Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Contests Home


Previous Contests

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Alan Lowey: on 5/12/12 at 9:12am UTC, wrote What greater appreciation of Archimedes and the idea of a mechanical...

Alan Lowey: on 4/28/12 at 10:48am UTC, wrote I just watched the BBC2 Horizon programme on solar storms and it's...

Alan Lowey: on 4/18/12 at 13:51pm UTC, wrote Himalayan glaciers growing despite global warming. [quote]Despite talk of...

Alan Lowey: on 3/30/12 at 11:27am UTC, wrote My latest thoughts: The mechanism of the millenial cycle might be the 'fog...

Alan Lowey: on 3/27/12 at 9:30am UTC, wrote Moon's Creation Questioned by Chemistry. This latest study fits with the...

Alan Lowey: on 3/5/12 at 12:05pm UTC, wrote Scandinavian trees 'survived last Ice Age'. The conditions of the Arctic...

Alan Lowey: on 3/3/12 at 10:53am UTC, wrote Helical-shaped radio waves are a step closer to the real world geometry of...

Alan Lowey: on 2/24/12 at 10:51am UTC, wrote Horizon, BBC4 8pm, Thursday 23 Feb 2012. Q: Why Can't We make A Star On...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Peter Jackson: "Steve, I think you've precisely identified why physics is stuck in this..." in Why Quantum?

Peter Jackson: "John, "it does involve a process of trial and error and in order to do..." in Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics

Peter Jackson: "Akinbo, Tricky stuff electrikery. Hope they send more. Your descriptions..." in Faster than Light

Eckard Blumschein: "Tom, An acoustic fovea provides hugely increased acuity. Let's check what..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Steve Agnew: "Ahh, so you do not believe that the clock in the moving galaxy slows. I..." in Why Quantum?

Georgina Parry: "Peter, All, it does matter what order events occur for an observed object,..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

Thomas Ray: ""I would ask you a similar question; How many of the scientists and..." in Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics

Thomas Ray: ""I didn't mean it temporally but logically: If one frame has been chosen..." in Ripping Apart Einstein


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?


FQXi FORUM
September 19, 2014

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Is Reality Digital or Analog? [back]
TOPIC: Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 09:55 GMT
Essay Abstract

An analysis based on the imagery of the creation of structure from the starting point of a void. A visual representation of spinning threads of energy which emerge and then grow into ‘spinning threads of spinning threads’. Two opposing mirror matter structures conserving laws of conservation of energy and momentum is envisaged. These analog structural energy trees then break free and traverse a wraparound universe to collide on the opposite side of a hypersphere. The Big Bang irregularities are thought to be due to a slight non-spherical aspect of this hypersphere, meaning the two trees don’t meet 100% head-on. The high energy collision breaks the spinning threads into discrete digital components. Some of the resultant forms are of long-lasting donut helices which are our familiar protons and neutrons.

Author Bio

I have a background in simulation modelling from a childhood filled with physics thinking. A lateral thinker with a natural inclination to challenge the accepted paradigm. I'm currently residing on on-line science forums and available for paid consultancy work.

Download Essay PDF File




Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 16:40 GMT
Apologies as I've just realised two hyperlinks have failed to convert properly from word to pdf. Please cut and paste the URL address to view the intended diagrams if need be. My aplogies again.




Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 10:32 GMT
I'm having trouble explaining the simple idea of an Archimedes screw representing a graviton. Here's an example of a dialogue with another author:

Thanks James, I appreciate your well founded comments. I know my essay is lacking in many areas, so I'm not offended by the lack of interest. It's the shear simplicity of what I'm saying which needs to be understood by simply playing with a wood screw or a cork screw. Tactileness is essential in understanding my point, rather than cerebral thinking. It's the structure of the helix which allows a force of attaction to be applied. How can a force carrying particle which moves away from fundamental partcile A and interacts with fundamental particle B be anything other than a helix configuration? It's the visualisation of the interaction at the smallest scale which can be modelled by the helical screw. Newton missed a trick imo. Einstein would never have thought of the spacetime contiuum if Newton had clicked w.r.t the graviton particle being an Archimedes screw analogy! Agghhhh..




Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 01:56 GMT
Dear Alan ,

I thought I would take a look at your essay. There literally is a screw loose in this competition because it keeps on popping up on the various threads all over the place. I notice some people have given you positive feedback on their threads which must be encouraging for you.I find it a little frustrating that you want people to discuss your ideas but do not seem prepared to look at and consider theirs.

This is obviously something that you have a burning desire to share and have considered by other people. Apparent lack of interest is something that I have become accustomed to as a regular contributor on the FQXi blog threads.I would not be too concerned about it. Everyone has their own pet ideas and concerns. I have however been delighted to have found people that I have never spoken to before who have regularly read what I have written and have only now introduced themselves and been most complimentary in their remarks. There are perhaps more people who have read your ideas than have wished to leave a comment.

Your essay is short, which was a surprise to me. I anticipated something longer and was actually quite relieved that I did not have to read something extremely difficult,long and complex. One of the shortest I would say having read quite a number of other essays now. It does not strike me as particularly foundational or an answer to the competition question either.If you think that is an unjustified observation perhaps you could explain. I am quite tired at the moment because I have been working through a lot of the essays much later into the night than I should.If I have time I will return to your thread before community evaluation closes and see if I can say something more constructive, positive and helpful.

Kind regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 11:29 GMT
Thanks Georgina, your comments are most appreciated. I've taken what you've said onboard.

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 11:22 GMT
There's another angle w.r.t Newton's assumption that the whole planet is composed of the same material that is found on the external crust. It has implications for the Cavendish experiment, which is technically invalid imo due to this assumption. A non-standard core of the planets and sun can explain the ice age cycle via introducing the concept of inclination earth-tides, which would increase the strength of the ocean currents, a crucial factor in dtermining the onset of glaciation. The up and down movement of the Earth, it's inclination cycle, is a much better fit than Milankovitch cycles of eccentricity. See here Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity.

"Thanks Hector! You're the third person to appreciate the connection. If Newton had hit on this idea we would never have had Einstein's spacetime continuum imo. It leads on to the idea explaining the 100,000 year ice age problems which are encountered with Milankovitch cycles. Nevermind.."

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 12:36 GMT
Rather surprisingly, this new hypothesis of our climate would even allow for the sun to be hotter during an ice age! It would account for the megafauna which is evidenced by their numerous fossils which would be due to an abundance of megaflora, w.r.t more sunlight. There's even evidence that tropical monkeys were also of mega proportions when compared with their modern counterparts:

There's a cave in Brazil where remains of a much larger than normal species of monkey were found. How did they grow so big? Were the trees twice as big, with twice size fruit? That's the only possible scenario isn't it?? Webpage title: Discoveries Under Brazil.

"The skull of Caipora bambuiorum, one of the two complete primate skeletons recovered from Toca da Boa Vista. It closely resembles the living spider monkey, but is more than twice the size, suggesting that South American monkeys participated fully in the mega-faunal phenomenon of the last Ice Age.

Frontal view of the crania of Protopithecus (left) and Caipora (right), both from Toca da Boa Vista. They resemble living South American monkeys that inhabit the top levels of the tropical forest canopy, but they were significantly larger than any living species. Further exploration of Toca da Boa Vista hopefully will yield more primate species that also were quite large compared to modern monkeys."

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 12:51 GMT
Here's another webpage which mentions the large skeleton finds:

TOCA DA BOA VISTA, Bahia state, the longest known cave in the Southern Hemisphere

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 10:20 GMT
I've just had a thought:

Is it -less- tidal strength which decreases the ocean currents and therefore less heat is transported from the equator to the poles? This is an even simpler explanation of why the Earth has been entering an ice age every 100,000 years!

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 11:27 GMT
Note to self:

Anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum worldview imo.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 13:17 GMT
Here's another important point worth highlighting:

"Hi Solomon, I liked the basic message which you convey in your essay. I have a suggestion of how to visualise the 'ultimate' reality of nature, an Archimdes screw models the GRAVITON perfectly if you think about it enough. If this helical screw graviton then travelled around a wraparound universe it would emerge on the otherside as an ANTI-GRAVITON or in other words, DARK ENERGY. It's too good to be ignored for any longer imo. Kind regards,

Alan"

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 04:27 GMT
Hi:

I glossed over your essay necessariy as you commented on my entry as the first person. It really is short, sir. it seems very promising and a good read, but after every paragraph i wanted more. anyway doesn't seem fair to the rest of us shlubs (lol) who at least doubled the amount of essay content.

Now let my be like the newer coinage of the Name of Hipocrates, and say we are all doomed anyway. Julian Barbour has entered also. Remeber he won the first contest hand down. I loved that essay and still have it in my car. He is a world-Famous Philosopher also and I can't wait to read his entry. And absolutely hate loving it a priori now.

But, sir, we get to conversate here with Julian Barbour--squeal!--who cares? That alone is worth 5 pages of anything worthy to compete in this arena of an emergent property.

I'll bet you your community rating that His essay is 5+ pages of mostly essential content.

thanx again...

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 11:29 GMT
I prefer to call my essay succinct and to the point. The rules and outlines clearly express an overall desire for new concepts in foundational physics. I done just that and given at least two BIG new ideas. I know I rushed the actual presentation and the writing is of a minimal length to say just what I wanted to say. I'm going for the additional prize for enterprising new ideas rather than one of the big ones.

Thanks for the info on Julian Barbour, I'll take a look and see if he has anthing new to offer. Best of luck Tommy. Alan

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 23:16 GMT
Alan,

Interesting read. Did you get any material ideas from Jean-Pierre Luminet, The Wraparound Universe?

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 10:05 GMT
I recommend Luminet's book, although I only really enjoyed the first few chapters or so. He continues with his own take on reality which wasn't something that took my interest unfortunately. The basic principle of a wraparound universe and having a mental image of how it can simplify the 'infinity paradox' is of paramount importance imo. I'd just like to re-iterate my point about a spinning helix which travels around a hypersphere being analogous to an electric circuit. Imagine you are on the inside of a battery which is connected to a simple loop of wire which makes an electric circuit. Imagine a handle rotates clockwise from the positive terminal as seen from your internal perspective. Now trace this turning handle as it travels along the wire and arrives at the negative terminal of the battery. Which way is the handle now turning from the viewpoint of the battery's interior? Is it clockwise or is it anti-clockwise?

report post as inappropriate


Gary Hansen wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 22:40 GMT
Alan,

Congratulations! Less is more managable, particularly when it comes to complexity and its bearing upon relative uncertainty. I tender a small offering in response to your resignation that "there are only three axes, so presumably there can’t be an even number of right-handed and left-handed structures". Assuming that you are alluding to Euclidean axes, the contrary view, i.e. that there can only be an even number of such structures, would be valid if we were to acknowledge that each axis has every appearance of being two when we view each axis from each end. Such is the structure of any relationship, even though we tend to think of relationships as being singular. A relationship is not merely singular in location and time by straight alignment between two points, it is partitioned as between the interests of the parties. His interests in her cannot be interpreted to be identical to her interests in him, which makes of what we call a single relationship, two! Whether any one axis is analogous to a two-lane highway or to a double helix, one equals two. Ask any moon!

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 12:37 GMT
Thanks for the kind words Gary. Yes, I am assuming Euclidean axes and appreciate your comment about an alternative view. I like the idea of challenging my basic understanding by considering that "each axis has every appearance of being two when we view each axis from each end". This insight is the same as a change of chirality when a helix travels around a loop or circuit. I'm assuming an observer from the point of creation of the 'spinning threads of spinning threads'. I still don't think that "the contrary view, i.e. that there can only be an even number of such structures" is valid though, even when taking into account of your relationship/relativity comment. You also still didn't answer my thought experiment of an observer on the inside of a battery in a circuit. Has it changed chirality or not??

Kind regards, Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 12:56 GMT
Alfonso has kindly given me some encouragement with my new insight which I believe has been omitted from general relativity:

Hi Alfonso, thanks for thinking about the thought experiment. It -is- the same whether going backwards or forwards. It doesn't matter which direction or which terminal you start from either of course. Thank you for this clarification and the following statement: "What would be interesting is to put your mental experimental going backwards. If there's no distintion between forwards and backwards, then you'd have found a symmetry. Although this is only a thought experiment and there's no math involved, which I deem relevant to be able to ennunciate a good hypothesis, finding a symmetry could imply the existence of anti-gravity, something that yet has to be accounted by general relativity."

I have therefore found a symmetry and have a hypothesis for anti-gravity i.e. dark energy. Do you see the connection with a graviton which is an attractive force when radiated away from an object to the right in one instance, but if it manages to travel around the hypersphere without interacting with another structure, then emerges on the opposite side, i.e. approaching from the left, it is now a force of repulsion, relative to the initial object?

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 13:04 GMT
My latest thoughts:

Fundamental is the wrong word when considering particles in QM. Longevity is the definition of a particle, whereby it's rate of radiation is closer to it's rate of absorption than most. The dynamics of interlinked chiral structures means that the output of one is immediately absorbed by the intake of another. It's this characteristic which means larger structures can be more significant than smaller ones, despite the latter being more fundamental.

report post as inappropriate


Russell Jurgensen wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 08:24 GMT
Dear Alan,

Yes, you have marvelously dropped a loose screw into the contest with your essay. It gives me a chuckle, but it also really makes me think about the logic of a smallest mechanical device. As you mentioned in a post on my essay (which I really appreciate) some of the same issues of a smallest device apply to strings, etc. While the substance of smallest devices may be undefined, I am interested in more definition of what makes them move.

While you have put a burr under our seat that I can't quite figure out, I get the sense you are driving at something important. In a post above you say, "Note to self: Anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum worldview imo." This really interested me because my essay tries to break out of the spacetime mold, but still uses mass. I realize that taking mass out of my equations leaves a system of accelerations and velocities that appear to work all the way through. You may be right. It doesn't completely answer the questions I have but may be a step in the right direction.

I thank you for dropping that screw for whatever reason even if you just like to hear things rattle.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 12:36 GMT
Dear Russell,

Thank you very much for your latest post, it's exactly the kind of thing I was expecting and wanting to hear. I like the phrase "smallest mechanical device" which gives the idea some rigitity. It does have a comical aspect to it, especially since it's so easy to understand to the layman, and would perhaps put a bit of 'egg on the face' of the professional mainstream scientific community. It's certainly been overlooked imo.

As to the definition of what makes them move I put down to the force of creation. I have a mental image of a hypersphere which has a lot of 'thriving energy' on the outside but a complete void or bubble of nothingness on the inside. One can imagine that this hypersphere or bubble spontaneously appeared and grew due to the non-perfect dynamics of the outer thriving energy. Energy from the ouside then penetrated the inside in a fountain of spin. This spurting spin energy then appears to 'us' as having structure, but perhaps is an illusion simply due it's spin energy, or it's spin momentum. The 'it' may not be anything that we understand as a substance, but may just evaporate or vanish with radiation for example. Once it's spin energy has dwindled via radiation, then perhaps the phenomenon simply ceases to exist and a void is left in it's place?

You're almost there in understanding the complete meaning of the phrase "Anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum worldview imo". It's a very important point I'm making, yes. It's to do with the philosophy of worshipping a mathematical formula as sacrosanct. In Star Trek we are constantly reminded that "You cannot change the laws of physics", but this is a misconception from the 1900's. Newton's lack of a mechanism to explain the force of gravity left his equation as an approximation of reality. The equation itself denotes that all substances attract one another equally in all directions. This has just been assumed though, and appears to work well on the scale of planets but doesn't work well at the scale of particle physics. Think about it a bit more. A helical particle has orientation. This defies his equation. I have to go quickly, cheers for now. Alan

report post as inappropriate


Russell Jurgensen wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear Alan,

Interesting! Now that you have asked us to look at your essay and re-introduced concept as a commentary and a possible reality, it seems like it would be up to you to show how it translates to equations with units that ultimately describe things measured in physics. It seems like a great way to get people to think and we want that specific logical detail to back it up.

Your screw and mass comment have helped me to look at my own ideas so I am happy you gave me a poke!

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 10:06 GMT
Dear Russell,

I'm glad you have gained something from my ideas. They are perhaps more than you yet appreciate w.r.t finding a mishap in the evolution of manistream scientific dogma.

