superball

The cyclical cycle of precession, that is torque induced. 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.

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

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.

thank you.

Greetings, I have been working on a theory for some time that could be considered speculative. I would like to find the correct forum to post the model, can you point me in the right direction thank you.

Greeting all. New to your thread, not to add fuel to the fire, err pun intended. I found some useful information that may give more insight? The PDF gives some good information for you to consider. The ozone hole anomaly I also included. Some research on the role ozone, or lack there of plays in our global system. http://www.theozonehole.com/2011.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/p...nic-2009-09.pdf Penetrating radiation from the sun does effect the system to a great degree. Food for thought. http://www.wyndham.c...eather/main.wnt A lack of upper level ozone effects the system, but The major determining factor leading to global climate change will never be agreed upon by all the scientists. Investigation, and observation will continue to increase. Eventually this will lead to a better understanding in the future. have a good day..

Greetings. I found this link wile doing a search for spectrum of hydrogen. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html I located some information on the co2 spectrum energies also. I hope this will be helpful in your study. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm Take care.

Greetings science geeks. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-071 http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-080 I have included the 2010 results, and also the 2011 results for Earth axial shift from a reliable source. This is another touchy subject, and I don't want to convince you as to the cause, only that it has happened as described. We can add more information that is scientifically sound, and elaborate on it further. A good starting point would be to add information related by other philosophers of the past. Einstein, and Galileo Galilei comes to mind. As students of life, and science I believe we could from our observation, and special study convey our teachings in a respectful knowledgeable manner. Not an easy task alone, but with help from others adding we could meet the required data needed to form a conclusive answer. The question torque induced, or torque free Precession? Another goal of this thread is to swing the vote either way, and use factual evidence, and science to do that. Please add your concerns, together we can increase knowledge that supports a solution most likely to occur during Earth precession period. peace.

Thanks for the link. It is nice to meet you. Scientific study may suggest an increase in co2 levels is due to deforestation of rain forests. We have been chopping trees down at a fast rate in the last 100 years to allow for growth, agriculture, and homesteading. A valid observation, the use of fossil fuel alone is not the cause for the higher co2 levels observed today. That is an alarming graph. Plants, and trees should thrive under these conditions in the future, allowing for higher o2 levels as a result. What other factor may relate to a rise in co2 levels? My first question was, does a rise in co2 levels correlate to an ice age, or mini ice age according to the graphs?

Nice to meet you. Thank you for showing me that I had posted a loaded question. This is a touchy subject, and I will do my best not to post assumptions in the future. Thanks again.

I will elaborate. The first post showed graphs that depicted co2 levels, all the graphs in fact. It was also stated, Possibly the best attempt I've ever seen at this sort of thing: The title also misleading. Climate "skeptics" vs climate scientists in a nutshell A valid response, the scientist in this case only show co2 levels. That is why I had asked the question. who said co2 levels were the only determining factor. Perhaps I can find the data required to include, adding other factors that are just as relevant. Thank you for clearing up the wife beating, perhaps beating a dead horse is less insulting..

What is your source for these graphs? Graph two is speculative, because it says reconstructed. Graph one covers 311 years. Record keeping only started about 1895. Link http://www.masterresource.org/2011/07/2011-us-temp-update/ It should be determined first, what graph is most accurate. Both graphs do not follow an accurate start date?

Then you have reviewed the forum rules? I am new to the forum, and I am attempting to get a feel for the type of people that post here. That is not a nice way to greet new members. You are in violation of rule one.

are you a moderator? that comment is very disrespectful.

sorry i made a mistake, thanks for catching that. man made processes, vs. natural is what is should read. I have a degree in earth science, I am not the greatest speller.

hello, i think this would be a reasonable assumption, and is a factual way to express your premise. 1. The Earths climate has warmed over the last 30 years. I do not agree that a 30 year trend can do justice to your premise considering the earth is much, much older. perhaps the most accurate way to state this is by going back as far as possible, and use that as the start point on the graph. example we have been keeping records for 100 years or more. if the trend is in a uptick, it still does not prove the earth has been warming for more than 100 years. the only thing you can say is that since we been keeping records the Earth is in a warming trend. A trend in this case has no boundary, it only shows direction of the trend. Like the stock market. any thoughts?

Question, who said global warming only depends on co2 levels? should we all agree that co2 level is the only determining factor? should we be allowed to include other factors that would explain global warming, such as volcanic eruptions, and solar activity, etc? I would like to add more factors to dispute co2 as the main cause for global warming if i am allowed to do so.. One more question, does a rise in co2 levels mean that an ice age is coming?

Is it possible to determine the man made process of Global warming is effecting earth more so, than the natural processes? I think the natural processes out weight the man made processes. Should i say why? or will i violate Al Gore global warming model with hard facts? if you allow me, i will elaborate in my next post.

Hi all. New to forum, my first goal is to follow the rules, and act in a respectful manor. My question is related to a torque induced precession vs. a Torque-free precession. It is said that earth is precessing as we speak. my valid reasoning is the earth axis has shifted two time in two years. This is verified by Nasa, and also an Italian research team. This statement is true, or false? My second question is if this is a fact, then does the precession follow the tourque induced precession, or the Torque-free precession? When you comment, and i hope you will, include what precession model you support.