Precessional Cosmology

[Robert Tulip]

1. Precession of the equinox presents a cosmological framework with significant resonance to a weak but real harmonic structure produced by the earth’s annual cycle.
2. Scientific cosmology operates at such big and long scales that human magnitudes seem vanishingly small. There are the equivalent of 500 million human generations since the big bang, and three million million million earth equators to the furthest visible object. Against this context, there is value in also studying cosmological structures of more comprehensible scale than the whole universe, with a view to finding intermediate scales of time and space that have cosmological significance.
3. Precession of the earth’s equinox, the ~25,800 year periodic wobble of the planetary axis, provides such an intermediate cosmological structure. Measurement of precession is a mainstream topic in astronomy, as explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precess..._the_equinoxes. My approach studies precession from a geocentric harmonic perspective. I argue this provides a fruitful scientific cosmology based on resonance between precessional cycles and the earth’s annual cycle.
4. ‘Geocentric’ is used here in a legitimate scientific sense to recognise that all human thought is a product of terrestrial evolution, that all our knowledge occurs within a terrestrial perspective, and most importantly, that simple temporal wave structures observed from and defined by earth are real. We look at the universe from our planet, for both objective science and for everyday markers of ordinary time such as sunrise and sunset. The structure of time is geocentric in its basic levels of measurement, and this basic measure has an important place within a coherent scientific framework. Not only are geocentric rhythms such as the day and year physically real, but they have wave structures that resonate at multiple levels.
5. Each day, we can observe the ‘rotation’ of the galaxy about our seemingly fixed point. The daily rhythm of sun and stars structures ordinary time, producing illusions such as ‘sunset’ and ‘sunrise’. The next levels of ordinary time are the week and month marked by the phases of the moon, and the year, marked by the apparent movement of the sun around the cycle of the equinoxes and solstices. Looking at cosmic time from this human framework, precession of the equinox, the slow shift of the seasons against the stars of the zodiac, is a next order of magnitude after the day and the year, structuring terrestrial time.
6. The framework explained here is grounded in pure mathematics, starting from the rhythm of the year. The zodiac star chart at Attachment 1 illustrates the annual sine wave movement of the sun as seen from earth. The structure of the seasons causes annual sinusoidal oscillation in both the length of the day and the position of the sun in relation to the celestial equator. On the chart, the solstices are the stationary points of this sine wave and the equinoxes are its points of inflection. Another way of mapping this sine wave is by charting the length of the day. http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...conds-2007.jpg illustrates a stationary point of the day length curve at the December solstice. Earth’s annual rhythm has four points of change, traditionally accepted as the first dates of each temperate season at about the 21st day of March, June, September and December. Geometrically, the earth’s orbit is a near-circular ellipse divided by these four points of change.
7. Drawing the orbit of the earth in simplified terms as a circle in space, lines can be drawn through the sun to connect the positions of the earth at solstice and equinox points, making a cross in space. These four points have existed physically for billions of years, and are imbedded in the adaptive ecology of the earth, structuring annual cycles of plants and animals. A harmonic geometry with real cosmological significance can be derived from these four points.
8. The picture at Attachment 2 is a purely scientific derivation of the twelve signs of the tropical zodiac from this mathematical foundation. The circle is the earth’s annual orbit, and the central cross connects the solstices and equinoxes. The step required to derive the signs applies harmonic theory, taking the first three harmonics of the circle to inscribe four equilateral triangles in the circle based on the four turning points of the year. The claim is that each of the four turning points exhibits harmonic resonance with the two points on the orbit which are equilateral to it. These four triangles divide the circle into twelve equal segments and define the physics of the twelve signs of the tropical zodiac.
9. The musical analogy of a guitar string provides an explanatory image for this harmonic theory. The open string or first harmonic represents the whole orbit, the second harmonic at the bisect point of the string represents the opposite point of the orbit, and the third harmonics, at the two points one and two thirds along the string, represent the points one and two thirds of the way around earth’s orbit from each of the four turning points. Higher harmonics also exist, but are much weaker, and are not considered further for the purpose of this analysis.
10. Whether or not this depiction has any effect beyond this mathematical structure, these twelve points of the orbit are imbedded in the empirical temporal framework of the earth and have been basically unchanged since the dawn of life. This physics demonstrates that the tropical signs are not ‘emanations from the stars’ as depicted in some folk traditions and in claims that precession refutes astrology, but are pure mathematical products of the annual relation between the earth and the sun. This is a useful piece of information in itself, given the common error (recently repeated here http://www.bautforum.com/1116991-post125.html at Baut) where scientists suggest that precession of the equinox refutes sign theory.
11. Science has of course not found any demonstrable physical influence from these four equilateral triangles defining the signs. Certainly, if there is any influence it is very weak as it has not to date been proven empirically despite popular use in horoscopes. It is still however an open question whether proof of such a weak effect could be obtained from large scale statistical studies.
12. These four triangles are part of a stable rhythmic wave pattern with the same duration as the earth-moon system. Considered as four factors which form the annual cycle, they can be visualized as demonstrating the physics of the four ‘elements’ of fire, earth, air and water, not in any metaphysical or alchemical sense, but as simple mathematics, with the permanent rhythm involving monthly succession of these four ‘elements’ in this same order. As well, each season has three signs, producing a threefold rhythm or triplicity, traditionally known as cardinal, fixed and mutable. The cardinal signs are the first of each season, the fixed signs are at the middle of each season, and the mutable signs are the last of each season. This triplicity interacts with the fourfold ‘elemental’ rhythm to produce twelve unique combinations each year. So Aries is defined mathematically as the combination of fire and cardinality, Pisces as mutable water, Aquarius as fixed air, etc.
13. In the rhythm of the year, the four-fold division of solstices and equinoxes is obvious, but the claimed further division in three to produce twelve signs is a mathematical observation of uncertain effect. The cusp of Pisces to Aries is the inflection point in March of the curves mapping the length of the day and the movement of the sun from south to north across the celestial equator, but the next cusp, of Aries to Taurus, is simply the point equilateral to both the stationary point between Sagittarius and Capricorn at the December solstice and to the cusp of Leo to Virgo.
14. Whatever its empirical influence, this twelve fold annual cycle has happened with clockwork regularity more than four billion times, producing a stable law-like rhythm within which all life on earth has evolved. My key argument here is that this rhythm produces a weak but real harmonic structure, and that this harmonic structure can be mapped on to the apparent precession of the sun around this cycle vis-à-vis the fixed zodiacal stars of the galaxy. The precessional cycle has happened more than 150,000 times (4 billion/25,800 years), and this long stability gives grounds to explore how it may be imbedded in deep biological rhythms. Traditionally, the precessional cycle is known as the Great Year, while the one twelfth divisions of this period, each about 2152 years, are known as Ages, or Cosmic Months.
15. In claiming that a precessional cosmology is meaningful, I argue that each of the >150,000 cycles since the birth of earth has reinforced the ‘mapping’ of terrestrial genes onto an underlying rhythmic niche by resonance with the stable wave structure of the year. Just as the sun has traveled around the zodiac four billion times, so it has also traversed the same path much more slowly 150,000 times due to precession. My hypothesis suggests that, like all chaotic natural systems, these cosmic structures have a unique directionality established at their origin, and flowing through to all levels, and that this directionality suggests the precessional cycle is mapped in a real physical sense to the annual cycle. These long precessional cycles, with each wave period of 26,000 years containing movement of the equinoctial point through all twelve sidereal signs, each also contain 26,000 instances of the annual solar cycle through the signs. Based on the physics of harmonic resonance, notably in music, these two main temporal cycles of the earth and sun against the galaxy would resonate, with the precessional cycle functioning like a deep ‘overtone’ of the annual cycle, just as all harmonic divisions of a musical note are physically and mathematically present in the sound waves produced. Such a linkage would require a directionality, with the great year of precession divided into twelve ages which correspond to the twelve signs.
16. Hence we have a cosmology which is large, encompassing the history of the earth, and scientifically coherent, but not so immense that it cannot be related to history. This historic linkage means that considering the possible meaning of each 2152 year period against events is a productive project. The natural start and end point of the annual cycle is the end of winter and the start of spring, i.e. in the Northern Hemisphere the cusp of Pisces to Aries. Similarly, my hypothesis suggests that the directional structure of the Great Year maps on to the annual cycle. The question is how to discern this directionality, i.e. how to tell when the natural start of the Great Year occurs. Traditionally, this point is understood as the moment between BCE and CE dates 2007 years ago. There are a number of religious images which have an elegant fit with this cosmology (eg Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega), but their use to illustrate it may be outside of the scope of this board. I would, however, like to note the elegant fit of this cosmology with the theory of the Age of Aquarius. Assuming the BCE/CE point as the beginning and end of the Great Year, the March equinox has since been precessing through Pisces and will arrive in Aquarius in about 2152 CE. Interestingly, tradition ascribes to Pisces the theme of belief and to Aquarius the theme of knowledge.
17. Hence, in conclusion, precessional cosmology suggests we are coming towards the end of an age of belief (ie where belief is the ruling principle of the world) and towards the start of a new age of knowledge, which could be interpreted as a coming time when scientific understanding will be decisive in public policy.
Robert Tulip

[Hornblower]

Can you show us some quantitative support for your ideas, whatever they might be?

[Robert Tulip]

Can you show us some quantitative support for your ideas, whatever they might be?

Thank you for your question. My opening post presents claims about the astrophysics of the tropical zodiac based on the two attached diagrams which are purely empirical.

The first diagram (Diagram One – Ecliptic Wave) shows the ecliptic, the celestial equator and background stars to illustrate the sun–earth wave function operating at frequencies of both one cycle per year and one cycle per great year. These wave lengths are well known. For the wavelength one cycle per year, the stationary points of the sine curve are the solstices and the inflection points are the equinoxes. For wavelength one cycle per great year, the corresponding turning points are not known with certainty. My post introduces this as a problem in cosmology to explore how the great year may be considered as a directional structure of the galaxy. I note possible ideas about the dates of these turning points based on inductive cultural correlations but they are far from proven.

Diagram Two (Physics of the Signs) is a simple mathematical extrapolation from Diagram One, taking the four turning points of the sine curve in diagram one as the four points where the cross intersects the circle. I have included pictures of the earth at each of these four points, taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:North_season.jpg, to illustrate the angle of the planetary axis at the equinoxes and solstices.

To help visualize the quantification of my previous comments about celestial harmonics, consider the operation of harmonic resonance in an acoustic structure such as a cathedral. For example, if a loud organ note is played at wavelength one cycle per second (one hertz), this sub-sonic noise will resonate through all objects in the space. People can feel it but not hear it. The 1Hz wavelength also produces overtones at all whole multiples, 2, 3, 4, …n. The overtones diminish in strength as n increases, but overtones which are regular powers of small primes are stronger than large primes. For example 256Hz = 2 to the power of 8 = the note C, and is an overtone of all smaller frequencies which are also powers of 2. So the C string of a cello would sound in resonant sympathetic vibration in the presence of the subsonic note 1Hz.

My mathematical hypothesis is that the four turning points of the day length wave produced by the earth’s orbit can be similarly considered as producing resonant wavelength overtones analogous to a subsonic organ note, but with much slower frequencies, and at planetary scale. The full frequency length (one year or one great year) equates to the fundamental tone or first harmonic, where the natural cycle returns to the same point (eg solstice). At the annual level, in the cycles of the earth this wavelength is observed in all natural annual patterns of life and climate. The second harmonic, with wavelength six months, indicates the relation between the two opposite solstices or equinoxes. The third harmonic, with wavelength four months, dividing the year in precisely three, produces the physics of the tropical signs as explained in my opening post.

[eburacum45]

Astronomers already know the Earth goes round the Sun, and about the ecliptic and precession, or so I believe; what effects do you think these 'harmonics' are having in the real world?

And could they be demonstrated? And more importantly could they be falsified, if by any unfortunate chance, there was no effect?

[hhEb09'1]

The structure of time is geocentric in its basic levels of measurement, and this basic measure has an important place within a coherent scientific framework.

That may have been true a long time ago, and historically, but no longer. The basic measure of time is the second, which has no connection to terrestrial events, in the way that you are referring to terrestrial events.

Geometrically, the earth’s orbit is a near-circular ellipse divided by these four points of change.

While it is certainly true that the earth's orbit is nearly circular (it deviates from a circular path by not much more than its diameter if I recall), but the center of that circle is offset from the sun by over a million miles, some six times the distance to the moon. That causes the earth to speed and slow in its orbit as it gets closer to and farther from the sun.

The circle is the earth’s annual orbit, and the central cross connects the solstices and equinoxes. The step required to derive the signs applies harmonic theory, taking the first three harmonics of the circle to inscribe four equilateral triangles in the circle based on the four turning points of the year. The claim is that each of the four turning points exhibits harmonic resonance with the two points on the orbit which are equilateral to it. These four triangles divide the circle into twelve equal segments and define the physics of the twelve signs of the tropical zodiac.

Because of the reason mentioned above, there is not really that nice of a symmetry.

This physics demonstrates that the tropical signs are not ‘emanations from the stars’ as depicted in some folk traditions and in claims that precession refutes astrology, but are pure mathematical products of the annual relation between the earth and the sun. This is a useful piece of information in itself, given the common error (recently repeated here http://www.bautforum.com/1116991-post125.html at Baut) where scientists suggest that precession of the equinox refutes sign theory.

Some people are just ignerint.

11. Science has of course not found any demonstrable physical influence from these four equilateral triangles defining the signs. Certainly, if there is any influence it is very weak as it has not to date been proven empirically despite popular use in horoscopes. It is still however an open question whether proof of such a weak effect could be obtained from large scale statistical studies.

From the studies, we can say that it is weak enough that any predictive power it has is completely swamped by the astrological noise.

Considered as four factors which form the annual cycle, they can be visualized as demonstrating the physics of the four ‘elements’ of fire, earth, air and water, not in any metaphysical or alchemical sense, but as simple mathematics, with the permanent rhythm involving monthly succession of these four ‘elements’ in this same order.

In other words, you're simply re-naming "three" as "air" or something? If there is no metaphysical or alchemical sense to it, it seems to be just adding to the astrological confusion.

14. Whatever its empirical influence, this twelve fold annual cycle has happened with clockwork regularity more than four billion times, producing a stable law-like rhythm within which all life on earth has evolved.

As I mentioned earlier, the offset of the sun from the center of the circle causes a deviation from the regularity such that if you had a timepiece with that "clockwork regularity" you'd have tossed it to the street with the trash.

[R.A.F.]

Another astrology thread???

No need to waste my time here...

[Maksutov]

It's really something about the number of words that can be used to describe nothing.

Meanwhile, to fold the subject in upon itself, there's only one sign that properly describes astrology. It's found between the ram and the twins.

Now back to the science threads.

Bye.

[Hornblower]

Meanwhile, to fold the subject in upon itself, there's only one sign that properly describes astrology. It's found between the ram and the twins.

Great remark, Maksutov. I almost split a gut laughing.

[Warren Platts]

Now back to the science threads.

Bye.

Back to Off-Topic Babbling is more like it.

[R.A.F.]

Back to Off-Topic Babbling is more like it.

Gee, Mak...what did you do to Warren?...kill his puppy or something?

[Maksutov]

Gee, Mak...what did you do to Warren?...kill his puppy or something?

Doggone it!

[Robert Tulip]

Astronomers already know the Earth goes round the Sun, and about the ecliptic and precession, or so I believe; what effects do you think these 'harmonics' are having in the real world? And could they be demonstrated? And more importantly could they be falsified, if by any unfortunate chance, there was no effect?

These are good questions. I hope my attempt at answer will make sense to you. This is a complicated and unusual claim, so please let me know if I use terms in ways that are not clear (as per my comments on time and the elements in response to hhEb09'1 below). I thank anyone with the patience and interest to keep with me on this discussion as it opens an area of theory that has not been pursued rigorously to date.

My intention is to produce a falsifiable case for these effects. Initially I am trying to present a mathematical case for their possibility, both to show in principle that such natural rhythms could in fact exist, and to show that the annual natural rhythm is built into the longer rhythm of precession. There is an element here of cleaning out cultural debris, especially since this area of study is beset by folk tradition and false belief.

Working out how to apply falsifiability in this area is quite complicated. For example, Phil Plait at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/zodiac.html and http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html has disproved the theory that astrology is caused by the stars by pointing out, inter alia, that the constellation of Ophiuchus crosses the zodiac. The apparent constellations have no internal organic connection, so the traditional naïve image of the signs as ‘caused’ by the stars is false. I argue that no such disproof of my claims is possible because I think my claims are scientifically coherent and true. Of course I would welcome analytic debate on this. The issue regarding falsification is whether any possible evidence would disprove my claims. (A flippant example using your comment is that the earth careering towards Mars would falsify current laws of physics. We 'know' this won’t happen but it is a logical possibility of how a theory might be falsified). Most traditional astrology is of course not falsifiable which is why it is not science. I am arguing that a regular change in the cycle of the year (something like a shudder?) occurs at the four natural turning points, and that the mathematical harmonics of this effect produce the signs, as observed and elaborated in the folk traditions, and that this effect produces a longer deep cycle of Ages structured by precession. A gradual shift of world politics over the next two centuries from a basis in belief to a basis in knowledge would provide inductive support for my precessional claim, but establishing whether it is falsifiable will be quite complicated. The models of ball and cross below expand on this response.

Regarding your question on demonstration, my view is that empirical proof of a harmonic sign theory will require large datasets, as these effects, despite their permanence, are extremely weak and are generally swamped by terrestrial factors. Gunther Sachs in The Astrology File presents the only argument I have seen claiming statistical verification of tropical signs, but his methods are disputed. Michel Gauquelin found extensive statistical planetary effects but no sun sign effects, and his planetary findings were replicated under hostile peer review. I am confident that well constructed studies would demonstrate correlations between, for example, period of the moon and rain data, plant growth rates against moon sign and phase, and population health indicators against a range of cosmic cycles. None of these studies have been done to my knowledge. The examples cited by Phil Plait show the incompetence of astrologers under laboratory conditions, but these tests have sought to measure very complicated psychological effects and I do not agree that they disprove an underlying cosmic rhythm. Large scale simple statistical studies such as those I suggest here would verify (or falsify?) the hypothesis that planetary rhythms produce significant ecological effects corresponding to the tropical signs.

Consider the following model. A spinning ball in a pool of water, powered to maintain constant velocity, is analogous to our planet earth held in position in space by solar gravity. Assuming some surface perturbation and friction, the ball’s rotation will produce a regular wave in the surrounding liquid with frequency based on the speed of spin. For this model the spin is considered as analogous to the year rather than the day. A constant regular wobble of the ball’s axis, akin to precession, will produce a regular secondary wave motion in the surrounding liquid. For any life that evolves on the ball, these wave motions in the surrounding water will be environmental constants, just as temperature, air pressure and atmospheric composition are, but with cycles that are much more regular, large, weak and deep. By the logic of evolution, assuming the pool is a closed system of long duration, all these constant factors will be built in to the replication structure (DNA) of any life on the ball. Over 100 generations the difference between entities existing at the trough and peak of the precessional wave will be negligible. Over 1.5 trillion generations (~daily algal production since dawn of life), it is conceivable that cumulative adaptation to this very weak environmental signal will become measurable. The annual spin will produce waves with frequency that are a constant multiple of the waves produced by the wobble, especially if the spin is a tiny fraction of the wobble period (eg 1/25,800). I argue that the annual wave function will map on to the slower wave produced by the precessional wobble.

In thinking this through to respond to your question, I have prepared the attached diagram, with the earth depicted as a cross orbiting the sun. Assume for the purpose of this model that the cross does not itself spin on its axis, but presents one of its beams perpendicular to the direction of orbit at each of the four marked turning points. In the diagram, the orange beams produce the two solsticial waves and the blue beams produce the two equinoctial waves. As per the previous ball model, setting this up in a pool of water will produce waves which are strongest at each of the turning points, as shown, with the crossbeams operating as ‘paddles’ with precisely three months between strokes. After long constant circulation (say 4.6 billion rotations) the wave produced at each turning point would be deeply imbedded within all complex features of the system. My claim regarding the harmonics of this model is that each of the four turning points would produce a wave with one cycle per orbit. These waves can be considered as natural harmonics, which produce overtones (waves of whole multiple frequency). The first overtone of this cosmic wave that does not map directly on to the other turning points is the wave with triple frequency. As explained previously, the four triple frequency waves generated by the four turning points of the earth produce the cusps of the signs.

[Robert Tulip]

The basic measure of time is the second, which has no connection to terrestrial events, in the way that you are referring to terrestrial events.

This comment opens up the definition of time, ie whether time is inherent in nature or is solely a function of human knowledge. By ‘basic’ I did not mean ‘scientifically precise and constant’ but ‘underlying source’. The second is a scientifically precise human construct, whereas the sign, the year and the great year are natural cycles of time imbedded in all complex systems of earth. The second derives from division of the day by 86,400, even if for modern physics it has been decoupled from its natural origin because the variance within the day length does not serve the needs of science for precision. For the scales and rhythms I am discussing the exact precision of the caesium second is not relevant.

While it is certainly true that the earth's orbit is nearly circular (it deviates from a circular path by not much more than its diameter if I recall), but the center of that circle is offset from the sun by over a million miles, some six times the distance to the moon. That causes the earth to speed and slow in its orbit as it gets closer to and farther from the sun.

This oscillation in planetary velocity would not affect the existence of a wave structure produced by the seasonal turning points of the orbit. It might cause a small variance in the period of the signs (eg a solstice may be 3.01 months after the preceeding equinox rather than exactly 3 months). This effect should be factored in to the exact determination of sign cusp time. In any case, each secondary cusp (ie the eight of the twelve that are not at one of the four seasonal points) is produced by resonance to one of the turning points, not to two or more.

Because of the reason mentioned above, there is not really that nice of a symmetry.

This is a simplified schematic model produced for purpose of illustrating a theory. Of course the actual elliptical reality requires adjustment.

In other words, you're simply re-naming "three" as "air" or something? If there is no metaphysical or alchemical sense to it, it seems to be just adding to the astrological confusion.

The attached diagram shows the interaction of elemental and seasonal zodiacal wave functions to produce the signs. My suggestion regarding the 'elements' is to visualise the rhythms of the year as sine waves with one cycle per four months, interpreted as harmonic products of the annual waves based on the four turning points. A sine curve has four phases. In order these are: ascending positive, descending positive, descending negative and ascending negative. Historically the sign mapping of these phases, within this new scheme I am presenting, is identified with the four alchemical elements, fire, earth, air and water. Of course you are right that this would be an obsolete identification to argue in physical terms. I want to avoid the cultural debris of obsolete ideas while remaining open to the possibility they may have some meaning. At this stage I am using the four elements and seasonal triplicity for ease of reference and imagery – ie Gemini is defined as mutable air. An alternative suggested by your comment is to define Gemini as (33) where the two numbers represent the position of the sign within the triple and quadruple divisions of the year. Using this latter method, which may be more scientifically congenial, we would have the following pattern of twelve unique combinations from Aries (11) to Pisces (34): 11, 22, 33, 14, 21, 32, 13, 24, 31, 12, 23, 34, repeated annually with constant regularity. The corresponding codes on the attached are: CF, FE, MA, CW, FF, ME, CA, FW, MF, CE, FA, MW.

As I mentioned earlier, the offset of the sun from the center of the circle causes a deviation from the regularity such that if you had a timepiece with that "clockwork regularity" you'd have tossed it to the street with the trash.

Sure, having a clock that goes fast and slow depending on the velocity of the earth would be quite inconvenient for our daily human use, but, in a sense I am arguing that just such a clock has been dealt to us by nature, so it is useful to try to understand it. As I noted above, if ellipticity causes less than a few hours difference in the length of time between the four turning points of the year, and these differences are entirely predictable and regular, that still counts as clockwork for these purposes.

[hhEb09'1]

This comment opens up the definition of time, ie whether time is inherent in nature or is solely a function of human knowledge. By ‘basic’ I did not mean ‘scientifically precise and constant’ but ‘underlying source’.

I was responding to your comment "The structure of time is geocentric in its basic levels of measurement, and this basic measure has an important place within a coherent scientific framework." That may be your thesis, but so far it is not established. As I pointed out (and you agreed there), the basis for our measure of time has not been geocentric for a long time.

For the scales and rhythms I am discussing the exact precision of the caesium second is not relevant.

I'm behind your investigations 100 percent, but I don't think you should assert your thesis before it is proved, that's all. We haven't seen much support for the geocentric measure of time, as you seem to mean it, having "an important place within a coherent scientific framework."

It might cause a small variance in the period of the signs (eg a solstice may be 3.01 months after the preceeding equinox rather than exactly 3 months).

I'm not sure what exactly 3 months would be (what is an exact month? ), but looking at my starware ephemeris, it says that the next solstice is followed by the next equinox very close to 89 days later. However, the solstice after that waits over 93 and a half days for the next equinox. That's a difference of a bit more than 0.01 month--more than 0.15 month, probably.

Sure, having a clock that goes fast and slow depending on the velocity of the earth would be quite inconvenient for our daily human use, but, in a sense I am arguing that just such a clock has been dealt to us by nature, so it is useful to try to understand it.

That's what I want to do

As I noted above, if ellipticity causes less than a few hours difference in the length of time between the four turning points of the year, and these differences are entirely predictable and regular, that still counts as clockwork for these purposes.

As I said, it seems to be a few days, rather than a few hours.

[Hornblower]

Consider the following model. A spinning ball in a pool of water, powered to maintain constant spin rate, is analogous to our planet earth held in position in space by solar gravity.

This pretty well sums up my opinion of your writing, which appears to show a vivid imagination but a serious lack of understanding of basic physics. Our spinning planet is not being powered to maintain a constant velocity, and its gravitationally bound orbital motion is dynamically very different from static floating in a pool of water.

I could go on and on, but I do not wish to waste the time and effort. In my opinion your posts belong in the medieval era, before Copernicus and others began restoring physics to the line of thought about the movements in the universe around us.

[R.A.F.]

...the solstice after that waits over 93 and a half days for the next equinox.

What do you mean by "waits"???

[hhEb09'1]

What do you mean by "waits"???

To work for sub-minimum wage, and tips. I'm anthropomorphizing the celestial events.

[Robert Tulip]

This pretty well sums up my opinion of your writing, which appears to show a vivid imagination but a serious lack of understanding of basic physics. Our spinning planet is not being powered to maintain a constant velocity, and its gravitationally bound orbital motion is dynamically very different from static floating in a pool of water. I could go on and on, but I do not wish to waste the time and effort. In my opinion your posts belong in the medieval era, before Copernicus and others began restoring physics to the line of thought about the movements in the universe around us.

You have taken my example out of context, and I apologise for my lack of clarity. The purpose of this example was not to suggest an alternative to the physics of orbital motion, but to illustrate by a visual model how a wobbling top will generate complex wave functions in a permanently stable context. This applies whether it is a ball in a pool of water or a planet in space. The annual wave function of our planet is observable in its effects on surface cycles such as temperature, plant growth, etc. The purpose of this crude model was to illustrate how this annual wave could contribute to the internal structure of a much longer wave function produced by the axial wobble. This is a legitimate empirical hypothesis which has been ignored due to ‘guilt by association’ with pre-modern concepts. Looking back at these older thought forms, it is legitimate to ask if their wholesale rejection by science may have dismissed some ideas, such as the signs, which reflect an unknown underlying mathematical reality.

[R.A.F.]

This is a legitimate empirical hypothesis which has been ignored due to ‘guilt by association’ with pre-modern concepts.

Sound like the same "excuse" you use for why astrology isn't taken seriously...imagine that.

Looking back at these older thought forms, it is legitimate to ask if their wholesale rejection by science may have dismissed some ideas, such as the signs, which reflect an unknown underlying mathematical reality.

...because it couldn't possibly be bacause of a lack of credible evidence...right???


Sheesh...

[R.A.F.]

To work for sub-minimum wage, and tips. I'm anthropomorphizing the celestial events.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] The annual wave function of our planet is observable in its effects on surface cycles such as temperature, plant growth, etc. The purpose of this crude model was to illustrate how this annual wave could contribute to the internal structure of a much longer wave function produced by the axial wobble. This is a legitimate empirical hypothesis which has been ignored due to ‘guilt by association’ with pre-modern concepts.

Unfortunately you wreck your own case by bringing in the earth-air-water-fire, fixed-mutable-cardinal twaddle from traditional long-discredited western-style astrology.

Looking back at these older thought forms, it is legitimate to ask if their wholesale rejection by science may have dismissed some ideas, such as the signs, which reflect an unknown underlying mathematical reality.

The equinoxes and solstices have obvious meanings; the signs do not. Twelve is a convenient number for division, but so are 24 and 30 and many others. For example, Chinese astrology divides the sky into 28 mansions of heaven, representing (roughly) the motion of the Moon in one day. Anything beyond the solstices and equinoxes is purely arbitrary.

[Robert Tulip]

I was responding to your comment "The structure of time is geocentric in its basic levels of measurement, and this basic measure has an important place within a coherent scientific framework." That may be your thesis, but so far it is not established. As I pointed out (and you agreed there), the basis for our measure of time has not been geocentric for a long time.

I'm behind your investigations 100 percent, but I don't think you should assert your thesis before it is proved, that's all. We haven't seen much support for the geocentric measure of time, as you seem to mean it, having "an important place within a coherent scientific framework." I'm not sure what exactly 3 months would be (what is an exact month? ), but looking at my starware ephemeris, it says that the next solstice is followed by the next equinox very close to 89 days later. However, the solstice after that waits over 93 and a half days for the next equinox. That's a difference of a bit more than 0.01 month--more than 0.15 month, probably.That's what I want to do As I said, it seems to be a few days, rather than a few hours.

Hi hhEb09'1, and thanks for these comments which I have been wrestling with. There are two issues here, the meaning of coherence and the science of the signs.

My use of the phrase “a coherent scientific framework” contains the assumption that a grounding of scientific cosmology in natural cosmic rhythm will contribute to the coherence of science. This opens problems in epistemology, primarily that conventional epistemology routinely defines truth as a function of coherent description or representation rather than a function of things themselves. Conventionally, scientific knowledge is of concepts, not of reality, hence the Kantian distinction between phenomena as knowable and noumena as unknowable. My view is that this standard distinction results in a confusion between the concept and the reality. In the case here, the measurement of time, the scientific second is a powerful conceptual tool for observing deep order within nature, through an exact common reference. However, the underlying noumenal reality is the effluxion of time, while the concept is the phenomenal unit of measurement. Analytical coherence requires the second as an arbitrary exact unit. This order is primarily theoretical or ideal, rather than being primarily inherent in nature itself. The gain in explanatory consistency and simplicity can be at the expense of power. By contrast, natural rhythms such as the year and day are unquestionably part of nature itself, but their complexity and variance makes them unsuitable as precise scientific measures. My approach is to ask if these natural rhythms actually generate longer and shorter cycles which could be quantified and observed. If so, this is a contribution to coherence. My hypothesis is that the geocentric rhythms I am describing are part of the universe itself and that exploring their complexity can help us to understand the real structure of time. This opens a tension in the meaning of coherent between ‘explaining what is real’ and ‘internally consistent’, ie between ‘coherence with reality’ and ‘coherence with other ideas’. Two examples to illustrate this epistemological problem derive from Einstein’s comment that God does not play dice and from the musical method of equal tuning. I will come back to these later.

Regarding the science of the signs, I now see your point about why my model has problems, in that it generates cusp points which vary from the exact thirty degree points used in conventional tropical cusps. This is germane to the comments in the previous paragraph that exploring rhythmic complexity can help understand temporal structure, and that concept is often taken for reality. My hypothesis is that the four turning points of the year establish a basic harmonic temporal rhythm for the earth, and that more complex rhythms are like overtones. The exact 30° convention is conceptually simple, but if its physical basis is in the four turning points, then it is not exact. As you point out, by taking the starting point at the equinox, the 90° point will not exactly match the solstice. My view is that the solstices should in fact be physical sign cusps, and furthermore, that the solstices and equinoxes should generate the cusps at 120° from each of the four turning points to generate the twelve signs. By this method, the six fire and air cusps will be the same as convention because they are harmonics of the equinoxes, but the six water and earth cusps will move slightly to align with the solstices. Hence the sine waves discussed in my next post, generated by equal 30° division, may be inexact.

[Robert Tulip]

Unfortunately you wreck your own case by bringing in the earth-air-water-fire, fixed-mutable-cardinal twaddle from traditional long-discredited western-style astrology.

The equinoxes and solstices have obvious meanings; the signs do not. Twelve is a convenient number for division, but so are 24 and 30 and many others. For example, Chinese astrology divides the sky into 28 mansions of heaven, representing (roughly) the motion of the Moon in one day. Anything beyond the solstices and equinoxes is purely arbitrary.

The division by twelve is far from arbitrary. The diagram I attached at http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...sine-waves.jpg expands on my basic claim that the twelve signs are the next level of physical cycle produced by the equinoxes and solstices. This underpins my objective to argue that the twelve signs are imbedded in the longer precessional cycle. The following explanation shows how the signs are a physical product of the second and third harmonics of the year.

Consider the year as like a bisected guitar string with one half the summer and the other half the winter months. A sine curve of this note (the second harmonic of the string) has wavelength one year. The third harmonic, trisecting the string, produces a curve double the blue curve in the attached, analogous to a regular four monthly rhythm trisecting the year. The periods of time when this curve is positive and ascending are the fire signs. Similarly, earth is positive descending, air is negative descending and water is negative ascending. These definitions are simply scientific, although of course the legacy of the elemental labels is unscientific, and as noted in my previous post, the ellipticity of the earth’s orbit produces a complexity regarding the precise location of the cusps. The next musical harmonic, dividing the string in four, similarly produces the pink curve in the attached. Again, the old concepts of cardinal fixed and mutable, known as the qualities, are simple mathematical products of this curve. If each segment of this pink curve is divided in three according to the sign list at the bottom of the table, the cardinal signs are those where the curve is moving away from its axis, the fixed signs are those where the curve stations, and the mutable signs are those where it is moving back to the axis. The interaction of these two simple waves over the course of the year produces the permanent twelve-fold rhythm which we call the tropical signs.

By contrast, divisions other than twelve are much weaker than even this weak fundamental harmonic composition. The attachment to my opening post http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...sics-signs.jpg makes this same point by another route – showing that the twelve signs arise from the simple main threefold division of the year at harmonic points to the solstices and equinoxes. Why is this not arbitrary? By this method we could also divide the year using higher primes such as 5 to produce 20 signs, 7 to produce 28, or even 401 to produce 1604. My point is that the mathematical rhythms produced by these higher divisions are so much weaker than the twelve-fold rhythm produced by division by three, and in any case the physical effect is so weak, that these higher divisions can be discounted. It is worth looking for empirical confirmation of the twelve-fold division before we say that this observation cannot be real because there are also more complex higher rhythms.

[Celestial Mechanic]

The division by twelve is far from arbitrary. The diagram I attached at http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...sine-waves.jpg expands on my basic claim that the twelve signs are the next level of physical cycle produced by the equinoxes and solstices. This underpins my objective to argue that the twelve signs are imbedded in the longer precessional cycle. The following explanation shows how the signs are a physical product of the second and third harmonics of the year.

Consider the year as like a bisected guitar string with one half the summer and the other half the winter months. A sine curve of this note (the second harmonic of the string) has wavelength one year. The third harmonic, trisecting the string, produces a curve double the blue curve in the attached, analogous to a regular four monthly rhythm trisecting the year.

And just what phenomena are governed by "regular four-monthly rhythms"? I don't see any. Do you know of any? In the real world, not in astrological charts.

The periods of time when this curve is positive and ascending are the fire signs.

Why "fire"? Why not "up-quark signs"? Down-quark signs? Electron signs? Electron neutrino signs? You're still speaking in ancient twaddle. Of course don't switch to terminology like up-quark signs, that would just be post-modern twaddle.

Similarly, earth is positive descending, air is negative descending and water is negative ascending. These definitions are simply scientific, although of course the legacy of the elemental labels is unscientific, and as noted in my previous post, the ellipticity of the earth’s orbit produces a complexity regarding the precise location of the cusps. The next musical harmonic, dividing the string in four, similarly produces the pink curve in the attached. Again, the old concepts of cardinal fixed and mutable, known as the qualities, are simple mathematical products of this curve. If each segment of this pink curve is divided in three according to the sign list at the bottom of the table, the cardinal signs are those where the curve is moving away from its axis, the fixed signs are those where the curve stations, and the mutable signs are those where it is moving back to the axis.

But why the quartering of one wave (positive ascending, positive descending etc.) and the trining of the other? Just mysticism and numerology.

The interaction of these two simple waves over the course of the year produces the permanent twelve-fold rhythm which we call the tropical signs.

By contrast, divisions other than twelve are much weaker than even this weak fundamental harmonic composition. The attachment to my opening post http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...sics-signs.jpg makes this same point by another route – showing that the twelve signs arise from the simple main threefold division of the year at harmonic points to the solstices and equinoxes. Why is this not arbitrary? By this method we could also divide the year using higher primes such as 5 to produce 20 signs, 7 to produce 28, or even 401 to produce 1604. My point is that the mathematical rhythms produced by these higher divisions are so much weaker than the twelve-fold rhythm produced by division by three, and in any case the physical effect is so weak, that these higher divisions can be discounted. It is worth looking for empirical confirmation of the twelve-fold division before we say that this observation cannot be real because there are also more complex higher rhythms.

Again, I mention that Chinese astrology uses the 28 mansions of heaven. (I think this is in addition to the twelve zodiacal signs, but I'm not sure, someone correct me please.)

Meanwhile, how about pointing out a few things with a four-month rhythm?

[Robert Tulip]

And just what phenomena are governed by "regular four-monthly rhythms"? I don't see any. Do you know of any? In the real world, not in astrological charts. Why "fire"? Why not "up-quark signs"? Down-quark signs? Electron signs? Electron neutrino signs? You're still speaking in ancient twaddle. Of course don't switch to terminology like up-quark signs, that would just be post-modern twaddle. But why the quartering of one wave (positive ascending, positive descending etc.) and the trining of the other? Just mysticism and numerology. Again, I mention that Chinese astrology uses the 28 mansions of heaven. (I think this is in addition to the twelve zodiacal signs, but I'm not sure, someone correct me please.) Meanwhile, how about pointing out a few things with a four-month rhythm?

The trouble you are pointing out suggests the theory of planetary aspects such as trine and square is without basis. Of course this is part of the notorious scandal of astrology, that it has built a large industry on foundations which to date lack any systemic evidentiary proof, and which are often in flat contradiction to each other and to existing scientific knowledge. Science concludes from this scandal that astrology is obsolete. Phil Plait and all who oppose bad astronomy are quite right to poke fun at this industry, and even express alarm that it diverts attention from reality, while it fails to reconcile its claims with physics. I am suggesting however, that these effects, if they exist at all, such as the four monthly rhythm you question, are so weak that previous methods used to detect them have been inadequate. I can see why superficially you would view any effort to apply mathematics to this problem as tendentious numerology, but I argue there is room to apply scientific method, both in the mathematics of the harmonic theory I have presented here, and in empirical analysis of data.

New statistical approaches are needed to assess these claims, including ways to present data to look for periodic cycles. At http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...ndar-dates.gif I show the monthly cycles for 2007 in an empirical ephemeral format, with the sun passing through one row per month and all planets shown with actual perceived path over the course of the year. Any four-monthly rhythm would produce a ‘topology’ of this empirical diagram. Using any large data set of natural events, such as rain, plant growth or hospital records, a test for a four monthly cycle would require aggregation of data by element. By this I mean that over a long period of time the total data for events occurring during each of the fire, earth, air and water elemental group periods (if I may retain these objectionable labels for convenience) would be tested for statistical significance. I do not know if this has ever been done, but the small study I presented at http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...nets-rain.html discusses suitable methods.

You are right to note that my recent post did not make clear the reason to apply the quarter and third division to the different fractional sine waves. I have claimed in this thread that the sign cusps are the trines of equinoxes and solstices. Therefore the twelve-fold cycle of the signs is derived separately from these sine waves as presented. My purpose in presenting them was to look at what is happening to these fractional waves against the sign cycle. The answer is that for the ¼ sine wave there is a regular 1/3 pattern corresponding to the qualities, while for the 1/3 sine wave there is a regular pattern corresponding to the elements. This is physics, not mysticism.

[Robert Tulip]

ram and the twins

The structure of time I am describing here is real. The attached picture shows 2.5 million years of precession, with approximate dates for human evolution. Each coil is a single precessional cycle over 26,000 years. Our whole human genetic history is inside this spring. My hypothesis is that this long term pattern mirrors the annual pattern of the seasons. The methods I have outlined present a scientific approach to investigating this theory.

BTW – Maksutov and I had an informative exchange on science of the solstice at http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...christmas.html

[Hornblower]

The structure of time I am describing here is real. The attached picture shows 2.5 million years of precession, with approximate dates for human evolution. Each coil is a single precessional cycle over 26,000 years. Our whole human genetic history is inside this spring. My hypothesis is that this long term pattern mirrors the annual pattern of the seasons. The methods I have outlined present a scientific approach to investigating this theory.

BTW – Maksutov and I had an informative exchange on science of the solstice at http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...christmas.html

Please explain what you mean by "the structure of time". All this picture shows is a plot of the axial precession as a function of time, with some evolutionary chronology superimposed on it.

The precession, along with variations in Earth's orbital eccentricity which are caused by the gravitational perturbations of the other planets, causes a long term variation in the amplitude of the annual solar heat variation in each hemisphere. This may contribute to climate changes which could affect hominid evolution. Nothing ATM about that.

What, if anything, does this have to do with your ideas about harmonics?

[Robert Tulip]

Please explain what you mean by "the structure of time". All this picture shows is a plot of the axial precession as a function of time, with some evolutionary chronology superimposed on it. ... What, if anything, does this have to do with your ideas about harmonics?

In response to your request, I am now attaching a table outlining the precessional structure of time as I understand it. This framework is based on my earlier explanations to allocate sign principles to each historic age. For example it suggests we will soon move from the precessional age of belief to an age of knowledge. My purpose in this thread has been to argue that this structure is compatible with scientifically demonstrable observations and presents a useful and meaningful way to frame terrestrial evolution. Hence over the next twelve thousand years we will go through six ages which respectively will be characterised by the principles of knowledge, use, vision, desire, balance and analysis.

Time has structures at every level, from subatomic to biological to historic to geological to cosmic. Of these, the subatomic and cosmic are scientifically precise, while the others are imprecise and derivative. My hypothesis regarding precessional cosmology claims that time exhibits resonance between ordered cosmic structures and biological and historical patterns, recognising that our environment is structured by the cyclic patterns that encompass terrestrial time. Precession of the equinox is the primary long-term pattern encompassing the earth. I argue this means precession can be understood as having a deep and subtle effect which frames the structure of time. This is a geocentric view, looking at how cosmic time might structure our DNA, unlike the cosmocentric view of modern astronomy which addresses temporal structures that are vastly bigger than anything relevant to human life.

The picture in my last post is a stylised summation of the cosmic context of human evolution. Although 2.5 million years seems a long time, it is just 0.05% of our genetic history. This precessional coil, and the much tighter annual coil, are constant features of the relation between earth and the cosmos. Both coils have the same stellar background, ie the coiled spring surrounding the evolutionary timeline has had basically the same background zodiac stars for cyclic periods of one year and 26000 years. This coil can be imagined as like a musical instrument, perhaps a didgeridoo, through which the cosmos is blowing the shape of our DNA.

I argue the possible effect of this long term pattern can be understood by direct analogy with musical harmony. Considering precession as the cosmic context of evolution as depicted, our DNA has evolved within this stable resonant space-time framework. I have previously explained why a twelve-fold division of this cycle emerges as a primary harmonic structure. Our participation in this temporal resonance is a deep and weak feature of our environment. Just as people in a cathedral resonate to the organ sound, and organisms in an ocean rock pool exhibit the same cyclic features as the tide, our DNA exhibits the same cyclic patterns as the larger cosmic environment.

[Jens]

The problem I have with all this is, OK, there are cycles. We all know there are cycles. There are the seasons, the years, the precession. But I can't understand exactly what you are proposing? For example, if you want to hypothesize that the human race will rise and fall every 26,000 years, we can test that.

For example, we all know that there is a one year cycle of the earth going around the sun. Now I can make a prediction: because of the tilt of the earth, the northern hemisphere will be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. So we can check that. And it turns out to be true.

So are you proposing that there is some actual change that takes place every 26,000 years? If so, what is it? Your thumbnail with the 26,000 cycle doesn't show anything happening every 26,000 years, as far as I can see.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Hence over the next twelve thousand years we will go through six ages which respectively will be characterised by the principles of knowledge, use, vision, desire, balance and analysis.

Why not analysis, balance, desire, vision, use, and knowledge? Where is the evidence that supports your choice and sequence of these words? I say the periods will be characterized by the principles of intuition, form, need, touch, skew, and perception. Prove me wrong.

I argue the possible effect of this long term pattern can be understood by direct analogy with musical harmony. Considering precession as the cosmic context of evolution as depicted, our DNA has evolved within this stable resonant space-time framework. I have previously explained why a twelve-fold division of this cycle emerges as a primary harmonic structure. Our participation in this temporal resonance is a deep and weak feature of our environment. Just as people in a cathedral resonate to the organ sound, and organisms in an ocean rock pool exhibit the same cyclic features as the tide, our DNA exhibits the same cyclic patterns as the larger cosmic environment.

People resonating to organ sounds has nothing to do with musical harmony. It has to do with body mass, free-air resonance frequencies, and other acoustic properties of matter. Nor have you demonstrated it has any relationship to DNA or tidal/orbital cycles. All you've provided is a lot of words that appear to be recooked variations of Pythagorean numerology. You've made this claim about musical harmony a number of times now, but have provided no substantiating evidence that connects it to your other claims.

In general, you need to use the following format: "This [fill in with particular claim] has been verified because [fill in experimental results in discrete quantities] has shown it to be an accurate model."

Robert, it's obvious what you're doing is casting yet another horoscope, this time one that supposedly applies to a 26,000 (or was it 12,000?) year period. The predictions you're making are as ill-defined and generalized as any other horoscope, such that they can be applied to just about anything, anybody, and any event.

But nothing you've presented is even close to a scientific hypothesis, since there's no objective, independently verifiable evidence that has been provided, especially quantitative data that support your claims. Meaningless numbers having to do with numerological relationships between dates and orbital periods don't count.

Kindly use your hypothesis to make some discrete, precisely-defined predictions, evaluate their accuracy, and then get back to us with the results expressed in quantities, not word salad.