I have studied simulation modelling at masters degree level and now have a mentality which reflects the expetise of my Brunel Unversity professor. I don't feel the need to translate my pictorial dynamics into equations with SI units at all. What I want to do is find someone good enough to express the ideas from the very start of creation. A simulation model of reality from start to finish is my ultimate goal. The details come later imo.

Best wishes, Alan

report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 18:44 GMT
Dear Alan,

I'll keep pondering your comments and I look forward to hearing about your developments.

How would you classify your thoughts in the spectrum between philosophy and physics? I understand pure physics as something that can be tested and measured, but it does seem physics could be appropriately influenced by philosophy. History shows plenty of inappropriate influence and maybe that is why physics resists external philosophy. Some people (I can't remember the reference) think this puts a straight-jacket on physics. I see you trying to break out of that straight-jacket. So I'm curious how you attempt to resolve a philosophically leaning idea to translate it to predictable tests in physics. Perhaps that is not the goal. Or does one have to say at some point that no testing can be done beyond here?

By the way, thanks for commenting again on my essay with a link to the LHC observations.

Kind Regards, Russell

report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 18:52 GMT
PS. (Oops) By "beyond here" I'm asking about a selected point in the theory (not all of physics).

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT
Dear Russell, I've just sent this following development I made just last night to Peter Jackson via email:

I'm still thinking in very abstract terms of helical geometry and I'm quite lost in the technical language of others' papers at present. We have both hit on this fundamental pattern, but I'm also exploring a fractal helical dimension which is proving fruitful. An imaginary helix of a helix gives the second lowest possible mechanical force carrying particle, the gluon. This open ended spinning helix of spinning helices will evaporate, releasing the smaller force carrying particles, the gravitons. A helix of gluons is equivalent to a neutron and vice versa. This proposed spiral structural fractal index (SSFi) gives a new visualisation of quantum mechanics. The proton radiates the electron effect giving electron bonds between hydrogen nuclei. I'll have to scan my notes after lunch and post them in a forum so that I can hyperlink them from my FXQi essay thread. It'lll be easy to explain that way, rather than write from memory.

SSFi (1 to 4)

1. graviton

2. gluon

3. magnetic field

4. electric field

Russell, I really appreciate your comments and admiration for the screw idea. I know you are thinking along the same lines. Best of luck with further developments. Bye for now, Alan.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 13:11 GMT
Here's a link to a forum thread which has some of my hand written notes with diagrams attached Spiral Structural Fractal Index (SSFi) in QM Describes Quantum Particle Interactions imo

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 19:10 GMT
Alan

I can see what you're saying, but can't see how it could be in any way falsifiable or resolves any problems. But I can see it could provide scaled 3 dimensional oscillation, which does have to be addressed at some time. How would the polarisation and charge processes work?

The spiral form in the DFM comes from the blazar (See photographic evidence of Centurus A etc.) and the quandrupolar CMB asymmetry analysis. It's logic is the resolution of the twin opposing jet problem from an essentially symmetrical toroid black hole. A tokamak toroid is effectively a closed ended rotating helix with the fields rotating round the body. (Tokamaks are the nuclear engineering basis of fusion reactor research).

There is talk of micro black holes, which may certainly place the helix in the quantum domain! You certainly deserve a good score for imagination alone.

Does any of that help your model?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 12:25 GMT
Hi Peter,

I can tell that you have a deep and detailed understanding of many technical fields which I'm not familiar with unfortunately. My thinking is still very much in the abstract form. I'm not so keen on the micro black hole idea just yet, but maybe it's a feature which will need addressing at a later date. There's another angle concerning the latest LHC results of 'flocking particle emmissions' which I'm having a dialogue with someone about and how the helical model can help explain it. I'll give the link below. It may be worth reading the comments as the site holder seems very interested and is looking into it all in further detail.

subrealism

"In its first six months of operation, the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva has yet to find the Higgs boson, solve the mystery of dark matter or discover hidden dimensions of spacetime. It has, however, uncovered a tantalizing puzzle, one that scientists will take up again when the collider restarts in February following a holiday break. Last summer physicists noticed that some of the particles created by their proton collisions appeared to be synchronizing their flight paths, like flocks of birds. The findings were so bizarre that “we’ve spent all the time since [then] convincing ourselves that what we were see ing was real,” says Guido Tonelli, a spokesperson for CMS, one of two general-purpose experiments at the LHC.

The effect is subtle. When proton collisions result in the release of more than 110 new particles, the scientists found, the emerging particles seem to fly in the same direction. The high-energy collisions of protons in the LHC may be uncovering “a new deep internal structure of the initial protons,” says Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, winner of a Nobel Prize for his explanation of the action of gluons. Or the particles may have more interconnections than scientists had realized. “At these higher energies [of the LHC], one is taking a snapshot of the proton with higher spatial and time resolution than ever before,” Wilczek says.

When seen with such high resolution, protons, according to a theory developed by Wilczek and his colleagues, consist of a dense medium of gluons—massless particles that act inside the protons and neutrons, controlling the behavior of quarks, the constituents of all protons and neutrons. “It is not implausible,” Wilczek says, “that the gluons in that medium interact and are correlated with one another, and these interactions are passed on to the new particles.”

If confirmed by other LHC physicists, the phenomenon would be a fascinating new finding about one of the most common particles in our universe and one scientists thought they understood well."

Thanks for the comment about the imagination, much appreciated! Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 11:36 GMT
I have just thought of a mental image to describe the proton i.e. hydrogen nuclei. The three quarks, which are in ring donut helical configurations are linked in a chain. The centre quark is neutral, with opposite travelling ring helices within it's donut. The outer two quarks are the same config as each other, with the same directional spinning helices. This gives an overall torque on the three linked quarks, which accelerates the entity into an overall spin. It's a analogous to a catherine wheel spinning, with the centre quark acting as a pivot and the two outer quarks providing the synchronised thrust. Catherine wheel

Some scans of my drawings can be seen here, see post #3; Spiral Structural Fractal Index (SSFi) in QM Describes Quantum Particle Interactions imo

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 11:40 GMT
It's the fast spinning ion which creates the hydrogen bond by giving the emitted gravitons a larger helical form!

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 02:08 GMT
Hello Alan,

I am not totally approving of your essay, though I enjoyed it. However; I need to express my gratitude. Or perhaps, I need to inform you - at least - that I am flattered you have used resources I created, as I'm primary author of the Wikipedia article on Fractal Cosmology. Some of the same material also went into a journal publication in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, as it turns out.

I've thought about the LHC flocking effect myself, though I think it relates to entanglement and decoherence. I think this effect is likely explainable by a fractal spacetime fabric, as well, however. I'm afraid the Archimedes' screw example is a bit of a stretch as that device works 'because' of gravity, so it takes effort to imagine it as the cause. On the other hand, the same is true for the commonly-used example of the deformed sheet.

But thanks for making the effort to participate.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 10:55 GMT
Hello Jonathan,

It's a small world then! I was overjoyed when I found the Fractal Cosmology entry on Wikipedia, I didn't think it would be in there. The moderators of online science forums dismiss this topic out-of-hand, but that's probably just a reflection of their scientific knowledge more than anything.

The mechanical screw is a better fit than a spacetime fabric! QM is all about mechanical particles which interact just like an Archimedes screw does. What better way to combine gravity with the quantum world?! Nevermind, we have a difference of opinion on that one then.

Thank you for your kind comments about my essay and the new ideas. Kind regards, Alan.

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 02:17 GMT
FYI -

We have been talking about Muller's work on Climate change over on the Azimuth forum. I just downloaded the orbital inclination paper you provided. Thanks for that. And thanks also for writing a paper that made me think without making my head hurt.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 10:47 GMT
I'm really excited that you've picked up on their paper. It's just the mechanism which is lacking imo. Please think about how an inclination tide could drastically effect the strength and direction of the ocean currents which are critical in the determination of the onnset of glaciation. It's a good fit if one assumes that the 360 mile wide innermost core of the Earth is both made of a non-standard matter and is rugby ball shaped, as if standing on it's end waiting to be kicked. See here Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation[/url]. I'll take a look at the Azimuth forum when I get the chance. My parents are visiting at the moment so I feel quite busy. Thanks again, Alan

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 02:17 GMT
Hi Alan,

Your "spirals of spirals" ad infinitum sounds similar to Sreenath's logarithmic spiral (Golden spiral?) and similar to my expectations of fractals and scales.

I need to read your essay more thoroughly and comment on the Archimedes screw idea.

Have Fun & Good Luck!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 15:36 GMT
Hi Alan,

Reality is both fractal and discrete. For instance, I think that reality is a(near?) infinite Cantor set with several self-similar scales, but we observe integer numbers of dimensions (3 space + 1 time), not fractal numbers of dimensions. Perhaps fractals and scales combine using properties similar to Lucas Numbers (please see my essay) to form perfect integers.

Regarding Archimedes' Screw, this could be related to String Theory, where gravitational field lines, and the length of the screw, follow strings. The rotation of the screw represents time, and the extremely fine thread of the screw (fine because it must represent the normally weak gravitational force) is a result of scales. If all screws have the same thread pitch and rotation, then all applied forces would be solely attractive or solely repulsive. In the case of gravity, we know that this is strictly attractive.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 21:08 GMT
I wonder how screw thread pitch and rotation is related to CPT symmetry?

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 12:07 GMT
Hi Dr. Cosmic Ray,

I appreciate you reading my essay and thinking about the helical screw idea for a graviton. I need to read your explanations more thoroughly but also agree with the similarity to String Theory. I'm currently modelling the proton-proton bond in a hydrogen molecule, which is trickier than it sounds. I'm currently toying with the mental imagery of fractal helix rings which are twisted into Mobius figure-of-eights. It's proving fruitful and something which I'm pursuing dayly.

Thanks for your comments,

Best wishes, Alan

attachments: Moebius_Surface_1_Display_Small1.png

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 14:04 GMT
I've just encountered the Wikipedia entry for Bose/Einstein condensates which has a section describing vortices and mentions analogue gravity research:

"Vortices in Bose/Einstein condensates are also currently the subject of analogue gravity research, studying the possibility of modeling black holes and their related phenomena in such environments in the lab."

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 18:49 GMT
Alan thanks for responses above. I agree and am predicting toroids are the way ahead with a pretty fundamental range of applications. I note I didn't seem to have rated your essay so expect a boost. Hope you'll rate mine if you haven't yet.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 21:32 GMT
Hi Peter,

I left this for Alan on this blog site on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 14:58 GMT:

Hi Alan,

We may be thinking along parallel lines.

If a Black Hole is static (I'm not sure that it can really exist, but consider the question), then quantum gravity may build a spacetime lattice similar to a Carbon-60 buckyball/ soccer ball/ truncated icosahedron just outside of and surrounding the singularity. This symmetry could potentially be stable against the crushing gravitational (near?) singularity.

If we have a rotating Black Hole, then torsion from the spinning Black Hole may cause a pair of nested Buckyballs to morph into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like torus. This lattice-like torus has some similarities with your Mobius figure.

I was worried about how discrete toroidal lattices could transition into continuously differentiable spacetime, but it may be as simple as Philip Gibbs "qubits of strings" idea. Basically, the lattice point is the end of a string (and the strings expand within the Black Hole as Sreenath's logarithmic spirals), and a large number of lattice points and strings exist (10^41 or more) such that spacetime seemingly blends into a continuum.

Perhaps we are all thinking along parallel lines? I had some other comments that tied into Alan's Archimede's Screw idea as well.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT
Peter:

Thanks for the vote, I need all I can! I've scored your's and appreciate the connection with the toroidal shape of structure at certain scales. It's a fascinating journey that we are all on and the answer to a full t.o.e is within our lifetimes and most likely within a year or two imo.

Cheers, Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 10:45 GMT
Here's an attachment to explain the idea of a graviton travelling around a wraparound universe which would then seem like a force of repulsion. I'm talking to an interested third party in his Subrealsim blog. The second diagram shows my latest thoughts about the structure of the next scale up from helix rings..

attachments: Note2.jpg, Note1.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 14:55 GMT
My latest thoughts:

A bond is due to increased local irregularities in gluon emission streams by protons and to a lesser extent neutrons.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 16:29 GMT
I've just clicked a bit..All the forces can be explained by the Archimedes screw representing the structural analogue graviton. All forces greater than the 'gravity force' are due to local irregularities of structure which exaggerate the asymmetry of the graviton-like structure itself. A graviton should be modelled as vector quantity. All the forces can be explained by the relative flux density of gravitons.

attachments: 1_Note1.jpg, 1_Note2.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT
Hi Alan,

In Chapter 4 of my book (please click on "Preview" under the picture of the cover for a free partial preview), I define a Grand-Unified-Mediating (GUM) Boson that carries properties of the Color, Electromagnetic, Weak, Gravitational, etc. Forces based on occupational probabilities. Of course, the gluon is the most probable GUM boson, so your notes are close to the idea.

Perhaps we have different screws with different thread finenesses (I think that the weaker gravity has a finer thread, and the stronger electromagnetism has a courser thread) and probabilities based on quantum statistical properties.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 12:36 GMT
Hi Ray,

I'd like to applaud you on such an excellent endeavour as your grandiose book. It's just the kind of thing I've wanted to do myself. I have a non-mathematical approach to begin with though, so I would be lost quite quickly if I tried to read it perhaps. I'm sure you can gain something from the Archimedes screw idea, it can explain the galaxy rotation curve mystery as well as dark energy. See the new thread below,

You have fun too Ray,

Best wishes, Alan

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 15:41 GMT
Hi Alan,

Thank You! I think that Physics is a necessarily bilingual thought process involving both language and mathematics. Some people fall too heavily on the language side, and some fall too heavily on the mathematics side. Ultimately, a succesful theory will usually involve mathematics applied to an idea.

Perhaps I am too mathematical (I have a PhD in Physics, but only a BS Minor in Mathematics - so I'm not the most extreme mathematician) to appeal to a general audience. Some of my FQXi friends "beat me up" over falsifiability. Chapter 6 of my book did address some falsifiable ideas (I explained Dark Energy with Variable Coupling Theory), but the truth is that I'm always trying to push further beyond the horizon.

It was easy and inexpensive to publish my book as a print-on-demand book on Lulu.com, and pay for Amazon distribution.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi again Ray,

Yes, I understand what you mean, although simulation modelling is yet another angle to view the discrepancy between maths and language. It's a viable alternative to a mathematical model when solving problems in the business world for example.

The helical screw model gives matter a new fundamental shape and dynamics which the standard model lacks imo. This non-spherical emission of gravitons is in stark contrast to the Newtonian/Einsteinian acceptance that "all things exert a gravitatinal field equally in all directions". This asymmetry of the gravitational field allows for the stars to experience a greater pull towards the galactic plane, due to their rotation giving more order to the inner fluid matter of the stellar core. Both the structure of the emitter and the absorber of the gravity particles is important. It also has implications for hidden matter at the centre of the galaxies..

Thanks for the insider knowledge on getting a book published with the minimum of fuss. Cheers.

KInd regards, Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 12:44 GMT
The idea of the Archimedes screw as a model for the graviton leads to an explanation for the galaxy curve conundrum i.e. the reason why stars are observed to be orbiting faster than expected towards the outer edge of the spiral galaxies. See my notes for further details..

attachments: 2_Note2.jpg, Note3.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 13:25 GMT
On day-by-day thinking about the novel idea of a mechanical Archimedes screw in empty space representing the force of gravity by gravitons, I have deduced an explanation for the galaxy rotation curve anomaly.

The helical screw model gives matter a new fundamental shape and dynamics which the standard model lacks imo. This non-spherical emission of gravitons is in stark contrast to the Newtonian/Einsteinian acceptance that "all things exert a gravitatinal field equally in all directions". This asymmetry of the gravitational field allows for the stars to experience a greater pull towards the galactic plane, due to their rotation giving more order to the inner fluid matter of the stellar core. Both the structure of the emitter and the absorber of the gravity particles is important. It also has implications for hidden matter at the centre of the galaxies..

I've given the idea some more thought and come to the conclusion that the stars furthest from the galactic centre must have a more 'bipolar nature' than the matter of stars of the inner halo presumably. This is the reason they have wandered towards the galactic plane whilst the halo stars have not. The outer stars' configuration means they experience a greater interaction with the flux pattern of the graviton field. Are the stars of the outer arms simply spinning faster?? We are on the outer edge of a spiral arm and so this would fit with this hypothesis. Our sun could have spin which is higher that that of the average halo star. This relationship between spin and distance from the galactic centre is a fundamental feature which ties in with the suggested mechanism of their creation.

All that is needed is an additional factor of stellar spin speed as well as it's mass and distance from the galactic centre. The relationship should then give calculated values which match those of the observed.

attachments: GalaxyRotationCurve.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 10:32 GMT
This same logic can be applied to explain why the moon is receding from the Earth at around 3.4cm/year. Is the moon migrating towards the Earth's equatorial plane? Could the laser deflector technology be used to test this hypothesis I wonder? It would seem feasible to try and detect whether the moon's average elevation is declining, which would help validate the hypothesis.

attachments: Goddard_Spaceflight_Center_Laser_Ranging_Facility.jpg, Apollo.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 14:09 GMT
The new galaxy rotation explanation is perhaps better suited to help explain volcanic Io rather than the moon. The moon is receding from the Earth which suggests a nudge -away- from the Earth's equatorial plane.

attachments: io.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 11:08 GMT
A colleague from an online forum has kindly looked into the new galaxy rotation hypothesis and posted the following. Unfortunately I haven't had time to go through it in detail, but it looks like a reaonable first attempt imo:

Based on the following assumptions:

Galaxies exist for billions of years, so the stars in the outer halo must be in relatively stable orbits,

Almost all of the visible mass in the galaxy is at the galactic core,

There is no ``hidden mass'' (i.e. dark matter), and

Newtonian mechanics (F = ma) are valid for analyzing halo star trajectories,

We have the following assertions:

The motion of the halo stars must be centripetal, and

Any gravitational field exerted by the galaxy must be almost completely divergenceless in the halo.

The first assertion implies that there is a center-pulling force (F) on the halo stars (of mass m) creating a velocity (v) of:

F = mv2 / r

Where r is the distance the halo star is from the galactic core. For standard Newtonian gravity the force is:

F = GMm / r2

Where G is the Gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the galactic core. The velocity of a halo star is then:

v = (GM / r)0.5

To match to experimental data, we want the velocity of the halo start to be a constant - i.e. not depend on r. The easiest way of achieving this is to set the gravity to:

F = GMm / r

And then we have:

v = (GM)0.5

This theory has two major problems with it:

This force would ``break'' all existing planetary orbits, and

This force has a non-zero divergence.

The second easiest approach is to add a term to Newtonian gravity. There is no ``spiral force'' that will work, such a force would constantly speed up the rotation of halo stars (or constantly slow down, depending on the direction), and the halo would either be flung off into space or collapse into the core. Since we do not observe this happening, we can rule it out.

We can't simply add rn terms to Newtonian gravity either, because they are not divergenceless, and would never cancel out the 1/r2 from Newtonian gravity unless they canceled out the force entirely (i.e. no centripetal motion).

The simplest solution that I can think of is to add some sort of gravitational equivalent to the Lorentz force as follows:

F = m (GM / r2 + bvrn)

Where b and n are to be determined.

This gives us a velocity of:

v = b / 2 rn+1 + r / 2 ( b2r2n - 4 GM / r2)0.5

If we set n = -1, we then have a velocity of:

v = b / 2 + ( b2 - 4 GM )0.5

Which is independent of r, as desired.

Unfortunately... the only Lorentz-type field that is divergence-free has 1/r3 dependence, no 1/r.

If we don't use divergenceless fields, then we are basically postulating dark matter all over again.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 11:39 GMT
For completeness with respect to the non-standard core affecting climate hypothesis, there is the pervasive 1,500 year climate cycle to consider.

Dansgaard-Oeschger events are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the Holocene is referred to as Bond events, with these having around 15-20% temperature change of the ice age D-O events.

In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland icepack warmed by around 8°C over 40 years, in three steps of five years, whereas a 5°C change over 30-40 yrs is more common.

The significance of this change can not be underestimated, especially in relation to human civilisation and evolution, in the past and in the near future! Since I have a new insight into the changability of the tides and their huge effect on climate, the proposed lunar explanation needs revisiting imo. The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change

attachments: Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png, 1800_year_lunar_tidal_cycle.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 11:54 GMT
I'm almost certain that the new non-standard innermost core model will change the 1,800 lunar tidal cycle data and produce one that has a 1,500 cycle. The angular velocity of the moon will be higher than currently expected at higher elevations in it's orbit, so the calculated values of the strength of the tides are underestimated. Crucially, this extra angular velocity will move the moon away from the Earth, which ties in with the laser reflector findings of the moon receding at around 3.4 cm/yr! The added angular velocity will also shorten the orbital period. This is a critical calculation due to the distinct possiblity that this will be enough to change the calculated large scale tidal cycle to 1,470 years. I'm currently working on this day by day and will email the authors of the paper, Keeling and Whorf, as soon as possible and ask them for assistance.

Calculation of angular velocity of moon at syzygy

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT
It's worth quoting a part of the summary from Keeling and Whorf:

Ramifications of the Tidal Hypothesis.

The details of the tidal hypothesis are complex. There is much about tidal forcing that we do not know, and there is not space here to discuss all that we do know that could contribute to proving whether it is the underlying cause of some, or all, of the events of rapid climate change. We are convinced, however, that, if the hypothesis is to a considerable degree valid, the consequences to our understanding of the ice-ages, and of possible future climates, are far from trivial.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 12:08 GMT
It's possible that the moon was receding at a faster rate before a 'cosmic nudge' edged it closer towards the Earth's equatorial plane? I've looked into this proposed phenomenon previously and have a working estimate of 40,000 BP for the event. There's certainly potential for this line of enquiry imo.

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 17:30 GMT
Dear Alan,

I read your intriguing essay with utmost care and I was surprised to find that we both are thinking almost on the same plane.You are trying to visualize gravitation thro' Archimedes spiral,where as Iam visualizing QG field thro' Logarithmic (or Equiangular or conical)spiral.Infact your Mandelbrot Set and your twin spiral galaxies represent logarithmic spiral but not Archimedes spiral,their by indicating that the force they represent is that of QG.

More so on this if you respond.

Best wishes and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 11:28 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I remember your essay now that I have revisited it and I also saw your detailed and lengthy webpage this time. I was one of the first to post a comment and you responded with interest but seemed to state that gravitons don't exist. My mental simulation model starts from the creation of structure from the starting point of a void. I'm imagining spiral structures which have a fractal element at their smallest scale i.e. analagous to a spiral rope, where the rope itself is composed of spirals. If this idea of an Archimedes screw in empty space was employed by Newton or one of his contemporaries, then the prevailing visualisation of a 'fabric' of spacetime wouldn't have occurred imo. This is my main stumbling block with more mathematical models of reality. Perhaps it's myself who is too inflexible to appreciate the similarity of the work of others, but my non-mathematical approach is very straight forward and easy to visualise. Have I got the situation correct in that you don't approve of gravitons in empty space Sreenath and how flexible are you in this basic mental picture??

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Dear Alan,

Like you, I also cosidered Archimedes Spiral (AS)in the beginning to explain QG force but it didnt work because QG force varies exponentially and this picture is in accordance with the logarithmic spiral (LS) in which the 'helices' are arranged exponentially and hence fits in with my scheme of thinking.But in the AS, the helices are arranged 'uniformly'and the corresponding force varies 'uniformly'.Since acceleration/gravity varies exponentially in the QG field and when this is applied to LS path it means that 'the rate of change of acceleration/gravity is exponential along LS path'.Now if you apply acceleration/gravity to AS path,it means that 'the rate of change of acceleration/gravity is uniform along AS path'.Now,I hope, you have understood why I chose LS to AS.

Regarding why there are no 'gravitons'- In my work I have treated gravitation as the most fundamental force in its distorted form;here distorted means acceleration/gravity varies (in this case exponentially).Gravitational field is an 'uniformly accelerated field' in which gravity/acceleration remains 'uniform'.So when gravity/acceleration starts varying exponentially, the field it represents is no more gravitational but QG field.Hence the distorted gravitational field (that is the QG field) is related to other forces like EM,Weak,Strong,Electro-weak,GUTs and beyond.So Gravitational field has no quanta of its own but 'expresses itself in the form of quanta of other fields'.

So much so far.

Kind regards.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 22:01 GMT
Dear Alan and Sreenath,

I like both the logarithmic spiral (my preference would be a Golden spiral, but that is simply aesthetics) and Archimedes' screw. These ideas can work in union if one (logarithmic spiral) represents transverse wave behavior, and the other (Archimedes' screw) represents longitudinal wave behavior (might require massive bosons such as W and Z). The actual mathematics of this model may require mixing of these states of different scales (and may get messy mathematically, but is fairly simple from a geometrical perspective).

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 22:20 GMT
p.s. - Essentially, we have a screw with a logarithmic screw thread - a finer thread for weaker fields and a courser thread for stronger fields.

Gravitons might exist near the Black Hole "singularity" and in scales of greater complexergy (such as the Multiverse). In our Earthly reality, gravity is so weak that the screw threads might seem "stripped out".

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Alan,

sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I think that simulation modeling is an interesting approach to problems but correspondence of appearance of the model(output) is not -necessarily- the same as similarity of cause (of that similar appearance) or similarity to the function in the "real" world. Put the Alan Lowey eel-spearing, flying penguin into a computer simulation world and it might survive very well. Put some genetically engineered living specimen into the real world and they might very well die or wreak havoc because they are not a compatible part of the existing far more complex ecosphere. Likewise a modeled graviton might work perfectly well in the model world but not in the externally existing "real world".

Several problems arise from my own incompatible thinking about the universe. I do not think it ever was a singularity or an empty void from which everything condensed or coalesced. I think it must be eternal, that is without a beginning or end - as it is a continuous process -not- an individual thing. A bit like how a family tree continues as family members die and new ones are born. I also do not think gravity is really made of particles but is a perturbation of an unseen medium by the universal trajectory of matter passing through it. Being similar to the other forces which are also perturbations of the medium, due to movements of particles. Having said that I have thought a bit about spirals and how the apparent trajectory of an object changes at different scales of observation. So there is a very tenuous connection.

I really don't know what else to say.I can see that you are very enthusiastic about the Archimedes screw graviton idea but as you can see we are looking at things very differently. I also do not want to express an opinion on everything, especially when it falls outside of what I consider my area of expertise and I know no more about it that the next man. Part of the appeal of this competition has been the opportunity to have our various ideas seen and read. You have achieved that goal. Despite the best intentions I am able to be more constructive, positive and helpful. Perhaps it is a missed ball for me. It is interesting to see what you are doing,

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:20 GMT
That should say "I am unable to be more constructive..."

Sorry

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 10:57 GMT
Dear Georgina,

lol with the flying penguin analogy, very funny. I also think that the larger universe is eternal, it's just that our part of that eternity is a bubble of nothingness which spontaneously appeared within this continous process and then gained energy and form from the outside. The void grew in size causing a penetration of energy from the outside of this bubble creating our existence. This model of reality at the biggest scale allows the solving of the 'infinity paradox' via a wraparound universe

You say "I also do not think gravity is really made of particles but is a perturbation of an unseen medium by the universal trajectory of matter passing through it" which is clearly stated which I much appreciate. I used to think this way but have since changed my opinion to particles in empty space. It's less aesthetically pleasing at first but you get used to it!

Nice to have 'met you' Georgina,

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 17:31 GMT
I've had an interesting discussion with Ian Durham which I'd like to re-iterate here:

[Myself]

Hi Ian, you sound like an intelligent guy who's mathematically minded so I want to put to you this quandry regarding another ancient Greek:

Newton's inability to consider a particle model for the force of gravity has left a legacy where the ideology of a spacetime continuum has been...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 17:46 GMT
lol, edit: I should have said opposites attract and like charges repell. (school was a long time ago)

report post as inappropriate


Robert Spoljaric wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear Alan,

As promised I have read your paper. The idea of a 'mirror universe' is implied by 'the Light' in my paper. I prefer not to speculate regarding what can be derived, and so you may well be correct regarding energy-momentum conservation. Your archimedian screw analogy has served you admirably!

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 17:54 GMT
Thanks for the compliment Robert

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 15:22 GMT
Dear Alan, I like the fact that in the several analogies to mechanical models that you have presented , you have stressed the importance of chirality - handedness - any model that aspires to show how the universe works has to explain that. You will have to do more to demonstrate how this one attribute translates into the very complex phenomena of physics ranging from electromagnetism to gravity. You should use your simulation skills to more fully present graphically the ideas you only touched upon in a handful of sweeping verbal statements. Good luck, and as 'Cosmic Ray' says have fun!

Best wishes from Vladimir.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 12:54 GMT
Thank you Vladimir,

your words are given with a common insight. I take heed and will endeavour to produce something more computerised than just wordy speculations. I was hoping for a kindred spirit and I think there's two potential essay authors into the next round who will be interested in my working models. Thanks for the advice Vladimir,

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 14:28 GMT
Hi Alan,

You left questions on several forums. I left answers on my blog site, but had not heard any responses from you, so I thought I should repost those responses here.

Thanks for the Congratulations.

I think this question ultimately reverts back to the question "Is Nature fundamentally Discrete or Continuous?"

I said that Reality is an effectively an intertwined...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 12:40 GMT
Hi Ray,

Apologies for not responding sooner but I'm currently doing physical work from 9.30am to 4.30pm, which has been a bit of a shock to the system(!). Incidentally, I only have access to the internet from my local library, during the day, Tue to Sat morning. I'm cutting rhododendron trees back which carry the sudden oak death disease. It's a four week mandatory voluntary scheme which I'm currently enjoying.

I read your post with increased enthusiasm. We are starting to get to a common ground on many issues. A couple of points that need mentioning is the flux density of gravitons which can be an alternative to your "thread pitch" visualisation. The number of gravitons which interact per time scale will also influence the overall gravity force in a field. It's wrong to think that gravity is a weak force and always attractive though imo. It's only the resultant field from protons and neutrons in matter configurations which have a weak field. The gravitons could be emitted in a combination of repulsive configuration and attraction configuration for example, it's just that more attractive gravitons are emitted overall into the surrounding field. This ties in with magnetism and the electric field which have forces of repulsion as well as attraction. Both can be modelled via gravitons imo.

I hope this enough to be getting on with. Thanks for the correspondence.

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 13:00 GMT
Note to self:

QED in Wikipedia states repeatedly that Feynman himself was unhappy with "dippy process" of renormalisation as a 'fudge factor'. New imagery is needed imo. Loops and fractal-like geometry is exactly what I've been drawing and talking about. There's no need for infinites or ad infinitums, reality tends to zero on a decreasing scale of size and amount. It's the simulation model that is needed to understand what's going in this kind of detail.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 13:03 GMT
A new picture of the matter loop: a toroid made of braids, 2 pairs of opposite helical radiating structures. Both attractive and repulsive Archimedes screw graviton configurations emitted. Twists give two plaiting techniques and geometry a different effect on the junction area.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 23:38 GMT
Hi Alan,

There is a smooth homotopy between a pair of nested soccer balls and a lattice-like torus. Such a torus would have 120 vertices. If each vertex is one of Vladimir Tamari's spinning tetrahedra AND a 4-Qubit (along the lines of Philip Gibbs' and Lawrence Crowell's essays - I expect the discrete end of a 4-qubit to look like a tetrahedron), then these spinning tetrahedra may be twisting a 4-braided rope (a screw-like string).

Four times 120 yields 480 degrees-of-freedom, which looks a lot like a 16-dimensional SO(32) ~ E8 x E8* TOE.

I'm also playing with the idea of four soccer balls being deformed into a trefoil knot. This might represent a 31-dimensional Spin(32) or SU(32) TOE.

The bizarre aspect of the trefoil/ tetrahedra model is that we can define two different kinds of "chirality" - left- or right-handed trefoil knots, as well as left- or right-handed (S or Z) twisted rope. Perhaps this is "over-kill", and I only need the (two different chiralities of trefoil knots) times (four soccer balls per knot) times (sixty vertices per soccer ball) ~ 480 degrees-of-freedom ~ SO(32) TOE.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 12:45 GMT
Hi Ray,

Yes, the transitions are very interesting and I appreciate you pointing out the connections with the essays of other authors in the competition. I feel like I'm getting to know the research angle of others now and have a common sympathy with the elegance of the morphing. I also like the use of S and Z for the chirality of twisted rope structures.

The big question for me is how do these structures occur in th first place and what is the forcing mechanism which morphs one structural shape to another? It does sound like a slight overkill situation to my novice eye and I can't help but think that a slightly simpler method will reveal itself in the near future. Thanks for the links though Ray,

Bye for now,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 14:08 GMT
Hi Alan,

I covered those details on my blog about a month ago, but to summarize:

I think that spacetime has a discrete lattice structure at small scales ~10^(-31) cm, and that this lattice structure prevents the full collapse of the Black Hole into its "singularity", and prevents "infinity" (as the singularity) from occuring in our scale. IMHO, if any information can be "overwritten" by the singularity, then all information can be overwritten, and the Black Hole becomes an infinite Spacetime vacuum cleaner (which is not a good thing...).

If Spacetime becomes a discrete lattice, then what lattice structures would be most stable? My "crazzy' Belgian friend Steve Dufourny thinks the most stable structure is a sphere, but what keeps a sphere from deflating under massive gravitational pressure? This is why I proposed a Buckyball (soccer ball, geodesic dome/ sphere). Carbon-60 can form a Buckyball lattice, and has superconductor properties that expel electromagnetic fields. What if Spacetime can also form a Buckyball lattice (at scales of order 10^(-31) cm), and can expel gravitational fields? Such a structure could prevent the full gravitational collapse of the Black Hole "singularity". I would expect nested Buckyballs of alternating symmetries that would eventually build up a deformed Diamond lattice (deformed because it has a "hole" at the "singularity" point)

What happens in a rotating Black Hole? In his essay, Sreenath points out that a rotating Black Hole would apply a great deal of torsion to its core. Such torsion could morph a pair of nested Buckyballs into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like torus. The torus figure ties in with Peter Jackson's ideas, but - once again - this torus must have lattice-like properties so that the massive gravitational pressure does not deflate it.

I think that the trefoil knot idea is a possibility, but really does start to look like "overkill" - the torus idea is "good enough".

I know that you are catching up to speed with the terminology that some of us use. I have found Wikipedia to be a good starting place for understanding many of these concepts.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 16:30 GMT
Hi Ray,

Okay, that's again really useful info for me and I can see where you all seem to fit with one another. I've got problems with the very basics which the standard model is based on though. I'm sure QED is flawed in it's mathematical assumptions after reading the Wikipedia entry. Feynman himself was unhappy with renormalisation. It has 'fudge factor' written all over it imo. I'm just about to indulge in the works of Dirac. I saw a tv programme on BBC4 last night which featured the unusual indivdual. It's an interesting story which I intend to pursue and give my own take on where the history of quantum dynamics went awry.

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 19:01 GMT
Hi Alan,

Dirac was Prof Emeritus at Florida State University when I was an undergrad student there. I came up with the early version of my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (QSGUT) in January 1979 as a 20-year-old Senior. My friends thought I should show Dirac the idea, but I was chicken. I regret that now... He and his family are buried within 50 yards of my grandparents, so I visit his grave on occasion. I am a huge fan of Dirac's.

There is Renormalization and the Renormalization Group Equations. I'm also not a big fan of Renormalization - basically dividing one infinity by another infinity to get a finite observable. My argument is that infinity cannot exist within a finite Observable Universe. As a grad student, I studied Renormalization closely. I wanted to overthrow it in favor of my own QSGUT - as I saw these two ideas being conflicting competitors. However, I can honestly say that Renormalization makes about as much sense as does L'Hopital's rule. I finally decided that if Renormalization and QSGUT are both "true", then the Correspondance Principle demands overlapping observables to be equal, and this hybrid concept was the origin of Variable Coupling Theory in my book.

Regarding the Renormalization Group Equations (RGE's), these tell us the Perturbation Theory changes of couplings with energy scale. They are as legitimate as any perturbation or Taylor Series expansion approach can be. IMHO, the most awkward part of the RGE's is the Strong Coupling. Because the Strong Coupling IS NOT much less than unity, it is a poor candidate for these types of power series approximations. In my latest paper on QSGUT, I model the Strong Force differently (with Fermi rather than Bose statistics - which implies a Cooper-pair-like phenomenon at an unobservable small scale), and get results that appear to be more accurate without using the Renormalization Group Equations.

Perhaps some of these concepts are "fudge factors" that were required because of improper modeling...

Regarding the Standard Model (SM) in general. I learned it so that I could try to rewrite it. A TOE should not be as ugly as SU(3) x U(1) x SU(2). This spinning torus/ tetrahedra model implies a TOE similar to SO(32) ~ E8 x E8*. If you study Garrett Lisi's E8 TOE, you might agree with me that there is a certain amount of beauty encoded in these geometrical lattice-like "TOE's" such as the Gosset lattice and the Torus/ tetrahedra lattices.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 09:27 GMT
Hi again Ray,

Okay it is a small world then. Your experience as an undergraduate of Dirac's is amazing. It's easy to forget the recentness of the latest scientific discoveries. From the tv documentary I saw, I liked the way he said that he wanted to visualise the mathematics behind the current scientific edifice.

I just realised from my quick Wikipedia research that Maxwell's equations are the cornerstone of QED. Then I realised that Maxwell based his equations on Newton's law of gravity. The thing is, I've found good circumstancial evidence which pulls the rug from under Newton's equation, namely, the 'inclination hypothesis'. I've posted my findings on the essay blog site for others to comment on. I'm going to rewrite Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism with a totally new picture of reality at the outset. A simulation model is in the making imo. Wish me luck.

Kind regards,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 12:05 GMT
Hi Alan,

I've heard you talking about your "Inclination Hypothesis", but I haven't read your idea yet. A screw has stiffness that allows it to impart lateral motion, and perhaps cause extra inclination. But what if that "screw" is a flimsy set of twisted sewing threads? It would not impart any significant effect, IMHO. Also - be careful taking on Newton. Newton's Laws work very well in their realm of applicability.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
Hi Ray,

Don't confuse the 'inclination hypothesis' with the Archimedes screw model of the graviton/anti-graviton. It's something different. I've combined the ice age mystery with the gravity problem. It works a treat. Well worth a look, see the blog here.

Yes, the tv specials on our climate are a little predictable unfortunately. There's much that isn't known and much that simply doesn't stack-up. I recommend this book by Professor Taylor (2011) 'The Dance of Air and Sea:

How Oceans, Weather, and Life Link Together'
for something more up-to-date and well written.

Cheers,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 10:34 GMT
I've taken the liberty of scanning Professor Taylor's new book where he talks about the current concensus opinion on the cause of the 100,000 year ice age cycle. It's a brilliant summary of the situation as it stands. See attached and also attached to the next post.

Alan

attachments: 3_Dance_Of_Air__Sea1.jpg, 3_Dance_Of_Air__Sea2.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 10:35 GMT
Here's the next two pages..

attachments: 3_Dance_Of_Air__Sea3.jpg, 3_Dance_Of_Air__Sea.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 10:41 GMT
My Astronomy lecturer once said that if I thought I had a t.o.e in the making then it needs to explain the mystery of the ice ages. I think I've done just that. I'm 100% convinced that this proposed Inclination Hypothesis will be 100x more enlightening than the Archimedes screw model for the graviton/anti-graviton. It's a real eye-opener this one.

The precession of Mercury can be explained...

view entire post


attachments: 3_Doodle.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 09:28 GMT
Note to self:

Why did Newton miss this obvious explanation for the spooky action-at-a-distance? Who knows. Anyway, I just discovered that Descartes had been toying with the very same ideas in 1644, and was one of the very first to draw the field lines of a magnet using this methodology.

It implies that the atomic nucleus dipole emits both gravitons and anti-gravitons and that all modern physics based on Newton's equation are simple incorrect, despite Einstein's attempt to rectify the situation (he just made it worse in fact, oh dear(!)).

attachments: Descartes_magnetic_field.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 09:45 GMT
I've done a quick doodle which shows how the gravitons/anti-gravitons should have been travelling in straight lines and that it's the combination of the forces which gives the resultant field lines seen in iron filings.

attachments: Simple_Dipole.jpg, Simple_Dipole_Magnet.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 12:29 GMT
Implications are that both protons and neutrons are gravity dipoles. A greater flux density of gravitons is emmited from one side whilst a greater flux density of anti-gravitons is emmited from the other. Here's a simulation graphic of a fluctuating dipole from Wikipedia which I find a helpful visual aid.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT
The simple doodles I've given above don't account for the wider field lines observed emanating from the centre of the magnet. It implies the field strength is stronger at the centre of a bar magnet. I've deduced two simple reasons for this phenomena. See attached. One correlates with a diagram I glimpsed by Winterberg just recently which is a good sign of progress.

I've combined the conclusions from the Inclination Hypothesis i.e. that the gravity field is stronger on the plane of rotation of a body with the Archimedes screw model of the graviton/anti-graviton. It begs the question of whether a graviton is in a loop which gives the anti-graviton effect i.e. like the wraparound universe giving dark energy from attractive gravitons or are different chirality gravitons actually emitted in the first place.

attachments: Faster_Spin_Possiblity.jpg, Axis_Change_Possiblity.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT
Here's the Winterberg page that seems very relevant The Clouds of Physics. The diagram I remebered is also atatched.

attachments: Vortex_lattice.gif

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 09:46 GMT
Here's the mechanical model of the proton and neutron in doodle form. Ray Monroe is expressing an interest in this development.

attachments: Mechanical_Proton.jpg, Mechanical_Nucleus.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 11:29 GMT
The U-shaped proton will have the effect of bending the base quark into a lens shape. This will focus the graviton/anti-graviton emissions into a particle, the electron, which will then continue to travel outward as a discrete unit due it's new configuration.

attachments: Quark_Lens_Creates_Electron.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 16:05 GMT
Note to self:

Could Orbital Resonance play a key part in creating the stable dynamics of the nucleon and electron bonds? It's an important feature of celestial mechanics, so why not just as important in quantum mechanics?

attachments: Electron_formation.jpg, Orbital_Resonance_in_Quantum_Mechanics.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 10:10 GMT
Summary of author's foundational new ideas in physics:

Within essay:

The formation of structure before the 'big bang'.

(ii) The Archimedes screw model for a particle graviton.

(iii) Gravitons travelling around a wraparound universe can mimic a particle force of repulsion and act as an explanation for dark energy.

During discussion period with other authors:

(i) Anti-gravitons can model a particle force of repulsion.

(ii) Descartes was using the same helical screw ideas to solve magnetism.

(iii) My previously devised Inclination Hypothesis can explain the galaxy rotation curve anomaly currently attributed to galactic halo of dark matter.

(iv) My previous devised Inclination Hypothesis has the potential to explain the recession of the moon away from the Earth.

Before essay which wasn't included:

(i) The Inclination Hypothesis which combines the ice age problems and a new gravity model to explain anomalies with each current model.

(ii) The unearthing of research finds which show how Amazonian monkeys fully particpated in the megafauna of the last ice age.

(iii) The hypothesis that the sun is stronger during the ice age (due to reduced cloud cover?) and therefore the vegetation more abundant to explain worldwide ice age megafauna. The drop in temperature being due to a severe drop in global ocean tidal strengths leading to glaciation feedback scenario.

(iv) The analysis of structure before the 'big bang' is likely to result in a gravitational compression of the opposing structures against the force of creation. This means that it isn't necessary for the structures to travel around the universe as proposed in the essay, just the early graviton emissions. This model doesn't require such a near perfect spherical hypersphere and therefore seems intuitively more likely.

I wish to thank FXQi for the opportunity to express my work to a wider and more professional scientific audience. I'm also indebted to a number of author's for taking the time to engage with my enquiries and for their much valued feedback and inspiration.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 08:50 GMT
My very latest thoughts:

The Amazonian megafuana could have been due to the proposed event of 40,000 BP. Speculation has existed for a long time that a massive body close encounter has occurred in the Earth's recent past, possibly in the order of a few moon diameters from the Earth's surface, creating a flexure of the lithosphere. A temporarily disrupted magnetic field would allow much more cosmic rays and solar radiation to reach the surface during this time. Three main pieces of evidence point to this conclusion:

(i) The frozen Siberian mammoths in near standing positions with buttercups in their mouths, dated to around 40,000 BP. This would fit with the sudden liquefaction and elevation of the landmass into freezing air temperatures above.

(ii) The DNA analysis of the first human colonisation of the Australian continent all converge on the date of 40,000 BP. This fits with the hypothesis of a temporary land bridge between S.E Asia and the Australian land mass, crossing the mammalian/marsupial Wallace line.

(iii) The enormous guano mud flow in the high Niah Cave complex of Borneo dated to around 40,000 BP has been attributed to an inexpicable sudden influx of a large volume of water. This is consistent with a mega tsunami which would have been associated with the flexing of the Earth's crust due to the gravitational close encounter of the celestial body.

Take note that the other non-DNA dating techniques used would be adversly affected by a dramatic change in the Earth's magnetic field due to this proposed event. This should cause the previously given dates earlier than 40,000 BP to be treated with renewed suspicion and require a complete re-evaluation of their reliability.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 10:51 GMT
Yuri has just sent me this very intersting link Physicists discover new way to visualize warped space and time (April 11, 2011). I sent a feedback to the PhysOrg editors explaining that the research and modelling can just as easily be applied to an Archimedes screw model of gravity in empty space. Because the particle screw can model a force of repulsion as well, this makes it even more relevant to the Electrostatic and Magnetic forces, compared to the mainstream concept of space-time.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 11:07 GMT
David Tong has kindly responded to an email enquiry I made earlier:

Hi again David,



You made some good points earlier which I failed to respond to, namely:



>> But let's suppose that there's some way to make this work. Then there's

>> the question of whether it really looks like dark energy: is it the right

>> size? How does the force change as the Universe expands. From your

>> description, my guess would be that the force gets weaker as the Universe

>> expands. But that's not right....it should stay the same. (Of course,

>> to really figure this out we would have to do the maths, but that brings

>> me back to the first point of trying to reconcile this with our current

>> theories).



The graviton model wouldn't require an expansion of space itself to act as the mechanism behind Hubble's redshift phenomenon. Interestingly, this model requires a stable bubble of fixed size with wraparound properties. The imagery of a photon in this new model is a structural configuration of both gravitons and anti-gravitons. The graviton model explanation for the redshift of distant light is not due to stretching, but due to the uniform natural decay of the graviton itself over time, giving a natural lengthening of the photon 'wave packet'.



Kind regards,

Alan

attachments: Hypersphere.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 09:13 GMT
Note to self:

Dark energy is now not needed for galactic redshift, but it would be a good candidate for a kind of early inflation perhaps?

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 09:20 GMT
I also had the idea last night about the possiblity of multiple big bangs within this new scenerio. Each of the individual galaxies could have been created from it's own creation of opposing structures before implosion perhaps, each occurring at slightly different times?

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 09:08 GMT
Here's an important post I made in the Blog discussion section:

Ray and Frank,

Thanks for the clarifications, I made two mistakes in one it seems. I have Walt Disney to thank for the 'imagineering' word then, thanks Walt. I have a question for you both which refers to a section of David Tong's superb essay quoted below:

[quote]However, it is not always so easy to construct a lattice version of a quantum field theory. The trouble lies with fermions, objects which carry half-integer spin so you have to turn around twice before you get back to where you started. There is a long history of headaches associated with lattice fermions, many of them enshrined in the celebrated “no-go theorem” due to Nielsen and Ninomiya [9]. Important progress in the 1990s [10] showed how one can circumvent many, but not all, of these problems. The current state of the art is that there is just a single class of quantum field theories which physicists do not know how to simulate on a computer [11]. This is the class in which fermions that spin in an anti-clockwise direction experience different (non-Abelian) forces from those that spin in a clockwise direction. Such theories are referred to as chiral.

Chiral theories are interesting and delicate. Subtle effects known as anomalies are always lurking, threatening to render the theory mathematically inconsistent. For this reason chiral quantum field theories are rather special. But perhaps the most special among them is the Standard Model. This is a chiral theory because only fermions that spin anti-clockwise experience the Weak force. Chirality is one of the most striking and important features of the Standard Model. Yet, when it comes to constructing a lattice version of the theory, it has consequence: no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the Standard Model. Which means that no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the current laws of physics. [end quote]

In particular, it's this sentence which intrigued me: "The trouble lies with fermions, objects which carry half-integer spin so you have to turn around twice before you get back to where you started."

My imagineering skills kicked in within my subconscious and I've come to the conclusion that fermions must have two types of spin, with one twice the rate of the other. The pictures have yet to set within my mind, but I feel that the dynamics of this scenario describes exactly what David is saying. The physical simulation of the particle configurations will simplify everything so that a bright ten year old could understand it imo. Do you begin to see the imagery I'm getting at?

The mathematical 1/2 spin is therefore very misleading imo and is in reality something much more interesting, with 1:2 spin resonance.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 12:51 GMT
A physical model is desperately needed to distinguish between bosons and fermions imo

attachments: Bosonfermion_spin.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 09:00 GMT
See attached for more simple diagrams of fermion 2 types of spin. Also, I can see where the problem lies in current quantum dynamics:

(i) Schrodinger's euqation uses Coulomb's force equation which is an -isotropic- inverse square law

(ii) Therefore incorrect w.r.t the Inclination Hypothesis

(iii) Suggests that renormalisation , Feynman's "hocus pocus" remedies this situation

(iv) Physical explanation of renormalisation is needed w.r.t boson helical screw model as a force carrier

attachments: GingerbreadMen.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 11:56 GMT
I've spoken to Ray before about how the inverse square law should be treated with caution. Within a light bulb, a -straight spiral- tungsten filament will emit slightly more photons along it's length compared to it's two ends. This effect can be amplified in the interior of a spinning celestial body such as the Earth and Sun. The high pressure and high speeds of rotation will create a tendency for the 'ring donut shaped' quarks in protons and neutrons to align themselves 'vertically' against the equatorial plane (see sketch attached).

attachments: Quantum_Inclination_Hypothesis.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 12:26 GMT
(Ray)

The 'flip spin' of the quarks must be reduced to zero at the proposed transition to anisotropic graviton emission. Within the Earth, I guess that this is at the boundary of the 360 mile diameter innermost core

attachments: 3_Quantum_Inclination_Hypothesis.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 01:13 GMT
Hi Alan,

The leading dependance for light is inverse-distance-squared, but other harmonics are allowed. Boundary conditions help set these angular dependances.

Your "flip-spin" for quarks (Quarks obey color-confinement and can't escape a proton or neutron) at the Earth's core really doesn't make any sense to me. We've known for years (since 1936) that the Earth has a solid inner core of high temperature, high-pressure iron. If this data is "new" then the only "newness" that I see is perhaps a better measurement of the core's size.

Did you see the movie "2012"? In the movie, the Earth's crust becomes unstable due to heating of the core by neutrinos.

Do you expect anyone to take your "Gingerbread Man" particles spins seriously? LOL!

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 10:40 GMT
Hi Ray,

Thanks for the harmonics link, that's a whole new ball game for me to contend with, but I like the graphics and simulations so I'll get into it soon.

I like the color-confinement explanation, it's something that makes intuitive sense I think. It's the neutrons, in three quark groups, which are concentrated in a new way within the inner innermost core imo. The research says that it -isn't- solid, but 'soft', with a weak resistance to shear stress.

Btw, I had a revelation last night about the differential rotation of the center quark to the rotation of the outer two, which gives the 'illusion' of a net spin of the three as a whole in the opposite direction to the central quark. I can't scan until tommorow, so you'll have to wait for more gingerbread men until then! I find the gingerbread men help to get to the nitty gritty of the dynamics, rather than the more complicated representation of spirals, which can get confusing.

Funnily enough I haven't seen "2012", but I see that it refers to Charles Hapgood, who was an inspiration for my alternate thinking in many respects. I don't normally do Hollywood blockbusters anymore, but I might make an exception with this one. I was thinking "The Day After Tommorow" at first incidentally.

I even imagine a computer simulation model starting from a void which is composed only of gingerbread men which grow in fractal-like size to become the stars and galaxies of today! Just you wait (lol)

Cheers, Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 13:24 GMT
Going back to the 360 mile diameter inner innermost core issue, I've thought of a neat solution. I think this is the boundary where the atom breaks down and it's neutron lattice shells which are closely packed, due to the high speed of spin and pressure on the rotational axis. If the quarks 'line-up', then this will leave holes, anlagous to the dark sunspot holes of the sun, which emit hotter solar radiation than the rest of the surface. I think that a similar process can work with graviton emission in the Earth's inner innermost core. It also gives clues to the nature of the up and down quarks w.r.t 'flip-spin'. I don't have my notes or a scanner at the moment, so I'll wait until I get back home and go to my local library before I explain the details and attach a sketch or two....

I've scanned a quick doodle I had showing the neutron lattice shell idea which would break down nearer the poles due to the lack of 'spin pressure'.

Using this hypothesis, one can therefore assume that it's the down-quarks which possess 'flip-spin' and the up-quarks which have none. This is due to the neutron being assumed to have no overall flip-spin, therefore able to form lattice shells, due to the two outer down-quarks cancelling each other out. The central up-quark doesn't produce a flip-spin torque effect. The proton on the other hand has two up-quarks on each side of a down-quark. The central down-quark therefore has the flip-spin, unhindered by the two outer up-quarks. It's a lot easier to understand than it sounds! See attached.

The difference in the two quarks is therefore due to their different helical weaves, which must be of at least three 'braids'. A symmetrical weave denotes the up-quark whilst an asymetrical weave denotes the down-quark. Perhaps a kermantle kind of rope technique is formed? I still need to iron out the details. Watch this space.

P.S I'm just about to look into the the omega-minus baryon to see how the three strange quarks fit with my new working model.

attachments: 1_Earths_Neutron_Core.jpg, 1_Quark_Dynamics.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 13:42 GMT
Here's a quote from an article about the strange inner innermost core:

[quote]The innermost core of the earth, which consists of highly compressed iron in a solid state, is known to have an extremely low degree of rigidity in regard to shear­-the impact of twisting or other forces. The iron at the center of the earth therefore behaves largely like a fluid, which lacks all resistance to shear, making it easy for shifts to take place in the matter in the earth’s core. One consequence is that the seismic waves that move along the surface of the inner core move unexpectedly slowly.[end quote]

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 10:19 GMT
Eureka!

Dark sunspot activity produce more gravitons or higher energy gravitons relative to the rest of the surface. Helps explain why climate change occurs at times of high or low sunspot activity. I predict that tha precise modelling of ocean currents in the near future due to the detailed gravity mapping by the GRACE satellite will confirm this hypothesis.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 10:16 GMT
Here's a reply from the blog discussion from Peter Jackson:

Hi Alan

Aren't Eurekas lovely! May I just venture that as gravity relates to density sunspots, as cooler so more dense zones, will indeed exert more acceleration than the hotter more diffuse areas. I suspect this is consistent with your model. It may also be a contributor to the impossibility of tying down the gravitational constant with any accuracy - as it keeps changing! There's a good piece in this weeks NS, but I didn't see the moon mentioned as a possible cause of variation. The experimentalists may feel it has no effect but my money's on the empirical evidence from the oceans!

SPIN 1/2 One point that got chopped from my essay was that there is another very simple 'real' explanation for spin 1/2, though also 'phase' related. A toroid AGN, stellar mass bh, tokamak or indeed any torus, with magnetic field causing astrophysical jets, will spin on its primary axis while the field rotates around it's circular section (google 'Hoft Fibration' etc). Subject to the relationship of phase and rotation this may indeed spin twice before it's starting condition returns. From a rest frame this describes a multiple helix (I'm sure I've heard of these somewhere!) which are of course analageous to your spirals.

Indeed the process could actually explain any spin phase.

I've always been aware of the dangers of relating particle spin to actual rotation of a sphere, as it was never so or intended to be so, and 'spin' was a bad word to chose, but this does work on both levels. Perhaps I was missing it as the answer to something very close to your question and sketch on my string.

You may also notice that Hoft Fibration points us straight back to gauge theory and the DFM.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 10:17 GMT
Hi Peter,

Yes, the Eureka moments have been coming one after another over the last few years or more. Maybe it's middle age or something, but the effect is rather subdued nowadays, I've gotten too used to it perhaps(!). I'm glad you're open to the sunspot/gravity connection and in agreement with the empirical evidence of ocean current mapping having the final say.

Thanks for the hopf...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 09:35 GMT
Here's my latest conclusions, see attached diagrams of this and next post:

A schematic of three quarks is shown with two concentric torus helical structures, the central core being squeezed into position during the inital 'implosion of creation' phase. The dynamics gives the overall space occupying shape of a disk i.e. the spin is in one plane only.

attachments: Start_With_Three_Quarks.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 09:40 GMT
See that the dislocation of the central torus within a quark dramatically changes the dynamics into two types of spin, see that the protn configuration produces a spin in another plane, 90 degrees to the starting one. This gives the particle a spherical space occupying shape.

If the two outer quarks have this dislocation, then a configuration can occur where the two extra spin torques cancel one another out, i.e. as in a neutron.

attachments: ProtonSphereLike.jpg, NeutronDiskLike.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on May. 2, 2011 @ 11:02 GMT
Joining the two sketches above gives a plausible schematic of a neutron/proton pair. The characteristics of this new combined particle is intersting in that the 2D spin rate will remain the same, i.e. the disk spin axis motion, whilst the proton's 3D spin motion will be halved due it now having the extra mass of the neutron but without an additional contribution to this spin direction. This gives a 3D to 2D spin ratio of 1:2 for the nucleon.

The combined spin of the neutron/proton pair has half the spin of a lone proton.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on May. 2, 2011 @ 11:20 GMT
Using this hypothesis, the spherical spin of a hydrogen nucleus, a single proton, should be half of that of a helium atom, having a proton plus a neutron as well as any other nucleus with an equal number of protons and neutrons. This gives an new insight into the importance of isotopes and deuterium in particular. Does deuterium also have half spherical spin compared to the much more abundant light hyrodgen?

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on May. 6, 2011 @ 14:24 GMT
From Massive Gravity Blog:

I see you're a man of many talents. A horticultural pianist and guitarist eh? Sounds impressive. I think I have a model which can conjure up a dynamic structure from the starting point of a void which then implodes to create quarks. These quarks then eventually combine to become neutron/proton pairs. These pairs then combine into chains of neutron/proton pairs, which vibrate with an inner resonance. These vibrating strings can then be tuned by the human ear to become harmonics. It's a fascinating tale...

...I was alsways a bit jealous of my more musical friends when growing up. Who wants to be good at science? It's not much of a cool subject, is it?

Btw, I've grown to hate Feynman diagrams. I've even grown to laugh at the electron orbital model of the atom. It's a joke. The gold leaf experiment showed that the little hard nucleus exists, but it didn't show that it stayed in the middle! I have an intuitive model in the making where the proton/neutron pair are much more dynamic, occupying all of the atomic space from time to time. The 'orbiting electron' is an incorrect assumption, electrons are an effect and contantly created from the combined structure of emitted gravitons. It's the nucleons which are pulled back by the gravity web, composed of continually created gravitons. These stiff structural spirals can create larger similar structures which have an elastic effect, the so-called gluons.

Steve, do you believe that God's ear exists? Do you think there's a God to hear humanity's music? Is it then the difference between a straight path and a retreat?

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on May. 10, 2011 @ 09:10 GMT
The writing is on the wall, and now on the cover of Scientific American. The saga of the ol' space-timers is finally coming to an end. Amen.

attachments: subAdHomePg.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on May. 17, 2011 @ 10:58 GMT
Here's a paper which shares the hypothesis of the current increase in global earthquake activity being due to planetary orbits and alignment. Astronomical alignments as the cause of ~M6+ seismicity

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 10:21 GMT
Here's Ray's reply from the Blogs:

Hi Alan,

Although tidal effects on earthquake activity could be relevant, I think that these effects are proprtional to mass/(distance)^3. As such, the primary tidal contributions are from the Sun and Moon, which occurs twice a month during the Spring tides. How can Omerbashich really predict an earthquake based on tidal effects if your greatest tidal effects occur biweekly?

Bandandi was close, but not quite correct...

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT
Yes, I agree on the R3 relationship but your assumptions are based on simple Newtonian physics. There's a good hypothesis that the inclination angle is also of primary importance due to the work of Muller and MacDonald. This complicates the physics enormously and opens up the possibility of some truth to the orbital effects of other celestial bodies having a tipping effect. There's also the possibility of the Earth's inner innermost core having a differential rotation for example. It isn't such an open and shut case as you might like to think Ray..

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on May. 19, 2011 @ 09:15 GMT
From the Massive Gravity Blog:

Domenico Oricchio replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 21:33 GMT

A beautiful theory and a beautiful article.

I think that the Moon tide is the cause of many earthquake, but that is impossible the earthquake prediction (Bendandi theory): each day we see the Moon different sky position, but we don’t see earthquake each day: it is like a compressed glass plate that have a little sinusoidal stress, the sinusoidal stress is the break cause, but it is impossible the event prediction (we cannot move million of person for a probable cause, only for a sure cause).

...

My reply:

Hello Domenico,

I'm glad someone else finds the massive gravity hypothesis so attractive and so highly plausible. I'm impressed that you are doing some empirical analysis on the 'celestial bodies causing earthquake idea'. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that it's Venus which is the trigger orbital, with it's approach to the Earth-sun plane being just as crucial, if not more so, than the closeness of it's approach. The combination of these two factors is the point of greatest tidal effect imo. I have a working hypothesis that gravity is stronger on the plane of rotation w.r.t the inner innermost cores of planetary bodies. It's too much to explain in a single post unfortunately, but I have good circumstantial evidence to support my claim.. The rotation of Venus is also opposite to that of the Earth (and other planets) which could also be a significant factor. Venus must have been flipped upside down sometime in it's past. If Earth's inner innermost core has a differential rotation than so could Venus's, but which would also in a counter direction. Bendandi could have used this simple method in making his predictions I think, either fully intentionally or not.

Note that Dr Omarbashich states that his calculations are based on a co-planar configuration where "different orbital inclinations can be ignored". This fits with my reckoning just fine. It's the relevance of the relative inclinations in the rest of the orbital timeframe which he has missed the significance of imo.

Here's a quote of his from one his webpages:

KEEP IN MIND ALSO THAT NO ONE (INCLUDING THOSE WHO "REFUTE" AN EQUATION) HAS A SLIGHTEST IDEA AS TO WHAT GRAVITY IS ! (OR WHAT MECHANISM SUPPLIES ENERGY THAT DRIVES PLATES - A "LITTLE SECRET" GEOPHYSICISTS DON'T LIKE TALKING ABOUT)

Best wishes, Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on May. 20, 2011 @ 10:22 GMT
I've just had a revelation. See attached

attachments: Enigma_Core_Solar_Resonance2.jpg, Planetary_Resonance_Chain2.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on May. 20, 2011 @ 10:25 GMT
Is this another piece of the puzzle? The Sounds of Stars: Ringing Like a Bell

Here's something else which might be related: The inner core of the Earth may be melting

attachments: Memory_and_magnetism2.jpg, Loweys_Law1.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on May. 20, 2011 @ 14:13 GMT
Here's a reply from Dr Omarbashach via email:

Dear Mr. Lowey,

Thank you for your message. Not sure what conclusions you are referring to? If you mean the alignments paper: note that this cannot be taken out of context (the triplet of papers from 2007, 2008, 2011). That paper is just one (empirical) of three stages in the proof of my hyperresonator concept. Other two are theoretical (which derived first analytical expression for a physical constant), and observational/instrumental (which utilized 10+billion measurements of decadal gravity by the Canadian superconducting gravimeter as the most accurate instruments in the world used also for verifying G). Obviously on Earth, the hyperresonator manifests itself as the georesonator (concept), meaning the magnification of Earth masses' (mostly the mantle's) resonance causes both tectonics and seismicity independently from each other. Much as soldiers who are step-marching across a bridge finally collapse the bridge. This concept offers the mechanism for supplying the energy needed for tectonogenesis, which is a question that baffles geophysicists for centuries. (Contrary to the popular belief paddled by general media: no one in geophysics community knows what supplies the energy needed to move the mantle/plates and cause earthquakes; see http://www.billt4.com/Documents/PhysicsHandouts/NatureEarthE
volution.pdf). Once the mechanism is known, filling all other gaps remains a formality.

As far as the Miller's paper is concerned, I can see from your link that his spectral analysis is superficial as ever, namely as in his and his student's 2005 Nature paper I opposed earlier (http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0608014). His basic problem is that he sees spectral analysis just as a mathematical tool, but he doesn't understand or care about physical meaning of a spectral analysis. (I'm not sure he's even aware that SA can have a physical meaning). He plays with raw data as much and for as long as it pleases him to achieve a preset goal, and then goes on and calls it science. To see what Miller's science really is, see Smith's bicentennial review on my page. Same goes for pretty much all of his claims which are a hand-waving at best, which perhaps can find admirers at expensive gala-dinners at the White House, but that doesn't give any merit to his science. As far as your other link, I'm not a cosmologist so can't comment on that, but you may find interesting this paper: Steinhardt and Turok (2002) A Cyclic Model Of The Universe, Science 296: 1436-1439.

Sincerely,

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on May. 21, 2011 @ 09:55 GMT
And my email reply:

Hi Mensur,



Thanks for the links, most useful. I have a tentative explanation for the mystery movement of the plates. It's an asymmetric inner innermost core around 360 miles in diameter which wobbles, based on the work of Harvard professors Adam Dziewonski and Miaki Ishii http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-02z.html combined with Brouwer's Theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_fixed_point_theorem (see diagrams). It's probably too speculative for your methodology, but worth contemplating on imo.



Best wishes, Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on May. 23, 2011 @ 12:27 GMT
...Getting back to the earthquake prediction conundrum w.r.t Dr Omarbashich's non-peer reviewed work, the only way I can see a mechanism for some kind of 'resonator hypothesis' is at LOW TIDAL FORCING. See the diagram re-attached. A low tide will keep the inner innermost core shell oval shaped, whilst a high tide will tend to stretch the shell into a more circular shape. Now imagine that Venus or Mars happens to approach the co-planar configuration with Earth, i.e. a very low inclination angle in combination with a close approach. If this triggers a wobble of an asymmetric inner innnermost core of the Earth, then this could make a 'heavy contact' with the shell at a low tidal configuration. If it occured at a high tide, then the wobble of the enigma core will only make a 'light contact' with the more circular shell. It's all rather speculative, but it's just about a plausible hypothesis in my working model. I intend to do some more rigorous investigation using Mensur's tables.

attachments: 2_Enigma_Core_Solar_Resonance.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on May. 28, 2011 @ 10:06 GMT
I woke up with a revelation this morning.

Cryptic clue: "vertical movement"

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on May. 23, 2011 @ 13:59 GMT
...Getting back to the essay

The latest findings by the Galaxy Evolution Explorer fit with this new imagery of opposing mega structures -before- the big bang, NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer & Anglo-Australian Telescope Help Confirm Nature of Dark Energy. If the structures emerge and grow at a constant rate, then the graviton-wraparound-darkEnergy arrival rate, before -and- after the BB, will also increase at a constant rate i.e. giving an acceleration of the expansion of the galaxies.

[quote]PASADENA, Calif. -- A five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies, stretching back seven billion years in cosmic time, has led to one of the best independent confirmations that dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds. The survey used data from NASA's space-based Galaxy Evolution Explorer and the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Siding Spring Mountain in Australia.

The findings offer new support for the favored theory of how dark energy works -- as a constant force, uniformly affecting the universe and propelling its runaway expansion. They contradict an alternate theory, where gravity, not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart. According to this alternate theory, with which the new survey results are not consistent, Albert Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong, and gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive when acting at great distances.

"The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. Blake is lead author of two papers describing the results that appeared in recent issues of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. "The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed. If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."[end quote]

My model is a third alternative which is due some major mainstream consideration.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Jun. 8, 2011 @ 13:11 GMT
Here's someone who has similar ideas as I do:

[copied over from Sciforums.com]

As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 13:25 GMT
Great Essay Alan! Your's is one of the best because the way I see it, these here Threads are a continuation of a really good Essay, no? And by that measure, your close attention and participation both strenuous and insightful qualifies you as one the best.

And so, like an Archimedes Screw rotating in a higher-dimensional space that itself is only a projection of the to'ings-and-fro'ings of particles/fields on a two dimension surface shall we compete for membership lol! Do they even want us? Circumstantial evidence says, "no".

Holographic projection, which is exactly what Archimedes was tracing in the sand when that over-zealous Roman soldier ran him thru...

fqxi should we stay or should we go? sa? ?

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 1, 2011 @ 12:59 GMT
Thanks for the appreciation Tommy, much appreciated!

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 22, 2011 @ 11:30 GMT
The supermagnetic effect of metastable metallic hydrogen deposited by comets is my answer to the flyby anomaly, which is currently being considered by scientists who are working closely with the problem. Early signs are looking good.

The ice age mystery is now becoming much easier to understand.

attachments: SupermagnetismIceAge.jpg, Heinrichs.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 22, 2011 @ 11:37 GMT
Now I've just re-read the problems with Milankovitch insolation cycles, they have all evaporated with this new easy insight of supermagnetism tidal effects.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 23, 2011 @ 09:24 GMT
The puzzle of the ice age megafauna can now be explained. The pre-glacial age 1-2 mya would have been a much wamer and wetter nothern hemisphere due to the extra strong equatorial current which defelcted northward to keep the arctic basin ice free. This would have made much more land available for year round foraging and thus able to sustain these mega species. The South American megafauna also shows that the southern landmasses would also have been blessed with a much warmer and wetter climate.

Thus it can be deduced that Earth's rise of animal gigantism would have been curtailed from the dramatic climate change due to the closing of the North American/South American ocean channel and only the most intelligent and adaptable would have survived. Mankind is likely to have exploited this climatic opportunity and pushed many mega species to extinction.

attachments: PreIceAge.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 08:52 GMT
Ice Age EPOCHS can now be understood by the 145 my cycle of spiral arm crossing. Supermagnetism inceases would cause the Sun's ring core to 'judder' due to the stellar supermagnetic plane and so the Earth's ring core would similarly judder. This extra energy effect would be transmitted via energetic magma plumes and cause *rapid* continental drift at the surface. The creation of the Himalayas now makes perfect sense btw. The rapid movement of the plates would allow landmasses to cover the polar regions and the possible curtailing of warming ocean currents. The combination of these two effects would lead to build-up of polar ice which is inducive to a runaway glacial age.

The stellar supermagnetic plane is the ideal explanation for the galaxy rotation curve enigma.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 09:06 GMT
*Video Experiment Shows Supermagnetic Material Buried In Rock, Greece‏*

These magnetic and gravity hills are all over the world and can be seen on youtube with varying degrees of scientific endeavour. They probably won't be too convincing just yet but keep in mind the possiblity that within relatively easy reach is a ball of this magic material http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reZLfRARguk

report post as inappropriate


sridattadev wrote on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Alan,

I enjoyed your interpretation of gravity using Archemedis Screw modelling, infact this could be how intelligence arises from conscience in a spiral form. I also agree with your point that universe emerges out of anolog and manifests in digital form. Please know that

Absolute Truth

lies with in us and here is how I realized and conceptualized it works

n-sphere

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 11:08 GMT
Hi Sridattadev,

Thank you for your appreciation of my interpretation, I was delighted to see your post. Yes, the human side of nature is to be always remembered and I enjoyed your blogs.

Best wishes and love to you too,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thank you for reading the blog and sharing the love. All we need is love in this game of life to make this brief journey on this planet a memorable one.

Unfortunately I see that most of us are moving in the opposite direction of love and this is the root cause of all the problems. Its our choice, we can either make this journey a sweet dream or a night mare, I hope that we will all be wise enough to choose love eventually and restore balance.

As for scientific aspect of understanding things the answer lies in "zero" or "absolutely nothing".

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 08:49 GMT
Nederland

Dank u vriendelijk, Wilhelmus. How' s Nederland? Ik zou zo willen bezoeken als u kon helpen? Uw commentaren waren divers en enigszins beknopt bij verscheidene punt. U bent duidelijk hartstochtelijk over u verhandeling. Dank die voor hij inspanning mijn poging eigenlijk om te lezen nemen. Het zou het begin van vrij verreikend iets kunnen zijn. En zal zo van u. Ik verheug me op het lezen van het. En ernstig, ive nooit aan scandanavia? kreeg een kleine ruimte voor een couupleweken. lol? voorzien van een netwerk here.give me tijd en voor u verteren om met contact te onderbreken. NetherLand@QuantumWidgets.com zullen aan me voor bepaald… krijgen thanx opnieuw

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 11:20 GMT
Hi Tommy,

Did you post this in the wrong place by any chance?

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 11:32 GMT
New discoveries are being made nearly everyday. Watch this 3 min video Bermuda Triangle: what happened to Flight 19? - BBC and then read this link for a fascinating story of which I have a remarkable solution Flight 19 - The 'Lost Patrol'

I wish to make a tribute to Ivan Sanderson for his amazing groundbreaking work which makes my life a lot easier, Vile Vortices

attachments: MysteryTrainglesExplained.jpg, DinosaurCometSupermagnetism.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 11:41 GMT
The Nevada triangle of Steve Fosset fame and the Bermuda triangle of Flight 19 can both be directly geographically linked to the anomalies in the Devil's Sea of Japan and those of the South China Sea. They are simply due to the supermagnetic comet core that must be lodged half way into the outer core, deep inside the Earth. This is most likely the dinosaur extinction comet with the Yucatan crater being from that of a smaller fragment. The Earth's flyby anomaly is likely to be directly related to this main event. It all begins to fit like a glove.

attachments: Vile_Vortices_Map.png

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 09:15 GMT
I have an explanation to account for the intermittent-ness of the phenomenon. The supermagnetism is tidal. It swings from the Nevada 'triangle' across the Earth until it reaches the Bermuda 'triangle'. The reason the effect is dominant at each of the two ends of it's cycle, is because more time is spent in slowing and then reversing it's direction, combined with the congested flight paths of the two locations.

Similarly, the tidal movement will be synchronous with the S.E Asian phenomena. The data of incidents should reflect this relationship, but is currently lacking from the latter, being the 'repulsive end' of the supermagnetic effect and therefore having less fatalities.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 11:59 GMT
Here's a fantastic photo of the magnetic/gravity hill effect in action in the Philippines. It's due to the supermagnetic effect of a small comet impact with the solid metastable metallic hydrogen buried within the rock, Magnetic Hill

attachments: Gravity_Hill_Phillipines.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 09:26 GMT
The accelerating magnetic north pole shift towards the geographical north pole is due to the orbit of the Earth moving away from Jupiter's supermagnetic influence on the tidal interglacial period. Less tidal forcing on the ocean currents coincides with less forcing on the angle of the magnetic axis i.e. by the tilt of the Earth's iron core.

attachments: MagneticNorthPoleShift.jpg, MagneticNorthPoleExtreme_Projection.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 1, 2011 @ 13:08 GMT
Following On from Ivan Sanderson's 'vile vortices', two locations for impact sites have been identified, namely, Hawaii itself and the Bruckle crater off Madagascar

attachments: AnglesOfCometAttack.jpg, BuildupInnerCoreComets.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 09:34 GMT
It makes sense to suggest Hawaii itself as the point of impact for the core comet which created a supervolcano and helped wipe out the dinosaurs due to the emission of toxic gases.

The Burckle crater 600 miles SE of Madagascar for the impact site of the southern hemisphere supermagnetic anomaly, being just 4,800 years old. Has it travelled through the mantle and arrived at the outer core yet? Have all the older large core comets travelled through to the graveyard at the inner core rim? Earth's magnetic and electric fields due to the these core comet debris accumulation at the Earth's inner core and finally stop at the solid iron innermost core?

The earliest Hawaiian volcano IS 65 my old, dinosaur comet wiping age Hawaii. Did Firestone comet of around 11000 years ago also hit this area?? The depth of the Nevada/Bermuda rock fits with around 11,000 years ago when compared with the Southern Madagascar rock of 4,800 years ago.

attachments: 1_AnglesOfCometAttack.jpg, 1_BuildupInnerCoreComets.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 12:46 GMT
Channel 5's programme on the Hudson river aircrash of an A320 in 2009. Was it a flock of birds or maybe even due to the effects of supermagnetic comet debris??

attachments: HudsonPassengersInRiver.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 13:16 GMT
The Helios 2005 flight crash is suspicious to say the least. The crash site is very close to Penteli mountain, famous for it's magnetic/gravity hill. Helios Airways Flight 522

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 09:38 GMT
Okay, I've got a bit carried away with the air crash investigations. The Hudson river incident was definitely due to a double bird strike. The helios flight had problems immediately after take off from Cyprus, which does have it's own magnetic hill incidentally.

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 8, 2011 @ 15:03 GMT
Hi Alan,

I like the idea of the wrap around universe, but perhaps the name wrap around gives it a little bit the idea of the hologram universe, I too use in my essay a fifth dimension that is not "wrapped around" but is reachable as a matter of fact on every point of the space/time placed at the limit of our causal universe the Planck length (see also my last post on the eaasy), you and me like every scientist are struggling with the questions HOW and WHY, the HOW we have a lot of ideas of and the WHY ? Did you ever question yourself why your threads are spinning ? is it the because of same reason that strings are vibrating and are we entering in a math universe at that moment where there is no WHY only LAWS that , and here we go again, are agreed upon bu human beings ?

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 10:41 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've just scanned your essay again and have appreciated your creative style which seems similar to my own. The "wrap around" universe is necessary to explain the idea of dark energy imo. Particles which convey a force of attraction can travel around a spherical 4D universe to arrive on the 'other side' and mimic a force of repulsion. This is a simple idea yet one which needs plenty of time of contemplation to fully understand. You said "..is reachable as a matter of fact on every point of the space/time placed at the limit of our causal universe" which rang a bell with me and sounded much the same as my image of a wrap around universe in fact. Funnily enough I no longer ask the questions of HOW and WHY. The threads are spinning in the first place because the energy outside the 4D bubble of nothingness which formed within it, is itself spinning and 'chaotic'. Again it's a simple concept and one which may lead some people to ask further questions, but for me it's enough.

I recently completed my personal t.o.e by realising that dark matter is metastable solid metallic hydrogen, created within stars and then expelled during supernova events. I have a hypothesis that some comets deliver this super material to the centre of the Earth which creates an extra supermagnetic effect which is undetectable by normal sensors but can accelerate spacecraft via the flyby phenomena. I can even show that the Bermuda triangle and Nevada triangle are directly linked to two areas in the far east which have similar reputations. It's due to the fall of the dinosaur extinction comet which is still falling towards the center and is now half way into the Earth's outer core.

All the best and thank you for your post. Most apprecaited

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 16:34 GMT
Hi Alan;

I appreceate your "late" reaction,

first :

I doubt very much the "dark matter".(sorry but I agree more with Carlo Rovelli)

second :

You cannnot explain (neither can I) your theory of the spinning of your threads as a matter of fact it is the same problem as with string Theory.

"how" and "Why" are they spinning, in my opinion the HOW and WHY questions are questions that can be posed only in a causal universe, where time is a primairy dimension.

we can exchange space time in Momemtun space and thus :

keep thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 10:22 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus

My personal t.o.e has the ability to make predictions though. I believe that tidal forcing of warm equatorial waters to the polar regions becomes reduced during an ice age, which the world is currently heading towards. This extra heat will bring a low level cloud belt to the equatorial regions whilst the polar regions will have extra clear sky sunshine, despite the colder average air temperatures. This is why megafauna was so abundant in northern latitudes during the ice age, they were able to graze on the swathes of fast growing grasses. The high altitudes of the equatorial uplands and altiplano would also bask above the low lying cloud belt and similarly enjoy extra clear sky sunshine as well as an increase in average air temperatures. This is the region of the megaflora which enabled the spider monkeys and others to achieve double 'normal' size, who's remains were found in the TOCA DA BOA VISTA, Bahia state, the longest known cave in the Southern Hemisphere. It all fits

This tidal model with supermagnetism can predict the weather imo. Where I live on the south west tip of the UK, we are receiving less rain annually. This fits with the tidal model. It doesn't fit with the IPCC global warming models though, as far as I'm aware.

Kind regards,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 13:30 GMT
The latest and final piece of the jigsaw is dark matter comets imo. One must anticipate the fall of Einstein's relativity to appreciate this new angle of enquiry. These anisotropic super-material impacts are the reason for orbital resonance. It would also explain the magnetised lunar rocks and the extra acceleration experienced by the lunar lander which caused it to overshoot it's designated landing site.

I'm convinced that the moon will eventually start to move towards the Earth in it's orbit, which is the origin of the Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates of 1,470 years. This tidal increase will dramatically affect the climate and push warmer equatorial waters towards the poles. This extra energy will have the effect of stirring up nutrients and bringing them to the surface, creating a global wildlife boom.

In conjunction with the ice age tidal increase of Jupiter, I even envisage the lunar tidal increase to divert the warm Pacific current further north so that it passes over the sill of the Bering Strait into the Arctic basin. This is the origin of the megafauna abundance in the high arctic imo. It underpins the timing of the Heinrich events, with the tidal surge and change of current flow undercutting the glaciers and the warmer precipitation leading to flow steams under the ice.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 13:34 GMT
Oops, I should have said "despite the ice age tidal loss of Jupiter..". This shows the huge effect of the millennial cycle and the power the moon has over the global tidal system.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 14:10 GMT
Check out these photographs of the Moon's Craters. The dark comet tidal locking hypothesis would predict a greater number of craters on the side facing the Earth:

Wikipedia:[QUOTE]The two hemispheres have distinctly different appearances, with the near side covered in multiple, large maria (Latin for 'seas,' since the earliest astronomers incorrectly thought that these plains were seas of lunar water). The far side has a battered, densely cratered appearance with few maria. Only 1% of the surface of the far side is covered by maria, compared to 31.2% on the near side. One commonly accepted explanation for this difference is related to a higher concentration of heat-producing elements on the near-side hemisphere, as has been demonstrated by geochemical maps obtained from the Lunar Prospector gamma-ray spectrometer. While other factors such as surface elevation and crustal thickness could also affect where basalts erupt, these do not explain why the farside South Pole-Aitken basin (which contains the lowest elevations of the Moon and possesses a thin crust) was not as volcanically active as Oceanus Procellarum on the near side.

Another factor in the large difference between the two hemispheres is that the near side has been shielded from impacts by the Earth via the synchronous rotation that keeps the far side exposed to impactors coming from outer space.

It has also been proposed that the differences between the two hemispheres may have been caused by a collision with a smaller companion moon that also originated from the Theia collision. In this model the impact led to an accretionary pile rather than a crater, contributing a hemispheric layer of extent and thickness that may be consistent with the dimensions of the farside highlands.[End QUOTE]

This is in contradiction to the reality of more craters on the far side. This can be explained by the dark matter comets passing through the centre of the Moon and causing lava flows on the other side. These buried dark matter comets and their supermagnetic effects could be attributed to their entry crater to give an internal picture of their size, orientation and location as well as the structure and dynamics of the collision.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 14:18 GMT
The photos show slightly more north pole dark matter collisions compared to south pole. This is presumably due to our more southerly position in the Milky Way's spiral arm, the dark matter comets being produced from solar metastable metallic hydrogen released during supernova events.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 12:40 GMT
Edit - of course, more southerly impacts of dark matter comets created magma plumes on the northern hemisphere of the Earth, which created the majority of the landmasses! (Islands such as Hawaii would still have been created by smaller more northerly impact events)

The Scientists figure out our place in the Milky Way but only in a two-dimensional fashion, see diagrams attached. The dark matter comet hypothesis predicts a more *northerly* position compared to the average in the adjacent spiral arms. This is assuming that dark matter comets are MSMH debris released during supernova events.

attachments: spiralarm.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 12:51 GMT
This diagram shows our local arm.

attachments: local_arm.gif

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 10:30 GMT
lol. The Earth has more landmasses in the northern hemisphere which fits with the dark matter comet origins of our continents and also suggests they were made at different times in the distant past. This has huge implications for the dating of rocks and fossils for example.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 14:40 GMT
The dark matter comet hypothesis also fits with the high distribution of small island groups in the southern hemisphere, caused by smaller dmc impact events. The formation of the UK is now open for debate, with the ancient rocks of the lizard peninsula in Cornwall sitting along side younger rocks. The gravity hill on the central Isle Of Man suggests a smaller northerly dmc impact event imo.

The dark matter comet hypothesis also ties in with the work of Shaviv and his Ice Age Epochs and Milky Way Spiral Arm Passages, although I don't agree with all his ideas, the main diagram of ice age epochs with passage through the spiral arms is very enlightening.

attachments: ice_age_epochs_and_spiral_arms.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 11:00 GMT
Surely there is now no mystery. The continents were created by the dark matter comet impacts on the other side of the globe. Magma outflows over millennia would have created a series of domes of rock. Erosion from wind and water then sculps them into the jagged ridges we see today. Am I missing something obvious?? The mountain ranges are generally located at the centre of the landmass as expected, as in the case of Antarctica. The Himalayas would have been similarly created. Maybe the Indian plate pushes them up slightly, but that's it.

These domes of magma outflows over millennia are similar to the Deccan Traps in India which were created 60 and 68 million years ago. The dinosaur extinction event by a dark matter comet can now be explained in full.

[QUOTE]The bulk of the volcanic eruption occurred at the Western Ghats (near Mumbai) some 65 million years ago. This series of eruptions may have lasted less than 30,000 years in total..

The release of volcanic gases, particularly sulfur dioxide, during the formation of the traps contributed to contemporary climate change. Data point to an average fall in temperature of 2 °C in this period.

Due to the volcanic gases and subsequent temperature drop, the formation of the traps is seen as a major stressor on biodiversity at the time. This is confirmed by a mass extinction topping 17 families per million years (about 15 families per million years above the average). Sudden cooling due to sulfurous volcanic gases released by the formation of the traps and localised gas concentrations may have been enough to drive a less significant mass extinction, but the impact of the meteoroid that formed the Chicxulub Crater (which would have made a sunlight blocking dust cloud that killed much of the plants and reduced global temperature, called an impact winter) made this one of the most pronounced mass extinctions in the Phanerozoic.

Because of its magnitude, scientists formerly speculated that the gases released during the formation of the Deccan Traps played a role in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which included the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. The current consensus among the scientific community is that the extinction was triggered by the Chicxulub impact event in Central America.[END QUOTE]

The dark matter comet hypothesis gives the Chicxulub impact event a new burst of high energy which would have caused the Deccan Traps and the release of deadly fumes which engulfed the entire Earth.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Nov. 21, 2011 @ 10:55 GMT
The dark matter hypothesis has major implications for the creation of the moon as well. A dmc which passed through the Earth is now a possiblity, with the ejecta on the other side of the globe to the entry point creating the moon. Did the dark matter comet slow down and remain inside the Earth, or did it pass right through and continue on it's journey at a much slower pace, now captured by our...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Nov. 21, 2011 @ 10:57 GMT
Are the Himalayas the 'smoking gun' of this moon forming mega-event?

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Nov. 21, 2011 @ 13:29 GMT
Wikipedia states: "Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, and the densest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System." and "Earth's biosphere has significantly altered the atmosphere and other abiotic conditions on the planet, enabling the proliferation of aerobic organisms as well as the formation of the ozone layer which, together with Earth's magnetic field, blocks harmful solar radiation, permitting life on land."

This suggests to me that the moon forming dmc core stayed within the Earth's interior and was responsible for the early creation of a strong magnetic field. This is the reason the ice/water deposited was able to remain in a liquid state and resolves the 'faint sun paradox'.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 10:08 GMT
My latest thoughts:

The faint young sun paradox can simply be explained by incorrect dating for the age of the Earth. If the age of the Earth is much younger than thought, then the sun would indeed be strong enough to allow liquid water to flow on the surface. This dating problem would also resolve the strange suggestion of a supercontinent breaking apart to reform again, only to break apart and reform once more.

attachments: Solar_Life_Cycle.png

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 14:15 GMT
Sorry, what is the connection between gravity and isotope decay?

[/quote]That might be the wrong way of looking at things. The effect from the impact of a dark matter comet with so much kinetic energy and even when embedded in the mantle still having the ability to churn it into plumes with supermagnetism, are so mindboggling that just a change in the isotope experiment results of humans in the 21st Centuary seems quite minimal.

......

The diagram showing the fossil connection of the southern continents shouldn't be taken as a literal representation imo. Imagine it with landmass in between. I think the dark matter comet struck the Earth coming fom behind the sun in a near miss. This not only pushed up the mantle to create the explosive magma dome and orbital ejecta but also tilted the Earth and would have changed it's orbit, also giving it it's wobble. These values would have been much larger than today presumably. It's this tilt of the northern landmass *away* from the Sun that meant the water froze and so the mountains did not erode as quickly if permantly kept in the deep freeze as well as preventing life from getting a toehold.

The southern landmass had the warmer climate and liquid water flowed. The giant rivers eventually formed the Pacific and Southern Oceans and left the dry land of Antartica, Australia and the rest of the continents. Eventually the tilt receded enough to allow *liquid* water in the northern landmass. Over time these mighty rivers created the Arctic basin and the Atlantic ocean which also enabled warmer water to reach the high latitudes which might have triggered the first ice age epoch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 14:21 GMT
It also explains why Antartica has "young looking mountains" and that evolution was slowed on this isolated landmass compared to the dinosaur finds of the others. The mainstream view has been in the news recently btw which is quite mystifying in stating that Antactica's mountains eroded away and reappeared "pheonix like"..

attachments: 580pxSniderPellegrini_Wegener_fossil_map_svg.png

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 11:10 GMT
Here's more complimentary evidence which fits this new picture Magnetic poles may once have been at equator (Apr 2010)

[quote]DID the Earth's magnetic poles once lie near the equator? That could explain puzzling changes in the magnetism of rocks millions of years ago.

The Earth's magnetic poles are aligned along roughly the same axis as its rotational poles. Geologists have assumed this was also true in the past, so they use volcanic rocks, which when they formed took on an imprint of the direction and strength of the Earth's magnetic field, to infer the rocks' original latitude and to trace continental motions over the past billion years.

But doing this for rocks in North America and eastern Europe is turning up a conundrum. In both regions, there appear to be rocks that were at the equator at some points between 550 and 600 million years ago and near the poles for other parts of this time period.

There appear to be rocks that moved from the poles to the equator several times in 50 million years

That would imply that the ancient continents sped across the surface at more than 45 centimetres a year - twice as fast as the top speed of plate tectonics - then returned at a similarly impossible clip. That speed is also too fast to be explained by a phenomenon called true polar wander, in which the Earth's entire crust and mantle reorient, moving a different geographic region to the north pole.

Instead, Alexandra Abrajevitch at Kochi University in Japan and Rob Van der Voo of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor suggest the magnetic pole itself shifted by 90 degrees, so that it lined up along the equator (Earth & Planetary Science Letters, DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.02.038).

The planet's magnetic field is generated by the motion of molten iron flowing around a superhot, solid iron core. Changes in the thickness, viscosity and conductivity of the outer core in the past could have led to convection patterns that caused the magnetic pole to tilt.

David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena says an equatorial pole is possible but says it is not clear what would cause the field to point at a single longitude long enough to leave a magnetic signature in the rocks. [end quote]

This is most important part imo:

[quote] There appear to be rocks that moved from the poles to the equator several times in 50 million years

That would imply that the ancient continents sped across the surface at more than 45 centimetres a year - twice as fast as the top speed of plate tectonics - then returned at a similarly impossible clip. That speed is also too fast to be explained by a phenomenon called true polar wander, in which the Earth's entire crust and mantle reorient, moving a different geographic region to the north pole.[end quote]

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 26, 2011 @ 10:50 GMT
No-one interested in a common sense idea which fits like a glove? Birth of the moon ejecta from the formation of the Himalayas? Continental drift a fallacy that has persisted to this day? Explanation for Antarctica's young mountains? Earth not 4.5 billion years old but more like 300 million plus? Oh dear, what a miss.

If you look at a map of the Earth, or better still a globe, you can use your imagination to picture the Pacific Ocean as the impact site. The dark matter comet would have approached from close under the sun and slammed up and to the right, creating the orogeny of rocks along the west coast of the Americas and Bering Stait as well as the Himalayas themselves.

Plate tectonics and continental drift doesn't exist!

attachments: World_geologic_provinces.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 10:39 GMT
The Millennial Cycle is due to the Moon and it's embedded dm comets reacting with the creation dm comet buried near the Earth's core. When it passes exactly over the supermagnetic attraction zone, located as near the centre of the island groups east of Australia, then it gets an impulse which changes it's orbit and distance. It moves further away when the orbit favours a path over the repulsive side, estimated to be just west of Africa.

A sudden change in the Moon's orbit is therefore predicted. It should be possible with sophisticated analysis to estimate when this will occur imo.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 11:43 GMT
We now have a new hypothesis for the resolution of the question raised by Caudal: Are Venus and Earth in a long-distance relationship? as well as a mechanism for geomagnetic fields and pole shifts. The supermagnetism of the moon creation dm comet would be more than enough to churn the mantle with one side attracting and the other side repelling, having the long axis of the comet lying near the horizontal of the Earth's orbital plane.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 13:43 GMT
Here's my first sketch showing the moon creation dm comet inside the Earth which will both magnetise the adjacent solid iron core to create the Earth's magnetic field *and* churn the inner mantle to create the electric field.

attachments: Internal_Comet_Earth.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 13:46 GMT
This could be the basis for all the fine tuning needed to predict planetary spins and orbits.

attachments: Internal_Earth.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 11:30 GMT
The receding of the moon indicates a loss of tidal warm waters into the higher latitudes. This has implications for the global warming debate and the reduction in natural CO2 release from the ocean bottoms. Here's a quote from the Introduction to Physical Oceanography: Chapter 13 - Deep Circulation in the Ocean

[quote]*The Oceans as a Reservoir of Carbon Dioxide*

The oceans are the primary reservoir of readily available CO2, an important greenhouse gas. The oceans contain 40,000 GtC of dissolved, particulate, and living forms of carbon. The land contains 2,200 GtC, and the atmosphere contains only 750 GtC. Thus the oceans hold 50 times more carbon than the air. Furthermore, the amount of new carbon put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, 150 GtC, is less than the amount of carbon cycled through the marine ecosystem in five years. (1 GtC = 1 gigaton of carbon = 1012 kilograms of carbon.) Carbonate rocks such as limestone, the shells of marine animals, and coral are other, much larger, reservoirs. But this carbon is locked up. It cannot be easily exchanged with carbon in other reservoirs.

More CO2 dissolves in cold water than in warm water. Just imagine shaking and opening a hot can of CokeTM. The CO2 from a hot can will spew out far faster than from a cold can. Thus the cold deep water in the ocean is the major reservoir of dissolved CO2 in the ocean.

New CO2 is released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels and trees are burned. Very quickly, 48% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere dissolves in the cold waters of the ocean, much of which ends up deep in the ocean.

Forecasts of future climate change depend strongly on how much CO2 is stored in the ocean and for how long. If little is stored, or if it is stored and later released into the atmosphere, the concentration in the atmosphere will change, modulating Earth's long-wave radiation balance. How much and how long CO2 is stored in the ocean depends on the deep circulation and the net flux of carbon deposited on the seafloor. The amount that dissolves depends on the temperature of the deep water, the storage time in the deep ocean depends on the rate at which deep water is replenished, and the deposition depends on whether the dead plants and animals that drop to the sea floor are oxidized. Increased ventilation of deep layers, and warming of the deep layers could release large quantities of the gas to the atmosphere.

The storage of carbon in the ocean also depends on the dynamics of marine ecosystems, upwelling, and the amount of dead plants and animals stored in sediments. But we won't consider these processes." [end quote]

This means that anthropogenic CO2 contributions might be being masked by the loss from tidal effects for example.

attachments: CO2_pump.png

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 10:30 GMT
We now have a model for the millennial cycle which fits the shape of the curve in Rahmstorf's Timing Of Abrupt Climate Changes. With this new mental image of the moon creation dark matter comet, Figure 1 shows a perfect fit at D-O events 7,6 and 5 especially. As the moon's orbit moves towards the ecliptic, as seen from the northern hemisphere, it will experience a repulsive impulse from the dm comet. This will dramatically increase the tide raising forces on Earth, despite the moon moving further away in it's orbit. When the moon's orbit passes the repulsive zone it will momentarily experience normal gravitational attraction before passing through the attractive impulse phase below the Earth's equator. This will similarly dramatically increase tide raising forces, but at the same time bring the moon closer to the Earth, for a prolonged period of higher tides. This double peak can be seen before the spike of D-O 7,6 and 5. There's similarly a double peak on the slightly gentler cooling side of the warming events.

The moon is currently moving away from the Earth, which fits with a northern hemisphere lunar orbit. The moon would have risen through the repulsive impulse phase and moved further way from the Earth. When it returns on it's cycle it will move further way still before reaching the attraction zone of the southern hemisphere.

My apologies for not explaining this more clearly, but I wanted to get something done in writing straight away.

attachments: Millennial_Cycles.jpg, Lunar_Millennial_Cycle.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 10:40 GMT
The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change can now be seen to fit the 1,470 year cycle given above, if dark matter comet impulses are considered. Here's a quote from that paper:

[*quote*]A cause for such greater regularity in tidal forcing might be resonances of other bodies of the solar system, especially the outer planets. We are struck by the close correspondence of the average period of the 180-year tidal cycle of 179.5 years (1/10 of that of the 1,800-year cycle) and the period of the sun's rotation about the center of mass of the solar system of 179.2 years, the latter a manifestation of planetary resonances (13).[*end quote*]

This 360 year movement of the sun relative to the earth is another important change in the dark matter impulses of the buried moon creation comet. It's the source of the 'little ice age' imo and is probably the biggest influence on our human civilisation w.r.t dramatic climate change.

Both these cycles need careful analysis and consideration with immediate effect.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 10:42 GMT
Not the sun's position in the 360 yr cycle but that of the planets, especially Jupiter. It links with the aforementioned ice age cycle as well as the so called split peak problem.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 11:23 GMT
I have a solution for the twice size spider monkey finds. The Lachamps geomagnetic excursion of 40kya was caused by a dark matter comet impact on the south coast of Australia, creating the Nullarbor plain. The energy of the dark matter impact was enough to disrupt the mantle flow and therefore the Earth's magnetic field. This collapse of the geomagnetic field, evidenced by a spike in beryllium-10 in ice core data, would have let cosmic radiation erode the ozone layer. This would then have led to Earth's surface being awash with intense solar radiation.

The comet impact also had the energy to lift the entire lithosphere, creating a landbridge stretching from S.E. Asia, arcing across the Pacific and reaching Mexico. This allowed species to cross from one continent to another and would explain the 40,000 year old human footprints discovered by Professor Gonzalez.

attachments: Lachamps_DM_Comet_Impact_40kya.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 13:33 GMT
This new comet would have joined with the moon creation comet in a magnet-like fashion, creating an eventual increase in mantle convection. A stronger magnetic field than *before* the 40kya event. A high peak of solar radiation followed by a decline which stopped lower than before it started. This is the kick start of our civilisation and the peripheral megafauna left behind.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 15:01 GMT
Here's some dialogue I'm currently having about the latest developments:

This isn't an ordinary comet impact though! It's a Tunguska-like impact which leaves little or no crater. Imagine a high velocity rifle bullet travelling through a water melon without making it explode. That's the kind of thing that can happen with dark matter travelling through the crust. The magnetic field is effected, initially collapsing to let in cosmic radiation which eliminates the ozone layer. More sunshine means more grass and fruit. Later though the magnetic field returns even stronger than before, so the big guys are hardest hit and are stressed enough to go extinct or evolve a clever survival strategy. Some of the megafauna of Australia was wiped out in the initial phase, such as the hippo-sized Diprotodon, the largest marsupial of all time, which went extinct 40,000 years ago.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 15:03 GMT
More dialogue:

The mantle flow creates the magnetic field. Modern science doesn't have an explanation. Dark matter comets *are* the solution. Why are you talking about an "exit wound" you dummy. The supermagnet joins up with the moon creation comet and churns the mantle even more than before when things settle down to an equilibrium. This increases the magnetic field and stops more 'harmful' cosmic radiation. We have a thicker ozone layer than before 40kya imo. Less sunshine equals less grass amd fruit sizes. The megafauna therefore goes extinct or learns to adapt. We invented farming. The cryptids invented something else. It's that simple Farmerboy

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 11:40 GMT
Descartes was right all along with his -Vortices- idea!

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 14:09 GMT
I predict the evolution of power technology with the invention of the supermagnet motor in the very near future. See here for a present overview with just baryonic magnets imagined. A Few Magnet Motors (June 21, 2011):

[*Quote*]Although originally suggested by Nikola Tesla in 1905,

only a few permanent magnet motors-generators have been designed, that is, magnet motors where the power comes from the magnets, not an external, exaustable supply of electricity.

Engineers of Hitachi Magnetics Corp. of California have stated that a motor-generator run solely by magnets is feasible and logical but the politics of the matter make it impossible for them to pursue developing a magnet motor or any device that would compete with the energy cartels.[*End Quote*]

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 12:09 GMT
The 20 million year ice age cycle is most likely the up and down undulations of the solar system as it orbits the galactic centre. The ice sheet on Antarctica began to grow some 20 million years ago.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 12:14 GMT
A discussion on the Wikipedia page of Megafauna has sections where I make the connection between Tunguska-like comet impact events and *both* the creation and extinction of different megafauna species.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 11:29 GMT
I have deduced that there must have been a strong ocean current connecting the Atlantic to the Pacific when all the global ice is melted. Sea levels would rise by 80m with modern day levels of ice. Take a look at the relief map of Columbia at the point between the two oceans. Is there not a broad channel cut into the rock surface? I googled the city in the middle of this feature and this is what I've just read: "Quibdó is a second-order administrative division in the region of Chocó, the country of Colombia with an average elevation of 51 meter above sea level."

This warm water pump into the Pacific would dominate it's ocean currents. Warm water would be pushed further north upto the Bering Strait which is deeper than the Columbian passage. This would accelerate the final melting phase of the Arctic and withdrzw the albedo effect of sea ice and then eventually ice all year round. The Antarctic would succumb to global warming and become an ice free continent once more.

attachments: Columbian_Ocean_Channel.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jan. 3, 2012 @ 11:52 GMT
A large baryonic ocean comet strike which lowers the sea level by 30m would be enough to halt the Columbian passage and initiate an ice age.

The ending of an ice age would be from a medium or large *dark matter* comet which disrupts the geomagnetic field long enough to melt the ice caps and restart the Columbian channel flow. An increase in greenhouse gas emissions is also a factor.

This is what has happened with the Laschamps excursion imo. The megafauna produced (us) has now produced so much greenhouse gases that the ice is continuing to melt. Will the millennial cycle change this course of nature? I don't know. Is it in humanities interest to avert this natural change in climate? I don't know.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Jan. 5, 2012 @ 10:51 GMT
James Marusek has an interesting table of data which features megafauna extinctions, ice age epochs and supernova. A mechanism he suggests is terrestrial comet impacts for the extinctions. THE COSMIC CLOCK, THE CYCLE OF TERRESTRIAL MASS EXTINCTIONS

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jan. 6, 2012 @ 09:54 GMT
The giant halo of dark matter that surrounds our galaxy is shaped like a flattened beach ball, researchers say. This can now be explained as a halo of MSMH supermagnetic material ejected from the centre of collapsing stars in supernovae events. The distribution fits with the absorption of dark matter comets into stars and planets of the galactic plane, leaving more to be ejected in the northerly and southerly directions.

attachments: dark_matter_halo_beachball.jpg, trail_of_debris.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jan. 6, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT
I predict that the recently deployedGRAIL probes will detect the supermagnetic effect of buried dark matter comets within the moon. Unique locations on the face of the moon towards the Earth should deflect the probes enough to detect a 'lunar flyby anomaly'.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Jan. 9, 2012 @ 10:11 GMT
Here's some more dialogue on the subject of dark matter comets:

"Also, lithospheric pressure waves of the crust would circle the entire globe. This would release CO2 stored in the cold ocean depths. This effect alone could counter-effect the possible cooling effects of volcanism."

"Has this supermagnetic comet increased mantle convection so much that the earth is still expanding? Is this why the mountains are seen to rise at such an astonishing rate? Is plate subduction theory therefore completely wrong?"

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jan. 9, 2012 @ 10:21 GMT
The latest research on dark matter, Survey throws light on the mysterious dark matter that holds the galaxies together (Jan 9, 2012):

Catherine Heymans, an astronomer at Edinburgh University who is involved with the study, said: "The survey has already shown that the highest densities of dark matter seem to host the oldest and largest galaxies. The implication is that the gravitational pull of the dark matter is what caused galaxies to form in the first place."

*This fits with the suggestion of dark matter being created within stars and later released during supernova events.*

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan Lowey replied on Jan. 9, 2012 @ 10:30 GMT
The end of the article finishes with:

"Perhaps the biggest mystery concerning dark matter is what it consists of. The fact that it does not interact with light or, apparently, with any other known matter suggests dark matter is composed of an entirely novel kind of particle.

Despite the implication that these particles must be passing through our bodies every minute, scientists have yet to detect one."

The idea of metastable metallic hydrogen (MSMH) supernova comets fits extremely well. The researcher was able to imagine a dark matter particle passing through us, but not a larger piece similarly passing through the crust it seems.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Jan. 16, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
My latest thoughts:

attachments: MyLatestThoughts.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 11:36 GMT
Arctic Ocean freshwater bulge detected (Jan23 2012). The rise of Jupiter and buried dark matter supermagnetic comets within the Earth fits with this amazing simulation model of a height anomaly of the western arctic region.

attachments: arctic_water_bulge.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Jan. 31, 2012 @ 12:57 GMT
The global weather system has many facets it seems: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) (Jan 29 2012)

[quote]The supposed *consensus* on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.[end quote]

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 2, 2012 @ 13:15 GMT
NASA Probe Discovers 'Alien' Matter From Beyond Our Solar System (Jan 31 2012)

[quote]For the very first time, a NASA spacecraft has detected matter from outside our solar system — material that came from elsewhere in the galaxy, researchers announced today (Jan. 31).

This so-called interstellar material was spotted by NASA's Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), a spacecraft that is studying the edge of the solar system from its orbit about 200,000 miles (322,000 kilometers) above Earth.

"This alien interstellar material is really the stuff that stars and planets and people are made of — it's really important to be measuring it," David McComas, IBEX principal investigator and assistant vice president of the Space Science and Engineering Division at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, said in a news briefing today from NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

An international team of scientists presented new findings from IBEX, which included the first detection of alien particles of hydrogen, oxygen and neon, in addition to the confirmation of previously detected helium. [Images from NASA's IBEX Mission]

These atoms are remnants of older stars that have ended their lives in violent explosions, called supernovas, which dispersed the elements throughout the galaxy. As interstellar wind blows these charged and neutral particles through the Milky Way, the IBEX probe is able to create a census of the elements that are present.[end quote]

The common sense idea of exotic dark matter comets from supernovae entering the solar system gets more and more support by the week it seems. When will the penny finally drop I wonder??

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 4, 2012 @ 14:16 GMT
Does water come from supernovae too?? Any reason why is couldn't? This recent BBC4 programme 'Asteroids: The Good The bad & The Ugly' doesn't go far enough in breaking the mould imo. Interesting none the less, see if you can see where exotic dark matter comets and water/ice could fit into the new data.

[quote]Famed for their ability to inflict Armageddon from outer space, asteroids are now revealing the secrets of how they are responsible for both life and death on our planet.[end quote]

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 17, 2012 @ 10:45 GMT
OMG - Comet Lovejoy Makes It!

[quote]COMET LOVEJOY SURVIVES: Incredibly, sungrazing Comet Lovejoy survived its close encounter with the sun yesterday. Lovejoy flew only 140,000 km over the stellar surface during the early hours of Dec. 16th. Experts expected the icy sundiver to be destroyed. Instead, NASAs Solar Dynamics Observatory caught the comet emerging from perihelion (closest approach) apparently intact [end quote]

Yet another matter/gravity anomaly. The exotic dark matter core hypothesis fits the video evidence.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 10:51 GMT
Horizon, BBC4 8pm, Thursday 23 Feb 2012.

Q: Why Can't We make A Star On Earth?

A: Because our modelling of nuclear fusion is woefully inadequate.

Professor Cox battles with the simplicities of life and gives a good tv performance as usual. His programmes have become rather 'samey' and keep repeating the basic assumptions and knowledge that modern science is bound within. The drawing of a proton changing to a neutron is just *too* basic! We need a simulation model of the exact mechanics of matter, radiaion and force. Another level of understanding is yet required. Just relying on the antiquated notion of 'maths' is now becoming laughable..

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 3, 2012 @ 10:53 GMT
Helical-shaped radio waves are a step closer to the real world geometry of matter and radiation imv.

[quote]Radio waves normally propogate through the air in a pattern similar to waves rippling toward. But researchers have found a way to twisting radio waves into a spiral shape, which could them to cram more data into the signal. Not only that, but understanding the characteristics of these waves could shed light on powerful phenomena in space.

Bo Thide of the Swedish Institute of Space Physics in Uppsala and Fabrizio Tamburini of the University of Padua led a team that found a way to transmit radio waves in a helical, twisted pattern. Further, they did it in a real-world environment and at frequencies commonly used by Wi-Fi networks. The results appeared in The New Journal of Physics.[end quote]

attachments: spiral_radio_waves.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 12:05 GMT
Scandinavian trees 'survived last Ice Age'. The conditions of the Arctic during the last ice age hint at a warm current entering the basin imv. It's not the first time that controversy over long held beliefs of the arctic climate has surfaced. This extra current strength fits with the extra tidal forces predicted in an exotic dark matter universe.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 09:30 GMT
Moon's Creation Questioned by Chemistry. This latest study fits with the idea of an Exotic Dark Matter Universe imv. An exotic dark matter 'comet' which went through the proto-earth and emerged to form the Himalayas as well as our Moon seems to fit the data rather well, doesn't it?

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT
My latest thoughts:

The mechanism of the millenial cycle might be the 'fog effect'. An increase in tidal strength would bring warmer water further towards the poles. A decrease in tidal strength would leave the oceans of mid latitude much colder. Warm air pushed over this colder ocean would produce much more fog. This could be a critical factor and significantly contribute to the 'fog albedo effect' or 'fog factor'. A cooling which leads to a further cooling effect.

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 13:51 GMT
Himalayan glaciers growing despite global warming. [quote]Despite talk of global warming and melting ice sheets the Himalayan glaciers appear to be growing.

Over a nine year period French scientists created 3D maps of one part of the Himalayas which showed that while glaciers around the world are reported to be shrinking in size, these appear to be getting larger. The findings continue to fuel controversy over the true impact of climate change. "In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling," said project leader Julie Gardelle. "So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."

In the Karakoram mountain range on the border of Pakistan and China, glaciers have defied global warming to become marginally larger over a decade, researchers said.[/quote]

This fits with the millennnial tidal model of the moon which is moving away from us and dcreasing the strength of the ocean currents, so counteracting anthropgenic warming in the mid latitudes.

attachments: Karakoramglacier.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 10:48 GMT
I just watched the BBC2 Horizon programme on solar storms and it's 'mega-magnetic equatorial sunspots'. My first thought was supermagnetic material in phase with planetary supermagnetism as discussed above. When a common sense non-Newtonian anisotropic picture of matter and gravity is used, it solves every problem we have with ease.

Space storm on the Sun's surface

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on May. 12, 2012 @ 09:12 GMT
What greater appreciation of Archimedes and the idea of a mechanical universe than the Antikythera Mechanism?

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.