You asked me to look into it, I had told you that my previous evidence on the susness of ice cores was sufficient, and it was.
OP proposes the extraordinary (astrological) claim that Aquarius regularly influences global cataclysms, which isn't supported by extraordinary evidence (or even ordinary for that matter).
claim that Aquarius regularly influences global cataclysms
Utter fucking nonsense. The OP outlines the evidence that catastrophes on earth follow a cyclical pattern. The way you try to twist things is just because of the specific stick up your ass of biblical literalism and trying to stuff everything into 6,000 years. Try not to let your mental illness shit up my threads. It’s rude.
The OP outlines the evidence that catastrophes on earth follow a cyclical pattern.
And in that pattern they "only" happen when the sun is in Aquarius or one of the other three Carlson-preferred signs. I have no doubt that if there were 26,000 years the sun would trace a complete precession. What I have doubt about is any mechanism that would create cataclysms at consistent intervals in that period. And astrology has the exact same lack of mechanism for essentially the same reasons.
You do understand how apophenia creates confirmation bias when the bar is so low as matching one out of three periods or relatively close to that, right? Do you want more math demonstration of that?
Or the most likely candidate, nothing about our cosmic environment actually changes, but cyclical shifts in the earth’s magnetic poles simply lower our cosmic defenses.
Do you want more … of that?
No, no one wants to read any further of your intellectual jerking off. How about you just engage with what’s presented while trying to minimize your tendency to argue disingenuously and against evidence not presented.
The period of that oscillation is about 65 million years, not 6,500 (ooh, 4 orders of magnitude off, nice coincidence, I wonder what it means). Two seconds to disprove.
There is much more on Planet X from astrologers than from astronomers. The Brown hypothesis, the leading candidate, has a period of 10,000-20,000 years, although it's based on six potential perturbations and potentially disproven by two others.
So it sounds like if such an event could cataclyze the earth (mechanism unproven and Nibiru-like), it would not be cyclical at all but would depend on chaotic factors from many quarters (which I summarized as Brownian motion). But ultimately you're getting back to Biblical demons, the same explanation as the assistance with the pyramids. It wouldn't be based on the Aquarian precession interval that just happens to come close to one good fit of the data. Just because we notice a movement doesn't mean we've proven it sinks Titanics.
No, no one wants to read any further of your intellectual jerking off. How about you just engage with what’s presented
You asked me to look into it, I had told you that my previous evidence on the susness of ice cores was sufficient, and it was.
OP proposes the extraordinary (astrological) claim that Aquarius regularly influences global cataclysms, which isn't supported by extraordinary evidence (or even ordinary for that matter).
Utter fucking nonsense. The OP outlines the evidence that catastrophes on earth follow a cyclical pattern. The way you try to twist things is just because of the specific stick up your ass of biblical literalism and trying to stuff everything into 6,000 years. Try not to let your mental illness shit up my threads. It’s rude.
And in that pattern they "only" happen when the sun is in Aquarius or one of the other three Carlson-preferred signs. I have no doubt that if there were 26,000 years the sun would trace a complete precession. What I have doubt about is any mechanism that would create cataclysms at consistent intervals in that period. And astrology has the exact same lack of mechanism for essentially the same reasons.
You do understand how apophenia creates confirmation bias when the bar is so low as matching one out of three periods or relatively close to that, right? Do you want more math demonstration of that?
Seriously? Here’s an easy one that takes two seconds to come up with: our vertical movement wrt the galactic plane. As seen in this image:
https://i.sstatic.net/DfAo0.jpg
Or how about another easy one? The all but confirmed-to-exist now Planet 9/X
https://www.space.com/astronomy/solar-system/evidence-of-controversial-planet-9-uncovered-in-sky-surveys-taken-23-years-apart
Or how about various solar cycles concatenating?
Or the most likely candidate, nothing about our cosmic environment actually changes, but cyclical shifts in the earth’s magnetic poles simply lower our cosmic defenses.
No, no one wants to read any further of your intellectual jerking off. How about you just engage with what’s presented while trying to minimize your tendency to argue disingenuously and against evidence not presented.
https://web.archive.org/web/20241103124930/https://i.sstatic.net/DfAo0.jpg (archived from original).
The period of that oscillation is about 65 million years, not 6,500 (ooh, 4 orders of magnitude off, nice coincidence, I wonder what it means). Two seconds to disprove.
There is much more on Planet X from astrologers than from astronomers. The Brown hypothesis, the leading candidate, has a period of 10,000-20,000 years, although it's based on six potential perturbations and potentially disproven by two others.
So it sounds like if such an event could cataclyze the earth (mechanism unproven and Nibiru-like), it would not be cyclical at all but would depend on chaotic factors from many quarters (which I summarized as Brownian motion). But ultimately you're getting back to Biblical demons, the same explanation as the assistance with the pyramids. It wouldn't be based on the Aquarian precession interval that just happens to come close to one good fit of the data. Just because we notice a movement doesn't mean we've proven it sinks Titanics.