Professor Brain Cox of CERN and TV fame has expressed his concern that a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity seems increasingly likely, especially if the results of the forthcoming LHC experiment turn out to be unexpected. I am convinced that I have found the stumbling block of modern physics:

The OBVIOUS reason of how the moon causes the ocean tides is by it pulling on the Earth's inner core, creating a flexure of the lithosphere, rather than acting on the seawater directly itself. Hence Newton's law of universal gravitation must be wrong. Once you get the simple picture in your head, there's no going back. You'll never look at the sea the same again.

Modern satellite technology has shown that the seafloor rises by about a meter. The mountains and ocean are also seen to be affected by the moon's gravitational influence, but NOTHING ELSE. It explains why it doesn't get windier on a high tide and why dust isn't affected by the moon's gravity for example.

I have a scientific background to substantiate my breakthrough, the culmination of over 25 years work.

BSc Astronomy with Computing, former computer modeller for the MoD, Defence Research Agency, Farnborough, UK.

If you have a BSc in astronomy, you'd know your 'explaination' is completely crap, because it's not able to predict anything quantitative. Go on, post the scientific background. And being a computer modeller doesn't make you right. My father is a professor in computational fluid dynamics and have done contract work with Lockheed, Boeing, Airbus, the eurofighter and the supersonic car and he doesn't know the first thing about this kind of physics.

Modern satellite technology has shown that the seafloor rises by about a meter.

WTF, I hope your not suggesting that the moon gravity does this.. on the open ocean the tidal forces only raise the ocean by just over a mm, large tides are the result of the water being funneled into shallow and restrictive waters.

With your BSc you should be able to do the simple mathematics to work it out your self.. So give it a go and present it here, or are your full of shit... (sorry mods but he is)

Modern satellite technology has shown that the seafloor rises by about a meter.
WTF, I hope your not suggesting that the moon gravity does this..
This is the only thing the OP (who definitely is not a common sense seeker) has right.

The OP posted the exact same garbage in at least one other forum. In that forum I have the magical power of moving pyschoceramic postings into thePseudoscience section. I did exactly that. Here is what I wrote:

To the OP:

Two pertinent, pithy quotes apply here. "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." and "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You have made some fantastic claims. You had dang well better back them up.


To everyone else:

The Moon of course pulls on the "solid" Earth and on the oceans. The Earth is not truly solid. Most of the Earth is molten rock, so the Earth as a whole does indeed undergo tidal motion. The Earth's relatively thin crust does little to hinder this motion. This wikipedia article on Earth tides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide) provides a good lay overview of the concept.

The standard formalism for describing the Earth's (or any other planet's) solid body tides was developed by AEH Love over 100 years ago and is thusly called the "Love number formalism". (I recommend against googling the phrase "Love number" as it results in far too much information.)

The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (Web site: www.iers.org) is *the* definitive source on Earth rotation models and on reference systems used by scientists worldwide. For those of you who want a technical description of the Earth's solid body tides, refer to IERS Technical Note 32 (http://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=46-25776). Section 6.1 covers the topic at hand.

The solid body tides and ocean tides share the same underlying mechanism, which is the second gradient in the Moon's and the Sun's gravitational potential (a tensor). Another way of putting this is that the gravitational pull toward the Moon (or Sun) is a bit stronger on the side of the Earth facing toward the Moon (or Sun) versus the side facing away from the Moon (or Sun). While the two kinds of tides result from the same mechanism, the responses are quite different. While the Earth's crust does little to hinder the solid tides, the Earth's crust obviously has huge effect on the ocean tides.

I have a scientific background to substantiate my breakthrough, the culmination of over 25 years work.


That's great, but I'd rather see scientific evidence to substantiate your breakthrough. If you have any, please share.


The Earth is not truly solid. Most of the Earth is molten rock, so the Earth as a whole does indeed undergo tidal motion.

No it is not. The mantle is very hot solid rock. It is able to deform plastically over long periods, but it is not a liquid. Think silly putty- pull it slowly and it stretches and deforms, but pull it quickly and it snaps.

I'll admit I was a bit loose with the term "molten". I should have used "plastic". My poor wording aside, that the Earth deforms as a body due to tidal effects is confirmed 100+ year old science. The tidal bulges even cause measurable perturbations in a satellite's orbit; in fact the perturbations on a satellite's orbit induced by the solid body tides are an order of magnitude greater than those induced by the ocean tides. Did you read any of the links I supplied?

Forgive me if I am way off; but doesn't at least some of the lifting have to do with the fact water was transported away from the location?

The OP was a bit off in the magnitude of the Earth tides. They reach a maximum height of 30 cm high when the Earth, Moon, and Sun are aligned: The spring Earth tide.

Some references:

Equipment to measure Earth tides:
http://www.aiub.unibe.ch/content/zimmerwald/current_activities/earth_tide_observatory/index_eng.html

The International Center for Earth Tides:
http://www.icsu-fags.org/ps04icet.htm

A conference that started yesterday:
http://www.ets2008.de/frontend/index.php?folder_id=14
Technical sections ETS-3 and ETS-6 cover Earth tides and tides on other planets (including the Moon).

