Water isotope ratios, Velikovsky and electric universe

[RayTomes]

Thanks Wal Thornhill for inviting me to be your friend on Facebook, which I happily accept. As you probably know, I have flitted in and out of this forum over a number of years. I just finished watching your video on hydrogen / deuterium ratio in water in Saturns rings and moons compared to on Earth. That is interesting. I do have great problems with Velikovsky however having sat down to read his book decades ago and coming across too many statements that didn't accord with my understanding of things. Let me state that I am not an apologist for the scientific establishment, having myself experienced their pig headed ignorance. So I would like to discuss / debate a number of these issues with you here. Others are welcome to join in.

My own work is the Harmonics Theory which essentially an electromagnetic model of the Universal development that explains many things not explicable by Big Bang cosmology and standard theories. For an explanation of the theory and its predictions, please see:
https://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.w ... -about.pdf
https://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.w ... theory.pdf
So please consider me a believer in the importance of electromagnetic forces in explaining the structure of the Universe. Gravity is a residual effect of electromagnetism.

The issue of major solar system changes in the last few thousand years:

Modern solar system dynamics are calculated to great accuracy and can predict planetary motions to a fraction of a second of arc. This is based solely on gravitational attraction (including GR). It accords with observations of the planets by ancient Greeks and others centuries BC.

The motions of the Earth's axis, changes in the ellipse and such are able to be calculated. The periods of 405,000 years and 97,000 years are present in the earth's orbital eccentricity. A period of 41,000 years is present in the Earth's inclination. The precession of the equinoxes interacts with the eccentricity orientation to give a period of 23,000 years. These are known as the Milankovitch variables and have been shown to be present in the climate variations over the last 800,000 years as measured by ice bores.These variations depend on the accuracy of solar system motions calculated by gravitational theory over long periods of time (at present more than 20 million years).

The 405,000 year ellipse eccentricity cycle is very stable and is now accepted as the basis of geological dating over hundreds of millions of years.

These periods would not be stable if the planets had been shooting all over the place in the manner that Velikovsky described.

[RayTomes]

Let me add that I think that there are periods of catastrophes.

[celeste]

You just don’t accept that there could be short period changes in planetary orbits, while we still maintain the longer period cycles? As if if the longer period cycles were dependent on the shorter cycles?

I will agree, that if precession is driven by gravitational tugs as in the mainstream model, then yes, alter the position of planets, and the precessional cycle is gone. If on the other hand, precession has a larger scale cause, ( as an example, is caused by the background magnetic field), then no change in planetary orbits will cause a change in the precessional rate, or precessional axis itself.

[seasmith]

Celeste, Before you two get into it, could you please clarify that last line?
How can no change cause any change ?

["celeste"], then no change in planetary orbits will cause a change in the precessional rate, or precessional axis itself.

[jacmac]

seasmith:

How can no change cause any change ?
["celeste"], then no change in planetary orbits will cause a change in the precessional rate, or precessional axis itself.

I take that to mean:
then ANY change in planetary orbits will NOT cause a change in the precessional rate.....
celeste ?

Welcome back Ray.
Your Harmonics Theory is quite compelling; and complicated.
While there seems to be a lot of evidence of natural events happening in a harmonic cyclical relationship,
I personally am looking for causal, or direct relationship, explanations for some events, such as the solar cycle as it relates to the planets and their orbits.

You are dealing in some very large numbers of years with the Milankovitch variables (which I know nothing about).
Statements on that time scale are generally suspect to me(additional study on my part notwithstanding).

Thanks for posting your papers.
Jack

[celeste]

Sorry,
I think I can explain better with a specific example:
In the standard model, precession of the Earth is caused by gravitational tugs from the sun and moon. Therefore, any change in the orbit of the moon, for example, would alter our precessional cycle. On the other hand, if precession is caused by say, the Earth spinning in a large scale backgroundmagnetic field, then Earth should precess about the same axis, whether or not the moon’s orbit changes.

Now, what we know, is that the rate of precession has been systematically increasing for at least the last 100 years. Yet observations show that the moon is slowly receding from Earth. So, the gravity only model can’t predict the rate of precession, or how the obliquity angle changes over time.

In a nutshell, the argument boils down to this: if precession is at all controlled by other solar system bodies, then any change to the orbit of those bodies would alter the rate and/or axis of precession. This is the argument put forward in the first post in this thread. If, on the other hand, precession is driven by larger scale dynamics, then we may expect that even a radical upset of our solar system dynamics, still will end with a return to the original precession.

Crudest but clearest example: two spinning, precessing tops collide. Yet after the collision, each returns to precessing around the same axis ( downward, in the direction of gravity). Obviously in this case, because the precession axis of each top had nothing whatsoever to do with the other top. This is what I argue for the solar system. The spin axis, spin rate, etc, of each planet is not governed by the other planets. It is governed by the larger scale environment. In this case, by the large scale current filament on which our solar system is strung.

Get this simple point : Earth’s precessional axis is not 90 degrees away from the gravitational tugs of sun and moon, as often depicted in mainstream images of Earth’s precession. Our precessional axis is 90 degrees away from the center of the local chimney( the large scale filament we are in).

[seasmith]

"
Post by seasmith » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:16 pm

OP by Jim Weninger
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: The helical path of the sun through space

I have found evidence supporting a helical path for the sun, which is compatible with the idea of the sun being charged and moving through a background magnetic field. Has anyone else found this as well?
The general idea is this:
1. The earth's spin axis tends to align with our helical direction of travel,and this is the cause of earth's ~26,000 year precessional cycle.
2. The 41,000 year obliquity cycle is caused by changes in magnetic field strentgh.
3. Vega is traveling ahead of us, with it's spin axis aligned with it's direction of travel. This is why we see Vega only ~5 degrees off it's spin axis now.
4. Sirius is charged similarly to the sun,and therefore spirals helically in the same direction around nearly the same axis. This is why Sirius does not seem to precess like other stars.
These are just the general ideas; I am ready to be questioned on details if anyone is interested. I would also be interested in hearing from anyone with similar ideas.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... precession

[nick c]

Seasmith,
If that were true then shouldn't the other planets in our Solar System display the same or similar characteristics. Is there any evidence of that?

[seasmith]

Perihelion Precession of the Planets
The Solar System consists of eight major planets (Mercury to Neptune) moving around the Sun in slightly elliptical orbits which are approximately co-planar with one another. According to Chapter 5, if we neglect the relatively weak interplanetary gravitational interactions then the perihelia of the various planets (i.e., the points on their orbits at which they are closest to the Sun) remain fixed in space. However, once these interactions are taken into account, it turns out that the planetary perihelia all slowly precess around the Sun. We can calculate the approximate rate of perihelion ...

https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/ ... de115.html

Nick C,
I don't know if our solar system is following some object in space, and don't think astronomers have achieved the resolution, or time-in-observation to know either.
Our solar system probably is pursuing a helical trajectory through space, because spiral galaxies in general seem to have helix-shaped arms, etc, judging by the images. But again, how could we measure helical motion/precession of our solar system looking from inside out for a millisecond of astro-time ?
Weninger's old post was dredged up here because i thought it might relate somehow to Celeste's "larger scale cause".

I don't even own a telescope

[celeste]

Nick,
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/02/scie ... anets.html
“Mars is still undergoing wild variations”. This “chaos” is allowed for other planets. It is just the Earth that is protected (by its massive moon), according to the mainstream. Milankovitch cycles are for us alone, we are told to believe. It is too bad that Milankovitch didn’t have the data on how the moon is receding from the Earth. Also, the rate of precession has been increasing for the last hundred years, in a way not explained by the mainstream, and that too not known by Milankovitch.
If someone tells you that these cycles were stable and predictable for thousands of years, ask them why they are not even stable or predictable over the last hundred.
You might be interested to know that the formula for precession was updated, but not based on theory. They just changed the formula to more closely match the observations they see (the rate of precession increases each year), but there is no theory to back that formula!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
See under “values” here:
“The precessional rate is not a constant” and the formula is “empirically fitted to observational data,not on a deterministic model of the solar system”. Milankovitch obviously unaware of the tweaks to the formula yet again in 2000.

Nick,
How can anyone argue that the precessional cycle is stable for many thousands of years, if they can’t even get a handle on how it has been changing over the last 100. It’s all B.S.

[RayTomes]

You just don’t accept that there could be short period changes in planetary orbits, while we still maintain the longer period cycles? As if if the longer period cycles were dependent on the shorter cycles?

I will agree, that if precession is driven by gravitational tugs as in the mainstream model, then yes, alter the position of planets, and the precessional cycle is gone. If on the other hand, precession has a larger scale cause, ( as an example, is caused by the background magnetic field), then no change in planetary orbits will cause a change in the precessional rate, or precessional axis itself.

OK, I had to reread this a few times to really get it.

I do think that most of the longer term cycles are connected with huge e/m standing waves. That is what the harmonics theory says and it is able to successfully calculate the periods of many common cycles (although not say which periods will appear in which variables). And the longer period cycles are more fundamental than the shorter ones IMO.

If we accept your proposition, then there are huge coincidences in cycles periods relating to planetary motions and other variables. Its possible but it sets off warning bells.

OTOH, many long cycles are intimately connected with planetary orbits, such as the 2300 year cycle in climate and the sun which relates to good alignments of the four gas giant planets. More on this in answer to another question.

[RayTomes]

seasmith:
...

Welcome back Ray.
Your Harmonics Theory is quite compelling; and complicated.
While there seems to be a lot of evidence of natural events happening in a harmonic cyclical relationship,
I personally am looking for causal, or direct relationship, explanations for some events, such as the solar cycle as it relates to the planets and their orbits.

You are dealing in some very large numbers of years with the Milankovitch variables (which I know nothing about).
Statements on that time scale are generally suspect to me(additional study on my part notwithstanding).

Thanks for posting your papers.
Jack

Thank you Jack.

Firstly the planetary effects on sunspot numbers. There have been at least four theories on this including mine. IMO the important thing is a previously unconsidered GR effect of the planets on photons in the solar core. Einstein showed that light traveling past the sun in an eclipse is bent twice as much by gravity as expected in Newtonian physics. This same effect happens due to planetary action on photons in the solar core. Of course the effect is exceedingly small and so has been ignored. Even the small effects are cancelled out with the solar rotation except ... when we consider that the gas giants spend many years at a time above and below the solar equator (suns poles tipped about 7 degrees relative to plane of planets orbits) then the component of force and therefore acceleration in the N S direction builds up over the years. Calculations based on this model give a good correlation to sunspot numbers over a long period. One additional assumption needs to be made and that is that the Sun has a natural magnetic period of about 10.46 years so that only periods near that appear strongly in the sunspot record.

I give some info about this here: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07 ... mment-7756

Tallbloke, who's blog is linked to here, has used the z motion of the Sun (as I state is important) to show strong relationships to climate and earth's rotation rate.

Incidentally this same logic when applied to the Earth will probably explain the magnetic reversals of the Earth also. More complicated in this case.

[RayTomes]

More here:
http://www.astrology.co.uk/tests/tomes.htm

[RayTomes]

...
If someone tells you that these cycles were stable and predictable for thousands of years, ask them why they are not even stable or predictable over the last hundred.
...
How can anyone argue that the precessional cycle is stable for many thousands of years, if they can’t even get a handle on how it has been changing over the last 100. It’s all B.S.

Precession was measured accurately by the ancient Greeks (and probably others). We do know that it has continued for over 2,500 years.

The 405,000 year cycle of the Earth's orbital eccentricity can be observed over hundreds of millions of years in the geological record. It is so consistent that it was adopted as the primary time keeping for geological deposits.

[seasmith]

You just don’t accept that there could be short period changes in planetary orbits, while we still maintain the longer period cycles? As if if the longer period cycles were dependent on the shorter cycles?

I will agree, that if precession is driven by gravitational tugs as in the mainstream model, then yes, alter the position of planets, and the precessional cycle is gone. If on the other hand, precession has a larger scale cause, ( as an example, is caused by the background magnetic field), then no change in planetary orbits will cause a change in the precessional rate, or precessional axis itself.

...
I do think that most of the longer term cycles are connected with huge e/m standing waves. That is what the harmonics theory says and it is able to successfully calculate the periods of many common cycles (although not say which periods will appear in which variables). And the longer period cycles are more fundamental than the shorter ones IMO.

If we accept your proposition, then there are huge coincidences in cycles periods relating to planetary motions and other variables. Its possible but it sets off warning bells.

OTOH, many long cycles are intimately connected with planetary orbits, such as the 2300 year cycle in climate and the sun which relates to good alignments of the four gas giant planets. More on this in answer to another question.

Long-period standing waves, as well as rotation within a Birkeland Current [which i think is the proposition set out (following Donald Scott) in a previous post by Celeste] can both be graphed in 3D/t as spirals progressing within larger spirals. Or in 2D, as wheels within wheels and waves within waves.
At which ever arbitrary method/scale one chooses to calculate the motions and progression of the solar system through space, that progression must be integrated with the dynamics of our galaxy,
to be real.

I know, far easier said than done, but at least we have a catalog of galaxy forms to work with.
.