Correct for ether when computing planets
Correct for ether when computing planets
In the ephemeris properties window there is a section for "Correct for ether when computing planets". I've searched W59 and the internet for what this means and came up empty. What does it do, and can it be used with mechanical systems? Thanks.
Re: Correct for ether when computing planets
Hi Gary,
You won't find any of that on the internet. It's from a talk I gave at the 2009 PUC. Basically, if you're an astrotrader, you tend to have the underlying assumption that there's no delay between when something happens in the sky and when the effects of that event are seen in markets. But that's not actually the case. It takes light a certain amount of time to travel from really distant objects, and although with planets that's not a huge amount of time, there is a correction that you have to apply to your ephemeris files in order to get from true to apparent locations.
So there's always a delay with planets, and W59 automatically corrects for that when you ask it to give you a planetary position. Having said that, the mechanism by which planetary patterns actually work on markets isn't known. Although we're correcting for the speed of light, it's not light that does this, because the Sun washes out any light from the planets during the day, and we know that they still have an affect for daytraders. It's not gravity, because the gravity between me and my dog is stronger than the gravity between the markets and the outer planets, and I'm pretty sure that when the dog scratches to go out, the markets don't suddenly change directions. (Or do they??
) So if it's not light, and it's not gravity, then what specifically is it?
This is the conundrum we have when we use this stuff, and also one of the reasons why astrology and astro finance just aren't accepted in the mainstream. It's because whatever "rays" are connecting the system up to markets and psychology are just not known. We can study the effects of it, but we can't actually see the strings that link it all up.
Anyway, given that framework, you can come up with a model that assumes that those rays exist (whatever they are!) as an actual force of some kind, and reverse engineer the whole thing by using markets as your data set. Going through that results in an interesting discovery that those rays move at a very specific speed (much slower than light) on their way over to us, and for lack of a better way to think about it, I just called it Ether. So once you know how long it takes for something to propagate through the Ether, then you can correct the ephemeris to show not the actual position of the planets, but the FELT position of the planets, which completely changes the ephemeris around.
Anyway, that's the gist of it. Those PUC DVDs are really the only source for this stuff, as it's a W59-centric approach, and I've never seen anyone else try to take it and run with it. I think it's a pretty far out idea for most traders, and I've been called a "nut job" on other boards for talking about it, but you can use it to do some interesting things with systems, and because of that you'll see it here and there all over the software if you look close.
Regards,
Earik
You won't find any of that on the internet. It's from a talk I gave at the 2009 PUC. Basically, if you're an astrotrader, you tend to have the underlying assumption that there's no delay between when something happens in the sky and when the effects of that event are seen in markets. But that's not actually the case. It takes light a certain amount of time to travel from really distant objects, and although with planets that's not a huge amount of time, there is a correction that you have to apply to your ephemeris files in order to get from true to apparent locations.
So there's always a delay with planets, and W59 automatically corrects for that when you ask it to give you a planetary position. Having said that, the mechanism by which planetary patterns actually work on markets isn't known. Although we're correcting for the speed of light, it's not light that does this, because the Sun washes out any light from the planets during the day, and we know that they still have an affect for daytraders. It's not gravity, because the gravity between me and my dog is stronger than the gravity between the markets and the outer planets, and I'm pretty sure that when the dog scratches to go out, the markets don't suddenly change directions. (Or do they??
) So if it's not light, and it's not gravity, then what specifically is it?This is the conundrum we have when we use this stuff, and also one of the reasons why astrology and astro finance just aren't accepted in the mainstream. It's because whatever "rays" are connecting the system up to markets and psychology are just not known. We can study the effects of it, but we can't actually see the strings that link it all up.
Anyway, given that framework, you can come up with a model that assumes that those rays exist (whatever they are!) as an actual force of some kind, and reverse engineer the whole thing by using markets as your data set. Going through that results in an interesting discovery that those rays move at a very specific speed (much slower than light) on their way over to us, and for lack of a better way to think about it, I just called it Ether. So once you know how long it takes for something to propagate through the Ether, then you can correct the ephemeris to show not the actual position of the planets, but the FELT position of the planets, which completely changes the ephemeris around.
