PDA

View Full Version : Sun's Path Through The Galaxy



antoniseb
2004-Apr-06, 12:59 PM
I saw an interesting paper in arXive this morning about the path of the sun [and solar system] through the galaxy.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf...404/0404081.pdf (http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0404/0404081.pdf)

Here's a few things of note from the paper:

- We oscillate above and below the galactic plane, with a period of about 66 million years with a displacement of about 56 parsecs.

- A component of our motion has us descending towards the galactic center at about 15 km/sec [keep in mind we are moving tangentially at about 250 km/sec, so the inbound movement is a small component of the overall movement. We are not on a collision course with Sag A*].

- About 25 million years ago we probably passed through the Orion Nebula. In our history we've probably passed through ten gas nebulae.

- We spent a considerable amount of time passing between spiral arms.

The paper discusses the effects of the changing space environment, so the above facts are the colorful fluff of the paper, but interesting to me.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Apr-06, 03:20 PM
Thanks for the reference antoniseb. That's a nice article and a nice source for articles. I have only scanned the article lightly and plan to read it more carefully later.

I am surprised that the dynamics of galatic rotation differentiating the sun's path from that of an ellipse about the galactic center is as well known as the authors claim. It seems to me that a longer history, than we could possibly have, is needed both about the sun's path and that of the various objects it is believed to have passed by or through.




We oscillate above and below the galactic plane, with a period of about 66 million years with a displacement of about 56 parsecs. -

Is this oscillation believed to be caused by the sun being gravitationally locked to a dispersed group of stars (a cluster of low density) thereby having a cluster orbiting motion component nearly orthogonal to the galactic plane or is it just the gravitational attraction of the stuff in the plane that supplies the galactic north/south component of motion? Since the solar system would pass through the disc center twice per period or about once every 33 million years, the Oort cloud and other stuff should be disturbed on such a regular basis. Is there evidence of this having happened? Is it significant that we are back to that place (north south speaking) where we were when the dinosaurs were bombarded with a hefty meteror? There may be real problems for which epicycles are useful after all. :unsure:



About 25 million years ago we probably passed through the Orion Nebula. In our history we've probably passed through ten gas nebulae.

I wonder whether this assertion was based on the relative motions of the components involved? :unsure:


A component of our motion has us descending towards the galactic center at about 15 km/sec [keep in mind we are moving tangentially at about 250 km/sec, so the inbound movement is a small component of the overall movement. We are not on a collision course with Sag A*].

Is this other than normal elliptic geometry that transfers objects along the path from apocentric to pericentric points on the curve? Again we have not been observing very long. <_<

antoniseb
2004-Apr-06, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by GOURDHEAD@Apr 6 2004, 03:20 PM
Is this oscillation believed to be caused by ... ?
For the oscillation, I remember doing a calculation in freshman physics in which we showed this as being the action of the gravitational attraction to a nearby plane surface, and got the same result, so the phenomenon has been known for a while.


I am surprised that the dynamics of galatic rotation differentiating the sun&#39;s path from that of an ellipse about the galactic center is as well known as the authors claim.

I was too. That was part of why I pointed out the article. How can we know so accurately that we passed *through* the Orion nebula? Makes fun reading.

zephyr46
2004-Apr-13, 03:27 AM
The Ursa Major Moving Cluster (http://www.ottawa.rasc.ca/observers/an9803p4.html)

This article dispelled the idea that we were a part of the Ursa Major Stream/moving group. He (Glenn LeDrew) also talks about the solar galactic rotation. The first time I heard about the &#39;pulse&#39; was in relation to extinction events (dinosaurs etc) on Earth, a documentary narrated by Sam Neil I beleive. The theory was that we are currently at the high end of our inclination and that there was a debris belt within the middle 500 ly?

I haven&#39;t had the chance to look at the pdf yet, but thanks for the link :)

Duane
2004-Apr-14, 09:21 PM
I wonder if the new measurements by the Danish group that watched stars over 1000 nights would help to refine some of the looser measurements. I would be especially interested to see if the sun is part of a small group.

I saw an article suggesting that the sun was part of a small cluster of stars, but I can&#39;t locate it. That would be an interesting counterpoint to Dr Manuel&#39;s iron-sun hypothysis.

VanderL
2004-Apr-14, 09:38 PM
Hi Duane,
I read the news item on the movements of a stars in the Milky Way, and it seems that stars are moving quite chaotically indicating a violent past.


