Mars Has Influence on Earth's Oceans and Climate, Repeating Every 2.4M Years(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Mars Has Influence on Earth's Oceans and Climate, Repeating Every 2.4M Years
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mars-has-an-unexpected-influence-on-earths-oceans-and-climate-repeating-every-24-million-years-study-finds-180983952/
109 comments
It doesn’t even have to be dark matter, most of the (non-dark) galactic mass is in the galactic plane and the sun oscillates up and down passing through the plane as it orbits the centre.
Except that the orbital period around the galaxy is ~230M years.
You could oscillate up and down across the orbital plane many times during one orbit. Not saying that's what's happening here, but it's a possibility.
That’s the argument I think. Per that Wikipedia link:
> Randall hypothesizes a plane of dark matter exists roughly on the plane of the Milky Way galaxy. As the Sun oscillates in its orbit around the center of the galaxy, it passes through the dark matter.
> Randall hypothesizes a plane of dark matter exists roughly on the plane of the Milky Way galaxy. As the Sun oscillates in its orbit around the center of the galaxy, it passes through the dark matter.
Ah that's probably where I learnt it from then!
What would cause the oscillation?
If you're not smack bang in the middle of the galactic plane, you're going to be accelerated towards it by gravity, so you'll tend to bob up and down, like a pendulum.
I'm not sure I buy that the oscillation around the plane can have a period other than the orbital period.
The oscillations are not "around" the plane, they are through the plane.
That is; the plane itself has a local gravitational attraction which is orthogonal to the galaxy core gravitational attraction. If a mass is above or below the plane, the "local" gravity will pull towards the plane. since nothing stops it at the mid line of the plane it passes through to the opposite side; rinse and repeat.
This bouncing above and below center line of the disk is more or less independent of our solar system completing galactic orbits.
That is; the plane itself has a local gravitational attraction which is orthogonal to the galaxy core gravitational attraction. If a mass is above or below the plane, the "local" gravity will pull towards the plane. since nothing stops it at the mid line of the plane it passes through to the opposite side; rinse and repeat.
This bouncing above and below center line of the disk is more or less independent of our solar system completing galactic orbits.
Fair; the descriptions I've seen seem to focus on the galactic orbit more than the local neighbourhood as the cause of the oscillation; this makes more sense.
This is the best explanation IMO.
The up down oscillation is completely decoupled from the orbit itself, assuming the orbital potential is uniform. It's like the galaxy wasn't rotating at all. You put something above the disk, and it gets accelerated downwards, but doesn't stop at the disk, it keeps going, until it gets dragged back up. Think of it like a pendulum.
Would we expect the oscillation to get smaller over time, like a pendulum, or is that stretching the analogy too far?
There might be some gas in the way that would slow it down slightly, but I expect that to be a very long time scale compared to other things like interactions with other systems and even the upcoming collision with Andromeda.
The Radcliffe wave is oscillating through the plane of the galaxy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliffe_wave
And a recent paper on its oscillation - https://www.sci.news/astronomy/oscillating-radcliffe-wave-12...
And a recent paper on its oscillation - https://www.sci.news/astronomy/oscillating-radcliffe-wave-12...
I haven't done the math but I would think it's possible due to interactions from other solar systems. Similar to how satellites oscillate around Lagrange points
do you think motion in X is always dependent on motion in Y?
[deleted]
Maybe dark matter bodies orbit faster.
Orbital speed is a fixed function of central mass and distance from that mass.
In theory. On the other hand, dark matter is pretty much just a name we give to a discrepancy in current theory.
No, that is dark energy.
From the pov. of gravity dark matter is simply regular matter that we can't see.
From the pov. of gravity dark matter is simply regular matter that we can't see.
I don't think that's really an accurate description. There's a discrepancy between observations relating to gravitation and general relativity's predictions. The discrepancy could be accounted for by significant extra mass, but no non-gravitational observations seem to confirm the presence of that extra mass. So "dark matter" is the supposition that there's a significant amount of extra mass that interacts only with gravity but not, for example, light, making it categorically different from ordinary matter. And I don't think there's any evidence that this dark matter follows the same gravitational constant as ordinary matter.
It does not matter whether it "follows the same gravitational constant as ordinary matter" or not.
For any kind of matter, normal or "dark", which is observed only through gravitational effects, you cannot determine separately its mass and the gravitational constant that applies to it. You can determine only the product between mass and gravitational constant (which is the cause of measurable forces).
Therefore for many astronomical objects the product between their mass and the gravitational constant is known with a much greater precision than their mass (because the gravitational constant is known with very poor precision even for ordinary matter).
The same applies for "dark matter". You cannot compute the distribution in space of the mass of the dark matter, but only the distribution in space of the product between its mass and whatever gravitational constant is applicable to it.
So even if a different gravitational constant were applicable to "dark matter" that fact would be irrelevant for any mathematical model that is fitted to the observations.
For any kind of matter, normal or "dark", which is observed only through gravitational effects, you cannot determine separately its mass and the gravitational constant that applies to it. You can determine only the product between mass and gravitational constant (which is the cause of measurable forces).
Therefore for many astronomical objects the product between their mass and the gravitational constant is known with a much greater precision than their mass (because the gravitational constant is known with very poor precision even for ordinary matter).
The same applies for "dark matter". You cannot compute the distribution in space of the mass of the dark matter, but only the distribution in space of the product between its mass and whatever gravitational constant is applicable to it.
So even if a different gravitational constant were applicable to "dark matter" that fact would be irrelevant for any mathematical model that is fitted to the observations.
Nevertheless, mass is a separate quantity, which means that the original claim that orbital speed is determined solely by mass and orbital radius is not supportible in the context of dark matter.
Not quite. Dark matter is the hypothesis that the discrepancy between theory and observation is due to a form of matter that interacts gravitationally but not electromagnetically. So we can't see it, and thus "dark".
There are other competing ideas including a family of modified Newtonian dynamics models, but nothing comes as close as explaining the observations as dark matter does.
There was a paper recently that showed that the discrepancy may be the higher order terms from general relativity that is often neglected because they are believed to be small - but that idea still needs to be proven to work for a large variety of cases.
The observations in question for this Dark matter hypothesis include the rotation velocity of stars in galaxies and a few other things like gravitational lensing.
Dark energy is a different discrepancy with theory. It's a term that we have to add to Einstein's field equations to account for the observation that the universal expansion is accelerating instead of slowing down. Again there are competing hypotheses, like non uniform density on the largest scales, but nothing quite explains everything as dark energy.
There are other competing ideas including a family of modified Newtonian dynamics models, but nothing comes as close as explaining the observations as dark matter does.
There was a paper recently that showed that the discrepancy may be the higher order terms from general relativity that is often neglected because they are believed to be small - but that idea still needs to be proven to work for a large variety of cases.
The observations in question for this Dark matter hypothesis include the rotation velocity of stars in galaxies and a few other things like gravitational lensing.
Dark energy is a different discrepancy with theory. It's a term that we have to add to Einstein's field equations to account for the observation that the universal expansion is accelerating instead of slowing down. Again there are competing hypotheses, like non uniform density on the largest scales, but nothing quite explains everything as dark energy.
That’s just how often the local dark forest reaper aliens fire a relativistic velocity impactor at every biosphere they can detect within range. Keep resetting to make sure nothing too complex evolves.
How much longer do we have to bug out before the next one?
How much longer do we have to bug out before the next one?
Apparently the last one was about 14 million years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Miocene_disruption
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Miocene_disruption
Just hide behind a large planet and hope they can't distort 3D into 2D.
Asimov and Silverberg's Nightfall novel seems related- a great sci-fi story about a civilization on an alien planet that isn't prepared for the long cycle of astronomical movements (they go crazy during an eclipse every 2000 years or so). Fun read :)
Asimov and Silverberg confused me for a moment - Nightfall was an Asimov-only short story from 1941. Still think it's one of his best. TIL there was a collaborative novel as well, which carried on after the events of the short story.
* * *
If you like novels that explore civilisations that have long astronomical cycles, the other classic is the Helliconia trilogy by Brian Aldiss. It's set in a double star system where the main planetary orbit takes 2500 Earth years, and the seasons last for Earth centuries. Civilisation tends to collapse when winter comes, but gradually approaches semi-industrial levels of technology by autumn.
* * *
If you like novels that explore civilisations that have long astronomical cycles, the other classic is the Helliconia trilogy by Brian Aldiss. It's set in a double star system where the main planetary orbit takes 2500 Earth years, and the seasons last for Earth centuries. Civilisation tends to collapse when winter comes, but gradually approaches semi-industrial levels of technology by autumn.
Having read the Nature article [0] it looks like we're near a local maximum of that cycle [1].
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46171-5
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46171-5/figures/2
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46171-5
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46171-5/figures/2
Mayan Doomsday Calendar, now with 200% more Science!
Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years. The term was coined and named after the Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković. In the 1920s, he hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession combined to result in cyclical variations in the intra-annual and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the Earth's surface, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced the Earth's climatic patterns.[1]
1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The paper for this was published a few days ago here to no response:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39729053
Admittedly I struggled on my first read through, but it’s one of the bigger discoveries in climate research in a while
It might give us some answers on why the Younger-Dryas happened argubly leading to the Quaternary Extinction event, as there’s some dissent around the causes
If it was a concurrent epicycle that stacked up that could be a pretty compelling argument
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39729053
Admittedly I struggled on my first read through, but it’s one of the bigger discoveries in climate research in a while
It might give us some answers on why the Younger-Dryas happened argubly leading to the Quaternary Extinction event, as there’s some dissent around the causes
If it was a concurrent epicycle that stacked up that could be a pretty compelling argument
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
[deleted]
This undermines my understanding of gravity, gravity is really fickle then as even this article says Mars is too small for the results
I think the article exaggerates the correlation as causation
until we can absolutely model this repeatedly, Martian presence is not the only answer as the article suggests
I think the article exaggerates the correlation as causation
until we can absolutely model this repeatedly, Martian presence is not the only answer as the article suggests
Disappointed to not see any Pern references. "Get off my lawn", I guess?
Man, this study is going to be paraded as the proof that astrology is scientific and ancient people were more knowledgeable than us.
People is born in seasons, constellations and planets appear in seasons, and so ancient smart people made a connection.
Then the largest actor interested in destroying Astrology is the Catholic Church for reasons. The church also had wrong astronomical theories. Science evolved, but we inherited a dead horse to beat.
Then the largest actor interested in destroying Astrology is the Catholic Church for reasons. The church also had wrong astronomical theories. Science evolved, but we inherited a dead horse to beat.
The reasons the Catholic Church did away with astrology can be explained in a one liner. Catholicism assumes a belief in free will, and the claimed predictive power of astrology contradicted this, and so was deemed blasphemous.
You are being downvoted, but it is completely true. This is going to be used in the gurusphere in the way Deepak Chopra abuses the language of quantum physics to justify quackery. While things like this are always interesting, part of me can't help be be depressed knowing it's going to go into the firehose of nonsense we're being sprayed by every day.
It's happening in this very thread in a few places already...
It's happening in this very thread in a few places already...
Mocking the thinking of others while literally engaging in soothsaying is rather ironic don't you think?
And yes, of course, I'm well aware you are able to cherry pick some silly quotes from Deepak to "prove" your point, and that I "should" "know what you meant" (let's ignore whether even you did, at the time you wrote the comment), but the never ending Motte and Bailey from you people is exhausting. Please try to broaden the scope of your knowledge, it may naturally reduce levels of hubris.
And yes, of course, I'm well aware you are able to cherry pick some silly quotes from Deepak to "prove" your point, and that I "should" "know what you meant" (let's ignore whether even you did, at the time you wrote the comment), but the never ending Motte and Bailey from you people is exhausting. Please try to broaden the scope of your knowledge, it may naturally reduce levels of hubris.
[deleted]
ancient people were more knowledgeable than us.
Almost sounds like a phobia.
I do think ancient people seem to have displayed more wisdom than us. We’re the brainiacs.
Almost sounds like a phobia.
I do think ancient people seem to have displayed more wisdom than us. We’re the brainiacs.
Definitely more wise, even if accidental.
More knowledgeable? No
More knowledgeable? No
[deleted]
Which one is more important ? :)
Every conspiracy theory and whacky magical thinking cult boils down to "See? I'm smarter than NURDS and GUBBERMENT!"
What methodology could one even use to know such a thing?
What methodology did you use to come to know this?
What methodology did you use to come to know this?
Conspiracy theories don't come from thinking one is smarter, but rather from a lack of trust. When somebody (or some entity) says something, how you respond to them is not only based on your perception of their knowledge, but also on your perception of the trustworthiness. It's somewhat of a tautology to say that as decline in trust of US institutions declines, lack of believing in what these institutions says also declines.
And trust in US institutions is not just randomly declining either. We just seem to have largely removed the social mores on lying and manipulation, so long as it can be used to push an agenda. If the powers that be want to reclaim public trust then there needs to be a much greater effort to increase transparency, honesty, hold open debate on all topics, and also hold groups accountable for misleading or lying to individuals. Instead we seem to be going rapidly in the exact opposite direction, and it's not difficult to predict the outcome.
And trust in US institutions is not just randomly declining either. We just seem to have largely removed the social mores on lying and manipulation, so long as it can be used to push an agenda. If the powers that be want to reclaim public trust then there needs to be a much greater effort to increase transparency, honesty, hold open debate on all topics, and also hold groups accountable for misleading or lying to individuals. Instead we seem to be going rapidly in the exact opposite direction, and it's not difficult to predict the outcome.
Astrology is misunderstood today IMO.
Cycles exist on Earth. Cycles exist in astral bodies. If an astral cycle aligns with some earth cycle, you can legitimately use the astral cycle to track the earth cycle. There is nothing wrong with doing this, it’s a useful tool.
The problem came when people confused correlation with causation. There’s also some spurious correlations used as well as some scale extrapolation issues.
But what was probably the root mechanism is sound. That is why ancients seem so weirdly obsessed with the stars, it actually works in some cases (non causally of course).
Cycles exist on Earth. Cycles exist in astral bodies. If an astral cycle aligns with some earth cycle, you can legitimately use the astral cycle to track the earth cycle. There is nothing wrong with doing this, it’s a useful tool.
The problem came when people confused correlation with causation. There’s also some spurious correlations used as well as some scale extrapolation issues.
But what was probably the root mechanism is sound. That is why ancients seem so weirdly obsessed with the stars, it actually works in some cases (non causally of course).
Does human belief play any role in causality?
Let's say for example that Bill incorrectly believes his wife and his friend Steve are having an affair and he kills them both in a fit of rage - did Bill's belief play any role in the causality underlying the death of the two humans?
Let's say for example that Bill incorrectly believes his wife and his friend Steve are having an affair and he kills them both in a fit of rage - did Bill's belief play any role in the causality underlying the death of the two humans?
[deleted]
The ancients were more knowledgeable then us.
https://youtu.be/J6OsDczx5iM?si=2BcthvU-6X_svTmw
https://youtu.be/J6OsDczx5iM?si=2BcthvU-6X_svTmw
I’m sure the Down voters watched the entire lecture I linked before casting their votes. /s
Didn't need to. I just went to the website of the organization that sponsored the lecture and saw the quackery I expected.
> "The Meru Project has discovered an extraordinary and unexpected geometric metaphor in the letter-sequence of the Hebrew text of Genesis that underlies and is held in common by the spiritual traditions of the ancient world. This metaphor models embryonic growth and self-organization. It applies to all whole systems, including those as seemingly diverse as meditational practices and the mathematics fundamental to physics and cosmology...Meru Project findings demonstrate that the relationship between physical theory and consciousness, expressed in explicit geometric metaphor, was understood and developed several thousand years ago."
https://www.meru.org/
> "The Meru Project has discovered an extraordinary and unexpected geometric metaphor in the letter-sequence of the Hebrew text of Genesis that underlies and is held in common by the spiritual traditions of the ancient world. This metaphor models embryonic growth and self-organization. It applies to all whole systems, including those as seemingly diverse as meditational practices and the mathematics fundamental to physics and cosmology...Meru Project findings demonstrate that the relationship between physical theory and consciousness, expressed in explicit geometric metaphor, was understood and developed several thousand years ago."
https://www.meru.org/
This is how Stan starts the lecture. His research is the exact opposite of quackery.
> No one should believe what I’m saying. It’s not that I’m telling you anything that isn’t so it’s just that you really need to be skeptical about this sort of thing. This is work in progress; it’s an honest research. I speak quickly and I may say “is” when I mean, based on the models and based on the references, it is my best conjecture that this “is”. So I’m not saying “absolute truth” when I say “is”, I’m just trying to fit things into a short time period.
> This is very controversial materiel because of, in the words of a friendly scholar, “It cannot be so”. And what he means is that if “it is so” then there is a lot of readjustment to be made. And I try to explain to people that this really doesn’t say anything like, “I’m right and you all are all wrong.” It says rather that this is deeper level integrates a whole range of material. And it demonstrates that what the scholars have been saying and what the religious people have been saying, and what the different religious people have been saying; they’re all right, but in their own context and if you go deeper you find something more common.
> No one should believe what I’m saying. It’s not that I’m telling you anything that isn’t so it’s just that you really need to be skeptical about this sort of thing. This is work in progress; it’s an honest research. I speak quickly and I may say “is” when I mean, based on the models and based on the references, it is my best conjecture that this “is”. So I’m not saying “absolute truth” when I say “is”, I’m just trying to fit things into a short time period.
> This is very controversial materiel because of, in the words of a friendly scholar, “It cannot be so”. And what he means is that if “it is so” then there is a lot of readjustment to be made. And I try to explain to people that this really doesn’t say anything like, “I’m right and you all are all wrong.” It says rather that this is deeper level integrates a whole range of material. And it demonstrates that what the scholars have been saying and what the religious people have been saying, and what the different religious people have been saying; they’re all right, but in their own context and if you go deeper you find something more common.
So the lecture starts with quackery as well. At no point does he say that he is using the scientific method to verify any claims. Instead, he says that the religious people and scholars are right because of magic.
You should really watch the lecture. He is very scientific in his methods, he is an extremely competent scientist.
He talks like a duck and walks like a duck. If these religious quacks had made their claims with science, they wouldn't have been ignored. Instead, they made their claims with magic and then retconned their claims to fit the actually believable results from science. It's always the same with these nuts.
The Lord, our God, the Lord is one.
r * theta = 1
r ^ 2 * theta = 1
r * theta = 1
r ^ 2 * theta = 1
Posting youtube links without explanation next to blatantly false claims is not useful.
Text can be at least quickly scanned through.
Text can be at least quickly scanned through.
narush(6)
ilrwbwrkhv(1)
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC344925/
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter_and_the_Dinosaur...