Anyway, that's the gist of it. Those PUC DVDs are really the only source for this stuff, as it's a W59-centric approach, and I've never seen anyone else try to take it and run with it. I think it's a pretty far out idea for most traders, and I've been called a "nut job" on other boards for talking about it, but you can use it to do some interesting things with systems, and because of that you'll see it here and there all over the software if you look close.
Regards,
Earik
Re: Correct for ether when computing planets
That's very interesting. Thank you for the very complete explanation!
-
NDscorpini
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:34 pm
Re: Correct for ether when computing planets
Watch the video and draw you own conclusions. That is all I have to say on this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Best wishes,
NDscorpini
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Best wishes,
NDscorpini
-
NDscorpini
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:34 pm
Re: Correct for ether when computing planets
Hi All,
At the risk of getting kicked off this board, I have to say something. I thought this topic had already be settled but let me try again. This isn't a personal attack on Earik but a challenge to his logic. As a long time customer and member of this community I can't sit by and let "junk" science be passed along as fact.
1. I asked what was your source for the lag factor and you said you made it up.
2. If I ask for a real world example of this effect outside of trading, you can't produce one.
3. If you redo the math for the lag factor but calculate for the Solar System travelling at 70,000 km/hr, it won't add up.
So the question becomes, how do the markets react to astrology? Defer to your old mentor Dr. Al Larson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAmTSLdfvwY
Energy fields move instantaneously through the Universe.
You may fall at 32 ft per sec per sec but the FIELD pulling on you is instantaneous. How else would you describe the speed of gravity?
You can calculate the speed of an electric current moving through a conductor but the magnetic FIELD around the wire shows up instantly. How else would you describe the speed of magnetism?
Your analogy of "rays" moving through the aether is wrong, sorry.
Best wishes,
NDscorpini
At the risk of getting kicked off this board, I have to say something. I thought this topic had already be settled but let me try again. This isn't a personal attack on Earik but a challenge to his logic. As a long time customer and member of this community I can't sit by and let "junk" science be passed along as fact.
1. I asked what was your source for the lag factor and you said you made it up.
2. If I ask for a real world example of this effect outside of trading, you can't produce one.
3. If you redo the math for the lag factor but calculate for the Solar System travelling at 70,000 km/hr, it won't add up.
So the question becomes, how do the markets react to astrology? Defer to your old mentor Dr. Al Larson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAmTSLdfvwY
Energy fields move instantaneously through the Universe.
You may fall at 32 ft per sec per sec but the FIELD pulling on you is instantaneous. How else would you describe the speed of gravity?
You can calculate the speed of an electric current moving through a conductor but the magnetic FIELD around the wire shows up instantly. How else would you describe the speed of magnetism?
Your analogy of "rays" moving through the aether is wrong, sorry.
Best wishes,
NDscorpini
Re: Correct for ether when computing planets
Don't worry, I'm not going to kick anyone off the board because they disagree with me. Just don't post spam and you're golden... 
As far as "junk" science goes, keep in mind that includes every YouTube video you've probably seen, the entire realm of technical analysis, and daytrading in general. I literally just finished reading an article making fun of technical traders as a group. All of this is on the fringe, and I'm the first to admit I've come up with plenty of things that I later believed not to work.
So yes, this is my own theory. To answer your points:
1. I asked what was your source for the lag factor and you said you made it up.
Correct. This is my own development. I didn't read it in a book.
2. If I ask for a real world example of this effect outside of trading, you can't produce one.
Markets aren't a real world example?
3. If you redo the math for the lag factor but calculate for the Solar System travelling at 70,000 km/hr, it won't add up.
The entire system moves at the same rate. If I throw a ball from one end of the yard to the other, it doesn't suddenly fly off at 70,000 k/hr the instant it leaves my hand.
Now let me ask you a question in return:
If you come up with a theory that flies in the face of modern science, as well a fringe science, but that works in markets and generates profits over time in out-of-sample data, should you listen to the people who tell you you're doing it wrong, or should you listen to the data that is telling you you're doing it right?
If I couldn't generate any edge using this, then I'd believe you. But that's not the case. Therefore, for you to really convince me I'm wrong, you'll have to explain an alternate reason why this works aside from the one I've set forth...
Regards,
Earik
As far as "junk" science goes, keep in mind that includes every YouTube video you've probably seen, the entire realm of technical analysis, and daytrading in general. I literally just finished reading an article making fun of technical traders as a group. All of this is on the fringe, and I'm the first to admit I've come up with plenty of things that I later believed not to work.
So yes, this is my own theory. To answer your points:
1. I asked what was your source for the lag factor and you said you made it up.
Correct. This is my own development. I didn't read it in a book.
2. If I ask for a real world example of this effect outside of trading, you can't produce one.
Markets aren't a real world example?
3. If you redo the math for the lag factor but calculate for the Solar System travelling at 70,000 km/hr, it won't add up.
The entire system moves at the same rate. If I throw a ball from one end of the yard to the other, it doesn't suddenly fly off at 70,000 k/hr the instant it leaves my hand.
Now let me ask you a question in return:
If you come up with a theory that flies in the face of modern science, as well a fringe science, but that works in markets and generates profits over time in out-of-sample data, should you listen to the people who tell you you're doing it wrong, or should you listen to the data that is telling you you're doing it right?
If I couldn't generate any edge using this, then I'd believe you. But that's not the case. Therefore, for you to really convince me I'm wrong, you'll have to explain an alternate reason why this works aside from the one I've set forth...
Regards,
Earik
-
NDscorpini
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:34 pm
Re: Correct for ether when computing planets
Hi Earik,
All I'm saying is this
1. In the history of the world you are the only person that has come up energy moving through the aether that lags. Again you can't point to one research paper, one scientist, one experiment or anything to back up what you say. So Tesla, Einstein and Hawking all missed this phenomenon but you Earik Beann nailed it (not to mention every astrologer that ever lived), really?
2. You can't use your account as the ONLY real world example because we both know people who can make money with a random entry and a good stop loss. It doesn't prove that this energy exists.
3. I noticed you didn't debunk Dr. Al's theory of energy fields as the cause of market moves. Why? The guy has two PhDs and research to back up his theories.
I'll end with this and let it go. Incredible claims require incredible proof. If you had to go to court against Dr. Al to prove your right and he is wrong; do you think you would win?
Best wishes,
NDscorpini
p.s.
I didn't mean to pick a fight with you near Xmas. Happy Holidays my good man!!!!!!!!!!!
All I'm saying is this
1. In the history of the world you are the only person that has come up energy moving through the aether that lags. Again you can't point to one research paper, one scientist, one experiment or anything to back up what you say. So Tesla, Einstein and Hawking all missed this phenomenon but you Earik Beann nailed it (not to mention every astrologer that ever lived), really?
2. You can't use your account as the ONLY real world example because we both know people who can make money with a random entry and a good stop loss. It doesn't prove that this energy exists.
3. I noticed you didn't debunk Dr. Al's theory of energy fields as the cause of market moves. Why? The guy has two PhDs and research to back up his theories.
I'll end with this and let it go. Incredible claims require incredible proof. If you had to go to court against Dr. Al to prove your right and he is wrong; do you think you would win?
Best wishes,
NDscorpini
p.s.
I didn't mean to pick a fight with you near Xmas. Happy Holidays my good man!!!!!!!!!!!
-
NDscorpini
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:34 pm
Re: Correct for ether when computing planets
I have to make an amendment to what I just said.
Myles Wilson Walker does do a "lag" astrology. Something I was reading that he wrote said the market will echo a reaction 12 to 24 hours after the aspect happens. I don't doubt that you've found a market edge. What I do doubt is you discovered a new type of physics. What I'm saying is PEOPLE might lag the energy doesn't. There is a clear distinct difference, no?
Now I'm really done. Thanks for the debate, Earik!!!
Myles Wilson Walker does do a "lag" astrology. Something I was reading that he wrote said the market will echo a reaction 12 to 24 hours after the aspect happens. I don't doubt that you've found a market edge. What I do doubt is you discovered a new type of physics. What I'm saying is PEOPLE might lag the energy doesn't. There is a clear distinct difference, no?
Now I'm really done. Thanks for the debate, Earik!!!
Re: Correct for ether when computing planets
You are comparing physicists to traders. If we are talking about physics, then no, those guys have me beat, and I'm not going to challenge them on that front. However, if we're talking about markets, then things are a little different. Besides, regarding lag, I'm not the only one that has noticed this effect in relation to markets. George Bayer wrote about it decades ago as well. We're talking about the affect of the planetary system on markets and mass psychology, and how would anyone have noticed it unless they spent a lot of time studying markets?1. In the history of the world you are the only person that has come up energy moving through the aether that lags. Again you can't point to one research paper, one scientist, one experiment or anything to back up what you say. So Tesla, Einstein and Hawking all missed this phenomenon but you Earik Beann nailed it (not to mention every astrologer that ever lived), really?
Given the phenomena I've seen, I ended up coming up with a theory about why it happens how it does. I don't know how else to try and explain it otherwise....
Um... Why not? How else am I supposed to prove it? It's a theory about markets, after all.2. You can't use your account as the ONLY real world example because we both know people who can make money with a random entry and a good stop loss. It doesn't prove that this energy exists.
There are many, many, traders who get all worked up over the fact that astrology is in the software at all, and I've been asked more than once if there's a "sanitized" version of W59 that doesn't have all the crazy stuff in it. My response is usually to point people towards NinjaTrader, or something more mainstream. My job isn't to convince skeptics, but to find the stuff and share it as applicable. Some of these tools just don't resonate well with certain belief systems. In your case, it's the Etheric part that goes against your understanding of physics. In other cases, it's astrology in general, and in other cases, it's trendlines. People will believe what they want to believe, and reject what they want to reject, oftentimes based on nothing more than skepticism and superstition. Rather than argue that the lag can't possibly exist, you'd be better off studying the data and (assuming you agree there's an edge), coming up with some sort of better explanation for why that happens than the one I've proposed. That way we all move forward. But just saying it's incorrect and can't be true without actually going through it puts you in the same boat as those traders that say astrology can't possibly forecast markets, based on nothing more than the fact that doing so challenges their world view.
Why would I want to debunk Al? I'm not saying that his stuff doesn't work, or that regular astro doesn't work. I'm just saying that there's an effect that ALSO works, which I've explained with the Ether theory.3. I noticed you didn't debunk Dr. Al's theory of energy fields as the cause of market moves. Why? The guy has two PhDs and research to back up his theories.
I'll end with this and let it go. Incredible claims require incredible proof. If you had to go to court against Dr. Al to prove your right and he is wrong; do you think you would win?
Nothing against PhDs, but if I had to go to court to prove a theory about markets, I'd simply use market data to prove it, rather than PhDs in unrelated fields. If 10 out of 10 dental hygienists agreed that planets couldn't possibly have an effect on markets, would that shake your belief in astro-finance? Probably not. Al has done a huge amount of work on markets, which I respect (and I'm also personal friends with the guy), but he'll be the first to tell you that he hasn't solved them. No one has, we're all just trying to figure it out using different theories and approaches.
It's not a fight, and I'm not taking it personally. Honestly, I actually expected you to chime in once I saw the initial question, and would have been surprised had you stayed silent.I didn't mean to pick a fight with you near Xmas. Happy Holidays my good man!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Holidays to you too!!Regards,
Earik
Re: Correct for ether when computing planets
Hi Earik, NDscorpini.
I am kind of surprised that your Ether theory became controversial for some, especially in light of existence of supporting data.
We were always told that light which we see originating from the stars "left" those stars months, years and even centuries ago.
So why not delay for anything else that originates in the skies, what ever that force may be, which may have an effect on us and Markets ?
I watched the clip NDscorpini posted, and even if everything in it is excepted as truth, all planets still maintain a constant relationship
to Earth, even if they do follow traveling Sun.
Anyway, interesting discussion.
Best,
Simon
P.S. As Earik correctly pointed out - many theories came to light over the years simply because people were trying to figure out what makes Markets tick, and as brilliant as all above mentioned scientists are/were - they would not be able to argue trading with Earik or other good traders.
I am kind of surprised that your Ether theory became controversial for some, especially in light of existence of supporting data.
We were always told that light which we see originating from the stars "left" those stars months, years and even centuries ago.
So why not delay for anything else that originates in the skies, what ever that force may be, which may have an effect on us and Markets ?
I watched the clip NDscorpini posted, and even if everything in it is excepted as truth, all planets still maintain a constant relationship
to Earth, even if they do follow traveling Sun.
Anyway, interesting discussion.
Best,
Simon
P.S. As Earik correctly pointed out - many theories came to light over the years simply because people were trying to figure out what makes Markets tick, and as brilliant as all above mentioned scientists are/were - they would not be able to argue trading with Earik or other good traders.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest