Ice Age Model, for the modirator

first i would like to say i didn't know people had to be 100 % correct to speak on this forum, secondly why would i be banned for stating the ice age had begun?

i only wanted to show the facts of my research.

you see these are not just words, they have meaning, and are related.

the question asked does science predict the next ice age.
all i had said was yes imagine it already happened, and its cause is a tilt in earth axis.

did you even let me post the data before i was banned? no.

if it don't fit with your model, then should i agree that all other models be incorrect, and have no validity?

just give me some time and i will prove this to be a fact, or at least you can give a better reason for your beliefs.

even if history will not tell us of the date, i have it as close as possible to the start of the age, and i have the cause, all can be backed up by facts.

my claim was yes the ice age started in 2010, and i was banned because i said so..

ask a question and i will provide you with all the data you will need to form your own
understanding. by the time i am done some will agree, and some wont. still not a reason to be banned. Are you in defense of some other model? if yes what model to you hold as true and why?

This post has been edited by Rubberball on Oct 19 2011, 05:41 PM

Are you walking on thin ice?

it was my first couple posts i made when i joined, and i was banned for saying things as facts. should i then add a question to all my posts ?

mabey this be thin ice, but i would rather talk it out then be banned again.

So were you warned rather than banned or was there a ban as well as a warning?

I was banned off the Physics Forum without warning so they seem rather reasonable here, at least giving you a chance.

A ban is like getting a death sentence. Not a nice feeling so live within the rules. Maybe I should read them again as well.

no i had no warning. anyway let me start with a simple experiment.

if i was the only one on a sea-saw the other side would be up, and i down because of the weight.

that means nothing you may say, ok then.

if i have hot air in my house and open the door and its cold outside all the warm air will flow out the door, but the higher up to the top, more air will be rushing out.
that still not a good experiment to prove anything other then the flow of air in a system.

try to see this for what i show. a carpenters level. it has a bubble of air in the center. it is used to show what sided is up, and what side is down. the air bubble in the center shows equilibrium.

how can i use this in my model that this is so in the case of our planet?

let earths axis be the level plane, and if i stretched my level from north to south pole the bubble is in perfect equilibrium.. This be the implication, the earth has an up and down, because so does the universe. already been proven by others.
obviously we are not in perfect equilibrium when it comes to cold air finding its place among the cold air in our planet system.
We may then state the planet is not in perfect balance, and the bubble resides over the southern pole, rather then the equator. Do you agree?


i will add to this, but if you see were i am going then ask a question, ponder the thought..

how will that bubble then in fact shift from equilibrium? Not as hard as you may make it, but by a change in earth axial position would cause the bubble to shift.. do you agree?

we have a northern hemisphere, and a southern.
if the coldest hemisphere be the southern, and im sure you can agree that it is, because of Antarctica having a lower temperature then the north pole.

now i wish to cause all the cold air in the south to flow to the north. How can that be?
A move in axis will prove a shift in bubble, and therefore equilibrium is now in the process of shift, and change. the start of the age.

Norther side now in a process of cold air shift that will eventually find its equilibrium with the coldest air once again above the northern pole.


please comment. ty

This post has been edited by Rubberball on Oct 19 2011, 07:48 PM

You could be right as I'm not strong the weather issues. I know in NZ we shudder when we get winds direct from the Antarctica.

Sorry, no. Total fail.

Your basic assumptions are wrong. Therefore, everything derived from them are wrong.

well thank you for your grade. I was not looking for approval or publication.

certainly i was not addressing any one who claimed to be the all knowing dark wizard of theoretical science. this is simple Earth science, and a new model has already been provided.

im not here to convince you, just making an attempt at the solution.


It is this simple balance that i wish describe.

Please in the future don't grade me on my statements. Then certainly don't leave without any claim as to which model of ice age cycles you have even considered., why post if you have nothing to back up your failing grade with something you.
I don't know who, or what you tend to embrace.

