Leaderboard

I think that if not for the continent underneath, the ice cover would be even more symmetrical.

This is a case of the inappropriate conclusions being drawn from inaccurate (insufficient) data. Antarctica is neither circular in shape nor is it centered on the pole. Compare the maps from 1962 and 2022. The left hand peninsula - Graham Land - is in approximately the same orientation as the long island in the 2022 on the 1962 map Map 1 Stanford's Whitehall Atlas 1962 Map 2 from Higgins Wild Maps 2022

I don’t believe so. In the geological past, Antarctica or parts of it were at equatorial latitudes : https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/

Since the distance can be arbitrary, I just set it as 15 miles, and the intuitive solution popped right out at me.

Trying an alternative just for fun:

My weird mental arithmatic went like this :

"Although no particles are known to have negative mass, physicists (primarily Hermann Bondi in 1957,[7] William B. Bonnor in 1964 and 1989,[13][14] then Robert L. Forward[15]) have been able to describe some of the anticipated properties such particles may have. Assuming that all three concepts of mass are equivalent according to the equivalence principle, the gravitational interactions between masses of arbitrary sign can be explored, based on the Newtonian approximation of the Einstein field equations. The interaction laws are then: In yellow, the "preposterous" runaway motion of positive and negative masses described by Bondi and Bonnor. Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses. Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses. For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a gravitational pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs however, there is a push that repels the positive mass from the negative mass, and a pull that attracts the negative mass towards the positive one at the same time. Hence Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object,[7] an effect called "runaway motion" by Bonnor who disregarded its physical existence, stating: Such a couple of objects would accelerate without limit (except a relativistic one); however, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain zero. This behavior is completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and the expected behavior of "normal" matter. Thomas Gold even hinted that the runaway linear motion could be used in a perpetual motion machine if converted to circular motion" From Wikipedia Negative mass - Wikipedia But others, in particular R L Forward ( yes, the sci-fi author of Dragon's Egg ) have shown that the phenomenon violates no conservation laws and is mathematically consistent. So yes, Moon, there is a very slight possibility that exotic matter, with negative mass, and which violates positive energy conditions could exist ( though I find the idea ludicrous ), and would allow forstabilization of wormholes and travel to the past/future/far-away regions of space at FtL speeds.

You know you keep stating Physics in stuck in the 60"s and yet I could show you a universe model that applies known physics where the universe can arise from in essence positive matter energy. and negative gravity energy. That was designed back in the 60's. The model employs mathematics developed initially in 1920's Relativity and the FLRW metric 1939. Work still continues to this very day with papers still being written about it. The point you do not seem to grasp is that science never ever closed the book on a given viable theory. Every viable theory will always develop and improve each and every year. They do so with known physics they do not need to reinvent physics. As new research leads to new discoveries those discoveries get included into the applicable theories. You evidently do not seem to be aware of this detail and as such scorn the scientific process as a result. You claim you do not have the funds to get interest from the scientific community. Yet one doesn't require any funds to get a professional Peer reviewed paper published on arxiv or even require a degree. Provided you can convince a PH.D to sponsor your work anyone can get a peer review. This however doesn't mean the paper is correct. It simply means that the paper conforms with its standards and is on the topic being described. I could post papers describing numerous pre-universe models that have 11 dimensions. The Strong pre-universe, the gravitational pre-universe, the Charged pre-universe, the four stage universe. The universe from nothing, the zero energy- universe, the universe from a BH (countless numbers of those) same for the universe from white holes. The time reversal\time forward multiverse pair. The list is literally endless. All of them however have one thing in common. They are all viable in the mathematics they show with known physics. They all deploy a collection of formulas from a collection of any related theories and models. Thermodynamics, the FLRW metric, relativity, QM/QFT some with string theories some without. Some are schotastic other conformal or canonical. However none of them ever saw the need to reinvent any known and well tested physics. so no matter what you claim you never convince me physics is stuck in the 60's. Your wasting your breath on that score. I've watched too many theories develop from one form to later improvements in nearly every theory I have ever studied. That is the very essence of the scientific process and if you believe the idea of the SM particles arising from gravity is something new well that is essence of string theory. Its entire fundamental process applies the graviton as the fundamental string. This was the initial development long before M theory. lol the FLRW metric today isn't even in its original form... Lets take an example exercise. at 10^-43 seconds. The observable universe if you reverse expansion is less than an atom in volume. Actually much smaller than that. Yet we know its an extremely hot, dense state of low entropy. Now myself I would describe this state by the only meaningful mathematics. How would curvature even apply in such a miniscule volume. Why would gravity even be a factor with such a limited volume ? So really the only applicable geometry is simply \[ds^2=g_{ij}dq^idq^j\] which is simply denoting the Kronecker Delta under Cartesian coordinates. At that volume you wouldn't have any time dilation. Everything else is in thermal equilibrium (thermodynamics). So the only other meaningful detail is literally the temperature. Temperature is part of the EM field so one can employ gauge photons as the mediator. Now I can bet dollars to donuts your going to claim differently as from what you described that is not your model. Yet that is how the majority of the physics experts in cosmology will describe the state at that time. One could also use a generalized spacetime (coordinate independant form) ie Euclid, Polar, spherical, Cylindrical. \[ds^2=g_{\alpha\beta}dx^\alpha dx^\beta\] but that is an arbitrary choice with the given volume just a side note on unusual mathematical treatments in older models (still under development to this very day) is to describe particles in binary lattice space. \[|\Psi\rangle=\sum^n_{i=1}|\phi_i\rangle\] where the dimensions can b any arbitrary number from 4 to 11. (part of the zero energy universe model, or one of the numerous variations of the same theme). This equation then works with the nilpotent Dirac equation where the sum of energy, momentum, time and space=0. The model also has specific formulas for particles arising from those factors. for example the fermion mass formula given by that model is \[M_{d,a}=\sum_{M_f}\frac{3M_{b_{d-1,0}}}{2}\sum^a_{a=0}a^4\] this is work once presented by Bohr_Sommerfeld. In essence it is a universe from nothing model where particles arise from spacetime where spacetime equates the potential and kinetic energy terms via the nilpotent Dirac equation and the sum of the potential energy and kinetic energy terms is balanced at zero. Hope that gives you an idea of just a few of the NOT FOUND in textbooks professionally peer reviewed models your competing against. here is the reference for further detail. It is merely 1 out of literal hundreds of professional peer reviewed universe creation models I have come across https://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-th/papers/0201/0201115.pdf I have greater faith in this model that what I have seen of yours simply because there are no grandiose claims that are made. Not that I accept this paper as one I would fully trust this particular paper either. It is simply 1 variation of the theme. I've seen far better variations of zero energy universe treatments.

Have sent a message to you.

I think it was clear you were replying to Ogon, but it doesn't hurt to clarify. I have a friend in Toronto who is an artist and has quite a bit of her work at DeviantArt, some of it deals with women and how their self-image is influenced by modern culture. I agree Ogon might fit in there nicely. @Genady - is there any of your daughter's art that can be seen online? Forgive this question, if you prefer not. I know many people limit or compartmentalize their web presence. (anyway, that would be another thread, as this one is Ogon's "show")

I'm sorry, I've just realized that my previous post appears to reply to @TheVat, which was not my intention. I repeat it here because I think @MasterOgon might be interested, as my daughter, an artist (albeit in a different genre and several years ago), used to like that site:

@MasterOgon A couple of the earlier ones you posted in 2021 also had retro touches that made me think of Fritz Lang's Metropolis and other early sci-fi art. Very evocative.

Are you familiar with the Deviant Art community? I think you'd find many friends there: DeviantArt - The Largest Online Art Gallery and Community E.g., see this: Search 'space art' on DeviantArt - Discover The Largest Online Art Gallery and Community Or this: Search 'sci-fi art' on DeviantArt - Discover The Largest Online Art Gallery and Community

I remember your flying saucer designs at the now defunct sciencechatforum. Glad you made your way over here. I like the surreal aspects, and also how some show influences of old Soviet Era poster art. The eroticism of "Space Values" was intriguing.