Showing posts sorted by date for query patterns. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query patterns. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

June Stock Market Performance in Midterm Election Years | Jeff Hirsch

June is typically constructive for equities: over 31 years, NASDAQ leads (+1.7%), followed by Russell 2000 (+1.2%), Russell 1000 (+0.4%), and S&P 500 modestly positive, while DJIA is roughly flat. A common pattern is mid-month weakness followed by a recovery into month-end, suggesting dip-buying behavior.

June's Seasonal Crossroads: Strong Recent Trends vs. Historical Midterm Weakness.

In contrast, midterm-election years show consistent June declines across all major indexes. Small caps are hit hardest (Russell 2000 −2%), with NASDAQ, Russell 1000, S&P 500, and DJIA also posting notable losses. This aligns with broader midterm seasonality: heightened political uncertainty and policy risk tend to weaken markets in Q2–Q3, with strength often deferred to Q4.

Bottom line: June is usually bullish, especially for growth/tech, but midterm years introduce clear downside bias. Monitoring which pattern dominates can signal the market’s trajectory for the rest of the year.

 
Reference:
 
As we are living in a time like no other, by June 2026, the S&P 500 (red line) shows a negative correlation (–4.83%) with its historical midterm election year pattern since 1950 (green line). Instead, the index more closely aligns with post-election year (94.49%, purple line) and pre-election year (93.5%, orange line) patterns. The post-election analogue (purple) suggests a flat to slightly negative trajectory into early July 2026, followed by a rise in prices through year-end. The pre-election analogue (orange) points to a broader, range-bound pattern through late September 2026, before similarly trending higher into year-end. The black line represents the average yearly seasonal pattern of the S&P 500 from 2000 to 2025, which remains flat from June into early September, declines into early October, and is followed by a steeper rise into year-end.


NDR's pattern matching tool shows that the NASDAQ has closely tracked the dotcom analog and is closer to 1998 than 2000. It still suggests near-term volatility ahead.

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

NASDAQ, DJIA & Bonds: Next Bullish Wave May Be Starting | Larry Williams

Let's start with the three core market tools—often misunderstood and rarely used together effectively: 
 
Fundamentals determine value: Markets ultimately move for fundamental reasons, and value is rewarded over
    time—not necessarily today, this month, or even this year. A value-driven framework is indispensable. 
Technicals define the present: They reveal current market conditions—trend, momentum, overbought or
    oversold states.  
Cycles provide the edge: They project direction and timing, identifying when opportunities are most likely to
    emerge.

The process is straightforward: What has value? Where are we now? Where are we going? You need all three—none is sufficient on its own. We begin with cycles, specifically the NASDAQ, which has exhibited structural strength since 2009.

Bullish NASDAQ Cycle Analysis
Market cycles consist of recurring lows, rallies, and declines, but not all waves carry equal weight. Some phases are structurally stronger—and we are currently in one.
 
NASDAQ: In a dominant bullish cycle wave with typical June strength → August pause → higher continuation;
bias remains up, buy pullbacks.
 
A comparable wave (3.5-Year, 41-Month, or Kitchin Cycle) in 2016 produced a sustained rally. The current configuration is similar. Since 2023, the NASDAQ has been in a pronounced bullish cycle. While my primary focus is typically the NASDAQ, recent instability in the Dow has increased its relative importance this year. Current cycle positioning suggests the early stages of another strong upward phase—historically associated with meaningful advances.

NASDAQ Could Rally Again: Historically, this cycle turns higher in June roughly 90% of the time.
 
Why the NASDAQ Could Rally Again: Historically, this cycle turns higher in June roughly 90% of the time, experiences a modest pullback in August, and then continues upward. That pattern implies a constructive setup.

Markets do not require declines to rally. They often consolidate sideways before advancing—a behavior repeatedly observed. While many investors wait for pullbacks, the absence of weakness does not negate bullish conditions. My 2026 forecast anticipated higher prices and emphasized buying pullbacks—not waiting for a breakdown that may never materialize.

Dow Jones "Explosive Wave" Pattern 
The Dow is forming a recurring "explosive wave" structure: consolidation followed by a sharp advance. This sequence—sideways movement transitioning into a rapid rally—has repeated multiple times. 
 
DJIA: Sideways consolidation within "explosive wave" structure likely resolving into sharp upside move late June–August.
 
The current phase is a consolidation with a bullish bias. Historically, such setups resolve into strong moves, often beginning between late June and August. This pattern is relevant for longer-term positioning.
The expected mid-June low should be understood as a cycle low in the NASDAQ and DJIA—a tactical buying opportunity, not necessarily the absolute price bottom. The broader outlook remains intact: 2026 is a bull market year.

Inflation, as anticipated, has moved higher and remains closely linked to bond market dynamics. The longer-term trajectory still points toward declining interest rates into the early 2030s. This brings us to bonds.

Bond Market Setup & Seasonality
Bond seasonality is currently in a bullish phase, historically associated with rallies. Cycle analysis aligns with this timing, reinforcing the setup. The Money Flow Index indicates institutional accumulation—an early and important signal.
 