This post has been edited by Rubberball on Oct 20 2011, 01:30 AM

thanks for your reply, now i will make more of an attempt to show you this on your screen.


what i had stated was there is a bubble that is under pressure at one of the earths poles at any time. there will be, always one pressure that is greater. That because of temperature.

Do you agree? yes no ok..

let me try again. if the bubble on my level be in perfect equilibrium then if the earth had also been in perfect equilibrium the bubble would be at the equator.

do you agree? yes no why..

I do have more in the fact of data, and experimentation that will back up what i have said, again im not saying this as fact, but i have considered this model because of what it teaches us..

First it must be established in any working model that it be simple. what I wish to describe is well understood. I keep open mind. only the bubble is what i want to shew first. If you have something that you want to add fine, lets see what it teaches us.

There was once a great glacier in the northern hemisphere, and this may explain much in the future..





This post has been edited by Rubberball on Oct 20 2011, 01:28 AM

I don't give a sh1t what you're looking for, if you post it here, it gets critiqued. And what you've posted is nonsense.

Ice age cycles is what he wants to bounce around.

Oh thank you sir, if you wish to do a critique, then do one. Dont just shout.

There is nothing i have here that is not science. everything is like i said.
Im only trying to show how a carpenters level works, and how it should be applied.

let me show you how the level works. I know most people would understand.

The astronomy aspect is very simple also, so a simple model and a simple description, with experiments that were performed. I have not posted this yet, because i have to slow feed it to you, so you only look at this simple function. I assure you a level will work in the manner stated. it does.

Should the ball, bubble fall to either side of the equator, then you will agree that air works in a system, by the same manner. By finding equilibrium. Again very simple fluid mechanics, and earth science.

one more time i don't know what you embrace as fact or fiction, and that's fine by me whatever doctrine you hold so dear.
how about showing us?

I am building upon a ice age model. This has nothing to do with global warming, so don't think i dispute Al gore .. I really don't care what he said about co2.

I have no intention of repeating what he had said.

Speaking of hot air, this is another aspect I will address later.

would you agree that volcanic emissions have been linked to ice age?

yes no maybe...

People even say a meteor impact was the cause. A time frame can not be put on that type of impact. Even if it could be linked to a cause for global warming.

try answering one of the questions rather then a smear campaign. people like that have been called cranks. I can prove it look up the definition.

The only facts i added was an analogy of the simple function of a lever.
trying to show its function may bring a solution.

This post has been edited by Rubberball on Oct 20 2011, 04:25 AM

I sense you are taking this badly Rubberball. I get picked on too but i have totally gotten used to it and enjoy the banter. But when I read your writing it was like when I first started and the whole lot were picking on me (On TradeMe not here ) I became stressed as well. I would say slow down and think it through before you challenge the people here for they know their stuff and show no mercy.

well thanks again, but who is challenging any one? Have i made a challenge?


the only ice age model i am trying to formulate is the idea of the cold air mass position, and its equilibrium at this point in time.

The proper way to dispute is not on me. don't you agree?

I only see one model being formed, and the basic idea of that model.
Its a fact that none could deny if a shift in equilibrium was to occur in a level, were the bubble shifts to either end. Up, down, or center bubble. Have i misstated its use, or its function? I am sure that this is the correct way to read a level.

This analogy still stands correct. I have to establish the basic fact i am presenting, not disputing..

should I then totally ignore the cranks? not stooping to there level? They have a doctrine, but fail to show what doctrine they hold. the burden of dispute is on them not me. Heck he doesn't even know the operation of a level, or how to use one.

I have not disputed any model, and so the only model presented is this one. I haven't had a chance to form, because i want to be civilized, and get some questions that should be answered first.

The cranks that have a doctrine to embrace is not my concern unless it is presented in there argument? why he is arguing with my writing i don't know why.

im not an English major as you can see, but i can form reasonable statements fairly well.

This post has been edited by Rubberball on Oct 20 2011, 06:05 AM