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]

    • Post #62

    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.

      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.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #67

      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]

      • Post #68

      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]

      • Post #69

      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]

      • Post #70

      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]

        • Post #71

        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

        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.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #75

        I think I've got it now. The problem with the current calculation of 1,800 years can be seen in this paper Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides as well. In the The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change it states on page 3 that:

        "The greatest possible astronomical tide raising forces would occur if the moon and the sun were to come into exact mutual alignment with the earth at their closest respective distances (7). If we only consider motions as they exist today (the present epoch) we can determine departures from this reference event as simple functions of the separation-intervals between four orbital conditions that determine these alignments and distances. The most critical condition is closeness in time to syzygy, a term that refers to either new moon or full moon. The return period of either lunar phase defines the 29.5-day synodic month. Maxima in tidal strength occur at both new and full moon: i.e., "fortnightly.""

        The first line is now incorrect w.r.t the new model. It's now possible that the maximum tide raising forces can occur if the sun and moon are in alignment but NOT at their closest, but a combination of closeness and more importantly their 'elevation' or inclination angle.

        I'm sure this new calculation is possible and will begin a wave of discovery and ultimately lead to a proof of the solarlunar 1,470 year tidal cycle which will be shown to influence our climate to a very significant degree.

        There's a new area of research here also [link:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121163915.htm]First Study to Show That Seismic Imaging Detects Ocean's Internal Tides]

        I've had an interesting discussion with Ian Durham which I'd like to re-iterate here:

        [Myself]

        Hi Ian, you sound like an intelligent guy who's mathematically minded so I want to put to you this quandry regarding another ancient Greek:

        Newton's inability to consider a particle model for the force of gravity has left a legacy where the ideology of a spacetime continuum has been set in stone. His equation negates the possiblity of a particle for the force of gravity. If he had considered the Archimedes screw as a GRAVITON he would have included an element of ORIENTATION in his simplistic equation, wouldn't he?

        [Ian Durham]

        Hmmm. Why does his equation negate a particle model for gravity? Coulomb's law is similar and yet we have a very successful particle model for electrostatics.

        [Myself]

        His declaration of universality or put simply "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions" is a BIG assumption which is then set in stone within his gravity equation. No wonder it can't be reconciled with particle based QM! Why did no-one at the time of Newton consider the Archimedes screw as a mechanical method for explaining the force of gravity, his spooky action at a distance?? The history of science would have been very different if someone had imo!

        I'd just like to re-iterate my point about a spinning helix which travels around a hypersphere being analogous to an electric circuit. Imagine you are on the inside of a battery which is connected to a simple loop of wire which makes an electric circuit. Imagine a handle rotates clockwise from the positive terminal as seen from your internal perspective. Now trace this turning handle as it travels along the wire and arrives at the negative terminal of the battery. Which way is the handle now turning from the viewpoint of the battery's interior? Is it clockwise or is it anti-clockwise?

        The thought experiment illustrates the important relationship between chirality, loops and mirror images. Incidentally, I learnt from a repeat of QI on TV last night about oranges and lemons. The aroma of a lemon is the exact mirror image of an orange and vice versa. Our olfactory sense, the first one to develop via evolution I believe, is ultra sensitive to right and left handedness of airborne molecules, which I find quite interesting.

        [Ian Durham]

        Very interesting concept, but I still don't see why his theory of gravity is any different in that sense from electrostatics. In other words, just because he worded it in a certain way doesn't automatically make it incompatible with a particle model. It certainly could have affected the interpretation historically, but it doesn't a priori rule out a particle interpretation.

        [Myself]

        Okay, that's a good point about the similarity with electrostatics, which I've just thought about a bit more. The difference is that Coulombs law assumes "charged" particles, so that they come in two opposite types. Electric charge is a physical property of matter which causes it to experience a force when near other electrically charged matter. The way these two types interact hasn't been modelled by mechnical means, just like gravity itself. Why do like charges attract and opposites repell? The mechanism is an enigma.

        If a 'fabric' of spacetime is visualised as the 'mechanism' of gravity, then this fabric is uniform and symmetrical. It therefore can't be the cause of the elctrostatic forces. His equation therefore negates gravity as being behind the eletrostatic force. It therefore renders the unification of all the forces an impossiblity. Therefore his equation must be wrong imo.

          lol, edit: I should have said opposites attract and like charges repell. (school was a long time ago)