eh? what does the following read to you?
the 3 degrees relates to what? Permaforst or air temperature?
then explain how a rate of 3 degrees fits in with GW predictions for 2040.
Runaway Global Warming
- Thread starter Facial
- Start date
then explain how a rate of 3 degrees fits in with GW predictions for 2040.
Perhaps there are even more massive "local" regions of the universe - so what?http://www.universetoday.com/113150/what-is-the-great-attractor/ said:
Not even the closest, the Great attractor has any effect on Earth or its relationship to the Sun. Our solar system, in fact our whole galaxy is just in "free fall" as they are so far away, only their gravity makes any effect. For them to "stretch" or in any way modify Earth's orbit about or relative to the sun, they would need to be much closer, as the tidal force fall off as the inverse cube of the distance, not only as inverse square.
Initially Quantum Quack Had a "gravitational instability" in the Earth's center of gravity causing the main part of global warming. I showed that was non-sense and he seems to have accepted that. Now he has a gravitational "anomaly" about 150,000,000 light years away as the main cause!
That is even more extreme non-sense. And too silly even to describe with these words, (or any others)* is that it "switched on the effect" in 1984 !!!!
All even the much larger mass, the Shapley Supercluster, can only slightly "tweak" the solar system's trajectory about the center of our galaxy - even our nearest stars make greater disturbance, I am almost sure, but too lazy to compute. (Not very hard - just compare their mass/(distance)^2 = "disturbing force")
These remote masses have ZERO effect on global warming.
* Finding suitable words might be an interesting game. I'll start:
More silly than believing an amoebae will correct general relativity to include new cause of gravity.
Last edited by a moderator:
totally false...you only showed your interpretation to be false.
unfortunately you are talking about your fear based interpretation Billy T and not what I actually wrote. Drop the fear and read what I wrote and we may get somewhere.
as I wrote earlier in post #308
Accordingly when one object exhibits a fundamental gravitational anomaly then all objects do.
The order seen in this universe is entirely due this one common source of gravity.
whether that be a star system, a piece of fruit or a single plutonium atom (Pu)...
I am hypothesizing with a significant degree of empirical and circumstantial support that that single source of gravity universally had become distorted to the point of splitting into two sources.
The existence of two sources of gravitational forces means that "atomic fusion" is occurring that would other wise not be occurring hence the over heating of matter universally and generally (including organic and non-organic forms)
Last edited:
Congratulation you are wining the game at end of my post. The idea that the weakest force* could cause atomic fusion is more silly than my suggested "most silly" words.
* over power the strongest long range force (electric field repulsion between positively charged nuclei).
More seriously:
No object is doing that. These massive objects are making gravity like any other - no "anomaly."
Brazil had its run-off election a few hours ago many (> 50 million) votes cast. If the total number of votes happen to be a prime number - that would be an anomaly. You need some other word as "anomaly" just means unexpected / rare event. Like a run of 15 heads in a row with honest coin. Has no special meaning in physics. Even your term: "gravitational anomaly" is non-sense, unless you are referring to some event, like the recent close comet "fly by" of Mars when its orbit period is more than a million years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me ask you this Billy T, if our sun, had two COGs relatively close together simultaneously acting on the entire suns mass what do you think would happen at an atomic level?
My guess is that thermal stability would be threatened in the least.
My guess is that thermal stability would be threatened in the least.
Last edited:
'tis funny in a way , you can blindly and readily accept length contraction and relative V time dilation's with out a problem nor mechanism to allow for such, yet you can't accept the possibility that the universe may have a single source of gravity thus COG shared by all objects of mass... as empirically demonstrated by the uniformity of the universal constancy of gravity and apparent universally uniform cosmic metric expansion.
would being the only time in the universes history make the "rare event" category?
I sincerely hope Sao Paulo Administration can now work out it's unprecedented anomalous water dilemma, now that the elections are over...
would being the only time in the universes history make the "rare event" category?
I sincerely hope Sao Paulo Administration can now work out it's unprecedented anomalous water dilemma, now that the elections are over...
Last edited:
I went back and here is what you said back when you spoke of new (and silly) movements of the earth's center of gravity, COG, movement, anomaly, and instability as cause of thermal heating or even the USSR's nuclear melt down:
Post 203: “ … magnetic pole shifts could be directly associated with Earth COG movements as I hypothesized 10 years or so ago.
Post 215: “... Soviet nuclear assets had the potential to self destruct because of this geomagnetic & Earth COG environment change ...”
Post 225: “... would this not make the core susceptible to potential overheating if environmental factors such as the hypothesized geomagnetic /Earth COG instability were to occur? …
Post 225 … Keeping a hypothetical in mind that if the Earth was enduring a magnetic COG type event then all matter and substance may also... Gravitational Constant sourced instability
May be more but I stopped looking as it is time for me to go to bed. I did not comment or try to refute the fact the location of the magnet axis does move with time, and that could even have some effect on calibration of some nuclear reactor gages or more likely on solar wind related energy input to earth. I only noted that the seasonal shift of snow and ice mass was (I guessed) 1000 times greater and much faster than any COG shift that could have occurred around 1984.
To summarize in this threads context:
All I am suggesting is that there is evidence to support the notion that the climate change we are experiencing has a more fundamental causation that merely anthropogenic CO2 inputs. That that local causation is due primarily to planetary mass over heating with symptoms similar to hyperthermia.
The Artic Perma Frost thaw in the 80's I believe, may offer significant empirical evidence to support the notion.
All I am suggesting is that there is evidence to support the notion that the climate change we are experiencing has a more fundamental causation that merely anthropogenic CO2 inputs. That that local causation is due primarily to planetary mass over heating with symptoms similar to hyperthermia.
The Artic Perma Frost thaw in the 80's I believe, may offer significant empirical evidence to support the notion.
Last edited:
Your guess is wrong for simple fact as I told you in post, no well defined (by some boundary) system can have two centers of any ONE thing (like gravity or population). - I illustrated that by saying there was only ONE population center for native American Indians living in the US and that it was different from that of the US total population.
In that same post, I also illustrated how the center of mass of earth and the earth/ moon system were different.
Last edited by a moderator:
and normally you would be correct... anything else would be an anomaly..yes?
Fits perfectly. What's wrong with the "fit"?quantum said:
It's not a "rate", it matches the IPCC air temp forecast, it matches the known effects of the warming we have been experiencing since the CO2 boost started, etc etc,
And we are pointing out that you are wrong - there is no such evidence, there is nothing "mere" about the CO2 boost, and so forth.quantum said:
But it doesn't. It's all wrong. Too little of the permafrost thawed, it thawed in the normally expected places, it thawed from the top down, the thaw was consistent with the air temperature evidence, and none of that is anywhere near enough of a "local causation" to have driven the observed global warming.quantum said:
and none of that is necessary: the observed CO2 boosting is easily sufficient fundamental cause of the observed warming - one major issue right now is exactly why the air temperature increase hasn't been faster and more severe, given the known effects and feedbacks of the observed CO2 boost. If you were arguing that phase changes in Arctic permafrost have been absorbing more heat from the air than was being allowed for by the models, thereby damping the greenhouse temperature boost, that might make sense. Not this.
so a reported temp of 3 degrees warming in 1980 matches a forecast warming of 1.5-2.5degrees c by 2040? eh?
1980 - actual - up 3 deg c
2040 - predicted - up 1.5 - 2.5 deg c
hotter in 1980's than predicted for 2040...
What do you think caused such a huge temp rise in the Arctic in the 1980's?
Are you saying that CO2 Boost is causing GW or are you saying that CO2 boost is the outcome of GW?
Last edited:
hee hee...
iceaura,
Note: It is pretty obvious that the wiki article being referenced is seriously lacking in critical data/information
To me, though, it is the sheer coincidence that we are talking about a time period that is of high interest to me as discussed earlier. 1985/86
Note: It is pretty obvious that the wiki article being referenced is seriously lacking in critical data/information
- What did cause the Perma Frost thaw of the 1980's?
- Was the thaw sustained and if so for how many years?
- Is it still thawed today?
- How much CH4 ( methane) was released by said 1980's thaw...?
To me, though, it is the sheer coincidence that we are talking about a time period that is of high interest to me as discussed earlier. 1985/86
Last edited:
shall do... thanks...
No. It would be a "conflict" (not an "anomaly") with the definition of "center of A" * and has no more "validity" than the sum of 2+3 = 4, "during anomalies", as four is by definition the name of this many X's XXXX and 2 is by definition the name of this many X's XX and 3 is by definition the name of this many X's XXX. Graphically" XX + XXX = XXXXX, NOT XXXX. Clearly when you violate definitions you speak non-sense, not show an anomaly.
* where "A" is some well defined item which has a boundary. While gravity has no boundary, the mass which makes it does. I.e. I can speak of the gravity due to earth or due to the earth/ moon system.
It is interesting (to me at least) to note that the mathematical description of the earth's gravity always ASSUMES the distance is measured from the center of mass as that produces the most simple expression for the gravity field**, but there is no reason why a different and much more complex set of tesseral harmonics could not accurately describe earth's gravity with distance measured from the top of the Washington Monument! ***
** The spherical term in the infinite math expansion has much greater "weight" (magnitude) than all others.
*** Expressing it that way would be very hard as all the coefficients of the terms in the expansion would be time dependent with a 24 hour period. (Like some higher order terms are even when the mass center of the earth is used. I.e. they have 365 day period**** as more then less snow and ice form near the poles.)
**** This is a "cyclic variation" not an "instability." I am 100% sure your "COG instability" in circa 1984 is non-sense as there is not even any instability, much less one that "switched on" in 1984.
BTW; Here is a definition for "the center of A" - It is that point for which the sum of distance from it to each and every "a" in A is least. The center of A is ONE, unique point. For example if A is the xy plain and there are only two a in the defined set A such as a1 = (0,1) & a2 = (0,-1), the center of A is the point at (0, 0).
Last edited by a moderator:
SUMMARY: The numerical analysis below is why I told Quantum Quack, that his switch to the effect of the Great Attractor, GA, on global warming, instead of an in-Earth's internal gravitational instability, was (if it is possible) even more silly than the gravitational instability was.
Barnard's Star, BS, is tiny (0.144 solar masses) and only 5.98 light years from earth. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard's_Star
Thus in strange force units it is gravitationally pulling on the sun with force of 0.144/ (5.98)^2 = 0.00403 units.
The Andromeda Galaxy, AG, has mass of 1.5E12 greater than the sun and is 2.54E6 light years away from the sun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
So in these strange units it is pulling on the sun with force of 1.5/ (2.54)^2 = 0.2325
Much more effect on the free fall (with out distortion) of our solar system than the tiny red drawf, Barnard's star.
But lets compare which, is via the gravitational tidal force “stretching” / distorting earth's orbit more, thus effecting very slightly the Global Warming of earth:
Tides due to BS go as: 0.00403/ 5.98 = 0.00067 and those from AG as: 0.2325/ 2.54E6 = 0.000,000,0915 or in terms of possible effect on global warming, BS beats AG by a factor of 44,048 times greater effect.
The Great Attractor, GA, which is ~2E8 Light years away and has a mass of ~1000 trillion suns (E15 solar masses) - http://www.universetoday.com/113150/what-is-the-great-attractor/
(How far away the GA is not well known. Some reference say only 1.5 E8, some say 2.5E8 LY.)
So GA is pulling on, giving free fall, to our entire galaxy of: E15/ (2E8)^2 = 0.025 or essentially the same way that AG is on the sun but its GW tidal effect is only 0.025/2E8 = (0.0125)/E8 =0.000,000,000,0125 = 1.25E(-11) and compared to GA's tides, 0.000,000, 0915 = 9.15E(-8). The GA has weaker GW effect by factor of 9.15E(-8) / 1.25(E-11) = 7.32E(-3) = 0.00732 than the Andromeda Galaxy does, or
If we compare the tidal effect of the great attractor to that of tiny but much closer, Barnard's Star, then BS is more important on GW than the great attractor, GA, by a factor or 44,048/ 0.00732 = 6,017,468 or the tiny Barnard's Star, BS, has more than a million times more effect than the Great Attractor does on Earth's global warming, but even Barnards Star has at least a million times less influence on global warming than than CO2 has!
I.e. The "Great Attractor" has a million millions times LESS influence on Global Warming that man's CO2 releases does. I think we can ignore the GA!
Two CoGs for the earth's mass (or any well defined mass set) is a violation of the very concept of CoG and thus NON-SENSE !
Barnard's Star, BS, is tiny (0.144 solar masses) and only 5.98 light years from earth. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard's_Star
Thus in strange force units it is gravitationally pulling on the sun with force of 0.144/ (5.98)^2 = 0.00403 units.
The Andromeda Galaxy, AG, has mass of 1.5E12 greater than the sun and is 2.54E6 light years away from the sun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
So in these strange units it is pulling on the sun with force of 1.5/ (2.54)^2 = 0.2325
Much more effect on the free fall (with out distortion) of our solar system than the tiny red drawf, Barnard's star.
But lets compare which, is via the gravitational tidal force “stretching” / distorting earth's orbit more, thus effecting very slightly the Global Warming of earth:
Tides due to BS go as: 0.00403/ 5.98 = 0.00067 and those from AG as: 0.2325/ 2.54E6 = 0.000,000,0915 or in terms of possible effect on global warming, BS beats AG by a factor of 44,048 times greater effect.
