Lunar cycle and market moves

Whiskers said:

I'd be interested to see the results of an out-of-sample period equal to your in-sample period. I think the longer period will always give more consistant/reliable results... and also I think cycle analysis should keep in mind the old cliche, compare apples with apples.

Click to expand...

Isn't all historical data "in sample"? Change the dates and call it "out of sample" but it is still a backtest of finite historical data.

I'm practicing it but I don't know what knowledge it produces.

Wysiwyg said:

Isn't all historical data "in sample"? Change the dates and call it "out of sample" but it is still a backtest of finite historical data.

Click to expand...

The main point I was trying to get to there is that the Lunar cycle is only one cycle in a myriad of other cycles.

I think it was an opertune time to start the cycle analysis on Jan 1st, as early Jan is when the earth is closest to the sun. But the solar flare cycle is also a significant influence, off-hand I don't know it's cycles, and the lunar influence is diminished or enhanced by both the solar orbit and solar flare cycles.

Given that Howards analysis didn't take into account the solar orbit and solar flare cycles, I suggest the best way to get a reasonable comparrison of the Lunar data alone is to average it over the longer period... ie compare 10 yr periods with 10 year periods to minimise corruption of the data from these other cycles.

But Ideally one would integrate all the above cycles with individual or collective 'human' cycles.

Whiskers said:

Hi Howard, I have not read your book, but based on your post your in-sample period was 10 yrs and your out-of-sample was only 2yrs.

I'd be interested to see the results of an out-of-sample period equal to your in-sample period. I think the longer period will always give more consistant/reliable results... and also I think cycle analysis should keep in mind the old cliche, compare apples with apples. In that sense I believe the time frame the test was done in is of significant importance arguably more important than the 'micro' lunar cycle.

To clarify, given there is a lunar cycle that even the scientific community recognises has an effect on plants and other animals... what about other cycles that interact with the lunar cycle. There are sun cycles (solar flares and their effect on weather, well documented by the late Indigo Jones), other planets and most importantly I refer particularly to cycles of human behaviour based on our own individuality, eg the time we were born and how all these other cycles had suttle influences in framing our genetic makeup.

I'm trying to formulate a program to do this, however so far I've not found a way to program interpretations that need to be made and weighed against the various cycles and influences.

The nearest I've heard to describe such a program is our 'intuition'... but due to our human frailties we often don't even recognise, let alone take notice of our intuition.

Click to expand...

Hi Whiskers --

In validating a model, whether for a trading system or some other application, there is no requirement, or even common practice, for the out-of-sample period to be the same length as the in-sample period.

The in-sample period length is determined by the amount of time and data required for the model to become synchronized with the signal portion of the data. The out-of-sample period length is determined by how long the model and the data remain synchronized.

If the out-of-sample period length is too long, the synchronization will fall off before the end of the out-of-sample period. And it will be necessary to step the dates of the in-sample period forward and resynchronize the model to the newer and somewhat changed data.

Thanks,
Howard

From here:
http://www.universetoday.com/83960/march-19-2011-supermoon-or-superhype/comment-page-1/

The Moon's closest approach in 18 years will happen on the 19th March 2011, with this lunar perigee occuring the same time as the full Moon.

March 19, 2011… “SuperMoon” or “SuperHype”?
by Tammy Plotner on March 10, 2011
Credit: JPL/NASA
...Does an astrological prediction of an upcoming “Extreme SuperMoon” spell impending disaster – or is it just one more attempt to excite our natural tendencies to love a good gloom and doom story? That’s what I set about to find out…

On March 19, 2011 the Moon will pass by Earth at a distance of 356,577 kilometers (221,567 miles) – the closest pass in 18 years . In my world, this is known as lunar perigee and a normal lunar perigee averaging a distance of 364,397 kilometers (226,425 miles) happens… well… like clockwork once every orbital period. According to astrologer, Richard Nolle, this month’s closer than average pass is called an Extreme SuperMoon. “SuperMoon is a word I coined in a 1979 article for Dell Publishing Company’s HOROSCOPE magazine, describing what is technically termed a perigee-syzygy; i.e. a new or full Moon (syzygy) which occurs with the Moon at or near (within 90% of) its closest approach to Earth (perigee) in a given orbit.” says Richard. “In short, Earth, Moon and Sun are all in a line, with Moon in its nearest approach to Earth.”

Opinions aside, it is a scientific fact when the Moon is at perigee there is more gravitational pull, creating higher tides or significant variations in high and low tides. In addition, the tidal effect of the Sun’s gravitational field increases the Moon’s orbital eccentricity when the orbit’s major axis is aligned with the Sun-Earth vector. Or, more specifically, when the Moon is full or new. We are all aware of Earth’s tidal bulges...

Credit: Richard Nolle
“SuperMoons are noteworthy for their close association with extreme tidal forces working in what astrologers of old used to call the sublunary world: the atmosphere, crust and oceans of our home planet...a SuperMoon is planetary in scale, being a special alignment of Earth, Sun and Moon. It’s likewise planetary in scope, in the sense that there’s no place on Earth not subject to the tidal force of the perigee-syzygy.”

...the March Worm Moon will appear to be about 30% brighter and about 15% larger than a “normal” full Moon.

Thanks for posting, Logique...

And this from the National Geographic on earthquakes:

"The same force that raises the 'tides' in the ocean also raises tides in the [Earth's]crust," said Geoff Chester, an astronomer and public affairs officer with the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.

Click to expand...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0523_050523_moonquake.html

However, I would image that our climate "know-it-alls" who are marketing carbon tax will actively dispute it as they would probably want the dumb public to think that these recent earthquakes are the result of man made climate change...