Runaway Global Warming

[Quantum Quack]

I am inclined to think that in all probably, considering the fact that the effect of prior CO2 etc. releases will not fully appear for 40 to 50 years plus economies are driven by the short-term desire to maximize profits, that we passed the "point of recovery possible" at least a decade ago, but we can't be sure about that, and I for one want to "go down fighting" as hard as I can - not for me, as I am old, but for my great grand children, not yet even born.

Unfortunately I have reasons to suspect that things are going to peak (come to a head so to speak) as I mentioned earlier, a lot sooner than any one is expecting.
One of those reasons is I have two grandchildren ( boys 7 & 4 ), who have very recently developed what you would call a "persistent, nervous, dry cough" that occurs just after going to bed and lying down (lasts 20minutes or so). Doctors have no idea what to advise.
From all the studies and research I have done over 28 years or so this is not good news and I can only hope I am wrong in my understanding of it and actually insane as Physbang reckons I am.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You seemed to find it strange that the center of mass of one system could be found revolving (the better term) about the center of mass of another - it's a common event, standard Newtonian physics. Whether or not that insight affects (the better term) your point I have no idea.

No, I don't find it strange... I was using the animation to show what I meant by the possibility that two cogs t=0 & t=0' in close proximity to each other could cause tidal effects that would enhance any nuclear fusion that is occurring (ie. in a star or planet like Earth or a nuclear reactor in a power plant)
That initially Global warming and associated climate change was due to planetary mass over heating. Of course human activity exasperates the situation but I believe it is not the cause per see.

The hypothesis is that due to an anomaly (time paradox) there may be two COG's present in all matter. Let's call them Cog t=0 and Cog t=0'
The two COG's are constantly attempting to reunite as one COG and in doing so generate extra heat. Thus slight hyper thermia is present in all matter.
When I first realized this possibility some 20 odd years ago, the COGS were considerably further apart than they are today. In 1985/86 they were even further apart hence my mention of reactor 4 Chernobyl.
It is further contended that supporting evidence can be found in the SIDS problem ( 1980's ~ ) was caused by this hidden hyper thermia which doctors found could be relieved by heat reduction techniques being applied to the sleeping child. Of course they do not know (*?) the causality but they certainly know that over heating (hyper thermia) had a lot to do with SIDS. Autopsy was apparently unproductive.
and the rest of the story is there to be reviewed at leisure...

However the most important point is that I believe that this issue was well known by certain persons. (over heating planet but not necessarily the direct cause)

The need to maintain secrecy became obvious due to the massive problems acknowledging, what was at the time (1985/86) perceived as a pending planet wide extinction event ELE, to the global population and what would happen if they did so inform the public.

Therefore amongst many thing the Cold War was called off in the hope that together we may as a world find a solution, for surely divided, as we were, we had no chance at all. (eg. space station revamp, launch of Hubble, surveying of Mars etc)

This explains why there has been no end of confusion over how to respond to this crisis from top government levels. They probably believe that in the end all efforts may prove futile.

And no one in high Government is going to stand up and say to the world that "it is over red rover."
Now knowing all this I am as physbang would declare insanely stating, quite loudly that there will be NO extinction event, which I sort of find quite ironic.

There is reason to believe that whilst things may come to a head in the near future the planet is actually well on the road to healing itself. The closer the COGs get to being unified the more heat they generates but once the COG's are unified the heat will stop being produced.

 

[Billy T]

... The hypothesis is that due to an anomaly (time paradox) there may be two COG's present in all matter. Let's call them Cog t=0 and Cog t=0' The two COG's are constantly attempting to reunite as one COG and in doing so generate extra heat. Thus slight hyper thermia is present in all matter...

You seem to be ignorant even of the fact COGs are just powerless mathematical points, the result of a mathematical calculation that reduces the total distance from all mass weighted points included in some specified set of mass points to be least possible value. There does not even need to be anything at the COG. For example the COG of the earth moon set of masses is in "empty" space. Likewise, the COG of the sun and nearby Barnard's star is in very empty space.* The results of a math calculation doesn't / can't do anything. - Math is a closed tautology that some times finds use in DESCRIBING the behavior of real systems, but by its self, does nothing.

For example, because earth is not exactly a sphere, I could start speaking the ACOG (Anti COG) which is also just a point, the result of math calculation that finds that point within the earth, which makes the total distance from all mass weighted points included in some specified set of mass points to to the ACOG be greatest possible value. Then as the ACOG is very close to or actually a point ON the surface of the earth, I could start spouting non-sense that its close coupling for thermal transfer of heat to the air (much better thermal contact than the COG which is deep inside the earth) is the true cause of global warming.

You don't require any evidence to support your claims, at least mine about the ACOG is with more than a million times in better thermal contact with the air than you non-sense model based on the COG.

Since Earth is a 3D object than the COG3 is better candidate for your non-sense ideas. The COG3 is also just the result of a math calculation- the point that reduces the total cube of the distance from all mass weighted points included in some specified set of mass points to be least possible value; but since gravity is an inverse square law, perhaps the COG-2 is what you should be babbling about with zero evidence for your silly claims. COG-2 is of course is that math point which makes the total inverse square of the distance from all mass weighted points included in some specified set of mass points have the least possible value.

If earth were a perfect sphere and the density with in it was a function only of the distance from the center of that sphere, then the COG and COG-2 are co-located at the center of the sphere, but if either of these two conditions are not true then the COG & COG-2 are at nearby points but not co-locateded - quite possibly for the real earth more than a KM apart.

My second non-sense theory (You have had three earlier ones shot down by facts I have posted, so I'm at least entitled to two non-sense theories) is that it is the stress between the separated COG ad the COG-2 being relieved that is the true source of lava flows, global heating, earth quakes, etc.

* At 4.98(0.144 /1.144) = 0.6268 light years from the sun, more or less.

PS I sincerely hope this ridicule helps you. If not, I too suggest you get some professional mental help.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You seem to be ignorant even of the fact COGs are just powerless mathematical points, the result of a mathematical calculation that reduces the total distance from all mass points included in some specified set of mass points to be least possible value. There does not even need to be anything at the COG. For example the COG of the earth moon set of masses is "empty" space. Likewise, the COG of the sun and nearby Barnard's star is empty space. The results of a math calculation done do anything - math is a closed tautology that some times finds use in DESCRIBING the behavior of real systems, but by its self does nothing.

For example, because earth is not exactly a sphere, I could stat speaking the ACOG (Anti COG) which is also just a point, the result of math calculation that finds that point within the earth for which makes the total distance from all mass points included in some specified set of mass points to to the ACOG be greatest possible value. Then as the ACOG is very close to or actually a point ON the surface of the earth, I could start spouting non-sense that it close coupling for thermal transfer of heat to the air (much better thermal contact than the COG which is deep inside the earth) is the true cause of global warming. You don't require any evidence to support your claims, at least mine about the ACOG is with more than a million times in better thermal contact with the air than you non-sense model based on the COG.

Fair enough.
Lets assume for a moment that all particles that make up this planet have their individual cogs.
the "sum culminate" providing a culminate cog at the "culminate center" of the Earth.
Now lets assume that all cogs for every particle have a second COG that is part of the anomaly mentioned.
We can then go on to consider that the culminate COG at the center of the planet is also running two and not the normal one culminate COG.
Now imagine the tidal forces of all those particles gravitationally churning away because of two and not one cog.

What would be the over all result regards to temperature of all those gravition-ally interacting particles?
Obviously two COGs means two sources of gravity. (with time, not distance, as the separation.)

How would the metastability of a particle be affected?

 

[iceaura]

I was using the animation to show what I meant by the possibility that two cogs t=0 & t=0' in close proximity to each other could cause tidal effects that would enhance any nuclear fusion that is occurring (ie. in a star or planet like Earth or a nuclear reactor in a power plant)

The revolution of a cog about another is not what causes tidal effects. There is essentially no nuclear fusion in the Earth or any currently operating nuclear reactors. etc.

That initially Global warming and associated climate change was due to planetary mass over heating.

The planetary mass is not heating up, however. So we can quit worrying about that.

Now lets assume that all cogs for every particle have a second COG that is part of the anomaly mentioned.

That's nonsense. There is no such thing as a "second cog" of any defined mass in a gravitational field.

We can then go on to consider that the culminate COG at the center of the planet is also running two and not the normal one culminate COG.

If you redo your cog calculations for a given mass and come up with a second, different, answer, you have detected an error in your calculations, not a second center of gravity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

PS I sincerely hope this ridicule helps you. If not, I too suggest you get some professional mental help.

You as does Iceaura and Physbang and no doubt a lot of people believe that I need medical help for some sort of mental illness yes?
This is premised only on what you believe I believe...

so can I ask each and every one of you..
what do YOU want me to believe?
Bullet points will do nicely... thanks

 

[Quantum Quack]

The revolution of a cog about another is not what causes tidal effects. There is essentially no nuclear fusion in the Earth or any currently operating nuclear reactors. etc.
The planetary mass is not heating up, however. So we can quit worrying about that.
That's nonsense. There is no such thing as a "second cog" of any defined mass in a gravitational field.
If you redo your cog calculations for a given mass and come up with a second, different, answer, you have detected an error in your calculations, not a second center of gravity.

yeah and there is no such thing as a pending extinction event that you believe is man made... more to the point made by scientific misadventure.
Maybe the Philadelphia Experiment wasn't a hoax after all!

The man who invented the "chainsaw" needs to stand trial for genocide! Sure! I believe you!

 

[Billy T]

You as does Iceaura and Physbang and no doubt a lot of people believe that I need medical help for some sort of mental illness yes?
This is premised only on what you believe I believe...

No, its based on what you continue to post is the true cause of every thing from global warming and Chernobyl to illnesses, like SID and persistent dry coughing.

so can I ask each and every one of you.. what do YOU want me to believe? Bullet points will do nicely... thanks

You should give some evidence supporting you silly (demonstrably contra factual) claims. Even if they were not easily shot down,* as I repeatedly have with well accept physic used to calculate, your extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence, yet your give NONE!

* The result of being corrected is you only change the name. "gravitational instability" becomes "anomaly" becomes "dual struggling COGs" becomes "the great attractor" and possible others I forget as only those have I exposed with calculations as silly contra factual non-sense. Even my ridicule with ACOG, COG3 & COG-2 was without effect - water on a duck's back - not even a direct comment or correction attempt. You have become like the more extreme of the religious posters here - only repeating your total unsupported faith. A year and more ago, you were rational - not now: that is a mental change.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, its based on what you continue to post is the true cause of every thing from global warming and Chernobyl to illnesses, like SID and persistent dry coughing.You should give some evidence supporting you silly (demonstrably contra factual) claims. Even if they were not easily shot down,* as I repeatedly have with well accept physic used to calculate, your extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence, yet your give NONE!

* The result of being corrected is you only change the name. "gravitational instability" becomes "anomaly" becomes "dual struggling COGs" becomes "the great attractor" and possible others I forget as only those have I exposed with calculations as silly contra factual non-sense. Even my ridicule with ACOG, COG3 & COG-2 was without effect - water on a duck's back - not even a direct comment or correction attempt. You have become like the more extreme of the religious posters here - only repeating your total unsupported faith. A year and more ago, you were rational - not now: that is a mental change.

I think you have read me saying before that I find it saddening that you and most western scientists see only the reflection of their egos and not what is actually out there to see.
I look up at the night sky and "see" in real time an entire universe where as you only see what your belief in your own modelling allows you to see that being only the light data entering your eyes.

Why because that is what you believe, and not because that is what is actually out there.
So my belief in the validity of Western science is strictly limited to some fundamental principles (laws), data acquisition and not interpretations based on potentially seriously flawed modelling.

a clue:
"I don't see the moon when I look up at it at night, however I am very conscious of it"


The evidence of an anomaly that is causing hyper thermia type outcomes, you ask for has been described by the data that shows

Dark Flow, and CBR cold spots to exist [ in real time, not historical time - macro scales]
Oceanic dead spots - inexplicable hypoxia.
Apparent increase in seismic activity [venting] globally, inexplicable to Western Science
Excessive melting of ice formations North and South, especially South were meting appears to be from beneath the ice as the land mass of the Antarctic heats up.
Massive marine life die off - inexplicable.
Nodding disease (special case) - inexplicable to Western Science.
SIDS - (special case) inexplicable according to Western Science
Childhood asthma - inexplicable to Western Science
ADHD - inexplicable to Western science.
and a whole heap of other inexplicable to western science phenomena.

I know my beliefs about the source of gravity and the causation of the light effect, fly in the face of conventional Western science. However whilst that may be the case I at least have a universe that makes sense where as yours is, how can I say it... inexplicable.

• You have no mechanism for uniform cosmic metric expansion.. were as I do.
• You have no mechanism to ensure that the gravitational constant is universally absolute. where as I do.
• You have no way to understand the generation of magnetism where as I do.
• And you have no way of understanding how life and self animated, willed organics are essential to the understanding of the whole physical picture - where as I do.

As an example:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in...ime-physics-and-srt-in-general.141347/page-46
post #911

To me it is incredible that serious and well informed scientist can believe as described in this thread post:
and more importantly it is utterly incredible that informed and reputed scientists do not find their interpretative mistakes also incredible and seek to address them promptly.

"...your post reminded me of the major "interpretative" flaw demonstrated in cosmology, on a regular basis.
Commonly information about our universe is portrayed, as displayed in the video and image shown in post #901, fail to indicate that the further you move outwards from the cameras position the more historical the record is.
In fact a universe of today would show only the camera's position and the rest would be unknown and according to science unknowable due to light info delays. [certain predictions are available but unfalsifiable prediction is all it is]
Yet we are led to believe that the universe of today looks like what is shown. On that basis any image of the universe created is virtually useless in describing what exist today.
Therefore as much as the image below (and the video it was clipped from) is interesting to view it is virtually useless when used to describe a universe as if it is today's universe when consideration for light info delays is taken into consideration."

a fantastic video that is totally wrong when you consider that according to your own science all data used to make it is obsolete by many billions of years.

Ironically, to me it is real time and thus of real value.
a clue:
"I don't see the moon when I look up at it at night, however I am very conscious of it"

And what is further inexplicable [ except by claiming egoistic esteem issues] is that people who consider them selves to be scientist will not address the issue that most of their data is obsolete by as much as 14 billion years [ according to their belief in light info delays.]
You believe that the universe exists yet simultaneously you believe that it is impossible for you to know that, due to light info delays 'c'... and you have the nerve to accuse me of being mentally ill for believing other wise.

So before you try to tell me that I am insane and "like a religious poster", I suggest you have a good look at what premises you are using... because as far as I can tell they are terribly flawed in many cases.

Normally people like to know when they may be mistaken. There are many similar examples to the above.. do you want to know more or do you wish to stay deluded by your own egos?

The above and more is my belief and sure I do not have all the answers.. OK...

It is not your belief and certainly I would not wish to force it upon any one in the way you and others seem hell bent on doing.

Suffice to say I believe there is overwhelming amounts of evidence to support a strong case that states that the planets climate change is primarily caused by internal over heating of the planets organic and inorganic matter. That this situation peaked in 1985/86 and is caused by an anomaly.

 

[Billy T]

... you and most western scientists see only the reflection of their egos and not what is actually out there to see. ...
Yet we are led to believe that the universe of today looks like what is shown. On that basis any image of the universe created is virtually useless in describing what exist today. ... people who consider them selves to be scientist will not address the issue that most of their data is obsolete by many billions of years ...

First there is no "ego" in math calculations, based on well confirmed / tested physical theories; but a huge amount of ego in the those ignoring those confirmations and advancing ideas in conflict with those calculation with no empirical support for their new concepts - only their belief in their ideas which is re-enforced by their strong egotistical position "I must be correct, so don't need to supply evidence or any test of my ideas which explain all (from global warming to dry coughs)"

Secondly, Yes the light we collect today is up to 11 or even 12 billion years old and only reviels how the universe far away was back then. If it were the case that current known physical facts were not reconfirmed in that old light, then we could not claim to know much of how the universe was back then. But the spectral lines form many different atoms and ions, (when corrected for the red shift are the same wavelengths as to day. For example the Hydrogen Lyman lines (Which are 7 or so in the far UV) are down shifted BY THE SAME FACTOR, down into the far infrared. As are 50 or so radiations from other atoms and ions. Thus we know that the structure of the atoms, (which includes the charge on the electrons and protons), the Pauli exclusion principle, ( which "build up the periodic table") etc. were the same back then as they are today.

We did discover some gross structural differences. Some like that the universe was denser back then and as a result a larger fraction of the stars were much bigger, - facts that confirmed our expectations; but some discoveries were unexpected: The rate at which star (or galaxies for the very distant past observations) were separating from each other was slower than today's nearer stars are by a factor greater than expected. - Universe is expanding at an increasing rate - more than their weakening (due greater average separation) mutual gravitational attraction between them can explain.

Unexpected observational results set a multitude of theoretician to work. Why the RATE of expansion of the universe is increasing has not yet been explained, AFAIK. It is only a recent observation so best that they can do now is to give a name for the unknown cause, for easy reference (Dark Energy); but that is all it is - a convenient name for something observed but not yet explained.

Although what is "Dark Energy" is not known, it does (or may) help explain why the big Bang is not violating the conservation of energy law - I.e. the Pre BB energy (if that makes any sense to speak of) was zero and now if Dark Energy is negative, as all who know more than I do believe, then the total energy of the universe may still be zero. - no violation of one of physics most important laws.

SUMMARY: If it had turned out that the spectral radiation (the "line spectra" and continuum were not as it is today (lines from our ions and atoms and described by Planck's simple equation); then yes, we would not know much about the nature of the early universe - more work for the theorist to try to build a new set of physical laws, different from those of today, to describe how mater and energy behaved long ago, but that is not how it turned out, so we do know a lot about how the universe was long ago. - No new work for the theorists - finding interesting jobs is tough for many now.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Secondly, Yes the light we collect today is up to 11 or even 12 billion years old and only reviels how the universe far away was back then. If it were the case that current known physical facts were not reconfirmed in that old light, then we could not claim to know much of how the universe was back then. But the spectral lines form many different atoms and ions, (when corrected for the red shift are the same wavelengths as to day. For example the Hydrogen Lyman lines (Which are 7 or so in the far UV) are down shifted BY THE SAME FACTOR, down into the far infrared. As are 50 or so radiations from other atoms and ions. Thus we know that the structure of the atoms, (which includes the charge on the electrons and protons), the Pauli exclusion principle, ( which "build up the periodic table") etc. were the same back then as they are today.

Yet the video exemplifies how obsolete data is being interpreted as real time data... which is absurd if you believe in the invariance of 'c' across a vacuum.
Does that ancient data provide enough information to make solid predictions of what the universe looks like today?
And if so why is this not included as part of the commentary in the video etc?

"This universe as portrayed is merely a model based on the ability to predict what it looks like." [sort of disclaimer]
14 billion years is an awfully long amount of time to try and predict IMO.
I mean when they say distance is 8000km/s what are they actually saying?
distance/time yes?
Do you agree that the light [EMR] info data has been misinterpreted or not?
Please justify the current position on what the universe is today? Using evidence that makes sense given the obsolete nature of it...
You mention cosmic expansion that is accelerating? [which I happen to agree with]
You can only state this if you presume the data is real time and not millions if not billions of years old...

 

[sculptor]

The reason I asked:
Barycenter and cog ain't normally the same
to be the same would require a uniform field of gravity, which we ain't got.
It seems that the cog is forever seeking unity with the center of mass, and the difference causes torque, and therefore energy.

In a non-uniform field, gravitational effects such as potential energy, force, and torque can no longer be calculated using the center of mass alone. In particular, a non-uniform gravitational field can produce a torque on an object, even about an axis through the center of mass. The center of gravity seeks to explain this effect. Formally, a center of gravity is an application point of the resultant gravitational force on the body. Such a point may not exist, and if it exists, it is not unique

 

[Quantum Quack]

The reason I asked:
Barycenter and cog ain't normally the same
to be the same would require a uniform field of gravity, which we ain't got.
It seems that the cog is forever seeking unity with the center of mass, and the difference causes torque, and therefore energy.

This is because science currently believes that matter or mass is the source of gravity when IMO the center of gravity is the "source" of matter mass...

 

[sculptor]

That is a curious perspective

 

[Quantum Quack]

That is a curious perspective

absolutely... and a lot more complex to explain than just the few words I mentioned.
"The simpleness of the universes construction is easily offset by the incredible cleverness of it's self justifying processes."

 

[Quantum Quack]

Unexpected observational results set a multitude of theoretician to work. Why the RATE of expansion of the universe is increasing has not yet been explained, AFAIK. It is only a recent observation so best that they can do now is to give a name for the unknown cause, for easy reference (Dark Energy); but that is all it is - a convenient name for something observed but not yet explained.

yes ..one would intuitively expect that the expansion of the universe post BB would be slowing and not accelerating...

So yes why would a universe be accelerating in it's expansion and what does that mean for the future of this universe if it continues to do so?
Both good questions IMO
the answer to both all comes back, IMO, to the source of gravity loosing value [strength]..

In my universe this would be caused by the source being divided instead of unified as one. Thus gravitational attraction [ dimensional collapse ] is lessening yet that which expands this universe into 4 dimensions from zero dimension is unchanged, thus expansion at an accelerating rate is inevitable. [think: escape velocity]

 

[Quantum Quack]

any ways if Climate Change continues as mankind is currently predicting or worse, all this is going to be sort of moot don't you think?


Edit: two recent, only days a part, space launches end in catastrophic failure... coincidence? I don't think so...
NASA WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY 28th-10-2014
Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo 31-10-2014

 

[Billy T]

The accelerating dangers of climate change are so profound that a failure to swiftly rein in greenhouse gas emissions will send the planet hurtling toward "severe, pervasive and irreversible" consequences, according to a new United Nations report.

Adopted Saturday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 175-page report is the fifth and final document to emerge from the group since 1990. And it warns in the starkest terms yet that humans are causing global warming and that the ramifications are no longer theoretical but are already being felt in the form of warming oceans, "unprecedented" levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and extreme weather patterns.

“Science has spoken," U.N. secretary general Ban Ki-moon said Sunday in announcing the report. "There is no ambiguity in their message."

The above is (in full) a quick summary by The Week. The full report is at link of quote below, which give just one introductory paragraph.

Failure to reduce emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages, refugee crises, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations, mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year. “Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems,”

Same story at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...sible-damage-to-planet-from-fossil-fuels.html where this photo came from (if not photoshop?):

 

[Quantum Quack]

Was wondering, Billy T or any one else, if you have you ever done the math regarding the shift of the weight of the South pole [ ice melting ] and how that would effect the rotating planet (Axis) and subsequently our orbit around the sun?

 

[river]

The above is (in full) a quick summary by The Week. The full report is at link of quote below, which give just one introductory paragraph. Same story at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...sible-damage-to-planet-from-fossil-fuels.html where this photo came from (if not photoshop?):