Understanding geometric measurements of the 2000 top - Price Time Vectors

This is long hair stuff (I'm bald).  No predictions, pure study so if you want to see a math wannabe hang himself, I've provided plenty of other grist ready for the grind in other posts.

If a top were to be reached and some form of wave symmetry were to be expected at that top, how would one measure the emerging waves down?  I’ve previously noted time symmetry in various essays but time symmetry is not special (time and price) symmetry.  Bradley Cowan adopted the Pythagorean measurement of the hypotenuse of the right triangle to simultaneously measure price and time in freely traded markets and called it Price Time Vector values or “PTV.” 

QQQs are selected to examine the 2000 top for a starter.  QQQs represent the speculative markets and form vivid pivots that are easy to ‘see’.  And QQQs started recently; if there’s an “initial vibration” as described by Gann, perhaps we will see it.

The first step is to calibrate the measurement tool, the PTV.  It’s a lot like “squaring the chart” (which Gann never really really defined, at least for the drooling crowd, me) or finding the unit of price to time or finding the step value that defines the 1X1.  It’s very very easy for QQQs.

QQQs first traded on 3/10/99 and price promptly bottomed on 3/24/99 at 48.50.  To the day and to the penny, QQQs topped on 3/24/2000 at 120.50.  Spooky.  That’s one year and 72.00 points.  72 points or 1/5^th the circle or one of 5 of Cowan’s Pentagonal cycle.  And one year.  [Goodness, is this an "initial vibration?"  Can it be so large a vibration with subsequent vibrations divisions of it rather than multiples?] Obviously in days, you have 365 / 72 or just over 5.  5, that's a neat number.  But in Sun degrees its exactly 5.0000 because its exactly one year and the Sun travels 360 degrees in one year, not 365 (errr Gann said the Sun travels 361 degrees but that's another digression).  So, if you have Cycletimer or if you’re working the Pythagorean formula you want to use a multiple of 5.  Here’s the triangle dimensions before the price multiplier is changed:

Now, lets look at the symmetry on either side of the 3/24/2000 top in terms of PTVs (and visually).  Look at the last move up and the first move down:

You have a near perfect isosceles triangle with sides of 85, 85 and 9.  Hmmm, 9 divides 72 in whole numbers.  Cowan said you'll find this kind of triangles in markets.  It appears there’s a perfect equilibrium of force on either side of the top. 

Now look at the next to the last move up and the second move down from the top:

Still close to an isosceles, but a little less perfect.  Sides of 99, 98 and 18.  Hmmm, a base of 18 divides 72 by exactly 4.

Now, look at a much larger triangle (which probably was the last of the first Elliot Wave one down but I haven’t checked):

Incredible geometry.  And the base is now exactly twice the 72 points between the 3/24/99 bottom and 3/24/00 top.  The move down from the top (right side) is now more forceful than the left with a PTV value of 249 versus 204.  The downside is gaining momentum.   Although I won’t be getting into Elliott Wave 3, the momentum, I expect, will become a landslide, errrr waterfall.

And one last triangle, larger than the first two and smaller than the last one:

The right side is decidedly more forceful at 161 (similar to Phi) versus 123.  Funny though, the base isn’t a division of 72.  It’s 61.9…..errr, Phi X 10?

My conclusion based on this one top, a very important top, is that the decline on the right side shows rational geometric proportion to the buildup going into the top.  If we can apply a stable set of metrics to the right side based on the left side…or at least smell out the emerging proportions that might occur, then the decline should be predictable.....less unpredictable?

As Drudge would say “Developing.”

Jim