Fiery Trigons: Non-Identical Twins

Leona Libby’s Old Japanese Cedar Tree chronology provides the point of departure for a voyage of discovery into the esoteric astronomy of Johannes Kepler [1571-1630].

Leona Libby’s Lower Lows
Leona Libby’s Old Japanese Cedar Tree chronology includes a very remarkable series of lower lows between 1135 and 1713 that are difficult to explain way.

Leona Libby’s Non-Identical Twins
Leona Libby’s Old Japanese Cedar Tree chronology also contains two pronounced outlier minimums which are even more difficult to explain way.

These two non-identical minimums have some unexpected similarities.

Firstly, the non-identical twins are of a very similar duration.

Secondly the non-identical twins have very pronounced raised shoulders that emphatically mark the beginning and end of these outlier minimums.

Taken together these similarities suggest the Arabian Horizon and the Maunder Minimum are associated with a recurring event such as bouncing off a double layer boundary.

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/solar-system-rankine-vortex/

A closer inspection of the data provides two clues regarding this recurring event:

○ The shoulder peaks are separated by 119 and 120 years.

○ The initial shoulder peaks are separated by 1,099 years.

And a closer inspection of the Maunder Minimum reveals it was associated with:

○ A peak in daytime observations of Venus.

○ Increased cometary and volcanic dust.

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2019/02/16/korean-horizons/

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/cometary-cascade/

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/12/03/schrodingers-sunspots/

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/monte-rosa-modelling/

Hopefully, these clues will lead to some further insights regarding Leona Libby’s enigmatic twins.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Arabian Horizon, Earth, Johannes Kepler, Maunder Minimum, Old Japanese Cedar Tree, Science, Solar System. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Fiery Trigons: Non-Identical Twins

  1. The latest D/H ratios suggest what?

    The 1100 year difference depends upon radioactive decay rates, which alter depending on charge density and this is just being established by long, looooong term tests showing that decay increases the closer the earth is to the star.

    My point is that the probable currently commencing Grand Minimum is not out of line, if adjustments are made to the decay rate.

    The periodicity would be less than 400 current rotations around Sol by the Earth.

    Do you agree?

  2. malagabay says:

    I may [or may not] have an answer when I’ve completed this voyage of discovery.

    What is evident [in round numbers]:

    a) A maximum value ceiling was established between 950 and 1350.
    b) A step change in maximum values occurred at the Hecker Horizon
    c) A lower maximum values ceiling was operational between 1400 and 1900.

    Plus:

    d) A series of higher lows was established between 914 and 1135.
    e) A series of lower lows was established between 1135 and 1713.

    Interpreting the data is open to debate.

    The step change in maximum values is very suggestive of an increased orbital distance.

    But it could also mark a northward shift [or uplift] of Japan and it’s cedar trees.

    The variation in the minimum values look far more complex.

    1) Physical latitude drift [or uplift] of Japan and it’s cedar trees.
    2) Changes in ocean circulation.
    3) Axial tilt variations or wobbles.
    4) Dust and debris in the Earth’s atmosphere and surrounding space.
    5) Variations in Solar output.

    If the pattern is repeated then the forecast is for another series of lower lows.

  3. The two dates in fig3 above correlate to the roots of the Eddy cycle. Beyond that I do not know. However the correlations to events between dates ~6k2 and ~2k2bce is no coincidence. A sequence of geologic upheavals. See link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/

  4. Radiogenic decay is a bit more complicated. In addition to the effect of the helio or solar E Field, the orbital factor, there is also the effect of the Earth’s local electric field between the surface and the ionosphere, the magnitude of which also, in an historical sense, could have been much lower if the oceans are a recent addition, say historically the oceans were 30% of the surface area??? Who knows? And remember Libby’s data are 5 year composites.

    One reason it may not be orbit distance is the ubiquitous portrayal of the bow-shock shape of the Earth’s magnetosphere. If E forces are 10^39 > G force, then the Earth seems “locked” in its orbit and orbitally unmoved from colliding CME’s etc. Which begs the question why comets seem to behave differently.

    One thing is clear, there’s an unambiguous change after 930 AD followed by the 1400 AD event ifr the maxima are alone considered but not supported by the minima which are all over the place.

    It’s all weird.

  5. Orbit distance determines orbit time in days, ie year length, and this has not changed from roman times as is known from calendar.

  6. Pingback: Fiery Trigons: Great Conjunctions | MalagaBay

  7. Pingback: Maunder Minimum and the Cometary Cascade | MalagaBay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.