Bonds: Seasonal + cycle low with rising institutional accumulation signals an emerging rally; 
near-term dip is a tactical buy entry.

Institutional Positioning in Bonds: Professional money is rotating into bonds. Commitment of Traders data shows commercial participants holding their largest long position since 2023. Historically, markets tend to advance when large, informed participants accumulate. 
 
COT data shows commercial participants holding their largest long position since 2023. 
 
Combined with a seasonal low, a cycle low, and improving money flow, the evidence points to a high-probability buying zone.
 
Wait for short-term pullback, then enter in alignment with the broader cycle and seasonal trend.
 
Bond Market Strategy: On the daily timeframe, bonds are near a seasonal low with capital beginning to flow in. The tactical approach: wait for a short-term pullback, then enter in alignment with the broader cycle and seasonal trend. While the market has already begun to move higher, a near-term retracement would provide a more favorable entry.
Stay the course. There is no bear market. Despite persistent skepticism, the primary trend remains upward. The strategy is unchanged: buy pullbacks, not fear them. We are in a bull market.
Reference:
 
See also: 
 
Kevin Warsh is now Fed Chair, reviving fears that markets "test" new leadership—citing Bernanke (2007–09 crisis), Greenspan (1987 crash), and Volcker (late-1970s inflation). Yet history does not show leadership changes reliably trigger downturns. Context: since 1930, the S&P 500’s average annual drawdown is 16.1% (bearish extreme), its average best rally is 25.9% (bullish extreme), and mean annual return is 8.0%.

Post–Fed leadership changes, S&P 500 performance is generally not bearish: except at the 3-month horizon, advance rates exceed a 60% bullish threshold and average returns are positive. If Eugene Meyer (Great Depression) and Greenspan (1987) are excluded as likely timing outliers, results improve further: all intervals show higher average returns and win rates; at 1 year, the S&P 500 averages +12.7% and is higher 90% of the time.

Monday, May 25, 2026

May 24 to June 5: Fifth-Ranked Bullish S&P Seasonal Period | Wayne Whaley

My Top Ten Seasonal Model evaluates the performance of every time frame in the year, from 7 to 35 calendar days, and identifies the top 10 mutually exclusive periods.

May 24 to June 5, S&P positive in 37 of 50 years with 1.21% average return
and only one 3%+ loss, while Nasdaq averaged 1.77% with 38 up periods.

May 24 to June 5, which I refer to as the Post-Memorial Day Rally, is my 5th-ranked S&P seasonal trade of the year for both the S&P and the Nasdaq when comparing all time frames across the year. 
 
Notably, over the last 50 years, the S&P experienced only one 3% loss (1981) during this period, versus ten different years that recorded 3% gains. The last ten cases have been positive.
 
 
See also:

Saturday, May 23, 2026

S&P 500 Four-Year Election Cycle: Ranking All 48 Months | Wayne Whaley

If you are into Election Cycle tendencies, you might possibly find this study of interest. I have S&P data back to its origin in 1957 and S&P proxy data, via Dow analog, back to 1930. Dating back to 1930, I took the time to calculate my personal performance rating for each of the 48 months of the Four-Year Election Cycle, which is based on an average with outliers underweighted. The rating measure ranges from -100 to +100 in -3 to +3 standard deviation fashion.

Pre-election Januarys lead, midterm election Junes lag, with 2026 resilience challenging weak June seasonals. 
 
Reasonable chance of posting a win this year?

The left side of the table above contains the top 24 rated months through April of 2026 of the Four-Year Election Cycle in the sample set, while the right side contains the bottom 24 months. The 3% column is the performance in those months which had a 3% move in either direction. Likewise for the 5% column.

Four of the top ten months in this study occur in Pre-Election years, with Januarys (20-4) at the top. While four of the bottom ten occur in Midterm Election years. Owing largely to the seven Junes of those 24 in the test set which incurred 5% losses, June of Midterm Election years brings up the rear.

The S&P has exhibited a resilience to many a headwind in 2026 which, in my humble opinion, merits respect, and the weak June midterm election seasonals should be weighed against many a traditional momentum-based seasonal study that gives June a reasonable chance of posting a win this year. Tis your call.

 
See also:

Thursday, May 21, 2026

Three Major War Cycles Converging 2027–2032 | Richard Smith

Richard Smith, CEO, Chairman of the Board, and Executive Director of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles, presented research on long-term cycles in war and human conflict. His analysis reveals deep interconnections between warfare, economic activity, food production, and solar phenomena, potentially mediated by solar radiation and Earth’s geomagnetic influences on biological and social systems.

» All three cycle families show rising phase conditions in the current window. A convergence appears around 2027-2032. «
16-year Dewey cycle (brown) | 26-year Mogey cycle (red) | 63-year long-wave (blue)
 
Building on the Foundation's archives and the work of Edward R. Dewey (1895–1978) and Raymond H. Wheeler (1892–1961), Smith's analysis revives and extends early 20th-century cycles research using modern tools, including AI-assisted digitization and the Foundation's Cycle Analyzer. Wheeler's landmark dataset spans roughly 2,600 years (from 600 BC onward), meticulously documenting and ranking battles by severity. Dewey, motivated by his experiences in World War I and II, identified recurring rhythms across diverse phenomena to better understand and potentially mitigate societal calamities.

Dewey observed a prominent 54-year cycle manifesting across multiple domains—including international battles, wheat prices, sunspots, tree rings, and financial instruments—with major peaks in 1917, 1971, and a projected crest in 2025. He also highlighted a 17.7-year cycle in warfare data derived from Wheeler's records through 1957. Projections of this cycle similarly converge on 2025. Unlike much of today's single-series technical analysis, Dewey's approach emphasized cycles that appeared independently across unrelated phenomena. The consistent recurrence of the same wavelengths across disparate datasets served as strong evidence of meaningful underlying rhythms.
 
» The entire vast area of human madness. «
Alexander L. Chizhevsky, 1922.

Smith has validated and extended this historical research with contemporary conflict datasets, including the Correlates of War (COW) Project, battle-related deaths statistics, and the UCDP Conflict Data Project. He also incorporated long-term economic and solar series such as wheat prices (from 1259), commodities, gold, silver, and sunspot records. Statistical analysis confirms several robust cycle families appearing consistently across war, economic, agricultural, and solar data:
 
16–20 year cycle (≈18 years, the Dewey cycle)
28–30 year cycle (Mogey cycle)
39–40 year cycle
56–60 year cycle
85–100 year cycle 

These cycles frequently achieve high statistical significance (often 90%+ on Bartels tests) across independent datasets. Smith's chart above titled "Three Cycles Rising — Where Are We Now?" illustrates the combined phasing of the three most prominent cycles from 1975 to 2035:

16-year Dewey cycle (brown)
26-year Mogey cycle (red)
63-year long-wave (blue)
 
Smith's analysis indicates that the three major war cycles will converge in a synchronized uptrend between 2027 and 2032, suggesting elevated risks of conflict, instability, and related phenomena into the early 2030s, with broader peaks potentially extending toward 2040.
 
 
  
» The tallest peak, and hence the strongest average cycle, is at the 4th fraction of 214 years (top scale), or 53.5 years (bottom scale). [...] Could this cycle be the well-established 54-year cycle? «
Edward Dewey, 1967.
"Cycles in War and Peace" by Richard Mogey (Cycles, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1990).
 
CIA. 9 October 1953. CONFIDENTIAL. 
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE.
SUBJECT: Mr. Edward R. Dewey - Cycles Analysis.
 
See also:
  
Published during World War II in 1943, this info chart "Business Booms and Depressions Since 1775" reflects an era when
US corporations and financial institutions were striving to forecast, adapt to, and navigate the looming postwar economy.

The 32-Day Cycle: High-Accuracy Edge in S&P 500 First-Hour Structure

This 32-calendar-day cycle is a fixed periodicity in the S&P 500 cash index (SPX), in which ‘Early Highs’ and ‘Early Lows’ during the first 90 minutes (10:00 to 10:55 a.m., center time: 10:30 a.m. ET) of the New York regular trading session follow a precise pattern.
 
Projected Early Highs and Lows, Daily Bias, and Day-of-Week notes for the SPX (May and June 2026). 
 
Empirically derived from Jeffrey Tennant's daily forecasts, this cycle demonstrates a 99.3% repeat rate (136/137 valid pairs) across a 13-month sample from late April 2025 through May 2026, spanning a full spectrum of typical market conditions.
 
Jef
frey Tennant forecast for May 22, 2026
[Note: The scope here excludes the MEJT system and focuses solely on the 32-day cycle (dates in blue).
 
Early Low days exhibit a strong bullish bias, with Close > Open in 69.5% of cases (average return: +0.34%). Tennant frequently characterizes these sessions as 'typically bullish, with a final-hour high.' By contrast, Early High days show a mild negative-to-neutral bias over the sample period (average: −0.09%). This edge is materially amplified on specific weekdays: Monday Early Low stands out as the highest-conviction setup, with a 74.1% bullish close rate, an average gain of +0.45%, and the strongest asymmetry in the dataset. Conversely, Friday Early High represents the clearest cautionary signal (41% bullish, average: −0.17%).
 
 
Early Low and Early High Days Performance by Weekday.
Early Low has the strongest bullish edge on Mondays (74.1% positive days).
Early High on Fridays shows the clearest negative bias (only 41% bullish days, largest average loss).
Validated via direct sequence matching and daily OHLC backtesting (with 30-minute or lower timeframes being optimal), this cycle enables consistent projection of high-probability intraday structures and daily directional bias. The sequence, or similar 32-day patterns, likely extends to other trading sessions and instruments.
 
S&P 500 Average Open-to-Close Change & Average Daily Range by Weekday (June 2025 to May 2026):
Monday Strongest: +12.66 points (+0.19%).
Monday Calmest: 56.30-point daily range.
Thursday Weakest: -10.65 points (-0.15%).
Thursday most Volatile: 69.73-point daily range. 

See also:
 

Tuesday, May 19, 2026

Pre- and Post-Memorial Day Seasonal Patterns in US Stock Indexes

Memorial Day weekend (May 23-25, 2026) has become the unofficial start of summer for many Americans, marking a notable transition in financial markets. In recent years, trading activity typically begins a gradual decline shortly afterward—barring major external events—toward a later summer low. 
 
Over the past 20 years, the Thursday before Memorial Day has delivered the strongest average gains across major indices (DJIA +0.07%, S&P 500 +0.18%, NASDAQ +0.34%, Russell 2000 +0.32%). Friday shows a solid percentage of up days—particularly for the NASDAQ (66.7%, +0.38% average)—but with more mixed overall performance. Wednesday is the weakest, with negative average returns. The dataset includes 2025; both median returns and win rates also tend to favor Thursday in several cases.
Market participants refer to this summertime slowdown as the summer doldrums, characterized by anemic volume and often uninspired, range-bound trading on Wall Street. Seasonal volume patterns since the 1960s for the NYSE and 1970s for the NASDAQ show this typical lull, with daily trading volumes frequently dropping 20-40% from winter peaks, reaching troughs particularly in late July and August as vacations reduce institutional participation.

In the lead-up to the holiday, historical performance presents mixed yet distinctive results. Thursday before Memorial Day has consistently delivered the strongest average gains across the DJIA, S&P 500, and Russell 2000 in 21-year analyses. Friday, the last trading day before the long weekend, records a higher proportion of advancing sessions for most major indexes, with the NASDAQ standing out at a 66.7% win rate, an average gain of 0.38%, and nine up closes in the last ten years. That said, this Friday session also tends to feature lackluster, light-volume trading. For the DJIA, results have been essentially neutral over extended periods, with an even split of up and down closes and a modest average decline of approximately 0.05%.
 
 May Stock Market Performance in Midterm Election Years:
Early May Strength Turns to Chop Until Late Month Pop.

Following the holiday, market behavior often turns more muted and, in recent decades, weaker. The Tuesday after Memorial Day has shown notable softness, with the DJIA and S&P 500 declining in seven of the last nine observed years, alongside more frequent losses in the NASDAQ and Russell 2000. Broader post-holiday windows, including the full trading week after Memorial Day, performed robustly from the early 1970s through the mid-1990s but have since weakened considerably, with reduced frequency of positive returns and smaller average gains, especially since the late 1990s and after 2010. An event study of returns spanning three days before to three days after the holiday generally aligns with long-term daily averages, showing no pronounced anomaly.

Beyond the immediate sessions, the broader period from Memorial Day to Labor Day (September 7, 2026) has historically produced net positive, albeit modest, results for the S&P 500. The index has advanced in roughly 70% of periods since the early 1970s, with average gains typically ranging from 1.6% to 2.8%. This summer window fits within the broader “Sell in May and Go Away” tendency, during which overall returns tend to be softer than in the November-to-April period, even as the Memorial Day-to-Labor Day segment itself often contributes positively amid the lighter volumes of the doldrums.
 
 
In midterm-election years such as 2026, these summer patterns can intersect with the broader presidential cycle, which historically features heightened volatility and often subdued returns. Midterm years frequently see notable market lows forming between late July and mid-August, aligning with the depth of the summer doldrums, reduced liquidity, and pre-election political uncertainty. Such periods have at times served as bottoming phases, setting the stage for stronger recoveries later in the year or into the following pre-election period, though outcomes vary with prevailing economic and geopolitical conditions.
 
 
 
 
See also: 

Friday, May 8, 2026

Solar and Lunar Cycles in Earthquakes | Richard Pasichnyk

Today's theories that involve the mechanisms behind "continental drift" or plate tectonics are insufficient to explain all the observations. For one, convection cells as hypothesized do not work. As numerous scientists espouse, present theory does not explain the position of the ridges through time, conditions surrounding subduction zones, rotations of plates, and so forth. Furthermore, the Earth's core is not as theorized, and it is purported to generate convection cells.
 
Solar and Lunar Cycles in Earthquakes: An Electrostatic Trigger.
 
Unexpectedly, most plates are in a state of compression, except Africa, which is under tension. Present theory insists on tension at plate edges where mountains form, not midplate, as observations indicate. Another contradiction is the "jigsaw" Earth, where plates are made up of pieces that came from elsewhere. For example, Florida and coastal New England were part of South America, parts of Newfoundland were once part of Georgia, Nova Scotia was part of Africa, Yucatan was once part of the Mississippi Valley, and so on. These and numerous other facts appear to call for new theories about plate tectonics, which is the intent of this article.
» A maximum in earthquakes occurs at times of moderately high and fluctuating solar activity, particularly after solar flares. The Sun’s retrograde motion is linked to earthquakes and other geophysical phenomena. « 
Solar Trigger
Earthquakes are correlated with solar activity. Solar activity as indicated by sunspots, radio noise, and geomagnetic indices play a significant role. A maximum in earthquakes occurs at times of moderately high and fluctuating solar activity, particularly after solar flares. The Sun's retrograde motion is linked to earthquakes and other geophysical phenomena, including climate.


There is a 22-year solar cycle in San Andreas fault earthquakes and an 11-year solar period in large earthquakes in Southern California. A maximum in quakes occurs shortly after an epoch of least sunspot frequency in some regions. One half of a solar cycle, 5.5 years, was observed for quakes in the Far East, with both earthquake and solar peaks during 1947, 1958, and 1969.

Strong earthquakes take place when the Earth crosses the central meridian of the Sun, and this knowledge has been used to successfully predict quakes to some degree. Variations in gravity, earthquake energy, and solar activity were correlated in another study. Solar activity and quakes are linked in numerous studies, but, for the most part, gravitational models do not work.

Lunar Trigger
Many continental drift theorists dismiss lunar effects because tides have little effect on their quake mechanism. They criticize any correlation between maximum global tidal forces and quake regions where local tides are not at a maximum, or can even be at a minimum. Meanwhile, studies of a lunar-phase trigger in 21 earthquakes shows that 14 occurred at the quarter moon, five at full moon, and two followed a lunar eclipse.

Some scientists claim the effect is gravitational. In fact, one study of 2,000 quakes demonstrated they took place at times when tidal forces were over the epicenter of deep-focus earthquakes. Earthquakes occur more often when the Sun and Moon are in opposition (opposite sides of the earth) or in conjunction (in line on the same side).

Shallow-focus earthquakes and moonquakes vary in concert for the years 1971 to 1976. Unusually large quakes in the period 1950-1965 were remarkably numerous for the twentieth century. Though a lunar trigger is evident, gravitational effects alone are inadequate to explain the results, as Shirley states:
Some ambiguity arises when we attempt to interpret this result within the framework of conventional gravitational geophysical models... If the pattern found is due to some physical cause (as opposed to 'statistical accident') then this would seem to raise the question of the adequacy of the traditional model. There is reason to believe (on relativistic grounds) that the tidal stresses may not be the only significant stresses of external gravitational origin applied to the Earth... The underlying physical processes remain obscure.
Other correlations exist between lunar phase and earthquakes. A study of Nevada earthquakes reveals a close connection with variations of the tide-generating forces. The active periods are 0-2 days of closest approach (perigee), 0-3 days of conjunction and opposition (syzygy), and 0-3 days of 90° (quadrature) with the Earth. These active times are not completely in accord with the gravitational effects, but indicate a delay of up to three days. There is a correlation of earthquakes with lunar phase and the passage of the Moon through the area (local meridian), and also with a change in the polarity of the Sun's Interplanetary Magnetic Field.

Lunar-solar periods in quakes along the Pacific coast were correlated to the full or new moon near sunrise or sunset, and also with the fortnightly ocean tides, which are regulated by lunar tides. Likewise, microearthquake frequencies near Alaska's St. Augustine Volcano are correlated with oceanic tides. Undoubtedly, the gravitational effects are too weak, but the correlations show that there is a lunar trigger.

The mechanism is suggested with the understanding that there is a lunar influence on the occurrence of aurora, or the Northern Lights. As will be shown, the influence is electrostatic, with the Moon triggering cascades of particle flow and changing the contour of electromagnetic fields (i.e., bow waves, plasma torus, potential gradients, electrostatic repulsion, etc.).
FIG. 1. Seasonal occurrence of earthquakes. Histogram of 562 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 and greater in the Northern Hemisphere, 1505-1976, and Northern California, 1901-1976. Dates were brought to the nearest mid-month (15th to 15th) to show seasonal trends in relation to solstices and equinoxes. Peaks are evident in winter and around the vernal equinox, with secondary peaks around the autumnal equinox and the solstices. A lesser set of data (62 earthquakes) indicated a 6-month shift in the Southern Hemisphere, as could be predicted. 
Magnetic and Electrostatic Forces
All materials in nature are magnetic, and many tectonic features are the result of the magnetic properties of minerals. Materials are attracted or repelled by magnetic fields, but, in most cases, the forces are extremely small. Another force exerted on minerals is electrostatic, particularly if the force changes with time.
» Lunar-solar periods in quakes along the Pacific coast were correlated to the full or new moon near sunrise or sunset, and also with the fortnightly ocean tides, which are regulated by lunar tides. « 
Electrostatic forces can be purely repulsive, so that two bodies always repel, regardless of their relative orientations – such as the two sides of a ridge. The ocean floor and ocean water, including its life forms (organic compounds), tend to meet the characteristics of certain classes of magnetic minerals (diamagnetic and antiferromagnetic). The crust and the Earth's interior tend to meet the characteristics of other classes of magnetic materials (paramagnetic and ferromagnetic). Both share a fifth class (ferrimagnetic), particularly with regard to the mantle (garnet). This class of material produces an axis like that observed along the ridge (uniaxial anisotropy, not perpendicular anisotropy), and this material (basalt or gabbro, i.e., garnet) exudes at the ridges.

These class distinctions in the magnetic properties of minerals allow for the development of ridge systems and subduction zones in the oceans, while the crust experiences mountain building (faulting, etc.) and so forth. In fact, electrostatic levitation is being employed in physics for frictionless transport of monorails and other devices. Electrostatic forces can overcome gravitational forces. In plate tectonics, the levitation is vertical, which allows the ridges to spread and plate-plate boundaries to exist without large amounts of drag.

Drill hole research near the San Andreas fault at Cajon Pass reveals the absence of large amounts of drag at plate-plate boundaries because of electrostatic effects. Furthermore, computer models of plate tectonics demonstrate that the mechanism requires the addition of other minor forces.
 
 
Aurora-like Glows
Aurora-like glows often accompany earthquakes. One theory claims this effect may be due to quartz microcrystals in rock under high pressure. A fairly high proportion of crystals must be present, but this, in itself, is not sufficient. The crystals must be arranged in the same direction, not randomly, so that the electricity produced by one is not cancelled out by another. Only then, with sufficient pressure, will an electrical discharge be produced. This is known as the piezoelectric effect.

However, this theory is inapplicable in at least some situations. These aurora-like glows have also been observed over the sea. The sea floor is not solid, and currents constantly re-arrange the crystals. Sea water is high in conductivity, which would neutralize or buffer the forces. Earthquake lights are most frequent when the Moon has passed its closest approach, and thereby occur during a decrease in the lunar tide. If the piezoelectric effect were producing these lights, the opposite would be true; the lights would occur during an increase of lunar tide.

One report correlates luminous seas and earthquakes. This observation cannot be explained by either the bioluminescence theory nor the piezoelectric effect, but can be readily explained by an electrostatic model of earthquakes (energetic particles producing thermoluminescence). There are also many lighted-displays that quartz could never produce.

Other Phenomena
Spectacular ostentations and a variety of wonders are commonly a part of the earthquake scene. Rain attended by thunder, lightning, and wind often occurs before, during, or after the shock. Globes of fire, illuminations, extraordinary lights, and ball lightning, often claimed to be meteors, are seen. Other associations are dark fogs, red and blue suns, and gray and red lurid skies, to name just a few phases of the colored atmosphere. The atmosphere also manifests aurora-like incandescence, fire, smoke, electrical activity, cold air, tempestuous winds, and/or total calm. Added to the list is an array of indescribable sounds or total silence.

Peculiarities (anomalies) in Earth currents (geoelectricity and telluric currents) near an earthquake's epicenter demonstrate that electrostatic effects occur prior to the events. Sparking, electric shocks, and the mutual attraction and/or repulsion of objects also show these electrostatic effects.

Mountain lights have been seen in the Andes, Alps, Mexico, and Lapland, even under cloudless skies and very low humidity. The effect was not lightning, but a potential gradient. These mountain lights are sometimes visible far out at sea. The Andes is described as a giant lightning rod, and has a constant glow from late spring to fall, with occasional outbursts—particularly during earthquakes, such as the great quake of August 1906. This aurora-like glow is noted on other mountains, as well.

No earthquake exhibits all of these somewhat ambiguously described displays, but each occurrence adds another detail to the potpourri of facts that indicate electrostatic effects play their part. Illustrating the effects of this new understanding of the Earth, we find correlations between earthquake activity and the Chandler Wobble, the Moon's position, and solar activity.

Weather Phenomena and Particle Flow
Pressure waves high in the atmosphere due to shifts in the ionosphere take place just prior to earthquakes. These so-called "ionoquakes" are a somewhat indirect observation of particle flow. Through ionization, particle flow would create a vacuum and thereby affect weather with pressure changes, storms, and winds. For four to six weeks before earthquake activity, large, recurring patterns of high pressure develop off the coast of California. High pressure patterns even outline the San Andreas fault hundreds of miles off the coast.

The Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) sector boundary crossings (SBC) cause changes in the Earth's magnetosphere, ionosphere, and atmosphere. Enhanced precipitation of energetic electrons take place as the Earth's magnetic field is disturbed. The effects include changes in wind direction and the size of storms (Vorticity Area Index) about four days before and after the SBC, with the greatest effect in winter. The SBC also is correlated with lightning and thunderstorms, which display a maximum in winter. Large changes in conductivity and electric field variations occur that appear to be global (Arctic, Antarctic, and mid-latitudes).
 
» Analyzing nearly a century of data, our results reveal an increased likelihood of
earthquakes following geomagnetic storms, particularly 27–28 days afterward. « 
Hongyan Chen et. al., 2025.

The IMF and geomagnetic field (GMF) interact to display a 12-month wave, with a maximum at the vernal equinox, and are the "result of a common cause." Meanwhile, geomagnetic disturbances influence monthly variations in the air-earth current and mean temperatures in 32 U.S. stations. Geomagnetic storms alter surface atmospheric pressure and the development of storms.

Numerous studies show that weather displays more deep-seated effects in winter. This includes the positively charged superbolts, ten to one hundred times stronger than normal lightning, which occur near Japan mostly in winter, with a peak around the vernal equinox.

A maximum in thunderstorms occurs three days after solar events. The electrical potential of the lower troposphere and radionuclides show the greatest fluctuations three to four days after solar eruptions (especially hydrogen-alpha flares). Likewise, geomagnetic storms bring alterations in four to eight days.

Together, these weather phenomena indicate the characteristics of particle flow, which has a mechanism with a delay of three to four days. Because of IMF/GMF interactions, it peaks in winter and the equinox (also solstices). These weather phenomena suggest what is evident in earthquake occurrence as well.

Seasonal and Diurnal Occurrence
The seasonal occurrence of earthquakes indicates a solar-terrestrial linkage. A study of earthquakes along the San Andreas fault prior to the April 18, 1906, San Francisco earthquake show the majority took place around the vernal equinox in spring, with a second peak during winter.
FIG. 2. Lunar periods of earthquakes. Histogram of the same earthquakes used in Figure 1, but plotted according to lunar phase, when data permitted. Peaks are evident for mid-phase, the 24-hour period between three and four days after a lunar phase, and for the quarter phase.
Another study displayed a daily, or diurnal, peak in quake occurrence in some areas. A nocturnal maximum peaks around midnight. In Japan, Italy, and other countries, there is also a noon maximum. The noon maximum is identified with summer maximum annually, and the midnight maximum with winter maximum annually.

Noon and summer quakes are associated with an elevation of the crust and atmosphere; midnight and winter quakes are associated with a depression. Noon and summer appear to generate the most destructive shocks, and midnight and winter generate slight or moderate quakes in this one study.

Another analysis of 15,325 events shows a higher occurrence at night and in summer. Seasonal peaks, and daily peaks of noon and midnight, are beyond the scope of gravitational theory and plate tectonics as they are presently described.

Radiowave and Isotope Fluctuation
Magnetic fluctuations and radio emissions at or near the quake area are frequent. Changes in magnetic field characteristics during and after quakes can be local or even Earth wide. Radio emissions can be caused by electric currents due to particle flow along magnetic field lines. For example, radio emissions during the Chilean quake of May 1960 were picked up by cosmic radio noise monitors across the U.S..

Radio waves are noted to experience a sudden drop one to six days prior to an earthquake. Electrical conductivity increases (as the rocks are stressed) just prior to the earthquake, and short pulses of radio signals (time-varying acceleration) are observed. Magnetic fluctuations and radio emissions are indicative of particle flow and fields not recognized by present theory.

» Solar wind speed causes more dynamic pressure on Earth's magnetosphere
and is the physical mechanism which increases the number of earthquakes. « 
Marilia Tavares and  Anibal Azevedo, 2011.

Isotope fluctuations are another indication of electrostatic influences. Coseismic changes in radon concentrations in groundwater took place with earthquakes of 6.0 magnitude and greater in Japan. In the period from January 1984 to July 1988, eleven coseismic changes displayed downward spike-like decreases. The mechanism is unknown, and present physical theory offers no explanation.

Helium isotopes (³He) are generated in the oceans at the ridges in quantities about eight times higher than in the atmosphere. This indicates there is heat flux and helium from an unknown source. The source and mechanism is an electrostatic particle flow along a field line, and the particles are helium nuclei, protons, neutrons, electrons and others (typical of hydrogen plasma at relativistic velocities).

Animal Behavior
Unusual animal behavior preceding earthquakes is so consistent it has been used to predict them. In 1975, a quake in Haicheng, China, was successfully predicted partially as a result of this knowledge. An illustrated booklet, Earthquakes, compiled by the Seismological Office, Tientsin, China, says both historical and recent surveys prove animals react before the event. Additional evidence from the Chinese indicates that 58 species are aware of approaching earthquakes, and, undoubtedly, there are more.

For example, a Japanese scientist noted that quakes in the Idai peninsula were correlated with the number of fish caught near the end of Sagami Bay. In the spring of 1930, swarms of quakes hit Ito on the east coast of the peninsula. It was around that time that abundant catches of horse mackerel and other fish took place at the Sigedera fishing grounds. On the other end of the biological spectrum, falls of camellia flowers also were correlated with quakes by this same scientist.
» Unusual animal behavior preceding earthquakes is so consistent it has been used to predict them. The reason for this type of behavior has most scientists baffled. «
Even we humans are affected with disorientation, giddiness, nausea, uneasiness, and feelings of impending calamity prior to and during a quake. Scientists suggest this is the result of human sensitivity to ground waves, and to electrostatic effects (including the Serotonin Irritation Syndrome) and electromagnetic forces.

Knowledge of this sort extends back at least to the time of the naturalist and writer, Pliny the Elder (1st century). He designated animal response as one of four signs of a threatening earthquake. The U.S. Department of the Interior compiled 33 independent reports from various parts of the world.

The reason for this type of behavior has most scientists baffled. One researcher states what could be predicted from an electrostatic trigger: "The ground gives off static electricity before an earthquake." In addition, increases in the intensity of Earth currents (telluric) are considered one of the warning signs or precursors of an impending quake. The physiological effects on animals also may result from air ions offsetting biochemistry (Serotonin Irritation Syndrome). The evidence is strongly in favor of an electrostatic trigger for earthquakes, though no such models exist.
 

A New Model of the Earth
A global network of earthquakes suggests a new model of the Earth that includes electrostatic effects. Changes in the Earth's rotation, or length of day, are correlated with earthquakes. Also, the Sun's center, or the solar system's center of mass—which is determined when Jupiter is in conjunction with another of the large planets—has a triggering effect on earthquakes. This has led scientists to suggest a solar-terrestrial linkage.
 
Solar flares abruptly change the Earth's rate of rotation. This, as is claimed, could trigger earthquakes. There is a 120-day oscillation in the length of day, atmospheric zonal circulation, solar activity, the IMF, and the GMF. A correlation between solar motion, geophysical phenomena, and climate exists as well.
 
Different earthquake belts have nearly common active periods, which indicates they are strongly coupled on a global scale. The number of moderately large earthquakes decrease when the number of very large earthquakes increase, which is "suggestive of a causal relationship between these two groups of quakes."
 
Such an observation could be predicted if there were a global system triggered by varying amounts of particle flow and an electrostatic mechanism. Likewise, there is a remarkable similarity in curves of the annual number of large quakes and large intermediate and deep-focus earthquakes. Furthermore, there are space-time correlations between gravity, solar activity, quake energy, and the Earth's crust.
 

Chandler Wobble
The Chandler Wobble is a 14-month period in the motion of the pole of the Earth's rotation—something like the wobble of a spinning top as it loses momentum. A study of 234 quakes for the period 1901 to 1970 demonstrates that their occurrence closely resembles the curve of the Wobble. Polar tides and seismic energy are correlated in such a way that a relationship exists between polar motion and quakes, which the researchers claim is due to a "common excitation source."
» Evidence indicates an electrostatic trigger in earthquake occurrence. A new model of the Earth seems to be called for. «
The seismicity of major earthquake belts is correlated to amplitudes of the Chandler Wobble, changes in rotational velocity of the Earth, and the drift of the geomagnetic field for the years 1901 to 1964. The conclusion is "The patterns which emerged suggest that all of these diverse phenomena are related."

Earthquakes are correlated to the Wobble's sudden change (1957-1967), but earthquakes do not contribute any significant energy to the Wobble. The amplitude of the Chandler Wobble is correlated to quakes of magnitudes between 7.0 and 7.5, with especially good correlation with deep and intermediate quakes (≥ 7.0 and 70 km depth). The hypothesis seems inescapable: "there may well be a deeper mechanism which both triggers earthquakes and maintains the Chandler Wobble."

Evidence indicates an electrostatic trigger in earthquake occurrence. A new model of the Earth seems to be called for. Plate motions follow solar activity as observed at 71 stations around the world. The plates move back and forth while the 11-year cycle goes up and down. In combination, these facts suggest a global system of fields that regulate plate motion and that are interrelated with the IMF, the GMF, and solar activity.
Electric Universe Geology suggests new theoretical pathways for understanding Earth, as well as other planets and moons. 
An Electrostatic Trigger
Evidence indicates an electrostatic trigger in earthquake occurrence. The solar wind provides some of the particles in solar plasma, and the Moon triggers particle cascades along field lines. If these factors are at work, predictions can be made. The equinoxes are times of greater interaction between IMF and GMF. Lunar phases and mid-phases (observations indicate a mechanism with a 3-4 day delay) are times of greater probability for triggering particle cascades.

Figures 1 and 2 show the influence of these factors in histograms compiled from the analysis of 562 earthquakes. Table 1 lists the ten worst earthquakes in history, along with these factors in relation to their occurrence. The present level of solar activity is at a maximum and should increase earthquake occurrence.
 
TABLE 1. The Ten Worst Earthquakes in History*
* According to lives lost.
 
A new model of the Earth seems to be called for. There is extensive evidence for this conclusion that is beyond the scope of this paper—for example, relationships with hydrocarbon deposits, heavy metal ore deposits, weather centers, and gravity anomalies. This field system is a result of the condensing planetary nebula, and thereby a solar-terrestrial linkage will be apparent in observations.

As a result, gravitational effects are not the only influence; electrostatic time-varying effects also play a role. That is, relativistic physics, not Newtonian physics, are involved. Gravitational forces are indistinguishable from the mechanical forces in a concept called the Einstein Equivalence Principle. Gravitational mass is identical with inertial mass, and mass is equivalent to energy. The forces were present during the formation of the Earth and guided the alignment of minerals. It is a case of the weak and electromagnetic forces—the electroweak force—controlling gravitational forces.

Evidence indicates interaction between gravitational and electromagnetic fields in accord with general relativity. Non-gravitational forces are evident in the Earth-Moon system, and gravity has been observed to shift during solar eclipses, such as on June 30, 1954. The conclusion of the physicist who performed the original experiment has been relatively ignored. Such observations, he concludes, can be accounted for "only by the existence of a new field."
 

Richard Michael Pasichnyk (b. 1950) has taken a completely interdisciplinary approach to more than 17 years of study in the physical sciences and history to uncover the underlying basis of cycle synchronicity and unified theory. He also is editor of an information-based public service organization.
Quoted from:
Richard Pasichnyk (1990) - Solar and Lunar Cycles in Earthquakes: An Electrostatic Trigger.
In: 
Cycles magazine, Foundation for the Study of Cycles, November/December 1990 issue, pp. 321–327.
 
See also: