16 replies to this topic

[biknut]

http://www.etheric.c...Center/GRB.html

This is a fascinating theory that could explain things like the end of the dinosaurs, ice ages, and maybe even 2012.

"On December 26, 2004 a magnitude 9.3 earthquake occurred in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Sumatra in Malaysia. It caused a powerful tsunami which devastated coastal regions of many countries leaving over 240,000 people either dead or missing. It was the worst tsunami to affect this area since the 1883 explosion of Krakatao. The earthquake that produced it was so strong that it exceeded by a factor of 10 the next most powerful earthquake to occur anywhere in the past 25 years."

• Indonesian 9.3 Richter earthquake:
December 26, 2004 at 00 hours 58 minutes (Universal Time)

It is then with some alarm that we learn that just 44.6 hours later gamma ray telescopes orbiting the Earth picked up the arrival of the brightest gamma ray burst ever recorded!

• Gamma ray burst arrival:
December 27, 2004 at 21 hours 36 minutes (Universal Time)

"This gamma ray blast was 100 times more intense than any burst that had been previously recorded, equaling the brightness of the full Moon, but radiating most of its energy at gamma ray wavelengths. Gamma ray counts spiked to a maximum in 1.5 seconds and then declined over a 5 minute period with 7.57 second pulsations. The blast temporarily changed the shape the Earth's ionosphere, distorting the transmission of long-wavelength radio signals. See stories on Space.com, BBC News, NY TImes."

"Astronomers have theorized that gamma ray bursts might travel in association with gravity wave bursts. In the course of their flight through space, gamma rays would be deflected by gravitational fields and would be scattered by dust and cosmic ray particles they encountered, so they would be expected to travel slightly slower than their associated gravity wave burst which would pass through space unimpeded. After a 45,000 year light-speed journey, a gamma ray burst arrival delay of 44.6 hours would not be unexpected."


http://www.etheric.com/

[knite]

Occams Razor...anyone?

[jaydfox]

Lazarus Long already put two and two together on this one:
http://www.imminst.o...t=20#entry51027

Lazarus Long
Posted: Feb 21 2005-21:23

I just thought I should put this on this thread for the record.

A very interesting event occurred almost simultaneously with the Tsunami event but it appears few have noticed but this gamma ray burst almost coincided with the tectonic event (it was slightly afterward) here on Earth. I am curious if what we witnessed was a gravitational bow wave effect that preceded the actual gamma radiation as a shock-wave. Just coincidence?

Could be but....

Remember the distance traveled was 50,000 lt yrs. This could be evidence to verify the critical aspects of quantum gravitational theory as a mountain of data was collected. My suspicion is that a type of Huygens Gravitational Wave effect may have preceded the actual EM *flash* by many hours or it might simply reflect the period of compression and gravitational displacement within the Neutron Stars' power surge that preceded the actual EM emission.

Apparently the entire solar system was shaking from the event, in fact the entire galaxy is apparently experiencing a kind of gravitational oscillation (vibration) as this wave propagates. What if we are seeing an event that can be quantified to be slightly faster than light and being propagated just ahead of it?

While the flash was noticed after the tectonic event locally it is entirely conceivable that the actual gravitation shock wave struck earlier and while no one to date has related the two events I am curious if we may also be seeing evidence of how cosmic scale events could interfere with planetary tectonics by introducing a trigger force sufficient to release the pent up energy that already exists internally within the planet.

I am curious if the relationship of gravity and the event can be measured precisely in relation to the actual EM radiation emitted that we may have sufficient data and measures to test quantum gravitational theory against, which are analogous to how the Michaelson Morley experiment was used to verify Relativity Theory.

Read the link I provided, and pretty much the rest of the thread, to see the discussion we had a 11 months ago on this.

[biknut]

Thank you jaydfox for pointing out the link to that discussion. i was wondering if anyone on this board found that interesting. Lazarus Long seems well informed about this subject.

I became aware of this theory after reading astronomer Dr. Paul A. LaViolette's webb sight. The idea that the Tsunami was caused by the GRB
is not the most interesting part of his theory. Dr. LaViolette is proposing that periodically the center of the Galaxy has a huge GRB that is trillions of times bigger that the one experienced on DEC. 27Th 04. He claims evidence from ice cores in Antarctica show that a massive GRB occurred around 13,000 b.c. that caused the end of the ice age. He believes that cosmic dust is pushed into the solar system by the GRB that causes the sun to have massive solar flares that cause disruption to earth and may last as long as 100 years. What is the consensus, Crackpot or possible?

http://www.etheric.com/

[bgwowk]

In addition to the questionable ad hoc gamma propagation delay mechanisms proposed, another problem with this theory is that forces produced by such gravitational waves pale in comparison to gravitational disturbances produced by local events. For instance, lunar and solar tides are so powerful that they raise and lower the solid earth under you by a couple of feet(!) twice a day. Gravitational fluctuations caused by distant cosmological events are puny by comparison. In fact, you can calculate that gravitational waves produced by ocean swells will be felt more strongly by earthquake faults kilometers beneath them than the faults will feel stars getting swallowed thousands of light years away. It's partly because there is so much local gravitational noise that cosmological gravity wave detection is a difficult problem.

In my opinion, that this GRB had anything to do with that earthquake is as likely as solar planetary alignments causing geological disturbances on Earth-- which of course they don't!

The danger GRBs pose to Earth is the gamma rays, if, heaven forbid, the business end of a near one ever points in our direction.

---BrianW

[jaydfox]

In addition to the questionable ad hoc gamma propagation delay mechanisms proposed, another problem with this theory is that forces produced by such gravitational waves pale in comparison to gravitational disturbances produced by local events.  For instance, lunar and solar tides are so powerful that they raise and lower the solid earth under you by a couple of feet(!) twice a day.  Gravitational fluctuations caused by distant cosmological events are puny by comparison.  In fact, you can calculate that gravitational waves produced by ocean swells will be felt more strongly by earthquake faults kilometers beneath them than the faults will feel stars getting swallowed thousands of light years away.  It's partly because there is so much local gravitational noise that cosmological gravity wave detection is a difficult problem.

True, though you might not be taking into effect the rate of change of gravity. It's commonly referred to as "jerk", the third derivative of position, and in this case, the first derivative of the strength of the gravitational field. For example, the moon, might "raise and lower the solid earth under you by a couple of feet(!) twice a day", but what if that same change field strength happened twice a second! The rapid stretching and relaxing of material (even if only a few millimeters) would warm the earth's crust rapidly, much like rapidly bending a wire coat hanger back and forth can heat it enough to burn your skin.

Sure, the amplitude of the gravitational wave sent out by the GRB might have been many orders of magnitude smaller than the moon's gravity, but such an explosion could produce oscillations with a period on the order of seconds or fractions of a second, potentially five or six orders of magnitude more rapid than the oscillations in the moon's gravitational field.

[biknut]

If I'm understanding Dr. LaViolette's theory correctly, it's not the gravity wave that will cause the destruction, but the cosmic dust and debris pushed into our solar system by the gravity wave. This will cause masive solar flares many times larger than any recorded to date.

Dr. LaViolette claims he was the first scientist to propose that Quasars were GRB from the center of spiral arm Galaxy's, that he says is now confirmed to be true. He points to evidence that the center of Galaxys may explode with GRB's as often as every 10,000 years. If this were to happen in our galaxy it would cause a GRB trillions of times more powerful then the one from a 20km star. He says the galactic center object that this GRB will come from is the size of the orbit of Saturn.
He claims there is a 90% chance this will happen in the next 3 to 4 hundred years, but it could also happen tomorrow or in 2012.

[hiredavidrnow]

Have any of you considered the role that Tesla's invention of 'H.A.A.R.P.' may have played on this terrible event?
This may sound insensitive, but with all the unusual weather that we have had in addition to the War's that the USA currently has pending (not to mention the potential wars to come with Iran and other countries) what are the possibilities that we are using technology as a method for not only stimulating our own economy but with 'Globalization' the impact that our economy has on the overall World Economy?

What do the rest of you think about this? [glasses]

[bgwowk]

Jay, I'll see your time derivative argument and raise you a space derivative argument. Gravitational disturbances from ocean swells will not only have a time dervative of greater magnitude than cosmic gravitational waves, but a far greater space derivative, which is what really generates stress.

Even more importantly, all this gravitational wave stuff is totally swamped by natural SEISMIC noise. Untill someone presents a mathematical argument as to how cosmic gravitational waves can produce forces of unique seismic significance above background noise, the time coincidence (and a poor one at that) of these two events is not compelling.

---BrianW

P.S. to hiredavidrnow: It's a tough job market for lunatic conspiracy theorists.

Edited by bgwowk, 16 January 2006 - 07:52 PM.

[jaydfox]

He points to evidence that the center of Galaxys may explode with GRB's as often as every 10,000 years

He claims there is a 90% chance this will happen in the next 3 to 4 hundred years

Now I don't know, maybe I wasn't paying as much attention in my math classes as I should have... But how does this compute? With a mean rate of one every 10,000 years, wouldn't there be a 3-4% chance that this will happen in the next 300 to 400 years? Where did the 90% figure come from? This is bad science, even IF I bought the "theory" behind it.

[bgwowk]

Unless he is claiming the event is periodic or quasi periodic rather than random.

---BrianW

[biknut]

I'm really not smart enough to debate this theory, but I do find It fascinating and present It here only for others to review. Here are some of the main points and the references.

Galactic superwaves are a recent discovery. During the early 60's astronomers began to realize that the massive object that forms the core of our Galaxy (the Milky Way), periodically becomes active. The cores of all spiral galaxies cycle through a similar phase. During its active period, our galactic core spews out a fierce quasar-like barrage of cosmic rays, with a total energy output equal to hundreds of thousands of supernova explosions.

9) Oort, J. H. "The Galactic Center." Annual Reviews of Astronomy & Astrophysics 15 (1977): 295.
10) Burbridge, G. R. et al. "Evidence for the occurrence of violent events in the nuclei of galaxies." Reviews of Modern Physics 35 (1963): 947.
11) Burbidge, G. R. et al. "Physics of compact nonthermal sources III. Energetic considerations." Astrophysical Journal 193 (1974): 43.

Until recently, astronomers believed these eruptions were very infrequent, occurring every 10 to 100 million years.

10) Burbridge, G. R. et al. "Evidence for the occurrence of violent events in the nuclei of galaxies." Reviews of Modern Physics 35 (1963): 947.

In 1983 Paul LaViolette presented evidence to the scientific community indicating that: Galactic core explosions actually occur about every 13,000 - 26,000 years for major outbursts and more frequently for lesser events.

2) LaViolette, P. A. Galactic Explosions, Cosmic Dust Invasions, and Climatic Change. Ph.D. dissertation, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, August 1983.
3) LaViolette, P. A. "The terminal Pleistocene cosmic event: Evidence for recent incursion of nebular material into the Solar System." Eos 64 (1983): 286. American Geophysical Union paper, Baltimore, Maryland.
4) LaViolette, P. A. "Elevated concentrations of cosmic dust in Wisconsin stage polar ice." Meteoritics 18 (1983): 336. Meteoritical Society paper, Mainz, Germany.

Astronomical observations show the last major Galactic core explosion occurred as recently as 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.(16, 17)

16) Brown, R. L., and Johnston, K. J. "The gas density and distribution within 2 parsecs of the Galactic Center," Astrophysical Journal 268 (1983): L85.
17) Lo, K. Y., and Claussen, M. J. "High-resolution observations of ionized gas in central 3 paresecs of the Galaxy: possible evidence for infall." Nature 306 (1983): 647.

Data obtained from polar ice core samples show evidence of this cosmic ray event as well as other cosmic ray intensity peaks from earlier times.

1) LaViolette, P. A. Earth Under Fire. Alexandria, VA: Starlane Publications, 1997.
18) Raisbeck, G. M., et al. "Evidence for two intervals of enhanced 10Be deposition in Antarctic ice during the Last Glacial Period." Nature 326 (1987): 273.

[jaydfox]

First, I should point out that Dec. 26, 2004, was a full moon. That means that the moon's and the sun's tidal forces exerted a cumulative tidal force, about three times higher than the cumulative tidal force during a half-moon. I can't quote a source now, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that earthquakes happen with greater frequency at full and new moons, and that this fact is directly attributable to the increased tidal forces. In this case, the tsunami happened at a full moon, when tidal forces were already at their highest. Throw in an extra high-speed burst, even a relatively small one, and it could have been the straw that broke the camel's back...

But on to the math. I love math. Alright, I'll admit that I haven't studied quantum gravity, and I don't know general relativity well enough to figure out the wave function of a gravitational wave, etc.

But I can at least do the "classical" math involved here. I have three hard numbers to work with:

One calculation has the giant flare on SGR 1806-20 unleashing about 10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts.

releasing more energy in a 10th of a second...

...than the Sun emits in 100,000 years

The first two numbers allow me to calculate the energy, and the third number will let me sanity check that figure.

The first number is 10**40 watts. From the second number, we get 10**39 Joules.

The third number implies that the energy output was ~100,000*30,000,000 times the energy output of the Sun in a second. The sun converts about 5 million metric tons of matter to energy per second, so that's 5x10**9kg * 9x10**16 J/kg, or about 5x10**26. So we have 3x10**12 times 5x10**26, which is 1.5x10**39. Hmm, works out.

Classical Approach

Okay, so we're looking at 10**39 J of energy, which would have a mass of about 10**22 kg (dividing through by 10**17 J/kg, since we're only worried about orders of magnitude). This is actually just within an order of magnitude of the mass of the moon. So we're talking about a moon-mass suddenly (within 1/10th of a second) disappearing. It didn't disappear, per se, but that mass is now in an expanding sphere of energy, predominately gamma rays, that we are inside of now, so that mass no longer affects us.

So we're talking about the tidal equivalent of the moon orbiting us once every 1/10th of a second at a distance of 50,000 light-years. Obviously I don't mean that literally, since that in itself would be a huge violation of the cosmic speed limit .

Now, 50,000 light-years is about a trillion (10**12) times further from earth than the moon. Tidal forces vary inversely with the cube of the distance. So we're talking about 10**36 times smaller tidal forces, changing at a rate about 10**6 times faster than the moon's tide. Which leaves us with a "tidal jerk" of about 10**30 times smaller than the moon's.

Not-So-Classical Approach

Hmm, from a strictly classical point of view, the gravitational wave was completely insignificant. I wonder how it would fare if one used the correct math. After all, the gravitational wave would have had its own energy, above and beyond the energy released in the GRB. In orbiting black holes or neutron stars, the gravitational energy released in a fraction of a second can often reach a large percentage of the total mass, perhaps exceeding a solar mass of energy released in a fraction of a second. So I wonder what the ratio of the gravitational energy to EM energy was in the blast. Let's say 1%, 10**37 J, 10**20 kg mass-equivalent. This should hopefully get us within a couple orders of magnitude, either way.

This will lead to a rather astonishing change in the numbers. For example, the moon orbits 12.4 times a year (relative to the sun), yet the gravitational energy released during its orbit is so negligible that the moon isn't falling yet. Only after the energy of earth's rotation is mostly sapped will the moon be able to start descending, ever so slowly, for tens or hundreds of billions of years, maybe longer. Let's say that it would take a billion years for the moon to lose 10,000 km of altitude, at its present orbit, if no other factors were involved (e.g., the earth's rotation rate, etc.). Using very rough figures, an orbital velocity of 1000 m/s would become roughly 985 m/s, which represents a kinetic energy difference on the order of 10**27 J, or roughly 10**10 kg. That actually works out to about a kg of mass-equivalent energy per orbit.

So the gravitational energy released by the moon's orbit is only the tiniest fraction of its mass, probably on the order of a kg per orbit, probably less, possibly far less. In that respect, this cosmic event released at least 10**20 times more energy in the form of a gravitational wave, in 1/10th of a second, than the moon can release in a full orbit. The power ratio is huge, at least 10**27. So the gravitational effect, even taking into account the 10**36 times smaller tidal forces per unit of gravitational energy, is still there, on the order of a billionth of the moon's, perhaps even a millionth. That's still very small, but not entirely insignificant.

I wish I knew the relevant math, so I could get within an order of magnitude, instead of wildly different upper and lower bounds.

[bgwowk]

Jay, just use good 'ole G*M1*M2/R**2 to compare the relative magnitude of changing gravitational forces due to ocean swells vs. moon or even stellar masses suddenly appearing or disappearing at cosmic distances. You don't need to know the exact wave function of gravity waves to know that they must scale in direct proportion to the mass that produces them, and inversely with the square of the distance.

---BrianW

[biknut]

Wow, holy crap Jay, you really do like math don't you, but can you put a bicycle together at Christmas without the instructions? Nevermind.

Back on the topic, I guess in plain language what you are saying is that if the galactic core ever does decide to go quasar on us we could be toast.

Does anyone feel theory could could have validity, as far as an event such as this happening any time soon?

[bgwowk]

Back on the topic, I guess in plain language what you are saying is that if the galactic core ever does decide to go quasar on us we could be toast.

Of course we could be, but by ionizing radiation, not direct seismic effects of gravity waves.

Of course this ranks zero on the scale of things to worry about given that we are all biologically scheduled to DIE one microsecond from now in cosmic time!

---BrianW

[biknut]

When I read this it made me think of Dr. LaViolette's Super wave theory although in this case it's a totally different idea. Dr. LaViolette said we'd see a blue light. In this article they're not worrying about a gravity wave, but they are worrying about what the blue light might do to us.

On Dr. LaViolette's Webb Site he mentions ancient legends that speak of a blue light in the sky coming from the direction of the galactic center.

New Risk to Earth Found in Supernova Explosions
By Laura Kinoshita, Special to LiveScience

posted: 08 January 2008 06:27 am ET

An explosive star within our galaxy is showing signs of an impending eruption, at least in a cosmic time frame, and has for quite some time. From 1838 to 1858, the star called Eta Carinae brightened to rival the light of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, and then faded to a dim star. Since 1940 it has been brightening again, and scientists think Eta Carinae will detonate in 10,000 to 20,000 years.

Fortunately, Eta Carinae is far away, at least 7,500 light-years from Earth. If it explodes, most of its energy will be scattered or absorbed in the vast emptiness of space. It also happens to be tilted about 45 degrees from the line of sight to Earth, so any type of gamma-ray burst, a high-energy outburst expected with this star's eventual eruption, would miss the Earth. Cosmic rays would be diffused by magnetic fields, and most of the damaging light would not affect life on Earth.

In general, threats to life on Earth from supernovae are extremely small, for all except the nearest explosions — those 30 light-years away or closer.

But what if a supernova were 100 times brighter than usual? Would there be any risk to life on Earth then?

Astronomers found such a record-breaking supernova last year, SN 2006gy.

Brightest ever

SN 2006gy was the brightest supernova ever recorded until an even brighter one was discovered in November.

Astronomers now know the progenitor of SN 2006gy was remarkably similar to Eta Carinae. They warn a superluminous supernova might explode right in our own galaxy.

Brian Thomas at Washburn University has been studying the effects of astronomical explosions at the Goddard Space Flight Center. He decided to investigate what would happen to Earth's protective ozone layer if Eta Carinae explodes with the brilliance of SN 2006gy.

It turns out that even though SN 2006gy was one of the brightest supernovae ever recorded, it did not generate a large amount of X-rays. Thomas and his team found most of the light, including damaging X-rays and cosmic rays, would scatter into space before ever reaching Earth.

So would there be any damage to Earth from such a spectacular event? Though Thomas found X-rays and cosmic rays would cause little damage, he also looked at optical light, particularly short-wavelength blue light (400 nanometers), where the spectrum of SN 2006gy peaked. No one had ever considered the effects of this light before, either from supernovae or any other type of event.

"The visible light could be significant," Thomas says, "But this depends a little bit on your definition of significant."

Brighter than Venus

If Eta Carina were to explode like SN 2006gy, it would quickly become the brightest object in the sky other than the sun and the moon.

For those living where Eta Carina is always above the horizon (Antarctica, New Zealand and extreme southern regions of Australia and South America) the light would vastly outshine Venus, visible even during the day. The radiation would illuminate the evening sky with a bluish glow nearly strong enough to read by, and the effect would likely last for months — perhaps six or more.

The cumulative effects of long-duration exposure to blue-enhanced light would begin to interfere with life on Earth.

Those who study chronobiology, or the effects of biological timing, have found that low levels of blue light can strongly affect the endocrine systems of mammals by causing physiological and alerting responses. Blue-enhanced light is associated with reduced levels of melatonin production and affects circadian rhythms. For these reasons, it is sometimes prescribed to counteract seasonal affective disorder (SAD) or winter depression.

"This is not going to be an 'everything dies immediately' kind of event," Thomas said. "But with the risk factors associated with higher levels of this kind of light it's certainly something that could be important in the longer run."

New threshold

In a paper about to be published in the journal Astrobiology, Thomas explains that even short exposures to blue light can increase insomnia, reduce resistance to infection and is being studied as a possible risk of cancer.

Yet, in the case of Eta Carinae, the effect of these optical photons would be minimal. The scattering of photons by dust and gas is greatest at blue wavelengths (thus giving Earth its blue sky) and the sheer distance of Eta Carinae diminishes the optical intensity by about 20 percent.

But while damage from optical light is not a factor for Eta Carinae, the effects of this light should be considered to any risk assessment of supernovae. Based on his results, Thomas now estimates the biological threshold for supernovae to be about 100 light-years away. At that distance, life on Earth can expect some sort of supernova radiation about once every 20 million years.

http://www.livescien...ta-carinae.html

Edited by biknut, 10 January 2008 - 05:59 AM.