[deleted]
Hi Alan,
I'm still playing with different versions of Moebius Surface's and my lattice-like toroids. This geometrical puzzle has me stumped so far...
Have Fun!
Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey
I've just had a thought:
Is it -less- tidal strength which decreases the ocean currents and therefore less heat is transported from the equator to the poles? This is an even simpler explanation of why the Earth has been entering an ice age every 100,000 years!
Less tidal strength could perhaps influence the Earth's atmosphere so that more solar radiation reaches the surface..
This same logic can be applied to explain why the moon is receding from the Earth at around 3.4cm/year. Is the moon migrating towards the Earth's equatorial plane? Could the laser deflector technology be used to test this hypothesis I wonder? It would seem feasible to try and detect whether the moon's average elevation is declining, which would help validate the hypothesis.Attachment #1: Goddard_Spaceflight_Center_Laser_Ranging_Facility.jpgAttachment #2: Apollo.jpg
[deleted]
The new galaxy rotation explanation is perhaps better suited to help explain volcanic Io rather than the moon. The moon is receding from the Earth which suggests a nudge -away- from the Earth's equatorial plane.Attachment #1: io.jpg
[deleted]
Here's some data which agrees with this hypothesis Gulf Stream Leaves Its Signature Seven Miles High. Rather worryingly, here's something else Britain faces big freeze as Gulf Stream loses strength
"The Atlantic Ocean "conveyor belt" that carries warm water north from the tropics has weakened by 30 per cent in 12 years, scientists have discovered. The findings, from the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, give the strongest indication yet that Europe's central heating system is breaking down.."Attachment #1: Gulf_Stream_Clouds.jpg
[deleted]
Here's another article (2010 compared to the earlier 2005 one) which states Gulf Stream 'is not slowing down'Attachment #1: ocean_circulation.jpg
For completeness with respect to the non-standard core affecting climate hypothesis, there is the pervasive 1,500 year climate cycle to consider.
Dansgaard-Oeschger events are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the Holocene is referred to as Bond events, with these having around 15-20% temperature change of the ice age D-O events.
In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland icepack warmed by around 8°C over 40 years, in three steps of five years, whereas a 5°C change over 30-40 yrs is more common.
The significance of this change can not be underestimated, especially in relation to human civilisation and evolution, in the past and in the near future! Since I have a new insight into the changability of the tides and their huge effect on climate, the proposed lunar explanation needs revisiting imo. The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate changeAttachment #1: Holocene_Temperature_Variations.pngAttachment #2: 1800_year_lunar_tidal_cycle.jpg
[deleted]
Dear Alan,
I read your intriguing essay with utmost care and I was surprised to find that we both are thinking almost on the same plane.You are trying to visualize gravitation thro' Archimedes spiral,where as Iam visualizing QG field thro' Logarithmic (or Equiangular or conical)spiral.Infact your Mandelbrot Set and your twin spiral galaxies represent logarithmic spiral but not Archimedes spiral,their by indicating that the force they represent is that of QG.
More so on this if you respond.
Best wishes and good luck in the essay contest.
Sreenath B N.
Dear Sreenath,
I remember your essay now that I have revisited it and I also saw your detailed and lengthy webpage this time. I was one of the first to post a comment and you responded with interest but seemed to state that gravitons don't exist. My mental simulation model starts from the creation of structure from the starting point of a void. I'm imagining spiral structures which have a fractal element at their smallest scale i.e. analagous to a spiral rope, where the rope itself is composed of spirals. If this idea of an Archimedes screw in empty space was employed by Newton or one of his contemporaries, then the prevailing visualisation of a 'fabric' of spacetime wouldn't have occurred imo. This is my main stumbling block with more mathematical models of reality. Perhaps it's myself who is too inflexible to appreciate the similarity of the work of others, but my non-mathematical approach is very straight forward and easy to visualise. Have I got the situation correct in that you don't approve of gravitons in empty space Sreenath and how flexible are you in this basic mental picture??
Best wishes,
Alan
I'm almost certain that the new non-standard innermost core model will change the 1,800 lunar tidal cycle data and produce one that has a 1,500 cycle. The angular velocity of the moon will be higher than currently expected at higher elevations in it's orbit, so the calculated values of the strength of the tides are underestimated. Crucially, this extra angular velocity will move the moon away from the Earth, which ties in with the laser reflector findings of the moon receding at around 3.4 cm/yr! The added angular velocity will also shorten the orbital period. This is a critical calculation due to the distinct possiblity that this will be enough to change the calculated large scale tidal cycle to 1,470 years. I'm currently working on this day by day and will email the authors of the paper, Keeling and Whorf, as soon as possible and ask them for assistance.
It's worth quoting a part of the summary from Keeling and Whorf:
Ramifications of the Tidal Hypothesis.
The details of the tidal hypothesis are complex. There is much about tidal forcing that we do not know, and there is not space here to discuss all that we do know that could contribute to proving whether it is the underlying cause of some, or all, of the events of rapid climate change. We are convinced, however, that, if the hypothesis is to a considerable degree valid, the consequences to our understanding of the ice-ages, and of possible future climates, are far from trivial.
