Join Date: Apr 2007
So, I will make a start here in trying to explain the reasoning and evidence for this first concept about lunar interference patterns in the atmosphere resulting in travelling low pressure areas.
First, I should exclude tropical cyclones. My research has indicated that there may be cause and effect within the other portion of the research model, in the form of disturbances caused by Mercury and Venus in field sectors. That involves some terminology that I haven't introduced so for now just file that under "something to be discussed later." I don't think the earth's Moon is any primary cause of tropical cyclones or anything that happens along the ITCZ unless it might be some diurnal tidal peaks at work there.
So what exactly is the theory on this? Let's start with a simplification that is not quite a true approximation of reality. Let's say the Moon had no variations in orbital distance (therefore orbital speed), went around the earth in exactly 30 days, and toured the fixed star background in 27. (the actual numbers are 29.53049 and 27.32166). Let's also say that there were no other planets in our solar system, just three fixed points of gravitational energy, the galactic equator (traversed twice every 27 days) and the Sun. Then with a system of nine timing lines, if the result of the tidal force was to create both one eastbound travelling wave and one set of constantly moving interference patterns, the resultant lows would be likely to pass each timing line about every 3 days. (eight events in 27 days and the two other events, full and new moon, on a moving timetable relative to that fixed timetable). With no other planets, it might also be the case that our solar system magnetic field would be steady-state (no discernible sectors of differential flux energy) and so the moving lows should then travel roughly the same path all the time, perhaps with a seasonal north-south oscillation.
The actual situation is more complex but not by all that much. The fixed gravitational sources are identified as follows, starting from Northern Max which is when the Moon simultaneously crosses the galactic equator (in the vicinity of Orion and Gemini, where we see a midwinter full moon) and achieves highest declination. Before going into the rest of the list, I should point out that the Moon, unlike satellites of all other planets, travels around the earth in the ecliptic plane (the plane that the earth travels around the Sun) and not the earth's equatorial plane which is the case for satellites of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune (Pluto is no longer considered a planet but I believe Charon orbits Pluto in its equatorial plane too). Why? Probably because the gravitational pull of the Sun on the Moon is relatively stronger than on those other satellites. Consider that Jupiter is 318 times the mass of earth, and the force of the Sun's gravitation out that far is 1/25 or so what it is for our Moon. So a satellite of Jupiter feels 318x25 times as much pull from Jupiter in relative terms (if it is at a similar distance to our Moon, and Io fits that description). Saturn's factors are similarly 96x100 so the relative force is even greater there. This doesn't matter to the theory except to say that the Moon climbs considerably higher above and below our equator as it follows the ecliptic plane, than those satellites would. And so there is a considerable declination reached, in the range of 18 to 29 degrees, both north and south of the equator.
Those peaks just happen to occur when the Moon is passing the galactic equator (what we call the Milky Way when we see it in dark rural skies). The northern max position is in the direction away from the galactic centre and the southern max position is towards the galactic centre.
Now another aside before moving to the menu of sources -- why is there a range of declinations? This is due to an 18.6 year cycle of precession of the nodal points of the Moon's orbit which is not exactly in the ecliptic plane but inclined to it by 5.1 degrees. So we add that to the 23.4 degrees of axial tilt of the earth to see that there is a declination range of about 18.3 to 28.5 degrees. That cycle last peaked in the year 2006 so we are around year 13 of it, with the Moon reaching declinations close to 23 deg N and S. The place where it is currently above the ecliptic is after northern max (where the full moon in March will be) and the place where it is currently below by 5 deg is opposite that, where the September full moon appears. These positions, the nodes and extremes, migrate in the opposite direction to the Moon's orbit around the orbital plane (every 18.6 years). The planet Mercury does something similar but takes tens of thousands of years to complete its cycle.
So then, after leaving the Northern Max position (which is contemporaneous with full moon around the winter solstice), the Moon passes close to the massive star Regulus around 3-4 days later depending on orbital speed, and Spica around 6-8 days later. About two days after that, approaching the southern max position, it passes fairly close to Antares (usually a larger separation but it can be an occultation around years 2 and 3 of the declination cycle). This is a different event than the first two in that a second significant source, Aldebaran, lies almost opposite Antares in the sky, so that there is a combined event that I label "A" in the model. The Regulus event is RC (for Regulus conjunction) and the Spica event SpC (for Spica conjunction).
Here I need to add the detail that every gravitational source postulated to be significant in the model has to be treated as both a conjunction (where Moon passes the object) and opposition (where Moon is on opposite side of the earth from that object) set, just as high tides occur with the Moon overhead and behind the planet, in effect, underneath our feet. (various angles apply here obviously, and the 18.6 year cycle means that at different points in that cycle, the Moon displays different separations and can sometimes occult the sources -- move in front of them from our perspective.)
These "stellar" events are the weakest in the model but not as weak as you might suspect. In early stages of the research, I identified the RC event as a "northern resonance" thinking that it was the N Max event from upstream arriving at the timing line to complete the continuous flow of energy required to sustain an interference pattern. That may in fact be mostly what the RC event really is. But then for a while I was thinking that the SpC event was a second resonance or perhaps a forcing created by the Moon's crossing the earth's equator (which it has to do at some point between RC and SpC events). The A events tend to come 2 days before N and S Max and so are quite energetic since those are high energy peaks and a low will be forming to arrive downstream at the next timing line. So there, I am not too sure that the energy can be directly related to the actual source(s).
Then we reach southern Max with the Moon crossing the galactic equator. In the early winter, this will happen just before new moon (in the current timetable, we happened to have one of those rare combined full moons and northern max peaks on 21 Dec, so the next S Max occurred around 4 Jan and the new moon around 5 Jan. Here's a principle to keep in mind -- northern and southern max make steady progress forward against the timetable of full-new moons, so that a northern max will overlap the new moon closest to 21 June, and a southern max will overlap the full moon event at that time (this year, I think the new moon is later than the summer solstice and the full moon a few days earlier).
Another tangent if you will indulge me, but something very significant for longer-term research and also something touching on archaeology because as you may know, the ancients were very interested in the lunar orbit and even seemed to be tracking declination cycles. This tangent is to point out that we just happen to live in an epoch where the Moon's declination maxima overlap the galactic transits and where all of that occurs at the solstices. As recently as Roman times, the Sun crossed the galactic equator in November and May, so that northern max (if a gravitational event and not a declination driven result) would not be northern max but instead would be something like outer galactic equator conjunction. There might not be any discernible energy peak from the declination max. Going back further into antiquity, the Sun crossed the galactic equator at increasingly early times relative to the seasons until we reach a point where summer was when the Sun crossed the current S Max position. All of this probably hurts your brain as it hurts mine, but to the extent I have time and inclination to study it all, I find interesting possible correlations with ice age climatology as understood (which may be too strong a word).
So the system I am describing to you is not fixed, it slowly changes over the centuries. It is just a coincidence that around the time weather records started to be kept, the N Max was moving into the solstice range (it was probably overlapping full moon around 16 Dec in the Maunder, once the calendar was shifted to Gregorian, before that it would be the 5th of Dec). We have enough daily data that I can reconstruct some faint evidence of a shift in solar-galactic waves in the temperature patterns for both CET and Toronto. For example, the January thaw phenomenon has been slowly shifting to later dates. Anything created by long-term interactions of this sort should be shifting later in time like the causative interactions are shifting.
Alright, to get back to the tour, after S Max, the Moon traverses a relatively empty portion of the sky. But there are RO and SpO events as it moves opposite those sources. About two days before returning to N Max, the Moon passes Aldebaran, a component of the A event generator so these events are not AC and AO but just "A" both times in the system.
Well, back at northern max but the Moon is not quite full yet, as the earth has completed about 1/13 of its orbit and it takes that extra 2.3 days to reach the next full moon. So that late January full moon is about midway from N Max to the RC event. The February full moon will be very close to overlapping the RC event (Regulus is in opposition around Feb 18th).
Now add to that fixed timetable (which repeats 14 times a year and a bit, to include 13 lunations (full to full moon) in the same interval), a number of variable-positioned planetary gravitational sources. At this particular point in time, both Jupiter and Saturn are close to the S Max position and closing in on a pass which we see every 19.7 years. I've mentioned the significance of that in the solar variation cycles which are quite close to the halfway point generated by mutual alignments (on opposite sides of the Sun). Venus conjunctions will always be within four days of new moons because of its inner orbit, and Mercury conjunctions even less separated (although this is a weak event that I do not track after some trial and error). Uranus, Mars and Neptune also show faint energy peaks in the analysis of lunar events.
Here again, the conjunctions (for Jupiter, labelled JC, for Saturn, SC, etc) have analogous opposition energy peaks (JO, SO etc).
The reader, if patient enough to continue on, may be wondering then, what can be the physical justification for proposing relatively similar results from objects of such different mass and distance from earth? I am (only too) familiar with the objection that classic gravitational theory does not allow for this to be remotely possible, and even the full and new moon "events" are called into question.
My answer to this is that with the peaks appearing so similar in their relation to the timing and arrayed in terms of a slowly falling intensity when compared to classic mass over distance squared, that the best fit of the results suggests that the effect is being generated at (get ready for this) the twelfth to fifteenth root of mass over distance. Why this is so, I have no idea, but speculate that this is how gravitational waves are generated. So while there is still a hierarchy based on mass and distance, the reduction for growing distance and falling mass is very subtle. My only hope here is that first the theory itself would prove to have some validity as a predictive framework and then some scientists more able to study gravitational waves and physical processes on cosmological scales would take up the challenge to verify what causes this effect to work at such an arcane relation as twelfth to fifteenth root (I would be more specific but the range of intensity variations produced by different angles of the Moon's separation from sources makes the precision rather indefinite) of mass over distance. However, we already have the situation that gravitational force is mass over distance squared, gravitational energy is mass over distance. So it is distance that apparently can be the moving party in the various manifestations of two-body interactions. Why not some third concept that is scaled down further?
Here's one example of how the mass-distance considerations are levelled. In conventional terms, Jupiter's gravitational force on the earth (and Moon) is 318/95 x 100/25 times that of Saturn (masses are 318 and 95 units and distances 5 and 10, so the inverse square of distances 100 over 25). That works out to about 13, so we can say Jupiter has 13 times as much pull on our home planet and its satellite than Saturn manages. But taking the twelfth root of mass over distance, those values (in arbitrary terms) are twelfth root of 318/5 and 95/10, or of 63.6 and 9.5. (those are the ratios of gravitational energy by the way) ... so the square roots are about 8 and 3.1 in approximate terms. The fourth roots (square roots of those) would be close to 2.75 and 1.75. The eighth root (root of the preceding) would be about 1.7 to 1.4. By the time we then get to twelfth root, we are looking at just a slight differential, something like 1.5 to 1.3. And taking an arbitrary stellar mass and distance on this same scale, the fractions derived are substantial (around 0.8 on this same scale). This greatly levels the playing field for all significant masses at all sorts of variable distances.
Well, another question might be, what about all the discrete gravitational sources near the N Max position, such as stars in Orion, Sirius, Gemini? Two things about that, one, the separation between Moon and these sources may exceed a critical limit which seems to be 10 degrees, and two, their masses may just blend in with the larger component of galactic mass (vs its greater distance). In any case, separate energy peaks do not appear in the research for these nearby to N Max sources. The S Max situation is different in that you just have the galactic equator and no massive nearby stars other than Antares which is already handled as part of the A energy peak.
That's about it for this session. The more interesting part comes next. Obviously, anybody is free to theorize any fantastic or bizarre hypothesis they imagine, but if you can't find evidence to support it, there is no point in discussing it. For this, I have evidence. Otherwise I would not believe this to be possible either. What sort of evidence could you find?
This goes back to the grid discussed in a previous post. Once you establish that a location with weather data is close to a timing line (ideally just east of one) then you can begin to investigate the data for signs of pressure, temperature, wind and precipitation peaks (or troughs) that reveal the timed passage of low pressure systems that would be the postulated effects of these postulated causes.
How does that work in practice? I will get into that in more detail next post, but as an opener, would say this -- if the Moon had no orbital distance variations, and travelled at a constant speed around the earth, then the sidereal (fixed star background) events should line up almost perfectly in 27.32166 day time intervals and the synodic (full, new) should also line up every 29.53 days and change. They won't quite do that because of the distance and speed variables in the lunar orbit, amounting to roughly 10% faster and slower motion, getting the Moon to some events up to 1.5 days earlier than average and others 1.5 days later. This perigee to perigee cycle takes 27.55 days so it is a bit longer than the sidereal cycle. It moves around in the same direction as the Moon's orbit over a period of 8.85 years. In recent months the lunar perigee has come just after Northern Max, which is why the recent full moon in January was a "supermoon." Therefore, also, the Moon is moving faster in orbit around there, so the time difference this year from N Max to RC events is as small as it can be. About 4.5 years from now, it would be a longer interval by over one day in four to five days (moon would then be at apogee).
A really precise study needs to take the data and continuously reset it to intervals that centre on actual event times, not the mathematical averages. However, that takes a lot of time and effort. The first order investigation is to look at the mean periods, then start case by case studies to see if the signals (which are already there in the coarser moving data columns) can be better focussed. The general answer to all this is, if you find a signal of roughly 10 units in the average of all data, it's probable that the actual signal is 12-15 units when you align all the data more precisely. This is quite often what I find when doing the more detailed analyses. But some of the signals are quite robust even in their coarse form. I have found some particular lunar signals near timing line 1 for example that reach values like 15 mb pressure waves, 3 C deg temp spikes, 4 x random precip and considerably higher wind speeds.
So, will get into that sort of discussion for timing line 3 where the results are not quite as great in magnitude, although some of the pressure waves are similar. The magnitude of signals will always be related to the climatic variability of the location chosen to study them. I would imagine a study of timing line seven on some island in the Aleutians would yield more impressive pressure signals than any of the other variables. But when you get into east-central North America, you're dealing with a climate with large variability so the signals are quite a bit larger than in western Europe.
(at this point, if you can't visualize the path of the Moon in its orbit, this might be the time to click on the previously supplied net-weather link and at least read through to the early point where I sketched out the lunar orbit, however, you'll be seeing where the various planets were in that orbit six years ago.)
Some questions I also investigate in the research ...
(a) if the events are indeed simultaneous at timing lines with astronomical events postulated to cause them, is there some other mechanism that might be producing this effect? Is it possible that the external signals are mistaken for processes within the atmosphere on these time scales? Is it possible that the only real events are full and new moon and all the rest are resonances on different timetables?
(b) what causes intensity and latitude fluctuations, once it is established that the timing lines are a valid timing focus?
(c) are there historical shifts in locations of timing lines and therefore the grid itself, that can be discerned from data analysis?