The USGS is quite interested in Earth tides because it appears Earth tides may trigger vulcanism:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_05_28.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022103948.htm
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_04_12.html

A seminal paper:
Dehant, V., "Review of the Earth Tidal Models and Contribution of Earth Tides in Geodynamics", J. Geophys. Res., 96, pp. 20235-20240, 1991.

Here's a question for all you geniuses:

If you look up, you'll find that the moon travels from east to west across the sky. If the moon pulls the seawater like you say, then you would expect the highest tides to be on the east coast. But why are the greatest tidal ranges of around 12 meters always found on the west coast of a continent, which is counter-intuitive?

My theory predicts this effect, due to the pressure wave accelerating after travelling under the extra weight and stiffness of the continental crust resisting it. The release of the pressure wave causes a greater flexure of the crust on the west coast and therefore produces a higher tidal range.

I'll admit I was a bit loose with the term "molten". I should have used "plastic". My poor wording aside, that the Earth deforms as a body due to tidal effects is confirmed 100+ year old science. The tidal bulges even cause measurable perturbations in a satellite's orbit; in fact the perturbations on a satellite's orbit induced by the solid body tides are an order of magnitude greater than those induced by the ocean tides. Did you read any of the links I supplied?

I think I came across the wrong way there. I did read your links and I don't doubt that solid body tides are real. It's just a pet peeve of mine to see that little misconception crop up as in the long run it tends to lead to even more misunderstandings.

why are the greatest tidal ranges of around 12 meters always found on the west coast of a continent
Like at the Bay of Fundy, Eastern Canada?

The Bay Of Fundy is an exception to the rule, due to it's unique topological location combined with a shallow shelf inlet facing the oncoming Gulf Stream.

One of the most obvious reasons of why Newton's universal law of gravitation must be wrong is the simple fact that everyday objects simply don't stick to one another in a gravitational manner, even in a vacuum. I've seen televised zero-gravity experiments aboard the shuttle, where rocks were fired at one another to see whether they would coalesce, simulating the accretion of micro-asteroids to form larger ones. ABSOLUTELY ZERO SUCCESS. Surprise, surprise. Still the penny doesn't drop.

One of the most obvious reasons of why Newton's universal law of gravitation must be wrong is the simple fact that everyday objects simply don't stick to one another in a gravitational manner, even in a vacuum. I've seen televised zero-gravity experiments aboard the shuttle, where rocks were fired at one another to see whether they would coalesce, simulating the accretion of micro-asteroids to form larger ones. ABSOLUTELY ZERO SUCCESS. Surprise, surprise. Still the penny doesn't drop.

I've seen video's too, of water collating together in zero-gravity, perhaps the experiments are flawed by using cooled "projectiles" and should be concentrating more on gas formations. (Considering most of the known universe is based on gas composites and the theory of the Big Bang works on the cooling of Plasma.)

One of the most obvious reasons of why Newton's universal law of gravitation must be wrong is the simple fact that everyday objects simply don't stick to one another in a gravitational manner, even in a vacuum. I've seen televised zero-gravity experiments aboard the shuttle, where rocks were fired at one another to see whether they would coalesce, simulating the accretion of micro-asteroids to form larger ones. ABSOLUTELY ZERO SUCCESS. Surprise, surprise. Still the penny doesn't drop.The gravitational forces involved on objects of everyday size are much smaller, by many orders of magnitude, than the forces involved in normal kinetic interactions. Hence the motion objects have is enough to overwhelm gravitational forces.

Newtonian gravitational models predict precisely what is observed (up to small relativistic corrections). The fact you bring up such a thing demonstrates you don't even know about gravitational models.
I've seen video's too, of water collating together in zero-gravity,That is surface tension. As soon as the water droplets touch, the water tension is strong enough to pull the 'blob' into a sphere. Normal dust-like solids don't have such a thing. If you were working with a fluid with much much lower surface tension then you'd find that it doesn't have such a pronounced effect. But such liquids are usually not healthy for astronauts to be splashing about the shuttle.

If you're so convinced that Newton's law of universal gravitation is 100% correct, why is the moon moving further away from Earth, then???

YOU MUST BE WRONG

Firstly, I didn't say it's 100% correct, since we know relativity is better than Newtonian gravity and I happen to be very familiar with both, conceptually and algebraicly.

Secondly, Newtonian physics predicts the Moon and the Earth move away from one another see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Tidal_evolution_of_the_lunar_orb it), precisely because it models the interactions between the Earth, the Moon and the tides so well.

So yet another demonstration you haven't put any effort into learning or understanding any of this area of physics.

The Wiki explanation seems very wishy-washy to me and could have been written by anyone. Do you have a reference which is a bit more convincing?

Wikipedia is written by 'anyone' - that's what it is.
You should be able to find this stuff in any first-year university physics textbook. Or maybe there's something written by a physics prof available through google. The earth-moon system exchanges momentum, which explains the slight drift in orbital distance - this is because of tides that distort both bodies and introduce asymmetries, and because both are rotating at different speeds.

Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?

My explanation is that it is because GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL and the net gravitational field is zero due to the mix of orientation at a quark level. The inner core of the Earth is uber-condensed and ALIGNED so that a strong field of attraction is generated, but is only strongly felt by objects that have uber-condensed and aligned inner cores, such as that of the Moon.

Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?
Are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until 1798 — 71 years after Newton's death — by Henry Cavendish (Philosophical Transactions 1798). Cavendish measured G implicitly, using a torsion balance invented by the geologist Rev. John Michell. He used a horizontal torsion beam with lead balls whose inertia (in relation to the torsion constant) he could tell by timing the beam's oscillation. Their faint attraction to other balls placed alongside the beam was detectable by the deflection it caused.
It's a standard senior-school demonstration (or was when I was younger).

Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?


and they do... ever hear of a dust bunny.

[QUOTE=matthyaouw;1994931]That's great, but I'd rather see scientific evidence to substantiate your breakthrough. If you have any, please share.




No it is not. The mantle is very hot solid rock. It is able to deform plastically over long periods, but it is not a liquid. Think silly putty- pull it slowly and it stretches and deforms, but pull it quickly and it snaps.[/QUOTE


found my own answer forget it

Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?.They do, just not much. The 'G' in F = \frac{GMm}{r^{2}} is approximately 6 \times 10^{-11}. That means that the force between two 1kg rocks a metre apart is 6 \times 10^{-11} Newtons. Not very much. However, the force between an object of mass 1kg and another object of mass 6 \times 10^{24} kilograms at a distance of about 6,400,000 metres is about 9.8Newtons. How do I know? Because gravitational acceleration due to the Earth's gravity is 9.8m/s^2, I just gave you the mass and radius of the Earth and I know about Newton's shell theorem.

And if you want a different source from Wikipedia, try opening the high school physics textbook you so obviously ignored when you were in school.

I assume you all saw Prof Brain Cox on BBC4 last night, talking about the start-up of the LHC on the 10th September. The Higgs Boson has a ZERO% chance of being found. I bet you're all into a Higgs Field scenario, aren't you? Just wait and see o' yee of little faith.

BTW, the rise of the seawater is around 1 meter, the rise of the Earth Tide wouldn't need to be so great. Atmospheric Tides are also predicted to be produced from my simple theory. Solar radiation also plays a major role in these though, since it is responsible for the evaporation of the seawater, giving us thermals and wind which would interact with the Atmospheric Tidal effect.

One of the most obvious reasons of why Newton's universal law of gravitation must be wrong is the simple fact that everyday objects simply don't stick to one another in a gravitational manner, even in a vacuum. I've seen televised zero-gravity experiments aboard the shuttle, where rocks were fired at one another to see whether they would coalesce, simulating the accretion of micro-asteroids to form larger ones. ABSOLUTELY ZERO SUCCESS. Surprise, surprise. Still the penny doesn't drop.

You seem to be conflating some things here. Coalescing is a test of the physical properties of the material, not a test of gravitational attraction.

Also, as Newton's law makes accurate enough predictions, clearly it is correct.

Also, as Newton's law makes accurate enough predictions, clearly it is correct.

You are way off. Try reading up on the NASA search for the Pioneer 10 & 11 probe gravity anomalies.

Also the Moon moving away is NOT due to the imparting of angular momentum. If it was, then the MOON WOULD BE SPINNING AS WELL!! :rolleyes:

It Is TRUE that the highest tides are on the west coast of a continent when just considering the Earth-Moon system where ocean currents due to temperature variation are ignored. I predict that the Hudson Bay gravity anomaly is also influential, and will be found by the GOCE satellite to be due to core material embedded in the crust from an ancient meteor impact event.

Cheers,

AL :)

I assume you all saw Prof Brain Cox on BBC4 last night, talking about the start-up of the LHC on the 10th September. The Higgs Boson has a ZERO% chance of being found. I bet you're all into a Higgs Field scenario, aren't you? Just wait and see o' yee of little faith.No, I didn't see it. Though I know plenty of people who work or have worked at CERN. My PhD supervisor and her husband met there, they are both theoretical physicists. A guy I share an office with spent 6 weeks there this summer. I was trying to get a place there for 3 months from this October, as part of my PhD, but it didn't pan out.

I bet you don't even know how the Higgs mechanism works. Would you care to walk us through how to use spontaneous symmetry breaking of a scalar field to induce masses via Yukawa couplings within a massless QFT Lagrangian?

I bet you can't.

No I can't. But I bet that doesn't mean that my theory has no merit.

AL

And what of the mechanism which transfers your angular momentum? If it is a particle, it would need to have a high mass, would it not?

Does a graviton have mass?

AL ;)

AlphaNumeric, you say that science has shown that everyday particles attract each other, but not by very much. Doesn't it concern you that it is clearly not enough to join two colliding asteroids together, which is routinely portrayed on TV, such as in 'The Power Of The Planet'. :)

No I can't. But I bet that doesn't mean that my theory has no merit.So you criticise a theory you know nothing about?
And what of the mechanism which transfers your angular momentum? If it is a particle, it would need to have a high mass, would it not?

Does a graviton have mass?Angular momentum can be transfered by any force, but in the case of gravitational interactions, yes it would be the graviton. The graviton has no rest mass but it still carries momentum. Just as the photon and gluons do. They too have no rest mass but have momentum.

Learn some relativity.
Doesn't it concern you that it is clearly not enough to join two colliding asteroids together, which is routinely portrayed on TV, such as in 'The Power Of The Planet'.Why should that concern me? I learn science from books, papers and lectures, not TV shows. I'm intelligent enough to understand the actual science, not have to be wowed by fancy graphics. :rolleyes:

Why should that concern me? I learn science from books, papers and lectures, not TV shows. I'm intelligent enough to understand the actual science, not have to be wowed by fancy graphics. :rolleyes:

AlphaNumeric, are you saying that the graphical representation of two asteroids colliding which then join together as a single whole is scientifically incorrect?

You are way off. Try reading up on the NASA search for the Pioneer 10 & 11 probe gravity anomalies.

Er, just try dropping an object, and see if it accelerates as Newton's laws predict. Use those laws to predict the orbits of planets. It works. It is correct. A few anomalies don't invalidate the theories, it just means some other factor is in play.


btw, don't use old credentials to try and prove your point;

BSc Astronomy with Computing, former computer modeller for the MoD, Defence Research Agency, Farnborough, UK

The DRA were rebadged DERA 'Defense Evaluation Research Agency', and then rebranded as 'Qinetiq' in 2001. I think the transition from DRA to DERA was in the mid nineties, meaning you are harping back over 13 years to get your ex MoD credentials established. That is rather pathetic.

Shame you are a former employee, as I know people still in the game. I could ask if they knew any nutters.

Er, just try dropping an object, and see if it accelerates as Newton's laws predict. Use those laws to predict the orbits of planets. It works. It is correct. A few anomalies don't invalidate the theories, it just means some other factor is in play.

btw, don't use old credentials to try and prove your point;




Just because it seems to work very well doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. My alternative theory also works very well. The super-dense core of a planetismal is proportional to it's total size. All the maths is then pretty much the same.

It's the common sense aspect of simply seeing that the Sun's gravity is seen to affect the tides, but nothing else. Why can't you sense the Sun's gravity as it rises in the morning?

The rest was just being honest.

If you have a BSc in astronomy, you'd know your 'explaination' is completely crap, because it's not able to predict anything quantitative. Go on, post the scientific background. And being a computer modeller doesn't make you right. My father is a professor in computational fluid dynamics and have done contract work with Lockheed, Boeing, Airbus, the eurofighter and the supersonic car and he doesn't know the first thing about this kind of physics.

Is daddy your role model?

Nice one.

J All the maths is then pretty much the same.


Let's see your maths then. Let's see what it predicts.

It's the common sense aspect of simply seeing that the Sun's gravity is seen to affect the tides, but nothing else. Why can't you sense the Sun's gravity as it rises in the morning?




I asked you first. It's a simple question.

It's the common sense aspect of simply seeing that the Sun's gravity is seen to affect the tides, but nothing else.
Whatever makes you think that? The Sun's gravity affects the Earth itself (google "Earth tides") and you, for example.
Why can't you sense the Sun's gravity as it rises in the morning?
Snide answer: For the same reason that you can't sense the Earth's gravity. Think of it this way: Astronauts onboard the space station experience about 90% of the gravitational force they experience while on the surface of the Earth, yet they feel weightless while onboard the station. Nothing, including you, can directly sense gravitational force.

The answer you don't want: Your apparent weight, the weight measured by a spring scale, is affected by the Sun. For example, the apparent weight of a 150 lb person is about 0.1 grains (force) greater at noon than at midnight -- which is such a tiny amount that you cannot feel it.

The rest was just being honest.
Riiight, like you were being truthful about having a BSc in Astronomy and don't even know the basics of orbital mechanics.

150 lb person is about 0.1 grains (force) greater at noon than at midnight -- which is such a tiny amount that you cannot feel it.




You're missing the common sense part. Why is the Sun's gravitational influence on the oceans so many orders of magnitude greater than this?

I'm still waiting..

I'm still waiting..

I'm waiting for your maths.

The question is in form of maths. When a value is obviously many orders of magnitude greater than a smaller calculation, it is not necessary to try to determine that value to any degree of accuracy. An understanding of the problem is. Do you accept that there is a discrepancy in that 150lb of seawater is raised against the Earth's gravity by around 0.1m, whilst that of 150lb of water on land (i.e. a person) is not raised at all?

The question is in form of maths. When a value is obviously many orders of magnitude greater than a smaller calculation, it is not necessary to try to determine that value to any degree of accuracy. An understanding of the problem is. Do you accept that there is a discrepancy in that 150lb of seawater is raised against the Earth's gravity by around 0.1m, whilst that of 150lb of water on land (i.e. a person) is not raised at all?

No; it's being attracted in 3 vectors towards a single locations. And water for miles and miles of deep is allowed to move.

Let's say that the ocean is 4282m deep.
And it raises .1 m

\frac{.1}{4282} = Not Very Big

It changes virtually nothing compared to the amount of fluid liquid.

The question is in form of maths. When a value is obviously many orders of magnitude greater than a smaller calculation, it is not necessary to try to determine that value to any degree of accuracy. An understanding of the problem is. Do you accept that there is a discrepancy in that 150lb of seawater is raised against the Earth's gravity by around 0.1m, whilst that of 150lb of water on land (i.e. a person) is not raised at all?

Show us your maths. Stop obfuscating. Maths.

Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?

Are you serious?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

Professor Brain Cox of CERN and TV fame has expressed his concern that a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity seems increasingly likely, especially if the results of the forthcoming LHC experiment turn out to be unexpected. I am convinced that I have found the stumbling block of modern physics:

The OBVIOUS reason of how the moon causes the ocean tides is by it pulling on the Earth's inner core, creating a flexure of the lithosphere, rather than acting on the seawater directly itself. Hence Newton's law of universal gravitation must be wrong. Once you get the simple picture in your head, there's no going back. You'll never look at the sea the same again.

Modern satellite technology has shown that the seafloor rises by about a meter. The mountains and ocean are also seen to be affected by the moon's gravitational influence, but NOTHING ELSE. It explains why it doesn't get windier on a high tide and why dust isn't affected by the moon's gravity for example.

I have a scientific background to substantiate my breakthrough, the culmination of over 25 years work.

BSc Astronomy with Computing, former computer modeller for the MoD, Defence Research Agency, Farnborough, UK.

This would be a good point to pull out John Baez's Crackpot Index:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html


#3: 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

#4: 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

#5: 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?

#7: 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

...OBVIOUS.....NOTHING ELSE...

#15: 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

#22: 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

several times

#23: 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

(asteroid collision in television program)

I'm proposing that there is dark matter at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun. The Earth's surface gravity of 9.8m/s/s is only for baryonic (everyday) matter. It is much greater for dark matter. Therefore the weights of the Earth and the Moon are much higher than their current calculated values. A Core-Centered Theory of Gravity predicts a giant comet near-miss event around 40,000 years ago which resulted in the flexure of the lithosphere between Siberia and Australasia. The resultant land bridge across the Pacific ocean allowed the peopling of Australia and the American continent from the south west.

Give that a go.

I'm proposing that there is dark matter at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun. The Earth's surface gravity of 9.8m/s/s is only for baryonic (everyday) matter. It is much greater for dark matter. Therefore the weights of the Earth and the Moon are much higher than their current calculated values. A Core-Centered Theory of Gravity predicts a giant comet near-miss event around 40,000 years ago which resulted in the flexure of the lithosphere between Siberia and Australasia. The resultant land bridge across the Pacific ocean allowed the peopling of Australia and the American continent from the south west.

Give that a go.

While that may or may not be so, it's all well and good for an idea to be "conceptually right" but if the maths doesn't check out then clearly something is wrong.

Now, please show us the Maths.
Then your idea can be reviewed properly.

Also do you any evidence to back up your statements about the weight of the earth?

My evidence for the maths is the Missing Mass Problem of cosmology. A theory of dark matter existing at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the Stars would explain this perfectly.

References for the hypothesis that a temporary land bridge existed between the American continent and Australasia due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core of dark matter around 40,000 B.P are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Siberian_American_Aborigines

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php

My evidence for the maths is the Missing Mass Problem of cosmology. A theory of dark matter existing at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the Stars would explain this perfectly.

References for the hypothesis that a temporary land bridge existed between the American continent and Australasia due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core of dark matter around 40,000 B.P are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Siberian_American_Aborigines

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php

So.

Instead of showing the math, as requested, you choose to avoid it - are we to take that as an admission that you CANNOT do the math? I suppose so.

And in an attempt to divert our attention you send us to three references which, in fact, stand squarely against your silly idea!!!!

Wow! What a highly-intelligent fellow you are - NOT!!!!:bugeye:

Your just too negative to understand. The answer to your question is as plain as day. See above and think about it. Don't just react in a hysterical manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Your just too negative to understand. The answer to your question is as plain as day. See above and think about it. Don't just react in a hysterical manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Too negative? Iunderstand just fine and your own links serve to demolish your thinking.

Just like several others here, I'm too intelligent to fall for your nonsense PLUS the fact that we also realize you are a math moron. You've been given MULTIPLE chances to show it - yet you keep dodging which, by default, proves that you can't do it.

Oh, and I'm not hysterical in the slightest - except while laughing at your ignorance and inability, that is.

I'm a simulation modeller. I scored 98% for maths in my first year at university and was awarded joint award for Best Student for my discipline, out of around 300+ people.

When people keep saying "where's the maths", it just means that they're unable to perform lateral thinking. See "Would We Notice If DM Was At The Center Of The Earth" in the Astronomy section.

I'm a simulation modeller. I scored 98% for maths in my first year at university and was awarded joint award for Best Student for my discipline, out of around 300+ people.

Fine - then SHOW your work!

When people keep saying "where's the maths", it just means that they're unable to perform lateral thinking. See "Would We Notice If DM Was At The Center Of The Earth" in the Astronomy section.

My thinking is just fine, thank you very little. And evidently, my ability and that of several other here greatly exceeds your faulty reasoning ability.

Yes, I'll go read that thread.

Meanwhile, if your math abilities are so wonderful, SHOW IT!!!

For people with lateral thinking only:

I have recently deduced that dark matter (DM) exists at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the stars. This would mean that previous calculations of their masses would all be underestimates. This makes it a possible solution for the Missing Mass Problem. The good way to justify this view would be it's ability to model galaxy behaviour. Something which I'm working on.

For people with lateral thinking only:

I have recently deduced that dark matter (DM) exists at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the stars. This would mean that calculations of their masses would all be underestimates. This makes it a possible solution for the Missing Mass Problem. The only way to justify this view would be it's ability to model galaxy behaviour. Something which I'm working on.

All of our observations fit the current masses of the Earth, stars, and the moon.

I appreciate just how accurate the current model is. I have a knowledge about the actual mechanism of gravity. This gives me the edge in thinking about how the gravity of DM is different to that of ordinary matter. An obvious big difference is that DM gravity is highly directional. It is much higher in the ecliptic plane of a star compared to that of it's spin axis. This is the reason that most galaxy disc shapes are maintained over their lifetime of billions of years, in my opinion.

I have a knowledge about the actual mechanism of gravity. This gives me the edge in thinking about how the gravity of DM is different to that of ordinary matter. An obvious big difference is that DM gravity is highly directional. It is much higher in the ecliptic plane of a star compared to that of it's spin axis. This is the reason that most galaxy disc shapes are maintained over their lifetime of billions of years, in my opinion.

Then please do explain these things.

@common_sense_seeker

IMO, the key point of contention thus far is not actually related to your theory/ideas but the fact that at least up until now you have posted bits and pieces of your idea, links to things related to your idea, etc, but not the actual reasoning behind you theory or the mathematical basis for said theory.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if no evidence (or insufficient evidence) is provided then the claim is generally assumed to be false.

[QUOTE=common_sense_seeker; I have a knowledge about the actual mechanism of gravity.[/QUOTE]

Oh, really???? Then that puts you FAR, FAR of every professional scientist on the face of the whole Earth!

Well... either that or the biggest CRACKPOT of all time.:bugeye:

(And I strongly suspect the latter.)

Oh, really???? Then that puts you FAR, FAR of every professional scientist on the face of the whole Earth!



That's closer.

That's closer.

Oh,you're something major for sure - a major WOO-WOO!

You haven't one single microscopic shred of evidence to support your wacko idea. And you aren't even bright enough (despite your claimed prowess) to present the math that you claim would be evidence of it.

You do absolutely nothing but talk, talk, talk. But talk is cheap - show some EVIDENCE (if you think you even have any!).

For people with lateral thinking only:

I have recently deduced that dark matter (DM) exists at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the stars. This would mean that previous calculations of their masses would all be underestimates.

Oh dear, you clearly don't understand what dark matter is.

The masses of the bodies you mentioned are all well estimated, and we have used these figures to successfully plan space flights and sling shot manoeuvres, and predict the paths of comets and asteroids.

Dark matter is required to explain large scale gravitational interactions, not local ones in our own Solar System.

Also, you linked to the Wikipedia article on dark matter, and the first line says;

" dark matter is hypothetical matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force"

So if dark matter is at the centre of the Earth, where does the Earth's magnetic field come from, or do you propose a molten iron core around your proposed core of dark matter, and if so, how would that affect the flux?

So if dark matter is at the centre of the Earth, where does the Earth's magnetic field come from, or do you propose a molten iron core around your proposed core of dark matter..

Well done, you're answering your own questions. I know how good the standard model is. DM at the center of stars would solve the Missing Mass Problem. The reason for the current confusion is that the accepted results for the Cavendish experiment are clearly wrong. On a scaled down version, the Earth would be about the size of your eye and the Moon would be size of a pea held at arms length. Even if they were made of everyday magnets there still wouldn't be enough attractive force between them to sustain an equivalent orbit. The Wikipedia entry alludes to the fact that repeats of the experiment gives highly varying values.

The other important concept to consider is that I propose long-period comets contain DM but short-period ones do not. This means that Halley's return was predicted with accuracy because it is composed solely of baryonic matter.

The other important concept to consider is that I propose long-period comets contain DM but short-period ones do not. This means that Halley's return was predicted with accuracy because it is composed solely of baryonic matter.

How convinient.:rolleyes:

Well done, you're answering your own questions. I know how good the standard model is. DM at the center of stars would solve the Missing Mass Problem. The reason for the current confusion is that the accepted results for the Cavendish experiment are clearly wrong. On a scaled down version, the Earth would be about the size of your eye and the Moon would be size of a pea held at arms length. Even if they were made of everyday magnets there still wouldn't be enough attractive force between them to sustain an equivalent orbit. The Wikipedia entry alludes to the fact that repeats of the experiment gives highly varying values.

The other important concept to consider is that I propose long-period comets contain DM but short-period ones do not. This means that Halley's return was predicted with accuracy because it is composed solely of baryonic matter.

Pure balderdash! Please show PROOF that the Cavendish experirement produced wrong results!!!:bugeye:

The thought experiment alone should be enough. It does require an imagination though.

Well done, you're answering your own questions.

I asked you what a core of DM inside the Earth's molten iron core would do to the flux, and you haven't answered.

Also, DM is called so, because the distribution of mass we can see, doesn't account for the gravitational effects in large scale.

If DM were inside stars etc, the mass in the observed universe would account for the gravitational effects, and we'd not have a discrepancy to account for, so would not have invented DM to account for it. Get where this is going?

I asked you what a core of DM inside the Earth's molten iron core would do to the flux, and you haven't answered.

Also, DM is called so, because the distribution of mass we can see, doesn't account for the gravitational effects in large scale.

If DM were inside stars etc, the mass in the observed universe would account for the gravitational effects, and we'd not have a discrepancy to account for, so would not have invented DM to account for it. Get where this is going?

Maybe he is right and we have to create a new type of matter to fill in the gap that dark matter does not now fill according to him.

The thought experiment alone should be enough. It does require an imagination though.

Exactly what I expected from you - no answer and nothing but more hot air.

You, sir (and I use that term very loosely), are nothing but a waste of human protoplasm. No brain, no reasoning ability at all.

Maybe he is right and we have to create a new type of matter to fill in the gap that dark matter does not now fill according to him.

Actually, he's as wrong as a fish in a desert. No sense and NO scientific understanding whatsoever.

Actually, he's as wrong as a fish in a desert. No sense and NO scientific understanding whatsoever.

I was merely being facetious.

I was merely being facetious.

Thanks for clearing that up. My opinion of you was higher than to have expected something like that. Nice to know my evaluation of you was correct.:)

I was merely being facetious.

I got that, in fact, that's what I was setting up, really. This guy ends up back at the start, needing to add something else, and then it becomes inductive logic, and never ends.

Yawn.

Yawn.

I've got something to cure your boredom...

Explain yourself properly.

Yawn.

Yawn is one four letter word. I have another;

MATH

I'm starting on my maths proof from today. The problem lies with Cavendish's assumption of Newton's law of gravitation when calculating the Earth's density. It won't be long before there is a new alternative idea of gravity. The Dark Matter At The Center Of The Earth Theory.

Watch this space.

you haven't started the proof yet? :bugeye:
well at least you are now.

I'm starting on my maths proof from today. The problem lies with Cavendish's assumption of Newton's law of gravitation when calculating the Earth's density. It won't be long before there is a new alternative idea of gravity. The Dark Matter At The Center Of The Earth Theory.

Watch this space.

Listen, you clearly don't understand why 'dark matter' is referred to as such, it is because the masses of the OBSERVED bodies, such as the earth, and stars, do not account for large scale gravitational phenomena.

If you put DM into the OBSERVED bodies, you need something else to explain large scale gravitation.

DO YOU GET THIS YET?

I have seen a bit of talk involving the measure of Newtons. For those who don't know how much a Newton is in real life, it's about the same quantity as a cooking apple.

I have seen a bit of talk involving the measure of Newtons. For those who don't know how much a Newton is in real life, it's about the same quantity as a cooking apple.

:confused:

....a Newton is a unit of Force, I'm not sure what you think it is.

Yes, i do know what a Newton is. I work with it weekly.

I am referring to Weight, which is a measure of Mass multiplied by Gravitational Acceleration. Weight is measured as a force which is a vector, which depends on mass and gravity.

Don't patronize me please.

For instance, imagine you had a Newton measuring device, with a wire, and attatched to that wire was one cooking apple. The weight of force of the cooking apple accelerating down the way, is equivalent to one Newton.

Don't patronize me please.

My sincere apologies.

For instance, imagine you had a Newton measuring device, with a wire, and attatched to that wire was one cooking apple. The weight of force of the cooking apple accelerating down the way, is equivalent to one Newton.

do you mean a force gauge?

My sincere apologies.



do you mean a force gauge?


Yes.

Listen, you clearly don't understand why 'dark matter' is referred to as such, it is because the masses of the OBSERVED bodies, such as the earth, and stars, do not account for large scale gravitational phenomena.

If you put DM into the OBSERVED bodies, you need something else to explain large scale gravitation.

DO YOU GET THIS YET?


You're the one who is confused. Due to the evidence of the Hapgood mammoth data and the ocean tides I have concluded that the inner cores consist of matter which has a higher force of gravitational attraction than normal matter. Cavendish's assumption that the entire Earth is composed of baryonic matter has led to an overestimate of it's mass (think about it). Since the masses of all other bodies are based on this calculation, the calculated masses of galaxies are also overestimates. The true values would mean large scale gravity is consistant with observation.

Well, that is an interesting theory.
The next step would be to prove it.

You're the one who is confused. Due to the evidence of the Hapgood mammoth data and the ocean tides I have concluded that the inner cores consist of matter which has a higher force of gravitational attraction than normal matter. Cavendish's assumption that the entire Earth is composed of baryonic matter has led to an overestimate of it's mass (think about it). Since the masses of all other bodies are based on this calculation, the calculated masses of galaxies are also overestimates. The true values would mean large scale gravity is consistant with observation.

So what is the actual point of this?

It sounds like all you are going to do is change the mass of everything, then change the gravitational constant to fit it.

"What's the point"! How about a simple Theory Of Everything so that science can leap forward in helping solve humanities many problems and stop wasting time, loads of money and resources.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

The important thing to remember is not to do that ^^^.

That's what he did in my opinion.

"What's the point"! How about a simple Theory Of Everything so that science can leap forward in helping solve humanities many problems and stop wasting time, loads of money and resources.

