Before I

*spill my beans*, I'll

*boil down*about a half dozen essays I've written on my laboratory experiments for the last week, but haven't published, to a couple generalized supposed insights I think I have. First, there will be a new high in DJIA and my present projection is April 20, 2017 at 22073. From there, DJIA should drop to just over 16000 in the December 2017 timeframe.

Yes, I know I made that projection a couple weeks ago and then changed it to May 2, 2017 at above 22000. But I've made some mathematic discoveries since then that I find compelling. You know when the first time you discovered the market reacting to Phi...it was shazaam! Those mathematic wonderments have been happening to me nearly daily. I don't understand the structure of the math as yet and as always, but my wonderment at first seeing Phi presents itself is now excitement to an exponential degree. And it happens every day as I experiment with the math of these charts and every night as I try to make sense of it in half sleep.

My latest elaboration of the cubes formed in DJIA are not the pretty little boxes that you might see in Bradley Cowan's "Four Dimensional Stock Market Cycles and Structures" "Charts" V B. Two nicely angularly envisioned cubes. I've drawn an early offering of the two adjacent "pretty" cubes of the current market that are similar to Mr. Cowan's depiction of the circa 1929 markets:

The cubes aren't that way. The math proves it. I suspect Mr. Cowan knows and left it to the reader to figure out 'the rest of the story.' But I don't know what he knows; maybe he does maybe he doesn't. And but again, the math says it is not as depicted above. Above is a nice suggestion but hardly the reality.

The math says the true four-dimensional twin cubes depiction in two dimensions is ugly. Sometimes there might be only one not conjoined with another but I don't know that either. I do know there are two gosh awful ugly cubes from the DJIA 2000 to the present (nearing point K) and until the end of the entire structure in the fall of 2017 (point L):

The thing I got right about the above is that they were twin cubes conjoined at the common square face EFGH (the blue square). The thing I got wrong was we needed to identify that common square between the cubes. Why? By segmenting the twin cubes a mathematic comparison of their growth can be made. And the comparison of their perimeters and diagonals will give us vast opportunities to find mathematically logical places to find root 2, root 3, Phi.... There will be many places to reprise that simple "Aha, I found Phi" moment.

Every point on the above chart is mathematically determinable except points K and L. Points A, B, C, D, I and J have happened in time and space. Point E has and never will happen in time and space but it is known; it is simply the perfect midpoint in time and price between the known points A and I. The midpoint is very easy to compute; take the dates of points A and I and half the number of days between. Same for price. Points F, G and H have never happened in time or space but are easily determinable

*points K and L are known. For the moment, let's assume K and L are known, and, given that, points F, G and H are as easily determinable as point E.***IF**
Now it gets tricky. There are two points, K and L, in time and space that are not known but when they are known, they will complete the perfect mathematic structure of two cubes. How do I find those two points? Its tough. The two points are, themselves, functions of four unknowns; the price at point K and the price at point L and the date at each of those two points. Simultaneous linear equations. Hmm, we're dealing with exponents and roots in Pythagoras' equation...simultaneous non linear equations? Not good for a finite mathematician.

This is where we either guess and try to optimize the structure of the twin cubes with successive guesses (simulation) or we solve it analytically via simultaneous equations, four dimensional Cartesian transformations or other methods I haven't mastered or even have hear of. So what's an educated guess?

**Point K and the "camera****. One might derive future point K using John Dee's "camera obscura." Consider the simple camera of 150 years ago receiving light through an aperture with it being imaged on a film...upside down and reversed left to right. Now consider square with known points ABCD is "imaged" through the perfect infinitesimally small center of square EFGH to square IJKL. Can we propose that mathematically? Can we recognize values in an already complete "square" ABCD that are near to our heart? Here's how I'd propose to image the magnitudes of the vectors of IJKL:**

*obscura"*
It would seem I want to "obscure" a very simple math operation of extrapolation the magnitudes (PTV values) of known ABCD to three unknown magnitudes of IJKL. The math is simple but the reason hardly; its the camera obscura. That there future "wants" to repeat the past in the fourth dimension but it does it not with perfection but with increasing perfection and it does not do it with the order that occurs in the third dimension. First, you see ABCD is close to the geometric ideals of 2 (the square of the hypotenuse of the 1X1 cube), close to Phi and close to root Phi. I don't believe it is coincidence. And second, the "camera obscura" reflection of ABCD onto IJKL will again be close to geometric ideals but not quite there.

How many times did WD Gann cite "nothing new under the sun," "history repeats," and variants. How many times and in how many ways did WD Gann tell us, beginning with the all important Ticker Interview, the initial impulse resolves itself into periodic rhythm?

We have an initial impulse in PTV AB which imperfectly reflects itself onto AC, BD and CD according to known geometric key numbers. We have that PTV AB imperfectly halving itself to become PTV IJ. And then we have that new initial impulse IJ, in concept at least, replicating itself to JL, KL and IK via those same geometric keys.

So how did that work out for me? Pretty well. Remember, every vector and square in the twin cubes is mathematically determinable as long as we know the presently unknown future top K and future bottom L. Since I

*I know them, I plugged them into my deterministic model of vectors that comprise the twin cubes (that whole structure seen in the most recent chart above) and the bold italics values are what is created. Compare the three bold italic numbers to the red numbers which are the ideal extrapolation of the initial impulse, IJ. They are darn close.*__think__
But how did I get points K and L? Again, we know the PTV IJ, we think we know the values of the other three sides of IJKL, but four sides do not make a structure. Three sides do make a determined and firm structure in the triangle, but four side values do not make a firm structure at all; you need a diagonal. And to get a diagonal, you've got to know either point K or L. I'll leave how I found point K for the next essay.

***

Why beans Mr. Gann? While I tout the stock market as Mr. Gann's laboratory for study of spacetime, it was not the ideal subject. Back then, the early 1900s, stocks could be manipulated by powerful men. Arguably, even the then young Dow Jones Industrials could be manipulated. And its structure as the Dow 30 was ever changing. And even now, DJIA is rebalanced. Its an index and not a natural set of data created by natural interaction.

Beans, cotton, wheat....essentials to life, markets that are everywhere in the world and this time, arguably, bigger than the ability of any single person to manipulate their value. How'd it work out for Bunky Hunt and bro when they tried to corner the much narrower and less essential to life silver market in the early '70s. Not so good when the oil billionaire was reduced to taking a bankruptcy's court fee to help sell his stockpile of art; then owned by the bankruptcy court trustee.

Beans and the DJIA...and here I am using the DJIA as my lab. Well, the DJIA and equity markets are how I got to this dance and there's a lot of conveniently accessed history for DJIA. Beans not so much.

There are three problems with projecting point K as April 20, 2017. First, the history of DJIA is manipulated, at least, by rebalancing if not by large speculator efforts. Second, given that points K and L remain unknown, we have an infirm square. The two points are the result of four variables; two dates and two prices. Its a very complex integration or iteration to perfection or set of equations that would give us those dates.

And most important, the subject of the experiment, the DJIA, is not a

**natural phenomenon.**Its an imperfect reflection of 30 natural markets. I believe it will lead me to the right model of the market's space time. But its imperfection must be recognized.
As recounted in "The Ticker Interview," WD Gann did not say, for example, GM would touch some price on exactly a certain day or all this theories would be disproven. But he did with wheat. For those who do not know the story:

Maybe there's a fourth problem; perhaps my emerging theories of spacetime (as if they are "mine" while I know others sense the correct formulations that I'm struggling to find) are wrong. That's my odd's on favorite. Still, I think I'm down the right path.

Wow, closing at 20663 yesterday, DJIA would have to go 6.8% in 15 trading days to reach 22073.

Jim Ross

Hey Jim, I love your work ,but can you tell me one time you have been correct within 3 days on anything thanks jeff

ReplyDeleteI do not see the point to your comment unless it is only to ridicule me. But maybe its just the way you phrased it.

DeleteOn September 29, 2007 I was holding 9000 contracts of QQQ 38 Puts, October expiration. That's 900,000 shares. My average in was $.25 per share. Check out the intrinsic value at the end of that day. How much money did I make just that one day. Then, just for grins check out how far they closed in the money at expiration in October.

That was pure blind luck. I could say it was my expertise in Elliott Wave, which I followed back then, and I believed that. But it was not. I spent the next four years losing much of that money and proving to myself I didn't know didly. And, the supposed EW experts didn't either.

I do this work because I love math and believe WD Gann had the answer that I'd like to know. Seldom do I put money on it. This time I might buy some distantly out of the money April calls but probably until time gets a little shorter (end of next week).

Like I say, if Dow hits April 20, 2017 I'll be only slightly less surprised than others. I'd say a day either way or within 100 points would be a win given that DJIA is not a natural market.

If nothing else, I'll add to the 1000 ways I know it doesn't work as Edison would say.

Thanks for considering,

Jim