Long geological cycles, nanocycles method, lunar node and Elatinacycle cause

For a long time I have had interest in cycles in all disciplines.
Many years ago I came across "Megacycles" which is the
proceedings of a geological conference edited by G Williams
and mentioning ~600, ~300, ~150, 74 and 37 million year
cycles in geological formations.

About 10 years ago I visited Russia and Crimea (Ukraine)
where I attended several cycles conferences. There I met
Geology Prof S Afanasiev of Moscow University. He gave
me a copy of his book in Russian with translated title of
"Nanocyles Method". Although I cannot read russian, I can
understand the tables in the book and with a little help from
a russian reading friend was able to make sense of it.

His method is based on the changing period of the lunar nodal
cycle which at present is 18.6 years leading to a 9.3 year cycle
in weather and therefore varves. However this cycle interacts
with the seasons because the same part of the cycle only
happens at the same time of the year every 9.3/0.3 or 31 years.
There are additional third, fourth and higher order interactions
also which make longer cycles into hundreds and thousands
of years. The periods of these longer cycles change much more
rapidly than the main cycle and so allow very accurate dating
if they can be identified.

So his method is to identify cycles of short periods in varves
and then look them up in a big table at 0.2 million year intervals
back to 600 million years ago. He has a little data beyond that
but at wider spacings.

Anyway, Prof Afanasiev has determined a 586.24 million year
cycle as a very important one and it appears to correspond to the
mentioned ~600 million year cycle because repeated halving of the
period gives 586.24, 293.12, 146.56, 73.28, 36.64 million years
which agrees well with the figures in "Megacycles" and the shortest
of these periods is also found in mass extinction series along with
the more dominant 26.65 million years.

Going even further, it is possible to identify the Elatina
periods in his table at 658.28 million years ago which I think
corresponds with the stated 650 to 700 million years. This would
make the cause of the Elatina cycles be the interaction of the
Lunar nodal cycle with the seasons. Williams originally speculated
that the 12 year period was an ancient sunspot cyle, and others
suggested that perhaps it was monthly varves not annual and the
cycle of 12 was the year.

I interpolated Prof Afansiev's tables which is at
0.2 MY interval to 600 MY and then at 4.0 MY interval,
and 658.28 million years ago the cycle periods due
to lunar nodal effects were 12.0769 years and 157.0 years.
Note that 12.0769/0.0769 = 157.0 years, which is the period
of the interaction of the nodal cycle with the seasons.
These figures appear to be consistent with Williams'
findings of 26 cycles in 314 years = 12.0769 years,
though it is the 157 year cycle not the 314 year one
that is tabulated.

Another fascinating thing about the 586 million year cycle is that
astronomers have identified a series of very large structures
at regular spacings in space. The exact spacing is uncertain
because the Hubble constant is not known accurately. However
using the best estimate of the Hubble constant (71 km/s/MPc) it
gives a spacing of around 590 million light years. This means
that there is a wave structure in space which has a wavelength
of 590 million years and so oscillates in 590 million years,
in agreement with the geological cycle. Furthermore there are
clear signs of further periodicities at 1/2 and 1/4 of the main
periodicity in the galaxy distances also in agreement with the
geological cycles.

Of course the original Megacycles book mentions the connections
with astronomical cycles, but it is great to see this manifesting
in such a clear form.

Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

First, no geological dating method has an accuracy of
0.01%. Four decimal place ages are ludicrous.
They are just getting the KT and PC/C boundaries to
about 1% ages now.

Second, the length of astronomical cycles has changed
considerably over the past several hundred million years.
Everything was shorter back then- length of day, length of
lunar month, and length of year. Identifying daily, monthly,
and annular growth marks in some ancient fossils has
shown this to be the case. Hard-body fossile parts only
go back about 10% earth's history. Some people have
claimed to seen some solar activity cycles in lake sediment
patterns earlier (assuming solar cycles influence climate).

Dear Ray,

Your approach to Cycles is a very interesting one and quite appropriate
indeed.
However it does not apply to Earth since as you may not have been told of
it, both the formation and destruction of its relief are not linear. In
clear some great events occurred in the recent past and are marked in its
forms.

The Greatest Principle ( and unknown ) underlining all of our Universe is
the one supporting the True Geology i.e. the Law of Universal Pressure (
UPL ) , whereby all alleged attraction and repulsion are in fact due to
differential of Pressure. This approach to Understanding of what we are and
where we live, is really mind-boggling for all the new perspectives it
opens to Mankind.

Your Cycles approach is on the other hand quite appropriate relative to
Pandemics ( 40 years cycle ), also to some Earthquakes recurring following
some very interesting patterns.

I have visited you website and it indicates a very open minded & aware
person. Hence my post to you to advise not to lose time on the alleged time
scale presented by the present Gogology ( or Sci000nce of Gogos )
Everything is false indeed. You could in this regards visit Don Findlay 's
site, and learn about the quite correct Earth Expansion theory,
completely ridiculising the hilarious PT theory supported by the official
Bougredanes !
That would be a step in the right direction.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html

Best regards

--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer and Legal Owner of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre Mines
The Great Sandy Desert of Australia

Founder of the True Geology

~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~

"rick++" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
First, no geological dating method has an accuracy of
"snip"

rick++ wrote:
....
Second, the length of astronomical cycles has changed
considerably over the past several hundred million years.
Everything was shorter back then- length of day, length of
lunar month, and length of year.

This is not a reason for inaccuracy. This is what
he uses to determine the dates. Take the last 0.2 million years.
The lunar nodal period changed from 9.15 to 9.3 years (about).
The cycle that interacts with the seasons varies from
9.15/.15=61 years to 9.3/.3=31 years in that period.
If this secondary cycle is found and 10 cycles are measured
then it might be say 46.0 years +/- 0.5 years. That will
date the deposit to maybe 0.1000 M years ago with an
uncertainty of only +/-0.0017 M years. The same accuracy
is achievable in the distant past once the lunar orbit
is established.

Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

In article . com,
Rick++ wrote:
First, no geological dating method has an accuracy of
0.01%. Four decimal place ages are ludicrous.

Dendrochronology can just about get there. ISTR there's an
Eastern Mediterranean dendro scale that goes back for 9000 years, which
potentially gives you 0.011(...)% accuracy.

Some people have
claimed to seen some solar activity cycles in lake sediment
patterns earlier (assuming solar cycles influence climate).

Cycles in tidally-deposited sands too, demonstrating a different
number of daily tidal cycles per monthly tidal cycle. My memory is that
the cycle was demonstrated in a Carboniferous-age sandstone. But the
paper is on my other computer and I can't be bothered to cross the room
to turn it on.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233

Aidan Karley a écrit dans le message ...
In article . com,
Rick++ wrote:
First, no geological dating method has an accuracy of
0.01%. Four decimal place ages are ludicrous.

Dendrochronology can just about get there. ISTR there's an
Eastern Mediterranean dendro scale that goes back for 9000 years, which
potentially gives you 0.011(...)% accuracy.

SNIP
--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Lot of 9000 year old trees around????

JOL

In article , Maison.mousse
wrote:
Lot of 9000 year old trees around????

JOL

You don't need a 9000 YEAR OLD TREE. yOU'D NEED (FOR EXAMPLE)
(bLOODY cAPSlOCK KEY!) 10 1000 year-long sections of trees, with a 100
year overlap between the oldest wood in one section and the youngest
wood in the next section. So you start off with trees that were felled
at a known historical date (or even are still growing, because you can
extract sufficient ring samples with a coring tool which is not lethal
to the tree), and go back to around 1000 AD. Then using timber from a
building of (say) 1100 AD, you extend the ring sequence back to around
0AD ... and so on, ad nauseam.
You do need to add more caveats. Dendro is based on the
observation that different individual trees respond similarly to
environmental stresses, so you can correlate the ring-width patterns
between individual trees. (Note, this is an observational fact, not a
theory. You could demonstrate this yourself with a good tape measure, a
notebook and a present-day lumber yard.) But you have to be careful to
be using comparable trees - of the same species (or species that behave
similarly), in similar environments (in terms of altitude, temperature,
rainfall). And ideally you need to be able to replicate your
chronology, which basically means having several sets of wood specimens
for getting from present-day trees to your unknown date in the past.
That's why it's taken the best part of 50 years of dendrochronology
work to get back to 9000 BP in one part of the world.

That you can only apply dendrochronology within the lifespan of
a single "Methuesula" tree is one of the commonest lies propagated by
creationists, whether they be christian liars or muslim liars. If
you've got this from some source you consider reliable, then you need
to reassess that source's credibility.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233

Aidan Karley a écrit dans le message ...
In article , Maison.mousse
wrote:
Lot of 9000 year old trees around????

JOL

You don't need a 9000 YEAR OLD TREE. yOU'D NEED (FOR EXAMPLE)
(bLOODY cAPSlOCK KEY!) 10 1000 year-long sections of trees, with a 100
year overlap between the oldest wood in one section and the youngest
wood in the next section. So you start off with trees that were felled
at a known historical date (or even are still growing, because you can
extract sufficient ring samples with a coring tool which is not lethal
to the tree), and go back to around 1000 AD. Then using timber from a
building of (say) 1100 AD, you extend the ring sequence back to around
0AD ... and so on, ad nauseam.
You do need to add more caveats. Dendro is

SNIP
--
Aidan Karley, FGS


Your logic is nonsense and your rambling about "christian liars or muslim
liars" is psychotic as well as offensive. Creationism has nothing to do with
it.


JOL