Pyramid Science

This is for researching science-based articles and the contents are for personal use although a wider potential interest is possible and so they are left here to view. No medical advice is given and a qualified medical practitioner should be consulted if any concerns are raised. Comments have been disabled, but any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Compression And Distance

Depending on viewpoint, by moving away from a centre in regular increments, the distance between points appears to decrease even though the step that separates individual locations remains unchanged. This occurs with railway lines disappearing into the distance or positions more distal from The Sun, but in the same plane as the ecliptic.

Railway lines converge as they move away to the vanishing point.

Gas Giant

The Gas Giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) or Ice Giants (the two outermost GGs Uranus and Neptune) at the extremities of a solar system are capable of being lost since the forces of gravity from the central star (Sun) are not necessarily strong enough to hold an entity in an orbit.


A captured ‘planet’ may integrate into a particular orbital distance from its star (Sun). Another planet may already exist at or near this distance. This will ultimately result in a collision. When will depend on the mass and velocities of the two objects. The outcome also has these dependencies.
  • The asteroid belt may describe such an occurrence.
   It could be that a shower of bodies arrived together and any with the appropriate (correct) velocity, approach angle etc would be captured into an orbit about the Sun. The appearance is one of 'just right', though anything that is not 'just right' is lost. This explains the Asteroid Belt (potential collision). Water (and sand) were delivered to Earth.
  • There is another way of considering a meteor shower. The Earth is orbiting the Sun at 29.786km/s and such a shower falls upon the planet. An alternative view is that Earth passes through a relatively stationary asteroid flow.

An Alternative Theory (abstracted)

The following article cannot be verified and is simply some ideas that have evolved. Such argument can never be substantiated. Certainly, not at the moment. There are some questions that are never asked and everything remains a mystery.

Perhaps a little less of a mystery?

To imagine a complete answer is unrealistic, but to strive for answers is reasonable. The model works and is self-consistent and I am aware this proves nothing. It may be wrong, but the 'Real World' is not. I do not wish to disprove or persuade, but only to provide an alternative view.
  • It is important to retain an open mind and consider the concept as a whole. I welcome any attempt to de-bunk these ideas if creative and realistic argument is used and the only request I make is that one question is considered: why do I accept the consensus theory without challenge? This is just one alternative and there are potentially others.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants

 – it's called progress.


An Alternative Theory

Why is it that Earth is the only known location to have life and much of it advanced and highly sophisticated? The only location in the known Universe that has any life and it's teeming with millions of different lifeforms.

Remarkable or unsurprising?

I have no intention of challenging other concepts, but blend features of accepted theories with other interpretations and pose further questions. The result should be a more powerful argument with less conflict. It would be unrealistic for there to be no gaps and force fitting plugs into these gaps is not in my remit. A jigsaw that has been incorrectly assembled can never be closed properly though a theory need not be entirely wrong for adjustments to be made to effect closure. The base of a pyramid should have the largest area and should take the most time to complete. This ensures a stable foundation on which to build. If there are no errors, the pyramid can then be completed. One thing is certain: there is a solution. Everything exists. One caveat: two (or more) mechanisms could be occurring. And at the same time.
The concept of hypothesis and theory converting into fact is a curious one. An idea can be fielded and supporting observation only noted, yet at some particular moment, the hypothesis becomes a concrete fact to which every later 'theory' will be referenced. If the new theory does not fit with the established ‘fact’, then the new idea can be rejected. A consensus of scientific opinion appears to be a pivotal moment where everything changes, such as Darwinian evolution or the Big Bang theory. All knowledge then points to these rock-solid ‘facts’. Failure to acknowledge alternatives can never be deemed a scientific attitude, but if the mechanism by which the theory works is shown to be incorrect only then can a theory be rejected. But even this relies on unchallenged ‘fact’ being correct. Evidence that supports a hypothesis can strengthen a concept, though this does not constitute proof. Predicting an outcome, if not a chance event, can strengthen a hypothesis even more, but still does not prove a concept. The viability or feasibility of a concept can be implied and prototypes created. If the prototype works this can lead to a more advanced model. The effectiveness of a prototype can only suggest likely outcomes and still are not proof in themselves.
A proof-of-concept study is usually small and may be incomplete, yet it can still suggest future studies. According to the theory developed by Einstein, nothing can travel faster than light, and this becomes the starting point for any other theory.

Any suggestion outside this, be it conflicting or supportive, should rightly be critically examined. Established fact demands that the Big Bang theory is a reality and that the Universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. Such 'fact' does not validate data. Prediction and 'verification' do not demonstrate proof. However, they are suggestive.

Hypothesis and Theory

Hypothesis based on a concept is formulated and the theory later developed that explains the mechanism by which the hypothesis works when supportive, but not necessarily conclusive, observational evidence exists.
  • Proof can never happen, only more results that are consistent can be observed.
   There comes a time, however, when hypothesis and the explanatory theory become established fact. Prediction of future observation will almost certainly convince doubters or possible sceptics that the 'established facts' are absolutely correct. The problem from here is that the 'accepted' theory is unlikely to be considered wrong. Later observed facts that cannot easily be explained based on a theory that may itself be wrong can result in a conversion:

small errors

large errors

   Everything starts to fail, but both the hypothesis and the theory (probably) remain unchanged. An alternative may exist that explains all the observed facts with nothing added or taken away. Everything must... fit. Theories are themselves developed from existing theories that may themselves be misconceived. A hypothesis has starting and end points and the danger is that any preconceived starting point and the consequential post-accepted absolutes of 'proven fact' can cause failure.
  • The mighty oak that does not yield to the increasing strength of winds of test will fall over.
The length of time that a theory has existed just strengthens belief, regardless of the integrity of argument, in the light of new information. Support for a belief can be from those who simply... just believe. There will always be those who will remain in denial even after the evidence strongly suggests an alternative mechanism to an incorrect theory that supposedly explains nothing more than hypothesis, itself nothing more than conjecture.
  • If something is wrong, it remains wrong.
Selecting argument (cherry picking) to support a prejudged conclusion is not scientific. Great care must be exercised to ensure that no bias is introduced and must involve everything and ignore nothing. If anomalous features are uncovered they must all be explicable within any overall conclusion, otherwise the hypothesis and theory are probably invalid. Life is unlikely to simply... begin, it's too complex. This, must, however, remain a possibility.


Life is not likely to have been sustainable were it not for Moon. The object is referred to as a planet that co-exists with Earth and it is for this reason that Moon is considered critical for life to have developed on Earth. Water is an essential medium.

The observer's viewpoint has

the N-polar axis 'uppermost'

 Co-planet Moon orbits the Sun (an ordinary star) along with Earth in an anticlockwise direction and moves toward Earth and onto NM (new Moon), through LQ (last quarter) to a position nearer the Sun, then back again past the FQ (first quarter) position to FM (full moon = second quarter). This weaving from an 'inner-outer' orbit (nearer to-further from the Sun) continues without interruption and is the reason that a Solar or Lunar eclipse can occur.

There is a time (twice in every lunation – the lunar cycle) where there is a potential collision zone. This can only happen when the FQ just before a FM or LQ just after FM is in Earth's ecliptic – the same plane as Earth. The orbital velocities of Moon (30.731km/s) and Earth (29.786km/s) ensure the can only be for a few minutes. Earth and Moon can never collide as they are hours apart even when at their closest approach. Does Moon move towards Earth or Earth approach Moon? How could this be distinguished. An observed shadow (of Earth) from the lunar eclipse shows the Earth in line with The Sun. A lunation occurs every cycle of Moon as it moves about Earth and is the time between comparative phases, for example FM FM or FQ FQ, of two successive cycles. This time varies as the motion takes Moon away from or closer to Earth.

There is an Alternative Theory that attempts to explain why there is such a variety of life on planet Earth, how oil may have formed and where all Earth's land may have come from. The odds for providing conditions for life to have developed elsewhere make the possibility of (any) life very remote: consider the odds of an individual winning a lottery more than once.

In the lifeforms that do exist, there is as much commonality as there is difference. 'Junk' DNA is a much cited term, but here is interpreted as no more than DNA that has no known function. The synchronisation of growth must be controlled by something. To a fixed size. Nerve length and the transmission of brain impulses must limit the size of a creature. When things go awry, a cancer develops. There is uncontrolled growth.

Reassembly of DNA fragments (recombination after splicing in hot water) can produce all sorts of products. The breeds within a species can vary, but a species never changes into a different species. A liger (cross between a lion and a tiger) is still a mix of two 'cat' breeds. Many species have two or four legs/limbs, two eyes, two ears and one nose comprising two nostrils. There is always only one brain (of differing potential) in mammals and this controls everything. Some creatures could even be two or more combined: a spider has eight eyes (four pairs = 4 x 2). This being simply two creatures is, however, unrealistic.

Centipedes and millipedes are both arthropods and are invertebratesthey have an exoskeletonand are considered together. Unlike many animals, they are very successful in dry environments, but like cockroaches and crustaceans have existed for a very long time, probably several hundred millions of years. A fish can be considered to have been originally a land creature that moved to water and had no use for legs or arms. The reverse of this is also reasonable speculation: a genetic error caused a land existence impossible. Any feet may be missing. Taking to water enabled motion. Procreation could eventually lead to a proper fin (a 'footless' limb).

The extinction of the dinosaurs may have interrupted any development of fish-to-land, but nerve length and the transmission of brain impulses must limit the size of a creature. The larger, the slower it became and would have required a large amount of 'food'. There are many differences, but DNA recombination can produce many similarities: a creature with several eyes and many legs/arms though with blood to transport nutrients in a single circulatory system with a digestive system. And two lungs. The circulatory system has various functions and, regardless of species, goes around the body in the same specific direction. Siamese twins could be considered an 'evolution jump' and not a rarity.

Most insects are cold-blooded as are reptiles (do not generate their own body heat) and have a three-part body (head, thorax and abdomen) and three pairs of jointed legs. They represent more than half of all known living organisms, potentially over 90% of the differing animal life forms on Earth. They are among the most diverse on Earth with more than a million species. The warm-blooded vertebrate (mammalian) has a head, chest area – heart/lungs and other organs – and an abdomen where the digestive system exists. There is a major difference between an insect and a mammal in that an invertebrate regenerates its young outside the body whereas the mammal develops its young internally. It is a warm-blooded creature that generates its own body heat. Gestation can then be an internal incubation. 'Food' is extracted from those elements which sustain life - blood. What may be waste to one life-form can still be of use to another (mammalian excrement can be used by flies).

The use of carbohydrate, protein or fat is independent of the breed/species and the carnivore or herbivore diet simply sustains the animal. Many plants and trees must grow from the ground in which they stand, since they have no motor (muscle) control to move around. Evaporation of moisture from leaves in plants and trees draws up sap (containing nutrients). An open-type 'non-circulatory' system.


To be reviewed/updated - 28.03.2017

On Earth several factors must be considered concerning wave frequency and cause. The time of the year is important as is the axial tilt (obliquity). Earth revolves at a constant velocity as water is attracted by gravity towards Moon. There is a ‘bulge’ that maximises at Moon’s postion (High Tide) and diametrically opposite. Between the two (at 90°) there is a minimum (Low Tide). The position will affect the water and tides. Just ahead of Moon is the deepest point and this depth can be used to track Moon. Or the other way around. As Earth turns this (HT-LT-HT-LT) arrangement remains as Moon moves slowly ahead relative to Earth. The turning-away Earth makes it appear that Moon is slower, receding towards the west.
   The seas move with Earth (Moon’s gravity is insufficient to overwhelm Earth’s hold on the water.) This Earth-water combination results in a wave that causes the observed tides. The reason the ‘bulge’ moves ahead of Moon is probably a combination of the distance between Earth-Moon, the delay, and the revolution of Earth resulting in a dimishing gravitational attraction.
   Moon travels slightly faster than Earth (30.731km/s v. 29.786km/s = 0.945km/s), but Earth is also revolving eastwards (anti-clockwise or West to East) from Moon (1668km/h at the equator, 0.00km/h at a pole) as it orbits the Sun. The sea (water) moves around with Earth and the total depth will produce a roughly constant value. This can be demonstrated by adding FM (full Moon), LQ (last quarter), NM (new Moon) and FQ (first quarter) depths together for the same place. Considering high tide (HT) depths over all four phases throughout 2011 it is seen that HTs at Margate (FM) are around midnight. The second HTs are always about midday. HTs for LQ and FQ are approximately 6hr later and are dependent on the Earth-Moon interplanetary distance and the axial tilt.
   There is a gradual lessening of tidal depth between FM (or NM) and these intermediate quarters since Moon becomes the principal gravitational attractant. At the FM of Dec (10.12.2011), the Sun is nearest and in-line at perihelion (Winter Solstice = 22.12.2011). The shallowest tide will be at Sun aphelion (furthest) (Summer solstice = 21.06.2011). At FQ or LQ in June (2010/2011), again with Sun/Moon at 90°, Moon is the principal attractant. The gravitational influence of the Sun is constant throughout a lunation (FM LQ NM → FQ) except at a (FM) lunar eclipse when Earth blocks Sun → Moon. Moon gravity matched with Earth's rotation cause the tides and the total time (4 quarters FM, LQ, NM, FQ) always adds to around 24h.
   The tide (wave) movement can be seen in the behaviour of anchored ships/boats
(one anchor at the bow). The front of the vessel points into the deepening water, but the waves of an incoming/outgoing tide will always be toward the shore and maybe up to 90° of the flow of water. The erection of a tent by a central pole illustrates the motion - the upward direction is to the centre regardless of the perimeter (edge).
   There is an important distinction between the two types of wave. The one around the Earth (two waves: deepest → shallowest → deepest → shallowest = 24h) and those approaching/receding from the shore (frequency is generally 4-5 seconds). This frequency may be related to Earth → Moon distance (unknown).The origin of these waves is not (yet) known, though notably large lakes that are not tidal do not exhibit such a wave nature. A reasonable conclusion is that the two types of wave (12h x 2 = 24h and 4-5 second in/out nature during tides) are related.
   The mass of water that moves is billions and billions of tons and a smooth movement is highly improbable given that the underwater ground surface is not itself smooth. Immovable land masses create enormous buffeting around the planet and these land masses occur at very irregular locations. The water will crash into itself differently at myriad places and result in enormous turbulence on a global scale. There could never be any synchronisation over such a vast area of water.
   Water finds its own level and a following wind will have an effect. One must move, though not necessarily smoothly, into the other. The speed of the water (different depths vary = velocity gradient) is (perhaps) not enough (or shallow enough) to collapse the wave and form a ‘breaker’. The depth of the water is critical. Insufficient depth and the water will not remain stable. A surface wind can accelerate the surface water and create small local breakers. The velocity gradient is exceeded.
   Waves can be a relatively short width and this depends on the underwater terrain: a narrow channel or large and deep canyon. Any sort of trench whatever its size will funnel water as the tide comes in and the resulting wave can, therefore, be massive or small. The wave is a measure of the changing amplitude of water in that particular region and generally deeper water will exhibit a swell. In shallower areas, breaking waves manifest - the surface water moves faster than at depth (at or near the ground) and results in a collapsing wave.