The Great Attractor, GA, which is ~2E8 Light years away and has a mass of ~1000 trillion suns (E15 solar masses) - http://www.universetoday.com/113150/what-is-the-great-attractor/
(How far away the GA is not well known. Some reference say only 1.5 E8, some say 2.5E8 LY.)
So GA is pulling on, giving free fall, to our entire galaxy of: E15/ (2E8)^2 = 0.025 or essentially the same way that AG is on the sun but its GW tidal effect is only 0.025/2E8 = (0.0125)/E8 =0.000,000,000,0125 = 1.25E(-11) and compared to GA's tides, 0.000,000, 0915 = 9.15E(-8). The GA has weaker GW effect by factor of 9.15E(-8) / 1.25(E-11) = 7.32E(-3) = 0.00732 than the Andromeda Galaxy does, or
If we compare the tidal effect of the great attractor to that of tiny but much closer, Barnard's Star, then BS is more important on GW than the great attractor, GA, by a factor or 44,048/ 0.00732 = 6,017,468 or the tiny Barnard's Star, BS, has more than a million times more effect than the Great Attractor does on Earth's global warming, but even Barnards Star has at least a million times less influence on global warming than than CO2 has!
I.e. The "Great Attractor" has a million millions times LESS influence on Global Warming that man's CO2 releases does. I think we can ignore the GA!
Two CoGs for the earth's mass (or any well defined mass set) is a violation of the very concept of CoG and thus NON-SENSE !
Last edited by a moderator:
Firstly the strangest thing about the Great attractor is that it exerts an attraction that suggests it comprises of trillions of star masses mass. Yet it has been found to contain considerably less mass than what would normally be expected given it's gravitational effects observed , thus it is considered an anomaly by conventional science.
Secondly, Dark flow indicates that thousands of galaxies are flowing to "nowhere" or no obvious point.
and please note it is conventional science that CAN NOT explain these two very obvious things. SO please do not try to tell me what is possible and what is not.
Two COGS in a given mass (inertial frame ) ARE indeed possible under certain extreme circumstance. You only have to consider that the COGS relate directly to the masses HSP (hyper surface of the present) and realise the possibility that two time lines could be running very close together. t= 0 & t=0' (cog's x2) with in the single inertial frame.
But of course if you wish to stick with Minkowski/Einstein space as described under SRT and GR the possibility of such gets even harder to fathom. However as the Great attractor and the existence of Dark flow adequately prove, conventional science as we know it today is ill-equipped to allow us to understand what it is we are ACTUALLY observing.
According to your logic, the Great attractor and Dark flow do not exist as they are not compatible with your understanding of physics.
Well I am sorry to have to tell you this but according to observation they DO exist.
The Great attractor is considered an anomaly because current science can not explain it not because it is an anomaly persee.
However Dark Flow on the other hand , to me, IS evidence of a physical and not just a theoretical anomaly suggesting Universal gravitational integrity has been breached and two universal COGs are now currently evident when there should be only one. [The great attractor]
..and even more disturbing, to me is the observation of an inexplicable (to conventional theory), massive CMB cold spot.
Secondly, Dark flow indicates that thousands of galaxies are flowing to "nowhere" or no obvious point.
and please note it is conventional science that CAN NOT explain these two very obvious things. SO please do not try to tell me what is possible and what is not.
Two COGS in a given mass (inertial frame ) ARE indeed possible under certain extreme circumstance. You only have to consider that the COGS relate directly to the masses HSP (hyper surface of the present) and realise the possibility that two time lines could be running very close together. t= 0 & t=0' (cog's x2) with in the single inertial frame.
But of course if you wish to stick with Minkowski/Einstein space as described under SRT and GR the possibility of such gets even harder to fathom. However as the Great attractor and the existence of Dark flow adequately prove, conventional science as we know it today is ill-equipped to allow us to understand what it is we are ACTUALLY observing.
According to your logic, the Great attractor and Dark flow do not exist as they are not compatible with your understanding of physics.
Well I am sorry to have to tell you this but according to observation they DO exist.
The Great attractor is considered an anomaly because current science can not explain it not because it is an anomaly persee.
However Dark Flow on the other hand , to me, IS evidence of a physical and not just a theoretical anomaly suggesting Universal gravitational integrity has been breached and two universal COGs are now currently evident when there should be only one. [The great attractor]
..and even more disturbing, to me is the observation of an inexplicable (to conventional theory), massive CMB cold spot.
Last edited: