Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey

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

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

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.

Calculation of angular velocity of moon at syzygy

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.

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

A colleague from an online forum has kindly looked into the new galaxy rotation hypothesis and posted the following. Unfortunately I haven't had time to go through it in detail, but it looks like a reaonable first attempt imo:

Based on the following assumptions:

Galaxies exist for billions of years, so the stars in the outer halo must be in relatively stable orbits,

Almost all of the visible mass in the galaxy is at the galactic core,

There is no ``hidden mass'' (i.e. dark matter), and

Newtonian mechanics (F = ma) are valid for analyzing halo star trajectories,

We have the following assertions:

The motion of the halo stars must be centripetal, and

Any gravitational field exerted by the galaxy must be almost completely divergenceless in the halo.

The first assertion implies that there is a center-pulling force (F) on the halo stars (of mass m) creating a velocity (v) of:

F = mv2 / r

Where r is the distance the halo star is from the galactic core. For standard Newtonian gravity the force is:

F = GMm / r2

Where G is the Gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the galactic core. The velocity of a halo star is then:

v = (GM / r)0.5

To match to experimental data, we want the velocity of the halo start to be a constant - i.e. not depend on r. The easiest way of achieving this is to set the gravity to:

F = GMm / r

And then we have:

v = (GM)0.5

This theory has two major problems with it:

This force would ``break'' all existing planetary orbits, and

This force has a non-zero divergence.

The second easiest approach is to add a term to Newtonian gravity. There is no ``spiral force'' that will work, such a force would constantly speed up the rotation of halo stars (or constantly slow down, depending on the direction), and the halo would either be flung off into space or collapse into the core. Since we do not observe this happening, we can rule it out.

We can't simply add rn terms to Newtonian gravity either, because they are not divergenceless, and would never cancel out the 1/r2 from Newtonian gravity unless they canceled out the force entirely (i.e. no centripetal motion).

The simplest solution that I can think of is to add some sort of gravitational equivalent to the Lorentz force as follows:

F = m (GM / r2 + bvrn)

Where b and n are to be determined.

This gives us a velocity of:

v = b / 2 rn+1 + r / 2 ( b2r2n - 4 GM / r2)0.5

If we set n = -1, we then have a velocity of:

v = b / 2 + ( b2 - 4 GM )0.5

Which is independent of r, as desired.

Unfortunately... the only Lorentz-type field that is divergence-free has 1/r3 dependence, no 1/r.

If we don't use divergenceless fields, then we are basically postulating dark matter all over again.

For the dedicated reader I'd like to include this excellent paper which clearly shows the 1,470 year cycle Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock