Randomness and Predictability in History

In 1915 Albert Einstein predicted that gravitation waves in space would be created and move away from sources of astronomical upheavals like the Big Bang. Such waves would not move at the speed of light, like a photon. These waves slow down because of physical interactions inside the medium they travel in: a resistance to change. They face viscosity (V) . For instance, Big Bang and black holes exhibit low V whereas the space between such events is filled by an “ocean” of higher V. I defined low V areas as singularities (S). The height of S is a function of V: higher V results in lower S and vice versa. The height of S falls off as the inverse of the distance from the source. I redefined the gravity waves as viscosity waves. Both are closely related: gravity waves originate from a tiny source (Big Bang) whereas viscosity waves come from the opposite direction: a big source, e.g., humankind and other big objects. This is a continuum with two complementary endings. A wave has a trough and a height (amplitude): the trough has high V (low S) and the apex has low V (high S).
At any moment, worldwide, history is being made at the NOW. Before this point, the future is like a vibrant and wavy ocean of uncertainty and probability. At the NOW the “ocean” freezes and becomes fossilized. That is the point where historians and other social scientists begin to dig and analyze. This stage is a combination of eloquent historical narrative that is accompanied by a changing geography.
The narrative of historians is fine and necessary. Eloquence is high and is expected. It is my hypothesis that the latter could be refined by some added elements: singularities and viscosity .These waves can be influenced by physical bodies or social “bodies.” High waves create strong S with low viscosities and large bases. An inverse relationship exists between viscosity V and height of singularity S. High S have “action” moments where new things can happen with little impedance (e.g., the French revolution, agricultural revolution, wherever the word “revolution” is mentioned)
I began to wonder if there was any kind of regularity imbued in the historical systems. Are there waves of creativity? If so, are they predictable? If they were random then there would be no future regularity or prediction. The random condition would imply that there was free will. If it was the opposite, there would be no free will. Then, we would only have the illusion of free will. It appears, for most historians, predictions are futile. My paper is destined to be unpopular in content and brevity with most historians.
I gathered data of important historical events and achievements in Physics. First, I put all the data into one box to determine any possible correlation in this ocean of singularities. It resulted into randomness with a meaningless low correlation coefficient.
I began counting the numbers of singularities in history by gathering data of important historical events and achievements in physics, English-French-German-American-Japanese literature, major events in history (data from Wikipedia) and world wide artists. All studies turned out to be nonrandom. All had correlation coefficients of R^2 > = 0.91. The majority had much higher correlations. Again, free will is generally considered to be random and the lack randomness is related to the illusion of free will. It is possible that no-free-will folks could be puppets of controlling puppeteers? The high-citation years have a very predictable pattern.It appears that both randomness and predictability are occurring in history. 18 pages, excluding graphs and tables.