Z-Axis theory gets a boost from a study of gyroscopic precessional motion.

Posted: November 9, 2015 by tallbloke in LOD, Solar physics, solar system dynamics
Tags: ,

Gyroscope_precessionHat tip to Talkshop contributor ‘OldmanK’ for alerting us to an interesting website written by physicist Carl Johnson some years ago. Among the many interesting articles, there are a few on gyroscopes and the angular momentum of precession which directly relate to our study of solar system organisation, and which provide clues as to how the energy transfer which organises the stability of the orbits occurs. I have a hunch that this can potentially lead to several advances for us, in understanding the relations not only of orbital periods and their effects on neighbouring orbits, but also of orbit to spin-rate energy transfers. This will help unlock the mysterious numerical ‘coincidences’ Stuart and I have discovered between planetary rotation rates and their neighbours orbital rates. It may also further our understanding of correlations I discovered between Z-axis motion of the Sun relative to the centre of mass of the solar system and sunspot production, and changes in Earth’s length of day.

It will also help us understand why the important Z-axis discovery recently made by Paul Vaughan is Geo-effective, as evidenced by the appearance of the relevant periods in paleo-proxy records. As Paul points out, the implication is that two key cyclic periods, the Gleissberg and De Vries cycles, may be more to do with Earth’s orientation variations caused by Gas giant motion than solar activity variation, though it’s possible both are involved in the climate changes indicated by the proxies. This would be because the gas giant planets affect the Sun as well as the Earth directly.

From Carl Johnson’s website:

It has been assumed by all astronomers and Physicists that planets can perturb several parameters of the orbits of each other, BUT that they could never alter the semi-major radii of each others’ orbits. That conclusion WOULD be true IF all the objects in the Solar System orbited in exactly the same Plane. But they certainly do not.

The Solar System objects move in various planes. This fact results in effects that are similar to the non-Conservation of Angular Momentum of the toy gyroscope. Examples are the Earth’s Precession, the Regression of the Nodes of the Moon’s Orbit (and all other orbits), and any other perturbations where the Z-axis is involved. Planets ARE causing precessional effects in each other. Now that the precessions are all established, no significant violations of Conservation of Angular Momentum SEEM to occur, but whenever each of those precessions CHANGES, that is, they ACCELERATE, they certainly represented clear violations!

For example, the earth has an equatorial bulge that is rotating in a plane where each of the Sun and Moon nearly always are acting to gravitationally try to tilt that plane (trying to stand the Earth more upright), which causes the Precession that the Earth experiences. There seems to be a common misconception that this Precession of the Earth is constant, and we all learned of the 26,000 year time period of the (wobble) Precessional motion in Elementary School. However, that is not even close to being true! TWICE each year, the precessional effect of the Sun on the Earth entirely vanishes, at the instant when the Earth’s orbital motion causes the Sun to appear to exactly cross the celestial Equator (around March 21 and September 21 each year). The Precession of the Earth due to the Sun ENTIRELY STOPS on those two days each year! After that, the precessional speed ACCELERATES during the following three months, up to a point where the precessional SPEED is greatest around June 21 and December 21 each year. After that, there is a DECELERATION of the precessional speed during the next three months, to get back down to the zero precessional speed.

Also, consider a “new earth” exactly like ours but not precessing at all. It would (somehow) START to precess, in other words, the Precessional motion of the earth would ACCELERATE up to the rate it is now at. A motion which takes 26,000 years to occur might seem to not involve very much energy, and so it seems that it has always been neglected by Researchers regarding energy considerations. But the Earth is quite massive and since that Precessional motion starts and stops twice every year, there is actually an enormous amount of energy involved.

This represents a good deal of kinetic energy of the Precessional motion, and the Conservation of Energy insists that a source for that energy have provided it. The energy that would supply that motion comes from slight variations in the tilt of the Earth’s rotation axis, so Kinetic Energy would be conserved, even with the “precessional acceleration up to the new precession rate”. However, Angular Momentum in the Plane of the Ecliptic would NOT be conserved! New Angular Momentum would constantly arise and disappear in that Plane. The AVERAGE of this is the actual observed velocity of the Precessional motion.

In fact, a “new Earth” would be no different than our current Earth, since our precessional motion (due to just the Sun) entirely STOPS twice every year! That significant amount of Kinetic Energy involved in the Earth’s precessional motion is CREATED and then CANCELLED OUT twice every year! The processed being discussed therefore involve significant energy transfers! These energy transfers occur because of the gravitational field of the Sun (and Moon).

In fact, since the precessional effects of various solar system bodies on each other are constantly CAUSING ACCELERATIONS AND DECELERATIONS in the precessional speeds, this necessarily indicates that the Earth and other planets are also doing a very slight tilt-axis dance that has always simply been considered a part of Solar Nutation! It is quite a small effect, but experimentally measurable!

The same effect occurs as planets perturb the orbits of other planets and satellites, sometimes also referred to as precession but more commonly called Regression of the Nodes. These effects are commonly presented as though they are constant effects, but they are NOT constant at all! As a perturbing planet varies from being above or below the orbital plane of a perturbed planet, it crosses that orbital plane twice in each synodic period. This causes the precessive effect to constantly be oscillating, from zero effect to a maximum, during the synodic period of the two bodies. This effect occurs for BOTH of the orbital motion and the rotational motion, and affects both bodies involved. This indicates that there must certainly CONSTANTLY be MANY small violations of Conservation of Angular Momentum occurring.

The effect described here is fairly small, and the cumulative effects are very slow. In all practical situations, Conservation of Angular Momentum will be seen to appear true. It is only where Euler’s equations transfer energy from one plane to another that any variances with that Conservation can occur. Conservation of Energy appears to still always be true.

Earth Energy Flow Rates due to Precessional Effects

If we consider that on March 21 of any year, the Earth has NO Precessive effect due to the Sun, we can easily calculate some things here. We first calculate how much kinetic energy there is in our AVERAGE precession. It is 1/2 * I * ω2. We know that the rotational inertia (I) of the earth is 8.07 * 1037 kg-meters2. We know that ω is one precessional revolution in 25,800 years or one radian in 1.296 * 1011 seconds. Therefore, the AVERAGE kinetic energy the Earth has in precessing is around 2.4 * 1015 joules. In planetary dynamics, that is not very much, but it still is kinetic energy that did not used to exist!

The AVERAGE kinetic energy of the precessional motion is that amount. However, we know that around Mar 21 and Sep 21 each year (considering only the Sun’s contribution) that amount is briefly zero, and arould Jun 21 and Dec 21, it is much greater than that average amount. Actually, since the Precessional MOTION is twice as fast at those instants, there was FOUR TIMES AS MUCH kinetic energy transferred.Note that this means that around 10 quadrillion joules of energy is ADDED to the Earth’s (Solar driven) Precessional motion in a three-month interval, and then the same amount is REMOVED from the Earth’s precessional motion in the following three months! This is a significant transfer of energy into and out of that motion, on a very regular basis! The Moment (torque) of this constantly fluctuating amount of Precessional Kinetic Energy is related to a slight axis tilt change of the Earth’s spin axis. The double Integration of the Euler Equations shows that the energy involved is always Conserved, but that it is simply transferred back and forth between a slight fluctuating tilt of the Earth’s rotation axis and the varying Precessional speeds.

Ten quadrillion joules might sound like a lot, but since it is spread out over a three-month interval, that is about an average of 1,250,000 kiloWatts (because a watt is a joule/second). That might not be worth the bother regarding trying to build any equipment to try to capture it! But it gets WAY better!

In addition, similar calculations show that around 40 quadrillion joules of energy is ADDED TO the Earth’s (Lunar driven) precession in about a WEEK, and then the same amount is removed during the following week! Many people have noticed and measured the very small-scale wobbling that the Earth does (collectively called Nutation) but I have never seen that anyone has realized that it was actually (primarily) due to a side effect of the constantly varying Precessional effect.

It might be noted that the energy transfer due to the Moon’s effect here is relatively significant from a human perspective! There is about 40 quadrillion joules transferred in a period of about one week (or 637,000 seconds) which means that an average power transfer of that quotient is occurring, or about 63 billion joules/second or 63 billion watts or 63 million KiloWatts! That 63,000 Megawatts is comparable to the entire output of electric power from ALL US nuclear generating plants! But I do not see how it could ever be captured by anything that we humans could ever do! Maybe some human far smarter than me can see some way to capture that energy, and we would then have an enormous supply of power, essentially forever!

The puny little Moon causes this effect around 50 times greater than the enormously massive Sun does! Interesting!

More significantly, each time when the Precession Effect is non-zero, there is Angular Momentum that did not used to exist! This fact means that one of the two pre-conditions that Laplace, LaGrange and everyone else have always applied is often (slightly) invalid. In short-term motions or perturbations, these effects are not seen, as they are comparatively small amounts of energy and angular momentum involved, and Angular Momentum appears to be conserved. However, over very long periods of time, these effects of continuously modifying small amounts of “new” angular momentum ALLOWS planets to mutually alter their semi-major axes! (Which is currently assumed impossible.) This then allows some very slow perturbation effects that are so small that they have not been yet detected (or understood). However, they certainly occur, because there is extensive evidence of near-commensurability in orbits of planets, satellites, asteroids, ring particles, and more. These are therefore not mere coincidences, but the very long-term effects of this new category of mutual perturbations where the semi-major axes are altered. Again, the Hamiltonian remains true, and Energy is Conserved, but slight changes in Angular Momentum certainly occur.

We have known for thousands of years that the Moon causes and creates spectacular amounts of energy that exist in the Oceans’ Tides (every day). We know that this is due to some gravitational effects of the Moon on the Earth and on the waters of the oceans. Here, we are discussing a DIFFERENT gravitational effect of the Moon on the Earth, which is actually due to the Earth having an Equatorial Bulge so that a Precessional motion can be caused on the Earth by the Moon.

  1. oldbrew says:

    ‘TWICE each year, the precessional effect of the Sun on the Earth entirely vanishes, at the instant when the Earth’s orbital motion causes the Sun to appear to exactly cross the celestial Equator (around March 21 and September 21 each year). ‘

    Conversely it should reach a maximum at the opposing two quarterly points. So precession divides into four parts per year, which fits in with today’s earlier post about the ‘quarter precession’ cycle of the Earth-Moon system.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Well, maybe, maybe not. With the annual cycle it’s obvious, but with your 1/4 equinoctal precession of 6441 years, there’s no obvious physical division. Even with the annual cycle, that’s just the solar effect on Earth’s precession. The Moon does the same ‘4 parts’ thing every month too.

    Your post is important for all sorts of other reasons though.

  3. oldbrew says:

    TB: where does the ~26,000 year precession come from? Nobody seems to know, not even the IAU.

    1. the need for a precession theory consistent with dynamical theory’

    The IAU recommends: ‘3. that the choice of precession parameters be left to the user’

  4. tallbloke says:

    Well if Carl Johnson is right, and I think he is, then the Earth-Moon system’s apsidal precession rate will be a function of the speed of Earth’s rotation, the speed of the Earth-Moon system’s rotation, and the magnitude and vector of the forces which causes the Earth’s tilt (which varies, along with the rate of precession). So the ~26,000 equinoctal precession period will likely be a nutation associated with the aggregation of the forces causing the tilt, as they revolve around the heavens and quasi-sinusoidally vary in declination, from the Earth’s perspective.

    Simple it ain’t, in computational terms… 🙂

  5. oldmanK says:

    Please allow me to make a couple of questions cum remarks.

    First, I do not think the picture is a good representation of the gyro. There is an axis missing. (it looks like a Yoyo, and that does not precess)

    Second in the statement “TWICE each year, the precessional effect of the Sun on the Earth entirely vanishes”, I think it is the force producing precession that becomes zero at the equinoxes. Precession is the resulting effect, and may also be out of phase with the force. I am only questioning here.

    A third point is something extraneous. A spinning mass can do so at a steady position, vertical with zero tilt of axis, and therefore no precession. Any extraneous impulse will cause axis tilt and start precession. Tilt angle and precession rate can then be any (my experience with clock movements, they are finely balanced and in a single plane. The earth is in effect a complex body that is non uniform and that as I see it with many planes, all unbalanced). Iz also varies with polar ice load. I point here once again to evidence of substantial tilt angle change in holocene which very likely had nothing to do with the nearby planets or sun.

    [Reply] Fixed the image with a new animation – Rog

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    admission buried in provocative flood:

    “Technically, this is NOT really a Violation because there is an external force acting on the gyroscope, which is the Earth’s gravitation. In the Solar System, there is also an external force acting on the Perturbation of planets with each other, the Sun’s gravitation.”

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    Failsafe integrity test:

    The dark limits of human nature are clear if that doesn’t trigger quick paradigm shift.

  8. oldbrew says:

    oldmanK says: ‘First, I do not think the picture is a good representation of the gyro. There is an axis missing. (it looks like a Yoyo, and that does not precess)’

    This one might be better.

  9. Ian Wilson says:


    Your post on comment 15 has registered – it is mind blowing!

    I know that you are certain that it is the displacement of water and ice on the Earth’s surface which is interacting with something externally that its cause but are there any other options?

    This might explain why I got this:


  10. Joe basel says:

    Novice question.

    Ian Wilson

    Wouldn’t the ice growth in each hemisphere have a effect on this process.

    And events like this have a trend change effect


    By around 5.33 million years ago, the rising sea level was just enough to wash over the thin land bridge at Gibraltar, resulting in a catastrophic flood that refilled the sea, he said.

    We found that the Antarctic ice sheet had an uneven effect on the global sea level because its growth resulted in a complex interplay between gravitational and rotational effects and the deformations to the Earth’s crust caused by ice advance and retreat,” he said.

  11. Paul Vaughan says:


    Abreu+(2012) goofed:

    This is another example of an exploratory accident that helped facilitate deep simple clarity.

    With such clarity we have just cause for deep cynicism if the insight doesn’t go viral and achieve widespread acceptance overnight.

  12. Ian Wilson says:

    Yeah, you have convinced me that:

    Critical Analysis of a Hypothesis of the Planetary Tidal Influence on Solar Activity
    S. Poluianov·I. Usoskin

    is speaking through their collective hats.

    They say that any aliasing of the planetary toques is possible but it obvious to
    blind-Freddy that if the Be10 and C14 changes are more to do with the Earth than
    they are with the Sun (and its level of activity) then you must have either annual
    or semi-annual aliasing (as you claim Paul).

  13. Ian Wilson says:

    I think that I might have been on the mark with this post on April 02nd 2013 entitled:

    Could This Bay Be The Climate Smoking Gun?

    provided you accepted that Be10 and C14 levels are determined by climate conditions here on the Earth rather than the strength of solar activity on the Sun.

    However, if you believe that Be10 and C14 levels are at least partly determined by the strength of solar activity on the Sun, then why are annually aliased planetary torques observable in the Sun?

  14. Ian Wilson says:


    How does your model deal with my findings that these long-term periods are naturally found in the planetary cycles?

    Category A – from the Gleissberg cycle, up to, but not including the Eddy cycle

    These periods are produced by the synodic product of short periodicities that are associated with each of the models (i.e. 22.38 yr period for the VEJ tidal-torquing model and 19.859 yr period for the gear effect) such that

    (22.38×19.859)/(22.38 −19.859) = 176.30 yr. (3)

    as well as the following multiples of the 176.30 yr period:

    1/2×176.30 = 88.15 yr−Gleissberg cycle
    2×176.30 = 352.6 yr
    3×176.30 = 528.9 yr
    4×176.30 = 705.2 yr

    It is important to note that the 22.38 yr VEJ tidal-torquing cycle is used here in the synodic product rather than the 22.14 yr cycle, since the gear effect interacts with the VEJ tidal torquing mechanism via the VE alignments. This means that the interaction will take place at the 22.38 yr VE alignment repetition cycle. It also means that the 22.38 yr interaction cycle will slowly drift out of phase with the 22.14 yr torque application cycle, requiring some form of re-synchronization between these two cycles on longer term timescales.

    Category B – the Eddy cycle and periods longer than the Eddy cycle

    These periods are produced by a repetition cycle that is close to multiples of the synodic product of the longer modulating periods that are associated with each of the models (i.e. 165.35 yr period for the VEJ tidal-torquing model and 192.98 yr period for the gear effect) such that:

    (165.38×192.98)/(192.98−165.38) = 1156.3 yr. (4)

    It takes Jupiter 575.518 yr to re-synchronize itself with the penta-synodic Venus–Earth alignment cycle. In addition, it takes two 575.518 yr periods (= 1151.0 yr) for Jupiter to re-synchronize itself with the penta-synodic Venus–Earth alignment cycle and also with respect to the stars (Wilson, 2013).
    Hence, the 1156.3 yr is most likely just a multiple of the fundamental Jupiter re-synchronization period of 575.518 yr. These multiples of the 575.518 yr Jupiter re-synchronization cycle include:

    2×575.518 = 1151.0 yr
    3×575.518 = 1726.5 yr
    4×575.518 = 2302.1 yr − Hallstatt cycle.

    Category C – the de Vries cycle and sub-multiples of the de Vries cycle

    Finally, the synodic product of the 176.30 yr cycle with the 1151.0 yr cycle is

    (1151.0×176.30)/(1151.0−176.30) = 208.2 yr. (5)

    This is very close to the 208 yr de Vries cycle. Hence, the new model called the VEJ spin–orbit coupling model, formed by combining the VEJ tidal-torquing model with the gear effect, is able to produce many of the long term periods in solar activity that are found by McCracken et al. (2013) from proxy 10Be and 14C data spanning the last 9400 yr.

    Ian Wilson

  15. tallbloke says:

    Ian: However, if you believe that Be10 and C14 levels are at least partly determined by the strength of solar activity on the Sun, then why are annually aliased planetary torques observable in the Sun?

    Given how well our 4 orbit model fits 10Be and 14C data, we are forced to the conclusion that if it isn’t solar variation, then the other planets are either having a direct and observable effect directly on the Earth, or via their ‘tuning’ of the Lunar orbit.

  16. tallbloke says:

    Joe Basel: Welcome to the Talkshop, and thanks for the comment.

    Mass redistribution will have an effect on LOD and nutation, and as OlmanK points out, there have been obliquity changes during the holocene.

    The question we need to consider is how big are the forces involved, compared to the effects on precession and nutation from Earth’s neighbouring planets?

  17. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: admission buried in provocative flood:

    “Technically, this is NOT really a Violation because there is an external force acting on the gyroscope, which is the Earth’s gravitation. In the Solar System, there is also an external force acting on the Perturbation of planets with each other, the Sun’s gravitation.”

    Well, it’s in a highlighted pink box on the webpage, so hardly “buried”. In any case, this thread isn’t concerned about that. What we’re interested in is the forces that have been buried in ‘other nutations’ and their true origin ignored. And we’re interested because they arise out of the Z-axis differences generated by the mutually inclined orbital planes, and lend support to your suggestions 13 comments and Ray Tomes solar variation theory.

  18. Ian Wilson says:

    Rog said:

    Given how well our 4 orbit model fits 10Be and 14C data, we are forced to the conclusion that if it isn’t solar variation, then the other planets are either having a direct and observable effect directly on the Earth, or via their ‘tuning’ of the Lunar orbit.

    As strange as it may sound, my money is on all three.

  19. tallbloke says:

    Ian: As strange as it may sound, my money is on all three.

    Yes, I tend to the ‘all of the above’ line of thinking myself. Best to rule nothing out.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian has referred to this twice.
    Without judging it I’m linking directly to it for the record:

    Ron, C.; Chapanov, Y.; & Vondrak, J. (2012). Solar excitation of bicentennial earth rotation oscillations. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 9(3)(167), 259-268.

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Point of clarification on Poluianov & Usoskin (2014):

    Terse formulation of circulatory aliasing geometry:

    Reaction from sub-luminaries:
    “What’s that you say? 1+1=2? No! not having it.”

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    Rog, there’s one thing you can agree to rule out: the false assumption of uniformity. Geometry matters. With the same physics, different apparatus configuration gives different pattern.

  23. tallbloke says:

    Paul: Geometry matters. With the same physics, different apparatus configuration gives different pattern.

    100% agree, and it’s point you are right to keep making while it fails to be acknowledged.

  24. oldbrew says:

    PV links to a 2012 paper (today at 10:20 am). It starts:

    The bicentennial variations of the Earth rotation consist of several oscillations with most known periods 178.7a (Jose cycle), 210a and 230a (de Vries cycle); they are driven by the solar cycles which affect climatic variations, followed by global environmental changes’

    Just a minute there – 210 is de Vries, but 230 isn’t.
    It’s 2 x the 115 year cycle (recognised in Scafetta’s paper) that we discussed yesterday and earlier in one or two other posts.

    In other words it’s where 26 lunar apsidal cycles and 204 full moon cycles coincide (26+204=230).

    To be more accurate we can look at the chart from the post discussing the ‘quarter precession’ period (below).
    Just multiply by 28, adding 1 extra to the FMC number:
    728 apsidal (26 x 28) = 5713 FMC (204 x 28, +1)

    Cross-check: 6441 TY / 28 = 230.0357 [6440 / 28 = 230]

  25. oldbrew says:

    230 years is also one fifth of the 1151 year period Ian Wilson mentioned earlier (5 x 230.2 = 1151).
    (144 Venus-Earth conjunctions = 230.216y)

    And it’s about 7:9 with the Jose cycle. Ron et al paper says:

    Partial correlation exists between the 180a and
    230a cycles
    of the time series of solar and climatic
    indices, and UT1. The solar grand minima are
    irregular in time and the time intervals between them
    are not multiples of the examined periods, so the
    appropriate model of the bicentennial cycles of the
    Earth rotation should combine 180a, 210a, 230a
    oscillations and their harmonics. ‘

  26. oldmanK says:

    The Xinhua news in the Joe basil link is exactly what is hypothesised in the D P Rubincam paper of 1995. Crust relaxation in the Med is certain, with ugly consequences. In my piece of research, since calendar design required equinox sunrise point orientation, two changes are evident. A clockwise rotation by some 47deg from earliest archaic form to middle, and to final. Along with obliquity changes.

    The process of mass shift and crust relaxation provided a complete answer–no remaining anomalies–to what for a long time seemed to be crazy thinking.

    Tks for the link Joe basil, it is the first piece of corroborating material to surface.

    Oldbrew, the second picture is better. But I must also correct my statement. A Yoyo– dropped professionally–with string pull, rotor and gravity in one plane, would not precess.

  27. tallbloke says:

    OldmanK: The original image is not of a “yoyo”. It is a single wheel, which rotates due to precession around the axis of the suspending cord, it’s second position shown in white to the left.

    I was happy to change it to the animation of the more conventional gyroscope for the sake of clarity.

  28. oldmanK says:

    Tallbloke, not quite in agreement there. If held as in pic and spun, nothing happens. If you swing it round as in pic, yes then it will precess about the missing axis. The front wheel of a bicycle is rigidly held as in pic. Spin it, it remains there; but swing the handlebar round and the bicycle will try to topple to one side. Test it and ride the bicycle and let go the handlebar. Tilting one way or the other (roll) will move the wheel and handle to change direction (yaw) without falling over. The front wheel precesses in the required direction to keeps you balanced. (i’m sure you tried that on the Matchless. The winner does it at the end of the race usually; or on just the rear wheel, but if he tilts the handlebar the bike will roll).

    This is interesting in respect of relation of gyro and earth motion.
    Quote “The consequence of gyroscopic inertia is that to the observer on Earth the spin axis of a gyroscope makes an apparent movement over a period of time, although this apparent motion merely reflects the revolution of the Earth about its axis.

    There is one exception to this, that when the spin axis points towards the polar star, there is no movement of the spin axis with respect to the observer’s surroundings, as the axis is parallel to the Earth’s axis and points toward the Celestial poles.”.

  29. tallbloke says:

    OldmanK: If held as in pic and spun, nothing happens. If you swing it round as in pic, yes then it will precess about the missing axis

    There’s no conceptual difference between a gyroscope with an axle-end on a stand and a gyroscope with an axle-end suspended on a cord. Either will precess.

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian Wilson (November 11, 2015 at 8:21 am) asked:


    How does your model deal with my findings that these long-term periods are naturally found in the planetary cycles?”

    In good humor (not intended in sarcastic tone — rather more jovial):
    I always laugh at the suggestion that I have a model and do modeling. I just explore.

    More seriously:
    I’m one of the hardest core Pareto Principle subscribers anyone could ever meet. In my philosophy we need to have an efficient division of labor.

    Hardcore Suggestion:
    Modelers are more than welcome to incorporate exploratory insight into models. By “more than welcome” I mean obligated.


    I would like to be able to answer your question but what I really need to do so carefully are analogous geological records from geophysically similar planets with different orbital periods (to check for analogous aliasing).

    Now addressing the broader community:

    Until such records are available there is of course more work that can be done on exploratory fronts with the combination of existing records and faintly growing (at the community level) general awareness of multi-axial balanced differentials.

    Probably there’s scope for someone genius at blowing terse algebraic blizzards to define a compact conceptual framework in advance of availability of extraterrestrial historical geophysical records. I imagine this demanding only geometric axioms and higher awareness.

    It’s possible that human scientific culture has evolved in such a manner that broader acceptance will demand algebraic statements of one or a few broadly generalized asymptotic statistics of turbulence theorems (currently undocumented in terrestrial records), but of course existence of geometric axioms doesn’t hinge on inefficient cultural norms.

    No mater the physics what’s missing right now in climate discussion is proper respect for the spatial configuration of physical apparatus. Run the same physics with apparatus set up in a different pattern and different pattern will result. It’s simple: Different pattern yields different pattern.

    image credit: Bill Illis

    I don’t have any plans to blow blizzards of algebra (not my thing). Someone else can play that role. Once their algebraic framework balances the multi-axial differential (this stuff isn’t free to do whatever it wants; everything’s coupled), they may be able to comment decisively on any geometrically provable connections of the aliasing framework to Ian’s suggestions.

    There’s full scope here to meet the very highest standards of scientific rigor. It’s beyond Milankovitch because it’s a simple extension to the next order of spatiotemporal pattern via differential accounting. The math of equator-pole & interhemispheric gradient & heat engine aliasing is dead-simple, so there’s no reason why a collection of geniuses with sufficient time & resources shouldn’t be able to race to nail this and make rigorously testable predictions about extraterrestrial historical geophysical records.

    It’s a simple extension of Milankovitch to next order that demands nothing more than basic awareness of aliasing via the organs of staple circulatory topology.

    Aliasing estimates are very sensitive to small error. While exploring aliasing keep in mind that Saturn’s period is not yet known with sufficient accuracy. A mission aiming to cure that is underway.

    Much of what we’re casually exploring here in scarce free time is likely known and classified. It’s so simple that I find it at least nearly untenable that experts in navigation & guidance wouldn’t already know all of this. If it is classified it might be for reasons such as helping to prevent terrorists from being able to pierce nuke-tipped-missile-defense shields. If that’s the case my short-term recommendation to defense admins might be to lie about the details in the decimal places because this will hide the aliasing to all non-luminaries. But longer-term there are rafts upon rafts of ethical considerations that make this untenable and even in more immediate practical terms a lot of operations now depend on accurate GPS, so where’s the balance?


  31. Paul Vaughan says:

    may look OT upon naive glance but with deeper awareness & sobriety certainly isn’t:

    Does anyone know if David Evans’ theories being presented at wife Joanne Nova’s blog can account for Bill Illis’ famous Temp_Geography_45_Mys graph?

    caution advised…

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    What is more likely to have abruptly changed at junctures in Bill Illis’ famous Temp_Geography_45_Mys graph?

    a) the laws of physics?
    b) physical aliasing geometry?

    “Duh !!” moment

  33. Paul Vaughan says:

    Lukewarmists are adamant:
    Geometry has NO role and you accept either this or relentless vicious harassment.

  34. tallbloke says:

    Bill’s plot is excellent. Niklas Morner has done some similar work too. I guess exoplanets are a tough gig because there may not be the same kind of deposition/layering that makes Earth decipherable. Plus you have to get the drilling equipment out there…
    I wish we had the resources to employ a competent geo-modeller to help us. In the meantime, we can take Paul’s pointers to help specify what we’d want from a model. That’s a worthwhile project in itself, as it may lead to further insight of how stuff is connected.

    We need:
    A spinning globe with satellite moon creating tides
    changes in obliquity and rotation rate
    Changes in continental positions and the consequent changes in oceanic flows
    A varying Sun

    Later we can add volcanoes and the biological big guns like plankton and vegetation.

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB suggested:
    “I wish we had the resources to employ a competent geo-modeller to help us.”

    My suggestion:
    Prerequisites first.

    The configuration of the apparatus matters and tweaking the physics can’t compensate for omission. Modeling amplitude without prerequisite proof of aggregate spatiotemporal phasing isn’t a sensible ambition.

    TB acknowledged:
    “Bill’s plot is excellent.”

    It’s an all-time classic climate education graph.

  36. Paul Vaughan says:

    1470 D-O

    Neptune harmonic nearest long-run average solar cycle length:
    (164.79132) / 15 = 10.986088 sidereal years

    J+N = 11.06602004 sidereal years
    something in between = 11.06881108 sidereal years
    JEV = 11.06964992 sidereal years

    (11.06602004)*(10.986088) / (11.06602004 – 10.986088) = 1520.945456 sidereal years
    (11.06964992)*(10.986088) / (11.06964992 – 10.986088) = 1455.353637 sidereal years

    (1470)*(10.986088) / (1470 – 10.986088) = 11.06881108 sidereal years

  37. oldbrew says:

    Another way of looking at the 1470 year period is the conjunction numbers:
    115 Jupiter-Neptune = 74 Jupiter-Saturn = 41 Saturn-Neptune.

    So there should be a triple conjunction of these three giant planets with the Sun at this frequency (1470y), or four-way if Earth is included.

    Also: 619 Venus-Mercury = 245 years = one sixth of 1470 years.

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    Remember this?


    As reported lower in that thread and on other occasions it goes beyond that.
    I never made time to report.

    However, given the terrestrial aliasing of Neptune geometry we’re discussing I went looking for analogies yesterday and noticed what I’ve reported just above. That’s something we all should have noticed sooner. When I look back in my records I see that an opportunity to notice that was missed when I was investigating long JEV cycles, which have a period equal to that of Neptune (something which shows up clearly in output from NASA JPL Horizons online ephemerides).

    Given that solar cycle length varies, this becomes very interesting and we can now say with confidence that D-O is nailed.

    Ian: Do you understand? This is important. It’s time to slow right down to avoid all possibility of misunderstanding. You’re going to love this whenever you understand deeply what I’m reporting because D-O is a shifting solar cycle alias of JEV. If I were you (with your particular set of interests) I’d be inclined (wink, wink) to explore the subtle role Neptune’s orbit plays in shaping JEV amplitude, which in turn feeds back into aliasing of N by JEV.

    The pattern is clear in NASA JPL Horizons output, so it should be easy for someone who understands the role of Jovian evection resonance in EV eccentricity coupling & Milankovitch cycles (see notes & video https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/jarl-ahlbeck-a-link-between-low-solar-activity-easterly-qbo-negative-ao-and-cold-nh-winters/comment-page-1/#comment-93621 ) to interpret this for a wider audience.

    There’s easy opportunity to dovetail right into this and that opportunity extends to anyone who’s paying attention and understanding. It’s important that this be documented in support of evolving human (particularly northern) awareness and survival. The names attached are not what’s important.

    I suspect this is already known and classified. Because it’s so simple I have to consider it at least nearly untenable that top experts in long-term military strategy and short-term navigation & guidance would be unaware. There are serious strategic geopolitical implications for northern civilization in particular.

    We’re not going to be able to avoid discussing this out in the open forever, particularly since rediscovery of the wheel is easy in this case.

    I’ve now finished providing a conceptual bridge from multidecadal differintegral geometry to the D-O timescale differintegral geometry outlined by Rial and it’s up to everyone to recognize and acknowledge that the 2 are actually one and the same.

    I’m curious to see if people get this before it’s spelled out more graphically.

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    A few weeks ago I noticed that Luna ties into this frame too, so fans of external excitation of internal modes will have something to think about once I find time to dig through my notes and organize terse presentation.

  40. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, have you ever seen this pointed out?
    (18.61336897)*(8.847542139) = 164.6825663

  41. oldbrew says:

    PV: no, but this period is close to 12 Neptune orbits.

    Also: 9 Jupiter-Neptune conjunctions, 13 lunar apsidal cycles, 102 full moon cycles and 115 years are closely related (13 + 102 = 115).

  42. oldmanK says:

    TB you are right re the string suspended gyro, and I realise I missed something that is inferred in the picture, gravity. The pull of the string along the Z axis is moving; rotates with the earth, inducing precession. Except when the string lies along the earth’s axis.

    An interesting point I also find curious. In the subject text above, something I would question; quote “Also, consider a “new earth” exactly like ours but not precessing at all. It would (somehow) START to precess, in other words, the Precessional motion of the earth would ACCELERATE up to the rate it is now at.” end quote. A non precessing new earth ‘with zero obliquity’ has equatorial bulge in plane of ecliptic, therefore there is no force inducing precession. But then possible unequal polar ice mass creates obliquity and precession would follow.

    My drift here is that climate itself may be an independent influence, and a possible starter of non regular behaviour.

  43. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul said:

    “(18.61336897)*(8.847542139) = 164.6825663”

    Paul – A minor conceptual difference that I think may be important to note.

    In the above statement you are multiplying LAC by LNC.

    LAC is the time it takes for the lunar line-of-apse to realign with the stars (i.e. sidereal) and LNC is the time it takes the lunar line-of-nodes to realign with the stars (i.e. sidereal also).

    Mean Monthly Lunar Cycles (J2000)

    anomalistic month = 27.554550 days
    Draconic month = 27.212221 days
    Sidereal month = 27.32166 days


    LAC = (27.554550 x 27.32166) / (27.554550 – 27.32166) = 3232.582106 d. = 8.850517 tropical yrs

    LNC = (27.212221 x 27.32166) / (27.32166 – 27.212221) = 6793.584097 d. = 18.60022 tropical yrs.

    These are the values that would apply in a frame-of-reference that is fixed with the stars.

    To get the values that you are using above you have to have beaten together values for the Full Moon Cycle (in tropical years) and Draconic Year (in tropical years) with the tropical year.

    Using the J2000 values for the FMC and the DY i.e.

    1.0 FMC = 411.78443029 days = 1.1274284 tropical years
    1.0 DY = 346.620075883 days = 0.9490143 tropical years

    1.0 FMC (in trop. yrs) x 1.0 trop. yr / ( 1.0 FMC (in trop. yrs) – 1.0 trop. yr) = 8.8475442 trop. yrs

    1.0 DY (in trop, yrs) x 1.0 trop, yr. / (1.0 trop yr. – 1.0 DY (in trop. yrs) = 18.61335895 trop. yrs

    These are the values that would apply in a frame-of-reference that is fixed to the precessing R.A. and Dec co-ordinate system that is linked to 25,700 precession of the Earth’s axis of rotation.

    Since the LAC and LNC are defined in terms of the sidereal frame-of-reference – they should be a moving target in the R.A. and Dec frame-of-reference.

    This means that if you compare your Earth-defined LNC and LAC values to stellar-orientated orbital periods, won’t it cause some problems over long time scales?

  44. Ian Wilson says:


    I have shown that there is a natural 1470 year period in the lunar cycles as well.


  45. oldbrew says:

    IW: a small point – in your blog post (link above, 2:26 pm) you say:

    ‘Hence, the full reset time for the Perigee-Perihelion cycle is 1832.00 years. This the famous Keeling & Whorf 1800 year tidal cycle.’

    This isn’t a typo as you say ‘the Perigee- Perihelion cycle is almost precisely reset after 916.00 years.’ (2 x 916 = 1832)

    But the K&W period is 9 years less i.e. 1823 years as their own graphic shows:

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    All the moon can do is mix.
    The sun is the driver.

    Lunisolar pattern is a fixed internal mode = a set of strings.

    The sun on the other hand has variable frequency = external fingers moving on the internal strings. It’s dynamic. It’s the wind.

    I had thought there would be more interest in deriving the testable analogous aliasing patterns for Venus, Mars, & other bodies to help inspire funding for aggressive sampling missions, for example from an advancing power like China looking to establish unquestionable dominance in climate politics some years out.

    All we need is lots of samples from other bodies. That will answer the question of what is aliased by a body uniquely versus what’s common to the whole solar system.

    I’m trying to help everyone realize the need to derive the long run attractors. The problem cannot be solved in general form by looking at events, which are just points in time. Generalization demands going the step further to isolate the lines (i.e. the attractors) on which those points (& clusters of points) fall.

    Then the next step is to generalize how the (external) fingers of the sun rock on intersecting clusters of background (internal) lines. The wind (i.e. the sun) blows stuff, so it doesn’t get to just sit still.

    The trace of the sun’s fingers curve in time, so the wind blows across the background strings. (Is everyone at least thinking topologically (as in circulatory topology) now? As a community have we at least evolved that far? I sure hope so.)

    Spatiotemporallly near-commensurate external stimulus excites by rocking back & forth on differintegral internal structure.

    Helioweaving spatiotemporal frameworks (both aliased and hypothetically unaliased) can be defined precisely and tested decisively with extraterrestrial samples. Which power will spearhead the effort and take FULL control of the climate discussion 1 or 2 generations from now? The answer: A power with the right combination of lucid foresight, evolving ability, & intense drive. My money’s on China. Will China keep key future findings classified? It’s certainly possible! We may die without acknowledgement knowing we made a difference.

    Ian: Could you at least develop a habit of throwing in a line of diplomacy like this:
    “How the sun excites these internal lunisolar modes has not been explored in this work.”

    So long longstanding misunderstandings, falling one at a time as a string of dominoes in slow motion.


  47. Paul,

    I think that you are missing the point. It is not about whether the Moon or the Sun is the sole point of attribution.

    You are using a cycle length for the LAC and LNC which is fixed in a frame of reference that is precessing through 360 degree roughly once every 25,700 years. The values that you are using are those that are fixed in a framework that is tied into the period of precession of the Earth’s axis. This of course will link in with the seasons, so I understand your rationale for using them.

    What I am noting is that it is also possible to use values of LNC and LAC that are not tied to this co-ordinate frame. For instances, they can be tied into a frame that is fixed with respect to stars or even one that is fixed with respect to precession of the line-of-apse of the Earth’s orbit (roughly once every 100,000 years). The question then becomes which frame of reference is fundamental in the long term?

    Values of LAC and LNC that are defined in a reference frame that is fixed with stars (i.e. when you define the period of the LAC as the time required for the lunar line-of-apse to rotate once around the Earth compared to the fixed stars and when you define the LNC as the time required for the lunar line-of-nodes to rotate once around the Earth with respect to the fixed stars), will drift compared to ones that you have defined.

    In essence you are determining the LAC by beating the anomalistic month with the lunar tropical month rather than the lunar sidereal month, and determining the LNC by beating the Draconic month with the lunar tropical month rather than the lunar sidereal month.

    When you are comparing your seasonal LAC and LNC with planetary events e.g. the physical alignment of Jupiter and Saturn (as seen from the Earth) there is not a problem. However, when you are using position in the sky to determine an event e.g. the time required for a planet to return to same position with respect to the stars (i.e. its sidereal orbital period) you do have a problem. In this case, you should be using the time it takes for the planet to return to the same R.A. and Dec as seen from the Earth.

    Over a short period of time, this error will not amount to much but over the long haul it can make a big difference. You method dictates that you use a planetary period that requires the planets to return to a point in their orbit that is moving with respect to the fixed stars.

  48. oldbrew says:
    November 14, 2015 at 3:41 pm


    Good point! If you look at the third diagram in this post and concentrate on the red dots you will see that the period of the short term drift in the alignment of the 31 year lunar apse cycle with the position of perihelion of the Earth’s orbit (i.e the perigee-perihelion cycle) is nine years.

    I am not sure why there would be this difference of exactly 9 years. I probably did see the difference because of my mild dyslexia, 1823 and 1832 look the same to me sometimes 🙂

  49. Correction!

    The third diagram in my post does not take into account the drift of the perihelion with respect to the stars.

    The line-of-apse the Earth’s orbital ellipse precesses in space, primarily as a result of interactions with Jupiter and Saturn, taking roughly 112,000 to circumnavigate the Sun.

    This will lead to a rotation in the line of reference in the third diagram of:

    (360/112,000 degrees per/year) x 1832 years = 5.89 degrees ~ 6.0 degrees

    If you look at the third diagram, the 9 year short term drift pattern is spaced in angle by ~ 6.9 degree, so it s quite possible that allowing for the perihelion drift of the Earth’s orbit would produce a period of 1823 rather than 1832 years.

  50. oldbrew says:

    2 x 1823.5 years = 7 Inex eclipse periods (18 Inex each) of 521 years.

  51. Paul Vaughan says:

    Misrepresentation of the years squared curiosity isn’t helpful.


    Osculating elements of Earth-Moon orbit of Sun have Neptune period.
    You can effortlessly verify this via NASA JPL Horizons online ephemerides.
    Suggestion: Illustrate the long JEV cycle (of period N). This exercise will clarify that JEV = J+N.

    tip: balanced multi-axial differential

  52. oldbrew says:

    Neptune ratio to the de Vries cycle is about 19N:15dV

  53. Paul Vaughan says:


    It can be proven geometrically that in long-run central limit:

    JEV = J+N

    You may laugh out loud with humility if/when you achieve clarity as to why because it’s soooo simple and it’s one of those “why the **** didn’t we notice sooner???” things in life.

    All the time I wasted thinking about this and all along it was soooo simple…. (makes a person feel really ****ing stupid for not realizing sooner…..)

    A dose of this kind of humility is exactly what mainstream climate-science fiction needs.

    The long JEV cycle has period N.
    ((sealed with a sledge hammer ***bang*** THE END))

  54. astroclimateconnection says:

    For added clarity, I have move the parenthesis:

    (360/112,000) degrees per/year x 1832 years = 5.89 degrees ~ 6.0 degrees

  55. Paul Vaughan says:

    I didn’t realize it at the time, but I illustrated the D-O cycle of JEV on Jan. 31, 2010.

  56. oldbrew says:

    A new paper: ‘Lift on a Wing’ from Miles Mathis says (at the end):

    ‘A spinning gyroscope loses weight because it recycles more charge. Just like the proton and nucleus and Earth, the gyroscope recycles from pole to equator. So when it is spinning fast, it pulls charge in most at its south or lower pole, feeding on the Earth’s rising charge. But this charge can’t go straight through and out the north pole, since angular momentum is forcing it sideways and out the equator. So again, the gyroscope is effectively blocking the rising charge stream, forcing it out sideways and into longer paths. This is what causes the lift and thereby the weight loss.’

    If that sounds mysterious, have a look at the paper.

  57. oldmanK says:

    How will this effect the earth gyro?

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    trivial extension to Saturn…

    Earth year aliasing of Saturn orbit:
    (29.447498) / 29 = 1.015430966
    (1.015430966)*(1) / (1.015430966 – 1) = 65.8047589 years ~= 66 years

    Earth year aliasing of Saturn’s nodal cycle:
    (29.447498) / 2 = 14.723749
    (14.723749) / 15 = 0.981583267
    (1)*(0.981583267) / (1 – 0.981583267) = 53.29844598 years ~= 53 years

    (credit: Tim Channon)

    Analogous calculations for Earth year aliasing of Jupiter’s & Neptune’s nodal cycles:

    This is getting a little difficult to ignore…
    …but the mainstream has this cherished strategy: ignore well = ignOrwell

    It’s actually getting a little funny. They can’t face it and be serious. They’ve got themselves boxed into such a corner. They’re probably thinking, “sh*t! how the h*ll are we going to save face?…”

    For now their strategy remains: ignore well

  59. Paul Vaughan says:

    “[…] we’d expect the peaks in TSI from the Sun every ~11 years to produce small but detectable corresponding peaks in surface temperature […]” — David Evans — http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-21-the-mysterious-notch-in-the-sun-earth-relationship-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/

    Advice: Rethink naivety.

    In a flash the signal came to reveal more:

    Maybe the community will eventually be ready for the role of J+N & JEV in Milankovitch. One step at a time….