SpaceMan wrote:I had already gone over Bruce Peret's "At the Earth's Core: The Geophysics of Planetary Evolution" which, among other things, sheds light on the issue of radioactive dating being off and its resulting consequences for what most believe to be the chronology of events; however, Bruce's paper was far more conservative in its dating attempts than Daniel's. The relative conservatism is a result of putting references to the mother civilizations in in their traditional time periods which doesn't change the advent age of man nearly as much as Daniel's assertions. My personal view of the sequence of events was left far more intact after "At the Earth's Core" than the shredded and tattered remnants of my chronological view as of now.
You have to blame me for that. I've been working on a computer model of the Reciprocal System for some years, and one of the things that Nehru and I worked on for some time was trying to simulate radioactive decay. It would work for the short half-lives, but no where close to the long half-lives. We only recently discovered that the temporal explosions are not a single event, but recur over intervals, and that interval is determined by the magnetic ionization level. The higher the ionization, the quicker an atom is likely to reach the age limit and explode again. And after realizing that the magnetic ionization level of planets was initially very high, that explained the half-life errors that we encountered in the heavier particles--the decay sequence was correct, but the model was only doing a SINGLE, temporal explosion, not a series (which is being observed and measured). That led to the realization of radiometric dating being WAY off on long-term measurements.
SpaceMan wrote:how can the precession have any coherent precession? It seems as if something would always happen to disrupt the cycle, such as a change in orbit or shift of the axis, before it could be completed. In addition, what; according to RS thinking, would be the cause of the wobble of the axis?
Coherent precession would only occur under static conditions, and the Earth is far from static. (I understand that the axis shifted about 3 feet after the Japan tsunami.)
The wobble is primarily due to motion in coordinate time in the core of the planet; the same cause and reason that the planetary orbits precess, most obvious with Mercury. A couple of papers were written on the mathematics of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, using the coordinate time basis. I'm not sure if I have the papers online; if I do not, I'll see if I can scan them in, as they explain the mathematics in detail. Basically, if you're out of balance, you wobble, and the cores don't line up perfectly, nor rotate at the same rate as the mantle because of the dimensions in coordinate time. The wobble will change every time there is a core flare that changes the dimensions of the inner and outer cores.
SpaceMan wrote:but he may or may not have mentioned the Yuga cycles as well.
I would suggest you read the
Surya Siddhanta (Pundit Bapu Deva Sastri), which is the origin of all these Vedic cycles. And rather than just copy the interpretation done by others, take the time to do the "math" yourself and see if the numbers you get a match to the popular values. Also note that the Surya refers to two, distinct chronologies--a mundane (material) and a divine (cosmic) one. If you put them in reciprocal relation to each other, with the mundane accounting for clock time and the divine for clock space, the resulting cycles are actually a pretty good match for daniel's chronology.
SpaceMan wrote:Revisiting the beginning of the 3rd density cycle 75,000 years ago mentioned by Daniel in a footnote on page 3.
I know Daniel believes that Ra got the 75,000 year figure correct, so it does not need adjusting. That may not have been obvious in the footnote.
I have more forgotten than learned in this regard this past year...