Have the SuspiciousObservers spotted “The Wave?”

psychegram

The Living Force
The guy behind the “See The Pattern” channel identified a link between our star and Sirius as being siblings in a dance around a Birkland filament that answered a lot of questions in a much simpler explanation of Astrological Precession than any conventional astrophysicist has been able to give…

The biggest question being WHY does the earth precess at all? (Unless there is an un-identified force acting on it…)
Precession is, conventionally, explained as a natural result of a spinning object with a torque applied at an angle to the axis of rotation. In the case of the Earth, the torque is a consequence of the rotational axis being tilted with respect to the orbital plane, together with the equatorial bulge resulting from the centrifugal force arising from the Earth's rotation.

The phenomenon can be observed in a spinning top.

To me that seems to be a much more straightforward explanation than large-scale Birkeland currents.
Missed one glaring failure of the solar nuclear model (too early, no coffee yet lol):

The observed radiation does not match fusion. The workaround is to say the radiation is trapped for 10000+ years in order to down-shift the gamma rads. Flares and CMEs disrupt the "containment field" should we not see signals of way higher nuclear wavelengths and particles?
What you're missing is the density of the solar material and just the sheer amount of it. Nuclear fusion happens in the core, which is buried under a lot of stuff, and the deep stuff especially is very dense - 150 g/cm^3 (compare that to lead, 11 g/cm^3). When gamma photons are emitted in a given reaction, they don't just fly out into space because there's a lot of stuff between them and empty space. That means a given photon has a 'mean free path' - the average distance it travels before encountering an electron, ion, or atom - that is extremely short. Each time it encounters an electron, it's scattered off in a random direction. Each time it encounters an ion or atom, there's a chance it will be absorbed, after which it will be re-emitted. Each one of those interactions randomizes the path of the photon. Further, each time a photon is absorbed and re-emitted by an atom or ion, there's a good chance that rather than one photon of the same energy being emitted, several photons of lower energy (with the sum ultimately equalling the energy of the original photon) will be emitted instead.

The combined process results in two key effects. First, it takes a long time for a quantum of energy generated in the core to be released from the surface of the Sun; something on the order of 500,000 years. Second, by the time that energy ultimately escapes, it is not as a single gamma ray but rather as a large number of photons of much lower energy. This is why the spectrum of the Sun (and every other star) is not a few spikes at gamma ray wavelengths corresponding to proton-proton fusion reactions, but a thermal spectrum.
 

Roadhizzy

Padawan Learner
Curious if you have watched all the SAFIRE Project videos and updates? Between that and some geological evidence of transmutation via massive plasma strikes, I really think that fusion isn't the only option available. I have a theory on cold fusion as well in stellar/planetary cores that really isn't fusion but more of a production/assembly line in that very exotic state that could only be found in much cold/dense environs (superconductor) - partly from Cass and the NH4 crystal comment (pyramid anyone) - transistor?

The "cold" center and extremely hot corona are also oddities beyond the "energy is trapped for half a million years before we get to observe/measure it"

I get the density and grav/EM angle, it's obviously how science dealt with the massive inconsistency. I always think there's a far more elegant approach. Law of One calls our star the sub-Logos. Writing the "laws" of physics, carrying all of the templates of atomic/subatomic particles. Emitting all the energy that created & fostered life here. Intelligent Energy. The cause to the effect known as evolution :D
 
Precession is, conventionally, explained as a natural result of a spinning object with a torque applied at an angle to the axis of rotation. In the case of the Earth, the torque is a consequence of the rotational axis being tilted with respect to the orbital plane, together with the equatorial bulge resulting from the centrifugal force arising from the Earth's rotation.

The phenomenon can be observed in a spinning top.
The torque and precession implies a force acting to rotate the axis of rotation about a different axis.

With a top, that torque comes from the external force of gravity trying to pull the top’s centre of mass downwards, acting against the bottom point of the spinning top to create a pivot point. The forces of gravity and the reaction at the pivot point cause the top to tilt - resulting in rotation about a different axis and subsequent precession.

What force is acting on the Earth to cause its rotational axis to rotate?

The earth is spinning in free space. Unlike a top, there is no pivot point in contact with a table to oppose free rotation. If there was an externally applied force causing the earth’s axis to rotate, it would!

Gyroscopes are SO cool!
 
The gravitational force of the Sun acting upon the Earth's equatorial bulge is what causes the rotational axis to precess.
But if that were the case the earth would just flip over.

The precession of a top only happens because the axis of rotation is constrained by the contact point with the table.

If you have a gyroscope and apply a rotational force (and a typical Gyroscope can be said to have an equatorial bulge), it merely rotates the axis through precessional motion UNTIL the rotational force is dissipated.

Also, the torque on a top only exists BECAUSE of unbalanced forces and a constraint on its ability to balance that force.

Just hold a gyroscope in your hand and apply a rotation!

(Very few people have fully analyzed/understood precessional motion! It is not required to get a degree in Physics!)

Most Physics degrees gloss over gyroscopes!

If the earth were subjected to a rotational force, it would simply rotate its axis of rotation! It would not precess like a top!

The ONLY reason for precession like a “top” is if the axis of rotation were constrained in some way!

(Apologies: This was always a trick question! Precession of the earth like a top is impossible unless the earth is spinning on a table!)
 
But if that were the case the earth would just flip over.

The precession of a top only happens because the axis of rotation is constrained by the contact point with the table.

If you have a gyroscope and apply a rotational force (and a typical Gyroscope can be said to have an equatorial bulge), it merely rotates the axis through precessional motion UNTIL the rotational force is dissipated.

Also, the torque on a top only exists BECAUSE of unbalanced forces and a constraint on its ability to balance that force.

Just hold a gyroscope in your hand and apply a rotation!

(Very few people have fully analyzed/understood precessional motion! It is not required to get a degree in Physics!)

Most Physics degrees gloss over gyroscopes!

If the earth were subjected to a rotational force, it would simply rotate its axis of rotation! It would not precess like a top!

The ONLY reason for precession like a “top” is if the axis of rotation were constrained in some way!

(Apologies: This was always a trick question! Precession of the earth like a top is impossible unless the earth is spinning on a table!)
The interaction between the earth’s magnetic field and that of the Sun, could possibly effect a constraint on axial rotation, but so far I have never seen anyone link the two…
 

Bluegazer

Dagobah Resident
@woneill1701 Well, I think there are several factors involved for the precession and from my point of view, if we add up it is gravitational and electromagnetic. I started to do some research very quickly and I found the Inner core super-rotation

At the center of Earth is the core, a ball with a mean radius of 3480 kilometres that is composed mostly of iron. The outer core is liquid while the inner core, with a radius of 1220 km, is solid.[1] Because the outer core has a low viscosity, it could be rotating at a different rate from the mantle and crust. This possibility was first proposed in 1975 to explain a phenomenon of Earth's magnetic field called westward drift: some parts of the field rotate about 0.2 degrees per year westward relative to Earth's surface. In 1981, David Gubbins of Leeds University predicted that a differential rotation of the inner and outer core could generate a large toroidal magnetic field near the shared boundary, accelerating the inner core to the rate of westward drift.[2] This would be in opposition to the Earth's rotation, which is eastwards, so the overall rotation would be slower.[3]

In 1995, Gary Glatzmeier at Los Alamos and Paul Roberts at UCLA published the first "self-consistent" three-dimensional model of the dynamo in the core.[5] The model predicted that the inner core rotates 3 degrees per year faster than the mantle, a phenomen that became known as super-rotation.[6][7] 1996, Xiaodong Song and Paul G. Richards, scientists at the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory, presented seismic evidence for a super-rotation of 0.4 to 1.8 degrees per year,[8][9] while another study estimated the super-rotation to be 3 degrees per year.[10]

Assuming this opposite/contra-rotation, it could result in the actual precession of the axis and its stability because when there is such counter-rotation, torque is usually minimized. Now if the magnetic field weakens or strengthens, that can (?) changes the velocity and therefore could induce torque.

But what could alter the earth's magnetic field? Assuming EU theory and plasma cosmology, electromagnetic changes in the solar system would be the torque-inducing factor. Perhaps there is a whole chain of events, as in cascade coming from the galactic nucleus through the Pleiades, Arcturus, arriving to our solar system.
 

psychegram

The Living Force
But if that were the case the earth would just flip over.

The precession of a top only happens because the axis of rotation is constrained by the contact point with the table.

If you have a gyroscope and apply a rotational force (and a typical Gyroscope can be said to have an equatorial bulge), it merely rotates the axis through precessional motion UNTIL the rotational force is dissipated.

Also, the torque on a top only exists BECAUSE of unbalanced forces and a constraint on its ability to balance that force.

Just hold a gyroscope in your hand and apply a rotation!

(Very few people have fully analyzed/understood precessional motion! It is not required to get a degree in Physics!)

Most Physics degrees gloss over gyroscopes!

If the earth were subjected to a rotational force, it would simply rotate its axis of rotation! It would not precess like a top!

The ONLY reason for precession like a “top” is if the axis of rotation were constrained in some way!

(Apologies: This was always a trick question! Precession of the earth like a top is impossible unless the earth is spinning on a table!)

The Earth is a big object. It has an absolutely ridiculous amount of angular momentum compared to a gyroscope.

Note that the gyroscope precesses until its rotational kinetic energy is dissipated, at which point it falls over.

The Earth, of course, will never "fall over" since it's not balanced on a table. Its rotation period is, however, slowing, thanks to tidal friction from the Moon. Hundreds of millions of years ago, the day was much shorter; in the distant future, it will be much longer. Obviously, if the Earth's rotation were to be slowed to the point of basically stopping, precession would also cease (although I believe the Sun is expected to become a red giant long before then).

The torque on the Earth also exists due to unbalanced forces - in particular, the gravitational tug of the Sun, acting on the Earth's equatorial bulge, which is not in balance because the Earth's rotational axis is tilted wrt the orbital plane.
 
@woneill1701 Well, I think there are several factors involved for the precession and from my point of view, if we add up it is gravitational and electromagnetic. I started to do some research very quickly and I found the Inner core super-rotation



Assuming this opposite/contra-rotation, it could result in the actual precession of the axis and its stability because when there is such counter-rotation, torque is usually minimized. Now if the magnetic field weakens or strengthens, that can (?) changes the velocity and therefore could induce torque.

But what could alter the earth's magnetic field? Assuming EU theory and plasma cosmology, electromagnetic changes in the solar system would be the torque-inducing factor. Perhaps there is a whole chain of events, as in cascade coming from the galactic nucleus through the Pleiades, Arcturus, arriving to our solar system.
There could be many factors that could cause the earth to wobble like a top…

And this could be one of them! The top on a table analogy, unfortunately, isn’t!

I do believe we, on this planet, also know a lot less about the Physics of 3D than we like to think we do.

My original point was that the idea proposed by the ”See The Pattern” guy was both elegant and simple - the simplest I have seen.

I like simple and elegant!

It also provided an interesting idea of why Sirius featured so prominently in ancient Egyptian astronomy.

I’m not saying he was right, but I like the simplicity of the hypothesis.

Btw: Gyroscopes and rotational motion are generally both poorly understood and historically under-researched. I believe there is as rich a world of Physics in rotational dynamics and geometry as there was found to be in 3D Dynamics and Geometry by Lorentz and Maxwel etc…

Yes, all Physicists learn about Moments of Inertia and Torque, but that is no more advanced than BASIC Newtonian Dynamics. Most then put it on a shelf and never give it a second look. Sad!
 
The Earth is a big object. It has an absolutely ridiculous amount of angular momentum compared to a gyroscope.

Note that the gyroscope precesses until its rotational kinetic energy is dissipated, at which point it falls over.

The Earth, of course, will never "fall over" since it's not balanced on a table. Its rotation period is, however, slowing, thanks to tidal friction from the Moon. Hundreds of millions of years ago, the day was much shorter; in the distant future, it will be much longer. Obviously, if the Earth's rotation were to be slowed to the point of basically stopping, precession would also cease (although I believe the Sun is expected to become a red giant long before then).

The torque on the Earth also exists due to unbalanced forces - in particular, the gravitational tug of the Sun, acting on the Earth's equatorial bulge, which is not in balance because the Earth's rotational axis is tilted wrt the orbital plane.
Wrong!

The Earth IS a big gyroscope! Its equatorial bulge doesn’t make it different to any other gyroscope. Gyroscopes in free space don't automatically precess their axis in a constant gravitational field.

If it were subjected to a rotational force it would flip over. Obviously, it’s inertia would make the speed of the flip proportional to the strength of the force, but it would flip in a single motion.

It wouldn’t wobble!

(Unless, of course the force causing the Torque was itself oscillating.)
 

psychegram

The Living Force
Wrong!

The Earth IS a big gyroscope! Its equatorial bulge doesn’t make it different to any other gyroscope. Gyroscopes in free space don't automatically precess their axis in a constant gravitational field.

If it were subjected to a rotational force it would flip over. Obviously, it’s inertia would make the speed of the flip proportional to the strength of the force, but it would flip in a single motion.

It wouldn’t wobble!

(Unless, of course the force causing the Torque was itself oscillating.)

Forgive me, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. All that is required is a rotating object that is not perfectly spherical, with the axis of rotation tilted wrt the force acting upon it. All of these conditions are satisfied by the Earth-Sun system.
 

psychegram

The Living Force
Wrong!

The Earth IS a big gyroscope! Its equatorial bulge doesn’t make it different to any other gyroscope. Gyroscopes in free space don't automatically precess their axis in a constant gravitational field.

If it were subjected to a rotational force it would flip over. Obviously, it’s inertia would make the speed of the flip proportional to the strength of the force, but it would flip in a single motion.

It wouldn’t wobble!

(Unless, of course the force causing the Torque was itself oscillating.)
As a simple argument from a direction other than basic mechanics, the Milankovitch cycles, which are well-known to correlate to precession of the equinoxes (along with two other variations, the Earth's orbital eccentricity and the tilt of the rotational axis wrt the orbital plane) are well-correlated to climate, with other effects such as those of cosmic bombardment superimposed on top of this.

If precession were due to the Sun following a Birkeland current, there is no reason that precession of the equinoxes should correlate to climate.
 

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
Forgive me, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. All that is required is a rotating object that is not perfectly spherical, with the axis of rotation tilted wrt the force acting upon it. All of these conditions are satisfied by the Earth-Sun system.
Wrong!

The Earth IS a big gyroscope! Its equatorial bulge doesn’t make it different to any other gyroscope. Gyroscopes in free space don't automatically precess their axis in a constant gravitational field.

If it were subjected to a rotational force it would flip over. Obviously, it’s inertia would make the speed of the flip proportional to the strength of the force, but it would flip in a single motion.

It wouldn’t wobble!

(Unless, of course the force causing the Torque was itself oscillating.)

I have to say I agree with @psychegram

Complete layman here but @psychegram sounds like he knows what he's talking about here.

@woneill1701 I think it's okay to admit if someone knows something and you don't. It can be a learning experience - to me it reads like @psychegram is giving us all a free lesson in this stuff with his answers. Given it is his ACTUAL area of work, I think the odds of him knowing what he's talking about is very high indeed and it sounds it!
 

iamthatis

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
It’s healthy to be suspicious about Everything! One question I’ve had to ask myself over the last 10 years is would I really want to “survive” a 3D cataclysm?

If the move to 4D is inevitable, why should we concern ourselves with “simple” 3D concerns. For me the answer is being prepared spiritually for what is to come and allowing it to unfold as it should, or at least will, with or without our active 3D participation.

Perhaps that is a bit fatalistic and for sure we can only “do” what we can while in 3D bodies.

Wait and see!
Is it possible to stop paying karma? I.e. choose not to pay any Karma break karmic contracts? Joe could you give some examples of karmic laws of simple compressions?


Only by learning the lessons of 3rd grade can you 'pass' and move on to 4th grade. 'Being prepared spiritually' can mean a lot of things, especially since the New Age COINTELPRO kicked into high gear during the 60's.

I had a roommate once who was very 'spiritual'. He spent 8 hours a day chanting Sanskrit. Almost every single day. I kid you not. However, when the propane for the stove ran out, he couldn't replace the tank. It was a simple matter of turning off the tap, unscrewing the nozzle, removing the empty tank, hoisting up the new full tank, screwing it in, and turning the tap back on. He couldn't do it. He was addicted to his own neurochemicals, and allowed that to arrange his life as the pursuit of 'bliss'. The practical world barely existed.

Some people like to pray in other ways, too. That is a very common form of 'spiritual preparation'. From what I've seen in my life, prayers often consist of a hidden demand for Life to be a certain way - for the destruction of the Earth to cease, for someone to 'save' the children or the whales, sending love and light to Bill Gates to transform him into a force for good, etc. In essence, it amounts to a denial of the world as it is. It's a way to sit in a judgment of the universe - based on the assumption that 'what exists' is not what 'should be'. Often it comes from an unwillingness to confront suffering, darkness, and death. In a word, hubris.

It's kind of like a third grade student praying that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. Or, in our modern times, living in the illusion that '2 + 2 = 4' is a function of white supremacy. And then trying to burn the school down because of that.

So lessons will flow from whatever we choose. Everyone can definitely choose to 'not pay' karmically, and live in a fantasy world that serves your own self-importance. But my sense is that the debts do add up - there's no escape. For instance, with a certain kind of 'spiritual preparation', one may have happily live out the rest of this life turned into a human battery for a global concentration camp, only to reincarnate next time around in a shattered caveman world with red skies of comet dust. Up to you.
 
Top Bottom