126 replies to this topic

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 10 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

(i) It's the *persistence* of the failure of a T.O.E. after a hundred years from Einstein's intervention which sticks out like a sore thumb imo. It's a strong indication of a basic problem in the underlying assumptions of physics. It *isn't* just me saying this, but hundreds of highly qualified physicists, mathematicians, technicians and scientists. See the latest FQXi essay competition entrants if you don't believe me Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?. There's a high percentage of university professor level essays in the competition for example.

Oh I agree that we need to re-examine our basic assumptions.

But whatever we come up with has to be equivalent to Newtonian Mechanics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics for the appropriate length, speed, mass, and temperature scales.

SunnyBlues, on 10 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

(ii) The *evidence* is clear if you read it!! There's detailed accounts of hundreds of incidents which indicate a narrow 2g gravity cone at the earth's surface. You have simply shown yourself to be someone who hasn't even looked at the easily accessible evidence given as an alternative solution to the gravity problem. Satellite data is assumed to have a high probabiility of error when over the South Atlantic Anomaly area, which is why the double gravity data is removed in the first filtering stage.

NO. There is a difference between ``extra noise from electromagnetic interference'' and ``a persistent measurement of double gravity in this particular region''.

PLUS, there are many ships and aircraft that travel through this region, and many people live in this region.

Doubling the surface gravity in a particular region would double the weight of everything. It would more or less instantly crash every airplane. It would cause every satellite over head to fall out of orbit and burn up on re-entry. It would have a huge effect on the ocean and the atmosphere.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Sunny Blues,
Please refrain from posting music videos in this section, they have nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 10 November 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Sunny Blues,
Please refrain from posting music videos in this section, they have nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Yes, okay, of course.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 10 November 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

PLUS, there are many ships and aircraft that travel through this region, and many people live in this region.

Doubling the surface gravity in a particular region would double the weight of everything. It would more or less instantly crash every airplane. It would cause every satellite over head to fall out of orbit and burn up on re-entry. It would have a huge effect on the ocean and the atmosphere.

Sep, you don't have the correct mental picture of the Bermuda Triangle incidents because you *haven't* read the books. Remember the case of the couple in a small boat who traversed the 20ft wide by 4ft deep ocean depression?? You said then that it was a *good* representation of a 2g field effect! Throughout the books the authors point to the concentrated and moving nature of these danger zones throughout the Carribean area. You're arguments are becoming something akin to clutching at straws imo.

My latest thoughts:
(i) As the moon's orbital progression tends towards the critical orbital which sees it path cross the SAA's Romanche Gap Pile a sudden added acceleration will occur as the Earth 'overtakes' the moon in it's daily cycle. Will this happen next orbit? Maybe? After then? Maybe. An explanation for sudden and dramatic climate change in the North Atlantic Region on the millennial scale has been established based on the moon's 1800yr tidal cycle.

(ii) Saturn's moons are known to acquire a mystery 'gravity kick' in order to explain the 'shepherding effect' and the ring structures. The exotic comet interaction between the moons and Jupiter itself is now a good explanation, of which there is no other.

(iii) The millennial extra tidal currents will bring nutrients to the surface and create an ocean of seafood bonanza. This is the story of our evolution and survival against all the odds.

(iv) This latest report Moon may have once been part of the Earth, scientists say  fits with the exotic comet impact hypothesis:

Quote

In a paper published on Wednesday in the journal Science, Sarah Stewart and Matija Cuk said their theory would explain why the Earth and Moon have similar composition and chemistry. The Earth was spinning much faster at the time the Moon was formed, and a day lasted only two to three hours, they said.  With the Earth spinning so quickly, a giant impact could have launched enough of the Earth's material to form a moon, the scientists said. According to the new theory, the Earth later reached its current rate of spinning through gravitational interaction between its orbit around the Sun and the Moon's orbit around Earth. The scientists noted that their proposition differed from the current leading theory, which holds that the Moon was created from material from a giant body that struck the Earth.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 12 November 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 12 November 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Sep, you don't have the correct mental picture of the Bermuda Triangle incidents because you *haven't* read the books. Remember the case of the couple in a small boat who traversed the 20ft wide by 4ft deep ocean depression?? You said then that it was a *good* representation of a 2g field effect! Throughout the books the authors point to the concentrated and moving nature of these danger zones throughout the Carribean area. You're arguments are becoming something akin to clutching at straws imo.

That is because you are misrepresenting what I said.

Throughout this thread I have had no opinion other than incredulity at your notion of a 1.6 - 2g surface gravity.

To recap:

• In this post I pointed out that a 1% increase of surface gravity would increase the geoid surface by about 30 km. (Assuming an inverse-square attenuation, of course. If it is less than that the geoid surface would increase by more.)
  
• In that same post I presented some arguments on what would need to happen to have a 1.6 g field on a Boeing at 30 000 ft that came from a source approximately 20 f in diameter. I did not make any comment on the plausibility of such a field affecting the oceans by a mere 4 ft; indeed given my comments above any reasonable person would suspect that I did not believe a field of 1.6 g would cause such a small effect.
  
• At the time, you did not seem to realize what I was saying, so I pointed it out in greater detail here; a 1.6 g field would make a column of water 1200 km high.
  
• I repeated my incredulity in this post and this post.
  
• Finally you dropped your ``4 ft depression'' claim and offered another claim of ``at least a kilometre'', which I agreed was more reasonable for a 1.6 - 2 g surface gravity (but still too small, in my opinion), however this apparently had not effect on the atmosphere or the folk in Puerto Rico.

I feel like I am flogging a dead horse here. I know where you are coming from; you have one piece of data: ``some planes have unexpected forces of up to 1.6 g during flight''; and you have decided that this unexpected force is entirely of gravitational origin. You are then connecting this with one other piece of ``data''; a report given to a self-described paranormal investigator by a fisherman several decades ago of a strange trough of water in the Bermuda triangle.

Seriously, if you would just allow that most of the 1.6 g experienced by the aircraft was due to turbulence (of course, I personally suspect that all of the force was from atmospheric effects) rather than a sudden and otherwise unobserved doubling of surface gravity, and reduce your measure of anomalous gravity down to 1% or 0.5%, I would have a lot fewer issues with your theory.

I am continually baffled by how you can seriously propose a localized 2 g surface gravity as the complete explanation for a few scattered eyewitness reports from several different phenomena collected over the last 50-60 years. To me, this is like a detective finding two people burned to death in alleyways on different sides of a city, and deciding that the culprit is an enormous flying dragon.

The ocean and the atmosphere are highly dynamic fluids that are in relative equilibrium. You can clearly see how the Moon (thousands of miles away and much smaller than Earth) can influence this equilibrium via the tides, at the surface of the Earth the Moon has a gravitational strength equivalent to 3.46 x 10^-6 g.

-----------------
By the way, are you still arguing that the ``supergravity'' is mostly ``off'', and is only ``turned on'' for a few minutes during a few rare occasions?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 12 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

-----------------
By the way, are you still arguing that the ``supergravity'' is mostly ``off'', and is only ``turned on'' for a few minutes during a few rare occasions?

You still don't have a correct mental image of what I'm proposing for the numerous incidents around the Bahamas for example. I'm saying that a single exotic comet has been deposited by strong ice age ocean currents. This has the properties of a near 2g surface gravity around it's sides *only* (see attached). Imagine a silver dollar which has a supergravity field emitting only from it's edge. Would the coin be on it's side if at the bottom of the ocean or would it be tilted upright?? This is the moving nature of the 'vile vortices' which Ivan Sanderson refers to. The strange case of a boat disappearing in a marina just off Miami is possible because the exotic comet north of Bimini is on a shifting sand bank on it's side. The 2g field could emerge at the surface many miles from the buried comet itself.

The Romanche Gap Pile is something different because I'm proposing a tower of exotic comets having accumulated in this giant ocean trough. A number of exotic comets can be imagined to sit one on top of another and so concentrates their 2g fields (see attached).

My latest thoughts:
(i) The Greenland ice age data shows a millennial cycle of average 1,470 years, see Dansgaard–Oeschger events. If the projected lunar cycle of 1,800 years is used, then it can be assumed that the exotic matter interaction speeds up this cycle by 330 years.

Quote

In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years, where a 5 °C change over 30-40 years is more common.

The significance of this theory can not be more compelling imo. The moon will gradually be pulled into a closer orbit which will have the effect of increasing warm equatorial waters and increased precipitation to the North Atlantic Region.

Attached Files

•  ExoticComet.jpg   15.24K   5 downloads
•  ExoticCometPile.jpg   18.02K   6 downloads

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 13 November 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

You still don't have a correct mental image of what I'm proposing for the numerous incidents around the Bahamas for example. I'm saying that a single exotic comet has been deposited by strong ice age ocean currents. This has the properties of a near 2g surface gravity around it's sides *only* (see attached). Imagine a silver dollar which has a supergravity field emitting only from it's edge. Would the coin be on it's side if at the bottom of the ocean or would it be tilted upright?? This is the moving nature of the 'vile vortices' which Ivan Sanderson refers to. The strange case of a boat disappearing in a marina just off Miami is possible because the exotic comet north of Bimini is on a shifting sand bank on it's side. The 2g field could emerge at the surface many miles from the buried comet itself.

Ok, that makes even less sense than the off-on ``flashlight'' I thought you were describing.

• A field emitted from the edge of a disc is not spatially localized, since the edge always bisects a spherical shell.
  
• The field would always have some influence at the surface of the Earth, because the field is always ``on''.
  
• The location of the field's influence would change depending on the orientation of the disc-like source, but the region of significant influence would always be a circle. (Any plane that intersects into a sphere will always form a circle on the edge of the sphere.)
  
• While the influence would only be 2g at one point on the Earth's surface (the closest point to the edge of the disk, assuming the appropriate orientation of the disc), since you persist in stating that the influence is 2g, the parts further away on the Earth's surface would still experience an influence of at least 1.001 g (assuming that by ``2g'' you mean that the comet introduces +1g to the 1g already provided by the Earth).
  
• A change of 0.1% (or even 0.01%) in surface gravity is sufficient to be detected by laboratories around the world, and satellites in orbit (especially GRACE, GOCE, and GPB).
  
• The a disc rocking from perfectly flat to perfectly on edge would ``sweep through'' an area of influence equal to half the surface of the world.
  
• No laboratory has detected any change in surface gravity as massive as you describe.

Not to mention all the other problems...

• A increase in surface gravity by 100% would have significant and very noticeable effect on the ocean and the atmosphere, regardless of the ``shape'' of the area of influence.
  
• An object emitting surface gravity only at the edges violates conservation of energy if the gravity is a static field.
  
• If the gravity is a radiation field then the object in question is constantly losing energy.
  
• If the gravity is a radiation field then it emits a constant force, not a constant acceleration, and the ``2g'' number is meaningless because it does not specify what object would be affected (just a Boeing?).

And finally, if I understand you correctly, you are now proposing that the Romanche trench has a constant ``stack'' of comets exerting a cumulative surface gravity? Why are ships and planes and satellites able to pass over the trench without immediately buckling or crashing under the vast increase in surface gravity? Why does the ocean and the atmosphere not have a perpetual (and massive) distortion in this region?

The people at every space agency, every news agency, every flight control agency, every international airline, every shipping agency, every navy, every airforce, every geology agency, and every meteorology agency must be working overtime to make sure no hard evidence of these supergravity fields is ever released to the public!

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 13 November 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

...

You're complaints are based on Newton's weak equivalence principle, which is just an assumption on his part and which Einstein embraced without question. You're unable to appreciate the anisotropic graviton model (a corkscrew shape to give attractive interaction).

sepulchrave, on 13 November 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

And finally, if I understand you correctly, you are now proposing that the Romanche trench has a constant ``stack'' of comets exerting a cumulative surface gravity? Why are ships and planes and satellites able to pass over the trench without immediately buckling or crashing under the vast increase in surface gravity? Why does the ocean and the atmosphere not have a perpetual (and massive) distortion in this region?

Err, Flight 447 is a superb example of the narrow 2g gravity field over the Romanche Trench (see the TalkPage section) and the South Atlantic Anomaly *is* the perpetual distortion in the region.

sepulchrave, on 13 November 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

The people at every space agency, every news agency, every flight control agency, every international airline, every shipping agency, every navy, every airforce, every geology agency, and every meteorology agency must be working overtime to make sure no hard evidence of these supergravity fields is ever released to the public!

It's a simple psychological case of people who refuse to look at any alternative to what the majority ruling is. It's called groupthink.

Quote

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people, in which the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.
The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. As a social science model, groupthink has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, social psychology, management, and organizational theory.
The majority of the initial research on groupthink was performed by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University. In an influential 1972 book, his original definition of the term was "A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." Since Janis’s work, other studies have attempted to reformulate his groupthink model. 'T Hart (1998) developed a concept of groupthink as “collective optimism and collective avoidance,” while McCauley (1989) pointed to the impact of conformity and compliance pressures on groupthink decisions.

(ii) Also, let's not forget that 7 times Gravity Probe B was affected by a gravity anomaly which meant the experiment was split into 7 seperate sections and had to be re-started each time!

My latest thoughts:
(i) The neanderthals of Gibraltar would have succumbed to this climate trap most likely, being unable to migrate north I imagine.
(ii) Some incredible investment opportunities for transporting freshwater-bergs from Greenland to drought stricken Africa are likely to become available.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 14 November 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 14 November 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

You're complaints are based on Newton's weak equivalence principle, which is just an assumption on his part and which Einstein embraced without question. You're unable to appreciate the anisotropic graviton model (a corkscrew shape to give attractive interaction).

No, none of my arguments (in my above post, at least) are based on the weak equivalent principle. Secondly, none of my arguments (in my above post) are based on any sort of microscopic model for any forces.

All of my arguments are based on the behaviour of macroscopic objects influenced by forces.

SunnyBlues, on 14 November 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Err, Flight 447 is a superb example of the narrow 2g gravity field over the Romanche Trench (see the TalkPage section) and the South Atlantic Anomaly *is* the perpetual distortion in the region.

If there is 2g surface gravity, why have no ships reported that their crew members suddenly doubled in weight when sailing over this region?

If the gravity was 2g (or more, as you stipulated previously), why was Flight 447 affected by a force equivalent to 1.04 g (as I worked out here)?

SunnyBlues, on 14 November 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

It's a simple psychological case of people who refuse to look at any alternative to what the majority ruling is. It's called groupthink.

So there is a persistent region in the ocean where people (and everything else) suddenly doubles in weight. But nobody talks about it, because it is a betrayal of Dr. Einsteins' legacy?

Believing that Gravity Probe B verified the Relativistic predictions for the frame dragging effect could be labeled as groupthink. Believing that the early report of superluminal neutrinos had to be incorrect could be labeled as groupthink.

But covering up a region of 2g surface gravity - with the amount of air, space, and ship traffic that goes on today - that is quite a large stretch of the imagination.

SunnyBlues, on 14 November 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

(ii) Also, let's not forget that 7 times Gravity Probe B was affected by a gravity anomaly which meant the experiment was split into 7 seperate sections and had to be re-started each time!

Sure, we need to remember that. (Well, we need to remember that GRB suffered many anomalies - that is different than GRB measuring gravitational anomalies. The anomalies GRB experienced could be instrument related.)

Gravity Probe B orbited the Earth over 5000 times. If the ``supergravity'' you hypothesize came from a disc-shaped source, GRB should have detected this anomaly once every orbit.

In fact, NASA even reported an anomaly with GRB when the space craft was over the South Atlantic Anomaly (see here), but it was a GPS/velocity problem, not a gravity measurement problem. (Incidentally, where are you getting the figure of ``7 anomalies'' from?)

But again, why hasn't GRACE or GOCE measured any of this? Measuring tiny changes in surface gravity is a major part of the mission for those satellites!

Edited by sepulchrave, 14 November 2012 - 08:51 PM.

[RingFenceTheCity]

(i) You seem to have forgotten about the 6 degree angle of propagation of the supergravity field we calculated earlier. You *STILL* don't have the correct mental image, which is driving me to distraction incidentally. Why do you say "Gravity Probe B orbited the Earth over 5000 times. If the ``supergravity'' you hypothesize came from a disc-shaped source, GRB should have detected this anomaly once every orbit."?????????????????? How many times are you going to ignore the picture I'm painting? NO! The probe doesn't go over the same geo-spot every orbit is it? You keep the idea that the field *must* be  vast in size when I keep saying it's *NARROW*!! Remember the 20ft wide trench! Yes, 20ft wide at a 6 degree angle to 30,000 ft! Not easily detected!! (Please don't reply to this anymore as I'm not going to read your posts due to you not reading mine with sufficient open-mindedness.

(ii) You *do* make a good point about the nature of the proposed circa 2g field when in comparison with the earth's natural 1g field. The graviton simulations are still a long way off, so this is still a grey area, I admit. My first thought is that a supergravity field requires super-gravitons. It *isn't* just a case of a greater flux density of regular gravitons.

(iii) Some nice intelligent people from Wikipedia talkpage Flight447 have read the opening article link and understand where I'm coming from. They say I should continue my fight.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 15 November 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 15 November 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

(i) You seem to have forgotten about the 6 degree angle of propagation of the supergravity field we calculated earlier. You *STILL* don't have the correct mental image, which is driving me to distraction incidentally. Why do you say "Gravity Probe B orbited the Earth over 5000 times. If the ``supergravity'' you hypothesize came from a disc-shaped source, GRB should have detected this anomaly once every orbit."?????????????????? How many times are you going to ignore the picture I'm painting? NO! The probe doesn't go over the same geo-spot every orbit is it? You keep the idea that the field *must* be  vast in size when I keep saying it's *NARROW*!! Remember the 20ft wide trench! Yes, 20ft wide at a 6 degree angle to 30,000 ft! Not easily detected!! (Please don't reply to this anymore as I'm not going to read your posts due to you not reading mine with sufficient open-mindedness.

In the childish interests of giving a parting shot:

• You said in this post that the supergravity came from the edges of a disc. In this case, no matter what the orientation of the disc, the gravity would stretch along a circle. If the disc is upright, that circle would stretch around the Earth! The strongest part of the field would be at the surface of the Earth closest to the edge of the disc. But if the field is as massive as you claim, then there would still be some influence on the other side of the earth (possibly at 0.01% strength? I can't really tell because you are vague on the dispersion law of this force). But any circle stretching entirely around the globe would be passed over at least twice by every satellite not in geostationary orbit.
  
• Gravity Probe B orbits the earth at a distance of about 640 km. A 6 degree dispersion turns a 20 ft (= 6 m) spot on the surface of the Earth into a 67 km spot at an altitude of 640 km (640 km * tan(6 degrees)).

For the record, I respect your drive and passion on this subject.

I am just not sure why you insist on pinning your theory to numbers that seem to come from nowhere! Again, again, again, why 2g surface gravity?

Why not something more reasonable like 0.1g surface gravity?

Why not dispense with talking about gravity in terms of ``g'' altogether, since that only makes sense at a common surface? (Are all exotic comets exactly the same distance under the surface of the Earth? And are all exotic comets exactly the same size?)

Edited by sepulchrave, 15 November 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 15 November 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

In the childish interests of giving a parting shot:

• You said in this post that the supergravity came from the edges of a disc. In this case, no matter what the orientation of the disc, the gravity would stretch along a circle. If the disc is upright, that circle would stretch around the Earth! The strongest part of the field would be at the surface of the Earth closest to the edge of the disc. But if the field is as massive as you claim, then there would still be some influence on the other side of the earth (possibly at 0.01% strength? I can't really tell because you are vague on the dispersion law of this force). But any circle stretching entirely around the globe would be passed over at least twice by every satellite not in geostationary orbit.
  
• Gravity Probe B orbits the earth at a distance of about 640 km. A 6 degree dispersion turns a 20 ft (= 6 m) spot on the surface of the Earth into a 67 km spot at an altitude of 640 km (640 km * tan(6 degrees)).

For the record, I respect your drive and passion on this subject.

I am just not sure why you insist on pinning your theory to numbers that seem to come from nowhere! Again, again, again, why 2g surface gravity?

Why not something more reasonable like 0.1g surface gravity?

Why not dispense with talking about gravity in terms of ``g'' altogether, since that only makes sense at a common surface? (Are all exotic comets exactly the same distance under the surface of the Earth? And are all exotic comets exactly the same size?)

(i) Yes, of course, when I say from the edges of a disc, this is a working hypothesis based on the eyewitness detailed account of the 20ftx4ft depression which stretched "as far as they could see". It doesn't take much of an imagination to assume that perhaps the supergravity source doesn't emminate all the way around the assumed disc-shaped 'blackhole supernova remnant'. A magnet-like dual-pole exotic comet but with attraction at both ends is most likely.
(ii) Similarly, the circa 2g estimate is for ease of writing and is a ballpark figure. It doesn't really matter if one is a practitioner of fundamental physics such as FQXi. It's the mental image of spinning corkscrews as a mechanical common sense model for gravity which alludes you I think. The 2g figure is given by the modern day flight accident data, where files are made if an air stewardess breaks an ankle during a 'clear air turbulence' event for example. The electronic blackbox is able to record sudden changes in the aircrafts flight configuration to a high level of accuracy. The jolt of 0.6g to 2g is given for around a 10 second interval during perfect flying conditions. It *isn't* 1g + 0.6g to get the jolt imo, it's a 1.6g effect from supergravity. The supergravity 'supercedes' the earth's gravity field and the entire airpocket including aircraft descends uncontrollably to the ground.

My latest thoughts:
(i) Of course! The moon *has* received exotic comet impacts shortly after it's rapid creation. A lunar supergravity field is pointing somewhere towrds earth. Like magnets which align themselves when their paths come close, a 'supergravity highway' may be formed.
(ii) "Is this the combination of a pile of exotic comets stacked just so our moon will rejuvenate evolution?" One could ask. "Is the moon's disc the same size as the solar disc during an eclipse *another* such coincidence?". There's room to suggest that a kindhearted group of beings simply gave nature a helping hand. My guess is that it's a cosmic coincidence based on superstrong ice age currents (FQXi essay) that have swept blackhole supernova remnants into a natural underwater tower.

If a group of kindhearted beings do happen to stop by and say hello, I would guess that it would be their first time.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 16 November 2012 - 12:25 PM.

[RingFenceTheCity]

The conclusion that the 1,470 year millennial climate cycle is due to the sudden approach of the moon is certainly going to seem far fetched to many readers. The ancient legends of the "sky falling in" is a strangely persistent one. It actually *fits* with the idea of the moon suddenly appearing bigger in the night sky with calamatous earthquakes and tsunamis. I remember reading about this legend from the Australian aborigines, but I've just discovered that the European Celts *also* had the memory. The Day the Sky Fell on the Heads of the Celts. "One or two of us probably wonder why the Asterix comics constantly refer to the Gauls worrying about the sky falling on their heads."

Download this paper and read the words in the introduction "The moon rocked", Cosmogenic mega-tsunami in the Australia region: are they supported by Aboriginal and Maori legends?

Edited by SunnyBlues, 17 November 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[sepulchrave]

RIght, but was the Moon shaking around in the sky because the ground was shaking (possibly because of a massive impact event, as alluded to in the paper you cite), or because the Moon was actually deviating from its' normal trajectory by a visibly significant amount?

The oral-history story mentioned in the paper also makes references to stars falling to the ground: I trust you don't take that at face value? Actual stars are light years distant and - if they somehow could approach the vicinity of Earth - would obviously swallow it whole.

Indeed, the story references that the stars ``tumbled and clattered and fell against each other''. I assume you don't take that at face value either; suggesting that stars light years away almost instantly travel the vast distances between them and bounce off one another is ludicrous.

Perhaps we can reinterpret that statement as a bit of poetic license, and infer that the teller was actually describing a sudden meteor shower?

Now if the Moon really did deviate from its trajectory that could certainly create a meteor shower, as described.

But that is not necessary; A single large meteor could be responsible for the large impact and the accompanying shower of smaller fragments.

If we take the description of the ``clattering stars'' as poetic license, why can't we also take the description of the ``Moon rocking'' as poetic license describing an earthquake?

--------

Anyway, what would need to happen for the Moon to actually shake?

The human eye has an angular resolution of 0.07 degrees. The Moon (currently, at least) has an average radius of 1737.1 km and closest distance of 356119 km from the surface of the Earth.

The Moon therefore takes up an angle of 0.56 degrees in our vision (angle = 2 arctan( moon radius / moon distance ))

For a human being to noticeably detect a change in the motion of the Moon (i.e. be able to see the moon "rocking"), I submit that the Moon would have to rapidly change it's position by at least 0.07 degrees (0.00122 radians).

This manes that the Moon would be moving forwards and backwards by 435 km (move distance = 0.00122 radians * moon distance ).

Now since the Earth is rotated (at a rate of 360 degrees per 24 hours), the moon would normally travel this distance in about 17 seconds.

I submit that in order to be ``rocking'' the moon would have to move forwards and then backwards (or the reverse)  by 435 km in less than 17 seconds, a total trip distance of at least 1305 km (435 km forwards, 2 * 435 backwards, then normal motion forwards again).

I submit that the simplest form of ``rocking'' is sinusoidal motion. In this event, moon would have to have a maximum acceleration of 34.2 km/s^2, or roughly 3490 g.

A bit much, don't you think? Especially since for side-to-side rocking you would need something else providing the force (the Earth can't provide a force tangential to the Moon's orbit).

The other possibility is that the moon was rocking closer and further from the Earth. This is a bit of a stretch, since you are insisting on a literal interpretation of the oral-history, and growing and shrinking is not the same as ``rocking''.

In this case the Earth-Moon interaction could provide the force. But for the Moon to grow by an angle of 0.07 degrees it would have to move about 40 000 km closer and 51 000 km further away from the earth. That is quite a large distance; you can take the accelerations I calculated above and multiply them by 100 for this situation.

---------

Naturally, I have the same problems with this as I have with most of your theories. You take a single data point as evidence, and extrapolate a completely enormous cause.

I don't know how old the oral-history story of this event is, but I bet it was in the last 1000 years, and definitely within the last 4000 years. Good records of the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets (some of them, anyway), and stars are available from middle eastern societies since Sumeria some 5000 years ago. Nobody mentions dramatic changes in the moon's trajectory in these records.

Why would a change in the Moon cause a mega-tsunami only in the South Pacific? How would such a dramatic change in the Moon's trajectory be rebalanced later? (The Moon doesn't appear to be moving oddly now, and we can back calculate the position of the Moon - based on its current trajectory - and get excellent agreement with historical records.) How could the Moon withstand these huge forces and not be torn apart? (Or how could the crust of the Earth not get torn apart during this process as well, for that matter?)

------

You seem to have a low opinion of humanity if you think huge influences like dramatically changing the trajectory of the Moon, or ``supergravity hot spots'' on the surface of the Earth are only noticed by a few odd eyewitness observers.

How prescient the medieval/Roman/Greek/Babylonian/Egyptian (not to mention the Chinese or Mayan) astronomers must have been!

They must have deliberately omitted this shocking motion of the Moon from their records because the somehow knew that eventually ``Western science'' lead by Newton and later Einstein would posit a world where such events couldn't happen!

[RingFenceTheCity]

Sep, you don't seem too concerned that we have a mystery millennial cycle which is proven by ice core analysis to change the North Altlantic climate by 5 or more degrees in 30-40 years. You don't a *clue* as to the cause, do you?

Edited by SunnyBlues, 19 November 2012 - 03:10 PM.