The Nature of the Universe, Time Travel and More...

[Will The Serious]

The Richat Structure is intriguing all on its own.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richat_Structure
I've seen that video and was more interested in the formation of the richat structure.

I have suffered a number of concussions and one thing the doctor told me, from my last one, was about the brain trauma that can be incurred on the opposite side of the brain from the point of impact. Earth has a solid core (theoretically) floating inside a fluid outer core. It has recently been determined that the inner core moves around almost independently of the mantle and crust of the Earth. The core rotates at a different rate, it wobbles and probably varies its relative position from center according to tidal forces and CMEs from the Sun. It also makes sense that a large enough impact from a giant asteroid could cause a harmonic swaying of the core inside the Earth. What if the richat structure was caused by an asteroid impact on the opposite side of the Earth? Such a strong harmonic movement of the core could have a period in the dozens, hundreds or thousands of years and cause a warming on the surface from friction below.

Currently, the poles are moving around more then ever, volcanic events are increasing in, what I understand is, an eleven year cycle, but with a higher energy level then previously measured. El Niño, etc. Could all be the result of a "ringing" of the Earth that may have been struck millennia ago.

-Will

 

[Will The Serious]

Some more info on the Eye of Africa.

According to Wikipedia, the Richat Structure is a site with a lot of Acheulean artifacts. Acheulean refers to homoerectus and other hominids from about 2 million years ago to about 130,000 years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean

Considering that the video above suggests this as a sight for the lost city of Atlantis, either Atlantis was built over a thick layer of sediment that buried a lot of early stone age artifacts and never disturbed them until the flood that dragged Atlantis into the sea uncovered them again, or Atlantis was first and homoerectus moved into the area after Atlantis was washed away.

If Atlantis existed on top of the Acheulean site, it is amazing that an event that exposed the Richat Structure right down to the bedrock below, didn't also wash away the dense collection of stone axe blades and arrowheads.

If Atlantis was there first, incredible!

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I don't feel able to comment about the Richat structure, knowing neither the geology nor the archeology of the area from sources other than Wikipedia, nor am I very familiar with the Timaeus or what remains of the Critias. We know the cosmology of the Timaeus is incorrect, so I doubt we can place much credence in the anecdote spun about Atlantis by Plato in Critias, who probably had an axe to grind with the contemporary state of politics in Athens - like he did in The Republic.

 

[Toril Toran]

You have to admit that IF Plato was correct about the existence of Atlantis, it does seem to fit the facts that were given in the video: The ringed city, the tidal wave that washed it away, etc. Could Plato know about the layer of sediment off the coast? I don’t know.
I think the only way we will know is to examine the sediment (slide??) with LIDAR and see if any objects are discovered.
Perhaps even excavate(??)

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Unfortunately, the problem of confirmation bias is very apparent in many theories of lost civilisations. However, we are now discovering irrefutable evidence that stone age hunter-gatherer societies could act collectively and build complex structures, which disrupts the standard narrative that farming was a prerequisite.

 

[Will The Serious]

Unfortunately, the problem of confirmation bias is very apparent in many theories of lost civilisations.

So true.
https://afrolegends.com/2013/08/29/the-ishango-bone-craddle-of-mathematics/
Here is an interesting article about a Stone Age artifact called the Ishango Bones. These two bones seem to be a calculator or counter of some kind that demonstrate a knowledge of, if not an understanding of, prime numbers, over 20,000 years ago.

Within this article, there is an engineer who speculates that the bones are a slide rule of some type, a woman who suggests the bones kept track of the lunar cycle for following a female's period... Each theory, of course, is developed out of the life perspective and experiences of its author.

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Doesn't seem to use logarithmic scales, so it's not a slide rule. Every even number greater than 2 was conjectured by Goldbach in 1742 to be the sum of two prime numbers (this is, as yet, unproven), so perhaps it was a numerological divining device.

 

[Will The Serious]

I read somewhere that multiplication had to be understood before prime numbers. That makes sense. Of course, that leads to the question, what use did stone age man have for multiplication 22,000 years ago?

A well known stone age number tool, still used by agricultural tribal people today is called a tally stick. Many examples of such devices have been discovered by archeologists that were made from baboon bones. Tally sticks were/are used for things like keeping track of a flock as its members pass from pen to field, then back again. Without a number system, a shepherd simply advance a notch along the stick as a sheep passes through the gate in one direction, then backwards again, as the sheep returns to the pen.

If the Ishango Bones are tally sticks, they may represent a flock of hundreds, even thousands of sheep. However, these artifacts still seem far more advanced than what would be necessary to keep track of a few thousand sheep.

Would people 22,000 years ago have enough desire to study astronomy or geometry, or some other such math intensive discipline, to the degree that developing an understanding of prime numbers and advanced multiplication would be a result? The only things I can imagine a collective society would need such skills for at such an early stage of technical development, are the subjects I just listed, as well as possibly tracking genealogy and economics. Maybe some physics applications, such as calculating levers or vessel volumes, but really, those seem like a stretch.

The idea that people have had advanced understanding of our world for much longer then we modern people attribute to them, has a number of points of evidence from, early meso-americans developing successful brain surgery, "primitive" stone age people knowing how to move huge stones hundreds of miles, then pick them up and stack them, to navigating the entire globe before Europeans were able to confess that it was a sphere. We now know that the Pythagorean Formula was used and understood hundreds of years, if not millenia before Pythagoras. We know the Vikings met the North American Inuits, we have evidence that the Minoans built on multiple stories and had a sophisticated indoor plumping and sewage system, generations ahead of the ancient Greeks.

Think about some of the simplest technologies that we haven't developed before the 1800s such as, hot air balloons, wool socks and static charge, and is it really that hard to believe that those concepts may have been played with and harnessed in a prehistoric (previous to recorded history) world? Wars, and natural disasters have wiped whole nations off the Earth before. The library of Alexandrea was destroyed by a religious fervor that may have been more widespread then our poor records of those times show. We could easily have lost entire civilizations of knowledge, and had to start over from the beginning, several times over, from the creation of those baboon bones. But, our own ignorance and cultural bias hold us back from a more accurate memory and understanding of our own past. Think that we have always known that early farmers learned to irrigate their fields using a device called a shaduf.

Now ask, why do we find it such an incredible mystery that ancient Egyptians could raise the pyramids? I'll bet Archemede would have not found it hard to believe.

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The Greek historian Herodotus certainly believed the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids and gave some broad details of their construction, although they'd already been standing for 2,000 years by his time.

Multiplication is just another form of addition when you think about it. It would be useful for doing astronomical (and astrological) calculations and I expect brilliant savants existed 200 centuries ago like they do now. Prime numbers are the atoms of number theory, so it's not a stretch to believe people invented the concept before the Egyptians and Greeks - the former appear to have been aware of them and the latter studied them. The Pythagorean rule appears to have been known about in Mesopotamia over a thousand years before Pythagoras was born.

Recording knowledge is essential for advancement and without written records that were preserved, mankind might have regressed several times and had to reinvent many things. Much knowledge has possibly been lost to posterity.

 

[Will The Serious]

https://scitechdaily.com/defying-gr...f-magnetic-hovering-beyond-classical-physics/
A fascinating discovery. What are the implications? The applications?

Could it be the path of the polar flow of electrons around a magnet is affected by centripetal or gyroscopic forces? Why wouldn't it be? Imagine the lines of magnetic flow gaining some angular momentum that change the shape of those imagined lines of flow, almost squashing the field near its poles.

Instead of a field that looks like:

the lines of flow that move directly out from the end, curve more severely in a perpendicular to the polar axis, drawing the outflowing field lines of the floater magnet, the way a flowing stream of fluid will create a vacuum in a side stream and draw it in, the way a venturimeter works.

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Lines of magnetic flux are not flows of electrons. They are imaginary lines that we draw to represent the direction and strength of a magnetic field in space. The magnetism is produced by moving electrons (bound electrons with intrinsic magnetic moments in electron clouds around atomic nuclei and free electrons moving as an electric current). Magnetic monopoles have never been observed in nature, although theoretical considerations imply that they do exist.

Fundamentals of Magnetic Flux and Reluctance - Study for FE

 

[Will The Serious]

Point taken. However, the field around a magnet can be mapped, whatever it is that makes it up. If it is affected by motion, and it appears that it is, should we assume it has mass? Surely it has a measurable force.

The spinning magnet does not appear to add or subtract a component to the system, only change its relationship to cause a specific effect. Therefore, it seems best to work from the assumption that the spinning reorganizes the structure of the system, rather than adds an element or subtracts one.

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Electron spin that gives rise to a magnetic moment is a quantum mechanical property. It's not correct to attribute it to actual physical rotation. Intuitive ideas of physical properties at the quantum scale cannot be extrapolated from the macro scale observed directly by the human eye. Much of quantum mechanics cannot be described by human language to make it intelligible. This is why we use mathematics to understand it. Popular-science explanations often fall short in terms of accuracy. Even mathematics struggles to describe the quantum scale - especially when gravity is involved as well. My expectation is that we will require AI to explore all the myriad of possible mathematical alternative descriptions. Even then, we might not be able to put the best mathematical descriptions into words.

The energy density of a magnetic field is B²/2μ J/m³, where B is the magnetic flux density in tesla (T) and μ is the magnetic permeability (μ0 for the vacuum is 4π×10^−7 H/m). For the Earth's field strength of about 50 μT in vacuo, the energy density is (5x10^-5)²/2x4π×10^−7 mJ/m³ or about 1 mJ/m³. The equivalent mass density (by E = mc²) is 1.11x10^-20 kg/m³ or about 7 million proton masses. Rough estimation shows that the mass equivalence of the Earth's entire magnetic field is of the order of a few tens of kilograms. The gravitational field due to such a small mass is similarly tiny.

 

[publiusr]

Now that find might make maglev sleds for rockets a bit easier perhaps…

The Richat Structure is intriguing all on its own.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richat_Structure
I've seen that video and was more interested in the formation of the richat structure.

I have suffered a number of concussions and one thing the doctor told me, from my last one, was about the brain trauma that can be incurred on the opposite side of the brain from the point of impact. Earth has a solid core (theoretically) floating inside a fluid outer core.
-Will

Contrecoup concussion on a large scale?
I think “iron snow” is in the news lately…perhaps explaining the magnetic flip.

Lastly, there is this:
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-method-straighten-space.amp

The author speaks on using the Alena Tensor as a slider of sorts.

The maths are below
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2023.1264925/full

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yet another theory that I don't have time nor sufficient mathematical ability to study. If it has merit, hopefully it will help break the impasse in modern physics. It might require rewinding decades of research and starting again, but I do feel something's got to give sooner or later.

 

[Toril Toran]

<quote>Magnetic monopoles have never been observed in nature, although theoretical considerations imply that theydo exist.<\quote>

I do not understand how anything could possibly be magnetically monopolar(?). Everything has an opposite: light and dark, soft and hard, etc.
If you break or cut a magnet in two, each piece still has a North and South Pole. They do not break in half and create one strictly North piece and one south piece.
Wouldn’t a monopole just be a bunch of protons, or electrons stuck together, to perhaps neutrons. A sort of proton-neutron-proton sandwich? Or electron-neutron-electron sandwich?

 

[Will The Serious]

I do not understand how anything could possibly be magnetically monopolar(?).

Isn't an electron magnetically monopolar?

-Will

 

[Toril Toran]

Never mind. I (and you) answered my question

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Dirac's formulation of quantum mechanics that included special relativity suggested that id magnetic monopoles exist, then electric charge must be quantised. However, just because electric charge is quantised, this does not prove that magnetic monopoles exist. Electrons have a magnetic dipole moment due to the quantum mechanical spin property and are therefore not monopolar. However, they do not actually spin, but do possess intrinsic angular momentum.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Will The Serious]

Electrons have a magnetic dipole moment due to the quantum mechanical spin property and are therefore not monopolar.

So, is there any case on which one electron's positive pole attracts the negative pole of another electron?

What might this video [https://scitechdaily.com/defying-gr...f-magnetic-hovering-beyond-classical-physics/] imply about the electromagnetic relationship between a spinning, electromagnetic planet, such as Earth, and other magnetized celestial bodies?

Might we consider the possibility that a spinning planet might maintain a satellite in geosynchronous orbit above one pole or the other, naturally?

-Will