Even I know enough to ask: Huh?
Could Ice Age Problem Be Linked To Pioneer Gravity Anomaly?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Even I know enough to ask: Huh?
Mandelbrot
Yes, I know, fractals. I do have a clue here, but not as to what you are trying to say.
Edit: Furthermore, as Draq asked, why isn't this in Pseudoscience?
Last edited:
If the central core of a star is fractal and spiral in nature, then so should it's gravitational field. It's common sense. This 'fractal-irregularity' could be at the same scale as a planet at the distance of Mercury's orbit, hence the deviation of precession from Newtonian physics.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Do you understand the 100,000 year ice age problem; the biggest factor which determines our climate?
Obviously not (Wiki: 100,000 year problem)
It works though!
Common sense. to whom? Not to me. I do not understand so it Whooooooooooosh!
no need to reply by the way.
The Ice Age Problem is linked to the lack of a Quantum Gravity Problem imo.
Yes, still orbital variations, but variations in gravitational pull on the innermostcore rather than the mainstream variations in incident solar radiation (which aren't enough to induce an ice age) IMHO. This is the last I'm commenting on the subject since I've been warned about "posting too much nonsense" in general.
The moderator for this forum has made a grand total of four posts anywhere in sciforums.com during 2009, the last post being June 22, 2009. This forum needs a new moderator.
This is utter nonsense.
Apparently you don't. The 100,000 year cycle is an observed response in the paleoclimatological record.
Nobody has said that. Our resident geological expert has weighed in on the issue. He offered this advice to common_sense_seeker:
Nobody with even the slightest twinge of sense would raise the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly is connected to the 100,000 year climate cycle. This is just nonsense.
Whether the Pioneer anomaly is real as opposed to an observational effect is not a certainty. If it is real, whether it is something mundane such as thermal radiation remains a definite possibility. Even if it is real, it is a very, very tiny effect. A tiny, tiny effect such as this is not going to answer the 100,000 year climate cycle (assuming that that too is real).
There are plenty of other possibilities besides orbital forcings that could cause this apparent 100,000 year cycle. Variations in the solar output is one obvious explanation. Some unknown interaction between plate tectonics and the climate that gives the appearance of a cyclical behavior is another. There is little reason invoke an unknown unknown; there are too many known unknowns at play here. There is absolutely no reason to invoke an unknown unknown with a known miniscule effect. It's nonsense.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Actually, I don't have a problem with such a speculation. I have a problem with the failure of common sense seeker to provide even a smidegeon of evidence to support the contention and his frustrating insistence of stringing together fine sounding phrases with zero semantic content. He is an idiot and the idea is probably idiotic, but I reject it because of lack of evidence or argument, not because it seems inherently silly.
I'm ignoring the Pioneer connection from now on. The strongest connection is between the possibility of an increased tidal interaction with the sun during the glacial part of the earth's orbit which could contribute to the earth's sudden drop in world temperatures. The connection is with a New-Newtonian Tidal Theory (NNTT) where tidal interaction can be much greater than current mainstream theory suggests. Eventually, when I'm really happy with everything, I will begin the tricky procedure of working out the mathematical thoroughness which is needed for the concept.
Umm, no. It took three days between the time that you made that egregious post and the time you were given issue the citation. Moreover, it was an administrator, not a moderator, who issued the citation. Finally, the only reason an administrator say the post was because someone (me) reported it three days ago. That is a sign of lack of moderation.
OK, case reopened. I did notice the time-lag, but attributed that to the fact that there is effectively "no moderator" at the post.
What I didn't know was that it took reporting (by you, as it turns out, not sure who is on which side here
)Maybe the administration should think about another moderator for this forum?
P.S. - by reporting the post, thereby causing action to be taken, aren't you kind of working against your own proposition that this forum goes unmoderated? In other words, had my (obviously facetious) post had gone unnoticed for weeks, wouldn't that have bolstered your case?
/randwolf wanders about confused...
Last edited: