Ah. I am still waiting to see if they ever define and manipulate gravitons in my lifetime. Many sci fi authors have used them, Bill Baldwin in his "Helmsman series built a whole universe around the use of "graviton generators" to power starships, so they had to land and take off from water. I was amazed to find out they actually are a proven particle.

Yes.
But understand this, gravity is just an attractive force, we can measure it but we don't know what it is exactly but electromagnetism, and resonant fields are attractive forces also and seem to be much stronger over vast distances also. So I expect our understanding of gravity to change and it's importance and it's role in the cosmos will likely change too.

I would think gravity is the prime energy source for motion and change of direction, are you getting this from The Thunderbolts Project?

I am thinking more about electromagnetic fields instead of gravity. We are too far away from everything for gravity to be a factor. The sun's resonance is what determines our place in the solar system so might the same effect have something to do with our placement and orbital path around the galaxy?
Even if I could build a physical model, it wouldn't explain all the forces involved but I could demonstrate why our orbit around the sun changes as we move up and down the galactic plain.

I have seen a lot of people who have made their own theories about both the solar cycle, local star cycles and the galactic cycle, in detail and in general. The up and down past the Galactic plane seems pretty simple, and someone one said they postulated that the plane itself causes big issues because the gravitational pull from it is at a right angle to the movement at that period, whereas when you go above and below it is minimized because a lot of it is converted into angular momentum, causing it to oscillate in the first place.

Exactly my point, the orbit changes due to a change in direction.
Of course there are many unknown factors and forces involved in order to produce a model that would accurately represent our exact path and what is causing our orbital path to change but it's the only thing that makes a bit of sense to me.

The problem is we haven't been around long enough to observe and measure the entire cycle although we could probably make some pretty good guesses.
Just wish I had the where with all and time to build a model to demonstrate what might be happening.

For your ping-ball example, remember inertia
which keeps a body in motion when not being
forced. Use the old Einstein train thought experiment. On the train the moving ball on the string will not change orbit as the man moves with the train. Both the man and the ball have a constant a velocity due to inertia in the direction of the trains motion. The orbit in this case is due to the force applied to the string but does is not affected by the motion of the man in the direction of the train's constant velocity and the balls motion normal to the orbit in the train's direction. Your orbit changes due to a change in the direction of the force on the string.

Exactly...

All of this adds up to an ever changing constant, complex machine that has inputs from so many sources, any one of which can tip the scales. Which takes us back to the premise, that current models cannot accurately reflect the future, because they are missing many of these inputs and science does not understand all of them anyways.

Being far below sea level for tens of thousands of years would make it possible for humans to build where water covers the land today. Plenty of time for building on the coastal shelfs. Humans were not stupid, just maybe a lack of long term data about the Earth's history. There is no physical knowledge without discovery.
Also, during the ice ages, there were large areas of uncovered tundra where the large animals grazed.

I should have mentioned that that rise would be as though the present land were bounded by walls to keep the water stacked to that depth, but it would over flow covering the land and thus be somewhat lower sea level.
Remember that during the last ice age, the sea level was over 300 feet less than today.

Well, Irshultis, visualize the sun traveling 433K miles an hour (I've heard other figures but will stick to this one), all the planets in tow and the sun dives below and then above the galactic plain.. the closer planets could not maintain a stable orbit, it would take a bit of catching up to re-establish that resonant/electromagnetic orbital distance. (this is just my guess as to how this occurs-but the fact is, it does occur. Right now the difference between winter and summer is about 4 million kilometers, 47/51...looking back thru the years you will see this figure change and this orbital change is a cycle of 90K years.
Try this yourself with an elastic string (ping pong ball) on a ball with the string in hand start the ball orbiting your hand. Now move your hand forward and gradually up and down an imagined plain and you can watch the balls orbit change.

As far as our weighted axis...do you not think the addition of the great lakes after the glacial melt or the gigantic Chinese reservoirs...maybe even some tectonic shifting just might cause a axis change?
I have also read articles that have found evidence of ground water migration which would be the result and cause of our tilt...so to speak.

The so called tilt is only in respect to some angular parameters in relation to the sun. I have yet to find that we Ever rotated on the so called geographical perfect north and south poles...even our geographically perfect equator is never in the same spot as we orbit the sun.

Excellent argument. Great math. The issue also assumes though, that the available volume of storage is the same today as then, and we do not know if maybe there have been planetary uplifts that have changed the storage area for available water. Drop the seabed a few hundred feet here and there, and it could make a difference in relative height. Remember, there was once land bridges between England and France (The Dogger Bank), there are ruins under 100 feet of water off Okinawa, there was a land bridge across the Bering straight. Maybe lower ocean levels because of earth crustal movements, or less water (being tied up in ice), but if tied up in ice, then the land bridge across both England and the Berings would be horribly treacherous to cross, and there are ruins on the Dogger Bank that show villages and settlements, so it could not have been iced over. Same thing in the Black Sea, there are underwater villages. Until someone can make all that stuff mesh in a single setup, I can't buy the "well 50k years ago this or that happened" from the climate change crowd. I agree your math sounds viable, but are there other factors we do not have?

Sorry I interpreted your "...likely at the same time." as indicating the medieval warm period.
However, the oceans would rise more than two hundred feet if the antarctic 6.4 million cubic miles of ice above sea level were to melt.
6.4x10^6 cubic miles = 6.4x10^6 sq miles one mile thick of above sea level ice.
The oceans have an area of 139.7x10^6 sq miles.
So (6.4x10^6 cubic miles) / (139.7x10^6 sq miles) =
0.045812 of a mile.
(5280 feet per mile) x (0.045812 mile) = 241.88736 feet or so but somewhat less due to the lesser volume of water due to the density difference between ice and water.
How can a wobbling planet due to changing center of mass move out of the ecliptic plane? Even the other planets in the ecliptic plane cannot gravitationally move the Earth out of the plane. Pluto's orbit does not lie in the ecliptic plane due to being an object from the Kuiper belt and not formed from the original disk of matter around the Sun..

Nice addition, Nick

No offense Dino, just a play on you nome de guerre...

Yes, several maps in fact:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/artifa...

http://www.ancientdestructions.com/or...

and the famous Peri Reis map:
http://www.ancientdestructions.com/pi...

So, how did all these map people know what was there? Especially since the last time it was Ice Free by science, was a few million years ago, and had Dinos family and friends waltzing around it.....

The south pole was Ice and Snow free at one point. there are ancient maps showing the continent...you can go to youtube or yahoo it.
My guess is that we were in a much closer orbit to our sun. A 90K year cycle from almost circular to and elips...which is where we are now.

Two other things to consider is the earths weight distribution, (weighted axis) or a more lopsided orbit bringing the earth to a much higher orbit relative to the sun. Our orbit is Not on a level plain and goes through many changes during our orbital cycle which I propose is a direct result of our sun and solar system traveling above then below the galactic plain.

I read a recent article that explained mathematically there would be only a minor rise in sea level but certainly not the kind of rise al gorsky lies about.
Besides, who says it "Wasn't" always ice and snow free...meaning without glaciers or surrounded by frozen sea ice during summer months.

Science has to realize that the earth was not always the same as we witness today or even during our recorded history which is a geological short period of time.

But not ice free, perhaps you mean less snowing. If ice free, there would be evidence for very large sea level rise during that time period.

Yes, the Norse had several large colonies there that had to go because of the temperatures dropping. The Libertards want everything to be the same, or it is freak out time, being they are unable to adjust to anything, like uncomfortable truth, or warmer weather.

Oh jecess! Don't let the left hear that one...especially in california...they'll be handing out more fines to people that don't drink their soda's quick enough!!!

Correct a mongo, (a saying I picked up in california), Likely during the same time the south pole was snow free also.

Yes, CO2 is not a cause of warming, but believed to be one of the side effects after warming has occurred.

I read an article once in the newspaper that Green-
land got its name because it was once not so cold there.

I thought that carbon dioxide was supposed to be the result of climate change.