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
But you believe everything that happened in what science calls “65,000,000 years” actually did happen in the last 6,500 - disingenuous retard alert
So it sounds like if such an event could cataclyze the earth (mechanism unproven and Nibiru-like), it would not be cyclical at all
Are you seriously retarded? If a planet 700 times larger than earth orbits the Sun with a 26,000 year period and a highly elliptical orbit, it would obviously be picking up small bodies as it transited the Oort Cloud and the asteroid belt, which would lead to cyclical impacts as they were dragged closer to earth, following the pattern of the 26,000 orbit.
Since I knew you were gunna respond like a fag, make sure to check out the preemptive edit, regarding pole shifts.
Solar cycles concatenating: Sounds like apophenia, but please lay out the evidence if you like.
Polar shift and magnetic cycles: Yeah, that one's been used by flood proponents too. Geomagnetic "reversal occurrences appear to be statistically random." The most recent is put at 780,000 years ago. The existence of a "Cretaceous normal superchron" of no reversal for 30 million years indicates to me that the uniformitarian interpretation is woefully incomplete (i.e., evidence neither of randomness nor of cycle but of bursts of activity related to cataclysms). But I don't recall offhand what I've seen about what the claims of reversal epochs actually arise from or amount to. Oh yeah, it was based on collecting a bunch of rocks of two different magnetisms and assuming the Geologic Column correctly shows those rock ages. So all such observations are handled by the same approach, namely how did the rock get there and have two different polarities, and flood theorists have worked that for awhile.
If we have evidence something happened, I claim it happened in the scale of thousands of years. If we have evidence that something would have happened if the universe was old enough, like the fit of the sun's movement to an oscillator, then I don't deny that it would happen but I deny that we have any evidence it's happened. The sun's path being oscillating is likely enough but every astrophysicist admits it's all inferred from a very brief period of observation for the sun and other stars. The Age of Aquarius has real astronomic meaning but there's no evidence that it's happened before (and even the alleged evidence only stays on the thousands scale).
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.
But you believe everything that happened in what science calls “65,000,000 years” actually did happen in the last 6,500 - disingenuous retard alert
Are you seriously retarded? If a planet 700 times larger than earth orbits the Sun with a 26,000 year period and a highly elliptical orbit, it would obviously be picking up small bodies as it transited the Oort Cloud and the asteroid belt, which would lead to cyclical impacts as they were dragged closer to earth, following the pattern of the 26,000 orbit.
Since I knew you were gunna respond like a fag, make sure to check out the preemptive edit, regarding pole shifts.
Solar cycles concatenating: Sounds like apophenia, but please lay out the evidence if you like.
Polar shift and magnetic cycles: Yeah, that one's been used by flood proponents too. Geomagnetic "reversal occurrences appear to be statistically random." The most recent is put at 780,000 years ago. The existence of a "Cretaceous normal superchron" of no reversal for 30 million years indicates to me that the uniformitarian interpretation is woefully incomplete (i.e., evidence neither of randomness nor of cycle but of bursts of activity related to cataclysms). But I don't recall offhand what I've seen about what the claims of reversal epochs actually arise from or amount to. Oh yeah, it was based on collecting a bunch of rocks of two different magnetisms and assuming the Geologic Column correctly shows those rock ages. So all such observations are handled by the same approach, namely how did the rock get there and have two different polarities, and flood theorists have worked that for awhile.
If we have evidence something happened, I claim it happened in the scale of thousands of years. If we have evidence that something would have happened if the universe was old enough, like the fit of the sun's movement to an oscillator, then I don't deny that it would happen but I deny that we have any evidence it's happened. The sun's path being oscillating is likely enough but every astrophysicist admits it's all inferred from a very brief period of observation for the sun and other stars. The Age of Aquarius has real astronomic meaning but there's no evidence that it's happened before (and even the alleged evidence only stays on the thousands scale).