Explaining the Axis of Evil Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies

Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies are an artefact the accelerating frame of reference observing them.

The most recent and accurate maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) have been made from spacecraft that orbit at the Earth-Sun L2 region (WMAP and Planck). This should be a moot point because they are observing the most distant phenomenon possible, in both space and time, which should be independent of our reference frame. However, it appears that the CMB is anisotropic in precisely the plane of the solar system ecliptic.  This axis is dubbed the cosmological "Axis of Evil" That is also the plane around the sun that the observing spacecraft orbit (as well as the Earth around the Sun). The centripetal acceleration due to the orbit of the craft is in a vector direction on average in the opposite direction to observations as they are made over the course of an orbit of the sun which is a calendar year. The accelerating frame of reference is thus precisely in the same plane as the anisotropy of the CMB for both of the two independent craft studying the CMB.

The only way that the acceleration and CMB can be connected in this way is if the CMB constitutes a Hubble horizon - that is, a cosmic scale fundamental limit to information. Thus, the anisotropies that we see in the CMB, far from being information about the early universe, is a reflection of observer's own acceleration frame of reference, and is therefore information-less Unruh radiation differentials. That is, what we see in the background radiation instantaneously reflects our frame of reference at the information boundary in that precise direction in which we see that radiation.


This would seem to imply a non-local communication between a local object and the Hubble horizon which violates known limits. However, the answer to this is that the phase speed of a monochromatic Unruh wave is not limited by the speed of light since it carries no information. So a local Unruh wave may well be aware of distant horizons without paradox.

An easy way to test this dependence is to repeat observations from the same craft, but always in arcs that are 90 degrees to the centripetal acceleration. The whole sky can still be scanned within a year of observations, the sun (earth) angle will always be 90 degrees to observed CMB rather than a friendlier 135 degrees plus in previous observations.

Foolproof way to Objectively judge reliability of scientific theories

A.(not foolproof way) The way that I have been taught is via "the literature" in short, but essentially, if the theory is backed up by the conclusion of a paper, and the theory (or a paper concluding that the theory is correct) is widely cited, then the theory is judged to be reliable. These theories will still have hedged language in papers (could, should,probably and so forth) but in science outreach and general discourse there will not ( proven science, established, reliable, correct etc.). If one asks another for evidence, the expectation is a reply with a pointer to "the literature" rather than a particular repeatable experiment or observation that they have done. This is also judged to be an objective way (It is only as objective as the group of authors and peer reviewers of the papers are) and it is judged to be soundly based on only repeatable experiment or on new facts that the theories may predict correctly (most peer reviewed papers have little to no direct reference to either factor)

B.(foolproof way) I have used this way since I have discovered its power back in 2012. First of all forget any pre-conceived pet theories. Then when looking at an established theory, avoid until a much later stage the idea of needing to *replace* an established theory. This way is to find where the established theory is probably wrong, and why it is wrong, not to suggest that the established theory should be overturned. We are looking at negative results - experiments that are repeatable that do not match the established theory and failed predictions thereof. Then we look at the *chain* of evidence for the established theory. To speed this process, we have to work back on the trail of citations to an early part of the theory and then to whatever process of formulation was used initially to produce the theory, and then to the fewest assumptions used (parsimony). Check that the assumptions were not and still are not, amenable to direct experimentation or observation. Check whether the negative results were available when the theory was formulated. Then cycle through the assumptions starting from the most arbitrary to the least and check the *sensitivity* of the negative result to each assumption. Do this for any negative result that you can think of. Choose the assumption that the negative results are most sensitive to. Consider this assumption wrong and start a search for a suitable spectrum of possible replacements *for the assumption*.

 Invariably there are *No* papers to help you in this process B so don't look for them even though the arguments of A demand them. In terms of looking for the "spectrum of alternatives to the assumption", anything that refers to any options online to the assumption or the conclusion of an alternative theory is worth looking at. When looking at an alternate assumption, try to use all the arguments, methodology and mathematics of the established theory apart from that linked to the assumption. When looking at alternative theories, first make sure the argument is *coherent* such that there is flow from the assumptions to the conclusions of the alternative. If there is not, disregard the incoherent aspects of the alternative theory concerned. If there are coherent aspects of an alternative theory, track back to the simplest assumptions and compare notes to the established theory. Take note of the *alternate assumption*, not any other aspects of the alternate theory. As an example, I have successfully extracted some useful alternative assumption from "creation science" without needing to take other assumption unrelated to the wrong assumption of an established scientific theory.

There you have it. Challenge me with an example of an established scientific theory.

Axioms or premises to have a conversation with me about the origin of life as we know it

1. No magic or omnipotence
I am not going to discuss a point if a god (or anything omnipotent or magical or capable of breaking the laws of physics/nature) is going to be invoked either as a conclusion or a starting possibility in any discussion on the origin of life.

2. No argument of "always having existed". I will only have reasonable discussions on this topic if we can agree that there was a time in our universe where life as we know it, did not exist.

3. Abiogenesis as is currently formulated is impossible.
That is, no non-living mixture of any chemical ingredients in any environment, at any complexity can generate anything like life as we know it in terms of metabolism and reproduction.


If anyone reading this can accept all three of these premises (even if just for argument's sake) then I will happily engage in conversation. I can defend these axioms/premises to the hilt. If, when reading this, you believe these axioms to be contradictory, you are obviously not trying hard enough.

PHILAE versus 67P don't forget the AM

Most analysis on why Philae "bounced" on the surface of 67P focus on the various failures of the legs, jet, screws and hooks which, if even one worked well, should have stuck the landing. My hypothesis that I am placing here, is that the landing was indeed stuck, but that the failure to consider the effect of de-spinning the fly-wheel inside Philae when considering the conservation of Angular Momentum (AM) was completely the reason it *jumped and spun*.

Philae would have managed to, with well designed legs and a stable rotation, screw at least one of the legs and be stationary enough, and signal such back to ROSETTA that the landing stuck. One of the first things that Philae then does, is to de-spin the fly wheel. However, with its long legs giving such leverage, the de-spin could have almost been designed to send it flying again.

My ideas for Haumea (Plutoid, TNO)

Haumea has been found to be elongated, with two moons, a ring, and not in hydrostatic equilibrium but rotating fast enough that centrifugal forces match mutual gravity near its extremities.

Knowledge about similar objects out at this distance (Pluto, Charon, Enceladus) have been used together with laws of angular momentum to work out what is physically possible. It ignores formation mechanisms at this point so as to concentrate on what is physically and mechanically possible given observations of Haumea and several other well observed analogues.

Pluto, Charon and Enceladus have been found to have ice shells and liquid water oceans beneath. Geysers on Enceladus go to form a ring at Saturn, so this probably explains the formation of Haumea's ring. Out-jetting of water at speed is what is happening at Enceladus, and this would be enough to torque even such a large body as Haumea. A thick ice shell would be enough to hold up to compression at the neck as the centrifugal force, friction, and conservation of Angular Momentum does the rest.

There will be gradual and even stretching of the neck as angular momentum is increased - in the same way as couples ice-skaters do the "spiral of death"

Tidal friction from the moons and ring keeps the motion circularised in the same way as the skating spin.

Conditions for Contact Binary via collision

This post is to demonstrate that the conditions for CB via collision require highly balanced rotational and translational components in two similarly sized objects for them to retain their individuality as lobes in an otherwise combined object. This to demonstrate both that binary asteroids can not be a source for contact binary asteroids, and that random primordial collisions cannot be either.

1: Formerly connected bodies "reconfiguring"
As shown in a previous blog post, with the real case of couples skaters to demonstrate, bodies twist away from each other to retain angular momentum using their previous independent rotation as a dynamo (at the point of collision in the case of asteroidal bodies)

2: Independently rotating objects colliding from outside each other's hill spheres at "baby crawling" speed.

Inelastic collisions are of course possible for non-rotating (or trivially rotating bodies that collide in the perfect offset to cancel independent rotation). This is because the required collisional/deformation damping is obtained passively and gives a reaction force in the correct direction opposite to motion, and proportionally to motion so that the force stops when the relative velocity between bodies comes to zero.

A head on collision with a random (in observed ranges of possibilities) rotation or offset collision even with no initial rotation makes an inelastic collision impossibly rare given:

Coherent bodies - Mainly solid that can deform but not to the point of liquidity.
The two bodies are of similar size - smaller body is no less than about a third the radius, or no less than a tenth of the moment of inertia in rough figures.


Due to the laws of physics, forces that perform torque on each other must balance.
Overall angular momentum must be conserved.
If work is required to perform torque to change rotation that must be in the amount and direction made possible by friction, reaction force or gravity.

The following is a way to create model to test generated samples to verify this blog's order of magnitude analysis:

http://www.euclideanspace.com/physics/dynamics/collision/threed/index.htm

For a perfectly inelastic collision to ensue, not only relative speeds must be damped to zero, but relative rotation rates must also be damped to zero and still be touching. At the point of touching, the combined bodies' moment of inertia is at the minimum - Therefore, the rotational velocity required to maintain angular momentum is at its maximum. The kinetic energy associated with the required rotation is also at a maximum. There is work required to achieve this synchronised higher rotation unless the initial conditions are perfectly selected. The same fluidity that allows damping of the impact force allows shear perpendicular with the relative spin velocities which would throw the bodies apart further than reactive forces alone could do. In other words, a notionally inelastic collision would convert rotational velocity to inertial frame velocity in all except perfectly tuned cases which are extremely rare given the assumption of random initial spin state.

Friction under tensile stress or associated with outward movement (Stretch) is the only option to passively glue the bodies together keeping coherent orientation. With stretch (or expanding orbit) there is natural damping as the moment of inertia increases for the duo in proportion to its reduced velocity. Whether loosely connected at the neck or two bodies orbiting the barycentre, outward movement from previously connected bodies is the only passive way to stabilise mutual spin.

Pairs skaters use this particular rule of thumb to spectacular effect with the "spiral of death" spin. The technique spirals the (female) skater outwards with her head balanced inches above the ice. The gradual outward release damped with the action of muscles gives exceptional control that appears paradoxical and adds to the appearance of magic levitation of the head off the ice.

Rotational kinematics - possible and impossible spin-ups

In this first case as pictured below, an ice skater takes advantage of the conservation of angular momentum to increase rotational velocity by bringing their arms in. However, forces and torque need to be applied for this to work. The forces must also be balanced with respect to the axis of rotation, otherwise the axis would precess.

A naïve understanding of the forces and torques at play would lead one to believe that pairs skaters (or two co-rotating comet lobes) could come together and corotate quicker due to the conservation of angular momentum. That understanding would be wrong. The main issue is that in the single skater case, the force and torque is made from the outside of the centre of mass. When two co-rotating skaters pull in to each other, there is no way to exert the right forces on each other or the ensemble to torque to the higher speed required for continued co-rotation at a reduced moment of inertia.

This is the same with two co-rotating lobes of a comet or asteroid - neither gravity nor friction (at their points of contact) gives forces in the right direction to provide spin up torque.

Resultant endpoints vary depending on the reaction forces and friction, but none of them end up with the same co-rotating lobes at a faster speed and smaller net moment of inertia (or co-rotating couple at faster speed) 

Why couples figureskaters (and bi-lobe comets) don't do that spin up trick that individual iceskaters do!

It is well known that a figure skater takes advantage of the conservation of angular momentum to achieve incredible speeds of rotation by having their arms outstretched and bringing them in.

Ever wonder why they bring both arms simultaneously?
Or why couples skaters don't/can't pull each other in to achieve spectacular combined rotations?
or why bi-lobe comets don't collapse on the neck and reconfigure to a much faster combined rotation?

In short, the problem is the Coriolis force!
If an ice skater has just one arm outstretched and pulls it in at a rotating reference, the force required to counter the centrifugal force would topple the skater with the skates as the fulcrum and they would precess violently. The equal and opposite arm acting in unison balances the forces required to bring the arms in and all the work exerted on doing this gets converted to torque, spinning up the skilful skater.

With the couples skating this becomes a two body problem. As they pull each other in from outstretched arms, each person's individual moment of inertia is far more than the nominal amount of a single outstretched arm. Therefore, the radial pulling that they can exert on eachother  topples them both over quite effectively. The only way they can exert the torques required to hold them in a configuration is to wrap their arms around each other. Countering the centrifugal force and friction at their contact points is not enough to effect the principle, as it CANNOT prevent the two persons from spinning independently from each other, conserving angular momentum both individually and as a non rigid unit.

This principle, when applied to a bi-lobed comet like 67-P Churyumov-Geramisenko means that a partial collapse of the neck which allows mutual gravity to pull them closer together could not result in a faster rotation keeping the same configuration in the rotating reference frame.

 However, if the lobes rocked at the neck with a slight precession, the same configuration could be kept and the rotation restabilised with less precession if the neck lengthened and the friction caused a slower mutual rotation in the same configuration in the rotating reference frame.

This is exactly the same principle that couple skaters use to stabilise the rotation when doing death defying spins with the female skater's head just inches above the ice. A gradual lengthening of the arm under tension dampens any wobble in the spin allowing complete and graceful control of the spin.

Anuket Boulder move timing and Cause identified

The 67P C-P change concerned is documented by the ESA here http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/58915-comet-changes-new-fracture-and-boulder-movement-in-anuket/

Published in March 2017 Copyright ESA website.

The Boulder movement concerned was, however, first documented in this blog here http://marcoparigi.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/anuket-near-crack-changes.html?m=1

This resulted in a lively discussion on the Rosetta Blog regarding the veracity of the observed change, and a detailed photographic demonstration of the move in another blog here

https://scute1133site.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/part-55-marco-parigis-moving-boulder-close-analysis-proves-hes-right/

With newly released OSIRIS images released for July and August 2015, detailed analysis shows that an Imhotep style slump occurred centred near the Anuket crack, expanding in a roughly circular direction, and was roughly 5 m deep. Through July, the expanding slump is shown to have reached the Western most boulder, but not as far as the other two boulders of the visible triad. Images get blurrier as Rosetta needed to move further away as perihelion progressed into August 2015. However, the moving ridge front of the circular arc makes a distinct shadow, and the late July 2015 images show the slump to have moved past the boulder, toppling it down the 5m slump and causing it to slide or roll a further 15m or so in a Westerly direction relative to nearby fiduciary points.

The resultant slump is visible in the post perihelion pictures here, http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/23/ESA_Rosetta_CometChanges_FractureBoulder.jpg