I saw an article suggesting that the sun was part of a small cluster of stars, but I can&#39;t locate it. That would be an interesting counterpoint to Dr Manuel&#39;s iron-sun hypothysis.

Could you explain why this would counter the Iron-Sun model?

Cheers.

Duane
2004-Apr-14, 10:12 PM
Sure VandeL, I&#39;ll try :) :ph34r: :D

If the sun is part of a group of stars that all formed at the same time, then it stands to reason that the group formed togeather out of the same nebulae. If that is so, then the idea that the sun formed from a collapsed supernova could not explain the formation of the other stars in the same group.

Put differently, current solar models suggest that most stars form as part of a group of stars in steller nurseries. If the sun is part of such a group, it would strengthen the argument that the sun arose though the process of gravitational collapse and not by re-accretion.

Spiral Path
2004-Apr-15, 06:43 AM
The solar system&#39;s path through the galaxy and it&#39;s connection to the geological events here on Earth was actually commented on already back in 1973 in a paper by J. Steiner and E. Grillmair (Possible Galactic Causes for Periodic and Episodic Glaciations, Geol. Soc. America Bull. 84:1003-1018, reprinted in 1981 in Benchmark Papers in Geology/57, MEGACYCLES: Long-Term Episodicity in Earth and Planetary History, edited by G.E. Williams, published by Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company). So the spiral path of the solar system along an elliptical route around the galaxy was well known already more than 30 years ago. It&#39;s great that now astrophysicists are similarly trying to correlate this path with changes in the solar environment and hence the conditions here in Earth.

I think that from such incontrovertible - because geologically observable and astrophysically computable - evidence eventually both camps, the geologists as well as the astrophysicists, will come to the conclusion that the Newtonian gravitational "constant" is not constant at all but varies in time and space commensurate with the relative velocities of the involved revolving masses. This would, of course, necessitate a radical paradigm shift in theoretical physics with enormous implications.

Thanks for the interesting link, antoniseb. :rolleyes:

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-15, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Duane@Apr 14 2004, 10:12 PM
.... it would strengthen the argument that the sun arose though the process of gravitational collapse and not by re-accretion.
Sorry, Duane, but the standard solar model claims the Sun formed without accretion or loss of mass, as a homogeneous, perfectly symmetrical, throughly mixed body.

So far as I know, no such event has ever been observed. It exists only in the imagination of those who proposed the standard solar model.

If the Sun formed by accretion, heavier elements would sink inward.

Lighter elements would rise to the surface.

The standard solar model was designed to make the interior of the Sun hydrogen-rich like its surface.

That was the only way its proponents could explain What Makes the Sun Shine.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
http://TheSunIsIron.com

antoniseb
2004-Apr-15, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 15 2004, 07:30 AM
If the Sun formed by accretion, heavier elements would sink inward.
Wouldn&#39;t photon pressure preferentially push more opaque elements away from the center much more vigorously than gravity was pulling them in?

Duane
2004-Apr-15, 11:46 AM
The standard solar model was designed to make the interior of the Sun hydrogen-rich like its surface.


Horsefeathers to you Oliver&#33; :lol: :)

The standard solar model evolved to meet observational evidence. As Tim Thompson generously pointed out, the solar model came into focus slowly over a period of decades.

The condensation model not only fits the observational criterion of our solar system, it is also observable in nearby stellar nurseries.

The iron-sun theory, on the other hand, while superficially explaining our solar system, has no observable counterpart anywhere else in the galaxy.

The solar model is not perfect, and will no doubt be revised as new observations and, yes, measurements are made. However I think that the basics of the model will remain substancially unchanged--that is, the solar system formed as a result of the collapse of a metal enriched cloud precipitated by a nearby supernova event.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that the measurements you have made will also come to be explained or corrected within the confines of the generally accepted solar model.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-15, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Duane@Apr 15 2004, 11:46 AM

The standard solar model was designed to make the interior of the Sun hydrogen-rich like its surface.


The standard solar model evolved to meet observational evidence. As Tim Thompson generously pointed out, the solar model came into focus slowly over a period of decades.

The condensation model not only fits the observational criterion of our solar system, it is also observable in nearby stellar nurseries.

The iron-sun theory, on the other hand, while superficially explaining our solar system, has no observable counterpart anywhere else in the galaxy.

The solar model is not perfect, and will no doubt be revised as new observations and, yes, measurements are made. However I think that the basics of the model will remain substancially unchanged--that is, the solar system formed as a result of the collapse of a metal enriched cloud precipitated by a nearby supernova event.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that the measurements you have made will also come to be explained or corrected within the confines of the generally accepted solar model.
Gosh, Duane&#33; :D

You are partially right, a great deal of effort has been made to "adjust" the standard solar model to fit observations.

It still doesn&#39;t work, Duane, as you well know if you tried to explain The 15 Space Age Observations listed at the Iron-Sun discussion site:

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...view=getnewpost (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&view=getnewpost)

The Sun is the only star close enough for detailed study, Duane. The Sun is the model for the other stars in the cosmos. Not the other way around, Duane. :blink:

You have it backwards when you suggest the iron-rich Sun "has no observable counterpart anywhere else in the galaxy."

1. Observations have not been made on the abundances of elements and isotopes coming from the surfaces of other stars in their quiet phase.

2. Observations have not been made on the abundances of elements and isotopes ejected from the surfaces of other stars during violent magnetic storms.

3. Observations have not been made on neutrinos coming from other stars.

4. Observations have not been made on elements and isotopes in condensed material orbiting other stars.

Please, Duane, encourage proponents of the standard solar model to explain the measurements listed in The 15 Space Age Observations at the Iron-Sun discussion site:

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...view=getnewpost (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&view=getnewpost)

Universe Today readers may wonder why must they wait for those observations to "come to be explained or corrected within the confines of the generally accepted solar model" ??

Good Luck, Duane&#33;

Oliver :D
http://www.BallOfIron.com

antoniseb
2004-Apr-15, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 15 2004, 02:05 PM
Gosh, Duane&#33; :D ...
It still doesn&#39;t work, Duane...
close enough for detailed study, Duane...
Not the other way around, Duane. ...
Hi Dr. Manuel,

I am asking you to please try to express yourself without phrasing that seems personally taunting, insulting, or condescending. In opening the Iron Sun discussion, I asked everyone to be polite to you, no matter what they might feel about your non-standard idea about the sun. So far there has been remarkable [and I think productive] friendliness within that debate.

We haven&#39;t complained or taken much offense at your over-use of the emoticons for belly-laughs, roll-eyes, sneers, smirks, etc, but I think you&#39;re taking this debate out of the intellectual realm and into the personal.

I recognize that you believe this theory strongly, and are not gaining the credibility on it that you desire as rapidly as you would like, but polite postings will work better for you than this kind of attack.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-15, 03:41 PM
Sorry, antooniseb. :D

I did not intend for my comments to be "personally taunting, insulting, or condescending" toward anyone.

In fact, I deeply appreciate those willing to discuss the observations.

I will try to be more careful in the future.

Again, antoniseb, thanks for your comments.

With kind regards,

Oliver :unsure:
http://www.umr.edu/~om

JonofNJ
2004-Apr-17, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by Spiral Path@Apr 15 2004, 06:43 AM
The solar system&#39;s path through the galaxy and it&#39;s connection to the geological events here on Earth was actually commented on already back in 1973 in a paper by J. Steiner and E. Grillmair (Possible Galactic Causes for Periodic and Episodic Glaciations, Geol. Soc. America Bull. 84:1003-1018, reprinted in 1981 in Benchmark Papers in Geology/57, MEGACYCLES: Long-Term Episodicity in Earth and Planetary History, edited by G.E. Williams, published by Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company). So the spiral path of the solar system along an elliptical route around the galaxy was well known already more than 30 years ago. It&#39;s great that now astrophysicists are similarly trying to correlate this path with changes in the solar environment and hence the conditions here in Earth.

I think that from such incontrovertible - because geologically observable and astrophysically computable - evidence eventually both camps, the geologists as well as the astrophysicists, will come to the conclusion that the Newtonian gravitational "constant" is not constant at all but varies in time and space commensurate with the relative velocities of the involved revolving masses. This would, of course, necessitate a radical paradigm shift in theoretical physics with enormous implications.

Thanks for the interesting link, antoniseb. :rolleyes:
" So the spiral path of the solar system along an elliptical route around the galaxy was well known already more than 30 years ago." Absolute Earth Motion- http://entropulse.com/planetpath.htm Could you please elaborate upon curved sprial diagram so as to show various positions ,such as the 4 points of when the earth is forward,behind,and each time aside the sun once closer to the galaxtic center ,the other away from the center(with the sun between the center)? I assume that they correspond closely but not entirely to the seasonal points as the winter solstice lays near the galatic center.I&#39;m having a hard time visualizing the way the zodiac is positioned within the sprial arms of the milky way.I&#39;m trying to simplify at the same time considering the fact that there is a known measurable point called the center which the sun also arcs about .Thank you,Jon P.S. this is a conversion of celestial/galactic co-ordinates re: that the GC is RA 17h45.6m epoch 2000=O*& also vernal equinox=0*(RA).

Spiral Path
2004-Apr-18, 04:03 AM
[QUOTE]" So the spiral path of the solar system along an elliptical route around the galaxy was well known already more than 30 years ago." Absolute Earth Motion- http://entropulse.com/planetpath.htm Could you please elaborate upon curved sprial diagram so as to show various positions ,such as the 4 points of when the earth is forward,behind,and each time aside the sun once closer to the galaxtic center ,the other away from the center(with the sun between the center)? I assume that they correspond closely but not entirely to the seasonal points as the winter solstice lays near the galatic center.I&#39;m having a hard time visualizing the way the zodiac is positioned within the sprial arms of the milky way.I&#39;m trying to simplify at the same time considering the fact that there is a known measurable point called the center which the sun also arcs about .Thank you,Jon P.S. this is a conversion of celestial/galactic co-ordinates re: that the GC is RA 17h45.6m epoch 2000=O*& also vernal equinox=0*(RA).



Hello, JonofNJ

I am thrilled about your interest in my post and I thank you very much for the link to the thought-provoking Schriefer Unified Theory. Though I do have to admit that I need much further and more careful study before I could make any meaningful comment on it.

In any case, it sounds fascinating and I certainly do agree that the absolute motion of the Earth around the center of the galaxy happens in a very irregularly oscillating (termed "zig-zag" on this web site) manner. Back in the 1970s, I calculated, with the then available geological and astrophysical data, that these spiral and elliptical path oscillations were responsible for the geological events that happened to the Earth&#39;s crust, which, in turn, could easily be correlated to the officially recognized various subdivisions (eras, periods and epochs) in the geological record. Unfortunately, this concept was too revolutionary for the peer-reviewed academic journals and our relevant papers never saw publication.

Since that time I have turned my attention to calculating and evaluating the results of the "small zig-zags" in the motion of any particular location on Earth, including the zig-zags produced by seasonal changes of the Earth-Moon system&#39;s motion around the Sun, monthly changes of the Earth-Moon barycenter motion within the Earth&#39;s mantle as well as daily changes because of the rotation of the Earth and even minute-by-minute changes in motion at these particular locations with regard to all pertinent surrounding masses. It was essentially a series of vector analyses calculated to obtain the sum of all forces (as changes in motion always are) which at this particular moment in time affected this particular block of the Earth&#39;s crust. This procedure may sound rather complicated (which it was), but once the specific programs were written, it was rather easy to do as there are very accurate earthquake data available for the past 100 years. And after all, the triggering of an earthquake is probably the most powerful manifestation of abrupt motion changes in a localized environment on the surface of the Earth. - In any case, I have thus succeeded in developing a pretty good method for future earthquake prediction to within a hour or less and have tried to sell this idea to funding agencies since the mid-1980s. From past bitter experience, I know that peer-reviewed journals are out of the question as they wouldn&#39;t even consider looking at such a daring proposition. Similarly, direct approaches to seismological institutes didn&#39;t work either. The current mantra of seismologists seems to be "Earthquake prediction is IMPOSSIBLE and anybody who claims he can do so is either a fool or a fraud". - Well, I am neither and so I can only shrug my shoulders, silently apologize to all future earthquake victims - and turn my attention to more enjoyable and fruitful pursuits.

Sorry, I digressed. To answer your question about conversion from astronomical to galactic coordinates, I have done these calculations so long ago that have forgotten most of them and would have to look up everything myself. Also, the half dozen or so computing devices I used since then have all "bit the dust", taking all programs and data with them. For my latest calculations, I used mainly regular published geocentric astronomical coordinates whereby I converted, for simplicity&#39;s sake, the hours of the right ascension into degrees. This way I could visualize the "zig-zagging" much better with the mathematically familiar polar coordinate system. You probably have these data yourself, but here are the ones I use for geocentric calculations:

Directions:
To galactic center - R.A.= 265.6 deg./Decl.= -28.9 deg. (from published source).
To galactic N-pole - R.A.= 192.3 deg./Decl.= +27.4 deg. (from published source).
To galactic S-pole - R.A.= 12.3 deg./Decl.= -27.4 deg. (calculated).
Hence:
General clockwise motion of the solar system (as seen from the galactic north pole) occurs on an elliptic path around the galaxy on a plane perpendicular to both galactic poles, zig-zagging above and below this plane because of the spiral motion.

Present direction of travel:
General disk rotation - R.A.= 317.6 deg./Decl.= +48.1 deg. (calculated).
Total of solar system - R.A.= 270.0 deg./Decl.= +66.6 deg. (calculated/ecliptic*).
Horizontal component - R.A.= 269.0 deg./Decl.= +59.0 deg. (calculated).
Vertical component - R.A.= 356.5 deg./Decl.= -1.5deg. (calculated).
*) Actually the direction perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, calculated for the year 1986, I believe.

Hence:
The spiral motion of the solar system causes quite a bit of deviation from the general disk rotation (up to 50 degrees, i.e. 318 minus 269), thus indicating a loosely wound-up spiral around the higher star density in the plane of the galactic disk. The vertical component of the present solar system motion shows a relatively close alignment to the south galactic pole direction and thus is indicative of the present descent towards the plane of the disk. Please note that these travel directions have changed and will change over the course of a cosmic year (220 to 280 million years) along a broad band cutting across from around 282 (+/- 50) degrees R.A. to 102 (+/- 50) degrees R.A. (which is the approximate R.A. extent of the disk of the Milky Way we see in our skies, midway between the two galactic pole directions) with a declination variation of perhaps +75 to -75 degrees (depending on the ratio between the distance to the disk and the distance to the next phase equality of the spiral, i.e. the closer to the disk, the steeper the slope). However, this is only true if - and only if - we keep the present orientation as a kind of "cosmic gyroscopic standard". Perhaps a sketch of these directions would help in visualizing the orientation of our geocentric view within the galaxy.

The above figures are, of course, representative only of the large oscillations with regard to the center of the Earth. For my earthquake prediction studies and all the minor oscillations in the relative motions of a particular locality, I naturally had to translate all these directions and forces into the alt-azimuth system, besides having to interpolate all the force changes on a minute-by-minute basis. Needless to say, for all these calculations my little PC is totally inadequate and very powerful computers are essential to make any progress at all. Asking me to do further research on this project with the goal of actually predicting one or more earthquakes in order to verify my theory, would be just like asking one lonely man with a pick and a shovel to build a transcontinental highway. That&#39;s really IMPOSSIBLE, I dare say. Besides, here in litigation-happy North America, I would be mercilessly dragged into court, regardless of whether an earthquake was predicted or not or whether the prediction was successful or not. I shudder when I think about the awful situation I might have gotten myself into with my single-minded curiosity about orbital dynamics and my desire to "help humanity" &#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

Anyway, thanks for stimulating my brain cells to a thorough workout, JonofNJ. :)

Cygnus X-1
2004-Apr-18, 05:09 AM
I&#39;ve read a while ago of a term called "The Local Standard Of Rest". From what I remember, it is a term for the speed that our local neiborhood of galactic mass is traveling in relation to the galactic center. If this is the case, how much of the nearest stars and nebuli(including the Orion Nebula) have moved along with our solar system. Do we ocolate together? I can&#39;t buy the notion that the sun passed through the Orion Nebula.

JonofNJ
2004-Apr-18, 07:55 AM
Thanks for the info Spiral Path ,i&#39;m not sure about the addition of velocities of the link I posted. As for your one ideal of climatic shift due to certain glactic positions i&#39;ve heard of the Malvoich(?spelling) cycle.I can understand how it is to be accussed of pseudo-science,just posting an astronomy question mentioning the zodiac as calendaric,I&#39;m doing astrology.In fact the link I posted was called &#39;metaphysical&#39;.Anyway,I very recently had heard of successfull earthquake prediction had been used to advert greater damage in the second Kobe quake the same method had also worked a second time.This same team predicts a greater then point 6(?) in the LA region with-in six mths.This story was on CBS nightly news.I&#39;ve seen other stories with such stories connecting lunation with vulcanism which had worked.One of the reason earthquake prediction has too earn a better name Is that Missoula one that missed the mark.Thanks again&#33; Jon

StarLab
2004-Jul-31, 05:52 AM
Hmm, Oliver...in your link you seem to have mentioned something about neutrinos...could you please elaborate for me?

lswinford
2004-Aug-02, 10:55 PM
Starlab, now there&#39;s a can of worms to open. The neutrino discussion in the iron core theory got kinda hot over that. Too many neutrinos for one theory. Different kinds of neutrinos observed from different measuring places. Neutrinos shifting types, which may or may not account for the supposed "missing" neutrino counts. The background random neutrinos from extra-solar sources. I&#39;d rather get in that tent for the Deet (mosquito repellant) commercials and count flying bugs, lol&#33; Get ready should all sides weigh in on the neutrinos because it will be a fun ride until they get their claws out.

David S
2004-Aug-02, 11:41 PM
In any case, I have thus succeeded in developing a pretty good method for future earthquake prediction to within a hour or less and have tried to sell this idea to funding agencies since the mid-1980s. From past bitter experience, I know that peer-reviewed journals are out of the question as they wouldn&#39;t even consider looking at such a daring proposition. Similarly, direct approaches to seismological institutes didn&#39;t work either. The current mantra of seismologists seems to be "Earthquake prediction is IMPOSSIBLE and anybody who claims he can do so is either a fool or a fraud". - Well, I am neither and so I can only shrug my shoulders, silently apologize to all future earthquake victims - and turn my attention to more enjoyable and fruitful pursuits.


You can predict earthquakes to within an hour or less? Are you serious about that? and yet NO ONE will listen to you? Heres an idea to get people to pay attention to you: MAKE A PREDICTION&#33; And I don&#39;t mean that it will predict past earthquakes accuratly, I mean predict a furture one. Tell it to the world. Send it to every major media outlet, government agency and internet chatroom in the world. Most will probably ignore you until the prediction actually happens, and then you&#39;ll be able to say "I told ya so", at which point they&#39;ll probably give you a second look. Then make a second prediction, tell everyone, make a third prediction, rinse and repeat, ect. and I garuntee that people will listen.

Honestly, if your smart enough to predict earthquakes I can&#39;t imagine that you&#39;d be unable to think of a way to prove it.

zephyr46
2004-Aug-03, 04:01 AM
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9706/gl710_skyview.gif

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970626.html

Off topic, but in our nearest neigbour on the way.

Spiral Path
2004-Aug-03, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by AstroWannabe@Aug 2 2004, 11:41 PM

You can predict earthquakes to within an hour or less? Are you serious about that? and yet NO ONE will listen to you? Heres an idea to get people to pay attention to you: MAKE A PREDICTION&#33; And I don&#39;t mean that it will predict past earthquakes accuratly, I mean predict a furture one. Tell it to the world. Send it to every major media outlet, government agency and internet chatroom in the world. Most will probably ignore you until the prediction actually happens, and then you&#39;ll be able to say "I told ya so", at which point they&#39;ll probably give you a second look. Then make a second prediction, tell everyone, make a third prediction, rinse and repeat, ect. and I garuntee that people will listen.

Honestly, if your smart enough to predict earthquakes I can&#39;t imagine that you&#39;d be unable to think of a way to prove it.




Hello, AstroWannabe -

Yes, I am serious about my earthquake prediction capability, but I am also very tired of running against brick walls and on top of that of being harassed by foreign espionage organizations. The story is too long to squeeze into a post here on this forum. I think I made it clear in my original message that I needed much better computer equipment (preferably thousands of gigabytes of RAM) than just my little old PC I am working on now to make a prediction for the future. Believe me, if I could do that, I would - and occasionally I still think about a possible solution.

I have developed the necessary series of programs over the past 25 years in about 50,000 unpaid man-hours and by spending all my life savings of something like &#036;100,000 on the project so that now I have to subsist on an income far below the poverty line. So, without any disposable income, there is just no way that I could ever save up for a better computer. - Sorry, I am simply fed up with being expected to make even more sacrifices "for the benefit of mankind" when the people in charge don&#39;t seem to care at all and some of them are even quite intent on stealing my ideas - since 17 years&#33;

So, thanks for your interest, AstroWannabe, - and for your perfectly sound advice - but unfortunately accurate earthquake prediction involves much more than a simple formula and a small PC. It has to take all the accelerations and decelerations of the surface of the Earth in its various spiral paths around the important celestial objects into account - and that can only be done with a more powerful computer than I have.

Greetings from Canada,
Spiral Path

lswinford
2004-Aug-03, 07:46 PM
Thanks Zephyr, that was fun. It reminded me of a rather sensationalist preacher back in the early 1980&#39;s who trumpeted that a star was headed toward the earth at an unbelievably enormous speed. He was suggesting it was connected with things in the Bible&#39;s book of Revelation. So I checked up on it, little thanks to him for his "documented proof" was worthless, and found the news items. I forget the reference now but it was a binary system with a collapsed partner that spun the other about at a very great speed. Yes, it was headed toward us, some 400+lyrs away, but every 44 days it turned around and went back.

What I wonder about your star is not that it will shake loose more of our system&#39;s distant debris, but what debris might it be dragging along? I&#39;ll have to try to remember to look for that--a million years from now, as if I would be interested. Thanks again.

David S
2004-Aug-03, 11:03 PM
think I made it clear in my original message that I needed much better computer equipment (preferably thousands of gigabytes of RAM) than just my little old PC I am working on now to make a prediction for the future

I take it that means you&#39;ve never actually made an earthquake prediction? If you never have, I don&#39;t see how you can claim it works, much less how you can claim that level of accuracy.

Just out of curiosity, how much RAM do you think you&#39;d need? Because there are many universities with very large computer banks used in research by graduate students (geology among them). If your theories are as sound as you claim, then I find it hard to believe that there isn&#39;t a single professor SOMEWHERE in north america willing to test your theories.


on top of that of being harassed by foreign espionage organizations

Foreign nations are actually intrested in stoping a canadian geologist from predicting earthquakes? Is there actually a "pro-earthquake" organization?


am simply fed up with being expected to make even more sacrifices "for the benefit of mankind" when the people in charge don&#39;t seem to care at all and some of them are even quite intent on stealing my ideas - since 17 years&#33;


I don&#39;t believe myself or anyone else expects you to make any sacrifices for the benefit of mankind, least of all the sacrifice of your life savings. Also, if people have stolen your ideas, why is it that we still can&#39;t predict earthquakes?

StarLab
2004-Aug-05, 02:42 AM
Since the sun&#39;s path through the galaxy takes it every more closer to the galactic center, when we will reach the galactic center? In how long from now?

antoniseb
2004-Aug-05, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by StarLab@Aug 5 2004, 02:42 AM
Since the sun&#39;s path through the galaxy takes it every more closer to the galactic center, when we will reach the galactic center? In how long from now?
Did you read the paper linked to in the first post?
The sun is in a roughly elliptical orbit, and is now on the inbound part of the journey. In perhaps 50 million years it will be maybe 10% closer to the center than it is now, and then start the out-bound leg.

lswinford
2004-Aug-09, 09:09 PM
StarLab, I bet it doesn&#39;t happen. There are features at work that either change the environment or render it moot. At some stage of near-approach we will first either finish our own aging cycle to its completion, be captured and absorbed by another &#39;heavy&#39; as some two-thirds of the galaxies&#39; stars have already collapsed or otherwise more densely congregated toward our galactic center of mass, or there will be some gravitational or mass/energy outflow that will float or propel us back out into further play. Frankly, I think we will experience some flame-out extinction before reaching the galaxy core zone. I recall reading something a few years back where some study found the stars so packed and the energy pressure so great that there was an almost chaotic stasis. So when we finally do meander down to that zone, we&#39;ve got an enormous backlog of stars in a flux of mutual suspension and awaiting the flow speeds of black holes sucking the stars in the spiral line ahead of us.

It kind of reminds me of one of the rare cartoons in Science magazine. A horrified lab assistant was watching a fellow scientist pour a flask of stuff into a sink, "Yes, I know it may finally be an antidote to aging, but it would take forever to test&#33;"

StarLab
2004-Aug-14, 02:44 PM
Well, how close will we get to the galactic center before the 2-billion yearmark - that foretold collision with the sister Andromeda galaxy?

Spiral Path
2004-Aug-20, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by AstroWannabe@Aug 3 2004, 11:03 PM
I take it that means you&#39;ve never actually made an earthquake prediction? If you never have, I don&#39;t see how you can claim it works, much less how you can claim that level of accuracy.

...

I don&#39;t believe myself or anyone else expects you to make any sacrifices for the benefit of mankind, least of all the sacrifice of your life savings. Also, if people have stolen your ideas, why is it that we still can&#39;t predict earthquakes?

Hello, AstroWannabe -

I noticed some derision in your post of August 3rd and therefore I didn&#39;t feel like answering right away. No matter what I say, you may not want to believe me anyway ...

But it occurred to me that perhaps I should rather try to ignore your "debunking" mentality (in which you are, by the way, not alone) and remind you that the scientific method involves 1. studying past occurrences of a natural phenomenon, 2. determine the most likely cause of these occurrences and then 3. try to predict such occurrences for the future.

Well, in my particular field I have arrived at and almost finished the second stage, i.e. I studied the conditions at the exact time of several past large earthquakes and found that the tendency of certain functions in all cases was the same within an hour or so, insofar as these calculated forces were counteracting the force of gravity and thus they were facilitating MOMENTARILY the movement of huge chunks of the Earth&#39;s crust, which effectively triggered the quake. That makes sense, doesn&#39;t it? But the process of calculating the sudden temporary drop in gravity takes a lot of quantitative analyses with adequate computer equipment - and probably also a whole book to explain to the general public. Though even professionals may have trouble understanding the process.

The other day I had the chance to talk to one of those professionals who had been rather skeptical about my claims for years (my son, who is working as an astrophysicist for NASA), but when I was finally able to explain my reasoning to him in person - with sketches and printouts and answering tricky questions - he was visibly impressed. "That&#39;s an entirely new physics", was his amazed comment. And after thinking a bit more about it, he added, "But you will have problems convincing the scientific community&#33;" - Is he ever right in this latter assessment&#33; So far I have never even received an answer to my innumerable emails to any people who might be interested in helping me reach stage 3 (i.e. earthquake prediction) in my strictly scientific research endeavour.

Ironically though, I obviously succeeded in convincing the former KGB or GRU that I was onto something pretty big (as they apparently gathered from my submissions to the Canadian Tax Department) or they wouldn&#39;t have spent so much time, effort and money on my surveillance and kidnap attempt. I am sure those agents didn&#39;t work for free - like I did all the time. - That&#39;s my answer to your remark on espionage.

I still claim that earthquakes occur because of the various acceleration and deceleration forces exerted on the Earth&#39;s crust from the multitude of celestial bodies our Earth encounters as it, as a member of the solar system, orbits the galatic center in an elliptical spiral path - sometimes approaching it, sometimes receding from it. It&#39;ll be many many more billions of years until the solar system effectively reaches the center (no black hole there, by the way, as they don&#39;t exist - stars simply disintegrate) and by that time the Earth will have long spiralled already into the Sun itself. - Isn&#39;t it marvellous that we puny little creatures crawling around on the surface of the Earth are even capable enough in our reasoning powers to contemplate this most likely fate of our home planet?

David S
2004-Aug-23, 12:42 AM
Spiral-

I&#39;m not doubting the validity of your earthquake prediction methods on scientific grounds. I honestly don&#39;t know what your methods are. The reason I am doubtful about your claim is that I find it impossible that someone has discovered how to predict earthquakes and save millions of lives, and yet no one will listen to you or believe you. Not one earthquake expert, not one geoligist, not one professor at any university anywhere on Earth will listen to you or take you seriously. That&#39;s why I&#39;m very doubtful that your ideas on earthquake prediction are as promising as you claim.

And when you claim that there is a vast conspiracy designed to keep earthquake prediction a secret..........that gets filed under the same topic as UFO&#39;s and crop circles.



no black hole there, by the way, as they don&#39;t exist - stars simply disintegrate

I suppose that you have a better explination for what happens to more the 3 solar masses? Because once a star runs out of nuclear fuel, if the core thats left behind is over 3 solar masses then the escape velocity will exceed the speed of light, which is the definition of a black hole. And you&#39;ll have to explain what you mean by disintegrate. Honestly I&#39;m very much looking forward to your explination of this.

Spiral Path
2004-Sep-28, 05:19 AM
AstroWannabe -

I appreciate your interest in my earthquake prediction project, but I am afraid you are asking the impossible, namely that I explain it in a few words on this forum, together with the rest of my theory. How can I possibly make a convincing case in a short post when today&#39;s physicists are so steeped in Newton&#39;s and Einstein&#39;s concepts of gravitation"? I had to discard them both to arrive at my solution to the puzzle. I myself am dealing with proven everyday forces (acceleration, deceleration and centrifugal) for which I compute minute-by-minute vector analyses at any specific location.

However, to counteract my obvious credibility problem with the closed-minded scientific establishment and still give future generations a chance to try out my method in case I "kick the bucket" sooner than expected (I am 73 and not in particularly good health), I decided to try and open a website where I can explain my ideas in a more comprehensive form and also throw in a few global earthquake predictions. I&#39;ll post the URL in this Universe Today Forum whenever it is ready. But don&#39;t expect it any time soon because first I need a new computer and with my minimal income it will probably take ages until I can save up for it.

Perhaps in the meantime a miracle will happen and the merging of the two sciences of geology and astronomy will no longer be dismissed as "pseudo-science" or "astrology", but taken as a valid multidisciplinary approach to the study of the universe.

Spiral Path