Astronomical History

[Robert Tulip]

I cannot see something when there is nothing there to be seen.

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Jens]

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

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

[Robert Tulip]

But you're talking about something completely different now. I think it's an interesting question about whether the planets' movements are related to the Great Year, but that's an entirely different matter from whether human history moves in cycles. About the history, I came up with an other idea for considering your hypothesis. How about choosing another number, say 1,000 years for convienience, and see if you can find historical parallels. If there are, then it would tend to reinforce the idea that one can read things into historical events.

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

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

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

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

[Tog]

There would be merit in looking at history against the 179 year barycentre phases as that period is also part of the same natural harmonic cycle. My underlying aim here is to unpack how precession provides a framework for terrestrial cosmology, using historical correlations as a signpost.

This is also similar to the argument that Dutch used.

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

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

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

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

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

As for this:

The timing of parallels may vary, but I still maintain that the overall path of development of Rome and the US is surprisingly similar, giving grounds to expect that US and world history will follow a similar path to that of the Roman Empire over the next few centuries at equivalent points 2147 years ago.

Wait... What?

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

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

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

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

I had another look at the timeline and think you are being rather harsh as the correlations are much better than random chance. I concede I still need to work out how to test this statistically, but there are examples such as
1812AD = 336BC. Rome’s Latin Wars parallel the war of 1812.
1865AD = 283BC. US Civil War parallels Etruscan War

The Etruscan wars from 500-283BC (= 1648-1865AD) also have a strong parallel with the relations between the US and Native Americans. As this is not seen as a war in modern terms, with history written by the victors, you may have overlooked it.

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

[Jens]

If anyone wants to study historical cycles with other frequencies then good luck to them. I see little point except as you say that this would be a useful comparator for the 2147 year phasing, especially if it could be somehow statistically quantified with a regression analysis, but that is beyond my skills.

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

[Hornblower]

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


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

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

You have shown nothing to make me conclude that the observed proportions are anything more than a coincidence.

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

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

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

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

This still looks like a warmed-over conglomeration of astrology and Pythagoreanism.

[tusenfem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tsig]

What do you think causes precession, in terms of the physics of a rotating rigid body?

Guess he's never played with a gyroscope.


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

[tsig]

Perhaps, had he lived long enough, Newton could have inferred the presence of Uranus by rigorous analysis of such plotting. Successors such as LeVerrier did just that for Neptune.

I cannot see something when there is nothing there to be seen.

My educated guess is that some of your perception of patterns is being influenced by wishful thinking.

It's like the Bible Codes.


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

[Fortis]

...There is in fact a general pattern of what I will call Gaian history with precise cycle period 2147 years..
.
.
.
Again, this is a misunderstanding. It is analogous to you saying that because snow fell first in November one year and in January the next that the cycle of the year does not exist. Of course we know the year exists.

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

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

[Gillianren]

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

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

[Robert Tulip]

Maybe. But Dutch thinks his cycles have physical referents, if you read his threads. He is wrong. But then, so are you. For one, you have yet to show why there should be parallels in the first place.

The reason why there should be parallels is that the earth has had a consistent precessional cycle since life began, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that this regular cosmic terrestrial pattern should be exhibited in things which have evolved within it. Dutch uses Platonic solids rather than natural cycles. I can’t see what the scientific basis of his ideas might be.

Are you falling back on astrology again?

No.

Why should astrology work? How does it work?

This material is consistent with tropical western astrology but does not rely on it. For example, there are exactly sixty Saturn-Neptune conjunctions every 2147 years. This is just one cosmic rhythm which is imbedded in the structure of the solar system, and hence of course the evolution of the earth. I find astrological speculation about the meaning of this and other outer planetary cycles interesting, more so in that they come together precisely twelve times every age.

A few more direct questions. Should the cycle be evident in the histories of civilizations that have lasted more than 2000 years all by themselves?

Yes

If so, have you bothered looking into their history to find the cycle?

No. If you can present records of equivalent detail to Ancient Rome and the modern West then I would be interested to look at them. China or India may be candidates.

