S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle: A Clock, Not a Crystal Ball

Derived mainly from M.A. Vukcevic's insights and solar-activity formula linking heliocentric Jupiter–Saturn sidereal orbits to model the sunspot cycle, the concept below uses a proprietary higher harmonics formula to project S&P 500 market swings.

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H2 2026.

Over 90% of tradeable, high-amplitude waves develop in the 7 to 12-day window. 

  

Jupiter's sidereal period is ≈11.86 years, Saturn's ≈29.46 years, their synodic period ≈19.86 years, and the Jupiter–Saturn spring-tide period ≈9.93 years. These tidal frequencies bracket the ~11-year Schwabe sunspot cycle, while the Vukcevic and Scafetta formulas treat Jupiter–Saturn orbital geometry as a pacemaker of the solar dynamo. With no consistent polarity or directional bias for the S&P 500, the blue Jupiter–Saturn curve inflects within a 1-to-11.9-day window (median 7.0 days, mean 6.3), and swings ≥7 days are bisected (blue squares) to optimize short-term correlation.

 

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H1 2026.

 

The Jupiter–Saturn curve is not a crystal ball and it will not say whether to buy or sell. It is a clock. Two slow planetary rhythms were folded into a single wavy line, then sped up so that what once took years now takes days. That line rises, falls, and bottoms out again and again.

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H2 2025.

 

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H1 2025.

Troughs hold the edge — ignoring the rest saves energy. Troughs are the only feature showing positive 
statistical skill (+3 points over random chance). Peaks and midpoints offer zero edge over a coin flip.

After matching it to years of S&P 500 prices, only one part of the clock is worth attention: the low points, the troughs. The test is blunt. Each blue mark is given three calendar days to sit near a real 2% swing in the daily highs and lows; the same test is then run on random dates, so the extra percentage is the only thing that counts as skill. Troughs clear that bar. Peaks do not. Midpoints, whether a swing is cut in half by time or by height, do not either.

 Troughs mark volatility, not directional certainty. Blue troughs lean slightly toward S&P swing lows (+3 points),
but cannot guarantee direction. Attempting to trade blue crests yields negative skill vs. baseline expectation.

 

Target multi-day windows over intraday precision. Maximum predictive edge (+3.3 to +3.4 points) centers on 2%–3%
swings over a 2 to 3-day window. Expecting immediate same-day triggers introduces unnecessary market noise.

 

Those extra three points are modest, and they still do not pick a side. The color of the line — up or down — does not mean the market will follow. A trough lining up with an S&P low beats chance by about three points; a trough lining up with an S&P high does not. A peak is no better at calling a high than a low. In other words, a trough can sit under a rally or a selloff. It is a date when a real swing is a little more likely to finish, not a forecast of direction.

 

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H2 2024.

 

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H1 2024.

 

Used that way, the method is simple. The next trough is read from the calendar, including Saturdays and Sundays; the formula does not pause for the weekend. 

 

Filter out the daily ripples to trade the 7–12 day cycle. Short cycles under 6 days represent market interference
with negligible height. Over 90% of meaningful amplitude occurs within the 7–12 day wave structure.

A short window opens around that date: two days before through three days after, which is the same band in which most of those 63% of hits actually land. If the trough falls on a weekend, the window runs from the Thursday before through the Wednesday after. Inside that window nothing is done until the S&P itself speaks. 

 

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H2 2023.

 

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H1 2023.

 

The wait is for price to carve a high and then drop at least two percent from that high, using the day’s actual high and low, not the close — that may be treated as a short, with risk defined just above the high. Or the wait is for price to carve a low and then rise at least two percent from that low — that may be treated as a long, with risk defined just under the low. Only the first such reversal is taken. If the window closes and neither has happened, there was no trade. The little wrinkles on the blue line are skipped as well: if the fall into a trough was tiny, it is interference, not a beat, and it can be ignored.

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H2 2022.

 

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H1 2022.

The position is left when it has paid twice what was risked, or when price completes a two-percent swing the other way, or when the next serious trough arrives. Then the wait begins again. A signal will not appear every week, and that is the point. A good year of this habit is a handful of attempts, not a lifestyle. Three extra points versus picking dates at random is not a license to force a trade; costs, hesitation, and the occasional late swing that lands a week off the mark can wipe the edge out.

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H2 2021.

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H1 2021.

 

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H2 2020.

S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H1 2020.

What is being practiced is attention, not prediction. The market still has to print the turn in the window, in its own highs and lows, or there is no trade. Used that way, the curve earns a place on the desk: a reminder to look up for a few days, then to look away until the next low. 

 

Jupiter–Saturn Cycle | H1 2027. 

 

See also:

Previous S&P 500 vs. Jupiter–Saturn Cycle examples [HERE].  

TPR (August 22, 2026) - S&P 500 vs. Ap Index: +3-Day Lag and Limits of Multi-Week Forecasting.

Heliocentric Planetary Events and Financial Markets | Malcolm G. Bucholtz

The research of astronomers and physicists such as Nicola Scafetta (Italy), Roger Tattersall (UK), and Ian R. G. Wilson (Australia) suggests that gravitational torque exerted by planetary alignments on the Sun’s plasma layers modulates solar radiation. These torques intensify when heliocentric planetary aspects align at 0°, 90°, 120°, and 180°. The Sun, as a fluid-like sphere of plasma, responds dynamically, torque destabilizes its equilibrium and amplifies radiative output.

Primarily, the orbits of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn drive the Sun’s motion around the solar system’s center of mass (CM) and generate torques on its outer plasma layers, corresponding to numerous cycles observed on Earth.

This excess quantum energy propagates outward, penetrates Earth’s geomagnetic shield, and interacts with the human brain at the neuronal level. Microscopic receptors in nerve cells appear sensitive to such quantum fluctuations, giving rise to what we recognize as emotion. Collective emotion or mood, in turn, governs social behavior: positive affect fosters risk-seeking, bullish dynamics in financial markets, while fear induces risk-aversion and bearish trends. Thus, planetary configurations that heighten solar emissions manifest indirectly as systematic shifts in the sentiment of financial market participants.

■ Nicola Scafetta, a physicist and climate scientist at the University of Naples Federico II, has published extensively on how planetary harmonics synchronize with solar and climate oscillations. His semi-empirical models demonstrate that cycles linked to Mercury, Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn correspond with variations in solar activity and, by extension, climate patterns. He has argued that planetary–solar resonances are physically meaningful and statistically coherent, particularly at 20-year, 60-year, and longer-term cycles.

■ Ian R. G. Wilson, an independent academic researcher, in turn, has investigated how periodic peaks in planetary tidal forces and spin–orbit coupling may modulate the solar cycle. His work emphasizes that alignments involving Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn can amplify tidal torques on the Sun, coinciding with observed sunspot cycle minima and maxima.

■ Roger Tattersall has developed a complementary framework, treating the solar system as a resonant harmonic structure, where orbital interactions impose rhythmic signals on solar activity. He contends that planetary motion imprints resonant frequencies on both solar variability and long climate records, underscoring the systemic coherence of planetary–solar–terrestrial dynamics.

 

To illustrate their findings and central theses, I have prepared three charts showing how planetary alignments from May through September 2025 coincided with pronounced market reversals or periods of consolidation:

Gold futures (daily candles), May to September 2025.

McGrath Rentals (daily candles), May to September 2025.

Coinbase (daily candles), May to September 2025.

Heliocentric Venus 120° Saturn, Mercury 180° Saturn, and Jupiter 90° Saturn in mid-May coincided with a sudden V-bottom in gold futures; with a sideways consolidation in McGrath Rentals; and with a pause in the bullish advance of Coinbase. Later, Mercury at maximum latitude in June produced equally dramatic, but instrument-specific, emotional inflections — bullish surges, reversals, and runaway trends, depending on context. July’s Mercury latitude minimum similarly aligned with abrupt tops or bottoms, again varying across assets but consistent in provoking emotional discontinuity.

Across unrelated markets — gold futures, a construction-rental equity, and a cryptocurrency exchange — the same heliocentric triggers elicited measurable shifts in human behavior. This convergence confirms that planetary-solar mechanics, as articulated by Scafetta, Wilson, and Tattersall, are not abstract correlations but active influences on human sentiment and decision-making.

My focus therefore moves beyond classical astrology, with its symbolic houses and signs, toward a physics-based heliocentric framework. The question is no longer what Mars ‘means’ in Aries, but how concrete planetary alignments exert torque on the Sun, modulate solar emissions, and reverberate through human neurobiology into collective market psychology.

Reference:

Malcolm Bucholtz (September 20, 2025) - Heliocentric Planetary Events and the Markets. (video)
 

On September 21, 2025, during the partial solar eclipse that coincided with the heliocentric opposition of Earth and Saturn, the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Space Research recorded this rare and almost simultaneous double coronal mass ejection (CME) on opposite sides of the Sun, with each colossal filament one million km long—about 70 times the diameter of the Earth. 

See also:

 Malcolm Bucholtz (September 15, 2025) - S&P 500 Update: Cycles and Heliocentric Aspects.

Nicola Scafetta (2014) - The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system.
Roger Tattersall, Nils-Axel Mörner & J.-E. Solheim  (2013) - Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts.
Ian R. G. Wilson (2006) - Do Periodic Peaks in the Planetary Tidal Forces Acting Upon the Sun Influence the Sunspot Cycle? 

Theodor Landscheidt (2004) - Long-Range Solar Activity Forecast and 2025 US Drought.

Theodor Landscheidt (1990) - Cosmic Regulation of Cycles in Nature and Economy.
Theodor Landscheidt (1989) - Mini-Crash in Tune with Cosmic Rhythms.
Theodor Landscheidt (1989) - Predictable Cycles in Geomagnetic Activity and Ozone Levels.

Theodor Landscheidt (1988) - Sun-Earth-Man: A Mesh of Cosmic Oscillations.

Alexander Chizhevsky (1922) - Physical Factors of the Historical Process. 

TPR (2025) - Solar Activity and Financial Markets. 

TPR (2025) - Cosmic Cluster Days.

Alcyone Ephemeris 4.3 (2025) - also calculates heliocentric longitudes and latitudes; exports to Excel. 

 Carsten A. Arnholm (2009) - Solar Orbit around CM Simulator 2. (freeware)