply using short words that are easily spelled and which have no more than three "syllables" (this snide style is a fair response, i think, to someone telling a physicist that they don't understand harmonics).

There are lots and lots of harmonics. Many. You chose one, from many, with no good reason, and then said, with no reason, that the one that you chose is important.

You could choose any of them, and say what you said, about that one, and it would mean the same (i.e. nothing).

You see, your choice of three is "arbitrary".

I hoped to try to help you, but I have a new rule, I think, which says that when someone, with no good reason, assumes that my physics knowledge is zero, I'll move on.

Ciao.

1. What is an "emergent logical cycle of the Earth"? What does this mean? What would it look like?

2. What "weak sign patterns" do you expect to find in these "large enough datasets"? What kind of data?

It is still not at all clear that this is not astrology!

As far as I can tell, you still hold to the belief that the stars (or something) have some kind of actual effect on people. That is, beyond the obvious patterns of day/night and the seasons.

Could you please get on with explaining what it is you think you are going to find!

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

I believe that I have asked you before to cite any natural cycles that would fit your three- and four-month period sinusoidal waves. The quoted sentence tells me that you know of none. It also tells me that you already have the answers you want, and you are just setting out to prove them. That is not science. This thread is not science.

I'm done posting in this thread.

Respondents have argued to the effect that the cyclic theory of time that underpins my claims is of no scientific interest. To answer this charge, I will now explain some scientific questions raised by my temporal model of the earth.

Space-time has four dimensions – distance, area, volume and duration. My model is an accurate four dimensional depiction of our planet in terms of its relation to the surrounding stars. It shows the location of the ecliptic and the poles against the background stars over the cyclic period caused by the earth's precession. You can use this model to calculate the rough positions of the stars at any time over tens of thousands of years, and possibly over millions of years once the proper motions of the stars are added. For example, this model shows how the wobble of the earth's axis on and off the Canopus-Vega line is an empirical description of a main physical pattern of motion of the earth. So far this is all mainstream science.

What I added as new material is the ascription of the Canopus-Vega axis as marking the Golden Age. This claim is at the base of the criticisms that respondents have made about my theory of harmonic temporal resonance. The idea of the Golden Age aligns with Walter Cruttenden's explanation of the Vedic theory of the structure of time in the movie The Great Year, with the key difference that my description of these stars as markers does not require a dynamic link with a binary star to explain how the ancient authors saw the precession in terms of the movement of partner stars.

The Vedic idea of ascending and descending Ages, with nadir in about 500AD and apex about 13,000AD, is entirely against the mainstream. I am trying to set out a scientific framework to explain how this old idea is physically possible. Where I have got to, considering the four dimensions of space-time, is that this temporal cycle cannot be explained by the main temporal dimension of duration alone, because it relies on the assumption that a cyclic pulse joins together different moments which have the same quality. Hence, pulse needs to be considered as like a fifth dimension, marking the structure of duration in its local interaction with matter. The five dimensions that can be seen in my model of the earth are therefore: (i) distance: from the earth to included stars; (ii) area: relative positions on a plane section; (iii) volume: relative positions in space at a given moment; (iv) duration: the 25765 year wobble of the earth points the equinox and axes at recurring different stars over its stable cycle; and (v) pulse: the new claim that cyclic temporal dimensionality has a measurable pattern.

In claiming that precession has a pulse, I have argued that this long term stable cycle should on principle be in resonant relation with the other temporal cycles from which it derives, namely the day and the year. I accept that this is hard to prove, but there is actually some good evidence to suggest that ancient astronomers formulated just such a cyclic theory of time.

Interestingly, and leaving aside any religious implications, this approach seems to explain the Bible text Revelation 21, understanding the holy city as a metaphor for the universe seen through the lens of precession. The main conventional interpretation of the twelve jewels of the foundation stones of the holy city sees them as the twelve tribes of Israel. However, another ancient mainstream interpretation holds that these twelve jewels are the twelve signs of the zodiac in reverse from Pisces to Aries. My theory of the structure of time is consonant with the claim that this image of the twelve jewels encodes the precession cycle in the Bible. This claim is supported by a key text, Rev 21:15-17 “the city is foursquare, and the length is as great as the breadth ... twelve thousand furlongs .... And he measured the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits...”

Here we have the holy city described as an object 12,000 units across, with its boundary divided into 144 parts. Considered against the precession, we see immediately that the diameter of the holy city, 12,000, is the same as the number of years across the Vedic precessional Yuga, ie the time it takes for the pole or equinox to move from closest to furthest angle to any given star. Furthermore, the 144 cubits of the wall of the city exactly match the main regular conjunction cycle of our solar system, the 178.9 year Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune cycle, which also causes a wave function of the solar system barycentre with this same period. The 25765 year cycle of precession is 144 times this near-stable 178.9 year conjunction period, which it seems to me has good claim to be the cubit referred to in Rev 21:17. I am not suggesting that ancient astronomers knew of Neptune, but rather that ancient astronomy, focussed on the long term pulse of the planet, had somehow discerned this basic major underlying perpetual temporal structure, and included it in coded form in the central text of Christian cosmology.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

So, they couldn't see Neptune, but they could feel the 25765 year pulse? Or do you mean the 178.9 year pulse?

I was trying to figure out what happened to Uranus (which the ancients had a possibility of seeing), and I tried to work out that 178.9 year conjunction period. How do you do that? Using the data from planetscapes.com I get nine conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn every 178.73 years, and Neptune tracks them approximately, but it's enough out of phase that I'm not sure what you mean by "near-stable". What do you mean by near-stable?

My primary claim in this thread is that precession provides the physical framework for the geocentric structure of time, and that this framework can be analysed by reference to the annual cycle. All other discussion flows from this claim. I have answered most direct questions and will answer the rest in the next few days.

(My breaks "..." and numbers)

Q(a): What's the difference between 1 & 3? That is, what is the difference between "precession/physical framework" and "annual cycle"?

Q(b): What is a geocentric structure of time? What exactly do you mean by structure?

The problem all along is that it is one thing to show a cycle (which like the seasons can be something quite explainable) and to then show how that cycle somehow has some kind of special magical effect.

If you can drop all the mystical astology-but-let's-"pretend it isn't astrology" stuff (like trying to make arbitrary divisions of your cycle by 4 and giving them names like "earth", "fire", "water"... you might get somewhere with your physical cycles.

Once you've established that, then maybe you can start pinning historical claims on them.


No, you've missed tons.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Okay, I will start with the most recent and work backwards.The three points are
1. that precession provides the physical framework for...
2. the geocentric structure of time, and that...
3. this framework can be analysed by reference to the annual cycle.

The difference between 1 and 3 can be explained with reference to this Diagram of the precession over the last 2.5 million years from Post 26 above. This diagram depicts the precession as a coiled spring surrounding the earth, and is purely empirical, showing how many times the equinox has precessed around the zodiac since homo split from australopithecus.

A similar diagram depicting the annual cycle would be the same but with 2.5 million coils. It is very clear from the science of biological evolution that such an annual cyclic depiction would provide an informative explanation of the geocentric structure of time, ie that all organisms have evolved to follow this annual cycle and so to have a specific part of their annual rhythm matching each corresponding point on this spring model. Parallel lines along the spring connecting points of similarity in spring, summer, autumn and winter connect points of similarity in the genetic instincts of all organisms.

A similar pattern applies to the daily geocentric cycle, with organisms having instinctive daily rise and fall corresponding to the position of the sun around the diurnal cycle. On this diagram a daily pattern would require nearly one billion coils of the spring.

Prima facie, it seems entirely reasonable to me to that this slow cycle of precession, which is entirely physically derived from the more rapid and well known cycles of the day and year, would exhibit a structure in the same way the day and year have a structure. I call this a geocentric structure of time because it treats our planet as the centre of the cosmos and identifies the long term positions of the stars from our planetary perspective.

As in my other diagram of the earth, we have here an empirical model. We could add the stars to it to show their proper motion, an exercise that would demonstrate clearly the error of Walter Cruttenden’s theory that the sun and Sirius may be in a binary relation. The fact that Sirius has only moved one moon-width distance since the time of Ptolemy can for example be extrapolated over 2.5 million years to show that the position of Sirius and the precession are entirely unrelated. My point about Canopus and Vega is that for the last few coils of the spring they have oscillated on and off the central axis of the spring, and so provide simple accurate markers for the precession, for any one looking at the earth over a multi-million year time frame.

The best illustration I have seen of the “near-stability” of the 179 year Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune (JSN) wave function is from Carl Smith at 178.867624. You can clearly see here how the solar system barycentre follows a stable 179 year period wave function matching the JSN pattern, with complex sub-waves caused by the movement of Uranus against the other gas giants. Small discrepancy between the Jupiter-Saturn 178.7 year period and the slightly longer Jupiter-Neptune and Saturn-Neptune cycles produces long wave functions around 1000 times as long as this period. As I noted earlier, this wave function is precisely 1/144th of the earth’s precession period, each recurrence is 1/12 of the zodiac further around the ecliptic, and this basic temporal function of the solar system matches the biblical idea of the cubit. My supposition is that there is a dynamic link between this stable gas giant temporal structure and the wobble period of the earth.

I have discussed the 179 year Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune cycle on several threads. Spiral Model of Solar System states
Further, Spiral Model of Solar System states

Robert Tulip,

What makes you think the average duration of the Great Year is precisely 144 times the average Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune period? We have precise measurements of the precession rate only for the past couple of centuries, maybe 1% of the cycle. It is now known that the rate varies, and it cannot be extrapolated with any certainty more than a few millenia. This is not surprising to me, considering that the Earth is not a nice rigid perfectly symmetrical oblate spheroid, but rather is lumpy, gooey, partially molten in the core, and has a lot of water sloshing around on its very irregular surface. Its spin rate varies unpredictably, and I would be surprised if the precession rate did not do likewise.

I do not know if the average JSN cycle is in dynamic relation with the wobble of the earth, but I postulate that it may be. The current pace of precession is very close to 144 times the JSN period. Of course, the term ‘precisely’ cannot properly be used unless there is a dynamic connection, which I cannot prove. Reading Celestial Mechanic’s Precession Dialogues, the fact that a rough model for the shape of the earth produces quite accurate estimates of precession suggests to me that the pace of precession would have varied only with known factors such as the distance to the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precess...ronomy)#Values states “it appears that precession is quasi-periodic at around 25,700 years”. Given the isolation of the solar system, it seems there are only minimal forces operating to change the precession rate, so stability looks a reasonable inference. An article on Precession and the Obliquity of the Ecliptic compares different astronomical models for the rate of change of precession in this chart of astronomical models of precession rate.

The JSN cycle is very long-standing, and may have existed since Neptune stabilised in its present orbit nearly four billion years ago. I have postulated that our planetary gyro-wobble is part of a bigger pattern of the whole solar system, observed in the wave function of the solar system barycentre (SSB), which is produced primarily by the gas giants in their interaction with the sun. Considering the solar system as a unit, and plotting its cycles as a combined wave function, there is a neat alignment between the current speed of the earth’s wobble and the overall temporal structure shown in the SSB. I suspect, although I cannot prove it, that the gas giants, although contributing less than 1% of the torque of earth’s precession, have a bigger function regarding the speed of earth’s precession. The 179 year cycle is primarily a function of the 19.85 year Jupiter-Saturn cycle, with Neptune modulating this wave function to produce the points of similarity seen every ninth JS cycle. Incidentally, the JS cycle of 7250 days is close to the Mayan K’atun cycle of 7200 days, indicating how the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn were used to measure time.

Regarding the ‘water sloshing around on [earth’s] very irregular surface’, Phil Plait compiled figures to illustrate the effects of the planets on earth’s tides, showing that for each metre of lunar tide, Jupiter contributes 6 microns, Saturn 0.2 microns, Uranus 0.003 microns and Neptune 0.001 microns. These micron tides can be conceptualised as mathematical realities even if they cannot be physically measured. They combine, theoretically, over time to produce a wave function in long term tidal averages that would match the pattern of the SSB, with higher tides when Jupiter and Saturn are at inferior conjunction and lower tides when they are at superior conjunction.

This mathematical tide is below the data threshold, but my point here is to illustrate that long term rhythms of the earth exist which are physical functions of the slow regular patterns of the solar system, and so that the 179 year JSN-SSB pattern is physically embedded in cycles of the earth. Some may scoff that the 0.001 micron tide caused on earth each day by Neptune is nothing, but from another perspective, with Neptune modulating the long term rhythm of the entire solar system as its main outer body, this weak effect is real. 144 of these gas giant micron tide cycles occur in earth’s ocean each Great Year.

However, the two month difference between the JS period (~178.7 years) and the JN and SN periods (~178.9 years) means that the recurring conjunctions every 179 years form families which drift into and out of exactness. An exact JSN family of conjunctions occurred around the dates 17-20 July 769. This cycle was wide in 53 AD, and closed through 232, 411 and 590 to the exact alignment in 769, then drifting out of alignment through 948, 1127, 1306, 1485, 1664, 1843 to the wide conjunction around 2022. This cycle will see its next example in 2020-2026, by which time the JS, JN and SN conjunctions will be stretched over six years. A next family is centred in 1524, recurring in 1703, 1882 and 2061.

The point of these comments about what I think of as the ‘Saros Families’ of JSN conjunctions is that the match between the SSB wave function and the Great Year has an average period modulated by Neptune in its cycles with Jupiter and Saturn, but Jupiter and Saturn have a slightly faster cycle (0.17%) than their respective periods with Neptune. The long wave function of the SSB therefore has peaks and troughs matching JS, but also very slightly slower waves produced by the other gas giant interactions. I give priority to Neptune over Uranus because the wave functions of Uranus are maverick and do not have the short repetitive harmonic patterns produced by JSN over 179 year units.

Matching these observations to the precession, we can see that between the JSN conjunction in 54 AD and the conjunction in 2199 the Neptune conjunction points have drifted from before the JS conjunction to after it, with the exact alignment for the family happening in July 769. Tropically, the JS conjunction of 26 March 54 AD is at 28°22 Pisces, and that at 8 April 2199 is at 28°20 Aquarius. Sidereally, the equinox has precessed 30° over this period so these JS conjunctions, separated by a zodiacal age of 2145 years, are 60° apart.

Another factor here is the question of a possible harmonic resonance inherent in twelve-fold cycles. 144 (=2⁴x3²) is an exact multiple of 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 72. If the 25765 year period of the Great Year is divided by 144, into 2.5° divisions marking the position of the sun at the equinox every 178.9 years, it is possible that these 144 points around the ecliptic have some sort of patterns, formed by grouping into the above factor cycles all of which join together each 144 occurrences after a Great Year. We can model the comparison between the JSN cycle, which marks these 144 equinox precession points for the sun, and the Great Year.

There are good grounds to speculate about how this planetary theory of time is embedded in ancient mythology. For example, Valhalla, the mythological Norse Heaven, has 540 gates. American Gods, a novel by Neil Gaiman, tells a story of three rope ladders with nine rungs each up the world tree Yggdrasil, which in mythology is the foundation for Valhalla. I have not validated Gaiman’s source for this image of the nine rung rope ladders up Yggdrasil, but it is striking that the image of Valhalla sitting atop the world tree matches the astrophysical shape of the solar system formed by successive Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, which form three intertwined ladders as a triple helix with rungs separated by 59.8 years, with nine rungs each 536 years, each rung ten degrees around the ecliptic compared to the conjunction 60 years before. I have started to build a model of these Jupiter-Saturn ladders. The 540 gates of Valhalla closely approximate the corresponding Jupiter-Saturn period of 536 years, and may represent an old way of marking long time periods against the 20 year pattern of Jupiter and Saturn. Four such cycles of Valhalla make up a Zodiacal Age.

There is a very good and detailed wikipedia page on Emergence. I argue that the sign structure of the natural year is an example of emergence, defined as “the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems.” The stable regular cycles of the day and year produce emergent cycles. The term ‘logical’ is redundant in my phrase, because all emergent cycles are logical by definition, caused by self-organisation in complex systems. Over the billions of years of earth’s stable orbit, the emergent structures of the annual cycle are embedded in all complex systems of life.My claim here is that the four ‘elements’ and the three ‘qualities’ combine to form twelve unique phases in the tropical year. I apologise for continuing to use these obsolete descriptors from astrology, it is simply that I believe astrology has an intuitive grasp of a natural cycle. For example, the description of the month following the March equinox as ‘cardinal fire’ looks to me to have an informative potential regarding the emergent cycle of the year. The goal is to show that the twelve signs of the zodiac have an empirical effect, ie that there are discernable average differences and similarities between them. Population level epidemiological study of births, deaths and marriages could yet demonstrate the existence of the annual sign cycle. Such findings have so far eluded research, showing only that the signs are too weak, if they exist at all, to be proven. http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/s-crit2.htm is a good paper from a site critical of astrology that shows how a massive effort to find sign data failed to convince critical statisticians. I hope you can forgive my persistence on this question, as my supposition remains that the signs exist but are too weak to be shown in crude studies. Michel Gauqelin demonstrated the existence of planetary effects but found no evidence for the signs. My view is that the signs are a natural pattern for the earth, but they are so hidden beneath the mundane static that statistical demonstration is very difficult. I still think it should be possible to design experiments whereby astrologers will be able to consistently guess people’s sun sign at better than chance, as long as such experiments are designed collaboratively unlike the flawed Carlson work (see Famous Test of Astrology Is Seriously Flawed) Yes, there is a close link between my propositions and astrology, but no, I do not think the stars have an effect on people, as the stars are too far away. My efforts here are directed to showing that cyclic patterns in human life are congruent with the actual cyclic rhythms of the earth and the solar system. In suggesting the Great Year exhibits a structure, I make no comment about the detailed symbolic elaborations of astrology. My claim regarding the Great Year is that the broad thematic structure of the Zodiacal Ages, for example the current slow transition from an Age of Belief (Pisces) to an Age of Knowledge (Aquarius), matches the Vedic theory of the Yuga, whereby our planet is now on an improving trajectory towards a Golden Age in some 10,000 years.

This has to be about the most patronising comment you could imagine. Good to see Baut encourages robust debate! Obviously I have not explained myself clearly enough. The original comment from Northern Boy which prompted this response was "with your sine wave contentions, you have taken a continuous function, applied an arbitrary set of divisions on it to match the number of names that you want to see, and then claimed that this is somehow representative of the physical world. If anything, a sine wave can be broken down into about 6.3 "natural" pieces. Your taking it as having three makes no sense."

With great respect, dividing a sine wave in three is at the basis of musical harmonics. The tonic note (eg C 256 Hz) vibrates a column of air in a sine wave, and the dominant note (eg G 384 Hz)) divides a column of air with a sine wave frequency 3/2 times the tonic wavelength. Harmonic resonance is produced by the exact factor relationship between the two frequencies. You may be discussing a completely different field of harmonic theory with your suggestion that a sine wave can be broken into 6.3 natural pieces, but this 6.3 division seems to me to be irrelevant to the question of whether harmonic resonance can be postulated in temporal cycles.

The precession of a spinning planet follows a sine wave, with the position of the sun at the equinox tracing a sine wave path through the sky along the ecliptic. The celestial equator is a straight line with the ecliptic a sinusoidal function of it. The year and the day present this sine function more clearly than the slow pattern of precession. The length of the day plots to a sine curve with turning points at the solstices and inflection points at the equinoxes. My point here is that if we consider this wave function as a temporal descriptor of the earth, it is reasonable to consider the mathematically resonant multiple waves, those which like musical harmonics are derived from exact integer multiples, as having a theoretical existence. This idea of temporal harmonics functions as an axiom for understanding the theory of the tropical signs, with the rhythm of the earth establishing a twelve-fold cycle based on the solstices and equinoxes.

An organ pipe at low pitch, where harmonics are not suppressed, produces the notes whose frequencies are an exact multiple of the fundamental note. Considering how C 64 Hz produces higher notes, the note G 768 Hz is produced as the twelfth harmonic of the fundament, but also the 3rd and 6th harmonics of the octave harmonics 2 and 4, and the second and fourth harmonic of the dominant harmonics 3 and 6. The twelfth harmonic is therefore stronger than other notes in its range. This analogy explains why the zodiac naturally divides in twelve - the sine wave function of the year has harmonic cusp points at each change of signs in the tropical cycle.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Please see attached temporal model of the earth. This model provides an informative empirical depiction of the stable temporal pattern of our planet. In addition to the astronomical depiction of the movement of the equinoxes and the poles against the stars over the cycle of the Great Year, this version of the model shows how the Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune conjunction cycle occurs in families with twelve events each Age. It also includes interpretive terms for the themes of the Ages, and shows how this astronomical cycle matches the Yuga cycle of Vedic astrology.

Attached Thumbnails