If so, how closely do they fit the cycle?

N/A

How far off do you consider "close enough"?

This is a complex question. I am arguing that long term causal cycles of the solar system are exhibited in human history, in the only parts of that history where the records are sufficiently detailed to test the claim and where there is an arguable causal dependency between one and the other civilization over a >2147 year period. For example, if we are now at the point of history equivalent to 140BC, then we can look at what happened then to explore possible parallels and lessons. There is an accidental and voluntaristic dimension to history which can distort the sort of deterministic fatalist path implied by the method I am exploring. If a strong personality or ‘great man’ pushes against the tide, as it were, I would think this could significantly shift the outcome. Overall, my view is that the broad parallels between the development of Rome and USA are strong, and that these parallels are exhibited precisely in some cases and with some latitude in others.

What is required to make two civilizations parallel enough for you to expect to see the cycle?

That the institutions of one in large part evolved from the institutions of the other.

If more than one civilization fits your requirements, does that mean that the two earlier (or, I suppose, one earlier and one later) civilizations should parallel one another as well?

Yes

If they're on different continents?

Yes. For example, if records were available, it would be interesting to compare Rome and Egypt.

[Gillianren]

The reason why there should be parallels is that the earth has had a consistent precessional cycle since life began, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that this regular cosmic terrestrial pattern should be exhibited in things which have evolved within it. Dutch uses Platonic solids rather than natural cycles. I can’t see what the scientific basis of his ideas might be.

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

This material is consistent with tropical western astrology but does not rely on it. For example, there are exactly sixty Saturn-Neptune conjunctions every 2147 years. This is just one cosmic rhythm which is imbedded in the structure of the solar system, and hence of course the evolution of the earth. I find astrological speculation about the meaning of this and other outer planetary cycles interesting, more so in that they come together precisely twelve times every age.

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

Yes

Good so far . . . .

No. If you can present records of equivalent detail to Ancient Rome and the modern West then I would be interested to look at them. China or India may be candidates.

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

This is a complex question. I am arguing that long term causal cycles of the solar system are exhibited in human history, in the only parts of that history where the records are sufficiently detailed to test the claim and where there is an arguable causal dependency between one and the other civilization over a >2147 year period. For example, if we are now at the point of history equivalent to 140BC, then we can look at what happened then to explore possible parallels and lessons. There is an accidental and voluntaristic dimension to history which can distort the sort of deterministic fatalist path implied by the method I am exploring. If a strong personality or ‘great man’ pushes against the tide, as it were, I would think this could significantly shift the outcome. Overall, my view is that the broad parallels between the development of Rome and USA are strong, and that these parallels are exhibited precisely in some cases and with some latitude in others.

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

That the institutions of one in large part evolved from the institutions of the other.

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

Yes

Okay so far . . . .

Yes. For example, if records were available, it would be interesting to compare Rome and Egypt.

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

[Robert Tulip]

Yes, well, I still can't see what the scientific basis of yours is, and I assure you, I'm not alone. Further, I don't think it's reasonable that human history should in any way be influenced by things that happen off the Earth, leaving aside the obvious influence of, well, the Sun and the Moon. Further, that cycle has, I assume, been consistent since before life began as well, since the planet formed. I could be wrong on that, of course; I'm really only pointing out errors in your history, not your science. However, if I'm right, why should its influence only be seen in life? Shouldn't its influence be in everything? Interesting is one thing. Actually having evidence about it is quite another. Good so far . . . . No. No, that doesn't work. It is your job to find that evidence. There are plenty of records from quite a few civilizations stretching back well over 2000 years. China and India are indeed candidates. But it's not my job to find the evidence for you. It's your job to find it for yourself and present it to us, and it astonishes me that you wouldn't bother doing so before declaring yourself correct. Yeah, I'm looking for a number. Further, if you admit that human forces can alter your cycle, why assume there's a cycle in the first place? The fault, dear Robert, is not in our stars but in ourselves. So the Aztec, Mayan, Toltec, and Olmec civilizations should be roughly parallel. You'll find, however, that they aren't. Okay so far . . . . And here's where you have problems. Yes. You should do that; you'll find records are available. That is, if you had bothered researching more than a cursory glance at US and Roman history. It is quite obvious that you didn't. You aren't even aware of how many records exist. You are forming a pattern based on what you see between two conciously-chosen civilizations. You don't, I hope, deny that fact. However, so far as I can tell, so far as you've demonstrated at all, you haven't looked into any other civilizations to show whether your pattern exists in them. You haven't even looked to see if you can. And that is why no one here believes you. You are drawing on too small a data set. There have been, by some estimates, a couple of dozen or more civilizations in world history, and that's just the ones since the development of writing. Out of those, again, you have chosen two. You haven't looked into the others, and you don't know if you can. Come back when you've finished your research.

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

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

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

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

In a previous thread on http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...cosmology.html I provided the following picture and related discussion which indicated why the twelfth division of the great year is likely to be significant.


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

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

[Gillianren]

Robert. You have not, now or ever, shown a logical reason that these cycles should fit human behaviour. You have not, now or ever, shown evidence that they do.

If you want to show that there is any evidence for your idea that this cycle actually influences human history, you must show more than two "parallel" civilizations. Finding what you believe to be more and more similiarities between the US and Rome is not, despite what you may believe, what you need to do in order to make your claim seem more reasonable. You have to show that the US and Rome are not the only parallel civilizations. You have to show that it's more than mere coincidence.

I'm letting you off the hook entirely with regards to why the cycles of anything but Sun and Moon should have influence on human civilization. It's not my field of expertise. But the fact remains that, well, you hadn't heard of the Olmec. You didn't realize that the Egyptians have documentation going farther back than the Romans. You think India and China might have records enough for your little project, but you've never looked into it enough to work out whether they do. You are, in fact, assuming that they will, because your cycle is real, so they must. Guess what? That's a logical fallacy!

So. Leave out the astronomical stuff. I've never disputed that the thing about the Great Year is true. I'll leave that to those who know the relevant science. I have a few more direct questions, however.

How many data points must you map before you can call something a parallel?

How many data points must you map before you can call a hypothesis properly explored?

Is having a lot of possible data points regarding one parallel better or worse than having multiple parallels?

If you don't have the latter, how do you know that your system really works?

Why do you expect me to believe that your system works if you can't show me how it fits into anything other than Rome and the US? Am I just supposed to believe that you're right because, look, it mostly lines up for Rome and the US? Do you really think I'm being unreasonable when I ask you to look into other civilizations to test your hypothesis?

And, as I asked before--twice--what number of years do you consider to be "close enough" for a cycle?

[Jens]

Together with the observation that the single main events for the dominant powers of the ages of Aries (Rome) and Pisces (USA) occurred at precisely the same time in the cycle, I think the case is persuasive.

But Rome wasn't necessarily the dominant power of that age. You're leaving out the Parthian Empire, the Kushan Empire and the Qin Dynasty, which unified China for the first time in known history. From Wikipedia, "at the height of its power, the Qin Dynasty had a population of around 40 million people." The Roman Empire (when unified) had maybe 50 million, so you are talking about two relatively even things. It's just that in the West generally, we are taught world history as if it were the history of the West. But if you're going to be making statements about world history, you ought to take the world as a unit.

Anyway, here's a page that shows the Roman Empire in a larger setting.

[Fortis]

Finding what you believe to be more and more similiarities between the US and Rome is not, despite what you may believe, what you need to do in order to make your claim seem more reasonable.

There is also a need to avoid "confirmation bias". If you just look for parallels then you will likely be guilty of this, i.e. trying to find data that fits your hypothesis rather than looking for data that may falsify it. Then again, I'm not sure what would be regarded as an observation that Robert would accept as falsifying his hypothesis.

[Robert Tulip]

Robert. You have not, now or ever, shown a logical reason that these cycles should fit human behaviour. You have not, now or ever, shown evidence that they do. If you want to show that there is any evidence for your idea that this cycle actually influences human history, you must show more than two "parallel" civilizations. Finding what you believe to be more and more similarities between the US and Rome is not, despite what you may believe, what you need to do in order to make your claim seem more reasonable. You have to show that the US and Rome are not the only parallel civilizations. You have to show that it's more than mere coincidence. I'm letting you off the hook entirely with regards to why the cycles of anything but Sun and Moon should have influence on human civilization. It's not my field of expertise. But the fact remains that, well, you hadn't heard of the Olmec. You didn't realize that the Egyptians have documentation going farther back than the Romans. You think India and China might have records enough for your little project, but you've never looked into it enough to work out whether they do. You are, in fact, assuming that they will, because your cycle is real, so they must. Guess what? That's a logical fallacy! So. Leave out the astronomical stuff. I've never disputed that the thing about the Great Year is true. I'll leave that to those who know the relevant science. I have a few more direct questions, however. How many data points must you map before you can call something a parallel? How many data points must you map before you can call a hypothesis properly explored? Is having a lot of possible data points regarding one parallel better or worse than having multiple parallels? If you don't have the latter, how do you know that your system really works? Why do you expect me to believe that your system works if you can't show me how it fits into anything other than Rome and the US? Am I just supposed to believe that you're right because, look, it mostly lines up for Rome and the US? Do you really think I'm being unreasonable when I ask you to look into other civilizations to test your hypothesis? And, as I asked before--twice--what number of years do you consider to be "close enough" for a cycle?

I welcome these questions and comments, but with respect I really don’t think they amount to much, as they focus on peripheral distractions and neglect the main point. Examples are just illustrations, but the thesis is a matter of logic and mathematical cosmology. The proof is deductive not inductive. The simple logical reason why these cycles should fit human behaviour is that precession is a real encompassing framework for everything that has ever happened on earth. That is just a fact. The purpose of the illustrations is to support this cosmological argument, so the ‘astronomical stuff’ which you suggest I leave out is the core of the argument. Proceeding from the observation that cycles are real to the prediction that events should conform to them is no more a logical fallacy than Einstein’s prediction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury – where he proceeded from the observation that relativity is real to the assumption the data will fit it. I concede the strength of a precessional cycle can be disputed, but not its existence. Indeed, the fallacy is on your part, the fallacy of inductive reasoning, in suggesting that further inductive examples would be a key to improving the argument, whereas the logically valid approach is deductive – providing a mathematical framework within which such correlations should be expected. Precession encompasses history, albeit weakly, just as tides are an encompassing framework for everything in an ocean rock pool. Of course tides are not the sole determinant for a rock pool, but they are a big one, and like precession they are consistent and reliably predictable. It is like night follows day, but then maybe that is also too complicated (or too simple?) as a basis for some to explain the nature of time. My problem here is that I am trying to articulate a transformative vision with deep and wide cultural ramifications. I think it makes fairly simple sense to see precession as a possible framework for history, and can only infer that the reasons people are not interested are more cultural than logical, as these arguments are entirely new.

The events on earth for which data is most comprehensive are those which provide the best material to illustrate how the precessional cycle can be seen in history. My issue with the Olmec, with no disrespect, was that the quantity of data about them and their place in history are so comparatively minor that they cannot be used as an example on the world scale I am suggesting. We have neither the adequate records of dated events nor a subsequent world civilisation which is widely seen as its successor. These are available abundantly for Rome and the USA. I thought that was obvious but apparently not to some. As well, arguably but more contentiously, there is a critical path of the dominant powers of the world. Even if Ancient China was bigger, Ancient Rome is the antecedent of the USA, the current dominant power and so is arguably at the cutting edge of human activity.

Your comments demonstrate that you are too fixed in your views to see that the comparisons between Zama and Normandy/ Hiroshima, between the expulsions of the kings in Rome and England, and between the imperial expansion of Rome and the USA have strong parallels separated by exactly one cosmic age. To me these examples are interesting evidence, but I can see that it challenges some emotional assumptions of modern astronomy so I understand why stubborn rejection is so attractive. I am illustrating a deductive thesis of cosmology by events that are well known. It makes little sense to ask to illustrate it from things that are not well known, whether by me or by others.

In discussing with a friend, I realised that the issue of astrology is more of a sticking point here than I have suggested so far. I have been reluctant to discuss astrology here because it elicits such hysterical emotion among scientists, partly I admit with good reason given the anti-scientific nature of much astrology. However, astrology is necessary as a logical framework for these ideas, explaining both their rationale and their rejection. The underlying logic of this thesis is a harmonic structure of time. Dane Rudhyar argues in his book Astrological Timing that the cosmic ages are a natural harmonic division of the great year, and that if this natural harmonic twelve-fold division is considered as a physical reality, then it makes sense to explore the historical evidence for a further twelve-fold division of these periods. I have previously discussed the harmonic significance of the number twelve as a divisor of terrestrial cycles. When the hypothetical step is taken to divide the age into twelve sub-ages or houses, we find that these periods are exactly – exactly - the same length as a basic rhythm of the solar system, the 178.9 year solar system barycentric cycle. This is physics, not mysticism. Rudhyar uses this period, which he took as the rough approximation of 180 years, as a definition of the twelve ‘houses’ of the age. Now, the point is, if for convenience of reference we say that the Age of Pisces began at the moment 0 (ie between 1BC and 1AD), and the Age is rounded here to 2148 years, then we can define and illustrate the twelve houses of the age by the following cube diagram with two vertices per house.


My thesis is grounded in the empirical observation that this cube is a representation of the age, so repeats twelve times each great year, about two million times since life began. It suggests a long term cyclic pulsing of terrestrial time, so that each time the earth gets to the same point in the wave pulse, every 2147-8 years, similar things happen – there is a deep long term underlying causality in which events have causes and effects that are not immediate but are separated by an age. It is rather like the way creatures of habit do the same thing at the same time each day, like baboons warming their hands to the sun or people having a siesta, but this is a bigger and deeper causal framework.

I have assumed in this thread that precession has a constant rate, so that the current arc second rate of precession maps equally onto all terrestrial time to produce the age period of 2147 years. It may well be that precession is changing its speed, but I have not seen strong argument for a rate of change. I consider it unlikely that such a rate of change would produce much material difference, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.

A further key argument arising from this model of time is its implications for Christian eschatology. Again, this is a theme I have hesitated to discuss here in view of Baut’s rules on religion, but this is an evidence-based physical argument from astronomy, suggesting a 2147 year gap between the life of Christ and the reign of God. My claim is that key major New Testament texts are strongly explained by a precessional framework. Jesus Christ as Alpha and Omega equates to his temporal position not only at the beginning of the Age of Pisces and end of the Age of Aries but at the beginning and end of the 25765 year cycle of the Great Year. The parable of the loaves and fishes equates to the then beginning Pisces-Virgo equinoctial framework as the source of abundant creativity. The Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24 introduces the concept of the age as the key temporal structure in a way that corresponds precisely to the precessional age. The three wise men are a direct mythic link to astrology. An elegant physical representation of the Trinity can be presented in natural terms in our corner of the universe as God the Father = the constellations of the zodiac, God the Son = the precessional cycle of earth incarnated at the turning point of the Great Year; and God the Holy Spirit = the reverberation of Father and Son through planetary history. Most tellingly, the vision of New Jerusalem as a large cube with twelve foundation stones in order of the zodiac signs in reverse presents a direct coded reference to precessional cosmology.

I am now reading an interesting book, The Great Year, Astrology, Millenarianism and History by Nicholas Campion. He does not take up these neo-Christian ideas, but he does point out that the Old Testament hostility to astrology is at the root of a deeply felt western cultural aversion to systematic efforts to understand history as revealed in parallel to cosmic signs. My view is that Jesus Christ saw his own vision as requiring such an astrological cosmology, and as reconciling such a cosmology with monotheism. The startling inference is that Jesus deliberately presented these astrological ideas in a coded way, expecting they would not be understood for a very long time, but with confidence that they would eventually become the basis to reconcile and integrate religion and science.

[Neverfly]

Have you conferred with Dutch and Hoagland?

[Robert Tulip]

Have you conferred with Dutch and Hoagland?

No. Hyperdimensionality is rubbish. I am not promoting that.

[Maksutov]

Right, it's Dutch Redux. This is a subjective determination of what is a match and looking for things to fit the dates. The "Bible Code" stuff is another similar example, where people look for supposed hidden messages in oodles of text.

Agreed. It's another "Dutch" treat.

It becomes apparent in these lengthy posts by Mr. Tulip that numerology can be split into two applicable branches:

1. Numerical pareidolia (seeing patterns in groups of numbers that aren't there)

2. Historical pareidolia (seeing patterns in historical dates that aren't there)

On the other hand astrology should not be split into branches. Instead it just needs to be cut down, ground into sawdust and recycled into something useful, which is what Phil does in his article "Astrology = Garbage".

[pzkpfw]

The simple logical reason why these cycles should fit human behaviour is that precession is a real encompassing framework for everything that has ever happened on earth. That is just a fact.

Without something to explain the cause and effect this is meaningless - nothing more than astrology.

How does precession affect life on Earth and how could this manifest itself in cycles of civilisation?

Proceeding from the observation that cycles are real to the prediction that events should conform to them is no more a logical fallacy than Einstein’s prediction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury – where he proceeded from the observation that relativity is real to the assumption the data will fit it.

I think Einstein had a pretty good reason to think there was a relationship to be found; relativity provided a mathematical framework to calculate precession.

What reason would you have, to think that precessional cycles should affect human events on Earth? Without looking at history, how would you predict events or cycles?

I concede the strength of a precessional cycle can be disputed, but not its existence.

What does "strength" actually mean here?

Your comments demonstrate that you are too fixed in your views to see that the comparisons between Zama and Normandy/ Hiroshima, between the expulsions of the kings in Rome and England, and between the imperial expansion of Rome and the USA have strong parallels separated by exactly one cosmic age. To me these examples are interesting evidence, but I can see that it challenges some emotional assumptions of modern astronomy so I understand why stubborn rejection is so attractive. I am illustrating a deductive thesis of cosmology by events that are well known. It makes little sense to ask to illustrate it from things that are not well known, whether by me or by others.

This confirms you are cherry-picking things that fit your idea.

If I roll a die 10 times, and pick out just the events where "3" followed "2", can I say that's a cycle?

I also think people here have provided examples that contradict your word (that I bolded) above.

[Neverfly]

No. Hyperdimensionality is rubbish. I am not promoting that.

Actually you are... and pzkpfw summed it up pretty nicely as to why you are, albeit that you would prefer to stay unaware of it.

[Gillianren]

Eye-watering, but not answers. In the fewest words possible, please answer these direct questions.

How many data points must you map before you can call something a parallel?

How many data points must you map before you can call a hypothesis properly explored?

Is having a lot of possible data points regarding one parallel better or worse than having multiple parallels?

If you don't have the latter, how do you know that your system really works?

Why do you expect me to believe that your system works if you can't show me how it fits into anything other than Rome and the US? Am I just supposed to believe that you're right because, look, it mostly lines up for Rome and the US? Do you really think I'm being unreasonable when I ask you to look into other civilizations to test your hypothesis?

And, as I asked before--twice--what number of years do you consider to be "close enough" for a cycle?

[Neverfly]

Why do you expect me to believe that your system works if you can't show me how it fits into anything other than Rome and the US? Am I just supposed to believe that you're right because, look, it mostly lines up for Rome and the US? Do you really think I'm being unreasonable when I ask you to look into other civilizations to test your hypothesis?

Those two pale in size when compared to a more complete history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires
However, they are well known and like any pseudo-science, the first to have associations applied to them.

[Jim]

Robert Tulip, Gillianren has (again) asked you direct, pertinent questions. According to the Rules for ATM, you are required to address those questions in a timely fashion. You may address them by (1) answering them, (2) linking to a previously provided answer, (3) giving a time frame in which you will answer them, or (4) saying you have no answer. If you feel the questions are not pertinent, you should explain why. If you do not understand the question(s), ask for clarification.

On another matter, you have embedded many, many images in your posts. In future, please consider those who access this Board via dialup and keep your attachments small; also consider the total effect of many small images on the same page. And, remember that not everyone uses a wide screen monitor or a 1024x768 resolution; it would help to resize the images so Members don't have to pan to view them. There is some very good freeware available which can help you with this. (Of course, you could always provide a thumbnail or link instead.)

[rtomes]

There are cycles in history. However to find these cycles you need to start from data that was compiled by people who didn't know about the cycles. An Encyclopaedia is a good source. Then using all the data you have to find a way to categorize events in to various classes, again without biased picking. So that should be done by someone expert in the field and who does not know about the cycles. Finally you can then look for cycles in that resulting data using mathematical tools like Fourier analysis.

You might find the work of Raymond Wheeler interesting. He made a thing called "The Big Book" which is basically an analysis of history for several thousand years with what was going on in science, architecture, music etc etc. He found that a lot of things came back to long term weather fluctuations - wet/dry, hot/cold. Whether leaders were regarded as great, mediocre or rotten was almost totally determined by the weather. Seems the leader gets credit for when the crops are good or bad even though it was nature. I see the same things happening today. There is a book about Wheeler's work called something like "A Roadmap of Time" and the author's name starts with Z but I can't remember it .. Zuhartov or like that.

[Neverfly]

There are cycles in history. However to find these cycles you need to start from data that was compiled by people who didn't know about the cycles. An Encyclopaedia is a good source. Then using all the data you have to find a way to categorize events in to various classes, again without biased picking. So that should be done by someone expert in the field and who does not know about the cycles. Finally you can then look for cycles in that resulting data using mathematical tools like Fourier analysis.

You might find the work of Raymond Wheeler interesting. He made a thing called "The Big Book" which is basically an analysis of history for several thousand years with what was going on in science, architecture, music etc etc. He found that a lot of things came back to long term weather fluctuations - wet/dry, hot/cold. Whether leaders were regarded as great, mediocre or rotten was almost totally determined by the weather. Seems the leader gets credit for when the crops are good or bad even though it was nature. I see the same things happening today. There is a book about Wheeler's work called something like "A Roadmap of Time" and the author's name starts with Z but I can't remember it .. Zuhartov or like that.

There are cycles in weather too.

I can find cycles in fluid mechanics.

This does not mean there is any mysticism involved.

[Robert Tulip]

Robert Tulip, Gillianren has (again) asked you direct, pertinent questions. According to the Rules for ATM, you are required to address those questions in a timely fashion. You may address them by (1) answering them, (2) linking to a previously provided answer, (3) giving a time frame in which you will answer them, or (4) saying you have no answer. If you feel the questions are not pertinent, you should explain why. If you do not understand the question(s), ask for clarification.

On another matter, you have embedded many, many images in your posts. In future, please consider those who access this Board via dialup and keep your attachments small; also consider the total effect of many small images on the same page. And, remember that not everyone uses a wide screen monitor or a 1024x768 resolution; it would help to resize the images so Members don't have to pan to view them. There is some very good freeware available which can help you with this. (Of course, you could always provide a thumbnail or link instead.)

Jim, my last post discussed the pertinence of GillianRen's questions. I will answer them directly this week. Apologies on images. I have put four in this thread (is this many, many?) and will heed your advice. Maybe also worth noting that people quoting posts with images should not reproduce the image again. I am not responsible for others repeating the images I post.

[rtomes]

There are cycles in weather too.

I can find cycles in fluid mechanics.

This does not mean there is any mysticism involved.

Quite right. I hope that you are not suggesting that I was looking for mysticism?

However there are good reasons why cycles are sometimes divided in 12 as Tulip is suggesting the precession cycle is divided.

Although New Agers and Astrologers often talk a lot of twaddle, there is sometimes a little grain of truth that they find because they are more open minded than hard nosed scientists who "know" what can and cannot happen. Therefore they are very much more likely to make brand new discoveries than these same scientists who generally can only make little incremental changes to existing knowledge.