It's possible that the moon was receding at a faster rate before a 'cosmic nudge' edged it closer towards the Earth's equatorial plane? I've looked into this proposed phenomenon previously and have a working estimate of 40,000 BP for the event. There's certainly potential for this line of enquiry imo.
[deleted]
Dear Alan,
Like you, I also cosidered Archimedes Spiral (AS)in the beginning to explain QG force but it didnt work because QG force varies exponentially and this picture is in accordance with the logarithmic spiral (LS) in which the 'helices' are arranged exponentially and hence fits in with my scheme of thinking.But in the AS, the helices are arranged 'uniformly'and the corresponding force varies 'uniformly'.Since acceleration/gravity varies exponentially in the QG field and when this is applied to LS path it means that 'the rate of change of acceleration/gravity is exponential along LS path'.Now if you apply acceleration/gravity to AS path,it means that 'the rate of change of acceleration/gravity is uniform along AS path'.Now,I hope, you have understood why I chose LS to AS.
Regarding why there are no 'gravitons'- In my work I have treated gravitation as the most fundamental force in its distorted form;here distorted means acceleration/gravity varies (in this case exponentially).Gravitational field is an 'uniformly accelerated field' in which gravity/acceleration remains 'uniform'.So when gravity/acceleration starts varying exponentially, the field it represents is no more gravitational but QG field.Hence the distorted gravitational field (that is the QG field) is related to other forces like EM,Weak,Strong,Electro-weak,GUTs and beyond.So Gravitational field has no quanta of its own but 'expresses itself in the form of quanta of other fields'.
So much so far.
Kind regards.
Sreenath B N.
[deleted]
Dear Alan and Sreenath,
I like both the logarithmic spiral (my preference would be a Golden spiral, but that is simply aesthetics) and Archimedes' screw. These ideas can work in union if one (logarithmic spiral) represents transverse wave behavior, and the other (Archimedes' screw) represents longitudinal wave behavior (might require massive bosons such as W and Z). The actual mathematics of this model may require mixing of these states of different scales (and may get messy mathematically, but is fairly simple from a geometrical perspective).
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
[deleted]
p.s. - Essentially, we have a screw with a logarithmic screw thread - a finer thread for weaker fields and a courser thread for stronger fields.
Gravitons might exist near the Black Hole "singularity" and in scales of greater complexergy (such as the Multiverse). In our Earthly reality, gravity is so weak that the screw threads might seem "stripped out".
Have Fun!
[deleted]
Dear Alan,
sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
I think that simulation modeling is an interesting approach to problems but correspondence of appearance of the model(output) is not -necessarily- the same as similarity of cause (of that similar appearance) or similarity to the function in the "real" world. Put the Alan Lowey eel-spearing, flying penguin into a computer simulation world and it might survive very well. Put some genetically engineered living specimen into the real world and they might very well die or wreak havoc because they are not a compatible part of the existing far more complex ecosphere. Likewise a modeled graviton might work perfectly well in the model world but not in the externally existing "real world".
Several problems arise from my own incompatible thinking about the universe. I do not think it ever was a singularity or an empty void from which everything condensed or coalesced. I think it must be eternal, that is without a beginning or end - as it is a continuous process -not- an individual thing. A bit like how a family tree continues as family members die and new ones are born. I also do not think gravity is really made of particles but is a perturbation of an unseen medium by the universal trajectory of matter passing through it. Being similar to the other forces which are also perturbations of the medium, due to movements of particles. Having said that I have thought a bit about spirals and how the apparent trajectory of an object changes at different scales of observation. So there is a very tenuous connection.
I really don't know what else to say.I can see that you are very enthusiastic about the Archimedes screw graviton idea but as you can see we are looking at things very differently. I also do not want to express an opinion on everything, especially when it falls outside of what I consider my area of expertise and I know no more about it that the next man. Part of the appeal of this competition has been the opportunity to have our various ideas seen and read. You have achieved that goal. Despite the best intentions I am able to be more constructive, positive and helpful. Perhaps it is a missed ball for me. It is interesting to see what you are doing,
I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. Georgina.
[deleted]
That should say "I am unable to be more constructive..."
Sorry
Dear Georgina,
lol with the flying penguin analogy, very funny. I also think that the larger universe is eternal, it's just that our part of that eternity is a bubble of nothingness which spontaneously appeared within this continous process and then gained energy and form from the outside. The void grew in size causing a penetration of energy from the outside of this bubble creating our existence. This model of reality at the biggest scale allows the solving of the 'infinity paradox' via a wraparound universe
You say "I also do not think gravity is really made of particles but is a perturbation of an unseen medium by the universal trajectory of matter passing through it" which is clearly stated which I much appreciate. I used to think this way but have since changed my opinion to particles in empty space. It's less aesthetically pleasing at first but you get used to it!
Nice to have 'met you' Georgina,
Best wishes,
Alan
Dear Sreenath and Cosmic,
I'm not so concerned about the exact nature of the spiral structures at this point of our discussion. Georgina expresses her worldview very well and she says exactly what I want to hear, despite myself having an alternative viewpoint. It's the plain speaking which is lacking somewhat from others imo. For example Sreenath, do you have the same picture of reality as Georgina, and if not, what is the difference? I presume you also imagine a 'medium' of some sort which particles travel through??
Best wishes to you both and here's to a t.o.e by the end of the year,
Alan