Archive for the ‘Gravity’ Category

One equation for earth temperature

Posted: November 29, 2014 by tchannon in atmosphere, Gravity, Maths

At The Hockey Schitick MS has posted a brave article

The Greenhouse Equation

This seems to be a culmination of a series of articles.

[UPDATE: and another article showing a fit against Standard Atmosphere /UPDATE]



View from the Moon [credit: Wikipedia]

View from the Moon
[credit: Wikipedia]

First there was a report saying:
‘Computer model shows moon’s core surrounded by liquid and it’s caused by Earth’s gravity’

Of course the words ‘Computer model shows’ will ring a few alarm bells with some talkshop readers. Yes, it’s a theory based on a model, and the output of ‘climate models’ has led to many controversies so we may well be suspicious already.


There has been some progress in the greenhouse. On the ‘toy planet’ thread, physicist Tim Folkerts now agrees with me that longwave infra-red radiated from the air towards the surface doesn’t directly heat the ocean but makes it harder for the ocean to cool. In my view this is due to IR radiation from the ocean making the air warm, reducing the temperature differential between ocean and air, slowing the rate of the Sun warmed ocean’s heat loss. Tim says:

LWIR is indeed incapable of “heating” the oceans in the strict sense of the word (net transfer of thermal energy). The best it can do is aid in making it “a far more difficult task escaping” for the energy.

But it’s hard for him to let go of ingrained notions, so his next comment is full of ambiguities, which I have tried to deal with in my followup comment:

Tim Folkerts: The DWIR DOES amount to ~ 330 W/m^2.

Fine, no problem.

This energy DOES get absorbed by the ocean.

In the top few microns, and is soon re-emitted along with an additional ~60W/m^2 IR, upwards.

The ocean IS warmer than it would be without this DWIR from the atmosphere.

But not because it is absorbed and re-emitted from the top few microns of ocean. The thermalisation of IR in the bulk air helps keep the air warm and that warm air slows the sun warmed ocean’s heat loss.

But the reason the air is warm is because the ocean warms it with the energy it emits into it which is absorbed and re-emitted, or conducted to the O2 and N2 in the air, by water vapour (from the ocean) and co2 (mostly from the ocean). Air has very little heat capacity of its own, and is nearly transparent to incoming solar short wave radiation. And this ocean warmed air is usually convecting upwards.


OCO2, NASA’s co2 measuring platform is in orbit. Third time lucky. Bits of the original ended up in the southern ocean. The replacement’s launch was aborted several times due to technical hitches. This from El Reg:

Artists rendition of OCO2 – Image Credit: NASA

NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) not only managed to lift off today, it also achieved successful separation from its booster stack and got into orbit.

The satellite – which will study the absorption of sunlight by carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere – is the third attempt to get a CO2-measuring craft into space by the American space agency. The OCO-1 in 2009 and follow-up Glory in 2011 both failed when they weren’t able to complete their first stage separation.

I came across this paper today while searching for the heat capacity of Venus near surface atmosphere, which is actually an ocean-like (in thermodynamic terms) supercritical fluid. It presages Harry Dale Huffman’s ‘rediscovery’ of the lapse rate calculation by four decades. Another paper, much more recent, (Bolmatov et al 2013) contains some theory which raises yet more questions about the reasons for Venus’ high surface temperature. So, greenhouse due to radiative proerties of co2 as Sagan claimed, lapse rate due to gravity and pressure as Nikolov and Zeller maintain, or the thermal properties of supercritical fluids and geothermal energy having a hard time escaping the lower atmosphere? Let the debate recommence!



Gizmag has a report on a successful test flight by World View Enterprises of their 1/10 scale model of the real thing. Can I have a go please:


Big Bang  [credit: Wikipedia]

Big Bang
[credit: Wikipedia]

An orchestrated media blitz to push claims that ‘spectacular’ evidence of cosmic inflation had been detected by researchers could be turning sour only a few weeks later.

The story broke in a blaze of publicity – but before peer review:
‘First direct evidence for cosmic inflation announced’

Now it seems the BICEP2 results are looking a bit flabby according to one commentator close to the action.


Talkshop readers will remember that some time ago, we had a guest post from Raghu Singh about a gravity theory he has been developing. Since the discussion here, Raghu got his paper published in the General Science journal and received a lot of feedback. That led to some reworking and he has now re-written his paper. The latest version of his model has had some theoretical success. In email Raghu tells me:

Gravity-1“My primary goal has been to explore gravitational radiation. More than one theory can explain several gravitational phenomena – except gravitational radiation, which one and only one theory shall explain. Physics does not have that one experimentally confirmed theory of gravitational radiation as of now. Astrophysicists claim, rightly so, that there are indirect evidences of the existence of gravitational waves, but those are not evidences on the physics of gravitational radiation (i.e., its emission, propagation, structure, speed, and polarization).

I used the revised model to calculate the orbital shrinking of pulsars PSR B1913+16, the results are astonishing. The model yields 3.71 mm/period; general relativity yields 3.5 mm/period. This is the ultimate test for any gravitation theory. Hulse and Taylor received Nobel Prizes for applying general relativity to the orbits of PSR B1913+16

Physics has been waiting for several decades just to detect gravitational radiation; must it wait longer? Our increasingly vast knowledge of the strong nuclear, the weak nuclear, and electromagnetic interactions notwithstanding, deciphering gravitation is essential to the survival of the species beyond the solar system and the Milky Way – as the great Professor Hawking would like to say.

A Constructive Model of Gravitation

Raghubansh P. Singh

The paper presents a physical model in which mass fields and momentum fields mediate gravitational interactions.

The model addresses: Gravitational interaction between masses, between mass and energy, and between photons; Gravity’s effect on spectral lines, time periods of atomic clocks, and lengths of material rods; Gravitational radiation; Mercury’s orbital precession rate; and the Pioneer effect. Of particular importance, it calculates gravitational radiation power emissions from the moon, the planets of the sun, and the binary pulsars PSR B1913+16. It reflects upon time.

The model rediscovers the initial predictions of general relativity. It makes new predictions:


farage-cleggRound two of the Farage vs Clegg EU in or out debate was high on rhetoric and entertainment from Nick Clegg. Farage did call Nick a liar at one point, but mostly kept his cool while Clegg became increasingly shrill, mentioning the EU as vital in our fight against  climate change. He even channelled Stephan Lewandowsky, calling Farage a fantasist who doesn’t believe the Moon landings happened.

“He’s one of those people who see conspiracy theories everywhere!” cried Mr Clegg, gesturing impatiently at the Ukip leader. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he tells us next that there wasn’t a Moon landing, Obama isn’t American, and Elvis isn’t dead!”

Mr Farage, furthermore, lived in “a fantasy world”, yearned to “turn the clock back to a bygone age” when “women knew their place”, and promoted views about the EU that were “a dangerous fantasy” and “a dangerous con”.

Nigel let him carry on, interjecting a sotto  “oh dear oh dear” as  Clegg ranted.

The outcome? The Guradian gave it to Farage 69 to 31. Yougov around the same. The LBC poll has Farage over 90%

The writing is on the wall for the parties which have denied the British people a voice for 40 years. Revolution is in the air. Farage’s parting words were:

Join the people’s army, let’s topple the establishment.


This is a major new paper published in the March issue of prestigious journal ‘Solar Physics’ by solar-planetary theorists Ken McCracken, Jurg Beer and Friedhelm Steinhilber, which makes a newer and more extensive analysis of planetary motion in relation to the Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10 Glactic cosmic ray proxies than the 2400 yr Hallstat cycle study we looked at yesterday. The paper has been in the works a long time (submitted in July 2012), achieving final acceptance in late February this year. I can’t make the whole paper available due to copyright restrictions, but the abstract gives a clue as to the content. I’ve added one of the figures up to help convey some of the more important results. I’ve also appended the bibliography, as this isn’t part of the paper’s main text, it’s great to see Geoff Sharp and Ian Wilson getting citations. We can discuss other parts of their paper in comments. Boy is Martin Rasmussen going to look stupid in the future, by axing PRP for publishing our solar-planetary special edition.




Our friend Semi has sent me a paper to  first publish here at the talkshop. There are some interesting puzzles and some speculative ideas in it which will intrigue our readers. Since as Hans Jelbring showed the other day, we tend to be sceptical of ‘grand theories’, we should also temper our scepticism  with an openness to alternative ideas lest it becomes a dour cynicism. The great thing about having an open mind is the ability to filter things out of it as well as allow things into it. So we can take the parts of someone else’s work we find interesting or useful, and leave the parts we aren’t interested in, without feeling the need to pass judgement on them.

Semi emailed this introduction along with the paper:

This winter I’ve sent you one my works, and said, there is another work pending, which I’m attaching now…
It is related to the Curvature Cosmology by David F. Crawford and original Einstein’s hyper-spherical universe, of which Albert E. was  incorrectly persuaded by his colleagues at that time, that it was incorrect. This idea of (hyper)spherical universe is as revolutionary, as once was the idea of a spherical Earth.


The press release from BICEP making claims regarding detection of gravitational waves which inform us about the origin of the cosmos has been doing the rounds of the world’s media organisations.  Hans Jelbring comments:

Big Bang – The greatest fairy tale ever told
Hans Jelbring – 18-3-2014

big-bang-theoryThere is freedom of choosing religion in our country so there is no problem what you or I believe. On the other hand there is a problem when scientists mix facts supported by evidence and laws of nature with fantasy, unfounded hypotheses and faith.

There is no qualitative difference being a creationist believing that earth and our galaxy was created 6000 years ago or believing that the universe was created from a small cosmic egg 14 billion years ago. From where did this egg originate and what existed before that? There must have been something more (or rather, less) than a nuclear bomb within it since at that point not even matter are believed to has existed. None of these beliefs are or can be supported by scientific methods or verified experience. Hence, it cannot be classified as science.



Around ten days ago I made an enquiry to Copernicus (the innovative science unpublishers) asking when they would be billing me for the order I made at the end of 2013. It turned out they had forgotten to do so, and they provided an invoice for a fresh order on Jan 27, 10 days after they axed the journal.


When the $6 billion+ James Webb space telescope is launched by NASA in 2018, where will they put it?
Quoting NASA: ‘The Webb won’t be orbiting the Earth – instead we will send it almost a million miles out into space to a place called “L2.”‘

Most asteroids never come anywhere near Earth

Image credit: Sol Station

So we have two questions: where is ‘L2′, and what does it have to do with asteroids? It’s a point approximately 1,500,000 kilometres (930,000 miles) beyond the Earth, such that a straight line can be drawn from L2 through Earth to the Sun. In fact the telescope will go into a ‘halo orbit’ to avoid Earth’s shadow, i.e. move around the exact L2 point.

And where do the asteroids come in? Well, the ‘L’ in L2 stands for Lagrange, the Italian-French mathematician who first predicted the existence of five special points in a planet’s orbit now known as Lagrange (or Lagrangian) points.


From the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, news that won’t surprise talkshoppers too much. Interesting though. Large magnetic field links binary pair

Dave Finley, Public Information Officer
Socorro, NM
(575) 835-7302

Astronomers have found a giant magnetic loop stretched outward from one of the stars making up the famous double-star system Algol. The scientists used an international collection of radio telescopes to discover the feature, which may help explain details of previous observations of the stellar system.

Artist’s conception of Algol star system
with radio image superimposed on grid.
CREDIT: Peterson et al., NRAO/AUI/NSF

“This is the first time we’ve seen a feature like this in the magnetic field of any star other than the Sun,” said William Peterson, of the University of Iowa.

The pair, 93 light-years from Earth, includes a star about 3 times more massive than the Sun and a less-massive companion, orbiting it at a distance of 5.8 million miles, only about six percent of the distance between Earth and the Sun. The newly-discovered magnetic loop emerges from the poles of the less-massive star and stretches outward in the direction of the primary star. As the secondary star orbits its companion, one side — the side with the magnetic loop — constantly faces the more-massive star, just as the same side of our Moon always faces the Earth.


I was dismayed this morning to find Anthony Watts had chosen to end strained but outwardly reasonably polite relations with me by throwing down a gauntlet I had no option but to respond to on a comment chain starting last night. This stuff goes back two years, and has been brought to a head by the recent smear campaign Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts have launched against the group of honest scientists I have been working with on our special edition of Pattern recognition in physics. The comments reproduced below are from a new thread where Willis Eschenbach misrepresents the work of Professor Jan-Erik Solheim, (University of Oslo Inst of Theoretical Astrophysics) who contributed two papers to our special edition.

tallbloke says:
January 22, 2014 at 8:31 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 22, 2014 at 7:43 am
[snip – you are welcome to resumbit without the ad homs – mod]

Yes Nicola, behave yourself on his Nibs thread. Here’s an example of the sort of thing you can’t say:

“Copernicus, as a publisher of scientific journals, cannot afford to become known as a place where reviewers don’t review and editors don’t edit”



A conclusion and its implication in the summary paper was: because our scientific investigation leads us to the prediction that the Sun is headed into a protracted minimum, the warming forecast by the IPCC might not happen.

This has led to the journal being axed by the parent Publishing house Copernicus. The papers are still available at this link
Please download and disseminate them widely.

Heres the letter sent to Coordinating editor Nils Axel Mörner and chief editor Sid Ali Ouadfeul:



Sciency looking diagram we don’t know the meaning of because the site is in Chinese

I’m confident that one day in the not too distant future we’ll look back at this post and wonder why we couldn’t see the obvious. But right now this is a total mystery. Oldbrew and I have been looking at the axial rotation ratios between neighbouring planets and planet pairs, with surprising results. Right upfront, we need to point out that these ratios between rotation rates are dimensionless, as are the Fibonacci numbers they relate to.

So this is not mere ‘numerology’, or playing with numbers based on a particular measurement scheme. It doesn’t matter if you calculate rotation rates of planets in Earth minutes, hours, days or years, or the pulses of light from an extragalactic quasar, so long as you use the same units for whichever bodies you are comparing. The result is a ratio, and that will be the same no matter what your yardstick is.

So here is the mystery; all of the rotation rates of the planet pairs in the solar system listed below the break are in ratios where the numbers on each side of the ratio add to a number in the Fibonacci sequence. Clearly, it is possible to get more accurate ratios by going to much higher numbers, but given that the ratios we have determined are all well within 1% of true values, and many within 0.1%, we didn’t see the need. This is such a remarkable result that it really ought to be a wake up call to astrophysicists to start taking an interest in their local solar system, in addition to hunting for exoplanets and galaxies. Since we have found many other phi and Fibonacci relationships in planetary data orbital elements and synodic periods too, the obvious implication of our result is that there is some kind of link between rates of axial rotation and orbital periods. We aim to discover what it is, how it comes about, and ultimately answer the question; Why Phi?



Latest output from R.J. Salvador’s solar variation model, now up to a 91% correlation with the sunspot record since 1749.

My thanks to R.J. Salvador for this guest posting of his solar variation model based on planetary periods. It’s forecast is in good agreement with that made by Tim Channon back in Feb 2011 using a different technique and different data (Judith Lean’s TSI reconstruction). R.J.’s model is available to interested parties known to the talkshop, make a request in comments for a copy (7meg .xls). R.J. asked me to include Sparks plots of Uranus orientation to the Sun which is included into the model as the 1/4 period of its orbit. Click for full size.




A Mathematical Model of the Sunspot Cycle for the past 1000 Years
By R.J. Salvador


Using many features of Ian Wilson’s Tidal Torque theory, a mathematical model of the sunspot cycle has been created that reproduces changing sunspot cycle lengths and has an 85% correlation to the sunspot numbers from 1749 to 2013. The model makes a reasonable representation of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 years, placing all the solar minimums in their time periods. More importantly, I believe the model can be used to forecast future solar cycles out quantitatively for 30 years and directionally for 100 years.  The forecast is for a solar minimum and quiet sun for the next 30 to 100 years. The model is a slowly changing chaotic system with patterns that are never exactly the same, much like a model of the weather. Inferences as to the causes of the sunspot cycle patterns can be made by looking at the models terms and relating them to aspects of the Tidal Torque theory and possibly Jovian magnetic field interactions.

The Model

The Tidal Torque theory proposed by Ian Wilson provides a system of interrelated consistent frequencies and now I believe a unique set within a narrow error range.

This model is simply four interacting waves but they are modulated to create an infinite possibility for sunspot formation.


The Physics behind

the Golden Ratio

by Miles Mathis : First posted January 11, 2011

Abstract: I will show the mechanical cause of the golden ratio in physical problems. I will do this by expanding the variables in the math to include the ambient field. I will show that this field, which is the charge field or the unified field, is both the cause and the medium of the golden ratio in physical problems. It is the physical constraint that pushes the numbers into golden ratio.

As a place to begin, the problem is perhaps best put this way: “Why should the larger member seek a size or position that balances the smaller member and the sum? And how could the two members position or re-position themselves, once this balance was chosen?” In other words, we require a feedback mechanism. The two bodies that “seek” the golden ratio would require a form of communication. This has always seemed mysterious, since it is not clear that plants, celestial bodies, etc., could communicate in this way. But now that we have discovered the charge field, and shown that it is a real mechanical field already existing in the field equations of Newton and Einstein, we may look at this problem anew.