User talk:RayTomes/Foundation for the Study of Cycles

I have re-established this page in my talk space so that anyone with an interest can express it here before the page is published. I intend to make more changes in the near future. Ray Tomes 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What justification do you have for reestablishing the article, considering that it was deleted through the normal process after being judged not notable? Has something changed with the organization? --Philosophus ^T 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was considerable opinion for keeping the article. There were lies told about the organisation. Several independent people that have reviewed the matters have been happy with the idea of re-establishing. That FSC was stated to be not notable is a considerable error of fact. Read the past committee and board members section. FSC came about from actions at a high level in US Govt, in top business people and famous scientists. That makes it notable. Ray Tomes 10:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note further that AMA editors have no greater say in such things than other editors; in fact, there are many who consider the AMA to be disreputable. --Philosophus ^T 05:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editing note

I have added notes and references to recently peer-review reported harmonically related cycles in solar observations. This is intended to stop scientists dismissing this material as daft. I do not know how to link the material under the cycles harmonics section to the references at the bottom. Ray Tomes 11:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now got the article into approximate shape. I have added some refernces, but no doubt there could be more. If someone thinks that there are insufficiently justified statements please make a note here and I will see what I can do. I have asked in sci.physics.research usenet group about Feynman and Dewey meeting as I think that the material on this in Dewey's "The Case for Cycles" article forms an excellent basis for judging the FSC work. This was previously objected to, although I cannot see why anyone would think that Feynman would say anything different to what was reported. It would be very helpful if people getting involved with this article would read that Dewey article available http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/dewey/case_for_cycles.pdf Ray Tomes 12:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud_Koot, thanks for your various notes. I will try to get all the necessary citations in the next day or two. Ray Tomes 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the Milton Friedman criticism, I have the Dewey and Dakin book in front of me. I make the following notes aboit the contents:

Appendix I - The ratio scale explains why ratio (or log) scales are used (7 pages with diagrams).
Appendix II - Moving Averages explains how these are calculated with worked examples (5 pages).
Appendix III - The section moving average explains about removing seasonal effects (3 pages).
Every graph has both axes clearly labeled. Time is always the x axis and has clear marks for each year. The subject of the graph is always labeled on the graph. When more than one item is in the graph it shows this clearly (e.g. moving average and regular cycle for comparison).
The source of data is not always give, especially for public statistics (which would be obvious anyway). But special data sources are given, e.g."Wheat Prices 1260-1940 (after Rogers and Davis)".

My only conclusion is that Friedman was looking at a different book to me, because the quote you give certainly is total not true in relation to the book that I have. Ray Tomes 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. The statement of pseudoscience is quite outlandish. Dewey took advice from statisticians and applied it to his cycle studies. The Bartell test is the main test for significance of cycles and this was used. Without paying I am unable to read the review by Friedman on internet except for the first few lines. Can you suply a copy by email or here of the whole review? Ray Tomes 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that ot belongs anywhere, this material on Dewey's book belongs in the Dewey article rather than the FSC one. Ray Tomes 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

54 year cycle in wheat

I am putting this here as an example of a typical cycle study from Dewey and Dakin's book. It is quite clear that it violates every one of Freidman's statements, it quotes its data source, it clearly labels the diagrams, it explains its methodology, and it does show a clear and significant cycle. Ray Tomes 02:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIG. 3. 680 YEARS OF WHEAT PRICES IN ENGLAND Ten-year averages 1260-1940 (after Rogers and Davis) . The 54-year rhythm can be discerned, but is obscured by the trend. See Fig. 4 for the same figures, smoothed, with the trend eliminated.
File:Wheat-54yearcycle.gif
FIG. 4. THE 54-YEAR RHYTHM IN WHEAT PRICES IN ENGLAND To remove the trend, the prices shown in Fig. 3 have been expressed as percentages of their 50-year moving average; the curve has been smoothed by averaging consecutive percentages. A regular 54-year cycle has been added. A rhythm that has repeated itself as many times (13 1/2) and as regularly as this one cannot easily be the result of pure chance.

image deleting

What is it with this wikipedia image deleting. Every time I add images the system turns around and starts automatically deleting them. Why does it allow categories to be loaded that it plans to delete? It is totally daft and a big waste of time. Ray Tomes 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Friedman Book Review

The quote as it is does not at all fairly represent the book. I don't even think it fairly repesents the review. Another part states "There is little doubt that approximate rhythms exist in economic activities, that there is a business cycle in the United States about 18 years in length, and a business cycle about 3.5 years in length. There is also little doubt - though the authors do not mention this -- that every attempt to use these facts or any others to forecast economic activity has to date met with failure. Beyond this we know little." which I think more fairly represents what Friedman accepts and rejects about the book. I still think that this belongs under Dewey not FSC. Ray Tomes 03:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've located, but not yet read, two other reviews. Perhaps they are more positive that Friendman's review. No matter what your opinion of the book is, it is Friedman's opinion which, being a renowned economist, carries weight. Friedman's review is rather destructive and the selected quote is representative of the review. The quote you give above gives Friedman's opinion on business cycles and not on Dewey's book. —Ruud 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the book because it says "the authors do not mention this". I think that your quotes are selected as the worst comments on the Book, and are not representative. Ray Tomes 07:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Not Make FSC A Wiki Page??

I'm definitely into cycles, though at an amateur level (See my article Sunspot Cycles and Activist Strategy. Certainly am familiar with the way people "poo poo" the topic -- even "Greens" who you would think would be into natural cycles!

Anyway, after update my article above some more was going to at least put a section on that topic on the Revolution page and a few other relevant political pages, with reference to Edward R. Dewey and other wiki links as well. Foundation for Study of Cycles having its own Wiki page, rather than an extension of an individual's page, would be helpful. Certainly far less credible organizations have their own pages! Is there some problem with doing that? Thanks. Carol Moore 10:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc