Supergalactic cluster waves and geological cycles

[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.