Supergalactic cluster waves and geological cycles

[RayTomes]

In large scale surveys of the Universe there are found to be huge megawalls of galaxies. A 128 Mpc/h periodicity in galaxy redshifts is observed by Tom Broadhurst, Richard Ellis, David Koo and Alex Szalay, in Nature vol 343 p726. Some cosmologists have suggested that this might be some sort of wave structure. Now that the Hubble constant has been determined to be about 71 km/s/Mpc we can say that this wave is around 588 million light years in length. It is clear from the data that there are also several shorter waves that appear to be half and quarter of that wavelength.

In geology, a series of long cycles have long been known and are estimated as 600, 300, 150, 74 and 37 million years in period. More recently, Moscow University Geology Prof S Afanasiev has (through his "Nanocycles Method") been able to accurately determine the period of the longest of these cycles to be 586.24 million years. There are many instances of other geology and climate related studies and cosmic ray fluctuations (which are suspected as a cause) finding periods near to 586, 293, 146, 73 and 36.5 million years.

We need to understand that a wave with wavelength 586 million light years will oscillate in a period of 586 million years if it has velocity c, which applies to electromagnetic and gravitational waves. Therefore it seems very likely that these two phenomena are in fact one. There are huge standing waves in space that lead to the formation of galactic superclusters and which also cause repeated fluctuations in cosmic rays, temperature and climate generally on Earth.

Furthermore, the fact that Prof Afanasiev has very accurately determined the cycle period allows us to use the 128 MPc/h redshift periodicity to determine the Hubble constant with great accuracy. Based on published data this gives H = 71.2 +/- 0.3 km/s/MPc, but a better analysis of the data using the obviously present harmonics also would allow improved accuracy with 0.1 or even 0.01 km/s/MPc being achievable.

This method bypasses the entire stepladder of distances in cosmology with all its various problems.

 

[Chalnoth]

The magnitudes of such extrasolar periods are so exceedingly small that it seems vastly unlikely that they actually have any effect. One would need to really present strong evidence that they are producing an actual effect, and simply matching up periods isn't going to do it.

 

[RayTomes]

The magnitudes of such extrasolar periods are so exceedingly small that it seems vastly unlikely that they actually have any effect. One would need to really present strong evidence that they are producing an actual effect, and simply matching up periods isn't going to do it.

Why do you say that?

Sometimes people think that very long period waves cannot have much energy because of E=hf. However that is only the quantum of exchange of energy, it is no way a limit on what a wave can carry. Quite clearly such waves must be exceedingly powerful to control the formation of galaxies and to alter the temperature of entire groups of galaxies by some degrees. We don't even know whether they are e/m or gravitational waves.

 

[twofish-quant]

Quite clearly such waves must be exceedingly powerful to control the formation of galaxies and to alter the temperature of entire groups of galaxies by some degrees. We don't even know whether they are e/m or gravitational waves.

If they are that powerful then you have a major problem in that you have to explain why it merely caused a geological change on the Earth rather than disrupting the entire solar system and destroying the earth. The difference in something that wouldn't be noticeable at all, and something that would annihilate the solar system is small enough that it's really hard for me to see how something cosmological would "merely" cause mass extinctions, especially if it happened repeatedly.

One problem with observations of periodicity is that if you have noisy data then it's trivially easy to come up with evidence of period matching when there isn't anything there but coincidence. One problem is harmonics. If you have something that happens at 30 million years, then you will have a rhythm also at 60, 90, 120 million years.

Also if you look at Ellis paper, he was doing a "pencil beam" survey, and my understanding is that more recent studies don't show any sharp periodicity.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why do you say that?

Sometimes people think that very long period waves cannot have much energy because of E=hf. However that is only the quantum of exchange of energy, it is no way a limit on what a wave can carry. Quite clearly such waves must be exceedingly powerful to control the formation of galaxies and to alter the temperature of entire groups of galaxies by some degrees. We don't even know whether they are e/m or gravitational waves.

It's far simpler than that: the energy falloff of such waves with distance is 1/r^2. Most anything beyond our solar system is so far away that its energy is way too low to impact our planet in any meaningful way. Only a few exceedingly energetic events, such as supernova explosions, are the exception here, and then only if they're relatively nearby, in galactic terms. And then, if they're close enough, their effect is to destroy all life on Earth, not to cause tectonic movements.

 

[RayTomes]

If they are that powerful then you have a major problem in that you have to explain why it merely caused a geological change on the Earth rather than disrupting the entire solar system and destroying the earth. The difference in something that wouldn't be noticeable at all, and something that would annihilate the solar system is small enough that it's really hard for me to see how something cosmological would "merely" cause mass extinctions, especially if it happened repeatedly.

The idea that there is little difference between not noticeable and destroying the solar system is rather absurd. There is a huge spectrum of possibilities between there.

Events that caused for example fluctuations in cosmic rays (which are known to follow these cycles) and x-rays would cause genetic damage and result in mass extinction events. They wouold not cause planets to fly out of their orbits or explode.

One problem with observations of periodicity is that if you have noisy data then it's trivially easy to come up with evidence of period matching when there isn't anything there but coincidence.

Noise and periodicity are quite different things.

One problem is harmonics. If you have something that happens at 30 million years, then you will have a rhythm also at 60, 90, 120 million years.

No you don't. But a very non-linear 120 MY wave will have harmonics at 60 MY, 40 My and 30 My.

Also if you look at Ellis paper, he was doing a "pencil beam" survey, and my understanding is that more recent studies don't show any sharp periodicity.

The one pencil beam survey is a very clear example without any others. However other surveys do show that matter is not distributed randomly in the Universe. Most large scale surveys do show significant periodicity although the method commonly used to search for this is a bad one because it makes assumptions (that in my view are invalid) about being able to combine radial and transverse "distances", rather than just using redshift data directly.

 

[RayTomes]

It's far simpler than that: the energy falloff of such waves with distance is 1/r^2. Most anything beyond our solar system is so far away that its energy is way too low to impact our planet in any meaningful way. Only a few exceedingly energetic events, such as supernova explosions, are the exception here, and then only if they're relatively nearby, in galactic terms. And then, if they're close enough, their effect is to destroy all life on Earth, not to cause tectonic movements.

Actually, large standing waves that are across huge regions of space do not fall off as 1/r^2 at all. Plane waves, for example, have constant energy with distance.

Waves that form galactic clusters are far more energetic than supernovas.

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually, large standing waves that are across huge regions of space do not fall off as 1/r^2 at all. Plane waves, for example, have constant energy with distance.

Waves that form galactic clusters are far more energetic than supernovas.

Yeah, I think you're going to have to show that any such waves exist. At all.

 

[RayTomes]

Yeah, I think you're going to have to show that any such waves exist. At all.

Look at this graphic http://ray.tomes.biz/gallwallc.gif" and you can see the wave quite clearly. Similarly, look at any long term geological series and you can see the same set of harmonically related waves.

 

[Chalnoth]

Look at this graphic http://ray.tomes.biz/gallwallc.gif" and you can see the wave quite clearly. Similarly, look at any long term geological series and you can see the same set of harmonically related waves.

That's not a wave in any sense that matters here. That's just the spatial distribution of galaxies.

 

[twofish-quant]

The idea that there is little difference between not noticeable and destroying the solar system is rather absurd. There is a huge spectrum of possibilities between there.

Not at the energies you are talking about here. If you have something that can move galaxies, then it will destroy planets.

Noise and periodicity are quite different things.

For small number of events they are really hard to tell apart. If you have a place where it rains about once every week, and you are there for a month, it's really hard to tell if you are dealing with random events that happen about once a week, or something that happens every Sunday.

We've done a lot more studies of galaxies since 1990. We have a very good power spectrum for galaxy distributions and there isn't any periodicity.

 

[twofish-quant]

Here is an experiment to try. Take a coin. Flip it a 1000 times. Now mark the areas where you have five heads in a row. It's going to look quite periodic even though its a completely random process, and in fact if you run the statistics and calculate the spacing between hits, you'll find that they seem evenly spaced.

The human eye is very good at spotting patterns. So good that the eye spots patterns that aren't there. There are statistical tests that you are run to see if the process that is generating the distribution is random or not. People have run them against galaxies, and it is.

 

[twofish-quant]

Waves that form galactic clusters are far more energetic than supernovas.

Which is precisely the problem since those sorts of energies will completely destroy the earth. It takes 10^39 ergs of energy to destroy the earth. Supernova are 10^51 ergs. If you have a wave that is far more energetic than supernova (say 10^53 ergs), you'll end up vaporizing the planet.

Anything that can move galaxies around will squash the Earth like a bug. We are talking not about merely increasing cosmic rays, we are talking here about Vogon destructor rays and the destruction of Alderaan at the hands of Darth Vader.

You can go at the other level and say that the wave just increasing the cosmic ray flux, but then you don't have nearly the energy to move galaxies.

This is just not going to work. At this point you can go two things:

1) you can stare at the problem and try to come up with some mechanism for the energies to work (and it's perfect acceptable in these situations so say, yes we do have a problem, my model doesn't work, give me a month or two to think about the problem and I'll come up with something), or

2) you can totally ignore the issue, in which case I claim that all of the effects that you see are caused by mobs of invisible green dragons that are moving planets and galaxies around as part of a game of cosmic billards.

 

[Chalnoth]

We've done a lot more studies of galaxies since 1990. We have a very good power spectrum for galaxy distributions and there isn't any periodicity.

Well, actually, there is some, but it's very faint. You can see the "bump" in the power spectrum that stems from Baryon Acoustic Oscillations pretty well. The periodicity is about 150Mpc. Though again, it's very faint.

 

[RayTomes]

Here is an experiment to try. Take a coin. Flip it a 1000 times. Now mark the areas where you have five heads in a row. It's going to look quite periodic even though its a completely random process, and in fact if you run the statistics and calculate the spacing between hits, you'll find that they seem evenly spaced.

The human eye is very good at spotting patterns. So good that the eye spots patterns that aren't there. There are statistical tests that you are run to see if the process that is generating the distribution is random or not. People have run them against galaxies, and it is.

You do that experiment and if you get a graph like the one I referred to, I can guarantee that you cheated. You don't know what you are talking about. I am a statistician and these results are strongly significant.

 

[RayTomes]

...
Anything that can move galaxies around will squash the Earth like a bug...

The waves do not move galaxies. The waves are there first and cause the formation of galaxies at the nodes where the energy is more concentrated because of non-linearities in the laws of physics.

All matter in the Universe forms after the larger wave structures. The Universe forms from the top down (and I can prove this by the results that I get) not from the bottom up as physics currently wrongly assumes. All structures form from waves and due to non-linearities harmonics of those waves continue to form. I can predict all the scales in the Universe at which things form from a single simple principle. See

 

[Chalnoth]

The waves do not move galaxies. The waves are there first and cause the formation of galaxies at the nodes where the energy is more concentrated because of non-linearities in the laws of physics.

Sort of. To make this perhaps a bit more clear, the "waves" that we see in the structure of the distribution of galaxies (dubbed 'Baryon Acoustic Oscillations') were originally sound waves in the pre-CMB plasma (hence the 'acoustic oscillations' part, with 'baryon' coming from the cosmological term for normal matter: protons and neutrons are classified as baryons).

But once our universe cooled from a plasma to a gas, these sound waves stopped oscillating: sound waves are pressure waves, and the pressure here was supported by radiation (this early gas wasn't dense enough to support sound waves like those that pass through our atmosphere). When our universe became transparent, the radiation effectively passed right through the remaining matter, which, in turn, meant that it felt no pressure. Without pressure, the matter basically just collapsed where it was (if the matter in the local region was dense enough), or spread apart more and more (if it wasn't).

So what we see in the distribution of galaxies today is an imprint of sound waves that once oscillated in the pre-CMB universe. But due to the physics of the situation, their oscillation has long since stopped.

 

[RayTomes]

Sort of. To make this perhaps a bit more clear, the "waves" that we see in the structure of the distribution of galaxies (dubbed 'Baryon Acoustic Oscillations') were originally sound waves in the pre-CMB plasma (hence the 'acoustic oscillations' part, with 'baryon' coming from the cosmological term for normal matter: protons and neutrons are classified as baryons).

But once our universe cooled from a plasma to a gas, these sound waves stopped oscillating: sound waves are pressure waves, and the pressure here was supported by radiation (this early gas wasn't dense enough to support sound waves like those that pass through our atmosphere). ...

Well that is your theory. My theory is that they are waves with velocity c that are still oscillating. Let us test this against the facts:

Fact 1. There are observed geological cycles with just the right periods to fit with my theory. That includes the fundamental 586 million year period and clearly visible are the 293 and 146 million year harmonics also.

Status of your theory: This is all just a great big coincidence!

Status of my theory: It fits the facts perfectly!

 

[Chalnoth]

Well that is your theory. My theory is that they are waves with velocity c that are still oscillating. Let us test this against the facts:

Fact 1. There are observed geological cycles with just the right periods to fit with my theory. That includes the fundamental 586 million year period and clearly visible are the 293 and 146 million year harmonics also.

Status of your theory: This is all just a great big coincidence!

Status of my theory: It fits the facts perfectly!

Status of your theory: requires magic to work.

Without a physical mechanism to explain why these waves would still be oscillating, you're left up a creek without a paddle.

 

[S.Vasojevic]

One question. How would that wave keep its frequency stable over such a long time? Space is expanding, isn't it?

 

[twofish-quant]

The waves do not move galaxies. The waves are there first and cause the formation of galaxies at the nodes where the energy is more concentrated because of non-linearities in the laws of physics.

OK then...

I'm at a node in a standing wave. Time passes. I shouldn't see anything change.

All structures form from waves and due to non-linearities harmonics of those waves continue to form. I can predict all the scales in the Universe at which things form from a single simple principle.

The problem is that other than things like the acoustic peak don't preferentially form at particular scales.

 

[twofish-quant]

Fact 1. There are observed geological cycles with just the right periods to fit with my theory. That includes the fundamental 586 million year period and clearly visible are the 293 and 146 million year harmonics also.

People have done this sort of thing with the Nemesis hypothesis, and it's not clear that there is any geological cycle. The fundamental period that comes up with mass extinctions is something like 26 million years. but even that is subject to debate and the last I heard that's under dispute.

Status of your theory: This is all just a great big coincidence!

I'm not claiming a theory. Right now I'm questioning the facts. I'm not a geologist so I can't speak with any strong expertise about geological cycles, although I do know that people were looking for cycles as a result of the Nemesis hypothesis. I'm more familar with the cosmological data, and I think you are cherry picking data that matches your theories, and ignoring data that doesn't.

Also I work on Wall Street so I have a passing familarity with econometrics. There are a whole bunch of things that look non-random that are random and other things that look very random but aren't. The human eye is horrible for spotting cycles, and there are a ton of statistical tests that you can run on data series to see if the underlying process is random or not. People use those tests against economic data to try to make money. One thing that makes me skeptical that you've spotted anything is that you don't seem to be familar with any of those tests (i.e. unit-root tests, GARCH models).

If something is random, you can make money from it. If something is non-random, you can also make money from it. If you think that something is random when it's not or vice-versa, you are going to get your head handed back to you, so there is a huge amount of effort to use tests to see if something is really random or not, and *TO SPECIFY AND UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING PROCESS IN DETAIL*.

Status of my theory: It fits the facts perfectly!

I claim that this is caused by green space dragons playing space billards. That fits the facts perfectly also. Fitting the facts is a necessary part of any model, but it's hardly sufficient.

Saying that there is some non-linear standing wave that causes galaxy formation is curiously enough... TOTALLY CORRECT and also TOTALLY USELESS. The problem is that you have told me nothing at all about the characteristics of that nonlinear wave, whereas I can run CMBFAST and get polarizations, power spectrum, and correlation functions, and the fact that those waves were frozen about 10 billion years ago.

It's not enough to say that there is "some non-linear wave." That sort of guess is totally useless even if is correct. What I need are details on the nature of that wave so that I can create some pretty detailed predictions. Again what makes me very skeptical that you'll get anything useful is that you don't seem to be familiar at all with the language people use to describe waves in detail. The only thing that you are talking about is periodicity and that is just not enough to describe a wave, particularly a non-linear one.

Also, I always get suspicious when a theory fits the facts perfectly. In any non-trivial theory that I can think of when the theory fits the facts perfectly, then you did something wrong. One thing that's important is "error bars." To what degree can the theory say something useful. Saying 586 million years is a totally useless number. I should be 586 +/- 3 million years. or 0.3 million, 0.003 million, 00003 million.

So does your theory predict things to +/- 1 miillion +/- 10 million +/- 0.0001 million years? If you can't tell me then its useless.

 

[Chronos]

Look at this graphic http://ray.tomes.biz/gallwallc.gif" and you can see the wave quite clearly. Similarly, look at any long term geological series and you can see the same set of harmonically related waves.

You are joking, right?

 

[RayTomes]

Status of your theory: requires magic to work.

Without a physical mechanism to explain why these waves would still be oscillating, you're left up a creek without a paddle.

You poor fellow. Did you not read that I said the waves are electromagnetic or gravitational.

Even with magic your theory doesn't work!

 

[RayTomes]

One question. How would that wave keep its frequency stable over such a long time? Space is expanding, isn't it?

No. :-)

There is a process of harmonic formation that moves energy to smaller scales. The result is that smaller waves (sometimes called nucleons) gain in energy / mass over time. This means that when we look at distant galaxies we see them as they were in the past when all matter had lower frequencies and so they seem reddened. This has nothing to do with motion.

See http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html for more.

 

[RayTomes]

OK then...

I'm at a node in a standing wave. Time passes. I shouldn't see anything change.
The problem is that other than things like the acoustic peak don't preferentially form at particular scales.

There is change because the fundamental equations of the universe are non-linear. That means that waves continually develop harmonics over time. See http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html for more.

Not sure I get what you are driving at with the second comment.

 

[S.Vasojevic]

Hold on. You are saying that there is EM wave with incredible low frequency, with incredible amount of energy. Wright? So what can cause such wave? It would be some strange event that radiated so much power at such low frequency.

 

[RayTomes]

People have done this sort of thing with the Nemesis hypothesis, and it's not clear that there is any geological cycle. The fundamental period that comes up with mass extinctions is something like 26 million years. but even that is subject to debate and the last I heard that's under dispute.

Well, the references are these:
"Megacycles" edited by G Williams, the proceedings of a geological cycles conference.
"Nanocycles Method" by S Afanasiev (In Russian - I have translated the title)
There are heaps of material on long geological cycles of periods from the list below (e.g. the graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png shows a clear 293 million year cycle) in addition to the 26-27 million year mass extinction cycle. IMO these cycles are all related as exact harmonics:
586.24 293.12 146.56 73.28 36.64 million years
and 26.65 million years (1/11 of the second one above).

I'm not claiming a theory. Right now I'm questioning the facts. I'm not a geologist so I can't speak with any strong expertise about geological cycles, although I do know that people were looking for cycles as a result of the Nemesis hypothesis. I'm more familar with the cosmological data, and I think you are cherry picking data that matches your theories, and ignoring data that doesn't.

Well the data that I am quoting was the first very thorough large scale survey. Since then other surveys report different periodicities. However the large majority of such surveys are based on a method of analysis that destroys the cycles that are present. They assume that the two transverse directions and the computed distance from redshift are all equivalent and calculate 3D distances and do a distribution based on that. These periodicities are destroyed (smeared out) by such processing.

Also I work on Wall Street so I have a passing familarity with econometrics. There are a whole bunch of things that look non-random that are random and other things that look very random but aren't. The human eye is horrible for spotting cycles, and there are a ton of statistical tests that you can run on data series to see if the underlying process is random or not. People use those tests against economic data to try to make money. One thing that makes me skeptical that you've spotted anything is that you don't seem to be familar with any of those tests (i.e. unit-root tests, GARCH models).

I worked for many years as a statistician. I am thoroughly familiar with statistical tests. The galactic supercluster data is strongly significant. There was a paper saying that their test was wrong, but that the results were still significant.

I claim that this is caused by green space dragons playing space billards. That fits the facts perfectly also. Fitting the facts is a necessary part of any model, but it's hardly sufficient.

You cannot make any predictions from your theory. I predicted long before the latest Hubbnle constant figures that these waves and geological periods would align. I was able to predict in the early 1990s that the Hubble constant would be one of (because it fits in different ways to the harmonics) 47.x, 63.x, 71.x and 95.x km/s/MPc.

I have also predicted many other things before their discovery.

Saying that there is some non-linear standing wave that causes galaxy formation is curiously enough... TOTALLY CORRECT and also TOTALLY USELESS. The problem is that you have told me nothing at all about the characteristics of that nonlinear wave, whereas I can run CMBFAST and get polarizations, power spectrum, and correlation functions, and the fact that those waves were frozen about 10 billion years ago.

You don't get nothing from my predictions. You don't get the same things as from other branches of science. Just like statistical mechanics made a whole lot of new things understood about gases.

I have calculated the spectrum of the standing waves of the Universe. It predicts structural formations at ratios that are close to 34560 or about 10^4.5 and we see that the sequence observed fits that very well: Hubble scale, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, ... cells, atoms, nucleons, (quarks?). No other theory gives any reason for the huge ratios between structures in the Universe. See my pages at http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html for the detailed calculations and successes.

It's not enough to say that there is "some non-linear wave." That sort of guess is totally useless even if is correct. What I need are details on the nature of that wave so that I can create some pretty detailed predictions. Again what makes me very skeptical that you'll get anything useful is that you don't seem to be familiar at all with the language people use to describe waves in detail. The only thing that you are talking about is periodicity and that is just not enough to describe a wave, particularly a non-linear one.

Once you agree that the fundamental equations are non-linear, then as soon as there is a standing wave, all that I say follows automatically. You do not need to know the exact nature of the non-linearity even. Read the page referred to above and see.

Also, I always get suspicious when a theory fits the facts perfectly. In any non-trivial theory that I can think of when the theory fits the facts perfectly, then you did something wrong. One thing that's important is "error bars." To what degree can the theory say something useful. Saying 586 million years is a totally useless number. I should be 586 +/- 3 million years. or 0.3 million, 0.003 million, 00003 million.

Well Afanasiev says he has it down to 586.2385 million years +/- a very tiny amount. Using his figure and calculating high order harmonics I get agreement to 6 digit accuracy for cycles in te human time frame. I take such an agreement seriously.

So does your theory predict things to +/- 1 miillion +/- 10 million +/- 0.0001 million years? If you can't tell me then its useless.

The agreement between the geological cycle (586.24 million years) and the supergalactic waves (588 million light years) is not perfect. That is because the Hubble constant inaccuracy is quite large. I use this to advantage to calculate the Hubble constant more accurately. The means is there to improve that substantially using the existing data.

 

[RayTomes]

You are joking, right?

Sorry, I should have said "intelligent people" rather than "you".

 

[RayTomes]

Hold on. You are saying that there is EM wave with incredible low frequency, with incredible amount of energy. Wright? So what can cause such wave? It would be some strange event that radiated so much power at such low frequency.

It isn't really "radiating power". It is just the sloshing about of the energy of the universe. Just as sound inside a musical instrument forms standing waves, so dies the energy of the universe. I cannot say whether the waves are E/M or gravitaional of some combination of these, but I can say that they have velocity c.

 

[S.Vasojevic]

Well musical instruments do not form standing waves on themselves, they need some work.

 

[Chalnoth]

You poor fellow. Did you not read that I said the waves are electromagnetic or gravitational.

Electromagnetic waves require accelerated charges to be emitted. There aren't any charges being accelerated on the timescales required.

Gravitational waves require a time-dependent quadrupole of the gravitational field. That's not happening on the required distance scales either.

So, without a way of producing these waves, you're left with magic.

 

[twofish-quant]

Once you agree that the fundamental equations are non-linear, then as soon as there is a standing wave, all that I say follows automatically. You do not need to know the exact nature of the non-linearity even. Read the page referred to above and see.

They don't. Non-linear waves don't work the way that you think that they do. Once you get non-linearities, you don't necessarily get power against the harmonics. What exactly happens depends very much on the nature of the non-linearities. You can get solitons in which you have no harmonics at all.

The agreement between the geological cycle (586.24 million years) and the supergalactic waves (588 million light years) is not perfect. That is because the Hubble constant inaccuracy is quite large. I use this to advantage to calculate the Hubble constant more accurately. The means is there to improve that substantially using the existing data.

But if it turns out that the Hubble constant calculated with other means goes outside your calculated value then you have a problem. What I think you are doing is that you are cherry picking data in order to get a match, which means that it's not surprising when you do get a match, Also if you throw away the big bang as you seem to be doing then you are probably going to have to totally recalculate the Hubble constant anyway. The Hubble constant isn't constant, and the current value is not what it was 500 million years ago.

It's actually *not* against the rules to say, I'm accepting data X, Y, Z because it fits my theory, but I'm rejecting data A, B, C because it doesn't, but you just have to be explicit that you are doing that, but it if turns out that you are rejecting every experimental result any just picking the one or two out of thousands that match your model, then any matches aren't that impressive.

 

[twofish-quant]

Electromagnetic waves require accelerated charges to be emitted. There aren't any charges being accelerated on the timescales required.

Gravitational waves require a time-dependent quadrupole of the gravitational field. That's not happening on the required distance scales either.

So, without a way of producing these waves, you're left with magic.

Which is fine as long as you quantify the magic. If you have a new theory of gravity that produces non-linear standing waves then that's cool, and you can add it to the several dozens of different theory of gravity that are currently under consideration.

What's not useful is to just say "non-linearity" without stating the type of non-linearity. If you can write down some gravitational field equations that produce standing waves, that would be cool. You haven't done that. It's almost certain that your first try would work, but if you can get something after your third or fourth try it would be interesting.

What you have is not a very firm target. All I get is some period whose numbers can be fudged. I'm not getting any detailed power spectrum. I want to know the *strength* of the waves, not just their period.

 

[RayTomes]

Well musical instruments do not form standing waves on themselves, they need some work.

Are you trying to invoke God?

The point is that there are natural vibration modes to any physical system In this case we are referring to E/M or gravitational modes. These natural modes are called eignmodes. They apply to any natural system that can be described by a wave equation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_mode

 

[RayTomes]

Electromagnetic waves require accelerated charges to be emitted. There aren't any charges being accelerated on the timescales required.

Gravitational waves require a time-dependent quadrupole of the gravitational field. That's not happening on the required distance scales either.

So, without a way of producing these waves, you're left with magic.

E/M waves can be generated by electric charges but do not require them. Physicists often tell me that gravitational waves aren't strong enough. I don't know about that. I do know that there is ample evidence, from all of the following that the waves move with velocity c because the same distances in light time are found as periods in time:
1. supergalactic scale waves / geological cycles - 586, 293, 146, 73, 36.5 MY
2. stellar distance waves / natural cycles on Earth - 4.44, 5.9, 7.1, 8.9, 9.6, 11.8 years
3. planetary distance waves / solar oscillations / other - 160, 80, 6 and 3 minutes

The agreements are far to good to be coincidence.

You can call it magic if you want. I call it empirical evidence. The waves are real.

Perhaps you do not understand that scientific "causes" and "mechanisms" are only names we give to commonly reported patterns of phenomena.

 

[RayTomes]

They don't. Non-linear waves don't work the way that you think that they do. Once you get non-linearities, you don't necessarily get power against the harmonics. What exactly happens depends very much on the nature of the non-linearities. You can get solitons in which you have no harmonics at all.

Solitons are not standing waves in the sense that I am referring to.

But if it turns out that the Hubble constant calculated with other means goes outside your calculated value then you have a problem.

I agree. But if it homes right in on my value (as it has been doing for the last 15 years) then it is another successful prediction.

What I think you are doing is that you are cherry picking data in order to get a match, which means that it's not surprising when you do get a match, Also if you throw away the big bang as you seem to be doing then you are probably going to have to totally recalculate the Hubble constant anyway. The Hubble constant isn't constant, and the current value is not what it was 500 million years ago.

There is no cherry picking. Everything that I look at shows the same relationships. Here is the last thing that I looked up on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
It clearly shows the 146 million year cycle. You can also see a cycle of about 36 million years (although it seems more like 33 million). This is typical of all the data that I look at.

It's actually *not* against the rules to say, I'm accepting data X, Y, Z because it fits my theory, but I'm rejecting data A, B, C because it doesn't, but you just have to be explicit that you are doing that, but it if turns out that you are rejecting every experimental result any just picking the one or two out of thousands that match your model, then any matches aren't that impressive.

I accept any data that looks accurately measured and isn't obviously tainted by someone else's theory (as much cosmological data is these days). Sometimes you can still get the raw data and find the correct facts even in those cases.

 

[RayTomes]

Which is fine as long as you quantify the magic. If you have a new theory of gravity that produces non-linear standing waves then that's cool, and you can add it to the several dozens of different theory of gravity that are currently under consideration.

I am not proposing a new theory of gravity.

What's not useful is to just say "non-linearity" without stating the type of non-linearity. If you can write down some gravitational field equations that produce standing waves, that would be cool. You haven't done that. It's almost certain that your first try would work, but if you can get something after your third or fourth try it would be interesting.

I am not planning to try and produce GR equations for gravitational waves. I have confirmed with specialists that there are suchj solutions, but they are beyond my capabilities.

For my purposes it is enough that waves be non-linear. If you consider a set of standing waves (of whatever type) that are space filling (e.g. centres arranged in a lattice of cubes or rhombic dodecahedra) then there will be some common length between the centres. Weak non-linearity will produce harmonic waves that are all fractions of the original wavelength (or all multiples of the frequency). We know that the centres are not moving, so the waves must divide them exactly because or symmetry arguments.

I do assume that the energy going to harmonics is proportional to h^-k where k is any value. It might be h^-1 or h^-2 or anything else. That is sufficient conditions for my calculations. The calculations do get a whole lot of accurate answers including making new predictions that turn out correct.

Such relationships will often arise as Taylor expansion series, except that there may be other small constants in the expression which would make my calculations not exactly correct. However that would not have much effect until very high orders.

What you have is not a very firm target. All I get is some period whose numbers can be fudged. I'm not getting any detailed power spectrum. I want to know the *strength* of the waves, not just their period.

If you go to my website http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html" you will find all the detailed calculations including relative strength of harmonics from 1 to 10^50+. You will find there a graphic which shows these results with amplitudes.

 

[S.Vasojevic]

Your theory is rejecting Big Bang cosmology, which is not good thing. Not because BB is a 'holy cow' in physics, but because it has many arguments, and probably strongest is that we know exact age of the universe.

As twofish pointed, you would need to modify GR. Good luck with that.

 

[twofish-quant]

I am not proposing a new theory of gravity.

Yes you are. You are rejecting BB cosmology and talking about non-linearities in Maxwell's equations and gravity waves. Therefore you *are* proposing a new theory of gravity. Now there is nothing wrong with proposing a new theory of gravity. There is an entire industry right now that is working on alternative theories of gravity. Also there is nothing that keeps you from proposing alternative theories of electromagnetism. There was an entire industry doing that in the 1960's and early 1970.

I am not planning to try and produce GR equations for gravitational waves. I have confirmed with specialists that there are such solutions, but they are beyond my capabilities.

Specialists might be wrong. The trouble is that those same specialists are taking a look at your theories, and thinking "total hokum." Any one that has any familarity with GR, (which includes pretty much everyone in this thread that you are arguing with), would pretty quickly point out that standard GR just won't give you the standing waves that you are talking about. Now you are free to propose alternative theories.

Also, if you can do partial differential equations and Fourier transforms, you can get into the game. If you *can't* do PDE's and Fourier transforms, then you are making statements about non-linear waves that have no basis behind them.

For my purposes it is enough that waves be non-linear. If you consider a set of standing waves (of whatever type) that are space filling (e.g. centres arranged in a lattice of cubes or rhombic dodecahedra) then there will be some common length between the centres. Weak non-linearity will produce harmonic waves that are all fractions of the original wavelength (or all multiples of the frequency). We know that the centres are not moving, so the waves must divide them exactly because or symmetry arguments.

They'll produce harmonics at all fractions of the original wavelength, but those harmonics are *NOT* going to be at specific fractions of the original wavelength. What happens with most non-linearities is that they smear out the peaks of any waves that you produce. That's why I'm do interested in the shape of the peak, and why I'm not that interested when you can't give me that information.

What happens with early universe calculations is that you insert the behavior of the gas and radiation as what is basically a slightly "non-linear" correction to the basic equations, at that point you get out very detailed power spectrum. The "non-linearity" comes from the gas, dark matter, and radiation pressure.

I do assume that the energy going to harmonics is proportional to h^-k where k is any value. It might be h^-1 or h^-2 or anything else.

And in any sort of continuous system, that's not how weak non-linearities behave. Now if you have a strongly non-linear system what *does* happen is that the energy gets distributed continuously across all wavelengths according to some power law, but there is nothing that keeps the energy localized on the harmonics.

Such relationships will often arise as Taylor expansion series, except that there may be other small constants in the expression which would make my calculations not exactly correct. However that would not have much effect until very high orders.

The basic problem with non-linear systems is that you often *can't* truncate the Taylor expansion. Any strongly non-linear system causes the Taylor expansion to explode, which means that any numbers you get doing Taylor expansions are useless. Strongly non-linear systems are dominated by higher order terms in the Taylor expansion.

I think you are cherry picking data. If you have a strongly non-linear system then you have power across all frequencies so that if you notice something interesting at a given frequency, then you claim a match.

 

[twofish-quant]

I predicted long before the latest Hubbnle constant figures that these waves and geological periods would align. I was able to predict in the early 1990s that the Hubble constant would be one of (because it fits in different ways to the harmonics) 47.x, 63.x, 71.x and 95.x km/s/MPc.

That's not terribly impressive. If you assume that you the Hubble constant is somewhere between 45 and 100 then you have about an 8% chance of guessing right. If the Hubble constant is known to +/-4, then you are more likely to guess right than wrong.

That's the problem with most of the "evidence" that you present. If you say that the Hubble constant is 71.3424932842390 and it turns out that from external evidence that the Hubble constant is 71.34249328421, then that would be impressive. But that's not what is happening. What's happening is that you are saying that the Hubble constant is (for example) 71.3424932842390 and the Hubble constant value is known to be 71 +/- 4. So the current evidence is simply not good enough to say whether or not you have anything. The same is happening with geologic data. You are making hyper-precise predictions about things that are not known very well. If you can give a hyper-precise prediction about something that *is* know very well (like the magnetic moment of the electron) that would be impressive, but you haven't done that.

So you *should* be able to come up with something else.

Also, since you claim to be a statistician, give me the odds that what you *are* doing is a result of coincidence. What's the null hypothesis and what's your confidence interval? In the case of the Hubble prediction, your chances of getting it right give the current data is more than your changes of getting it wrong, and the problem is that while your prediction is hyper-precise, the data isn't.

 

[RayTomes]

Your theory is rejecting Big Bang cosmology, which is not good thing. Not because BB is a 'holy cow' in physics, but because it has many arguments, and probably strongest is that we know exact age of the universe.

As twofish pointed, you would need to modify GR. Good luck with that.

Yes you are. You are rejecting BB cosmology and talking about non-linearities in Maxwell's equations and gravity waves. Therefore you *are* proposing a new theory of gravity. Now there is nothing wrong with proposing a new theory of gravity. There is an entire industry right now that is working on alternative theories of gravity. Also there is nothing that keeps you from proposing alternative theories of electromagnetism. There was an entire industry doing that in the 1960's and early 1970.

I agree that I am rejecting BB cosmology. There is no doubt about that. In big bang cosmology the period of a wave is not constant over billions of years. What we observe with this wave structure of supergalactic clusters is a regular wave. That alone is evidence against BB cosmology.

However I am not rejecting Maxwell's equations or GR. Quite the reverse. Maxwell's equations were considered to be linear until Einstein. But GR most definitely makes Maxwell's equations non-linear because energetic formations (which is what I am talking about) distort space-time in GR and that makes Maxwell's equations non-linear. I have discussed this with GR experts and they agree that it is so.

Specialists might be wrong. The trouble is that those same specialists are taking a look at your theories, and thinking "total hokum." Any one that has any familarity with GR, (which includes pretty much everyone in this thread that you are arguing with), would pretty quickly point out that standard GR just won't give you the standing waves that you are talking about. Now you are free to propose alternative theories.

Also, if you can do partial differential equations and Fourier transforms, you can get into the game. If you *can't* do PDE's and Fourier transforms, then you are making statements about non-linear waves that have no basis behind them.

Most experts that I have discussed this with agree that there can be gravitational wave structures in GR but in general I don't think that this area is anything like fully developed yet. The solutions we have for GR gravitational wave structures are all rather special cases and not very general cases. This is largely unexplored territory. However my case does not depend on that as it is qite possible the waves are E/M.

Yes, I am familiar with PDE's and Fourier transforms.

They'll produce harmonics at all fractions of the original wavelength, but those harmonics are *NOT* going to be at specific fractions of the original wavelength. What happens with most non-linearities is that they smear out the peaks of any waves that you produce. That's why I'm do interested in the shape of the peak, and why I'm not that interested when you can't give me that information.

You are assuming only a single wave structure in space. When you have a repeating wave (as we clearly do have here) then the harmonics must be exact fractions of the original wave length. This is easily demonstrated on the grounds of symmetry of all the waves. Can you see this?

What happens with early universe calculations is that you insert the behavior of the gas and radiation as what is basically a slightly "non-linear" correction to the basic equations, at that point you get out very detailed power spectrum. The "non-linearity" comes from the gas, dark matter, and radiation pressure.

In my proposal, in the early universe there is no gas , no dark matter, no radiation pressure (unless you count 10^10 light year E/M waves as radiation pressure :-) )

You cannot use BB thinking when evaluating an alternative to it. IMO the early universe only had huge waves of E/M (or whatever) and it is the very harmonics of these that eventually develop atomic structure and particles. I can correctly predict quite closely the scale at which atoms and particles will form (getting 0.5 A for the Bohr radius and 1.4 fm for the nucleon radius / wavelength which are close to observed 0.53 A and 1.2 to 1.3 fm). So you need to understand that all of particle physics is potentially able to be produced from this without dozens of meaningless fitted parameters.

No other theory explains the huge ratios between observed structures in the Universe.

And in any sort of continuous system, that's not how weak non-linearities behave. Now if you have a strongly non-linear system what *does* happen is that the energy gets distributed continuously across all wavelengths according to some power law, but there is nothing that keeps the energy localized on the harmonics.

As I said, the larger wave structures do achieve that. If you have supergalactic waves of 586.24 MLY (million light years) then te harmonics have to be 293.12, 146.56, 73.28, 36.64 MLY because the peaks have to coincide over all the superclusters. This is an important point.

The basic problem with non-linear systems is that you often *can't* truncate the Taylor expansion. Any strongly non-linear system causes the Taylor expansion to explode, which means that any numbers you get doing Taylor expansions are useless. Strongly non-linear systems are dominated by higher order terms in the Taylor expansion.

I am not actually developing a Taylor expansion, What I am saying is that the actual equations of E/M with non-linearity included and the correct wave structure in place will have such a Taylor expansion. It will include a series of terms for the harmonics which will have some negative power of the harmonic number. It will also likely have some other odd expression. That expression I do not know and so must ignore. That means that there is some correction needed in my calculation. But the negative power part where the energy in harmonic h is proportional to the fundamental divided by h^k where k is any constant is sufficient condition to develop the observed pattern in nature.

That is because h1^k * h2^k = (h1*h2)^k. See my web page which shows how the number of paths to any harmonic is an important factor. E.g., the 12th harmonic can be reached in 8 ways: 12, 6x2, 2x6, 4x3, 3x4, 3x2x2, 2x3x2, 2x2x3. My assumption is that all are equal in energy. That follows from h1^k * h2^k = (h1*h2)^k.

I think you are cherry picking data. If you have a strongly non-linear system then you have power across all frequencies so that if you notice something interesting at a given frequency, then you claim a match.

No. There are certain common periods found at all scales in the Universe. If you would have a look at http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/dewey/case_for_cycles.pdf you would find that this has been reported as so based on thousands of cycles studies by hundreds or thousands of scientific researchers in every scientific discipline. If you don't get this point, you will keep making unfounded accusations of cherry-picking because it doesn't fit your believe system. Read this stuff and be prepared to abandon some of your beliefs. Observation must come before theory. Since that paper was written the table of common cycles has been far extended. The same pattern of common cycles with periods in ratios 2 and 3 is being reported in recent times in e.g. solar physics where 155, 77, 52 and 26 days solar cycles (and more harmonically related) are found. I can give refs if you want. These periods do link by simple ratios to all the other commonly observed cycles in the report.

 

[RayTomes]

That's not terribly impressive. If you assume that you the Hubble constant is somewhere between 45 and 100 then you have about an 8% chance of guessing right. If the Hubble constant is known to +/-4, then you are more likely to guess right than wrong.

At the time I first made predictions the Hubble constant was uncertain in the range 45 to 100 as you say. I gave 4 values which were on average differing by ratios of 2^(1/3) or 1.26 apart. The present value is is different from my value by .003 of the value. So the chance is 2*.003/loge(1.26) or 2.6%. It isn't my fault that the present Hubble constant measurement is not accurate. :-)

That's the problem with most of the "evidence" that you present. If you say that the Hubble constant is 71.3424932842390 and it turns out that from external evidence that the Hubble constant is 71.34249328421, then that would be impressive. But that's not what is happening. What's happening is that you are saying that the Hubble constant is (for example) 71.3424932842390 and the Hubble constant value is known to be 71 +/- 4. So the current evidence is simply not good enough to say whether or not you have anything. The same is happening with geologic data. You are making hyper-precise predictions about things that are not known very well. If you can give a hyper-precise prediction about something that *is* know very well (like the magnetic moment of the electron) that would be impressive, but you haven't done that.

So you *should* be able to come up with something else.

Well, unfortunately the West knows little of Prof Afanasiev's work. More fool them. I have his book but reading the Russian needs help, but the tables and formula are easy to follow. Using his book I have solved the Elatina geological formations controversy with incredible accuracy. As I also mentioned, the 586.2385 million year period gives periods in the human range to 6 digit accuracy. This includes getting the period 11.8622 years which is a very common cycle and is in fact Jupiter's period around the Sun (correct to 6 digit accuracy). Odds of that happening?

You want more?

In 1995 I predicted that a new particle should exist with mass 34.76 Mev or 68 times the electron and 1/27 of a nucleon. In 1996 a particle was reported with mass 33.9 Mev. See http://www.google.com/search?&q=33.9+Mev+particle
This has been largely ignore by mainstream because they did not expect it. I computed it based on harmonics theory and obvious ratios of 2 and 3 and some others between partcile masses.

Also, since you claim to be a statistician, give me the odds that what you *are* doing is a result of coincidence. What's the null hypothesis and what's your confidence interval? In the case of the Hubble prediction, your chances of getting it right give the current data is more than your changes of getting it wrong, and the problem is that while your prediction is hyper-precise, the data isn't.

I have 100 times as much evidence as I have mentioned to you. Some of the individual cases have p<10^-18 and the like. You can cherry pick a lifetime (which I don't) and you won't get that. That case incidentally is the probability that these next two statements are true:
1. Tomes predictions of redshift quanta has no basis in reality.
2. Tifft's observed periodicities in redshift data are not real.
That is because the two sets of values (arrived at without knowledge of each other) have p<10^-18 of being so similar. For example I get a 72.153 km/s redshift periodicity and Tifft's initially reported value was 72.135 km/s and there are about 12 other periods that agree equally well.

I can take almost any set of data, such as the orbital periods of the planets and moons in the solar system, and using Kotov's method of searching for commensurabilities it will find a set of values which tend to be multiples of and fractions of the list of periods fed in. The values that I get out of such an exercise agree extremely well with Edward Dewey's list of common cycles (in the above reference) which are based on commonly reported cycles on Earth. Something is going on!

 

[S.Vasojevic]

I agree that I am rejecting BB cosmology. There is no doubt about that. In big bang cosmology the period of a wave is not constant over billions of years. What we observe with this wave structure of supergalactic clusters is a regular wave. That alone is evidence against BB cosmology.

Ok. You are discarding FLRW solution. You need static solution. Einstein's universe? 10^10 light years radius of curvature fits fine. One problem, though, it is eternal universe. So, what is fueling our stars? Or, even more fundamental, how we ever get to this moment, if there was infinite time before?

If you don't get this point, you will keep making unfounded accusations of cherry-picking because it doesn't fit your believe system. Read this stuff and be prepared to abandon some of your beliefs.

Go to the http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/[/URL , and look at the WMAP's top ten at home page. At least five things are in direct conflict with static universe. You are saying that this people spent $200 milion because their believe system is wrong?

 

[RayTomes]

Ok. You are discarding FLRW solution. You need static solution. Einstein's universe? 10^10 light years radius of curvature fits fine. One problem, though, it is eternal universe. So, what is fueling our stars? Or, even more fundamental, how we ever get to this moment, if there was infinite time before?

The answers to these questions are very deep and require an entirely different way of looking at tings. Also, my answers may not be complete. But at least I don't keep adding new parameters and weird made up stuff every time some new data comes out as BB cosmology does. It almost always gets predictions wrong.

However I would say that the process of harmonic formation is always moving energy to smaller scales. This fact causes the energy withing say a nucleon to keep increasing (as energy is moving from larger than nucleon waves to smaller than nucleon waves at the Hubble rate, i.e. ~1 part in 10^10 per year). This explanation which follows logically from harmonics theory results in two related predictions.

1. Distant objects are seen as they were long ago when all partciles were less massive. Therefore all atomic spectra are seen as less energetic or redder.

2. The mass of nucleons is increasing at the Hubble rate and so when they are understood as spherical standing wave structures, the inward component of teh standing wave is stronger than the outward component. The difference is predicted to be 1 part in 10^10 years or 1 part in 10^40 oscillations of the nucleus. That is why gravity is 10^40 times weaker than the charge force.

So energy is moving to different scales which causes it to manifest at certain frequencies as it does so.

Go to the http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/[/URL , and look at the WMAP's top ten at home page. At least five things are in direct conflict with static universe. You are saying that this people spent $200 milion because their believe system is wrong?

There are a lot of sites in internet that disagree with that info and give explanations. When I first said that there must be large scale structure in the universe more than 15 years ago, all the astronomical community told me that I was mad, there was no such structure. Now that it has been found they claim to have predicted it. That is bunkum, they postdicted it. I did predict it.