Thursday, March 16, 2017

Current Market: The math didn't work

As I'd asserted, the validity of the below market formulation of four market points (points A, B, C, D) in price/time supporting a fifth future point (point E) depends upon their mathematic and geometric interdependence.  The five points, forming vectors between each set of points, must demonstrate the mathematics of adjacent 1X1 cubes adjusted for growth.

If the mathematics worked out for every so formed vector of the many, then point E would be indicated as the final high of the 17 years since the DJIA January 2000 high.

After hours, days of working the math, many of the relationships among the many vectors formed by the four points and one prospective points do not work or work in a way that is contrary to the laws of the adjacent 1X1 cubes.  My conclusion is that point E or the DJIA March 1, 2017 high, is not the final high in DJIA.  Were I a bit more diligent I would have noted the closeness of the adjacent cloned ellipses featured in one of the first posts in the "Current Market" series:

I'd noticed it before.  The inscribed ellipses B and C axes (bold purple lines) do not adjoin to form a perfectly straight line.  The axis of the enclosing ellipse A (bold dashed lines) is be the adjoining of the inscribed eclipses axes.  A detail or loose thread.  I should have known.

The three ellipses' axes present configuration suggest to me another marginal high that will result in the inscribed, perfectly equal ellipses forming a perfectly straight line overlapping the axis of the axis of the greater ellipse A.  Think about it.  Point E moves up very slightly to yet a new all-time-high, large ellipse rotates up to point E and inscribed ellipse C rotates up to point E.  All three ellipses now have overlapping central axes that overlap and extend the axis of ellipse B.

That's visual and visual is perception and perception is subjective.  As a finite mathematician I rail against perception and subjectivity.  Failing with my mathematics, I'm using a subjective tool to prove myself wrong.  No, the math didn't prove my rendition of the cubes as correct.

When first I posted the twin cubes, a commenter, perhaps innocently or perhaps with greater insight that I then had, asked the question, "Where is the back side of the second cube formed?"  And I believe, in retrospect, he is right.  Here is the re-imagined formation of the adjacent cubes:

Concentrate on the bold black (real) and bod grey (imagined) lines that outline two cubes sharing a center side that twist from their side nearest us (square side ABCD) and rear side furthest from us (square side EFGH).  

I have tentative math that suggests point E, the higher high, will occur April 27 at just over DJIA 22,000.  The math is a visual fitting of the above vectors and the "camera obscura" projection of square ABCD and its component triangles to imagined square EFGH and its component triangles.

["Camera obscura" is a favored optical/geometric concept of the 17th century mathematician, scientist, physicist, alchemist, philosopher of the court of Queen Elizabeth I, John Dee.  Dee is a name that appears 45 times in the acrostic and telestic encoding of WD Gann's "The Tunnel Thru the Air," 44 times as the word "Dee" and once, perfectly between the first and second 22 occurrences as "007."  The James Bond of the 17th century was, indeed, John Dee and "007" was John Dee's signature to Queen Elizabeth I in their secret and coded correspondence.  See HERE.  John Dee's relation to "camera obscure" is well documented in Jim Egan's ebook on the geometry of the Monas Hieroglyphic found HERE.] 

The image of the twisted cubes can be modeled in mathematics.  If its a valid formulation, then the many vectors formed by real points ABCD and imagined point E will demonstrate the metrics of the two-Platonic 1X1 cubes augmented by growth.  And if it is a valid mathematic formulation, the triangulation of point E based on points G and H and the projected "camera obscura" image of square ABCD to square EFGH will give us a perfected price and time projection of exactly where the market will top.  

If I know myself, I'll first mathematically project point E.  Only after having the exciting answer as to whether and exactly where (price and time) the market tops, I'll test the many vectors to see if the math supports the above formulation.  This is otherwise known as "cart before the horse."

If it doesn't work, I'll continue to work.  If it does, I'll continue to work.

Jim Ross


  1. Brad Cowan's Four Dimensional Stock Market Structures and Cycles Charts exhibit V.B. Three Dimensional View of DJIA (monthly close) shows two cubes from 1924, 1929 A, 1932 B, G,1937 L, 19?? C, 1949 D, 1966 E, 197?, 1988 G. These should give a clue on how the back side of the cubes from 2017 E may work out. marjosch2 at

    1. V.B was the inspiration for the first visualization of the market where the next side was supposed to be after the present market trend completing two cubes from the 2000 high. The math seemingly worked out rationally for points A and B but for C and D, very little seemed to work out. See the next reply to your next comment.


  2. Cowan's exhibit V.H. six squares in cube (1899-1982) in the above referenced book shows how price moved in past around the cube. marjosch2.

    1. I think we're looking at differing magnitude levels of cubes. The cube that formed on V.H covered the period 1897 (the year of the great planetary alignments) to about 1982 or 85 years or an average of 17 years per side (1929-1932 was a very short side).

      The period I am looking at is 2000 to 2017 or 17 years. It follows the end of the greater cube in V.H. which would have been 1982 to 2000 or about an 18 year cube.

      I take from the previous two observations, the Platonic solid I am looking at from 2000-17, while adjacent cubes, is comparable to but one of the six sides shown in V.H. Bradley does not, as I recall, develop the concept of wheels within wheels, but it would seem this may be its reflection. "As above so below" would also seem a timely thought. The greater 17 year sides comprised of a 17-year cube or 17 years of component adjacent cubes.


  3. I suspect Gann used log scale which could alter your math, secondly this isn't a major market top.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.