Solar Cycles another prediction

Solar Cycles another prediction

by Miles Mathis
March 6, 2020

More at link: http://milesmathis.com/global.pdf

[Added March 19, 2020: It also helps to go even further back, since we find not only a Medieval Warm Period, we find a Roman Warm Period and before that a Minoan Warm Period.  All three were at least as warm as the current Warm Period, and likely more so.  The mainstream admits these warm periods exist and were very warm, but then says we have been in a cooling trend since the Medieval Warm Period, so the current Warm Period can't be explained except by greenhouse gasses.  But that doesn't fly because there were cooling trends before the other Warm Periods, too.  This is cyclical, and these Warm Periods arise on about a thousand year schedule.  The Medieval Warm Period was about 1000 years ago, the Roman was 2000 years ago, and the Minoan was 3000 years ago.  There were other warm periods at 4000, 5000, 7000, and 8000 years ago.  Just from that, we may assume that whatever caused the previous periods is causing the current one.  Which would be some sort of Solar Cycle. Which one?  Well, you won't believe how easy this is.  We return to my 2011 paper on the Ice Ages to crunch the numbers.   There we are reminded of the precession number 23,000 years, also known as the Great Year.  Halving that gives us about 11,500 years, which is about the length of a sub-interglacial period.  Nine of those give us an interglacial period of around 103,000 years.   Well, the Solar Cycle period is about 11 years, so we just divide, 11,500/11=1,045 years.The length between Warm Periods.  So the Warm Periods are once again caused by a Solar System alignment to the GalacticCore.  And of course this takes us back to my recent paper on theCause of the Solar Cycles, and my assistant Steven Oostdijk pointing out that our model wasn't yet 3D.  We weren't including secondary tilts.  This is one of those secondary tilts we are ignoring there, because it could only cause longer-term cycles.  If you aren't yet seeing it, this 1,000-year cycle is caused by the tilt of the Solar System relative to the Galaxy.  It is known to be tilted at 60 degrees to the Galactic plane.  But it is also caused by the planets orbiting inside the Solar System.  Combining those two cycles gives us a third one, defined bythe positions of the planets relative to the Galaxy.  Every ninety cycles, the planets hit an alignment that most efficiently pulls Galactic charge into the Solar south pole. Again, I have to say this is pretty shocking.  The math is so easy I can't believe I am the first one doing it.  No one ever noticed this 1000-year cycle in warm periods and considered it must have a mechanical cause?  Did they think comets were passing every thousand years, for some unknowable reason?  They never thought to divide one known number by another?  The only thing I can come up with is that they thought this smacked of astrology, and so were embarrassed by peer pressure from considering it. That, or it is just another one in a long line of shocking negligence by the mainstream.  The top dogs were too busy jawing about black holes and the first seconds of the universe to divide 11,000 by 11.]

...

Geographic article (see previous link, minute 5:15), Dr. Mitchell from NOAA admits that the northernhemisphere went through an era of significant warming from 1880 to 1940.   Furthermore, on March 2, 1975, the Chicago Tribune reported that “for the first time this century ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice”.  Do you see what that means?  That contradicts the Titanic story, doesn't it?  The Titanic allegedly hit an iceberg in 1912, which is the same century as 1975.  

And it allegedly did so far south of Iceland.  The Titanic wreck is supposed to be at 41.7 N.  Iceland is at64.8 N.  [That's about 1600 miles difference in latitude, or the same as the width of the US, from the tipof Maine to the tip of Florida.]  There was no drifting ice at 64.8 N from 1900 to 1975, but we are supposed to believe the Titanic hit ice in 1912 at 41.7 N?*Just so you know, by linking you to this guy, I am not supporting his conclusions.  I don't know who he is, buthe does link to Tony Heller, who quotes Bill Gates and appears to be an apologist for the energy industry.  So I don't trust him.  As usual I think both sides of this argument are manufactured by the Phoenician navy, and they profit either way.  The entire debate is a diversion on both sides, since it keeps you off the real problems and the real solutions.   They want you to think all progressives and environmentalists believe in Global Warming andbelieve in the current government solutions, and that everyone who doesn't believe in them is pro-industry.While the truth is behind the un-offered third curtain: Global Warming is a policy fraud to keep industry from having to deal with any of its messes regardless.  If anyone ends up paying for a trashed environment, it won't be the people who trashed it.  It will be the middle-class taxpayers, represented by no one in this debate and by no one in Washington.

Antarctica set its coldest EVER March temperature (-103.5F)
March 25, 2020 by Robert

Somehow, while we’re supposed to believe the world is on the brink of “overheating”, the world’s southernmost continent is currently the coldest its ever been for the time of year.

Last Friday, Antarctica set a record for its coldest March temp ever recorded, not just for the day, but for the entire month.

The Vostok Station clocked a bone-chilling -75.3C (-103.54F) on the morning of Friday, March 20, as spotted by @TempGlobal on Twitter:

https://electroverse.net/antarctica-just-set-its-coldest-march-temperature/

Also this link: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t581-a-heat-wave-in-antarctica-melted-20-of-an-islands-snow-in-9-days

One of the Northern Hemisphere’s snowiest winters since records began
March 23, 2020

Highly unusual volumes of snow. So much for snowfall soon becoming a thing of the past… the trend appears to be the exact opposite.

This year’s Northern Hemisphere snowfall data, collated by the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) reveals that the 2019/2020 season has become one of the snowiest NH Winters on record, joining the uptick witnessed over the past few years.

Looking at the FMI chart below, during some points of the season, the total snow mass across the Northern Hemisphere reached 3 standard deviations above the average, indicating highly unusual volumes of snow.


Image source: https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg


North America, Northern Europe, and Russia have contributed to this seasons amazing totals. Countries like Sweden, for example, are breaking all-time seasonal snowfall records this year.

In an email, the FMI confirms that this has indeed been “one of the snowiest winters on record” since books began in 1979, since the dawn of the satellite era.

The institute also points out that the 2017-2018 winter was even more exceptional, and that the following winter (2018-2019) was greater still, with only 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2001 recording higher masses at their seasonal peaks.

For peak snow mass, it looks like 2018-2019 was the fifth snowiest Northern Hemisphere season of the past 41 years, with 2017-2018 the sixth, and this season, 2019-2020 preliminary looking like the seventh.

But if you look at the overall mean March snow mass, then the year 2018 holds the record for the snowiest NH Winter. According to the FMI that year saw a 3190 Gt mean March snow mass, putting it in the top spot in 41 years of record keeping, and some 330 Gt above the 1979-2018 average.

See entire article:
https://electroverse.net/the-northern-hemisphere-is-having-one-of-its-snowiest-winters-ever/

On CTTF, some people had trouble following MM's attempt to use precession to explain a 1000-year cycle in warm periods. The calculation turns out to be a simple math error, that's why it's impossible to follow. Apparently I'm the first one to notice. Some people disputed the numbers, but numbers are not the trouble, it's units. (Specifically, some people objected to the value of 23,000 years for precession [wobble], asking, isn't it closer to 26,000 years? But Miles was using combined rotational and orbital wobbles, as explained here: "The combined effects of axial and apsidal precession result in an overall precession cycle spanning about 23,000 years on average."
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
<- Nice animations, btw. So the numbers are fine, it's something else.) Here is the calculation from the paper. I hope everyone can spot the trouble now, it's right at the end:

"...these Warm Periods arise on about a thousand year schedule... we are reminded of the precession number 23,000 years, also known as the Great Year... Halving that gives us about 11,500 years, which is about the length of a sub-interglacial period... the Solar Cycle period is about 11 years, so we just divide, 11,500/11=1,045 years."

See it now? If not, here's a hint: Write it out with units.

This does not destroy the whole paper, but the 1000-year cycle is still waiting for an explanation.

garrettderner wrote. On CTTF, some people had trouble following MM's attempt to use precession to explain a 1000-year cycle in warm periods. The calculation turns out to be a simple math error, that's why it's impossible to follow. Apparently I'm the first one to notice. Some people disputed the numbers, but numbers are not the trouble, it's units. (Specifically, some people objected to the value of 23,000 years for precession [wobble], asking, isn't it closer to 26,000 years?

Airman. Welcome garrettderner, thanks for posting. Sounds interesting, you might have included a quoted comment or two from that discussion. I must ask; what is CTTF? Are Miles Mathis’ ideas discussed there often?

MM’s failed attempt, eh? Always be sure to provide a clear source, especially when you are critiquing, otherwise it sounds like an attack by hearsay. I had to re-read the thread to understand the source is Miles’ paper, http://milesmathis.com/global.pdf specifically the paper’s March 19, 2020 addendum from which Chromium6 quoted at the top of this thread.

Miles wrote. ... 11,500/11=1,045 years.

garrettderner wrote. See it now? If not, here's a hint: Write it out with units.

Airman. With respect to units, are you saying that 11,500 years/11 years should result in a unit-less value of 1045 instead of 1045 years? Should it be written: 11,500 years per half the great solar year cycle/11,500 years = 1,045 per half the great solar year cycles?

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your question/comment, I'm not trying to be difficult. Please consider asking Miles your question. As far as I know, he always answers readers’ questions. And I’m sure he’d update his work accordingly.
.

Airman, thanks for the welcome and reply and feedback! I was talking about Cutting Through the Fog, Current Events section (where practically all the talk is lately). I'll try and find the exact page later, and post it here. I recall people were confused.

You're an airman really? My father was a pilot in WWII. Which he decided was more than enough for him; he stopped piloting, but one or two of his friends owned small planes and a few times I rode in one.

Miles must usually check his work very well, because I don't recall a math mistake before, and certainly not about units, which he understands and pays attention to and has written about. I suspect he was just brainstorming and trying out numbers, as he admits to doing, doing for good reasons, as good things sometimes come of it. He was trying out numbers on cycles that very likely do relate to climate. Normally he should have proof-read later. Maybe this time there was searching for a new home and lack of sleep. I could write him but the email address has changed a couple times and I'm not sure I have it. I'll check his site, or maybe you can tell me here.

You are understanding correctly the problem in general. The actual units it should come out in, is, first of all, not years by any stretch. It's... Lets work it out. Write the relationships we have, as equations:

1 sub-interglacial period = 11,500 years
1 Solar Cycle period = 11 years

Rewrite the equivalences as fractions equaling 1:

11,500 years / 1 sub-interglacial period

1 Solar Cycle period / 11 years

Multiply the fractions together, to discern the relationship:

11,500 Solar Cycle period years / 11 sub-interglacial period years

The "years" cancel:

11,500 Solar Cycle periods / 11 sub-interglacial periods

The scalers reduce:

1045 Solar Cycle periods / sub-interglacial period

So 1045 represents the number of Solar Cycle periods per sub-interglacial period.

.
Your comment seems perfectly valid to me garrettderner.

CTTF, Cutting through the Fog, of course, that’s embarrassing. I thought Miles participated in the discussions there. He let a physics discussion hang up on "1045 solar cycles per sub-interglacial period" without comment or correction?

Miles identifies his email address as milesmathis@protonmail.com at his Physics Homepage, http://milesmathis.com/index.html.

Your father probably had more than his fair share of difficult and dangerous jobs as an Air Force pilot during WWII, and more exciting friends too, it sounds like. I enlisted in the Air Force toward the end of the Vietnam War, did well in the aptitude tests and was promised any electrical/electronics job I wanted, which included over a year of electronics and specialty training. Later, the Air Force assigned me to the University of Florida to get my BS EE degree. I retired from active duty as a captain after getting an MS EE degree, then rejoined the AF as a civil engineer. After a total of almost forty years of service I retired a second time. I have no complaints, as an enlisted airman, officer and civil servant, I got everything I ever wanted and asked for, great training and education but nothing too dangerous or exciting. Resuming my education by studying Miles' Charge Field ideas here makes me feel especially privileged and grateful.

Even though we have only a few irregular commenters at present, feel free to start as many discussions as you like; communicating your ideas is a great way to improve your understanding as well as ours.
.

Thanks, Airman! I told Miles the same things I said above, and he replied,

"Yes, it needs more work, and yes, it needs more explication, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.  You will see.  You are right that I am onto something and that I am busy with other things.  So it will have to hang until I am ready to finish it."

That will be interesting.

I'd been meaning to download all of CttF so I could search it, and yesterday finally I did. I'll post how to do that sometime.

I found the page I mentioned: https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-24/ The thread starts with a post from Alex; search on "1,045". The discussion goes off topic a couple times, but comes back. I see now that a couple other people were perplexed about the units; glad to see it's not just me. Miles chimes in and admits it's complex, saying, "You have to reread the Ice Age paper closely, where I show the mechanics and explain the numbers. Even I had to reread it, since the mechanics is admittedly a bit complex. And it isn’t 1045 cycles, Dejan, it is 1045 years."

How the Charge Field causes the Ice Ages:  http://milesmathis.com/ice.html

Thanks for the invitation to start discussions, I'm sure I will. It's true we learn a lot by communicating.

Glad about your education and career. I have a similar feeling, that Miles gives us an opportunity to resume studies. In gradeschool I was always the science freak in the class, but I started feeling lost by college, in Physics and other classes. Now I see how THEY weren't making sense! I stopped college and concentrated on teaching myself things: health and diet, martial arts, dance and music, drawing. Eventually finished a degree at my parents' persistent urging. I wound up with a science career only in small ways: several years of computer programming, and recently I've been teaching electronics and programming to gradeschoolers in a summer program. We'll see what we can do this year.

My father indeed had his share, he commanded a B-17 over Germany and places they occupied, and I heard my share of dogfight stories. On rarer occasions I caught glimpses that he carried heavy guilt feelings, and once he said that he felt manipulated into the whole thing. I heard something similar from one of his friends, who had been shot down over Japan and held prisoner. "Did they treat you bad in the camps?"
"No, they were pretty nice considering what we were doing to them."

Interesting that you're dad commandeered the flying fortress. I don't know how much I can really participate, here, at this blog, because my mind can't handle math/science. I'm more so into the scriptures and languages. But how I wish that my dad were still alive so that I could turn him on to Miles papers. Incidentally, my dad's job was forecasting the weather, for the bombers, in WW2, from Brazil, though.

.
Hello cris_ska. Scriptures and languages sound deep to me.

Don't worry about math/science. As garrettderner indicates, the mainstream powers that be have made most all our contemporary theories absurdly complex and wrong. Even people naturally drawn to the sciences, such as myself, have turned away. Miles changed that, reinventing math and physics by replacing hundreds of commonly held false notions with something much better, the charge field. I'd like to think your father would have appreciated that.

There's no obligation to 'participate'. On the other hand, providing an occasional appropriate feedback/comment can certainly help change things.
.

Some recent coverage:

https://electroverse.net/25-locations-across-australia-just-set-their-coldest-january-days-ever/

https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-cycle-will-be-lowest-in-200-years-dalton-minimum-levels-the-implications/

https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-s-magnetic-north-pole-is-drifting-towards-siberia-at-a-mysteriously-rapid-pace

Found this paper which has some further background:
------------


Astronomy & Astrophysics

La2010: a new orbital solution for the long-term motion of the Earth

A&A 532, A89 (2011)DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/201116836cESO 2011

March 2011/Accepted 3 May 2011

ABSTRACT

We present here a new solution for the astronomical computation of the orbital motion of the Earth spanning from 0 to−250 Myr. The main improvement with respect to our previous numerical solution La2004 is an improved adjustment of the parameters and initial conditions through a fit over 1 Myr to a special version of the highly accurate numerical ephemeris INPOP08 (Intégration Numérique Planétaire de l’Observatoire de Paris). The precession equations have also been entirely revised and are no longer averaged over theorbital motion of the Earth and Moon. This new orbital solution is now valid over more than 50 Myr in the past or into the future with proper phases of the eccentricity variations. Owing to the chaotic behavior, the precision of the solution decreases rapidly beyond this time span, and we discuss the behavior of various solutions beyond 50 Myr. For paleoclimate calibrations, we provide several different solutions that are all compatible with the most precise planetary ephemeris. We have thus reached the time where geological data are now required to discriminate between planetary orbital solutions beyond 50 Myr.

Key words.chaos  – methods:  numerical  –  celestial  mechanics  –  ephemerides  – planets  and  satellites:dynamical  evolution  andstability – Earth1.

Introduction

Owing to gravitational planetary perturbations, the elliptical elements of the orbit of the  Earth  are  slowly  changing in  time, as is the orientation of the planet’s spin axis. As described by Milankovitch(1941) these changes induce variations in the insolation received on the Earth’s surface that are at the origin of large climatic changes. Since the work  of Hays et  al.(1976),which  established  a  correlation  between  astronomical  forcing and  the δ-18O  records over the  past 500  kyr, there  has  been  an increasing need for a precise long-term ephemeris for the Earth orbital and rotational evolution (see Laskar et al. 2004 for a more detailed historical account). For paleoclimate studies, the most widely used orbital solutions are nowadays either the averaged solution of Laskar(1988) and Laskar et al.(1993b) or the numerical solution of Laskar et al.(2004).The first long-term direct numerical integration (without averaging) of a realistic model of the Solar System, together with the precession and obliquity equations, was performed by Quinnet al.(1991) over 3 Myr. Over its range, this solution presents only small differences  with  the  secular  solutions  of Laskar(1988,1990)(see Laskar et al. 1992). The orbital motion of the full Solar System was computed over 100 Myr by Sussman & Wisdom(1992) using a symplectic integrator with mixed variables  (Wisdom  &  Holman  1991),  confirming  the  chaotic  behavior found by Laskar(1989,1990). Following the improvement of computer technology, long-term integrations of realistic models of the Solar System have improved (Varadi et al. 2003; Laskar et al. 2004), but the main limitation remains the exponential divergence of nearby orbits resulting from the chaotic motion of the Solar System (Laskar 1989,1990,1999). Although it is now possible to integrate the motion of the Solar System overtime periods of more than 5 Gyr, which is comparable to its age or expected lifetime (Laskar & Gastineau 2009), it is clear that the chaotic behavior of the solution will still limit its validity to a few tens of Myr. The present paper is a continuation of the work that has been conducted for decades in our group to obtain the most precise solution for the past evolution of the orbit and rotational state of the Earth, specifically aimed to paleoclimate studies. The numerical integrator is the same symplectic integrator of Laskar & Robutel(2001) that was used in the La2004 solution(Laskar et al. 2004), but it was entirely rewritten in C in order to access the extended precision of the Intel architecture. The tidal model has been largely modified, and is now similar to the one used in the JPL planetary ephemeris DE405 (Standish 1998b)or in our new planetary ephemeris INPOP (Fienga et al. 2008,2009). The precession equations for the evolution of the spin axis of the Earth are also new (Boué & Laskar 2006). We no longer average over the orbital motion of the planets, which allows a precise computation of the evolution of the Earth spin axis that can be compared to the most precise model adopted by the IAU(Soffel et al. 2003)(see Fienga et al. 2008).In previous long-term solutions (Laskar 1988;Quinn et al.1991;Laskar et al. 1993a;Varadi et al. 2003;Laskar et al. 2004),the initial conditions of the solutions were obtained either directly from a high precision planet ephemeris, or by performing a fit over its full time span (as in La2004) that was still limited to a few thousands of years. It was also difficult to monitor the real uncertainty in the adopted ephemeris.

2. Numerical model

The orbital solutions La90-93 (Laskar 1990;Laskar et al. 1993a) were obtained by a numerical integration of the averaged equations of the Solar System, including the main general relativity and Lunar perturbations. As computer technology now allows us to integrate directly precise models of the evolution of the Solar System over several hundreds of Myr, we  have decided  sinceLa2004 (Laskar et al. 2004) to use direct integrations without any averaging. The  dynamical  model  and  numerical  integrators  are  very close to the ones of La2004. We thus refer to Laskar et al.(2004)for a detailed description of these models, and only report here the elements that are different in the present model and integration.

2.1. Dynamical model

The  orbital model comprises  the  Sun,  all  eight  planets  of  the Solar System, Pluto, and the Moon. The post-Newtonian general relativity corrections of order 1/c2 due to the Sun are included following Saha & Tremaine(1994). The Moon is treated as  a  separate  object.  To  obtain  a realistic  orbital  evolution  of the Earth-Moon system, we also take into account the most important coefficient of the gravitational potential (J2) of both the Earth and the Moon, and the tidal dissipation in the Earth-Moon System (Laskar et al. 2004). In contrast to La2004, the precession and obliquity are now integrated without averaging over the orbital periods, following Boué  &  Laskar(2006). In  the  final runs, as in the DE and INPOP ephemerides, we also added the contribution of the three main asteroids Ceres, Pallas, and Vesta, as well as those of Iris and Bamberga, which both exert strong perturbations on Mars (Standish 1998a;Kuchynka et al. 2010).These five asteroids are then treated in the same way as the planets. As in La2004 (Laskar et al. 2004), some small corrections to the orbital precession motions are made to take into account the average effect of the remaining asteroids or other unmodelizedparameters.2.2. Numerical integrator As  in  La2004,  the  numerical  integration  was  performed  with the symplectic integrator scheme SABAC4 of Laskar & Robutel (2001),  including  a  correction  step  for  the  integration  of  the Moon. This integrator is particularly adapted to perturbed systems where the Hamiltonian governing the equations of motion can be written as the sum of an integrable part (the Keplerian equations of the planets orbiting the Sun and the Moon orbit-ing the Earth), and a small perturbing potential representing the interactions among the planets. The  step  size  used  in  the  integration  is  in  general τ=5×10−3yr=1.82625 days, while for La2010a, τ=10−3yr=0.36525 days. The initial conditions of the integration were least squares adjusted to a special version of INPOP that was extended in time over 1 Myr. Depending on the solution, this fit was performed over either 1 Myr or 580 kyr (see Table2). In  La2004, the  integration  was  made  in  double  precision, with machine Epsilon εM≈2.22×10−16. Here, we integrated the solutions in extended precision on Xeon Intel processors, which allows arithmetics in 80 bits instead of 64 bits in double precision. The machine Epsilon then becomes ε′M≈1.1×10−19.The integration time for our complete model, including five asteroids and the Moon as a separate object with τ=5×10−3yr is about one day per 3 Myr in extended precision, and one day per 6 Myr in double precision on a Intel Xeon E5462 2.8 Ghz workstation. When the step size is decreased to τ=10−3yr, for the nominal solution La2010a, the requested time is 5 days for 3 Myr, and more than one year for the whole integration.

....

7. Long-term cycles

The complete eccentricity solution of the Earth allows a direct adjustment of paleoclimate data to the oscillations of about 95 kyr and 124 kyr in the eccentricity (see Laskar et al. 2004), but for ancient records, this signal may not be clearly visible in the sediments. However, the 405 kyr oscillation with argument g2−g5, where gi (Table6) are the secular frequencies3of the Solar System (see Laskar et al. 2004), is very often present in the sedimentary records. This term is the largest term in a quasi-periodic approximation of the eccentricity of the Earth (see Laskar et al. 2004, Table 6), and is less influenced by the chaotic diffusion present in the Solar System than the shorter period terms around 100 kyr (Laskar 1990;Laskar et al. 2004). In recent works, the modulation of the 405 kyr component, which is caused by the beat g3−g4of period≈2.4 Myr, has also been identified in the sedimentary records, and is thought to be a key factor in the onset of special climate events (Lourens et al.2005;Pälike et al. 2006;van Dam et al. 2006).

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2011/08/aa16836-11.pdf

.
Miles has responded to garrettderner's comments above with a 30 April 2020 update to his paper, Solar Cycles another prediction http://milesmathis.com/global.pdf

Addendum April 30, 2020: I have gotten emails from those who don't understand the math I just did. They tell me I can't divide 11,500 by 11 here, since the number 1045 isn't thereby a period of time. Strictly that is true, but what they are missing is that the number 11 comes up multiple times in the math here, and that is no accident. In other words, all these numbers are periods of time: the Solar Cycle, the longer Warm Period, and the even longer Great Year. What is more, they are all caused by the same thing: the Solar Cycle, and specifically the alignment of planets. In that sense, the Solar Cycle is like the base of the fractal, with the longer periods being functions of that base. So the number 11 coming up multiple times isn't an accident. It is the way fractals work. Since we have chosen the year as the base unit, 11 then become the base number, since it is connected to the year at the ground level. That base number then gets repeated in the math for a physical reason, creating the fractal in Nature. I will be told I can't just assume the fractal here: I should have to demonstrate it. I may get around to that, but for now the assumption will have to do. As you know, I have a lot of irons in the fire, to keep from getting bored, and I work on my own schedule. But in the meantime I felt I should post a short clarification, to undercut those using this episode to question my sanity. Yes, I am flying on intuition here, but that doesn't mean I am wrong. It is possible I am wrong, of course, but my intuition has a pretty good track record. I have previously shown many instances where number matches like this were not a coincidence, and they often come down to this sort of fractalization of Nature. Even with zero intuition, probability math tells us the same thing: it is very unlikely that the number 11 in both places is an accident.]

.