Thread: Harmonics Theory

The Harmonics theory arose from a study of cycles (repeating phenomena) from many disciplines. It was realized that nonlinear systems could lead to harmonics of harmonics and a unique (musical) pattern of energy frequencies is created. Eventually I realized that this was a candidate for "formula for the universe". Everything is wave structures of energy. There is no randomness.

Harmonics theory explains many asked and unasked questions. It explains why matter clumps in structures with astronomical spacings such as galaxies, stars, planets, moons down on to atoms and subatomic particles.

I have previously posted a lot of material to BAUT forum and there was much discussion there. I was banned from there, so could not answer more questions. If you have questions I am very happy to answer them. Or criticisms also welcome. But please read before criticizing.

The maths and physics of the harmonics theory:
Harmonics Theory Physics and Maths

Wobbly Universe playlist on YouTube:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
This include the 4 videos "how to make a universe" and more on cycles.

Threads in BAUT forum (detailed discussions with answers):
Harmonics Theory
Quantized Redshift revisited
there is also a "how to make a universe" thread there.

If people want, some of that material can be reposted here.

I realized a few years back that much of the information that went into suggesting the Harmonics theory is far from common knowledge. So let me give some interesting links that support the background. The findings that I mention here are just a small sample, the tip, of the iceberg as it were.

Edward R Dewey was the director of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles from 1941 until he dies in 1979. When it was formed, there were many famous scientists, businessmen and even a vice president of the USA who were on the board of FSC. [Note the FSC stopped operating in the late 1990s and the newly formed FSC is a very different organization]

Dewey summarized the findings of decades of research into cycles in every discipline with this paper:
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.o...for_cycles.pdf
I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand more about how the universe works.

His findings that common cycles often have periods with ratios of 2 and 3 predates such concepts as chaos theory and other non-linear systems that develop such harmonic ratios. The cycles found in the Sun in the following years (1980s onwards) continue to show the same harmonic structure. There are cycles with periods 26, 52, 78 and 156 days and others. The 2 and 3 ratios indicate some special cause. Dewey never found the cause but I have found something that explains the whole structure of cycles found by Dewey as well as these additional ones found since he died. See http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.o...olar154day.pdf

At a geological conference studying cycles in geology, a book was published called "Megacycles" and edited by well known Australian geologist George Williams. It too lists cycles of period about 600, 300, 150, 74 and 37 million years, all ratios of 2. I visited Russia in about 1995 and was lucky to meet Moscow University Geology Prof S Afanasiev who has determined that longest cycle as being accurately 586.24 million years.

From the harmonics theory it is possible to predict a unique pattern of harmonically related cycles. It turns out that this unique pattern matches the observed cycles of Dewey and another thousand researchers in the range of a few months to a few hundred years, plus all the newly discovered solar cycles as well as all the long geological cycles. The pattern only fits when the longest cycle is taken as 1.4*10^23 years, a period 10 million million times longer than the age of the Universe in big bang cosmology. And in harmonics theory the universe will have done many cycles.

Originally Posted by RayTomes

Edward R Dewey was the director of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles from 1941 until he died in 1979.

Now there's a name I haven't heard of in a v-e-e-e-e-ery long time. I'm sorry to hear of his passing. You know Ray (may I call you Ray; your photo indicates that you're younger than I) sometimes the simplest answer is not only the easiest but the 'cleanest' and most correct. I was a big fan of Ed's back in the day before I got busy with life. Now that you've reminded me, I'll have to go back and dig up all that research (that is if I haven't 'lost' it or -more likely- my wife hasn't got rid of it.... ).

Originally Posted by David E. Eaton Sr.

...sometimes the simplest answer is not only the easiest but the 'cleanest' and most correct.

Not quite Occam's Razor, but it's certainly an adjunct to it.

Originally Posted by RayTomes

His findings that common cycles often have periods with ratios of 2 and 3 predates such concepts as chaos theory and other non-linear systems that develop such harmonic ratios. The cycles found in the Sun in the following years (1980s onwards) continue to show the same harmonic structure. There are cycles with periods 26, 52, 78 and 156 days and others. The 2 and 3 ratios indicate some special cause.
...

At a geological conference studying cycles in geology, a book was published called "Megacycles" and edited by well known Australian geologist George Williams. It too lists cycles of period about 600, 300, 150, 74 and 37 million years, all ratios of 2.

[/quote]From the harmonics theory it is possible to predict a unique pattern of harmonically related cycles.[/quote]

What about "cycles" which are truly chaotic i.e. non-repetitious?

Originally Posted by David E. Eaton Sr.

Now there's a name I haven't heard of in a v-e-e-e-e-ery long time. I'm sorry to hear of his passing. You know Ray (may I call you Ray; your photo indicates that you're younger than I) sometimes the simplest answer is not only the easiest but the 'cleanest' and most correct. I was a big fan of Ed's back in the day before I got busy with life. Now that you've reminded me, I'll have to go back and dig up all that research (that is if I haven't 'lost' it or -more likely- my wife hasn't got rid of it.... ).

Hi David

Yes you may call me Ray. Unfortunately I never met Edward R Dewey, but I have met his son Ned. By the time I heard of FSC he was long gone. I do have a four volume set "Cycles Classic Library Collection" which was put out by FSC in 1987 and which includes most of the best articles from Cycles magazine up to that time, a big proportion of them by Ed. He said that he felt like Tycho Brahe who collected a vast amount of cycles data and was waiting for Kepler to come along and make sense of the patterns in it. I think that Harmonics Theory is the equivalent for cycles that Kepler's laws were for planetary motions.

If you have some stories from the old days, I would love to hear them. Please see Cycles Research Institute's web site where some of Ed's papers are posted and further cycles studies.
LINK: Cycles Research Institute

Regards
Ray

Originally Posted by mugaliens

...
What about "cycles" which are truly chaotic i.e. non-repetitious?

Cycles can be divided in a number of different classifications based on regularity and uniformity. In practice though there is no such thing as perfectly regular. For example the length of a day varies because the earth's orbit is elliptical and because of the axial tilt and the seasons. Even more, it varies because of climatic fluctuations which affect its angular momentum. The best atomic clocks have slight fluctuations which can be checked against pulsars which are the most steady clocks known. But even they have variations when there are "star quakes" as the matter settles under cooling.

At the other extreme would be genuine chaos. Mathematical chaos is not totally unpredictable, it may be predictable for a few cycles and then the uncertainty of initial conditions means that we don't know which way it will go. However I have found that several systems that have been attributed to mathematical chaos are actually better explained by Harmonics theory. That does not mean that we cannot design systems that are unpredictable, these can surely be made.

But Edward Dewey said in every field of study (every scientific and natural discipline) all sufficiently long time series are found to have real cycles. I have also found this to be true. But if we have insufficient data, we will not be able to find the cycles. Also, the cycles found will not account for all of the fluctuations in any case.

Even the supposedly most random thing in physics, the decay of radioactive isotopes has been found to have cycles. The Russians have done continuous measurements since about the 1970s and histograms of the number of events of periods like an hour show that they tend to recur after periods of 1 day, 1 lunar month, and 1 year. That means that even radioactive decay is subtly influenced by cosmic alignments.

Using the Russian data I found (as predicted in advance) that there were 3 and 6 minute cycles in Plutonium decay. The Russian scientists confirmed that these two cycles were present through 18 years of data that they had stored.

In the last few years, western scientists have also begun to report cycles in radioactive decay rates. Mostly the 1 year cycle, which they attribute to the distance from the Sun. I would agree with that.

Originally Posted by RayTomes

At the other extreme would be genuine chaos. Mathematical chaos is not totally unpredictable, it may be predictable for a few cycles and then the uncertainty of initial conditions means that we don't know which way it will go. However I have found that several systems that have been attributed to mathematical chaos are actually better explained by Harmonics theory. That does not mean that we cannot design systems that are unpredictable, these can surely be made.

I used to work with encryption, and back then the goal was to obtain and indecipherable, unpredictable degree of randomness. We were only interested in 1s and 0s. To achieve this we used something called "slow entropy polling." In essence, we found high-frequency noise sources, such as static, and slowly, pseudo-randomly polled the sources. Static isn't random. The pseudo-random intervals used to determine when we measured the wave to determine if its amplitude at that moment was positive or negative wasn't random, either. To alleviate positive or negative bias, we inverted half the signals. When we pseudo-randomly polled pseudo-random noise from several different sources, then used a simple XOR function on the resulting sets, the results had lost all patterns associated with their original sources. There were no more harmonics. The resulting 1s and 0s were truly random.

In summary, you're right - we can design systems which are unpredictable.