Curling Kali Yuga waves into cycloids

Clif High rocks! If you haven’t already noticed, I discussed Clif’s ET “Elohim” videos in my previous “Oumuamua” and “Milky Way” posts. But occasionally, his mathematical concepts or calculations are misleading or miss the mark. For example, in a recent “Sci-Fi World Lunacy” interview, Clif stated that the Moon is 1/4th the diameter of the Earth, so the Moon should have 1/16th of the Earth’s mass.

This calculation is wrong. Clif High simply “squared” 1/4 to get 1/16. But because the Moon and Earth are 3D objects, he should’ve “cubed” 1/4 to get 1/64 or about 1.56%. To be honest, I still agree with Clif that the Moon is less massive or more “hollow” than it appears. So if he can make the case that the Moon has only 1.0% of the Earth’s mass, then we’ll have a stronger argument for its “hollowness”.

Hi, my name is Jay, and I’m an IBM TRIRIGA content designer at IBM. For now, I won’t be digging into the Moon. Instead, I’m challenging Clif High’s notion that our solar system follows a “sinusoidal” wave path around the Milky Way galaxy. I challenged it indirectly in my previous “Milky Way” post. But this time, I think I discovered where or why he started the “sinusoidal” wave model. Are you interested?

Where did he start the wave?

Although I first discovered Clif High in 2021-2022, I didn’t stumble upon his Substack until last week in January 2024. But as far as I can tell, among several Substack posts from May to July 2023, Clif first introduced his “sinusoidal” wave model in June 2023 with his post “Conspiracist’s Guide to the Great Year“. Specifically, it includes two diagrams that depict the wave. Since then, he’s held this model.

Where are my initial concerns?

In my previous “Milky Way” post, I didn’t directly challenge his “sinusoidal” wave model yet, because I knew what he meant — that our solar system follows a roughly “sinusoidal” wave path around the Milky Way galaxy. Actually, it more closely follows a “cycloid” path, but I’ll explore this distinction later. Meanwhile, I did challenge his assumptions regarding distance, depth, orientation, and alignment.

First concern: Distance and depth

Here’s an excerpt about the farthest (horizontal) distance and densest (vertical) depth.

Surfing the Milky Way after Kali Yuga (11 January 2024)

Well, the problem or omission is that Clif High doesn’t seem to consider the increasing distance from the galactic center as a contributing factor in the “Kali Yuga”. While his explanation for the blocking or absorbing of galactic-center energies by denser matter makes perfect sense, I’ve also read articles which state that when our Sun “moves closer” to galactic center, human consciousness rises.

If that’s true, then conversely, when our Sun “moves farther” from galactic center into “Kali Yuga”, human consciousness falls. Clif doesn’t mention this distance factor. In other words, as it orbits within its local star cluster, at a certain point in its 26,000-year cycle, our Sun not only descends into the galactic plane of densest matter, but it also simultaneously “moves farther” from galactic center.

Second concern: Orientation and alignment

Next, here’s an excerpt about the star-cluster orientation and alignment on the galactic plane.

From these 4 star-cluster scenarios, Clif High assumes the second orientation. But I noticed another problem with Clif’s assumption. He further assumes that our Sun’s star-cluster axis is centered on the galactic plane. This doesn’t make sense, because then our Sun crosses the galactic plane twice, instead of once, every 26,000 years. Therefore, I’m assuming that the axis is not centered.

Third concern: All of the above

Finally, here’s an excerpt that combines all of the above: distance, depth, orientation, and alignment.

The fourth orientation gets even more complicated, but is probably the most realistic scenario. If our Sun’s star-cluster orbit touches the galactic plane only once every 26,000 years, then the point at which the densest (vertical) depth coincides with the farthest (horizontal) distance suggests a sloped or inclined star-cluster plane largely somewhere between the first and second orientations.

*Fourth Orientation: Sloped or Inclined*

Where are my direct challenges to his wave?

Now that I’ve sketched the general framework of my initial concerns, I think it’s time to directly challenge Clif High’s “sinusoidal” wave model. Let’s start with Clif’s diagrams from June 2023, which he continued to draw in videos from August 2023. For new followers, these are great starting points to gain a conceptual understanding. But for more advanced followers, we can now discern some issues.

In two of Clif High’s diagrams, we can see the recognizable “sinusoidal” wave. So it’s not difficult to infer that Clif created a connection between the two. But, if so, he assumes that the “timeline chart” wave also represents the “physical” path of our solar system around the Milky Way. Not so. If we replaced the 8 “Yugas” every 24,000-26,000 years with our 4 seasons every 365 days, we can see some flaws.

Oddly, in the left diagram, the “peak to peak” cycle is 24,000-26,000 years, but in the right diagram, the “peak to peak” cycle is 48,000-52,000 years. So let’s focus on some of the “timeline chart” flaws.

First flaw: Doubled

The first flaw is that the “timeline chart” assumes twice the necessary height. In other words, for each “peak to peak” cycle, the path crosses 2 “Kali Yugas” every 48,000-52,000 years. So we only need the top half of the chart, and any path in the bottom half can be mirrored onto the top half. Meanwhile, any cusps or lack of smoothness in the path can be explained by a “cycloid” path as we’ll explore later.

Second flaw: Centered

The second flaw is that the “timeline chart” assumes that the “peak to peak” cycle is centered on the galactic plane. But, if so, the chart again assumes that the path of our solar system crosses 2 times (from above and below) through the densest thickness of the galactic disk, which is 1,000-1,300 light-years thick. So it’s more likely that the path is not centered and only needs the top half of the chart.

Third flaw: Sinusoidal

The third flaw is that the “timeline chart” assumes a “sinusoidal” waveform. Earlier, I mentioned how Clif High probably used a roughly “sinusoidal” waveform to give a basic conceptual understanding. But now, we can explore how the “Yuga Cycle” more likely follows the technical path of a “cycloid” or the curve that is traced by a point on a circle (or orbit) as it “rolls” along a straight line (or larger orbit).

As Copernicus noted, the heliocentric model of our solar system explained the retrograde or “looping” motion of the planets as seen from the Earth. But here, a “cycloid” model of the “Yuga Cycle” explains the roughly “sinusoidal” wave as a “looping” path of nested orbits. As our Sun revolves around the galactic center every 200-250 million years, the 26,000-year “Yuga Cycle” loops roughly 10,000 times.

At such a high “looping” rate, 10,000 “Yuga Cycle” loops for every 200-250 million years of galactic rotation would be the equivalent of the Moon revolving around the Earth 28 times per day for 365 days, or over 10,000 times for every Earth year. So, the looping “cycloid” model seems to be more compatible than the loopless “sinusoidal” model. For all three flaws, the proper scale is the key.

Here’s a beautiful video that describes the “looping” motion of various “cycloid” paths.

One possibility: Sinusoidal

To be clear, there is one possible scenario where our Sun’s “Yuga Cycle” axis is pointing in the direction of galactic rotation, so that the looping “cycloid” path collapses into a loopless “sinusoidal” wave path.

Surfing the Milky Way after Kali Yuga (11 January 2024)

The third orientation gets a little more complex. If the star-cluster axis is pointing in the direction of galactic rotation or tangential motion, then both the depth of blocking galactic-center energies and distance from galactic center varies. However, if I assume that the axis isn’t centered on the galactic plane, then the densest (vertical) depth doesn’t coincide with the farthest (horizontal) distance.

In other words, if our Sun’s “Yuga Cycle” path contributes zero motion in the direction of galactic rotation, and loops purely in the plane that is perpendicular to the direction of galactic rotation, then any “cycloid” looping disappears. Thus, the Sun’s path resembles the loopless “sinusoidal” path of a point on a spinning propeller (edge view), not the looping “cycloidal” path of a point on a rolling wheel.

Conclusion

Still, the possibility of a loopless “sinusoidal” scenario in the third orientation seems very remote. While the “timeline chart” was a pretty but poor template for Clif High’s “sinusoidal” wave model, we can learn from it. Luckily, as I noted earlier, a sloped or inclined “Yuga Cycle” plane in the fourth orientation “is probably the most realistic scenario” while still being compatible with a looping “cycloid” model.

What are my final thoughts?

That’s about it! Just as the process of researching and writing my previous blog post helped me to correct and clarify how the “Kali Yuga” cycle fits into the Milky Way, the same process helped me to rethink how Clif High’s “sinusoidal” wave model, when refined into a looping “cycloid” model, fits into the “Kali Yuga” cycle. But as I’m writing this, I still have to redesign Clif’s “timeline chart” diagram!

Although the “timeline chart” is an elegant way to convey historical information, its flattened and uncoiled format is a poor template for depicting the looping “physical” path of our solar system around the Milky Way galaxy. Conversely, the looping “cycloid” model is a clumsy way to convey historical information along a timeline. You’ll see why after I redesign Clif’s “timeline chart” diagram!

Finally, while I redesign some “timeline chart” diagrams, here’s my cool “Cycloids” wallpaper. Enjoy!