Acutally, this is all just conjecture.  No one knows the actual conditions that the Sun passes through in it's journey around the galaxy.  We can't see the other side of the galaxy, we can't see even much of our own neighborhood very well, so scientists have no idea what type of conditions lie on the other side or anywhere else in our path.

This has all been looked at before.  It's nothing new.  It may or may not be valid.  But unfortunately there isn't enought evidence to say one way or another.  As I said, we don't know what conditions are around the galaxy.  As for passing through denser portions, I would expect that depending on the material, the Sun might heat up.  If we passed through a large hydrogen cloud, I would guess it would give the Sun more fuel, thereby making it burn brighter and hotter.  Passing through a dust cloud might have the opposite effect.

But the point is, we cannot know what is in the path of the Sun on it's trip around the galaxy, I would be surprised if it encountered the same thing every trip.  Nebulae, stars, dark clouds, clusters etc.  all move.  The same ones that were in our path the last trip around probably would not be there on the next.

Interesting topic, interesting conjecture but not provable or disprovable.  There isn't enough data and there are too many variables. 

As far as seeing a pattern, I would think just the opposite would be true.  Everything is moving in the galaxy, we would not be likely to pass through the same conditions each trip.  I would expect a more random pattern.  So it would seem to me that any pattern is coincidental, lacking enough data or imagined.

Definition Theory "a formulation of apparent relationsips or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree." Websters Second Edition ISBN 60B 0-529-05324-1 et al.

GGIH does not fabricate facts, and has basis entirely on supported published papers and journals, and formulates a theme that links these recorded observations. If you cannot find this false, then GGIH is at the Theory Level. Support your claim(s). I present Galactic Geologic Interval Hypothesis for this purpose.

edited 17JAN2007

morbas - this just seems to be something you have dredged up from studies done 20 years ago or so that found no proof whatever at that time.  Just a lot of conjecture.  Interesting but no real proof of course.  Theory? No, hypothesis, maybe, conjecture?  Yes.

I'm reminded of a statement made a while back by lost2you on this forum.  He said that on this forum we seem to get "alternative theorists, wanting attention and fame in having "disproven" some fundamental model and claiming that a conspiracy exists to maintain the status quo and keep them from their Nobel Prizes"

Does anybody have references about this claim, that 20 years ago a simular proposal was made. I have searched far and wide on the web, and nothing pops up.

jsmoody: "If we passed through a large hydrogen cloud, I would guess it would give the Sun more fuel, thereby making it burn brighter and hotter.  Passing through a dust cloud might have the opposite effect."

This is conjecture, but here it goes...in infusion of hydrogen fuel into the sun will reverse the main sequence by enriching the hydrogen fraction. An artificially enriched star could burn cooler. Also, this would increase neutron emission on the surface of the sun, lowering its temperature.

And further more, the Sun Magnetic Sphere impedes the galactic Arm dust, but the Suns Magnetic Poles periodically flip N to S, as does Earth's. When this occurs the hydrogen/deuterium/dust inflow could conceivably surge. I have a paper supporting the pole reversal, and the magnetic shielding effect on Galactic Dust Flow.

I wonder if there is an atomic physicist here that could comment on that. Until one does, I cannot use it in my theory.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967553-7,00.html (note the date of the article - 1985)

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,967553,00.html

http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/answers/misc/mi38.html

Some discussion on it here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46350

Thanks jsmoody,

I will respond now, and then correct it as I understand what I said was not what I thought...As Usual..

The last BLOG introduces a 20 to 35M year interval span. Getting pretty broad stroked if I may surmise; I like the last one 'It is possible that there is something real going on there, but at least as likely to be meaningless handwaving and bad guesses.". Such is an issue about due diligence.

None of these talked about the Geologic Period 74My periods, nor mentioned the non-contiguous four with also a 74M year interval. You see, they did not recognize this primer. The 26KM/S dust flow rate is something I thought very interesting. The Galaxy map that 17 scientists effectively drew gave me the rough dimensions of the Galaxy Arm spacing. Most recently, the observations that the Permian Extinction had extreme elevations of CO2 and the evidence supporting a Global Thermal Event are in line with in the environment one would expect with increased solar energy. The Pre-Cambrian terminator and the seal level rise is also indicative of a thermal warming event (Global Ice melt). What we are seeing is cause and effect oscillations congruent with Geologic Period terminators overlaid with the increase in Solar Flux of the Solar Main sequence.

You are right, they came to no conclusion. They missed the big clue, the Geologic Period Primer to the puzzle. Once you have this, the rest is simple.

Thanks, this does not cause any infringement issue. Dear jsmoody, you may want to retract some of your poignant statements. GGIH is new, it is a discovery, and I have volunteered all relevant information, even exploring some fringe stuff. Such I believe, is relevant to mixing due diligence with research. However, emailing an inappropriate note using Astronomy resources is crossing the line!

Politely, morbas

24,017 2006FEB8 

Thanks for the viewership.

I wonder if ASTRONOMY can tell me the general viewership statistics.

--------------------------------

I have recently tried to publish the USGS statistics paragraph and the paragraph about the Galaxy Structure and Hydrogen Flow rate, both indicating a 74My signal. They replied rather tersely that copying the paragraphs was a copywright violation. I told them I was the original author. Then I was told this was not original work. Can Astronomy please indicate in the following paragragh that inclusion of my paragraphs on wiki's web is or is not a problem with them. It certainly is not a problem with me to use my own words.

-------------------------------------

2007 February 22 

Changed thread to Theory Level: It meets the criteria. Comments?

Definition Theory "a formulation of apparent relationsips or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree." Websters Second Edition ISBN 60B 0-529-05324-1 et al.

25,024 2006FEB28 

Thanks for the viewership.

On this 1,000 view interval, the original thread has been edited for clarity; And I eliminated the Norma Arm reference.

Now only if Jeremy McGovern would fill in the Astronomy copywright claims....

morbas wrote:

24,017 2006FEB8  Thanks for the viewership. I wonder if ASTRONOMY can tell me the general viewership statistics. -------------------------------- I have recently tried to publish the USGS statistics paragraph and the paragraph about the Galaxy Structure and Hydrogen Flow rate, both indicating a 74My signal. They replied rather tersely that copying the paragraphs was a copywright violation. I told them I was the original author. Then I was told this was not original work. Can Astronomy please indicate in the following paragragh that inclusion of my paragraphs on wiki's web is or is not a problem with them. It certainly is not a problem with me to use my own words. ------------------------------------- 2007 February 22  Changed thread to Theory Level: It meets the criteria. Comments? Definition Theory "a formulation of apparent relationsips or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree." Websters Second Edition ISBN 60B 0-529-05324-1 et al.

You are confusing "theory" in this case with "scientific theory"  Look it up.  The definition is quite different.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

In the GGIT case, the only option you have is contradiction through empirical observation. The depth and width of my references yield a strong correlation between Geologic Periods and Dynamic Galactic Structure. To deny the Geologic Periods have a 74M interval you contradict the USGS, or my math. Hint the Dynamic Galactic Structure is vulnerable. I have presented a preponderance of observations that appear to work in concert, to produce the Geologic Galaxy presented. Preponderance of proof must be either categorically refutted, or a better and simpler model presented that explains all known observations would suffice. Of course, to deny GGIT, that model would need to contradict it.

As I have said before, present RELEVANT and SUPPORTING sources, in some likeness of scientific method. If you do so, you will see neutral cooperation and analysis, and some measure of respect.

Now only if Jeremy McGovern would fill in the Astronomy copywright claims...as he said he would look into....

26,034 2006MAR13

Thanks for the viewership.

If you don't mind me asking, what significance does that number have that would actually mean anything to anyone?

I have been told on numerous occassions that when posts and threads are too long, people have a greater tendency to just look and see how long it is a move on to something else without reading any of it. Besides I have found on more than one thing here that the forum statistics are often bogus/inaccurate since they last updated the software.

 I'll even admit myself, when you first started this topic I found it quite interesting and followed it for a while, However, now it has gotten so long and tedious to follow the whole thing. I can only imagine how someone new opening this thread for the first time would feel. It is often those who only enter then leave right away without reading it causing that number to increase. Click in click out and it counts as a view, in reality it is virtually a meaningless number,   The number of views only means that someone clicked their mouse to entered into the thread. You don't know that they actually viewed the contents let alone even read it or not. 

Even the number of replies doesn't have too much meaning.  If you are looking for the numbers to determine the popularity of a thread topic, then a better representation would be the number of other members who have actually participated in the discussion along with you.

Excluding this post that number is about an even dozen members other than yourself. And 2/3rd the number of replies are your own.  So that leaves me with a couple more questions,  why don't you also have your own website for all this? Have you ever thought of getting your own? I would prefer to link to your own web site than to try and hunt this down here. 

Anyways, don't take me wrong on this. Some of us do appreciate what you have put into all of this.  I was just curious why you keep referring to those numbers like they actually might mean something. 

Nevertheless,  your work on this is notable. There have been times I do refer to this and have in the past recommended that people do check it out. 

IMHO, I would rather read and learn from something like this on a non-forum website dedicated to the topic. Then I would be more likely to take the time to read it in its entirety more than I would while I'm at a web forum.  

Just my  

Have A Nice __________ 

Besides I have found on more than one thing here that the forum statistics are often bogus/inaccurate since they last updated the software.

I have searched the web and found that the hit statistic does not jump until one actually opens the searched topic. So the updated software is OK in that regards. And, the hit entry is often (too much often) not at the topic start entry. And often randomly in the middle of the thread, often at the last edit point. So you see, often I do a re-edit of the opening entry after doing any edits any where else. I have been tracking my reads, and they are a extremely small number of the hits.

Anyways, don't take me wrong on this. Some of us do appreciate what you have put into all of this.  I was just curious why you keep referring to those numbers like they actually might mean something.  Nevertheless,  your work on this is notable." border="0" width="15" height="15" /> There have been times I do refer to this and have in the past recommended that people do check it out.

As you may have noticed, the first couple of entries are always updated to include the information presented by all. One does not need to go beyond the first entries unless one of course wants to. Then perhaps, given significant research, one will contribute to the paper. All papers should have a life to itself, I think. 

I have tried to get this into wikipedia, as this appears to be the open contributorship approach to that web. I have tried to get ASTRONOMY to start major topics like one for each planet, Galaxy, and even BB or static state universe. Alas, perhaps persistence and popularity will guide the all powerful....I have infinite patience.

Thank you for your thoughtful input, and I would like to hear from others on this topic.

MOShaver

tkerr wrote:

If you don't mind me asking, what significance does that number have that would actually mean anything to anyone?

Well, in this case, the numbers have lead me to a possible cause/effect. If you enter the webb search terms "Galactic Geologic Interval" using the quotes for exact match, you get links to this thread. Nice links...such as

Galactic Geologic Interval Theory - Astronomy.com Forums By observing using the full spectrum of all sciences , we peer through obscurations to uncover a Milky Way Structure. Nature is talking to us, all we need is the sensitivity to listen. /// morbas.

Ok is or is appropriate.

Hi Morbas,

I dont really want to bust your bubble, since you seem to have done a lot of work, but you should really go to the BAUT Forum and, present your evidence.

This topic has been covered before at that forum, which is a Purely Scientific Forum, full of Professional Astronomers, Physicists, and Mathematicans.

Your Theory has already been covered there in full and, has been analyzied by other Scientists and Geologists as pure speculation or Conjecture.

Here is the Link, http://www.bautforum.com/

and here is one of the Threads that you will find interesting,

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=932723&postcount=4

Present your evidence there, be warned! this is a purely Scientific Forum, and all Questions and claims regarding your theory will be met, and you will be asked to submit proof and, reply to all questions asked by the members.

In Science extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.

there you will be allowed to present your evidence, and it will be scrutinized by the Professionals working in the fields.

If you truly believe you have something new to add to what has already been presented so far, to the scientific community, that is the best place to go.

Dennis ;)

http://www.bautforum/: Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

OK checking it out. I love a challenge.

Galactic Tsunami? the 2012 NEA, Galactic Center Cossing

Well Planet X is briefly discussed and ASTRONOMY itself rejects that conjectured failure.

Man, that is a lot of noise. GGIT is not there anywhere.

OK, I serached life in space...nothing. I asked for leads...nothing.

I search again, and nothing. I am sorry but I have been targeted just earlier, and I disdain assoition claims that donot bear out.

 Hi Morbas,

You Obviously Have not read or searched the forum completely.

The proof of burden is yours to bear since its your theory, go ahead and post it on BAUT and see what happens if You dare!

Our Motion thru Our Galaxy has been covered at BAUT along with all of the Mass extinction possibilities and theories regarding our Motion, Since you are presenting this theory its really you that bears the burden of Proof.

The Professionals there will try and poke holes thru all of the evidence you have given here on this Forum.

As far as bieng flagged I have not given them any reason to,

If you are so sure of your Implied Theory, what have you got to lose by posting it where you will be challenged at the level of Scientific Scrutiny that your OP deserves?

from what You have posted you claim that there is a correlation with Geologic and Biologic events due to our Motion around Our Galaxy.

I am not trying to be harsh or Rude but there is nothing new with what you have presented here that has not been covered before on BAUT, its up to you to research after all its your theory not Mine.

I am just trying to help you get your theory either confirmed or denied by the Pros.

Post your Theory there, what have you got to lose?

Dennis

OK, I look all through life in space, NOTHING...so I copied the text. The adventure quest has begun. Quite a bit of intellligent folks, looks like when you get past the poor subject titles. I expect to be challenged. Keep you all informed....

Hi Morbas,

The titles are misleading and a search for all that is relevant to your Theory is scattered all around the Forum,

Just register its free and pour it on them as well as you have done here,

They are very easy to talk to,  Just  respond to the questions they pose, they do have strict rules, since its a Scientific Forum for Astronomy.

THe Problem is your title and how the Ideas you have proposed have been covered in that Forum  through different sections and different titles, just Give them your Theory. 

I am sure you won't be dissapointed, you will be amazed at the Scientific knowledge that this site has to offer, its the best place to post any theory or any against the Mainstream Scientific astronomical Idea or new Ideas or discoveries, If your are correct they will concurr, if they find Holes in your theories, be prepared to defend your ideas and, back them with the proof you have worked so hard to acquire.

You have the tenacity for this that is obvious, just keep it friendly and  prepare to be challenged like never before,

good Luck Morbas, I will be following your posts, as I too am intrigued by the subject. I also thought there was a correlation Posibility Myself, from what I have learned there,   there are too many variables to correlate geologic and Biologic events to our Motion around the galaxy.

Dennis

 We are traveling through waves of energy modulation of our sun to earth transfer. There are many many many ways to cause catastrophism, but the maximum effect is at galactic arm interference peak and troughs. In the past few years, all relevant independent observations have supported a preponderance of evidence. As you have realized, the Gaia effect complicates the details that it is a stretch to understand the direct catastrophism causal. I have come to understand that life is very sensitive to competitive environmental change advantage. That the Gaia effect masks the static indicators (temperature, ocean level etc.). Perhaps we should be looking for change rates as causal for geologic boundaries.

Preponderance of evidence has been mounting for a mathematical correlation existing between Arm Passage and Geologic boundaries. Over the past decade, my confidence in that has driven me to propose this first as a hypothesis, and through the three years on Astronomy, rewrites and thoughtful online queires, it has reached basis entirely on independent observations. (Theory level criteria).

I like this sight because it has the necessary bandwidth to show print level graphics and charts and allows noise. Noise is essential in denying the paradigm effect, providing rapid thought evolution (a denial of NIH culture problem).

Thanks....

--------------------2007MAR23----------------------- 

Almost a week a the BAUT.COM forum. They found a slight fault, the source of which is a typo that propagated thoughout the years into HCl, escaping my attnetion because it is a Halogen Source Gas. I researched my considerable cache of references, finding no mention of this, I withdrew the Hydrogen (HCl) and changed it to "hydrogen (halogen source gases)", this amended in the Astronomy GGIT section as well.