Structure of a Rapidly
Formed Weather Pattern
The structure shown in Chart #64A (see below) was "hastily"
put together by the atmosphere in the Northern Hemisphere, because it certainly
wasn't present the day before. This chart is a further explanation of the
7th of December 1950, the day chosen for detailed analysis in my book.
Click on Chart for high resolution
Great Circle Distances between Vortexes on
Calculated from Latitude & Longitude Values listed
on Page 100 of SINGER'S LOCK: The Revolution in the Understanding
Chart # #76-#82
N. Miles 1777.50
From the Bible of Weather Forecasting,
This is the first time this structure has been recognized and interpreted.
The centers of the eight highs and lows of this moving formation are clearly
defined. We have a reliable example. They are identified by a number near
their center. Lines are drawn to join these vortexes. Let's start with
the easy pickings first. The great circle distance between #76 and #82
is 1777.50 nautical miles (n.m.); between #82 (in southeastern Utah) and
#86 is 1777.5 miles; and between #86 and #58 is 1788.75 miles. So far,
so good—in fact quite remarkable that the distances between the three highs
and one low are practically identical. Except for one flaw, the distance
between #58 and #76 is 1698.75 miles. So we don't have a "purrfect"
square. (We should not forget that this is an almost perfect spherical
square on the earth's surface. See Chapter 3 for the meaning of a straight
line on a polar stereographic map.) But wait, we are not at the end of
this story. There is another attached square-like formation formed by #86,
#66, #37, and #58. This group is close to being a square with sides of
1822.5, 1833.75, 1878.75, and a wild one at 2013.75. Not a bad combination,
since this second "square" exists next to the first "square"--what
we see becomes a little more impressive.
Especially when we can see that two of the legs of this second square-like
formation are slightly more than 16 ru, as compared with the legs of the
first square, with slightly less than 16 ru. Are these two squarish configurations
oscillating back and forth between each other as complete units across
16 ru? If you recall from 41.0.0, that a structure is stable only-when
the distances between its parts can be expressed in whole number ru, not
fractional ru. This point is, nevertheless, only a side issue in this particular
Let us turn to the quadruplet formation of #58, #86, #72, and #60. We
note that the center of low #72 is occupying a relatively similar position
inside its square as compared to the center of low 60 in its square. Hmm....
A line drawn from #72 to #60 crosses at a perfect 90° to a line drawn
from #68 to #86. An extra surprise is the distance of 1833.75 miles between
#72 and #60.
The leg from #76 to #58 is shorter than the other members of its square,
while the leg from #58 to #37 (in Finland) is longer than the members of
its square. These slightly distorted squares are disconcerting to any sense
of architectural neatness and balance. There is some consolation that the
short leg is connected to the long leg in almost a straight line. It almost
seems as if these two legs were working together, what one lost, the other
gained. That is interesting, but it still leaves us hanging with an unanswered
Low #76 (in Gulf of Alaska) and low #60 (slightly east of Greenland)
are the most energetic of the gang of eight vortexes. The center of low
#16 moved 60-100 miles by the next day. (This small move was hard to show
on the map, so it was not entered.) The center of low #60, however, moved
in the next 24 hours to the tip of the arrow (east of Iceland). Low #60
was the wild one. It was like a gorilla in a paper bag. Or like a bobcat
in a purse. To start with, it was huge at the time of the map. #60 hogged
the entire second square. and pressed against high #58 preventing that
high from reaching equilibrium with #76. The resulting gap was a below
normal 1698.75 miles at map time. Vortex #37 was already fleeing from #60
at the time of this map. Low #60 was in the process of helping to breakup
that old gang of digital eight at the time of this map! Now we can understand
(with low #37 taking off like a scared rabbit) why the leg from #58 to
#37 was oversize and the leg from #66 to #37 was shortened.
The subtle differences in the lengths of the legs of the pattern in
Chart #64A gives insight into the precise nature of vortex movement.
All rights Reserved
Copyright © 1997 by Singer Press