June 8, 2016

Phoenix arising again from the cosmic ashes?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , , — zankaon @ 7:15 pm


Nuclear synthesis occurs for over 90 seconds, or 10² in comparison to Planck time of 10^-43 seconds, thus seemingly 45 orders far removed from r_m modified global radius minimum of modified global trajectory and of 3-volume minimum. Still 31 orders from Electro-weak energy scale of ~10^-12 seconds to Planck scale? Nevertheless cosmic time i.e. large scale peculiar velocity, Hubble parameter (changing 3-volume), and fermion mass spectrum are all exponentially changing, in SRM Spiral Rotation Model; thus shortening cosmic time duration to high entropy transition stage of r_m. The latter an entropic caldera of quanta interactions and extreme manifold deformations i.e. sea of gravity waves? Is this the ‘world’ we came from; forged in a cosmic crucible?

zankaon MSM page Planck scale


August 16, 2017

Stellar systems – just gravitationally bound?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — zankaon @ 4:40 pm

Copernicus’, Kepler’s, Newton’s, and Einstein’s General Relativity respective models – all describe a bound Solar System, eventually rendered as gravitationally bound by Newton, and interpreted as curvature by Einstein. This would seem necessary; but is it sufficient?

The following list of vignettes, assuming negligble gravitational field, develop the concept of angular inertia, in turn derived from angular momentum transfer, such as for Oort cloud formation, and for any outlying neutrino belt formation; and perhaps heuristicly even for our galaxie?

Earth as a solid sphere rotation, with no contribution to conservation of angular momentum from interior? Angular momentum exchange for closed systems. Angular inertia for Oort cloud, and even for our galaxie?

Modeling and gravitational potential tappering? Angular inertia for Oort cloud?

Calculations and gravitational potential tappering – a problem? Angular inertia? Motion for our Sun, as part of a binary system? Parallax resolution?

Comet 67P – a 3-body problem? Model for hot jupiter re-location? Ice. Neutrino belt? Gravitational interactions, or angular momentum transfer, with resultant angular inertia? Cryo-chemistry. Titan’s chemistry?

Planetesimal of comet material at Lagrange Point of overlaping ‘Oort’ clouds?

Oort Cloud – not gravitationally bound? Hence angular inertia describing outer extent of stellar systems?

July 20, 2017

Earth as a solid sphere rotation, with no contribution to conservation of angular momentum from interior? Angular momentum exchange for closed systems. Angular inertia for Oort cloud, and even for our galaxie?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , — zankaon @ 3:39 pm

If the moon is still receding, then now a greater moment of inertia mr^2, and lesser angular orbital velocity. For earth, there is related change in angular velocity (lower), and hence in angular momentum; with momentum exchange with moon. So can one have both conservation of angular momentum, as well as angular momentum exchange, for variously considered closed systems?

For a closed system, one can have exchange of angular momentum. Did the solid earth core form comparatively early, by ~100 million years? If so, then there would be a shift (decrease) of mr^2 moment of inertia i.e. mass re-distribution to a lesser radius. Would this then account for a compensatory increase in moment of inertia (i.e. increase in orbital radius) for the moon? Might the moon`s present increase in orbital radius, in part be due to a continued radial inertia (?) from such long ago earth`s change in moment of inertia; and/or ongoing transfer of momentum, from associated slowing of earth’s rotation?

Early on, did one also have some concomitant increase in angular velocity for earth, consistent with core formation and conservation of angular momentum for earth? Was there also significant angular momentum transfer to the sun (like for Mercury, Venus?), associated with such decrease in angular momentum for earth?

Also in general, might spacing and adjustments to our system’s planets in part be due to transfer of angular momentum between planets and other objects, involving spin (rotation rate) orbit angular momentum transfer? Hence a broader perspective (i.e. entanglement) of past and ongoing angular momentum re-distribution for the solar  system, inclusive also of KBO objects, Oort cloud, any ejected planets or nacent cores, and even for neutrino belt formation?

For example, did Oort cloud objects form closer in, and then via angular momentum exchange with KBO objects, recide i.e. increasing momentum of inertia? Might this be consistent with slower rotation for large KBO objects such as Pluto, Sedna etc. i.e. spin orbital angular momentum transfer?

Might gravitational field (calculated?) be insufficient to account for orbiting of Oort cloud objects? Thus is transfer of angular momentum not only involved with migration of KBO objects outward, but also essentially alone is such angular momentum transfer responsible for orbital motion of Oort cloud objects? Likewise for neutrino belt?

Such orbital motion, in absence of gravitational field, and hence no central force, would not follow Kepler`s Laws. Thus such orbital motion would seem to have a constant speed – hence the designation of such motion as angular inertia.

So angular inertia alone describes such objects in orbit. Hence obviating tappering gravitational potential model? Also then the outer extent of our solar system (and all stellar systems?) would seem to be defined by angular inertia (from angular momentum transfer) in a flat 3-space, and not by curvature i.e. gravitation. Also see tappering gravitation potential model vignettes for further discussion.

Rheologically, the earth seems quite quiet in regards to differential rotational motion? Such as for core – mantle interface, wherein deep plumes seem to be fixed. Also the solid core has perhaps just slight rotation. The asthenosphere (upper mantle) apparently has some flow; always in step with lithospheric plate motion? Still insufficient to contribute to angular velocity and momentum?

Thus must one consider other possible contributions to angular momentum, and momentum exchange, if earth is considered as essentially a solid rotating sphere?

Might there have been more than one planetesimal collisions with proto-earth? However might there not be any isotope compositional differences, since all such objects in close orbits, and hence a shared solar nebula environment?

Mercury has a strong magnetic field, and hence fluid interior. Yet Mercury has essentially no precession. Might this be consistent with no planetesimal collision, contributing to any hypothetical precession?

While for earth, precession of the equinoxes, and resultant changing polar star, gives only one periodicity i.e. one frequency. This would seem consistent with only one collision, with resultant external torque changing the angular momentum vector. Whereas multiple planetesimal collisions with earth would seem to give multiple periodicities.

If earth`s rotation is slowing down currently, might this not be due to earthly influences, but rather mainly to angular momentum exchange with the moon, and also the sun to lesser extent? That is, also increasing angular velocity, and hence momentum of our star? Similarly momentum transfer for Mercury, which is in 3:2 resonance with the sun i.e. 2 rotations per 3 orbits; and also for Venus, with tidal lock i.e. one rotation per revolution.

Might hot Jupiter’s, although supposedly in long duration stable orbits close to their star, still have further dynamics? That is, might there have also been transfer of angular momentum from hot Jupiter to it’s star? Thus has the rotation rate (angular velocity) of a hot Jupiter slowed down, with consequential increased angular velocity and momentum of it’s star? Hence might one predict tidal locking (one rotation per revolution) for such hot Jupiter’s?

Thus although such exo-planet orbits might be considered as long term gravitationally stable, still in terms of angular momentum, might such exosystems be considered as active as our solar system, in regards to angular momentum exchange in essentially closed systems? Also might tidal locking be considered as one manifestation of such angular momentum transfer, and in fact an end point for such angular momentum exchange?

Might such scenario of angular momentum exchange for closed 2 body (and more) systems be considered as examples of entanglement, wherein the system as a whole has to be considered in order to fully explain observations? So can both conservation of angular momentum and exchange of angular momentum be considered in concomitant descriptions? Thus is our solar system still very active, in sense of angular momentum transfer, such as for any ongoing Oort cloud formation from outward migrating KBO objects, associated with decreased spin (rotation) for larger KBO objects? Likewise for any distant orbiting neutrino belt?

Thus the outer extent of our solar (stellar) system would not seem to be described by gravitationally bound Oort cloud objects, nor by gravitationally bound neutrino belt, but rather by angular inertia of such orbiting objects in a flat 3-space; the latter part of inter-stellar flat 3-space?

Also our Sun revolves in our galaxy over ~240 Myrs, and resides at a radius of ~26-30 klyrs? But what is the calculated gravitational potential at the Sun’s radial distance from center of our galaxy? One might assume Newton’s 2nd Theorem, and consider all of galaxie’s luminous and Dark matter halo as a central point mass. Then might one consider a heuristic scenario wherein such potential is negligible at Sun’s distance?

Alternatively then might the Sun’s revolution in our galaxie be described as angular inertia, resulting from angular momentum transfer within our galaxie? Thus does angular momentum transfer, and so-called angular inertia, play a greater role than thought for our galaxie’s dynamics?

July 15, 2017

Power plants running on aluminum cans?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: — zankaon @ 4:34 pm

Soda (aluminum) cans would seem to be an almost unlimited renewable resource. That is, one could recycle such left over cans – burning such aluminun in power plants, at a temperature perhaps not so different from coal burning. Less polutants than coal? Also there is an almost unlimited supply of bauxite ore, giving aluminum.

July 10, 2017

​Infrared distance from time duration for motion detection?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — zankaon @ 12:56 pm

For nearer to earth objects, might one utilize low resolution infrared camera to detect motion for various time durations? That is, for motion detected for shorter duration, then object of course is closer, in comparison to infrared object further away, which would require a longer duration for motion detection; hence a rough linear scaling as to object’s distance – such as for further inapparent KBO (Kuiper belt objects), or red dwarf companion etc.?

One could even use infrared time to motion detection for Puto as a fiduciary for KBO distance; that is whether an object is a KBO, or closer/farther away than ~ KBO distance.

Might one even detect a slight infrared glow from Oort cloud? That is, even though the number density is probably very low, still at our great distance might it have a slight infrared presentation – not unlike Milky Way infrared glow from red dwarfs?

However might dust account for any such possible detected torus like Oort cloud glow? At millimeter and sub-millimeter wavelength, wouldn’t one detect such dust?

So for near to earth objects, is even the Oort cloud possibly detectable, but in the infrared?

June 29, 2017

Double play for carbon cap?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — zankaon @ 2:26 pm

Secularization of a renewable resource – American timber? Rather than nature’s fires and our containment efforts, harvest such wood for sale. Also statistically there is less wood to burn; hence a cap on carbon emissions. Such reduction of carbon emissions could be sold in a variation of cap and trade. Thus doubling the value of such timber harvest.

June 21, 2017

Cosmic entanglement: Do we detect and experience only a small fraction of universe’s total energy?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — zankaon @ 1:46 pm

For massive neutrinos and Big Bang fermion mass spectrum, and for assumption (comparing density number of baryons to neutrinos, as for proxy of later nucleosynthesis?) that most of mass is carried off by neutrinos, then most of mass\energy of universe(s) 3-volume becomes no longer descriptive (i.e. entanglement), until Big Crunch. Then only for extremely rapid turn around of BC to BB, is total mass/energy of universe and System revealed. Thus is what we see, detect, and experience, just a small fraction (10^-3?) of such total mass/energy of ‘universe’?

see zankaon site

June 10, 2017

Acheulean vs Oldowan tool kit?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — zankaon @ 5:40 pm

Is the former just characteristic of our species?

However Neanderthal roots probably are exceedingly deep. For example, homo sapien and homo erectus jaw bone would seem more similar than that of Neanderthal’s.

Neanderthal, based on it’s robust physique, was probably always a big game hunter; hence the usage of acheulean tools (i.e. spear points, after fire hardened points etc.). Also homo sapien, and homo erectus (eventually?), must have been in part hunters; hence use of acheulean tools. Therefore​, acheulean tools (any such findings) would not seem specific to our species.

April 20, 2017

Planck scale: Simulation of randomness?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — zankaon @ 9:20 am

Might deformations of manifold on Planck scale, serve as a simulation of an approach to randomness? Then for finer than Planck scale, might one have further refinement of such randomness approach, by utilization of rational set? Such as Cantor’s ternary set, of ever removing middle ⅓; or of a 3-dimensional version of Weirstrauss function?

However since the primes are clustered, so too the rationals; thus are the rationals not so suitable in a simulation of randomness of deformations of a manifold? That is, such deformations would seem to be intermittently clustered both spatially and temporally.

A physically related concept, entropy, seems in prusuit of randomness; that is the former expressed as the macrostate characterized by the greatest number of microstates. So entropy is ever trying to spread out energy into a uniform distribution; yet never attaining such goal; consistent with no heat death scenario for the universe?

Is heterogeneity, rather than homogeneity, for Big Bang nucleosynthesis, another example consistent with no attainment of perfect randomness?

So it would seem that since there is no perfect randomness, thus there is always information; even for mathamatics, such as Ramsey theory? Would this then seem consistent with Modified Set Model MSM generality: the alleged ongoing maximizing of cardinality of sets, such as for entropy and information, in comparison to alternative scenarios?

see zankaon’s  SRM/MSM website

March 26, 2017

Motion of a manifold

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — zankaon @ 10:33 am

Would observed and interpreted motion of a manifold (i.e. ‘universe’) alone imply multiplicity?

For example, for our universe, any motion would seem to require the influence of at least another disjoint surface i.e. manifold. Hence any large scale peculiar velocity of our Local Group with respect to Cosmic Background Radiation CBR would per sae seem to indicate multiplicity; that is, more than just one manifold.

March 20, 2017

Can manifolds change; or are they invariant?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , — zankaon @ 5:12 pm

No manifold concept can, in a simplified sense, be refered to as just a surface. Thus shape is irrelevant; hence change in shape is not pertinent.

Manifold can be rendered as contiiii8nuum; that is an inbetweeness quality, wherein one has a mapping of nearby elements of respective sets. Can one even have a minimum number (3) of elements required to define closeness and inbetweeness?

So can a manifold change; that is change it’s continuum? Or add additional inclusiv.e new continua vis a product space construction, giving successively a new higher dimensional space?

Would bifurcation and merging of manifolds be impossible, even of same continua? Exemplified by no merging of hot Jupiters’ with respective star, even over billion of years? Thus also consistent with no coalescence of compact objects? Also would above be compatable with no bifurcating of manifolds, as in eternal chaotic inflation, nor with merging of 3-branes, nor of patches of different manifold arising within a given manifold, nor of non-manifold suddenly appearing i.e. singularity etc.?

Thus are manifolds stable? Thus no creation nor destruction of manifolds. Hence for example, consistent with a divergent set of entangled always disjoint manifolds?

Would all of this seem consistent with concept of manifolds being truculent, and difficult to deal with? As if  they want to be left alone; perhaps because they are not capable of change i.e. always invariant? 

Modified Set Model at HTTP://

Older Posts »

Blog at