Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
NatureBoff

What Chance Is Earth's Core Non-Baryonic?

What Chance Is Earth's Core Non-Baryonic?  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. What Chance Is Earth's Core Non-Baryonic?

    • 100% - i'm ultra confident that it's at least partly non-baryonic
    • 75% - there's a very real chance imo
      0
    • 50% - it's certainly possible
      0
    • 25% - maybe
    • 0% - no chance


30 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

sepulchrave

The main point is that the inclination cycle is a much better fit than the eccentricity cycle for the 100ky cycle.

Based on the data presented in Muller's paper, I agree with you.

All I have done is give an alternative to their proposed 'interplanetary dust' mechanism of causation and replaced it with a non-standard model of the core of the Earth and sun.

This is where I disagree with you. You do not give a viable alternative. Let us assume for the moment that the Earth and Sun do indeed have non-standard model matter at their cores. Let us also assume that this causes an increase in Earth tides that match the inclination cycle.

  • I do not see how Earth tides (or any other gravitic effect other than complete gravitational reversal) would cause ocean temperature inversion.
  • I do not see how even if ocean temperature inversion occurred, it would trigger an ice age. The temperature of the abyssal zone is above freezing, and the deep ocean water would warm up as it reached the surface.
  • If ocean temperature inversion did occur, the change in salinity and oxygen content would kill most of the life in the oceans. Recent ice ages (i.e. in the last few million years) have not caused major extinction events.

Secondly, note that Muller's paper discusses orbital inclination with respect to the invariable plane, and not with respect to the Sun. The invariable plane is the ``average'' plane of the Solar system, but the Sun is obviously the primary influence on Earth's orbital mechanics.

Thirdly, note that the Earth passes through the invariable plane at least twice each year. Whatever mechanisms occur when the Earth's orbit is aligned with the plane will also occur on these days.

So... figure out when this happens (I Google'd it but didn't come up with much) and keep an eye out for strange oceanic behaviour on those days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
NatureBoff

Based on the data presented in Muller's paper, I agree with you.

This is where I disagree with you. You do not give a viable alternative. Let us assume for the moment that the Earth and Sun do indeed have non-standard model matter at their cores. Let us also assume that this causes an increase in Earth tides that match the inclination cycle.

  • I do not see how Earth tides (or any other gravitic effect other than complete gravitational reversal) would cause ocean temperature inversion.
  • I do not see how even if ocean temperature inversion occurred, it would trigger an ice age. The temperature of the abyssal zone is above freezing, and the deep ocean water would warm up as it reached the surface.
  • If ocean temperature inversion did occur, the change in salinity and oxygen content would kill most of the life in the oceans. Recent ice ages (i.e. in the last few million years) have not caused major extinction events.

Secondly, note that Muller's paper discusses orbital inclination with respect to the invariable plane, and not with respect to the Sun. The invariable plane is the ``average'' plane of the Solar system, but the Sun is obviously the primary influence on Earth's orbital mechanics.

Thirdly, note that the Earth passes through the invariable plane at least twice each year. Whatever mechanisms occur when the Earth's orbit is aligned with the plane will also occur on these days.

So... figure out when this happens (I Google'd it but didn't come up with much) and keep an eye out for strange oceanic behaviour on those days?

Excellent thinking sepulchrave, we're now on a level playing field. Thanks for reading the Muller paper through. Let me address the good points you've raised:

  1. The waves of the abyssal plane are increasingly understood to be of major importance to ocean currents
  2. It's the change in strength and dynamics of the world's oceans which underpins ice age onset
  3. The amount of increase in tides due to inclination has yet to be determined

Here's the Wikipedia entry in Ice Ages concerning ocean currents:

Fluctuations in ocean currents

Another important contribution to ancient climate regimes is the variation of ocean currents, which are modified by continent position, sea levels and salinity, as well as other factors. They have the ability to cool (e.g. aiding the creation of Antarctic ice) and the ability to warm (e.g. giving the British Isles a temperate as opposed to a boreal climate). The closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.[43]

Analyses suggest that ocean current fluctuations can adequately account for recent glacial oscillations. During the last glacial period the sea-level has fluctuated 20–30 m as water was sequestered, primarily in the northern hemisphere ice sheets. When ice collected and the sea level dropped sufficiently, flow through the Bering Strait (the narrow strait between Siberia and Alaska is ~50 m deep today) was reduced, resulting in increased flow from the North Atlantic. This realigned the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic, increasing heat transport into the Arctic, which melted the polar ice accumulation and reduced other continental ice sheets. The release of water raised sea levels again, restoring the ingress of colder water from the Pacific with an accompanying shift to northern hemisphere ice accumulation.[44]

Yes I'm aware of the invariable plane and understand that this is the plane of angular momentum of the solar system. Again, it's a new concept but I'm willing to accept the professionalism of Muller et al and it's applicability in explaining the 100ky cycle. The effect of the Earth passing through the invariable plane twice a year is something I was already aware of and I assume that there is an effect but that this is impercepitable to human technology. The satellite data which can 'see' the sub-meter earth-tides rise and fall with the passing of the moon and sun would have a level of accuracy which is too low to distinguish the biannual invariable plane effect. Either that, or no-one has taken the trouble to look for the signal in detail, which is also going to be very much the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

Excellent thinking sepulchrave, we're now on a level playing field. Thanks for reading the Muller paper through. Let me address the good points you've raised:

  1. The waves of the abyssal plane are increasingly understood to be of major importance to ocean currents
  2. It's the change in strength and dynamics of the world's oceans which underpins ice age onset
  3. The amount of increase in tides due to inclination has yet to be determined

Here's the Wikipedia entry in Ice Ages concerning ocean currents:

I agree that the thermohaline cycle is a major driver of global climate. The links you provided discuss the onset of glaciation in relation to changing continent positions, which I can completely agree with.

Since Earth tides are primarily due to the distance from the Sun and the Moon, and the tidal effect of the Moon is roughly twice the effect of the Sun, orbital eccentricity is a far bigger driver of Earth tides than orbital inclination.

Yes I'm aware of the invariable plane and understand that this is the plane of angular momentum of the solar system. Again, it's a new concept but I'm willing to accept the professionalism of Muller et al and it's applicability in explaining the 100ky cycle.

Sure, but Muller seems to have dropped his theory that inclination is the driver of the Milankovitch cycle. At least he hasn't published anything on the subject in the last 13-odd years. A more recent paper by Berger (W. H. Berger, Int. Journ. Earth Sciences (1999) 88 305-316) rejects Muller's hypothesis entirely, and shows how a revised eccentricity model can produce the same agreement with data as Muller's inclination model.

The effect of the Earth passing through the invariable plane twice a year is something I was already aware of and I assume that there is an effect but that this is impercepitable to human technology. The satellite data which can 'see' the sub-meter earth-tides rise and fall with the passing of the moon and sun would have a level of accuracy which is too low to distinguish the biannual invariable plane effect. Either that, or no-one has taken the trouble to look for the signal in detail, which is also going to be very much the case.

Right. That's the problem I have with your theory. We already experience ~40 cm Earth tides from the Moon, and ~20 cm Earth tides from the Sun. These tides do not disrupt thermohaline circulation.

If gravity is strictly monopolar, then the magnitude of these tides is not dependent on the inclination of Earth's orbit.

Even if there is some non-standard model material at the cores of the Earth and the Sun that couples in a non-monopolar manner, the strongest influence would then be dipolar - i.e. a cos(theta) dependence. Since the actual change in inclination is so small, we would already feel about 99% of this non-monopole effect in the current Earth tides.

Finally, the 100 ky glaciation cycle has only been prominent for the last million years... Earth tides and orbital inclination have been in effect since the Earth was born.

So:

  • I agree that thermohaline cycles are important for global climate,
  • I agree that current models of the glaciation cycle are somewhat unsatisfying,

But:

  • I don't agree that a minor change in orbital inclination will cause a massive change in Earth tides,
  • I don't agree that a change in Earth tides would significantly change the thermohaline cycle,
  • I don't agree that a non-standard model material in Earth's core is capable of changing the Earth tides based on orbital inclination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

Okay then, but thanks for taking the time in trying to undersatnd my point of view. Time will tell. Remember where you heard it first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ENTROPYOLOGIST

The truth about the the earths core composition having other than baryonic matter is impossible. If the Earth's core contained non-baryoninc matter then level gravity on Earth would be inconceivable to say the least. When Physicists can crack the code of Gravity at every scale from Quantum Mechanics to Gigantic Galaxy Clusters. Then mysteries of the modern cosmos with begin to be answered.

Most probably by the science and scientist that challenge pursuing non-popular scientific theory structure, despite being ostracized and harsh ridicule. Will be what brings out of our stagnate arrogance to master our place as the universe's self awareness. Then our entropy will be omnipotent.

~JAH

Edited by ENTROPYOLOGIST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.