If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Contests Home
Current Essay Contest
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
Previous Contests
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Current Essay Contest
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
Previous Contests
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
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 2/10/14 at 19:23pm UTC, wrote What created this mysterious Siberian crater? [quote]But the nest's shape...
Alan Lowey: on 2/10/14 at 19:10pm UTC, wrote Woolly Mammoths and Rhinos Ate Flowers [quote] Woolly mammoths, rhinos and...
Alan Lowey: on 2/10/14 at 6:11am UTC, wrote I propose that it's not magnetic fields which makes strange quark matter...
Alan Lowey: on 2/9/14 at 10:59am UTC, wrote Here's more evidence of exotic anisotropic matter: Mysterious quasar casts...
Alan Lowey: on 2/6/14 at 19:14pm UTC, wrote This latest finding corroborates the hypothesis of planetary high orbital...
Alan Lowey: on 2/5/14 at 7:56am UTC, wrote Page 22 of Bulk viscosities of magnetized quark matter and neutron star...
Alan Lowey: on 1/26/14 at 14:37pm UTC, wrote In order to explain the 100ky ice age conundrum I have assumed an increase...
Alan Lowey: on 1/26/14 at 13:18pm UTC, wrote The key to solving the 100ky ice age problem as well as the anomalous...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Robert McEachern: ""At least that's the premise." That's the problem. "the theorems that..." in Alternative Models of...
Malcolm Riddoch: "@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For..." in Alternative Models of...
John Cox: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...
Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...
Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...
John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...
John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
Alan Lowey: on 2/10/14 at 19:23pm UTC, wrote What created this mysterious Siberian crater? [quote]But the nest's shape...
Alan Lowey: on 2/10/14 at 19:10pm UTC, wrote Woolly Mammoths and Rhinos Ate Flowers [quote] Woolly mammoths, rhinos and...
Alan Lowey: on 2/10/14 at 6:11am UTC, wrote I propose that it's not magnetic fields which makes strange quark matter...
Alan Lowey: on 2/9/14 at 10:59am UTC, wrote Here's more evidence of exotic anisotropic matter: Mysterious quasar casts...
Alan Lowey: on 2/6/14 at 19:14pm UTC, wrote This latest finding corroborates the hypothesis of planetary high orbital...
Alan Lowey: on 2/5/14 at 7:56am UTC, wrote Page 22 of Bulk viscosities of magnetized quark matter and neutron star...
Alan Lowey: on 1/26/14 at 14:37pm UTC, wrote In order to explain the 100ky ice age conundrum I have assumed an increase...
Alan Lowey: on 1/26/14 at 13:18pm UTC, wrote The key to solving the 100ky ice age problem as well as the anomalous...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Robert McEachern: ""At least that's the premise." That's the problem. "the theorems that..." in Alternative Models of...
Malcolm Riddoch: "@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For..." in Alternative Models of...
John Cox: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...
Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...
Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...
John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...
John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
FQXi FORUM
January 24, 2020
CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC: Newton’s Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality by Alan Lowey [refresh]
TOPIC: Newton’s Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality by Alan Lowey [refresh]
Essay Abstract
Newton’s equivalence principle states that the motion of a body solely under the influence of gravity is independent of the composition and internal structure of the body. Isotropy and Equivalence are both rejected for a more common sense approach which is justified by a non-problematic solution to the 100ky glacial cycle, based on ‘plane of rotation anisotropic high energy density non-baryonic matter’ at the core of heavenly bodies creating additional ocean and atmospheric tides. Should CERN’s quest for the Higgs Boson become fruitless, I present nothing less than a contingency hypothesis which has the potential to seamlessly replace the current science ethos.
Author Bio
I‘m a former Scientific Officer at the UK’s Royal Aircraft Establishment, home of the Farnborough Airshow. I have pursued a ‘jigsaw puzzle methodology’ of research since childhood due my early recognition of an underlying problem within the fundamentals of physics. Only now with this essay contest can this research be given to others for critical scrutiny and hopefully some mutual enlightenment.
Download Essay PDF File
Newton’s equivalence principle states that the motion of a body solely under the influence of gravity is independent of the composition and internal structure of the body. Isotropy and Equivalence are both rejected for a more common sense approach which is justified by a non-problematic solution to the 100ky glacial cycle, based on ‘plane of rotation anisotropic high energy density non-baryonic matter’ at the core of heavenly bodies creating additional ocean and atmospheric tides. Should CERN’s quest for the Higgs Boson become fruitless, I present nothing less than a contingency hypothesis which has the potential to seamlessly replace the current science ethos.
Author Bio
I‘m a former Scientific Officer at the UK’s Royal Aircraft Establishment, home of the Farnborough Airshow. I have pursued a ‘jigsaw puzzle methodology’ of research since childhood due my early recognition of an underlying problem within the fundamentals of physics. Only now with this essay contest can this research be given to others for critical scrutiny and hopefully some mutual enlightenment.
Download Essay PDF File
My apologies for the hiccup in the essay sentence: "The Antarctic landmass and Greenland allow for this settling of snow and ice which brings global cooling which then leads to Arctic sea ice to forming more readily". I should have asked my mother who did the PDF conversion for me to proof-read it too!
Note that the North American landmass is also important of course for the northern hemisphere due it being so large with prevailing rains compared to the southern hemisphere's circular sea island continent of Antarctica. Would the moisture laden clouds reach the southern landmass as easily as Greenland? I doubt it, hence another contributing factor to the 400,000 year cycle, the underlying 200,000 year 3D orbital cycle of up and down which either enters the earth's southern or northern hemisphere first into the Sun's exotic plane of influence.
Note that the North American landmass is also important of course for the northern hemisphere due it being so large with prevailing rains compared to the southern hemisphere's circular sea island continent of Antarctica. Would the moisture laden clouds reach the southern landmass as easily as Greenland? I doubt it, hence another contributing factor to the 400,000 year cycle, the underlying 200,000 year 3D orbital cycle of up and down which either enters the earth's southern or northern hemisphere first into the Sun's exotic plane of influence.
I just had a thought! The distribution of the earth's crust embedded exotic comets would also be critical to extra surface tides due to the either northern or southern hemisphere entry into the sun's exotic plane of influence. The Indian sub-continental plate is a prime candidate for a low angle exotic comet impact. The formerly unexplained high speed of 'drift' into the Asian plate creating the Himalayas now has an answer.
Is the moon *really* moving away from the earth or is the earth simply moving more towards Jupiter for instance? The Hidden Exotic Matter (HEM) hypothesis opens up a mulitude of new possibilities to explore.
The Higgs discovery only confirms the particle theory of physics and *doesn't* detract from the alternative view of planetary motion given in the essay.
According to the Holy Bible, God said "Let there be light," and there was light. God never said, "Let there be a spark." Almighty God never spent $10 billion making a particle. Only 3,000 scientists would be so gluttonistically stupid enough to spend that amount of money looking for it. The scientists have not actually found the particle as yet. They are just sure it must be in one of the still photographs taken from running the televised tape of the particle collisions backwards that shows all of the approximately 3 trillion sparks they were able to create. They are relying on the flawed law of averages in order to prove that a picture of the particle’s pathway exists in among the mass of accumulated data somewhere and they will helpingly add an arrow to the photograph pointing to where exactly the particle is supposed to be once the computer locates it. They can never show the actual photograph of the particle because it is a particle and it is invisible as are all particles. The fact that each one of the sparks and each one of the particles causing the sparks will have to differ in some way not only from every other spark and every other particle created by CERN, but each spark and each particle will also have to be different in some infinitesimal way from every other spark and every other particle that has ever been created anywhere, or that will ever be created anywhere else in the future, totally eludes all scientists everywhere. We live in one Universe once. There can only ever be one of anything once. There was only one of anything once in the past. There will only be one of anything once in the future.
report post as inappropriate
The Hidden Exotic Matter Hypothesis gives an alternative solution to the Moon's recession and moving away at around 3.7cm per year. The Moon is likely to have been created with a slow spin rate and quickly stopped altogether. The build-up of exotic comets on the far side, unshielded by the Earth, would give it an asymmetry which becomes apparent when in high inclination, either above or below the Earth's equatorial plane. It can be modelled as if a large exotic matter object is still descending to the HEM lunar core, on the far side, half-hidden from the Earth. In reality, many small exotic comets would be descending. I've estimated the gravitational influence of exotic matter to exotic matter attraction to be approximately 15,000 times Earth's surface gravity. This is the identical underlying process to the precession of the planets and also the cause of the 1,470 year millennial cycle of our weather imo. The present woes of the UK's jet stream positioning can perhaps be attributed to it.
The Newtonian calculated inclination cycle of the Moon is 1800 years but it is assumed that with the HEM hypothesis at high inclination the Earth and Moon experience an additional accelerating force of attraction which increases the speed of the Moon's orbit and so gives the climate data figure of 1470 years. The Moon precesses despite it's apparent lack of spin with the HEM hypothesis.
The effect of the Millennial cycle is enhanced due to the Moon's highly asymmetric exotic matter build-up on the far side due it's non-spinning formation.
The effect of the Millennial cycle is enhanced due to the Moon's highly asymmetric exotic matter build-up on the far side due it's non-spinning formation.
To summarise the theorised shape of exotic matter within the Earth, Moon and Sun:
The Earth's hidden exotic core has a counter-intuitive rugby ball shape which is standing on end so that the Moon sees a larger x-section when traversing the equatorial plane and coincides with baryonic high tide raising forces on the millennial scale. The Sun is the opposite in having a larger x-sectional area seen at high inclinations, so that the Earth experiences extra exotic tide raising forces during the glacial period which gives global cooling due to the runaway albedo effect.
Perhaps the Earth's exotic matter core is this shape due to a very high spin rate caused by the exotic comet impact creation of the Moon for example?
The Earth's hidden exotic core has a counter-intuitive rugby ball shape which is standing on end so that the Moon sees a larger x-section when traversing the equatorial plane and coincides with baryonic high tide raising forces on the millennial scale. The Sun is the opposite in having a larger x-sectional area seen at high inclinations, so that the Earth experiences extra exotic tide raising forces during the glacial period which gives global cooling due to the runaway albedo effect.
Perhaps the Earth's exotic matter core is this shape due to a very high spin rate caused by the exotic comet impact creation of the Moon for example?
Dear Alan,
I found your essay surprising, in part because I expected an Archimedes screw to make an appearance at any time. This was something very different. I do know that there are still discoveries to be made by science. So I should try to keep an open mind about such things as hills of exotic matter and the influence of exotic matter on planetary movements, that I know nothing about. The essay ended too soon as it was easy to read and I was enjoying it. I got to the end thinking ?OK and ?maybe and then thought but he hasn't mentioned the Archimedes screw yet! Did I miss it? I will have to wait until next year for another fascinating and perhaps equally surprising instalment. Good luck. I hope you get lots of appreciative readers as the competition progresses.
report post as inappropriate
I found your essay surprising, in part because I expected an Archimedes screw to make an appearance at any time. This was something very different. I do know that there are still discoveries to be made by science. So I should try to keep an open mind about such things as hills of exotic matter and the influence of exotic matter on planetary movements, that I know nothing about. The essay ended too soon as it was easy to read and I was enjoying it. I got to the end thinking ?OK and ?maybe and then thought but he hasn't mentioned the Archimedes screw yet! Did I miss it? I will have to wait until next year for another fascinating and perhaps equally surprising instalment. Good luck. I hope you get lots of appreciative readers as the competition progresses.
Hi Georgina,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and giving such encouraging comments. The shortness of the essay is just my style unfortunately. I'd like to expand on the ideas within this discussion forum if anyone is keen enough. Btw, it's still the Archimedes screw idea with exotic matter! It's simply matter which is anisotropic as opposed to Newton's isotropic matter. A bit like a two hidden core supermagnets which attract with around 15000 times the force of baryonic matter at planetary scales. It's a directional force as opposed to a force with eminates in all directions equally which therefore contradicts the notion of a space-time 'fabric'. The basics are childs play. The rewards from pursuing this line of enquiry are staggering. I never thought it would solve so much as it seems to be doing. I'm adamant that the ice age conundrum is much better served by this hypothesis. The subject in itself has a long history and can seem complicated to the uninitiated. How many cutting edge physicists know about the 5 problems with the current sunlight-only model? Not many I suspect. How many would be willing to suspect that a fundamental problem with the very first assumptions in the foundations of physics is the key to a new solution? Just one?? Only me?? I'm sure the penny will drop with someone else one day soon. I just hope it's before the CERN team throw their hands up in the air about the nature of Dark Matter though. That'd be another couple of years to wait!
Thank you very much for reading my essay and giving such encouraging comments. The shortness of the essay is just my style unfortunately. I'd like to expand on the ideas within this discussion forum if anyone is keen enough. Btw, it's still the Archimedes screw idea with exotic matter! It's simply matter which is anisotropic as opposed to Newton's isotropic matter. A bit like a two hidden core supermagnets which attract with around 15000 times the force of baryonic matter at planetary scales. It's a directional force as opposed to a force with eminates in all directions equally which therefore contradicts the notion of a space-time 'fabric'. The basics are childs play. The rewards from pursuing this line of enquiry are staggering. I never thought it would solve so much as it seems to be doing. I'm adamant that the ice age conundrum is much better served by this hypothesis. The subject in itself has a long history and can seem complicated to the uninitiated. How many cutting edge physicists know about the 5 problems with the current sunlight-only model? Not many I suspect. How many would be willing to suspect that a fundamental problem with the very first assumptions in the foundations of physics is the key to a new solution? Just one?? Only me?? I'm sure the penny will drop with someone else one day soon. I just hope it's before the CERN team throw their hands up in the air about the nature of Dark Matter though. That'd be another couple of years to wait!
Oops!! I've made a mistake when calculating the figure of 15,000 times baryonic matter interaction. I'd assumed that the Earth's 360 mile innermost core was composed of exotic matter(!). This guesstimate fits with the estimated number and size of incident exotic comets but certainly isn't strong enough for additional planetary tidal forcing. If the central very innnermost core of exotic material is assumed to be just 1 km in diameter, keeping to a sphere shape for simplicity for now, then the estimated figure is now 1.4 million times that of normal matter. This figure appears more appropriate especially when considering the amount of physical space available when quantum modelling of particle structures. But now the question is: "Where has all the exotic comet material gone to over the Earth's lifetime??". I assume that it must have annihilated and generated the internal heat of the planet! The same thing must be happening inside the sun. The model of superhot nuclear fusion is *wrong*. It's slow cold fusion. The central very innermost cores of the Earth and Sun are likely to have been original matter from the implosion event of the initial fractal-like structures of creation. They aren't from an amalgamation starting from scratch. Maybe there is a rate of build-up of exotic comet influx against a rate of annihilation.
This hypothesis is still in the creation phase. The pieces are still being fitted together with remarkable consistency. Please bare with me.
This hypothesis is still in the creation phase. The pieces are still being fitted together with remarkable consistency. Please bare with me.
Thanks Alan for an interesting set of ideas - although I second Georgina's complaint that you could have expanded on your meanings, giving examples, references etc. Yes I remember the Archemides screw idea - very clever though I objected to its application at the time! What I particularly enjoyed in this heat wave here is reference to the ice ages!
But seriously I often wondered at gravity's action through matter layers of different density. How does it 'work' ? It is as if matter is both transparent to gravity and not transparent to it! I think the action of rotating nodes in my Beautiful Universe (BU) theory explains that puzzle nicely, and at the same time explains the Holographic Principle in a physical way. The rotating nodes locked up in the envisaged polyhedral patterns making up matter form a 3D linkage. Gravity is the extension of this rotation into the nodes making up the extended ether surrounding matter. So when another piece of matter causes these nodes to untwist see Fig. 18 of my (BU) 2005 paper it acts on the surface nodes of matter and the effect is resisted within matter internally. It needs to be worked out!
report post as inappropriate
But seriously I often wondered at gravity's action through matter layers of different density. How does it 'work' ? It is as if matter is both transparent to gravity and not transparent to it! I think the action of rotating nodes in my Beautiful Universe (BU) theory explains that puzzle nicely, and at the same time explains the Holographic Principle in a physical way. The rotating nodes locked up in the envisaged polyhedral patterns making up matter form a 3D linkage. Gravity is the extension of this rotation into the nodes making up the extended ether surrounding matter. So when another piece of matter causes these nodes to untwist see Fig. 18 of my (BU) 2005 paper it acts on the surface nodes of matter and the effect is resisted within matter internally. It needs to be worked out!
Thank you Vladimir for appreciating some of the ideas that I'm presenting for the first time. The essay could have done with some expansion, agreed, but I wanted to keep to the absolute nub of the argument of which I'm trying to convey. In addition, my methodology was destined to conclude with a zen-like picture of how everything works, so it's still in an abstract phase. I assume you must be in the east states because here in the UK where the jet stream has dropped bringing wet chilly weather, we're *preying* for a heatwave. It's more likely to be the millennial cycle rather than the ice age incidentally.
You say "It is as if matter is both transparent to gravity and not transparent to it!", and yes, I totally agree that this needs some clarification. I did look at your website and the diagrams looked very familiar. I haven't fully absorbed your BU theory but agree that it's the kind of modelling that is needed. How do you feel about the concept of saturated maximum energy density matter who's gravitational attraction is dependent on it's x-sectional area, rather than the amount of material?? This assumes that the surface can't emit any more force carrying particles and is at it's maximum limit, so therefore it doesn't matter how much material is behind it at that moment relative to another body of maximum energy density material. This is at the crux of my idea for additional exotic matter tidal forcing.
You say "It is as if matter is both transparent to gravity and not transparent to it!", and yes, I totally agree that this needs some clarification. I did look at your website and the diagrams looked very familiar. I haven't fully absorbed your BU theory but agree that it's the kind of modelling that is needed. How do you feel about the concept of saturated maximum energy density matter who's gravitational attraction is dependent on it's x-sectional area, rather than the amount of material?? This assumes that the surface can't emit any more force carrying particles and is at it's maximum limit, so therefore it doesn't matter how much material is behind it at that moment relative to another body of maximum energy density material. This is at the crux of my idea for additional exotic matter tidal forcing.
Alan,
Sorry for the delay to respond and thanks for your message - yes I live in Tokyo where summer is really muggy.
BU theory is long overdue for a shorter more mathematical description - I think I had better do that, and the next step is modelling it.
In BU there is no fixed amount of energy per node or area or volume. That allows electromagnetic intensity to occur in any one ether node or cluster of nodes. Its been some time since I have thought about it I think there must be a maximum limit of such density, though.
Good luck with your research - zen thoughts are fine but they need to be conceptually tightened and cast in clear terms. In fact that is the Japanese planning modus operandi for new projects. Strart with fluid undefined ideas and then decide on one specific clear plan.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Sorry for the delay to respond and thanks for your message - yes I live in Tokyo where summer is really muggy.
BU theory is long overdue for a shorter more mathematical description - I think I had better do that, and the next step is modelling it.
In BU there is no fixed amount of energy per node or area or volume. That allows electromagnetic intensity to occur in any one ether node or cluster of nodes. Its been some time since I have thought about it I think there must be a maximum limit of such density, though.
Good luck with your research - zen thoughts are fine but they need to be conceptually tightened and cast in clear terms. In fact that is the Japanese planning modus operandi for new projects. Strart with fluid undefined ideas and then decide on one specific clear plan.
Vladimir
I even had the idea that the Artic basin is the impact site of the proto-moon collision and that the event tipped the Earth by 90 degrees and kept in place by the orbit of the newly formed satellite.
The Spring Tides can now be also be thought of as additional exotic matter tides due to the moon lying along the equatorial plane. The moon and the sun are aligned every two weeks which result in spring tides; tides that are 20% higher than normal. The exotic matter hypothesis now adds another dimension. It's the same idea as gravity 'kicks' explained by Prof Cox as the mechanism needed to understand the Saturn's rings and the sheperding effects of it's moons. He failed to explain how this could be managed without violating Newtonian laws incidentally(!).
The Spring Tides can now be also be thought of as additional exotic matter tides due to the moon lying along the equatorial plane. The moon and the sun are aligned every two weeks which result in spring tides; tides that are 20% higher than normal. The exotic matter hypothesis now adds another dimension. It's the same idea as gravity 'kicks' explained by Prof Cox as the mechanism needed to understand the Saturn's rings and the sheperding effects of it's moons. He failed to explain how this could be managed without violating Newtonian laws incidentally(!).
! I had another thought too w.r.t the 'missing' exotic comet build-up in the Earth's core which I talked about earlier. If the moon's calculated 1800 year orbit is now reduced to 1470 years, which fits with the field data, doesn't it mean that the Earth's 100,000 year glacial cycle is similarly over estimated?? The planet should speed up during the non-interglacial period which we appear to be still in and so would drastically reduce the figure to something more like 50,000 years wouldn't it?? Possible? More thought needed on this one..
My latest thoughts:
They're *all* amalgamations of 'isotropic saturated matter'. The galactic centre, the stars and the planet exotic matter cores. It's isotropic, but not as we know it. It radiates attractive force carrying particles equally in all directions from it's surface, but is dependent on size of surface areas to determine force of interaction between two exotic matter bodies. Note that the underlying Archmides screw analogy still applies, so matter is really anisotropic, which is seen at the quantum level.
The moon was created from the collision of another early planet with the earth. This left the incoming planet as a moon after the impact event, which tilted both bodies by 90 degrees so that each kept the other in this on-end configuration. The earth's and the moon's exotic matter cores shaped like central bulging disks were tipped onto their ends. The orbit of the two then changed the shape of the conglomerate cores and moulded them into rugby ball shapes. When the moon is on the earth's equator the surface area 'seen' by both is at a maximum and so gives the extra 20% tidal kick. I've done a quick sketch for illustration purposes. See attached.
The rate of exotic matter comet impacts is likely to be much higher in the past due to remnants from the 'big bang' implosion event. When all this debris is consumed by stars then only supernovae remnants are a source of incoming exotic comets.
The Late Heavy Bombardment is a clue to this new way of thinking imo.
attachments: Exotic_Cores.jpg
They're *all* amalgamations of 'isotropic saturated matter'. The galactic centre, the stars and the planet exotic matter cores. It's isotropic, but not as we know it. It radiates attractive force carrying particles equally in all directions from it's surface, but is dependent on size of surface areas to determine force of interaction between two exotic matter bodies. Note that the underlying Archmides screw analogy still applies, so matter is really anisotropic, which is seen at the quantum level.
The moon was created from the collision of another early planet with the earth. This left the incoming planet as a moon after the impact event, which tilted both bodies by 90 degrees so that each kept the other in this on-end configuration. The earth's and the moon's exotic matter cores shaped like central bulging disks were tipped onto their ends. The orbit of the two then changed the shape of the conglomerate cores and moulded them into rugby ball shapes. When the moon is on the earth's equator the surface area 'seen' by both is at a maximum and so gives the extra 20% tidal kick. I've done a quick sketch for illustration purposes. See attached.
The rate of exotic matter comet impacts is likely to be much higher in the past due to remnants from the 'big bang' implosion event. When all this debris is consumed by stars then only supernovae remnants are a source of incoming exotic comets.
The Late Heavy Bombardment is a clue to this new way of thinking imo.
attachments: Exotic_Cores.jpg
This model predicts that after the creation of the moon, tidal strength would have gradually increased due to the morphing of the conglomerate exotic cores into rugby ball shapes. Please see diagram attached.
attachments: Exotic_Core_Morphing.jpg
attachments: Exotic_Core_Morphing.jpg
The moon's creation via the current Giant impact hypothesis has many problems.
[quote]The giant impact hypothesis is the currently-favoured scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[3] Supporting evidence includes: the identical direction of the Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit,[4] Moon samples which indicate the surface of the Moon was once molten, the Moon's relatively small iron core, lower density compared to the Earth, evidence of similar collisions in other star systems (which result in debris disks), and that giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
There remain several questions concerning the best current models of the giant impact hypothesis, however. The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to heat Earth to produce a global 'ocean' of magma; yet there is no evidence of the resultant planetary differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle. At present, there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon. Other remaining questions include: when did the Moon lose its share of volatile elements; and why Venus, which also experienced giant impacts during its formation, does not host a similar moon.[end quote]
The exotioc very innermost core hypothesis seems to help in an explanation imo. The core of the moon would be lost to the bigger exotic core of the earth, taking most of the iron with it. The impact collision would have to be modelled totally differently and therefore likely to produce an event at a lower temperature, hence solving the 'magma ocean' conundrum.
attachments: Giantimpact.gif
[quote]The giant impact hypothesis is the currently-favoured scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[3] Supporting evidence includes: the identical direction of the Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit,[4] Moon samples which indicate the surface of the Moon was once molten, the Moon's relatively small iron core, lower density compared to the Earth, evidence of similar collisions in other star systems (which result in debris disks), and that giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
There remain several questions concerning the best current models of the giant impact hypothesis, however. The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to heat Earth to produce a global 'ocean' of magma; yet there is no evidence of the resultant planetary differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle. At present, there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon. Other remaining questions include: when did the Moon lose its share of volatile elements; and why Venus, which also experienced giant impacts during its formation, does not host a similar moon.[end quote]
The exotioc very innermost core hypothesis seems to help in an explanation imo. The core of the moon would be lost to the bigger exotic core of the earth, taking most of the iron with it. The impact collision would have to be modelled totally differently and therefore likely to produce an event at a lower temperature, hence solving the 'magma ocean' conundrum.
attachments: Giantimpact.gif
The compositional problems suggest to me that there was no second proto-planet Theia, only an exotic comet impact which stayed with the core of earth but whose energy ejected surface matter into orbit.
[quote]There are a number of compositional inconsistencies that need to be addressed.
The ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the giant impact hypothesis. If the giant impact hypothesis is correct, they must be due to some other cause.[16]
The presence of volatiles such as water trapped in lunar basalts is more difficult to explain if the Moon was caused by an impact which would entail a catastrophic heating event.[17]
The iron oxide (FeO) content (13%) of the Moon, which is intermediate between Mars (18%) and the terrestrial mantle (8%), rules out most of the source of the proto-lunar material from the Earth's mantle.[18]
If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when, in fact, it is deficient in those.[19]
The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to those of Earth.[2] Oxygen isotopic ratios, which may be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each solar system body.[20] If Theia had been a separate proto-planet, it probably would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.[21]
The Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears so close to the Earth's (within 4 ppm), that little if any of the colliding body's mass could likely have been part of the Moon.[22][end quote]
The last titanium isotope analysis is greatly in favour of the exotic comet hypothesis instead of Theia imo.
[quote]There are a number of compositional inconsistencies that need to be addressed.
The ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the giant impact hypothesis. If the giant impact hypothesis is correct, they must be due to some other cause.[16]
The presence of volatiles such as water trapped in lunar basalts is more difficult to explain if the Moon was caused by an impact which would entail a catastrophic heating event.[17]
The iron oxide (FeO) content (13%) of the Moon, which is intermediate between Mars (18%) and the terrestrial mantle (8%), rules out most of the source of the proto-lunar material from the Earth's mantle.[18]
If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when, in fact, it is deficient in those.[19]
The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to those of Earth.[2] Oxygen isotopic ratios, which may be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each solar system body.[20] If Theia had been a separate proto-planet, it probably would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.[21]
The Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears so close to the Earth's (within 4 ppm), that little if any of the colliding body's mass could likely have been part of the Moon.[22][end quote]
The last titanium isotope analysis is greatly in favour of the exotic comet hypothesis instead of Theia imo.
I've made a new connection: The 45 degree angle of impact to create the moon deduced from simulation modelling and the 45 degree anomaly of the 360 mile diameter innnermost core! Seismic evidence for distinct anisotropy in the innermost inner core and Giant impact hypothesis
[quote]Astronomers think the collision between Earth and Theia happened at approximately 4.53 Gya; about 30-50 million years after the Solar System began to form. In astronomical terms, the impact would have been of moderate velocity. Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle when the latter was nearly fully formed. Computer simulations of this "late-impact" scenario suggest an impact angle of about 45° and an initial impactor velocity below 4 km/s.[10] Theia's iron core would have sunk into the young Earth's core, and most of Theia's mantle accreted onto the Earth's mantle, however, a significant portion of the mantle material from both Theia and the Earth would have been ejected into orbit around the Earth. This material quickly coalesced into the Moon (possibly within less than a month, but in no more than a century). Estimates based on computer simulations of such an event suggest that some twenty percent of the original mass of Theia would have ended up as an orbiting ring of debris, and about half of this matter coalesced into the Moon.
The Earth would have gained significant amounts of angular momentum and mass from such a collision. Regardless of the speed and tilt of the Earth's rotation before the impact, it would have experienced a day some five hours long after the impact, and the Earth's equator and the Moon's orbit would have become coplanar in the aftermath of the giant impact.[end quote]
I suspect that the exotic comet impactor is still buried in the innermost core at a 45 degree angle and is non-symmetrical.
attachments: MoonImpactor.jpg
[quote]Astronomers think the collision between Earth and Theia happened at approximately 4.53 Gya; about 30-50 million years after the Solar System began to form. In astronomical terms, the impact would have been of moderate velocity. Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle when the latter was nearly fully formed. Computer simulations of this "late-impact" scenario suggest an impact angle of about 45° and an initial impactor velocity below 4 km/s.[10] Theia's iron core would have sunk into the young Earth's core, and most of Theia's mantle accreted onto the Earth's mantle, however, a significant portion of the mantle material from both Theia and the Earth would have been ejected into orbit around the Earth. This material quickly coalesced into the Moon (possibly within less than a month, but in no more than a century). Estimates based on computer simulations of such an event suggest that some twenty percent of the original mass of Theia would have ended up as an orbiting ring of debris, and about half of this matter coalesced into the Moon.
The Earth would have gained significant amounts of angular momentum and mass from such a collision. Regardless of the speed and tilt of the Earth's rotation before the impact, it would have experienced a day some five hours long after the impact, and the Earth's equator and the Moon's orbit would have become coplanar in the aftermath of the giant impact.[end quote]
I suspect that the exotic comet impactor is still buried in the innermost core at a 45 degree angle and is non-symmetrical.
attachments: MoonImpactor.jpg
Is the 1,470 year millennial cycle the period between the 90 degree axes of the exotic comet core? See attached.
attachments: MoonImpactorAngle.jpg
attachments: MoonImpactorAngle.jpg
The moon's exotic core interaction with the earth's exotic core 'slug' is likely to tilt the thick end of the wedge into the opposite hemisphere every cycle. This would have the effect of stirring the mantle more vigorously in this new hemisphere and so cause a magnetic pole reversal.
Here's another clue that the millennial cycle is connected to the reversals of the core Growth of Earth's core may hint at magnetic reversal
My model predicts double peaks in the millennial cycle
attachments: Gripngrip.png
attachments: Gripngrip.png
I found a reference to this double peak in real climate data, Millennial-scale storminess variability in the northeastern United States during the Holocene epoch
[quote]The pacing of storminess maxima derived from the various North Atlantic palaeoclimate records suggest a quasi-periodic cycle of 3,000 yr. Spectral analysis of our New England storminess time series reveals significant spectral power in a broad, double peak centred at a period of 3,070 yr. A similar double peak exists in the power spectrum of the GISP2 time series of aerosol deposition. Monte Carlo simulations show that the likelihood of obtaining comparable results from a composite of arbitrary lake sediment records (produced by randomly rearranging the events identified in each individual time series) is less than 1%.[end quote]
[quote]The pacing of storminess maxima derived from the various North Atlantic palaeoclimate records suggest a quasi-periodic cycle of 3,000 yr. Spectral analysis of our New England storminess time series reveals significant spectral power in a broad, double peak centred at a period of 3,070 yr. A similar double peak exists in the power spectrum of the GISP2 time series of aerosol deposition. Monte Carlo simulations show that the likelihood of obtaining comparable results from a composite of arbitrary lake sediment records (produced by randomly rearranging the events identified in each individual time series) is less than 1%.[end quote]
Here's another important recent paper on the subject (19 Mar 2012) Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
[quote]...The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun. Other qualitative discussions are added about the plausibility of a planetary influence on solar activity. [end quote]
[quote]...The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun. Other qualitative discussions are added about the plausibility of a planetary influence on solar activity. [end quote]
The quasi-decadal ocean climate cycle can now be directly linked with the solar sunspot cycle of 11 years. Exotic matter interaction across the solar system creates a solar core wobble of tilt which affects the surface area 'seen' by the earth-moon system. The inclination cycles of the planets and their irregular exotic cores creates the subtle changes in tidal ocean strengths on this low end of the scale. All is now in place for a complete understanding and prediction of the earth's weather and climate. The climate model should start with the correct simulation modelling of the creation of the moon imo. The rest is future history.
attachments: SunspotCycle.jpg
attachments: SunspotCycle.jpg
My latest thoughts:
Distance is *not* an issue with exotic matter on planetary scales. The plane of rotation band of influence diminishes with distance on the solar scale. This has the ability to solve the spiral galaxy curve conundrum imo. It's why galaxies are in all directions and higgledy-piggledy. Exotic gravity doesn't easily exist between galaxies.
Distance is *not* an issue with exotic matter on planetary scales. The plane of rotation band of influence diminishes with distance on the solar scale. This has the ability to solve the spiral galaxy curve conundrum imo. It's why galaxies are in all directions and higgledy-piggledy. Exotic gravity doesn't easily exist between galaxies.
Our planets are bound by exotic gravity. The sun contributes a planar exotic gravity band and overall the Milky Way diminishes outwards towards plane of rotation. This sets a natural maximum size for single galaxy formation. Much larger ones are coalitions. The model assumes that gravity particles which travel around a 4D universal hypersphere during the structural/energy build phase create Dark Energy, an apparent repulsive effect between galaxies. Clusters are created by irregularities in the universal sphere. This model assumes a geometrically perfect build and collapse just before the 'big bang'. (See my previous essay for clarification)
Einstein's relativity is based on the early ideas and work on capillary action. His first paper was on this subject. Unfortunately for him, the Torsion balance used successfully to determine density variations in the earth's crust and referenced in his paper *IS NOT* sufficient to counter the exotic matter hypothesis!
[quote]A variation of the earlier invention, the Torsion balance, the Eötvös pendulum, designed by Hungarian Baron Loránd Eötvös, is a sensitive instrument for measuring the density of underlying rock strata. The device measures not only the direction of force of gravity, but the change in the force of gravity's extent in horizontal plane. It determines the distribution of masses in the Earth's crust. The Eötvös torsion balance, an important instrument of geodesy and geophysics throughout the whole world, studies the Earth's physical properties. It is used for mine exploration, and also in the search for minerals, such as oil, coal and ores. The Eötvös pendulum was never patented, but after the demonstration of its accuracy and numerous visits to Hungary from abroad several instruments were exported worldwide, and the richest oilfields in the United States were discovered by Eötvös' Pendulum. The Eötvös pendulum was used to prove the equivalence of the inertial mass and the gravitational mass accurately, as a response to the offer of a prize. This was used later by Albert Einstein as aid in setting out the theory of general relativity...
Eötvös' law of capillarity (weak equivalence principle) served as a basis for Einstein's theory of relativity. (Capillarity: the property or exertion of capillary attraction of repulsion, a force that is the resultant of adhesion, cohesion, and surface tension in liquids which are in contact with solids, causing the liquid surface to rise – or be depressed...)[end quote]
report post as inappropriate
[quote]A variation of the earlier invention, the Torsion balance, the Eötvös pendulum, designed by Hungarian Baron Loránd Eötvös, is a sensitive instrument for measuring the density of underlying rock strata. The device measures not only the direction of force of gravity, but the change in the force of gravity's extent in horizontal plane. It determines the distribution of masses in the Earth's crust. The Eötvös torsion balance, an important instrument of geodesy and geophysics throughout the whole world, studies the Earth's physical properties. It is used for mine exploration, and also in the search for minerals, such as oil, coal and ores. The Eötvös pendulum was never patented, but after the demonstration of its accuracy and numerous visits to Hungary from abroad several instruments were exported worldwide, and the richest oilfields in the United States were discovered by Eötvös' Pendulum. The Eötvös pendulum was used to prove the equivalence of the inertial mass and the gravitational mass accurately, as a response to the offer of a prize. This was used later by Albert Einstein as aid in setting out the theory of general relativity...
Eötvös' law of capillarity (weak equivalence principle) served as a basis for Einstein's theory of relativity. (Capillarity: the property or exertion of capillary attraction of repulsion, a force that is the resultant of adhesion, cohesion, and surface tension in liquids which are in contact with solids, causing the liquid surface to rise – or be depressed...)[end quote]
Alan,
There are so many variables not yet fully understood that affect gravity. Even to consider our place in the galaxy, some 25,000 to 28,000 LYs from the galactic core and those things that perturb sun and planets like the spiral arm rotation, our 225 million year orbit with varying massive objects in our path, and they talk of Gliese 710 approaching. All could impact gravity to some degree. Even orthodox views of gravity are not understood.
You're going to pass on your studies to posterity?
Jim
report post as inappropriate
There are so many variables not yet fully understood that affect gravity. Even to consider our place in the galaxy, some 25,000 to 28,000 LYs from the galactic core and those things that perturb sun and planets like the spiral arm rotation, our 225 million year orbit with varying massive objects in our path, and they talk of Gliese 710 approaching. All could impact gravity to some degree. Even orthodox views of gravity are not understood.
You're going to pass on your studies to posterity?
Jim
Hi Jim,
Yes, I like the sentence "Even orthodox views on gravity are not understood". Too true. Thank you for the in depth appreciation of the gravity problem we currently have. I'm adamant that the exotic matter element is missing from the mental pictures and calculations. This very first mis-assumption has confused everything imo.
Yes, I've finished my research as far I can go on my own now. These two essays are my legacy. Someone will take up the mantle someday soon, I'm sure.
All the best,
Alan
Yes, I like the sentence "Even orthodox views on gravity are not understood". Too true. Thank you for the in depth appreciation of the gravity problem we currently have. I'm adamant that the exotic matter element is missing from the mental pictures and calculations. This very first mis-assumption has confused everything imo.
Yes, I've finished my research as far I can go on my own now. These two essays are my legacy. Someone will take up the mantle someday soon, I'm sure.
All the best,
Alan
Sun surrounded by dark matter, claim scientists
[quote]LONDON: Scientists have claimed that the Sun is surrounded by dark matter, a phenomenon first proposed in the 1930s by a Swiss astronomer. Researchers from the University of Zurich have developed a new theory - and built a simulation of the Milky Way to test their mass-measuring method before applying it to real data, the 'Daily Mail' reported. "We are 99 per cent confident that there is dark matter near the Sun," lead author Silvia Garbari was quoted as saying by the paper.[end quote]
How long before they realise it *must be* at it's centre I wonder?
[quote]LONDON: Scientists have claimed that the Sun is surrounded by dark matter, a phenomenon first proposed in the 1930s by a Swiss astronomer. Researchers from the University of Zurich have developed a new theory - and built a simulation of the Milky Way to test their mass-measuring method before applying it to real data, the 'Daily Mail' reported. "We are 99 per cent confident that there is dark matter near the Sun," lead author Silvia Garbari was quoted as saying by the paper.[end quote]
How long before they realise it *must be* at it's centre I wonder?
I missed this the first time around: Can the flyby anomaly be attributed to earth-bound dark matter?
The evidence for my hypothesis is already available it seems.
The evidence for my hypothesis is already available it seems.
[quote]"Another possibility is a single dark matter component with an *anisotropic* velocity distribution, undergoing inelastic scattering, and possibly also elastic scattering as well. Detailed modelling will be needed to see which possibilities are viable.4"
Hi Alan
I agree the Parthanon stands above pretty Hard Rock. I do like the exotic, but I didn't find any exotic stuff there. A nice bit of free thinking, but it seem you may need a deeper evidence pool to pattern match it with. I did just post a whole heap of helpful hot links to Hope Hu and He (but 'Her' not He). I hope they help.
Is your Archimedes screw anything like Frank Mackinson's helical gravity model? If the model is capable of being tapered at each end and can still hold water I've found a close representation of it as a soliton, formed from one of my toroidal scale invariant fractals, but translating to leave a spiral path. This has analogies wityh my Helical CMBR asymmetry model also posted there (providing the falsified solution to galaxy bars, also [still] evident in some disc galaxies).
Great to read your original ideas again.
Do try to get your head round my quite dense essay, but I warn you, it takes much focus and slow absorption to follow the logical kinetic path.
Best of luck
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I agree the Parthanon stands above pretty Hard Rock. I do like the exotic, but I didn't find any exotic stuff there. A nice bit of free thinking, but it seem you may need a deeper evidence pool to pattern match it with. I did just post a whole heap of helpful hot links to Hope Hu and He (but 'Her' not He). I hope they help.
Is your Archimedes screw anything like Frank Mackinson's helical gravity model? If the model is capable of being tapered at each end and can still hold water I've found a close representation of it as a soliton, formed from one of my toroidal scale invariant fractals, but translating to leave a spiral path. This has analogies wityh my Helical CMBR asymmetry model also posted there (providing the falsified solution to galaxy bars, also [still] evident in some disc galaxies).
Great to read your original ideas again.
Do try to get your head round my quite dense essay, but I warn you, it takes much focus and slow absorption to follow the logical kinetic path.
Best of luck
Peter
Hi Peter,
Yes, Frank and I have made that connection in Abraham's essay discussion. The details are still quite abstract in my analysis, but I have a very solid argument to make with regard to the ice age data and how it fits with the tidal model of Jupiter as the main driver of our weather on the 100kyr scale. Frank was gracious enough to recognise this as a new approach. I'd appreciate it if you read that interchange of ideas to give you an idea of where I'm at.
Thank you for the compliment. There *is* potential for us to collaborate, but I'd need you to understand the ice age data analysis and it's problems first. Maybe FQXi members can solve the whole shabang, who knows?
Kind regards,
Alan
Yes, Frank and I have made that connection in Abraham's essay discussion. The details are still quite abstract in my analysis, but I have a very solid argument to make with regard to the ice age data and how it fits with the tidal model of Jupiter as the main driver of our weather on the 100kyr scale. Frank was gracious enough to recognise this as a new approach. I'd appreciate it if you read that interchange of ideas to give you an idea of where I'm at.
Thank you for the compliment. There *is* potential for us to collaborate, but I'd need you to understand the ice age data analysis and it's problems first. Maybe FQXi members can solve the whole shabang, who knows?
Kind regards,
Alan
He's a discovery which I posted in Abraham's essay discussion:
[quote]
Abraham!
Sorry for my delay in responding, but I didn't have internet access over the UK bank holiday weekend. Hey, I had a eureka moment on the bus Saturday afternoon! The moon's spring tidal effect occurs every 2 weeks, when the moon is on the same plane as the sun, i.e. the equatorial plane. This would be the biggest irregularity factor in the flyby anomaly and would account for *negative energy increases* if the moon is behind the direction of the spacecraft! The idea can be checked against the moon's position for the flyby data given in Wikipedia. It can be checked again with the future Juno flyby. We have evidence at our fingertips! Abraham, think about it! [end quote]
I've posted the results on the Wikipedia talk page.
[quote]
Abraham!
Sorry for my delay in responding, but I didn't have internet access over the UK bank holiday weekend. Hey, I had a eureka moment on the bus Saturday afternoon! The moon's spring tidal effect occurs every 2 weeks, when the moon is on the same plane as the sun, i.e. the equatorial plane. This would be the biggest irregularity factor in the flyby anomaly and would account for *negative energy increases* if the moon is behind the direction of the spacecraft! The idea can be checked against the moon's position for the flyby data given in Wikipedia. It can be checked again with the future Juno flyby. We have evidence at our fingertips! Abraham, think about it! [end quote]
I've posted the results on the Wikipedia talk page.
The giant impact hypothesis is a vital part of the moon conunudrum imo.
(i) The moon appears to be more influential for flyby accelerations than the earth itself. This implies that the moon has more irregular matter than the earth, yet much smaller in size. I propose that Theia, the large impact body, had a high concentration of irregular matter for it's size and consequently acquired earth's irregular matter as it passed *through* the protoplanet. This could be the reason for life on earth. Less irregular matter means less comet impacts from iron and other irregular matter comets. The moon would also act as a 'soak-up' for these incoming orbital comets. It's similar to how Jupiter acts as a 'soak-up' for comets in the region.
I even had the idea that Theia passed through the Arctic basin, creating Antarctica on it's exit! The moon then interacted with Venus, causing it to flip and was then captured by earth in a return orbit. The earth then flipped itself by 90 degrees so that the comet entry became the north pole as we are familiar with today. Pure speculation of course.
There's many unknowns with the moon's creation. The issue is far from being resolved, much like the ice age theory fundamental problems .
(i) The moon appears to be more influential for flyby accelerations than the earth itself. This implies that the moon has more irregular matter than the earth, yet much smaller in size. I propose that Theia, the large impact body, had a high concentration of irregular matter for it's size and consequently acquired earth's irregular matter as it passed *through* the protoplanet. This could be the reason for life on earth. Less irregular matter means less comet impacts from iron and other irregular matter comets. The moon would also act as a 'soak-up' for these incoming orbital comets. It's similar to how Jupiter acts as a 'soak-up' for comets in the region.
I even had the idea that Theia passed through the Arctic basin, creating Antarctica on it's exit! The moon then interacted with Venus, causing it to flip and was then captured by earth in a return orbit. The earth then flipped itself by 90 degrees so that the comet entry became the north pole as we are familiar with today. Pure speculation of course.
There's many unknowns with the moon's creation. The issue is far from being resolved, much like the ice age theory fundamental problems .
The lunar influence on earth flybys fits with the problems experienced by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they descended to the moon's surface. Were they in the grip of the lunar exotic matter? I think they were.
Neil Armstrong and the Landing of the Eagle UPDATED
[quote]Eagle had overshot the landing zone, Home Plate, by four miles. A slight navigational error and a faster than intended descent speed accounted for Eagle missing its planned touchdown site in the Sea of Tranquility.[end quote]
Neil Armstrong and the Landing of the Eagle UPDATED
[quote]Eagle had overshot the landing zone, Home Plate, by four miles. A slight navigational error and a faster than intended descent speed accounted for Eagle missing its planned touchdown site in the Sea of Tranquility.[end quote]
Newton would have assumed that stars created non-Newtonian matter at their cores due to their spin rate and super high gravity field. Older stars would therefore have more of this extra force on the plane of rotation. This fits with the spiral galaxy rotation curves which have a central bulge of young stars and an outer disk of older stars which rotate faster than expected(!). Is the Main Seqeunce of Star Classification missing the onset of creation of non-Newtonian matter? I think it is. The evidence fits like a glove imo.
Mathematicians Offer Unified Theory of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Altering Einstein Field Equations. This theory fits very snuggly with my own imagery.
Due to the very low convection seen in our sun, it can be deduced that exotic matter comets lose their integrity when absorbed by the solar body. Mercury is also likely to have a relatively high concentration of exotic matter comets due to it's close proximity to the sun. I suspect that Mercury's anomalous precession is due to the exotic matter interaction with Venus and also Venus's exotic matter interaction with Mercury's iron core.
The existance of a dark matter *inner halo* as well as an outer halo is now predicted. The centre of our galaxy is likely the build-up of supernovae remnants of dark matter confined to a small volume relatively to the outer halo. [The quasar[link] is a compact region in the center of a massive galaxy surrounding its central 'supermassive black hole'. Its size is 10–10,000 times the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole. The quasar is powered by an accretion disc around the black hole.]
Interestingly, the number of remnants of both should be around the same, but the geometry and configuration of the inner halo is most likely a more orderly conglomerate. If the inner halo conglomerate is comprised of a very high number of supernovae remnant dark matter then a two-sided preferential build-up would lead to the barred-spiral phenomenon.
[quote]Recent studies have confirmed the idea that bars are a sign of galaxies reaching full maturity as the "formative years" end. A team led by Kartik Sheth of the Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena discovered that only 20 percent of the spiral galaxies in the distant past possessed bars, compared with nearly 70 percent of their modern counterparts. [end quote]
It makes sense to think of dark matter being created just before the supernovae event itself. Are there 'failed supernovae' which didn't implode but still managed to create dark matter?? These will be *very* significant in the galaxy model. Neutron stars and pulsars for example?
Interestingly, the number of remnants of both should be around the same, but the geometry and configuration of the inner halo is most likely a more orderly conglomerate. If the inner halo conglomerate is comprised of a very high number of supernovae remnant dark matter then a two-sided preferential build-up would lead to the barred-spiral phenomenon.
[quote]Recent studies have confirmed the idea that bars are a sign of galaxies reaching full maturity as the "formative years" end. A team led by Kartik Sheth of the Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena discovered that only 20 percent of the spiral galaxies in the distant past possessed bars, compared with nearly 70 percent of their modern counterparts. [end quote]
It makes sense to think of dark matter being created just before the supernovae event itself. Are there 'failed supernovae' which didn't implode but still managed to create dark matter?? These will be *very* significant in the galaxy model. Neutron stars and pulsars for example?
Dark matter inner halos also exist at the centre of the Earth and even perhaps the moon. The lunar tidal effect of the Earth flyby phenomenon is real. See attached for my explanation.
attachments: FlybyLunarTidalEffect.jpg
attachments: FlybyLunarTidalEffect.jpg
The core-collapse supernovae reminds me of dark matter creating stars Stars "missing in action" now counted. The extra number is very relevant to galaxy spiral rotation curves.
The exotic comet hypothesis fits with the Bermuda Triangle shipping data as well as the Earth-flyby data on the third quarter of the moon! A discussion with someone who finally seems to agree with me can be read here.
Dear Alan Lowey
Very interesting to see your essay.
Very nice to meet people with the same comment.
This is my opinion:
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Kind Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Very interesting to see your essay.
Very nice to meet people with the same comment.
This is my opinion:
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Kind Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
Alan,
For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.
I like the openness of your thinking.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.
I like the openness of your thinking.
Jim
Thank you Jim
Al
Al
Dear Alan,
Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.
This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:
Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.
A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.
An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.
Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity
Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.
Thank you and good luck.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.
This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:
Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.
A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.
An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.
Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity
Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.
Thank you and good luck.
Vladimir
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is 
and 
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have 
of points. After it anyone give you 
of points so you have 
of points and 
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have 
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: 
or  / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1)
or 
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points then the participant`s rating was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Sergey Fedosin
I've just made a discovery when using the 1,800 lunar tidal model of arctic environment of Northern Russia during the last 20,000yrs and the assumption of a millennial peak triggering H1 at 17,000 B.P. See Fig 1. of paper 'Radiocarbon Variability in the Western North Atlantic During the Last Deglaciation' (2005) by Laura F. Robinson et al. which can be matched at 10,000 B.P. with the Fig 3. in paper 'Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia' (2000) by Glen M. MacDonald et al. I've put the two together by expanding the tree data graph by 152% on the photocopier machine and then scanning.
The Maximum Forest Extension is 2 cycles of 1,800 yrs, showing peaks at 4,400 and 8000 yr B.P. (uncalib) which fits with the lunar tide into the arctic basin cycle and extrapolates to the date of 17,000 yr B.P., the onset of Heinrich 1. The tree data shows dips due to the lunar tidal minimums .
You can see the graph compilation here [url=http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?sh
owtopic=249553&st=0]1,800yr Lunar Tidal Cycle Fits Glacial Data[/url]
See also:
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/Ice-Age
-Giants-Filming-animated-creatures-in-the-wild]Ice Age Giants: Filming animated creatures in the wild[url]
The Maximum Forest Extension is 2 cycles of 1,800 yrs, showing peaks at 4,400 and 8000 yr B.P. (uncalib) which fits with the lunar tide into the arctic basin cycle and extrapolates to the date of 17,000 yr B.P., the onset of Heinrich 1. The tree data shows dips due to the lunar tidal minimums .
You can see the graph compilation here [url=http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?sh
owtopic=249553&st=0]1,800yr Lunar Tidal Cycle Fits Glacial Data[/url]
See also:
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/Ice-Age
-Giants-Filming-animated-creatures-in-the-wild]Ice Age Giants: Filming animated creatures in the wild[url]
This latest research fits with the Jupiter Ice Age Hypothesis
Gas-Giant Exoplanets Cling Close to Their Parent Stars (June 27 2013)
Gas-Giant Exoplanets Cling Close to Their Parent Stars (June 27 2013)
I made some amazing discoveries whilst trying to solve the dreadful 777 SFO accident: I copied the posts over from The Atlantic Wire:
Alan Lowey • 2 days ago
The terrestrial Flyby Anomaly phenomena most likely interfered with the auto-throttle system imv. There's been a string of suspect airliner disasters that have begun with
electrical faults.
This fits with the...
view entire post
Alan Lowey • 2 days ago
The terrestrial Flyby Anomaly phenomena most likely interfered with the auto-throttle system imv. There's been a string of suspect airliner disasters that have begun with
electrical faults.
This fits with the...
view entire post
Ice age & millennial cycle bacterial bioprecipitation due to increased ocean currents bringing nutrients to the surface. The amount of time that water vapour is in the air is reduced which gives short bursts of rainfall with overall less cloud cover and therefore more sunshine. The reason why megabeasts were able to thrive in an ice age.
Jupiter's Synchrotron Emission (Video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&
v=jXsSTq6dEjM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&
v=jXsSTq6dEjM
[quote]A paper published today in the International Journal of Climatology finds the 18.6 year lunar-tide cycle influences rainfall and climate over adjacent land areas. According to the authors, in years of strong tides, tide-induced ocean mixing decreases sea surface temperatures and lowers air pressures, which in turn affects rainfall variability over the plains east of the subtropical Andes, South America. The opposite pattern is observed in years of weak tides. The paper adds to other peer-reviewed publications finding a lunar influence on ocean and atmospheric oscillations, which in turn have large scale effects upon climate. The IPCC ignores lunar, solar, and other planetary harmonics, which alone can explain climate change of the past century.[end quote]
New paper finds lunar-tidal cycles influence climate (17 Jul 2013)
New paper finds lunar-tidal cycles influence climate (17 Jul 2013)
The Enormous alien planet discovered in most distant orbit ever seen gives more credence to the extra gravity on the plane of Jupiter to explain the ice age hypothesis imv.
[quote]But, there are still problems with this scenario. For one, difference between the masses of two stars in a binary system is typically no more than a ratio of 10 to 1.
"In our case, the mass ratio is more than 100-to-1," Bailey said. "This extreme mass ratio is not predicted from binary star formation theories — just like planet formation theory predicts that we cannot form planets so far from the host star."
Researchers are also keen to study the new planet, because leftover material from when the planet and star formed can still be detected.
"Systems like this one, where we have additional information about the environment in which the planet resides, have the potential to help us disentangle the various formation models," Bailey said. "Future observations of the planet's orbital motion and the primary star's debris disk may help answer that question."
The planet HD 106906 b is only 13 million years old, and is still glowing from the residual heat from its formation," the researchers said. By comparison, Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, which makes it roughly 350 times older than the newfound exoplanet [end quote]
[quote]But, there are still problems with this scenario. For one, difference between the masses of two stars in a binary system is typically no more than a ratio of 10 to 1.
"In our case, the mass ratio is more than 100-to-1," Bailey said. "This extreme mass ratio is not predicted from binary star formation theories — just like planet formation theory predicts that we cannot form planets so far from the host star."
Researchers are also keen to study the new planet, because leftover material from when the planet and star formed can still be detected.
"Systems like this one, where we have additional information about the environment in which the planet resides, have the potential to help us disentangle the various formation models," Bailey said. "Future observations of the planet's orbital motion and the primary star's debris disk may help answer that question."
The planet HD 106906 b is only 13 million years old, and is still glowing from the residual heat from its formation," the researchers said. By comparison, Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, which makes it roughly 350 times older than the newfound exoplanet [end quote]
Jupiter's icy moon Europa 'spouts water'
[quote]"It is travelling at 700m a second... All of this gas comes out, and almost all falls back towards the surface - it doesn't escape out into space."
These plumes appear to be transient - they arise for just seven hours at a time.
They peak when Europa is at its farthest from Jupiter (the apocentre of its orbit) and vanish when it comes closest (the pericentre).
This means that tidal acceleration could be driving water spouting - by opening cracks in the surface ice, the researchers propose.[end quote]
[quote]"It is travelling at 700m a second... All of this gas comes out, and almost all falls back towards the surface - it doesn't escape out into space."
These plumes appear to be transient - they arise for just seven hours at a time.
They peak when Europa is at its farthest from Jupiter (the apocentre of its orbit) and vanish when it comes closest (the pericentre).
This means that tidal acceleration could be driving water spouting - by opening cracks in the surface ice, the researchers propose.[end quote]
It's slightly counter-intuitive for the plume activity to exist at it's furthest point from Jupiter. I wonder whether this takes it closer to the proposed extra gravity of Jupiter's equatorial zone.
Europa only has a small orbital inclination which makes me think that it might be Io's influence instead.
Now that I've looked at the Wikipedia entry on the moon's of Jupiter I can see that there *is* a hint at the importance of inclination:
[quote]The orbits of Jupiter's irregular satellites, and how they cluster into groups: by semi-major axis (the horizontal axis in Gm); by orbital inclination (the vertical axis); and orbital eccentricity (the yellow lines). The relative sizes are indicated by the circles.[end quote]
Now that I've looked at the Wikipedia entry on the moon's of Jupiter I can see that there *is* a hint at the importance of inclination:
[quote]The orbits of Jupiter's irregular satellites, and how they cluster into groups: by semi-major axis (the horizontal axis in Gm); by orbital inclination (the vertical axis); and orbital eccentricity (the yellow lines). The relative sizes are indicated by the circles.[end quote]
I've found a missing piece of the puzzle: What do you get when you melt a neutron star? An unimaginably dense lump of strange matter and a whole new celestial beast.
Quark stars: How can a supernova explode twice?
[quote]The implications would be enormous. These stars would take pride of place alongside the other heavenly heavyweights: neutron stars and black holes. They could help solve some puzzling mysteries related to gamma-ray bursts and the formation of the heftiest elements in the universe. Back on Earth, quark stars would help us better understand the fundamental building blocks of matter in ways that even machines like the Large Hadron Collider cannot.
Astrophysicists can thank string theorist Edward Witten for quark stars. In 1984, he hypothesised that protons and neutrons may not be the most stable forms of matter.
Both are made of two types of smaller entities, known as quarks: protons are comprised of two "up" quarks and one "down" quark, whereas neutrons are made of two downs and one up. Up and down are the lightest of six distinct "flavours" of quark. Add the third lightest to the mix and you get something called strange quark matter. Witten argued that this kind of matter may have lower net energy and hence be more stable than nuclear matter made of protons and neutrons.
Quark nova.[end quote]
Quark stars: How can a supernova explode twice?
[quote]The implications would be enormous. These stars would take pride of place alongside the other heavenly heavyweights: neutron stars and black holes. They could help solve some puzzling mysteries related to gamma-ray bursts and the formation of the heftiest elements in the universe. Back on Earth, quark stars would help us better understand the fundamental building blocks of matter in ways that even machines like the Large Hadron Collider cannot.
Astrophysicists can thank string theorist Edward Witten for quark stars. In 1984, he hypothesised that protons and neutrons may not be the most stable forms of matter.
Both are made of two types of smaller entities, known as quarks: protons are comprised of two "up" quarks and one "down" quark, whereas neutrons are made of two downs and one up. Up and down are the lightest of six distinct "flavours" of quark. Add the third lightest to the mix and you get something called strange quark matter. Witten argued that this kind of matter may have lower net energy and hence be more stable than nuclear matter made of protons and neutrons.
Quark nova.[end quote]
Wow. There's even evidence that strange quark matter has passed right through the Earth at high speed:
Did quark matter strike Earth?
I'm supposing that it's possible for a strange quark matter object to be traveling at low speed before impact with the Earth and therefore remain within it.
Did quark matter strike Earth?
I'm supposing that it's possible for a strange quark matter object to be traveling at low speed before impact with the Earth and therefore remain within it.
[quote]Edward Farhi, an MIT physicist who researched strangelets, thinks the most likely place to find strange matter is in neutron stars. These collapsing stars compress their interiors forcefully. "At the core, you have densities and pressures large enough to form strange matter. If strange matter formed in the core, it would eat its way out and consume the star," says Farhi. Underneath its crust, the star would become a lump of strange matter, or a strange star. If two strange stars collided, they could send strange matter careening toward Earth, says Farhi.
How could strange matter be dangerous? Under special circumstances, it "eats" other matter. In order for this to happen, the strange matter has to be more stable than the matter it meets and not repel it. If those conditions are met, the other matter will "want" to convert to strange matter, and contact between the two will get things going. The result would be an ever-growing ball of strange matter, burning through matter like a fireball.
For such a disaster scenario to occur on Earth, strange matter would have to remain for more than a fraction of a second at earthly pressures, and we don't know if it can do that. It would also have to be negatively charged.
In fact, potential strange matter would probably be positively charged, says Farhi. And since the matter on our planet (including us) has positively charged atomic nuclei, it would repel strange matter. "If you had a little lump on the table, it would just sit there," says Farhi.[/quote]
Should I be afraid of strange matter?
An anisotropic 'graviton' model of quark gravity emission is all that is missing imv.
How could strange matter be dangerous? Under special circumstances, it "eats" other matter. In order for this to happen, the strange matter has to be more stable than the matter it meets and not repel it. If those conditions are met, the other matter will "want" to convert to strange matter, and contact between the two will get things going. The result would be an ever-growing ball of strange matter, burning through matter like a fireball.
For such a disaster scenario to occur on Earth, strange matter would have to remain for more than a fraction of a second at earthly pressures, and we don't know if it can do that. It would also have to be negatively charged.
In fact, potential strange matter would probably be positively charged, says Farhi. And since the matter on our planet (including us) has positively charged atomic nuclei, it would repel strange matter. "If you had a little lump on the table, it would just sit there," says Farhi.[/quote]
Should I be afraid of strange matter?
An anisotropic 'graviton' model of quark gravity emission is all that is missing imv.
Page 22 of this paper shows a diagram which drew my attention because it's exactly the image I have of exotic matter existing at the center of the Earth. It has the magnetized ordering and the rugby ball shape on end from the equatorial perspective as well as the 45 degree polar configuration matching the inner innermost core of the Earth measured anisotropy.
Bulk viscosities of magnetized quark matter
and neutron star phenomenology
........
Bulk viscosities of magnetized quark matter
and neutron star phenomenology
........
Wo! I've just seen page 23 for the first time:
"Strong magnetic field makes strange quark matter anisotropic"
Jackpot!
............
"Strong magnetic field makes strange quark matter anisotropic"
Jackpot!
............
I propose 'cosmic rays' also emanate from the center of the Earth from strange quark matter to trigger equatorial TGF's over the oceans.
Anisotropic strange quark matter at the center of the planets lends itself to explain Mercury's precession. The angle of inclination relative to the invariable plane, which is almost the same as the plane of Jupiter, is significantly higher for the inner most planet compared to all the others:
Orbital inclination
Orbital inclination
[quote]Spin–orbit resonance
For many years it was thought that Mercury was synchronously tidally locked with the Sun, rotating once for each orbit and always keeping the same face directed towards the Sun, in the same way that the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. Radar observations in 1965 proved that the planet has a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, rotating three times for every two revolutions around the Sun; the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit makes this resonance stable—at perihelion, when the solar tide is strongest, the Sun is nearly still in Mercury's sky.[77]
The original reason astronomers thought it was synchronously locked was that, whenever Mercury was best placed for observation, it was always nearly at the same point in its 3:2 resonance, hence showing the same face. This is because, coincidentally, Mercury's rotation period is almost exactly half of its synodic period with respect to Earth. Due to Mercury's 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, a solar day (the length between two meridian transits of the Sun) lasts about 176 Earth days.[14] A sidereal day (the period of rotation) lasts about 58.7 Earth days.[14]
Simulations indicate that the orbital eccentricity of Mercury varies chaotically from nearly zero (circular) to more than 0.45 over millions of years due to perturbations from the other planets.[14][78] This is thought to explain Mercury's 3:2 spin–orbit resonance (rather than the more usual 1:1), because this state is more likely to arise during a period of high eccentricity.[79] Numerical simulations show that a future secular orbital resonant perihelion interaction with Jupiter may cause the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to increase to the point where there is a 1% chance that the planet may collide with Venus within the next five billion years.[end quote]
For many years it was thought that Mercury was synchronously tidally locked with the Sun, rotating once for each orbit and always keeping the same face directed towards the Sun, in the same way that the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. Radar observations in 1965 proved that the planet has a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, rotating three times for every two revolutions around the Sun; the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit makes this resonance stable—at perihelion, when the solar tide is strongest, the Sun is nearly still in Mercury's sky.[77]
The original reason astronomers thought it was synchronously locked was that, whenever Mercury was best placed for observation, it was always nearly at the same point in its 3:2 resonance, hence showing the same face. This is because, coincidentally, Mercury's rotation period is almost exactly half of its synodic period with respect to Earth. Due to Mercury's 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, a solar day (the length between two meridian transits of the Sun) lasts about 176 Earth days.[14] A sidereal day (the period of rotation) lasts about 58.7 Earth days.[14]
Simulations indicate that the orbital eccentricity of Mercury varies chaotically from nearly zero (circular) to more than 0.45 over millions of years due to perturbations from the other planets.[14][78] This is thought to explain Mercury's 3:2 spin–orbit resonance (rather than the more usual 1:1), because this state is more likely to arise during a period of high eccentricity.[79] Numerical simulations show that a future secular orbital resonant perihelion interaction with Jupiter may cause the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to increase to the point where there is a 1% chance that the planet may collide with Venus within the next five billion years.[end quote]
"Did Einstein work back from Mercury's anomalous precession?" I asked myself and then found this:
Conquering the Perihelion
[quote]On 18 November, 1915, shortly before arriving at the final field equations of general relativity, Einstein published a derivation of Mercury’s orbital precession based on the vacuum field equations, which turned out to carry over unchanged in the final...
view entire post
Conquering the Perihelion
[quote]On 18 November, 1915, shortly before arriving at the final field equations of general relativity, Einstein published a derivation of Mercury’s orbital precession based on the vacuum field equations, which turned out to carry over unchanged in the final...
view entire post
The key to solving the 100ky ice age problem as well as the anomalous precession of Mercury is the invariable plane:
[quote]The invariable plane of a planetary system, also called Laplace's invariable plane, is the plane passing through its barycenter (center of mass) perpendicular to its angular momentum vector. In the Solar System, about 98% of this effect is contributed by the orbital angular momenta of the four jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). The invariable plane is within 0.5° of the orbital plane of Jupiter, and may be regarded as the weighted average of all planetary orbital and rotational planes.
...
All planetary orbital planes wobble around the invariable plane, meaning that they rotate around its axis while their inclinations to it vary, both of which are caused by the gravitational perturbation of the other planets. That of *Earth rotates with a quasi-period of 100,000 years* and an inclination that varies from 0.1° to 3°.[end quote]
[quote]The invariable plane of a planetary system, also called Laplace's invariable plane, is the plane passing through its barycenter (center of mass) perpendicular to its angular momentum vector. In the Solar System, about 98% of this effect is contributed by the orbital angular momenta of the four jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). The invariable plane is within 0.5° of the orbital plane of Jupiter, and may be regarded as the weighted average of all planetary orbital and rotational planes.
...
All planetary orbital planes wobble around the invariable plane, meaning that they rotate around its axis while their inclinations to it vary, both of which are caused by the gravitational perturbation of the other planets. That of *Earth rotates with a quasi-period of 100,000 years* and an inclination that varies from 0.1° to 3°.[end quote]
In order to explain the 100ky ice age conundrum I have assumed an increase in equatorial tidal strength due to the crossing of Jupiter's orbital plane or the invariable plane in general. Mercury's larger than expected precession is due it's high orbital speed as well as it's high inclination, which makes it cross Jupiter's orbital plane or the invariable plane in general, much more often than the other planets. Therefore the additional force is applied more often compared to the other planets, which gives a larger than expected perturbation.
This latest finding corroborates the hypothesis of planetary high orbital speed giving a large precession but also hints at something else:
Kepler Finds a Very Wobbly Planet
[quote]The planet, designated Kepler-413b, precesses, or wobbles, wildly on its spin axis, much like a child's top. The tilt of the planet's spin axis can vary by as much as 30 degrees over 11 years, leading to rapid and erratic changes in seasons. In contrast, Earth's rotational precession is 23.5 degrees over 26,000 years. Researchers are amazed that this far-off planet is precessing on a human timescale.
Kepler 413-b is located 2,300 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus. It circles a close pair of orange and red dwarf stars every 66 days. The planet's orbit around the binary stars appears to wobble, too, because the plane of its orbit is tilted 2.5 degrees with respect to the plane of the star pair's orbit. As seen from Earth, the wobbling orbit moves up and down continuously.[end quote]
**It suggests to me that the binary star system is the key and that SQM is located in the center of the stars as well.**
Kepler Finds a Very Wobbly Planet
[quote]The planet, designated Kepler-413b, precesses, or wobbles, wildly on its spin axis, much like a child's top. The tilt of the planet's spin axis can vary by as much as 30 degrees over 11 years, leading to rapid and erratic changes in seasons. In contrast, Earth's rotational precession is 23.5 degrees over 26,000 years. Researchers are amazed that this far-off planet is precessing on a human timescale.
Kepler 413-b is located 2,300 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus. It circles a close pair of orange and red dwarf stars every 66 days. The planet's orbit around the binary stars appears to wobble, too, because the plane of its orbit is tilted 2.5 degrees with respect to the plane of the star pair's orbit. As seen from Earth, the wobbling orbit moves up and down continuously.[end quote]
**It suggests to me that the binary star system is the key and that SQM is located in the center of the stars as well.**
Page 22 of Bulk viscosities of magnetized quark matter and neutron star phenomenology shows the 'rugby ball on end' shape within the strange quark matter sphere seen from an equatorial perspective. This is the image shape at the center of the Earth I had thought of initially to explain the tidal ice age hypothesis. A greater surface area is seen from the equatorial plane which gives greater SQM to SQM gravity induced tidal bulging within the core. Greater tides exist when the Earth is in equatorial alignment with Jupiter (and other planets) in it's 100ky inclination cycle with the plane of angular momentum of the solar system. Strong magnetic fields makes SQM anisotropic.
Here's more evidence of exotic anisotropic matter:
Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes
[quote]A well accepted property of black holes is that they cannot sustain a magnetic field of their own. But observations of quasar Q0957+561 indicate that the object powering it does have a magnetic field, Schild's team says. For this reason, they believe that rather than a black hole, this quasar contains something called a magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO). If so, it would be best evidence yet for such an object.[/quote]
attachments: exotic-quasar.jpg
Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes
[quote]A well accepted property of black holes is that they cannot sustain a magnetic field of their own. But observations of quasar Q0957+561 indicate that the object powering it does have a magnetic field, Schild's team says. For this reason, they believe that rather than a black hole, this quasar contains something called a magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO). If so, it would be best evidence yet for such an object.[/quote]
attachments: exotic-quasar.jpg
I propose that it's not magnetic fields which makes strange quark matter anisotropic but rather that it's anisotropic strange quark matter which makes magnetic fields. The high magnetic fields of Earth, Jupiter and Mercury would all indicate a high proportion of strange quark matter at their inner most cores for example.
Woolly Mammoths and Rhinos Ate Flowers
[quote] Woolly mammoths, rhinos and other ice age beasts may have munched on high-protein wildflowers called forbs, new research suggests.
And far from living in a monotonous grassland, the mega-beasts inhabited a colorful Arctic landscape filled with flowering plants and diverse vegetation, the study researchers found.
The new research "paints a different picture of the Arctic," thousands of years ago, said study co-author Joseph Craine, an ecosystem ecologist at Kansas State University. "It makes us rethink how the vegetation looked and how those animals thrived on the landscape." [/quote]
[quote] Woolly mammoths, rhinos and other ice age beasts may have munched on high-protein wildflowers called forbs, new research suggests.
And far from living in a monotonous grassland, the mega-beasts inhabited a colorful Arctic landscape filled with flowering plants and diverse vegetation, the study researchers found.
The new research "paints a different picture of the Arctic," thousands of years ago, said study co-author Joseph Craine, an ecosystem ecologist at Kansas State University. "It makes us rethink how the vegetation looked and how those animals thrived on the landscape." [/quote]
What created this mysterious Siberian crater?
[quote]But the nest's shape is not at all like other locations where meteorites were found. Another expert, a doctor of physical and mathematical sciences, Igor Simonov, of Moscow Institute for Problems in Mechanics, conducted a series of intriguing experiments, and evidently established that the crater could have been formed from the fall of a cylindrical object of super dense material.
Tantalisingly, he said: 'On Earth this material is not available, but somewhere in space it may exist.'[/quote]
.............
This Mars crater is strikingly similar:
Golf Ball Crater on Mars
[quote]But the nest's shape is not at all like other locations where meteorites were found. Another expert, a doctor of physical and mathematical sciences, Igor Simonov, of Moscow Institute for Problems in Mechanics, conducted a series of intriguing experiments, and evidently established that the crater could have been formed from the fall of a cylindrical object of super dense material.
Tantalisingly, he said: 'On Earth this material is not available, but somewhere in space it may exist.'[/quote]
.............
This Mars crater is strikingly similar:
Golf Ball Crater on Mars
Login or create account to post reply or comment.