Archive for June, 2014

Daily Report 27/6/14

June 29, 2014

There were 1958 hits from 398 distinct visits, spiders from baidu, google and yahoo. Essay 25 Fallacy of Indeterminacy 1015, Auto1 443, Auto2 78, F3(Sp) 308, UFT88 109, Llais 90, Crisis in Cosmology 63, Book of Scientometrics 102, CEFE 49, Evans Equations 66, Engineering Model 38,Englynion 27, Auto Sonnets 25 Principles of ECE 26 to date in June 2014. University of Quebec Trois Rivieres UFT247; Department of Natural Resources Iowa State University extensive; Electrical and Computer Engineering Ohio State University UFT88; Engineering University of Tennessee Knoxville 2D; Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN) Turin UFT85; Los Angeles Public Library Essay 24; Institute of Experimental Physics University of Wroclaw UFT149. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for June 2014.

Usage Statistics for aias.us aias.us

Summary Period: June 2014 – URL
Generated 28-Jun-2014 12:45 EDT

Development of x Theory

June 28, 2014

The fact that the x theory succeeds so well and simply, and the fact that the Einstein theory is so easily refuted means that I feel no further need to direct anything towards the standard physics in the hope of recognition and prizes and all that nonsense. Many people think that ECE and B(3) deserve a Nobel prize but the same old problem, the system is controlled by aging dogmatists. The nominations and letters of support are morally and ethically as good as any prize, and I will remain most grateful for them. AIAS has its own huge permanent following and the work is directed at them. The old system worked very much by blackmail, if you don’t think in this way then no job and no funding, a load of stupid abuse and so on. The thing that suffers most is science and all that is not exactly the School of Athens of Raphael. Most standard physicists sincerely believe in what they are doing and never studied torsion, so one still hopes to persuade them politely, but there are some complete fools who shall be mercifully nameless. To ignore the latest refutation is rather pitiful, so why bother with “them” at all?. My next step is to develop the gravitational red shift and de Sitter precession and related effects, but in a radically new way.

FOR POSTING:UFT264 AND BACKROUND NOTES

June 28, 2014

This is UFT264, on the theme of photon mass from x theory, and the self consisent and precise application of x theory to relativistic phenomena. It is shown beyond reasonable doubt, and in yet another way, that the Einstein theory is incorrect, and should be abandoned by Baconian scientists.

a264thpaper.pdf

a264thpapernotes1.pdf

a264thpapernotes2.pdf

a264thpapernotes3.pdf

a264thpapernotes4.pdf

a264thpapernotes5.pdf

a264thpapernotes6.pdf

a264thpapernotes7.pdf

a264thpapernotes8.pdf

Photon Velocity and Mass

June 28, 2014

Agreed with GJE, the photon mass is 1.04 ten power – thirty five kilograms for a velocity of 2.122 ten power eight metres per second at closest approach to the sun in light deflection by gravitation. It has been assumed that the angular frequency of visible light is of the order 2 ten power fifteen radians per second. The photon mass is much higher than in the standard model. This is the mass from the de Broglie Einstein equation. It tends to give support to the theory by GJE and Trevor Morris that the photon is similar to the electron. The de Broglie Einstein equation for energy can also be applied to the electron of course: the famous wave particle dualism.

Sent: 28/06/2014 12:32:25 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Velocity of the Photon at Closest Approach to the Sun

Just as the velocity of light reduces when light passes through a solid/ liquid / gas. It is only a constant c in a vacuum. Evidence for photon mass was always there. There are no massless quanta of energy.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Photon Mass from Light Deflection due to Gravitation

June 28, 2014

This can be calculated using the de Broglie Einstein equation used in Compton scattering as in UFT158 ff and later papers:

E = gamma m c squared = h bar omega

It is known that at closest approach the velocity v of the photon is 2.122 x 10 power 8 metres per second. For visible frequency of omega = 2 x 10 power fifteen radians per second the photon mass is:

m = 1.04 ten power – 35 kilograms

close to previous estimates. Note carefully that this is again based on the precisely correct description of precession, light deflection and gravitational delay given by x theory. I will now proceed to write this into UFT264.

Robitaille Theory of the Sun Radius

June 28, 2014

I can forward this question to Steve Crothers, who might be best placed to give the Robitaille radius. I am very happy with this result because it is self consistent. I will emphasize this in the paper, UFT264. From no on I will politely ignore all claims about the Einstein theory and so should all Baconian scientists.

In a message dated 28/06/2014 11:42:13 GMT Daylight Time writes:

How does the variation in this result compare with the variation in estimates of the radius of the sun, given the different models there are of its structure?

On 28 Jun 2014 11:39, <EMyrone> wrote:

As I was beginning to write up UFT264 I noticed that the photon velocity can be calculated at closest approach using the fact that the radial part of the velocity vanishes at closest approach, leaving the angular contribution to the orbital linear velocity, the familiar textbook:

v = omega R0 = L / (mR0)

Velocity of the Photon at Closest Approach to the Sun

June 28, 2014

As I was beginning to write up UFT264 I noticed that the photon velocity can be calculated at closest approach using the fact that the radial part of the velocity vanishes at closest approach, leaving the angular contribution to the orbital linear velocity, the familiar textbook:

v = omega R0 = L / (mR0)

Supply of Hydrocarbons

June 28, 2014

Of course I agree with Simon Clifford that the supply of hydrocarbons must be rationed. People should follow my example, use the internet without wasting fuel and run one small car only, not run around like a hen as Wellington once said at Waterloo. There are many postings on this blog advocating fuel rationing and car rationing. One car only per family, use of buses and trains to go to work. As Dylan wrote: “Is Your Journey Really Necessary”. People are still rushing around all over the world, going from one concrete box to another – holiday hotels. Why don’t they take a walk in the countryside? I grew up in an era when food and fuel rationing was still in place. Wind turbines are a disaster, and have torn Europe apart. That is not the way. The way forward is the one that AIAS is advocating, energy from spacetime and LENR, combined with hydro turbines in the sea and rivers, combined with the use of coal to make petrochemicals and new sources of gas for gas fired power stations. I have also been advocating this for some years on this blog. Coal can be used to produce the chemicals needed for making all kinds of things from polymers and a little coal for domestic use. Scrubbers can be used to remove all coal pollution, and CO2 does not cause warming anyway. I used to work at B. P. Baglan Bay petrochemical refinery as a technician, so know that the economy depends on the petrochemical industry. There is renewed geopolitical instability in Iraq, so fuel dependence on tediously unstable areas must be eliminated. I am well aware of pollution, the river at the bottom of this valley often ran pitch black from coal waste. The point I have made many hundred times is that wind turbines will not get rid of pollution. In manufacturing them the supply of rare minerals in places liek China has been seriously damaged. China is choking on its own economy, they have to wear masks in the street. Turbines have destroyed local democracy and also some of the most beautiful landscapes in Europe, killed millions of innocent creatures, and also some people. That used to be called manslaughter. They generate a small percentage of fuel consumption and when subsidies are dropped, will themselves cause hideous pollution as per the rotating junk in California, the modern Cannery Row, the useless turbines left to rot. One town in California (Palm Springs I think) recently enacted an Ordinance to get them cleaned up by law. Above all the single most important threat is Dylan’s “hawk on fire” in “Over Sir John’s Hill”, the M. A. D. atomic bomb. Any military crisis bring up the shadow of the hawk in a hoisted cloud at drop of dusk.

Atlantic Modal DNA

June 28, 2014

I certainly do, all the best cynghanedd comes from Gwynedd, and in Pwllheli it has been dated to twelve thousand years (in humour). All those google sites seem to indicate that the Atlantic Modal DNA has been proven scientifically to be up to about eighteen thousand years old. It is not clear to me however how they define the age of DNA, probably by some kind of mutation process and these sites are often contradictory. I am putting your interesting analysis on the blog, but it is personal information, so I will remove it again if you wish. I recall that there were two studies of DNA in the British isles carried out at University College London which came to diametrically the opposite conclusions. Donelly’s Anglo Saxon influx theory is obsolete and was always contested. There is very little archaeological evidence of any Anglo Saxon influx, and “Anglo Saxon” is not defined scientifically. There is evidence for Danish and Norse influx, as is well known. The ancient British poetry records many battles with invadors, for example Gwaith Argoed Lwyfain, which scholars have traced to the north shore of Loch Lommond in Scotland. The language of that area was Cumbric, fairly similar to modern Welsh. The word for Wales is Cymru, and Cymry are the ancient British. It was called Ystrad Clud or Strathclyde in the Hen Ogledd, the Old North. My ancestors were Kings of Rheged and Gododdin (all can be looked up on Google and my genealogy on www.aias.us). Your DNA is certainly a variant of Atlantic Modal, and goes back to the time when Britain was still linked to the Continent. The definitive work seems to be that by Prof. Brian Sykes of Wolfson College Oxford, my own College, “Blood of the Isles”. He argues that the ancient British DNA came from North East Spain, but this can only be part of the truth as your data show. In order to obtain a complete picture all data must be used: archaeology, literature, DNA, genealogy and so on. I can trace my ancestry in one line to 285 B. C. showing that the Romans had virtually no influence in West Britain, except to extract taxation and behave as colonists. This is because the names are all Celtic from 285 B. C. right through the sub Roman era to mediaeval times. This list is on my page on www.aias.us – “Descent from King Lear”. Francis Prior in Britain A. D. (BBC) argues for no continental invasion, but there was peaceful settlement. The ancient British poetry however clearly refers to many battles, as does history. At Argoed Lwyfain the British were victorious against an invador called Fflamddwyn Fawr Drebystawd, (Big Boasting Flame Bearer) probably a Dane, a prop forward from Copenhagen. At Baddon (late fifth century near Bath) Arthur (Prince Owain Ddantgwyn Arth of Powys) was victorious. “Y Gododdin” by Aneurin (“Oxford Book of Welsh Verse”, Ed. Prof. Sir Thomas Parry) records a British defeat, and my ancestors the Kings of Rheged and Gododdin moved to what is now known as Wales, becoming the North Welsh Princes of your area. They were all my ancestral cousins. My other ancestral cousins the Normans overran England in two years or so, but came up against a wall of resistance in Wales and were finally defeated at Bosworth by my other ancestors, The Tudors. So I am strictly neutral and concentrate on tetrads. Viroconium Cornoviorum is definitive archaeological evidence that the British reetablished themselves after the Romans abandoned their defences in 415 A. D. That left them open to attack, but they organized their own effective defences. They still used an excellent standard of Latin and outlasted the Romans, who were utterly defeated. Viroconium lasted for three or four hundred years after 415 A. D., but was finally dismantled and the inhabitants apparently moved westward into Wales. In Hereford County there is plenty of evidence that the original inhabitants remained there. So the continentals established a transient colonising process only. Sykes concludes that the great majority of the indigeneous DNA of all the British Isles is your type, Atlantic Modal, then comes Danish and Norse. The British called all invadors “Saeson”, which is Sasenach in Scotland. The DNA shows that they were Danish, maybe some Swedish, some Dutch type, areas north of the Netherlands up to Denmark, islands off Denmark, Friesian Islands and so on, as you would expect. These are the areas closest to Britain. Gildas records a lot of trouble from invadors, and Bangor Tewdos, (Seminary of Theodosius) the University near present day Cardiff, at Llan Illtud Fawr, was destroyed but later rebuilt.

 

This is the Atlantic Modal haplogroup from DNA studies. My Knoyle and Potter branches are probably ancient British too (going back maybe twelve thousand years to the point where the land which is now the British Isles was covered by a thick sheet of ice). The Capelli et alii 2002 study on DNA in the British Isles found little trace of continental influence, much less then they expected. So I hesitate to write that Knoyle and Potter were Anglo Saxon. The DNA does not show any Saxon influence in the regions that they come form, and in these regions the Angles never settled. Indeed Wiltshire is archetypically Celtic, with great ring forts and the Celtic white horse, Thomas Hardy country. The Norse DNA is distinct and should of course show up in the Norman DNA. The Dukes of Normandy were Norse Iarls of the Cyclades, off Trondheim in Norway (i,e, Norse or Northmen or Norman). They also became Earls of Orkney and Caithness, where there are many Newlands. The Shetland Island DNA is of course Norse DNA. I should get my DNA taken some time.

 

Global Cooling Imminent

June 28, 2014

Many thanks, here is another carefully reasoned opinion by Norman Page in favour of global cooling. Everything seems normal here, cywain gwair (hay harvest) started about the same time of year, and the cuckoo arrived big bang on time. It did not mention any global warming, and as usual, used only two notes to announce that the Einstein theory is also a cuckoo. With the machinery they have today the farmers can do the hay harvest quick as boiled asparagus, as the Emperor Augustus used to say (at least according to Robert Graves).

In a message dated 27/06/2014 17:56:29 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

Myron Here is a summary of my cooling forecasts. Best Regards.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html

Sent from Windows Mail

This is quite an interesting development because for a change it predicts something that can be tested experimentally, within two or three years. Norman Page has also predicted something like this. One medium volcanic eruption demolishes all the CO2 savings of all turbines ever built, and CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, which is really global cooling. With science like that, who needs Spike Milligan? A huge amount of fuel has been wasted running around to all these useless conferences. There is climate change, there always has been. There is human pollution, there always has been, there is volcanic pollution orders of magnitude more harmful.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 27/06/2014 06:12:36 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Global cooling imminent?

http://joannenova.com.au

BIG NEWS VIII: New solar model predicts imminent global cooling

To recap — using an optimal Fourier Transform, David Evans discovered a form of notch filter operating between changes in sunlight and temperatures on Earth. This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so.

The discovery of this delay is a major clue about the direction of our future climate. The flickers in sunlight run a whole sunspot cycle ahead of some other force from the sun. Knowing that solar irradiance dropped suddenly from 2003 onwards tells us the rough timing of the fall in temperature that’s coming (just add a solar cycle length). What it doesn’t tell us is the amplitude — the size of the fall. That’s where the model may (or may not) tell us what we want to know. That test is coming, and very soon. This is an unusual time in the last 100 years where the forecasts from the CO2 driven models and the solar model diverge sharply. Oh the timing!

Ponder how ambitious this simple model is — the complex GCM’s only aim to predict decadal trends, and have failed to even do that. Here is a smaller simpler model proffering up a prediction which is so much more specific. The Solar Model has not shown skill yet in predictions on such short time-scales, though it hindcasts reasonably well on the turning points and longer scales. It cannot predict ENSO events, and obviously not aerosols, nor volcanoes. But if the notch-delay theory is right, the big drop coming is larger than the short term noise.

As we head to the UNFCCC meeting in Paris 2015 where global bureaucracy beckons, a sharp cooling change appears to be developing and set to hit in the next five years. Yet consortia of five-star politicans are not preparing for climate change, only for global warming. Around the world a billion dollars a day is invested in renewable energy, largely with the hope of changing the weather. Given that 20% of the world does not even have access to electricity, history books may marvel at how screwed priorities were, and how bureaucratized science cost so much more than the price of the grants.

As Bob Carter has been saying for a long time, politicians need to prepare for everything the climate may throw at us — see Climate the Counter Consensus.

Jo

Global Cooling is Imminent

Dr David Evans, 27 June 2014

If the Sun mainly controls the temperature on Earth, a turning point is almost upon us. (In the second part of this series of blog posts we will demonstrate that carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 25% of the global warming of the last six decades, so presumably the Sun is mainly responsible.)

1 Why It’s Going to Cool

The reason for the cooling is the dramatic fall in solar radiation that started around 2004. Here is a graph of solar radiation since 1610, when sunspots were first recorded. The brown line is the solar radiation, and it peaks every 11 years or so because of the sunspot cycle. We put an 11-year smoother through it to gave us the red line, which shows the trends in solar radiation.

pastedGraphic.png
Figure 1: The recent fall in TSI is the steepest and one of the largest ever recorded (records go back to 1610).
There have been three big, steep falls in solar radiation in the last 400 years.

The first was in the 1600s. It led to the depths of the Little Ice Age, and the Maunder Minimum. This was the coldest period during the last 400 years. There used to be fairs on the ice in the Thames River in London, because it would freeze over for weeks at a time.

The second fall is around the time of Napoleon and it preceded the second coldest period in the last 400 years, called the Dalton Minimum.

The third fall occurred recently, starting in about 2004. This recent fall is as big as the fall in Napoleon’s time, almost as large as the fall in the 1600s, and it seems to be steeper than either of those falls. But the temperature hasn’t fallen … yet.

2 When

The timing for the cooling is indicated by the delay, which was deduced from the observed notch but has been independently corroborated to varying extents several times in the last decade (see Post III). The delay is most likely 11 years, though definitely between 10 and 20 years.

2004 + 11 = 2015.

Eleven years after 2004 is 2015, suggesting the cooling will start in 2015. However, 11 years is only the average delay, and the physical interpretation of the delay (see Post IV) suggests the delay is actually the length of the solar cycle—which has varied from 8 to 14 years, but averages 11 years. The current solar cycle is a long one, probably running around 13 years:

2004 + 13 = 2017.

So the cooling is most likely to begin in 2017.

The delay could be as much as 20 years, in which case the drop could be as late as 2024. Or it could occur as soon as 2014. An El Nino or La Nina could affect the timing too. At this stage, we don’t know. But by the end of 2018 seems fairly likely.

(Notice that so far we have only applied our physical understanding of the delay, and its implication of a powerful solar influence that is signaled by changes in solar radiation but acts after a period of time equal to the delay.)

3 How Much Cooling

How much cooling and how quickly? For that we turn to the notch-delay solar model, which hindcasts the last 240 years of temperatures reasonably well simply from the total solar irradiance (TSI). This model was developed earlier in this series of blog posts; see here for an overview and links.

The changes in solar radiation are tiny, and have an almost insignificant immediate effect on Earth’s temperatures. However the physical interpretation of the notch and delay (see Post IV) show that these little changes foretell the changes in a newly detected climate influence from the Sun, which we are calling “force X” for now. The effect on temperatures of changes in force X is 10 to 20 times as great as the immediate effect of changes in solar radiation (see Post VI). Force X works by modulating the albedo of the Earth, or the amount of solar radiation reflected straight back out to space without changing the heat of the planet, by clouds and ice and so on. Force X turns the tap that controls how much sunlight pours into the Earth’s climate system. This could be through UV, magnetic field effects, solar wind, or some form of electrical field.

Force X lags TSI by half of a full solar cycle of 22 years, which is to say, by 11 years on average. Therefore the changes in solar radiation over the last 11 years tell us what force X is going to do soon. It’s already baked in the cake; we can see a few years into the future.

pastedGraphic_1.png
Figure 2: Climate model driven only by solar radiation, with no warming due to carbon dioxide. See Post VII for explanation. Predictions shown by dotted lines. This instance of the notch-delay solar model used a constant delay of 10.7 years and shows cooling beginning in 2014.
If the temperature on Earth is entirely controlled by solar effects, the cooling will return us to the temperature levels of the 1950s or even the 1920s, undoing the last 50 or 100 years of global warming in just a few short years.

The temperature data from land thermometers from 1850 to 1978 may have exaggerated past temperature rises. The solar model here trained on that data so it may be too sensitive, in which case the imminent cooling will not be as large as shown in absolute terms, but will nonetheless take us back to the levels of the 1950s or 1920s.

At least a small portion of the recent global warming was due to rising carbon dioxide, so the fall will not be as large as shown in Figure 2.

4 Solar versus Carbon Dioxide

Both the carbon dioxide and notch-delay solar theories agree with the warming observed during the 1900s, because carbon dioxide levels and solar radiation levels were both generally rising. So we cannot tell the models apart on recent performance.

However, over the next 10 years the models strongly diverge. Carbon dioxide levels will continue to rise at much the same rate, so the carbon dioxide models predict warming over the next decade of about 0.2°C, plus up to 0.3°C of previously-committed warming not reflected in the temperature “pause” of the past 15+ years. Owing to the fall in solar radiation from around 2004, and making allowance for rising carbon dioxide, the notch-delay solar model predicts cooling of 0.2°C or more.

pastedGraphic_2.png
Figure 3: Comparing the CO2and solar models. They show general agreement from 1900 to 2000, because carbon dioxide and solar radiation levels were generally rising, but they diverge sharply soon.
5 Theories and Falsifiability

Science is about testable hypotheses. Over the next decade, the changes in temperature will reveal which model is more correct, the carbon dioxide model or the notch-delay solar model.

Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.

If the criterion does occur: Then carbon dioxide driven models are falsified, and they should be thrown away. (Note that the carbon dioxide theory predicts only warming over longer periods such as a decade, and we’ve already had a pause in warming for 15+ years.)

6 Old Temperatures

The Maunder Minimum from about 1645 to 1715 and the Dalton period from about 1790 to 1830 are generally reckoned to be the two coldest times in the last 400 years.

There was no global thermometer network before 1850, so for a global picture we have to rely on proxy data (ice-cores, pollen, marine sediments, lake sediments, tree-rings, etc.). The most comprehensive study is Christiansen and Ljungqvist’s huge proxy study in 2012, which used 91 proxies scattered around the world. We smoothed it by 25 years in Figure 1 because proxy data is uncertain and hazy.

Even the IPCC thought those two periods were the coldest in the last 400 years, before they went all hockeystick:

pastedGraphic_3.png
Figure 4: From the First Assessment Report of the IPCC, page 202.
pastedGraphic_4.png
Figure 5: From the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996, via here.
7 What’s Next

This almost finishes the first part of this series of blog posts. The second part is about finding whether the carbon dioxide or solar model is dominant, from the evidence to date. This develops a method for computing the extent of causation, and finds that rising carbon dioxide levels were responsible for less than 25% of the global warming of the last 60 years.

The next post in this series is of the spreadsheet that contains all the data, code and the model behind the notch-delay solar theory. We have delayed releasing it so as not to preempt the blog posts, and to engender a more focused conversation.

The home page for the entire notch-delay solar theory is here. It includes links to all these blog posts, with summaries.

Part I: New Solar climate model
Part II: A mysterious notch filter found in the climate
Part III: The notch means a delay
Part IV: What could cause the solar delay?
Part V: Modeling the escaping heat.
Part VI: The parts of solar climate model
Part VII — Hindcasting

=