superball

Excellent post, well planned, touche.

Can you confirm that I'm reading you correctly, and that your argument is that it is not the release of CO2 which is leading to the increasing trend in global annual average temperatures, and that you are putting forth the assertion that deforestation is the primary cause of the upward trend we're experiencing?

 

I don't disagree that deforestation makes it worse. I said exactly that above. I'm curious why you dismiss CO2, though, and why you think deforestation alone can account for the scale and speed of the changes we're seeing.

No, I did not imply deforestation as the main cause, my only assertion was that it should have been considered. They exist side by side.

Generally, we see some release from the oceans during evaporation, and also volcanic eruptions. Unfortunately, we've not seen a spike in either which can explain the temperature trend. Human activities are indisputably the primary explanation.

You said, Generally, we see some release from the oceans during evaporation, and also volcanic eruptions.

I asked why is the human a prime mover in comparison to release from oceans, and volcanoes. certainly not a negligible factor. Volume of gas can be measurable from either side, nature, or man made. Were is that chart? I see you had included a chart, but it definitly does not express current levels, or even take into account underwater releases that are genuinely unobserved.

I simply say there is more coming from nature, and is not a negligible factor. Fine no measurable increase, even with that said it is an accumulative process, same as man.

why would the idea be excluded, if co2 may be included?

Nobody denies that radiation arrives from the sun. The issue is that there has not been a change in the sun which accompanies the changes in temperature we're seeing. Such claims simply don't hold up to scrutiny.

But there is definite change on earth leading to increased radiation reaching the surface. In this case the sun did not need to change, solar rays have become more penetrating.

We definitely have two different mind sets. A good thing.

I am very analytical in processing information. I tend to use my words as I intended for there use. Sorry if we crossed hemispheres.

PS. what is your take on my ice age proposal? could you answer some of my questions i had asked? thank you. Friends?

cheers.

Every thing in nature, everything included in a system has a generating effect on another system.

You might say mainstream global warming scientist look at a completely empty system, with no regard for all the facts, only including there axioms that blame The human race for any changes in that system.

Radioactive material, and the inability to contain it is there fault not mine. They have destroyed vast quantity of land mass, leaving it uninhabitable for generations, leaving piles of spent fuel rods in land fills, leaving that material in a delicate system such as earth enters the atmosphere, ground water, and destroys all life.

Every change leads to other changes. Simple these changes are accumulative, and the main cause of change in the system is not co2.

That is all I have to say about that. You may wonder why most people call global warming BS, because they include what there feeble minds allow them to.

They may have a theory fine, but it needs structure and not simple assertion.

you know what i am saying, not the scientists fault they are only there to cover up what is implied by these changes.

Cheers.

Greetings all, going out on a limb for gravity.

If mass equals energy, and quantitatively energy can be derived from mass, and gravity is inherently derived from mass, is it safe to say material contains gravity as energy?

Stepping on a bear trap now, if a graviton is a mass-less hypothetical particle, and has a tensor quantity to describe density, energy, and flux, could gravity actually be a particle of some size or mass?

If it is spinning, then something must take the form of matter in order for it to spin.

:blink:gravity wow. its spinning, its spinning, are you getting dizzy?

jokingly super-ball.

Agreed that deforestation does not help the situation, and even makes it worse, but the chopping down of trees alone is not enough to explain the trends we're seeing.

Did heavy deforestation start just around the same time climate record keeping started? smile. The only thing we should say is they coenside with the time line. a little more 100 years. why would the idea be excluded, if co2 may be included? lol don't answer that..

Look how much damage can be done in as few as 10 years.

http://en.wikipedia....ation_in_Borneo

More plants and trees will definitely help, but alone it will be insufficient to balance the activity of 7 billion humans on this planet digging fuels which have been buried underground for millions of years and burning them into our atmosphere.

There was certainly more demand in the last hundred years for lumber, most of very good size benefiting the system. I agree short term a balance may not be found, but we have composites that may be used as a replacement.

carbon fiber, smile. The production of solid carbon composites is a good place to start focusing on the future, even a practical way to help clean the environment. Extracting the carbon from solution or the environment..

Generally, we see some release from the oceans during evaporation, and also volcanic eruptions. Unfortunately, we've not seen a spike in either which can explain the temperature trend. Human activities are indisputably the primary explanation.

You say a temperature trend is indisputably the primary explanation, and is caused by humans, but were is your evidence of that? How do you see some release from oceans, and volcanoes as being the negligible factor?

This link states otherwise. http://pubs.usgs.gov...2/of97-262.html

A single volcanic eruption may produce a huge quantity of carbon dioxide, sulfur, other, also water vapor is the number one release into the atmosphere.

They're not necessarily related. The ice ages are more related to ocean temperatures and the warm currents in the oceans. If the CO2 causes enough warming to shift the ocean currents, then yes... that could likely lead to an ice age. The challenge is that timing this is difficult to predict, and we cannot easily predict what behaviors humans will engage in, and whether or not we'll begin to take this threat seriously and use greener technologies like solar, wind, and battery.

If co2 is not necessarily related, then why does mainstream always include it? Was this another assumption? I do like your take on using greener technologies.

I agree oceanic temperatures plays a major roll considering the earth is close to 70%. Please explain how this gaseous material co2 can shift the currents, is there some strong force we are dealing with?

I would be more happy if you had said the solar warmth reaching the oceans, cause heating, and change.

Thanks for your previous post, I hope I do not complicate things any more than I had intended too. Smile

Respectfully superball.

Even if there was one billion different particles It would still be possible to categorize them perhaps into 4 or less parts?

Perhaps like this, particles are divided into 2 piles. positive charge particles, and negative. Below, or above the plane of enlightenment.

If we found negative mass particles, and they are called anti particles they would still have there anti particle negative, or positive charges, in the negative reality scene, below the plane of enlightenment.

speculation of course, but perhaps...

respectfully super ball.

Its a very interesting array of mirror reflectors, and the salt solutions after they become molten has insulation properties,for heat retention.

The problem I see is it is very inefficient designed.

Research, and development was key in getting this idea off the ground, but the concept is still a good one.

I would use sunlight, steam power, and the power of hydrogen, and oxygen as the fuel to sustain the energy in the system.

1. by a process of super-heating steam for generators.

2. by the use of natural light sources processing superheated steam to its constitute parts even further for use as fuel..

3. by the absorption, and reflective spectrum energies of natural sunlight by acting higher the energy vacuum electron energies, and emissions of the same.

There is some other very key concepts that validate this idea.

I hope it is ok to cut, and paste the information for your review. I cant find the link, here is the hard copy.

Absolute Proof that Operational COP>1.0 EM Systems Are Possible and Eventually Practical

Brody, Herb. Victor Klimov in Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has constructed a solar cell which can absorb the light of a specific wave length in such a way, that one photon can energize more than one electron. As soon as the electron absorbs a photon, it disappears for a very short moment into the quantum field. Being in the virtual state the electron can borrow energy from the vacuum and thereafter appears again in our reality. Now the electron can energize up to 7 other electrons. This leads to a theoretical coefficient of performance (COP) of 700%. A COP = 200% can be readily achieved and it has been. The experiment has also been replicated successfully by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden Colorado. [Herb Brody, "Solar Power - Seriously Souped Up." New Scientist, May 27, 2006, p 45].

Quoting: "Make solar cells as small as a molecule; and you get more than you bargained for. Could this be the route to limitless clean power?"].

modnote: deletia

AFAICT the entirety of the remainder of the material (now deleted) is located here: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/100608.htm

Greetings all, I had some interesting concerns, and would like your take on the validity of human life evolving into DNA strings that eventually will include silicon.

Is there a possibility of human evolution incorporating silicon, or crystalline silicon DNA strings? Can evolution of man also incorporate crystallizing carbon strings as well ?

Respectfully, superball.

Author notes, and topics open for review.

Greetings all, I have outlined key factors, that separate this model from main stream science. I would like to validate any responses to this topic.

when dealing with terminology, it was stated many factors mainstream claimed may have been overlooked, ignored, assumed, and misleading.

This is open for discussion.

It was said facts stated in this model do not fit in with current understanding on the subject. Have the virtues of science been ignored, along with the process, and steps necessary for functionality of a working model been distorted over the years?

This is open for discussion.

All assumptions have been eliminated. The major relations dealing with cause, and effect have been determined, and demonstrated. This followed by answering the questions that make valid relations, rather then assumptions that science can not account for.

Self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition, or assumption.

Was it this model that has taken for granted self evident processes, and delimit the realm of analysis, or has main stream confounded the situation, because they lost there way by not following self evident principles, and observation?

This is open for discussion.

Author notes. Modern scientists have lost sight of these simple truths, and have polluted a valid working model to the point of dis-functionality.

A fresh start is the best way to solve these issues, listing cause, and effect on a scale of importance, by its own merit, and not by adding impertinent factors, that ask for assumptions based uncertainty.

I hope you have learned as much as I have dealing with this subject, and its leading role for past, present, and future understanding, predictions, and interpretations.

I have enjoyed providing,and addressing all concerns. Thank you for all your positive feed back.

Respectfully superball.

You gotta admit, the Q and A part of the model is definitely an axiom.

 

Superball, How do you figure the earth's climate is a closed system?

In one way its closed, in another it is open. refer to auroras, it is a result of an external force. A CME does cause induction of that energy into the ionosphere, that energy can indeed reach the surface as electric charge. I said it was closed, because I was relating to the atmosphere, assuming it did not leak into outer-space, but in reality it can. I vote open technically. I include both perspectives

, I haven't a clue. Yet. Also, the relative matter gained, and loss is negligable, so it points towards the "closed system" idea...

 

 

ocean & atmospheric currents show that this "system" is changing.

 

 

(This links into my report, and how if we're changing this world, will it shift to minimise this change, and bring about a short period of global cooling, instead of everyone's anticipated "tipping point")

What leads you to the assumption relative matter gain, or losses are negligible? A common mistake.

yes the system is changing quickly, a body in motion remains in motion.

In this case the changing circulation patterns, oceanic tides, or king tides if you like. A bubble on the level only takes the slightest movements to cause a shift.

On a global scale cold air circulation from the southern hemisphere will produce immediate effects in the form of powerful storms. The changes are related to today, and is valid for future outcomes.

The tipping point, or plane of equality has already been found to have changed, by the balance on the scale.

Linking a further assumptions is another mistake.

Final.

"Terminology of definitions, context :

in traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition, or assumption.

to be the cause of; bring about. A person, or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect: "

Background for reader.

Science has been looking for evidence that explain what chain of events, or factors play a major role in predicting cataclysmic events in the past, present, and future.

Making past assumptions leads to debate, a major problem for modern theoretical advancements, and the difficulty researchers have addressing these issues.

My goal : By taking certain considerations, and factors into account paving the way for new viable study dealing with past, present, and future crisis of the environment. With the flurry of data entering the debate, certain real factors may have been ignored, or misunderstood in recent years, leading to false, or misleading outcomes. The reader is stuck in the middle of this debate, asking more questions than having answers provided.

In light of the moon, Bruce Lee said, "don't focus on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory."

I have chosen the date Jan 29, 2010 to begin this study. Why? Because it was then certain information had come to light relating to the events that follow. I bring your attention to the first wolf moon in 20 years. smiling at Bruce. The event may have not been all that memorable to the reader, but it was for me. What occurred shortly thereafter was something incredible indeed. After turning my attention away from the moon I observed the sun in its relation out of curiosity for the event. I had discovered the sun was in a process of change, that change was the beginning of a new solar cycle. (solar cycle 24) A process that will be the most memorable event for the rest of my life. After I had observed this process for the next 5 to 7 days I had confirmed that a new solar cycle had begun. shortly after it was also confirmed by leading scientists of the day.

The next observation lead me to focus on the effects this change could have on the planet earth, and that is just what i did. I now had 3 factors to keep a close eye on. Each new factor was leading to other factors with a higher, and higher degree of probable outcomes. (cause, and effect chain.)

1. The sun. solar rotational periods.

2. The moon. lunar periods of change.

3. The planet earth, and all the effects relate to these changes.

The first real results came as a series of powerful earthquakes. Unaware at the time of the historical implications of the Jan 17, 2010 Haiti earthquake,

occurring just prior to the start of solar cycle 24. I had considered all may have been by coincidence, and my attention was now on the The Vernal Equinox. A time when the Sun reaches the balancing point in its path through the tropical zodiac, when the length of the day is equal to the length of the night. It marks the beginning of the new astrological year, (the new age) The dawning of the age of Aquarius.

It was my belief at the time Feb 16, 2010 marked Equinox, sweet 16. I also confirmed it had occurred in a specific location on the planet looking at astronomical charts.

If you like a good mystery like I do, check out the coral castle By Edward Leedskalnin.

My focus is on the stars, I had observed something special. Jupiter aligns with mars, and the moon enters the seventh house. looking from the northern hemisphere to the west. One pill will make you grow, one pill will make you small. (feeding your head) I had expanded my mind. Smile.

These are the true observations I had made.

I scrabbled for more information in astronomy, solar cycles, lunar cycles, Earth cycles, and precession. I found what I was looking for, unknowing what would lead to the next change, and cause of events that would follow. I had found MIT lectures By X-ray Astronomer Walter Lewin, and proceeded to watch them all, over the next several months. 801, 802, and 803 lectures, as a refresher to my major.

11 days later, Feb 27, 2010 Great quake of chili happened. I thought could this have any relation to this special time, and are these effects directly related? Focusing now on Earth weather patterns, cloud cover, and the circulation within our atmosphere. I observed closely, and intently for the last couple of years. What had occurred next was another astonishing effect, seemingly there was a hick-up in the direction of circulation within the system.

Storms had spawned quickly after the Great quake, and I was like, another coincidence? I started questioning my motives to find a solution to these effects. What would be revealed to me over the course of the next year could not be caused by the sun alone. Prior to this i began predicting powerful earthquakes accurately, and immediately began to understand the true meaning of climatology. storms would spawn, cyclones, tornadoes, and even hail in diverse places on earth. Another coincidence i said? questioning my sanity, my mind suddenly ruptured into a volcano of information from my observations. I made several conclusions, and these conclusions were short lived, until I discovered the induction factor.

Induction you may say? Yes, at this point several volcanoes began to erupt within a short period of time, and had to understand this better for my own research purposes, and knowledge. I found part of the answer. Induction, something was causing the Earths core to expand I said. On the next new moon, another eruption had occurred, and for a period of time, about 3 months the eruptions had stopped. This is very odd, I was convinced science could explain these immediate effects, and by 2011 I had used all the information I had gained, and applied it with present day predictions. Looking always for a cause, and effect, I had discovered a short time period of about 13 days before a major event, and they did occur as expected.

This was in relation to earthquakes, so i made it my goal to prove there was no way this is a coincidence. I would set as a minimum magnitude that could not be only by chance. 6.4 was the norm for these time variable events, and then i demonstrated to many of my friends who are extremely skeptical with ease. I raised the bar once again, I had set the limits of reportable magnitude to at least 7.0. with The same outcome. I even had the March 11 2011 quake predicted to 24 hours. That is strange indeed.

hold on to your pants for part 2

Prior to the March 11 2011 quake, I was looking for variables, I was also expecting the first results relating to strong quakes by February 16 2010, although it may have been subtle, or a overlooked effect at 6.4 , taking place in the same region in Japan. This as a signal of effects I had thought, a pair of events would signal the predicted outcomes following part one.

4. Induction factor related to expansion periods during the time frame proposed, 2 years. this can be extended 2 more years taken what was learned.

5. Angular momentum, or earth rotational speed that is under change, relating to the circulation of air flow in the system.

6. Oceanic tidal surges, and there specific location to the rotational center of mass of the given body. accompanied by marine life loosing the ability to navigate by instinct.

Even other magnetic variations in the system, causing airplanes to miss runways wile trying to land, and crash. leading to the recalibration of airport automatic safe guards that use the earths magnetic field.

7. A genuine gravitational lensing effect, and an increase in uv bursts, magnetic flux, or pressure, (casimir effect) coronal mass ejections, solar flairs, and solar winds interacting with the earths ionosphere. (Auroras) leading to ozone production, and the rarefaction of our atmosphere.

8. concluding with the continued effects, time lines, and progressive events.

All of these factors were found to be related to cause, these are the major determining predictable factors that validate this model wile at the same time excluding less known causes such as an increase of co2 levels in the system, the continued reduction of Antarctic ozone levels, or the depletion of the rain forests. even by excluding all man made flora carbons of the last 100 years,

What relations, or assumptions have you made by reading about my progress?

What may have been the author inner meaning, when referring to the analogy of the door mouse, when he said feed your head?

One pill will make you grow, one pill will make you small. Feeding your head I had expanded my mind.

The twist is in the traits of the species. The doors that are enshrouded, are now open. The sleepy mouse comes out to play.

What may have been implied by the rabbit from a hat?

That a magician does not reveal his secrets, but in this case science does.

I will include any other research and advancements if requested.

I thank you for your time. looking forward to your reviews. respectfully, superball.

http://news.national...moon-2010-mars/

http://science.nasa....6mar_supermoon/

http://science.nasa....ep_harvestmoon/

http://dundalk.patch...-rising-tonight

http://www.examiner....ight-january-29

How much was assumed by the reference, ah clarity? How do you gain clarity relating too white rabbit? Please explain how its starting to pick up. Is there some understanding? is that implied?

 

I will thank you for doing so. The twist is at the end.

There was a reason I had included it.

I suggest it depends upon which aspects of the world you are looking at. If you are looking at it from a purely mass perspective then it is, almost, a closed system. However, in most instances it is assuredly not a closed system since we have substantial thermal input from the sun. I'm surprised you've found textbooks describing it as closed. I suggest you take a closer look at the caveats they may have applied that would render it a closed system in the context they are considering.

In one way its closed, in another it is open. refer to auroras, it is a result of an external force. A CME does cause induction of that energy into the ionosphere, that energy can indeed reach the surface as electric charge.

I said it was closed, because I was relating to the atmosphere, assuming it did not leak into outer-space, but in reality it can.

I vote open. 1 for open technically.

I would include both perspectives in your report. Good poll.

Guys, my short paragraphs have turned into a short story. before you read on, understand I am giving account for my progress, and cause chain. If anything at all is true, I hope at least you will enjoy reading part 1. (one) I need a break..

Background for reader.

Science has been looking for evidence that explain what chain of events, or factors play a major role in predicting cataclysmic events in the past, present, and future.

Making past assumptions leads to debate, a major problem for modern theoretical advancements, and the difficulty researchers have addressing these issues.

My goal : By taking certain considerations, and factors into account paving the way for new viable study's dealing with past, present, and future crisis of the environment. With the flurry of data entering the debate, certain real factors may have been ignored, or misunderstood in recent years, leading to false, or misleading outcomes. The reader is stuck in the middle of this debate, asking more questions, than having answers provided.

In light of the moon, Bruce Lee said, "don't focus on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory."

I have chosen the date Jan 29, 2010 to begin this study. Why? Because it was then certain information had come to light relating to the events that follow. I bring your attention to the first wolf moon in 20 years. smiling at Bruce. The event may have not been all that memorable to the reader, but it was for me. What occurred shortly thereafter was something incredible indeed. After turning my attention away from the moon I observed the sun in its relation out of curiosity for the event. I had discovered the sun was in a process of change, that change was the beginning of a new solar cycle. (solar cycle 24) A process that will be the most memorable event for the rest of my life. After I had observed this process for the next 5 to 7 days I had confirmed that a new solar cycle had begun. shortly after it was also confirmed by leading scientists of the day.

The next observation lead me to focus on the effects this change could have on the planet earth, and that is just what i did. I now had 3 factors to keep a close eye on. Each new factor was leading to other factors with a higher, and higher degree of probable outcomes. (cause, and effect chain.)

1. The sun. solar rotational periods.

2. The moon. lunar periods of change.

3. The planet earth, and all the effects relate to these changes.

The first real results came as a series of powerful earthquakes. Unaware at the time of the historical implications of the Jan 17, 2010 Haiti earthquake,

occurring just prior to the start of solar cycle 24. I had considered all may have been by coincidence, and my attention was now on the The Vernal Equinox. A time when the Sun reaches the balancing point in its path through the tropical zodiac, when the length of the day is equal to the length of the night. It marks the beginning of the new astrological year, (the new age) The dawning of the age of Aquarius.

It was my belief at the time Feb 16, 2010 marked Equinox, sweet 16. I also confirmed it had occurred in a specific location on the planet looking at astronomical charts.

If you like a good mystery like I do, check out the coral castle By Ed Lee for a good read.

My focus is on the stars, I had observed something special. Jupiter aligns with mars, and the moon enters the seventh house. looking from the northern hemisphere to the west. One pill will make you grow, one pill will make you small. (feeding your head) I had expanded my mind. Smile.

These are the true observations I had made.

I scrabbled for more information in astronomy, solar cycles, lunar cycles, Earth cycles, and precession. I found what I was looking for, unknowing what would lead to the next change, and cause of events that would follow. I had found MIT lectures By X-ray Astronomer Walter Lewin, and proceeded to watch them all, over the next several months. 801, 802, and 803 lectures, as a refresher to my major.

11 days later, Feb 27, 2010 Great quake of chili happened. I thought could this have any relation to this special time, and are these effects directly related? Focusing now on Earth weather patterns, cloud cover, and the circulation within our atmosphere. I observed closely, and intently for the last couple of years. What had occurred next was another astonishing effect, seemingly there was a hick-up in the direction of circulation within the system.

Storms had spawned quickly after the Great quake, and I was like, another coincidence? I started questioning my motives to find a solution to these effects. What would be revealed to me over the course of the next year could not be caused by the sun alone. Prior to this i began predicting powerful earthquakes accurately, and immediately began to understand the true meaning of climatology. storms would spawn, cyclones, tornadoes, and even hail in diverse places on earth. Another coincidence i said? questioning my sanity, my mind suddenly ruptured into a volcano of information from my observations. I made several conclusions, and these conclusions were short lived, until I discovered the induction factor.

Induction you may say? Yes, at this point several volcanoes began to erupt within a short period of time, and had to understand this better for my own research purposes, and knowledge. I found part of the answer. Induction, something was causing the Earths core to expand I said. On the next new moon, another eruption had occurred, and for a period of time, about 3 months the eruptions had stopped. This is very odd, I was convinced science could explain these immediate effects, and by 2011 I had used all the information I had gained, and applied it with present day predictions. Looking always for a cause, and effect, I had discovered a short time period of about 13 days before a major event, and they did occur as expected.

This was in relation to earthquakes, so i made it my goal to prove there was no way this is a coincidence. I would set as a minimum magnitude that could not be only by chance. 6.4 was the norm for these time variable events, and then i demonstrated to many of my friends who are extremely skeptical with ease. I raised the bar once again, I had set the limits of reportable magnitude to at least 7.0. with The same outcome. I even had the March 11 2011 quake predicted to 24 hours. That is strange indeed.

hold on to your pants for part 2.

Superball I want to communicate to you that your posting style is, for me at least, very frustrating. You still haven't given me any insight into what your thesis is. Please cut to the chase.

You say this:

I agree completely. will you now provide an outline of that model and explain the causation chain you are proposing?

 

I am very sorry if I had not given you the proper answer to your question, I thought it to be self explanatory.

My thesis is: Q: "What are the potential causes, and effects for Global changes. Such as changes in a closed system leading to the dawning of Ice age periods in the future, or past periods of the same?

A: " That at least one cause, or a string of causes may explain to a high degree, specific outcomes in relation to past, future, and present periods of climate change through observation, and historical study of the same.

I will add the paragraphs you asked for in the chain of events shortly.

Thank you for your help, respectfully superball.

Superball, perhaps you have been so close to this study for the last two years that you have lost sight of the fact that it is all completely new to us - or rather your particular take on climate change is new to us. I still have no idea what it is you are saying. Could you summarise your thesis in a couple of paragraphs, so that we can move forward from that.

 

You say this:

I agree completely. will you now provide an outline of that model and explain the causation chain you are proposing?

I accept your terms. I hope you will accept mine as well.

"Terminology of definitions, context :

in traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition, or assumption.

to be the cause of; bring about. A person, or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect: "

Greetings all, this is a challenge, I am willing to provide in conclusion how I was able to deduce this model, and the ability of it to be self evident, if you had the first determining factor, or cause in a chain of events, future predictions are possible.

Don't get all technical on me guys with terminology. Simply a string of causes, and out comes that should be self evident.

In light of the moon, Bruce Lee said, "don't focus on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory." Smile.

A recent chain of events with predictable outcomes. The model is valid if the main concept that was used to provide some, but not all of the most likely outcomes. same is true for global warming theory.

Starting with the extinction of the dinosaurs, what was the main cause for there disappearance?

We do not have the single cause, even though scientists have been postulating for many many years. Observation in my opinion is Key to this model. A logical statement can be a large meteorite, volcanic eruption on a global scale, or an ice age had caused it. Although it was not observed by modern man the most probable reason was some cataclysmic event. This still cant be 100% proof of cause. With that said I will lay the foundation of what can be observed today.

Start date January 29th 2010:

Perhaps light can change speed under certain conditions.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html

white rabbit.

cheers.

A black hole is a relativistic effect of an extreme concentration of mass/energy governed by the Einstein field equations of general relativity. A black hole is really a 4-dimensional structure in the Lorentzian spacetime manifold, and curvature of that manifold is both extreme and the major issue.

 

A hurricane is a fluid dynamic manifestation of continuum mechanics as described by the Naviere-Stokes equation, which is non-relativistic and applies in flat 3-space. The large-scale structure to which you refer is essentially 2-dimensional, though the flow involved is 3-dimensional and locally turbulent.

 

Any similarity between a hurricane and a black hole is pure coincidence.

Excellent information there, thank you for elaborating.

Now that brings me to another question. Maybe science had it wrong, just kidding? >space time fabric=space time waters.< If that was the case we could use fluid dynamics, or a manifestation of continuum mechanics to describe the universe? A little bird told me so. Again just kidding? Sorry, I went off on a tangent.

The real question, or magic unfolds from the effects of the black hole, were jets of high energy particles and material are sent out from the black hole, (perpendicular do the disk) expelling them perhaps faster then light, forming the new pockets of nebula moving at a high rate of speed. Given time the energy(material) would slow (condense), and rest to a degree forming new galaxy's that appear to be moving away from the observer. Red shift? I'm happy with that. (Top jet to form a positive attracting galaxy, bottom jet a negative charge repelling galaxy.) following the inverse-square law of course.

What do you think?

Again sorry if I am off on a tangent.

I'm pretty sure earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are separate from any climate change phenomena, so how would a climate model predict these?

The cyclical cycle of precession, that is torque induced.

justinW I don't mean to sound critical either but I don't think you've clearly stated any assumptions. The earth's axis is already proven to have changed an areas climate. That's why we have the sahara desert.

The cyclical cycle of precession, that is torque induced.

Factors, conclusions:

A change in location, and, or axial position of a body in relation to The galactic plane, and its magnetic alignments to the stars.

Earth may experience diverse effects, including magnetic anomaly, including a change in air flow direction, or temperature within a given system. assuming it has an atmosphere.

storms, hurricanes, cyclones, oceanic tidal shifts, current changes in the Atlantic ocean, Earthquakes of specific magnitude that are also time sensitive.

amended: including earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, that are time sensitive. including a redistribution of oceanic waters throughout the system, especially closest to the Earth center of mass.

I don't think you guys will be happy with this, if I need more I will be happy to address your concerns.

Thank you for all your questions.

Can the effects of friction and static electricity effect bodies on a galactic scale?

 

If the gravity source at the center of the galaxy is pulling matter in at such an accelerated rate then the friction must cause enormous energy to be released and electromagnetism would be on an uncomprehending scale, it must have some effect on even the outer reaches of the galaxy in question.

 

Has this effect been measured and can the electromagnetic forces in question help explain the speed of bodies in the far reaches of the galaxy?

 

Please answer in simple terms as I am at best a curious layman.

wow, I was just thinking about the same thing, and looking for a place to post a few questions about black holes.

Not exactly the same, but close?

Just a quick background on my train of thought , before I found your post.

I was thinking of a black hole as the center of a hurricane. I was like Hmm? Then the question, Does a black hole act like a hurricane? It has bands, like a Galaxy, and in the center not much going on.

The eye-wall, and the eye itself at the center, Like a black hole with a twist.

Naturally I asked myself the question, what is the difference between the two? The black hole has a high mass, wile the hurricanes center is very much the opposite.

Back to the drawing board, Wile the concentration of mass appears at the event horizon, and not at the center of the black hole for obvious reasons. Wile the hurricane eye wall has the highest wind speeds.

I asked another question. If the pressure at the center is the lowest pressure of the hurricane, then could the black hole in the center actually have a lower pressure also, compared to the event horizon?

Now another question unfolded, Is the black hole acting as a generator, generating waves that reach the outer bands of the galaxy? I thought possibly. Then I was like wow, the generating low pressure at the center is causing magnetic, and electrical disturbances through out the entire galaxy, all the way to the outer arms that are in rotation.

Finally I was like Gravity at the center of either system is using a centrifugal force to distribute gravity, or energy throughout the system. (Gravity as in, a vortex of magnetic particles flowing outwardly.

Electricity, and magnetism acts in the same manner perhaps, One inward force centrifugal, one outward centripetal. (Inward force= electrical component, outward force=magnetic.)

I just had to share. Could you please speculate on these questions, and add a reply.

I seem to have lost a reply to some questions, during the slip up. sorry for that my bad.

lucky I had saved it.

I'm not sure I understand the reason for the topic.

Reason for topic, this is a special study to me, and I want to share, and receive concerns by others.

Theory may not be the proper term, more like a physical model of a closed system.

Are you trying to provide reasons as to why there are dramatic climate changes through out history? The posts that I've read so far only state facts, for the most part, that are already known and doesn't state a possible conclusion as to why you need a theory.

It is my goal to include conclusions, and introduce facts as well, facts that are agreed upon by others. There are predictable outcomes when we look at causes.

Is there some possible outcome or future prediction to your theory?

Yes, future predictions can be reflected upon, I have done this over the last 2 years with accuracy. In this case the predictions are immediate effects.

I will include predictions, and cause if you would like, but this enters into the realm of skepticism, and Is also frowned upon by main stream global warming theorists. perhaps even this forum.

I have accurately predicted, storms, hurricanes, cyclones, oceanic tidal shifts, current changes in the Atlantic ocean, Earthquakes of specific magnitude that are time sensitive as well, even volcanic eruptions following the time sensitive relation. Some alarming outcomes.

Perhaps the world is not ready for someone to come along, and say he can predict future problems based on this model.

are we just sharing information on climate changes through history and the causes of those changes? It's highly possible I've missed something so please elaborate as to the point you are trying to make.

Yes, and no. Historically when a change such as the extinction of the dinosaurs is presented, scientist want to include a cause, and they do. meteor impacts, volcano eruption, or ice age.

I have included known causes, because the outcome is highly probable.

Before I am willing to add predictions, I think it is a good idea to establish a working model, and have a good understanding of causation.

I would also like to have others address there concerns as the model stands.

Thank you very much for your concerns, and questions.

I hope I had addressed your questions sufficiently, and respectfully.

stand by..... problem with buttons..

superball thank you for your reply. I must echo JustinW's remarks: I'm not sure what you are saying, or why you are saying it.

I hope I had addressed your concern in the last post.

you say your 'theory', thoughts (?), whatever, are not superior to what we have now. In that case why propose it? Science is about providing better (i.e. superior) explanations. If your proposal is not better then it is of little value.

"From WIKI Occam's razor, is a principle that generally recommends selecting from among competing hypotheses the one that makes the fewest new assumptions."

Generally the fewer the new assumptions that can sufficiently relate to cause is the superior theory. That would suggest I have a huge ego, no I do not.

You say you need a few days to pull the information together. I can understand that, though it seems to contradict your statement that you have been working on this for two years.

The reason I had said I needed time to include the research, was to review what would be sufficient to include for the reader.

By no means can I include all of the research, because so much of it has been through reading books, PDF files of global warming theory, Philosophy, astronomy, the study of stars, etc. and much, much more. I included a small fraction relevant to the model.

Thank you guys for adding your thoughts. I hope I had addressed your issues.

respectfully superball.

Added notes, not explicitly used as a source, this theory was formed before I had knowledge of HAB theory, but I reached some of the same conclusions.

http://www.habtheory.com/1/101.php

http://en.wikipedia....hift_hypothesis

http://co2now.org/Kn...ate-change.html

Advanced, in depth variables. Included for further research.

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...nic-2009-09.pdf

Was that a reply to my questions? If so could you relate specific responses to specific questions. If not, could you please reply.

No sir, I had asked for a few days to gather the data to support this model, like any good scientist it must be included. I will address your question soon.

What do you feel makes your proposed hypothesis superior to existing explanations for ice ages?

Greetings.

Superior? no, simple yes, based on what we already know. More variables may complicate things. I have included only what can be agreed upon by the majority.

What mechanism are you suggesting would produce the axis shift you refer to?

The cyclical cycle of precession, I included the MIT lecture for visualization, and mathematical formula. There are two observations to describe this.

one is called a torque free precession, the other is called torque induced. I adhere to the torque induced precession analogy, because we know there is friction that would cause a body in space to eventually stop. The spinning top is what I want to show you. on earth the spinning top will eventually fall down and stop rotation, more friction.

The same is true in outer space, only the top will spin for a much, much, longer period of time. Even if you watch the experiments in the MIT lecture this is stated to be factual.

In order for the spinning body earth to tilt, there must be a force to cause that. Walter Lewin uses the spinning bicycle wheel to show how external torque, and its direction of movement will effect the bicycle wheel. very non intuitive. When the torque is removed the object that is spinning, (Earth) does not Tilt any more, and angular momentum takes over once again. A natural wobble.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Precession

What makes you think the universe has an up and down? (Hint: all present cosmologies do not think so.)

This relates More so, the galactic plane, I have included that reference. Much easier to see our solar system relative below, or above the accretion disc. I am not saying we are going through the disc, only to show orientation.

http://en.wikipedia..../Accretion_disc

Everything is relative to the observer's point of reference in time and space.

Once the Euclidean plane has been described in this language, it is actually a simple matter to extend its concept to arbitrary dimensions. It has an Axis of rotation. even if it be a circle.

If i mark the top of the circle with the letter N, and rotate the wheel 180 degrees the N will be at the bottom of the wheel. relative to the observer. You may also use positive, and negative sines to do that. Plus, or Minus.

I hope I had addressed your questions completely for your understanding of my premise, and also the reader.

thank you for your reply.

Greetings all.

 

I have been working on this theory over the last two years.

A warning this is a very unconventional theory, it only came to light recently, and is related to my special study's.

This will include research I have done in order to make global climate change theory possible to every reader.

I formed the theory to account for the recent flurry of questions about ice ages, and Global warming.

The information I will include will have as many Facts as possible for this very simple Ice age theory.

 

Before you post your concerns, give me a few days to gather all the pertinent data for the possibility of review.

 

Background information, define my view on ice age.

A change in climate were the northern pole, southern pole, or both begin to experience a build up of ice sheet, or snow cap for an unidentified period of time.

This can relate to mini Ice age definition also, because the best I can do is relate this to observation.

 

The "wiki"- definition An ice age or, more precisely, glacial age, is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets, and alpine glaciers.

 

The wiki definition is also speculative, because it considered an ice age as a long term scenario. I simply excluded that premise. SAVE>>>

 

Basics:

There are many circumstances that can be related to an ice age, long term, or short term. It is my objective to keep it very simple.

 

1. Earths temperature in relation to the evaporation rate of the oceans world wide. More evaporation, more water vapor in the atmosphere.

How can cloud cover effect the globe in relation to temperature rains, snow, oceanic currents, and airflow circulation in the system?

In the same manner volcanic gasses may block out the sun. In the same manner if a deep impact was to occur here on earth, by causing the solar rays to be reflected.

Sight research.>>>

This could lead to a progressive ice age, as time passes world temperatures will fall at a faster rate, more so after the blocking of solar radiation.

 

2. Volcanic emissions can block out the sun, dust from either volcanoes, meteorite impacts, and the deforestation of the planet. leading to a colder climate due to less solar warmth reaching the earths surface.

 

3. Solar fluctuations, may lead to a cooling, or warming of earths surface. Both can lead to an ice age.

sight research>>

 

4. A change in Earths Axis position can lead to a warming, and, or cooling in one hemisphere over the other, due to a lack of equilibrium in the system.

The coldest air can move to another location, such as over the northern hemisphere.

 

5, A meteorite impact may lead to a progressive ice age if the meteorite had enough mass, and speed to cause the solar rays to be blocked from the surface.

 

These factors may not answer all of the possible circumstances related to ice age periods, but I want to keep this very simple, and base it on what we already know.

Sight research>>>

 

save<<<

 

Premise:

 

Try to see this for what I show. A carpenters level. it has a bubble of air in the center, it is used to show what side is up, and what side is down.

The air bubble in the center shows equilibrium.

how can I use this in my model that this is so in the case of our planet?

 

let earths axis be the level plane, and if I stretched my level from north to south pole the bubble is in perfect equilibrium.. This be the implication, the earth has an up and down, because so does the universe.

obviously we are not in perfect equilibrium when it comes to cold air finding its place among the cold air in our planet system.

We may then state the planet is not in perfect balance, and the bubble resides over the southern pole, rather then the equator.

Ponder the thought..

 

How will that bubble shift from equilibrium? Not as hard as you may make it, but by a change in earth axial position. This could cause the bubble to shift.

In relation to the northern hemisphere, and a southern.

The coldest hemisphere is the southern hemispheric, because of Antarctica having a lower temperature then the north pole, and also by the angle and time period the sun shines on that area.

 

 

Factor:

A change in location, and, or axial position of a body in relation to The galactic plane, and its magnetic alignments to the stars.

Earth may experience diverse effects, including magnetic anomaly, including a change in air flow direction, or temperature within a given system. assuming it has an atmosphere.

 

Sight research>>>

 

Now I wish to cause all the cold air in the south to flow to the north. How can that be?

A move in axis could prove a shift in bubble, and therefore equilibrium is now in the process of shift, and change.

Perhaps this is a clue for the start of the age mentioned.

 

Norther side now in a process of cold air shift that will eventually find its equilibrium with the coldest air once again above the northern pole.

The proper term is arctic, tropical, continental flow. Define description>>>

Sight research>>

 

save<<

 

Please allow me a few days to include all the data. thank you.

The proper term is arctic, tropical, continental flow. Define description> The term refers to the origination of cold air in the system. In the northern hemisphere it is sometimes called a polar blast, meaning the air comes from the north pole, and dips down to the lower states. polar continental air flow.

self explanatory, if the northern hemisphere is to receive a blast of cold air that crosses the equator, from the southern hemisphere we would call that arctic, tropical, continental, because the flow of air must cross these boundaries.

Axis shift confirmed.

http://www.jpl.nasa....elease=2010-071

http://www.jpl.nasa....elease=2011-080

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6145613258375934413

2010 results, and also the 2011 results for Earth axial shift from a reliable source. This also apply s to torque induced precession, see MIT lecture to see the effect of torque induced precession.

A simple tilt in axis is what I want to show. This makes it possible for every student to understand. Extremely non intuitive.

http://www.atmos.ill...t_transfer.html

http://www.astrobio....-for-an-ice-age

Solar fluctuations lead to global warming and cooling?

solar anomaly's can lead to an ice age. common sense.

http://www-istp.gsfc...ze/Sun1lite.htm

http://www.tulane.ed...204/impacts.htm

Volcano and meteorite role elementary.

This does not mean it is true, but this is what we already know. Very elementary.

Galaxy relative to the galactic plain, up, and down orientation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1378

http://www.cliffsnot...leId-23567.html

Greetings all.

I have been working on this theory over the last two years.

A warning this is a very unconventional theory, it only came to light recently, and is related to my special study's.

This will include research I have done in order to make global climate change theory possible to every reader.

I formed the theory to account for the recent flurry of questions about ice ages, and Global warming.

The information I will include will have as many Facts as possible for this very simple Ice age theory.

Before you post your concerns, give me a few days to gather all the pertinent data for the possibility of review.

Background information, define my view on ice age.

A change in climate were the northern pole, southern pole, or both begin to experience a build up of ice sheet, or snow cap for an unidentified period of time.

This can relate to mini Ice age definition also, because the best I can do is relate this to observation.

The "wiki"- definition An ice age or, more precisely, glacial age, is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets, and alpine glaciers.

The wiki definition is also speculative, because it considered an ice age as a long term scenario. I simply excluded that premise. SAVE>>>

Basics:

There are many circumstances that can be related to an ice age, long term, or short term. It is my objective to keep it very simple.

1. Earths temperature in relation to the evaporation rate of the oceans world wide. More evaporation, more water vapor in the atmosphere.

How can cloud cover effect the globe in relation to temperature rains, snow, oceanic currents, and airflow circulation in the system?

In the same manner volcanic gasses may block out the sun. In the same manner if a deep impact was to occur here on earth, by causing the solar rays to be reflected.

Sight research.>>>

This could lead to a progressive ice age, as time passes world temperatures will fall at a faster rate, more so after the blocking of solar radiation.

2. Volcanic emissions can block out the sun, dust from either volcanoes, meteorite impacts, and the deforestation of the planet. leading to a colder climate due to less solar warmth reaching the earths surface.

3. Solar fluctuations, may lead to a cooling, or warming of earths surface. Both can lead to an ice age.

sight research>>

4. A change in Earths Axis position can lead to a warming, and, or cooling in one hemisphere over the other, due to a lack of equilibrium in the system.

The coldest air can move to another location, such as over the northern hemisphere.

5, A meteorite impact may lead to a progressive ice age if the meteorite had enough mass, and speed to cause the solar rays to be blocked from the surface.

These factors may not answer all of the possible circumstances related to ice age periods, but I want to keep this very simple, and base it on what we already know.

Sight research>>>

save<<<

Premise:

Try to see this for what I show. A carpenters level. it has a bubble of air in the center, it is used to show what side is up, and what side is down.

The air bubble in the center shows equilibrium.

how can I use this in my model that this is so in the case of our planet?

let earths axis be the level plane, and if I stretched my level from north to south pole the bubble is in perfect equilibrium.. This be the implication, the earth has an up and down, because so does the universe.

obviously we are not in perfect equilibrium when it comes to cold air finding its place among the cold air in our planet system.

We may then state the planet is not in perfect balance, and the bubble resides over the southern pole, rather then the equator.

Ponder the thought..

How will that bubble shift from equilibrium? Not as hard as you may make it, but by a change in earth axial position. This could cause the bubble to shift.

In relation to the northern hemisphere, and a southern.

The coldest hemisphere is the southern hemispheric, because of Antarctica having a lower temperature then the north pole, and also by the angle and time period the sun shines on that area.

Factor:

A change in location, and, or axial position of a body in relation to The galactic plane, and its magnetic alignments to the stars.

Earth may experience diverse effects, including magnetic anomaly, including a change in air flow direction, or temperature within a given system. assuming it has an atmosphere.

Sight research>>>

Now I wish to cause all the cold air in the south to flow to the north. How can that be?

A move in axis could prove a shift in bubble, and therefore equilibrium is now in the process of shift, and change.

Perhaps this is a clue for the start of the age mentioned.

Norther side now in a process of cold air shift that will eventually find its equilibrium with the coldest air once again above the northern pole.

The proper term is arctic, tropical, continental flow. Define description>>>

Sight research>>

save<<

Please allow me a few days to include all the data. thank you.

Here you go:

 

http://www.sciencefo...9-speculations/

thank you.