zankaon

August 16, 2017

Stellar systems and also our galaxie – 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. Would this always seem necessary, and 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?





Advertisements

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

Since the Moon is still receding, then an increasing moment of inertia mr^2, and lesser angular orbital velocity. And for earth, an associated slowing angular velocity, and hence in angular momentum; with concomitant momentum exchange with Moon. So can one consider not only conservation of angular momentum, but also 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 orbit radius) for the moon? Might the moon`s present increase in orbit radius, in part be due to an increase in momentum of inertia, somewhat (?) relating to solidifying inner core, and/or ongoing transfer of momentum, from associated slowing of earth’s rotation?

Might even the Moon not be gravitationally bound; rather does the Moon’s essentially circular orbit just reflect it’s angular inertia, from such angular momentum transfer? Not unlike our artificial satelites?

What is the gravitational potential, and calculated Ricci tensor (i.e. curvature) magnitude at Moon’s radial distance?

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

Also might there be adjustments to our system’s planets due to transfer of angular momentum between planets and other objects, involving spin (rotation rate) and orbit angular momentum transfer? Hence rationalization for a broader perspective (i.e. entanglement) of past and ongoing angular momentum re-distribution for our 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?

Would gravitational field (calculated?) be insufficient to account for circular (?) 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 circular orbital motion of Oort cloud objects? Likewise for surmised circular orbit of neutrino belt?

Such orbital motion, in absence of gravitational field, and hence no central force, would not follow Kepler`s Laws. Thus such considered circular orbital motion would have invariant magnitude – hence the designation of such motion as angular inertia. That is, the angular velocity axial vector (omega=v_t/r) remains invariant; in contrast to an eliptical locus of positions.

So does angular inertia alone describe such objects in circular orbit? Hence obviating tapering gravitational potential model? Also then would the outer extent of our solar system (and all stellar systems?) 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 tapering gravitation potential model vignettes for further discussion.

Rheologically, the earth seems 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 any decrease in 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.

Since earth`s rotation is slowing down currently, then consistent with angular momentum exchange with the moon; and also with the sun to lesser extent? That is, also increasing angular velocity, and hence angular momentum of our star?

Might any preferential angular momentum transfer for 2-body vs 3-body be modeled as a Venn diagram, with 2-body entanglement considered in context of a larger 3-body entanglement scenario, with an inner sub-system depiction having preference i.e. starting from simpler smaller closed sub-system consideration? So is angular momentum transfer not based on distance, but rather on simplicity of sub-system vs concomitant larger system?

For example, since earth and moon revolve about a center of mass (near to inner core boundary?), might any slowing of such motion result in a transfer of angular momentum from such 2-body sub-system to an overall concomitant 3-body system?

Analogously, if one has observed parallax for the sun, then this would be consistent with our sun revolving about a center of mass for a binary system, such as also inclusive of a nearby red dwarf. Then any change in such tight close in sun’s orbital motion, or in it’s spin rate, could result in angular momentum transfer, wherein the moment of inertia of such red dwarf could change i.e. becoming further distant, for such closed binary system. Such red dwarf could still be bound to solar system via angular inertia, and hence circular orbit, even if gravitational potential is negligible; hence such binary red dwarf would be bound, but not gravitationally. Also could one have tidal locking for such dwarf star?

Likewise might Proxima centauri’s extremely large radius circular (?) orbit, as part of a triple system, be non-gravitationally bound? That is via angular momentum transfer, might such Proxima centauri be bound in it’s triple system just by angular inertia?

Also if tidal locking is possible for a dwarf star, then might Proxima centuari be in tidal locking; not just for photosphere outer surface gaseous layer, but also for internal layers with differential rotation?

Assuming earlier faster rotation, one would seem to have 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, although supposedly in long duration stable orbit close to it’s 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?

Allso might the orbit of such hot jupiter be circular; the latter consistent with just angular inertia accounting for orbit binding? Might the apparent long term stability of such close in hot jupiter’s orbit suggest a role for orbit/spin angular momentum transfer, and resultant final circularizing of orbit, denoted as angular inertia; together with tidal locking – both stabilizing boundedness for such hot jupiter’s orbit? Might tidal locking lessen any wobbling tendency, and prevent any possible chaotic orbitng?

So might tidal locking, as well as circularizing orbits, be considered as manifestation of such angular momentum transfer, and in fact end points for such angular momentum exchange and resultant stable angular inertia?

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?

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 attention to conservation of angular momentum, as well as exchange of angular momentum can 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? Based on angular inertia concept, would one expect a circular orbit for both Oort cloud objects, and for neutrino belt?

Then would the outer extent of our solar (stellar) system not seem to be described by gravitationally bound Oort cloud objects, nor by gravitationally bound neutrino belt, but rather by angular inertia of such circular orbiting objects in a flat 3-space; the latter part of inter-stellar flat 3-space? Not unlike for Proxima centauri’s circular orbit, a non-gravitationally bound object, as denoted by angular inertia?

Nevertheless, Pluto (slow (?) rotating KBO object) has an elliptical orbit, consistent with Keplers laws and central force; hence a Newtonian description would still seem valid in flat 3-space, far out for our stellar system.

Does our Sun supposedly revolve in our galaxy over ~240 Myrs, and reside 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 (?) as a central point mass. Then might one consider a scenario wherein such potential is negligible at Sun’s distance?

Alternatively then, might the Sun’s circular (?) revolution (tracing spiral mass?) about our galaxie be described as angular inertia, resulting perhaps from angular momentum transfer within our galaxie? Also once such spiral mass is set in angular inertia, then no necessity for further maintenance of such spiral motion. So is our galaxie not a gravitationally bound object?

Might then the angular inertia concept apply to physical massive spiral arm(s); once (if?) set in slow motion, continuing such angular inertia? Wherein most stars are formed in such density wave arm; while do others slowly enter or leave such density wave arms? Might differential rotation (for different galactic radii) result in overall essentially static spiral pattern; without any necessity of angular momentum transfer?

In contrast, is gravitational potential, and/or Newtonian descripion, just for solar system scale?

Might angular momentum transfer, if originating from bar and/or bulge, and/or angular inertia of massive spiral densities, then play a greater role than realized for our galaxie’s ‘dynamics’ ; describing our galaxie as not a gravitationally bound entity?

Also might not only influx through magnetic pole (and any associated jetting) affect stability and binary compact object coalescence, but also might any ongoing transfer of spin/orbit angular momentum retard or prevent coalescence of compact binary objects?

For example, might one have resultant circularizing of such binary orbiting, and even tidal locking (?); hence stabilizing such orbiting – not unlike apparent stabilized hot jupiter orbit? Might any tidal locking reduce any wobbling tendency, and possible chaotic orbiting; hence contributing to stabilizing circular orbiting?

So does angular momentum transfer, and angular inertia, play a larger role than recognized, as in various above considered examples of closed systems?

also see zankaon site, Modified black hole page, Entanglement and Coalescense sections.

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? The very early fraction (<<10^-12 s) of universe – fermion mass spectrum effect.

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’ for very early fraction of ‘universe’ ?

Also for << 10^-12 second, what effect might such fermion mass spectrum have on various very early processes, such as electro-weak epoch, hadron formation, and so-called still earlier superhadron (combination of more massive quarks; such as pentaquark?) formation, and clumping of gluons i.e. glueballs, and associated increasing color interaction strength?

So whether for nucleosynthesis, or for quark/gluon ‘pudding’ with quark ‘raisins’, heterogeneity would seem more typical; since randomness is just an idealization, even for mathematics.

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://sites.Google.com/site/zankaon

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.