Shortly afterwards I found out about the inverse square law in relation to the intensity of light at certain distances and noticed the obvious connection between the varying intensity of light at certain distances and the mean periods of planets cycles.

Naturally I was saying to myself things like: "How do they do that ... how do they!!"

"How could 'Nature' know about square roots of numbers and organise many things according to precise mathematical rules?"

"What else is there that no one told me about - and why isn't everyone getting excited about it?"

Gradually I came across more and more of these fascinating things and then assumed that there's probably lots more of them out there - some of which probably relate to astrology, but they haven't been noted or discovered yet, and so with this belief I began looking for very precise patterns and found a few but I'm still none the wiser about how they work, but I suspect the same applies to other rules and Laws of Nature. Do scientists know yet why Nature has chosen "neat rules"?

The reason I ask is: - if no one knows why those mathematical rules "work" in physics, then should we be spending a lot of time trying to figure out why they work for astrology? Or how astrology itself works.

I could easily be wrong about scientists' understanding of the mathematical rules of Nature because (as I've already indicated) I jumped on the bandwagon pretty late :-)>

Naturally some things in science that look magical - like the ability of photocopiers to reduce an image from (international paper size) A3 to A4 to A5 to A6 etc and still retain the same proportions is not exactly rocket science - it's simply caused by the fact that each of the paper sizes has a ratio of 1.4142 :1 (The square root of 2).

The same thing applies to the U.S. "B series" paper sizes which are out-of-whack with the rest of the world - still that same ratio. Incidentally why is that -- why does one country have so many things different - like driving on a different side of the road, placing months before days for dates, using imperial measurements, having different spelling of English words?

Anyway back to Nature and its rules. It seems that the square root of 2 is one of the main tools in Nature's tool-box as well as the cubed root. It seems that Nature is also "into" dividing things by 2 and repeating that infinitely (as with the decay of radioactive material).

What else is frequently used by Nature that could provide clues for astrologers?

Let's look at the period of precession of the equinoxes - presumably an average period. We say it's about 26,000 years for round figures and everyone is pretty happy with that - but when we know how Nature is frequently so precise and is in the habit of using "neat rules" why isn't anyone speculating about the mean period of precession as being connected to the square root of 2. After all - even when we allow for the slight wobbles of the earth (thus changing the length of the tropical + sidereal years very slightly) we still have a rule which is sooo close that it shouldn't be ignored.

If we take the tropical year of 365.2422 days and multiply by 100 and then divide by the square root of 2 we get 25,826.5237 (years).

And if we take the sidereal year of 365.2564 days and multiply by 100 and then divide by the square root of 2 we get 25, 827.5277 (years)

Now there's got to be a connection with SqRt2 there!

For anyone who hasn't looked at this stuff - what we are looking at here is a "big wheel" (365.2564) and a small wheel (365.2422) going the same distance for a precessional period. The "small wheel" must make ONE more revolution in order to eventually catch up with the big wheel - so that's why we have TWO periods - 25, 826.5237 and 25, 827.5277.

ie: 25, 826.5237 x 365.2564 = 9,433,303.071 sidereal days

and 25,827.5277 x 365.2422 = 9,433, 303.038 tropical days.

In other words ONE more (tropical) revolution of the earth.

These figures are a bit rough but when you see a miniscule alteration in the length of the tropical & sidereal days (which we will always have anyway) the above figures come out exact to about 10 decimal places (so far).

For the non-technical astrologers who are reading this. Here's a simple graphical way to see what I mean. Draw a square with a diagonal line from bottom left to top right. Now write on the diagonal line the number of tropical days x 100 (36, 524.22).

Then put that number in your calculator and get the square root of it (25,826.5237) and write it on top of the square.

Then do the same for the sidereal year using the figures 365.2565 x 100 and 25,827.5277.

See how precession is tied to the length of a tropical day and is "visible" in a simple square :-)>

The same sort of thing appears to be present in relation to the (mean) length of the the Moon's Sidereal month and Synodic month - 27.32166 and 29.53058 days respectively. If those cycles are meant to have a mean period over many millenia then it is very close indeed to another SqRT2 formula.

I now this looks more like astronomy than astrology, but there may be some advantage for astrologers in having a more precise mean period for precession and for the Moon's cyclic periods IF "parts of the whole cycles" are used in astrology / Nature (which I am certain is happening).

I still haven't figured out why the precession figures mentioned above rely on multiplying by 100.

Sure, 100 is neat, but Nature doesn't seem to operate much with actual numbers. Could it be caused by the base 10 numbering system that we use - ie: could it be really 10 squared (rather than 100)?

I've often wondered what the "formula" would look like in some other numbering system - and if the squaring of the maximum number (8, 12, 16 etc) of the numbering system fitted with it.

I did fool around with other numbering systems but got completely confused when I discovered I had no decimal places to work with :-)>

Getting back to my original request: Can anyone please put forward their opinions about which mathematical tools that "Nature" seems to use most frequently?