Talk:The Foundation for the Study of Cycles

Alleged "discoveries of FSC and Dewey"

A few skeptical comments:

Common cycle periods appear in many seemingly unrelated disciplines. A possible prosaic explanation of this murky claim involves well known facts in diophantine approximation. This beautiful subject is highly relevant to casual observations of alleged periods, as Theaetetus already knew.

You will need to explain this further. I don't get it. Ray Tomes 11:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle synchrony is the observation that cycles of the same period often have the same phase. I think this means that if I observe a 13 year sunspot cycle and also a 13 year cicada life cycle, then the maximal sunspot intensity should occur at the same time as the eruption of cicadas. Or do we need to correct for the time for light to reach the Earth from the Sun? :-/

Just in case some people don't recognise your humour, the light time is 8 minutes and that won't materially affect a 13 yera cycle. Also, the sunspot cycle is 11 years, and we cannot be sure that the sun causes cycles on earth, both might be caused by some outside agent. Ray Tomes 11:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle harmonic ratios means that the common cycle periods are often related by ratios of 2, 3 and their products. Again, if this murky claim has any real statistical evidence in its favor, the prosaic explanation probably involves diophantine approximation, although I find it amusing to mention Sarkovskii's theorem :-/

Which of course was only discovered years after FSC and Dewey's findings. The fact thatyou suggest an explanation presumably means that you agree with the findings?

The vapid table some Dewey fan entered into Edward R. Dewey vividly illustrates what I mean by saying that Dewey's work amounts to a single rather silly observation (apparently cyclic behavior is commonplace) coupled with gobs of mystical numerology.---CH 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Hillman's logic is shockingly bad. The table shows commonly reported cycle periods such as 4.44, 8.88, 17.75, 5.92 years and others related by simple ratios of 2 and 3. It is true that apparently cyclic behavior is commonplace, but these two things are entirely different. The common-ness of cycles is certainly true. Everything for which a decent amount of time series data has been gathered (let us preclude random number generators) has been found to have significant cycles. So yes they are common. This has mean that time itself, which is measured by cycles, has always had residual cycles present and repeatedly required more difficult measures. The part about the table adds two things to this. Firstly, that some cycles periods are far more often reported. This is an established fact from thousands of cycle reports from dozens of different disciplines. Secondly, these commonly found cycles are further found to often be related by simple ratios. I invite you to do a google search of scholarly articles on cycles of period 140 to 170 days (typically 155 days) in the sun. You will find in these articles mention of solar cycles of period 26, 51, 155 days and 1.27 years and others that are specificvally stated in recent peer reviewed articles that these cycles have periods that are harmonically related. These findings go on even though Dewey is dead. Ray Tomes 11:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated use of words like 'murky' as a device to discredit is very weak. There is nothing murky in the claims that clearly made and are well substantiated by other researchers, myself included. It has nothing to do with 'well known facts in diophantine approximation'. You may read about the details of the principles in a lengthy summary at [/ Case for Cycles] by Edward R Dewey. Perhaps then you will be able to discuss the matter without guessing about things. User:RayTomes

Please don't continue discussions on this page. Instead, please continue this on the talk page of the Edward R. Dewey article. --Philosophus ^T 04:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not. This is a separate article and discussion of it belongs here. Ray Tomes 11:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Article underwent AfD with no consensus- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Foundation for the Study of Cycles CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

title of page

The name of the organisation is, as far as I can ascertain, Foundation for the Study of Cycles without any the on it. At present the page and redirect are the other way around. Shouldn't this be changed after making sure that I am right? Ray Tomes 12:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re-establishing FSC pages

Following discussion in User:Seraphimblade page it was proposed by User:Rood_Koot that the FSC article be set up in my User space which I have done - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayTomes/Foundation_for_the_Study_of_Cycles and please note that I have made the name without "The" on the front as I consider that correct. Anyone with an interest in this article should please discuss it in the associated talk page, thanks. Ray Tomes 20:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]