Even if we knew the Grand Unified Theory -- indeed if there even is one -- there is no confidence that we would prosper. Not a shred of evidence means that we could deduct very much from it, other than the most likely ending scenario of the universe, but it would be impossible to detail events progressively throughout the future: No theory could satisfy this, since everything in physics was just probability -- actualities are in fact rare.

So you see, there is no equation (grand or weak), that could ever satisfy the complexities of this universe.

So you see, there is no equation (grand or weak), that could ever satisfy the complexities of this universe.


I couldn't agree more on this point. I'm talking about a computer simulation for one thing, and the geometric knowledge of simplicity to enhance it. It won't be a silver bullet for humanity's problems for sure, but it will certainly lead to a new era of some sort.

You're the one who is confused. Due to the evidence of the Hapgood mammoth data and the ocean tides I have concluded that the inner cores consist of matter which has a higher force of gravitational attraction than normal matter. Cavendish's assumption that the entire Earth is composed of baryonic matter has led to an overestimate of it's mass (think about it).

Maths.

I intend to get a paper published just as soon as I can.

I intend to get a paper published just as soon as I can.

I would think that writing it would a prerequisite to it being published.

Anything against the mainstream is never going to be easy to prove. But I am getting closer to a professionally finished coherent theory.

BTW My theory of matter having a lower entropy at the center of celestial bodies would increase the effect of gravity gradients and tidal heating. It would account for the unusually high internal heat of Jupiter´s moon Io. At least one professional body has declared that their calculations show that the heat of Io´s interior must be a residue from a (supposed) previous orbit.

An interesting link is: http://mb-soft.com/public/io.html

Prediction and Proof for the Core-Centered Theory Of Gravity (CCTG):

The current standard model of the tides would predict that the tidal forces act evenly over the globe to give an even bulge of the Earth. My theory predicts that an additional central bulge should be detected on top of the global bulge. I am proposing that the inner core is accelerated more strongly, so giving a greater central pressure. This should be especially apparent at a Spring Tide and measurable by modern satellite technology. The shape of the tidal bulge should be proof of my theory. I am currently searching for any existing data on the exact shape of the Earth tide.

Interesting post common_sense_seeker.

Are you really surprised at the hostile reaction?

These are not the responses and replies of logical and rational thinkers.

What you see here are the replies of a religious fundamentalist cult whose faith has been profaned.

Gravity changes over time as mass increases. The idea that gravity is constant is so ridiculous it does not even deserve further consideration.

Interesting post common_sense_seeker.

Are you really surprised at the hostile reaction?

These are not the responses and replies of logical and rational thinkers.

What you see here are the replies of a religious fundamentalist cult whose faith has been profaned.

Gravity changes over time as mass increases. The idea that gravity is constant is so ridiculous it does not even deserve further consideration.

I was quite naive at the beginning and didn't expect such hostility I admit. But now that my excitement has calmed down a bit, I can understand it a lot more. The negative responses don't bother me like they used to. If you have a theory which is against the mainstream, then I think you should be prepared for a difficult time. I've gained a lot from the forum and still have queries regarding ice core data analysis and a lot to learn before I begin to write a professional paper. It takes time, but if you are determined then it's worth it.

I was quite naive at the beginning and didn't expect such hostility I admit. But now that my excitement has calmed down a bit, I can understand it a lot more. The negative responses don't bother me like they used to. If you have a theory which is against the mainstream, then I think you should be prepared for a difficult time. I've gained a lot from the forum and still have queries regarding ice core data analysis and a lot to learn before I begin to write a professional paper. It takes time, but if you are determined then it's worth it.My latest discovery is that the Earth's inner core is doughnut shaped (the one with the hole in the middle) and made of tightly packed neutrons. This idea can explain the 100,000 year ice age cycle, the millennial cycle and the geomagnetic pole reversals.

Any proof, or is this wild guessing?

It's by intuition. Miaki Ishii has made a scientific study which shows that earthquake waves travel faster going along the north-south directions compared to east-west directions, see article (http://prodev.iris.edu/OnePagers/ishii.pdf). The team has concluded that there is an innermost inner core. I believe that it is more logical to assume that they have in fact discovered the hole in the Earth's inner core. Geomagnetic pole reversals can then be easily explained by the fluid flow of the outer core changing direction through the center of the inner core. SpaceDaily article is http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-02z.html.

In the early 1980s, researchers found earthquake waves traveling parallel to the axis of Earth's rotation, roughly north-south, went through the inner core faster than did waves traveling along the equatorial plane, or east-west.

Intuition?

And the "tightly-packed neutrons"?

Again by intuition. It's a more difficult concept to convey, I admit. I'm working on it. (BTW the idea of a doughnut shaped inner core can also be applied to the Sun and other stars)

So you have nothing except a predicted effect that is somewhat off in value but not essence (as you'd know if you'd read that PDF), and then you apply crackpottery.
Why would the flow change direction?
What does your "theory" tell us that can be tested and can't be accounted for by current explanations?
What's the size of the mass of compressed neutrons?
What's the size of the hole?

So you have nothing except a predicted effect that is somewhat off in value but not essence (as you'd know if you'd read that PDF), and then you apply crackpottery.
Why would the flow change direction?
What does your "theory" tell us that can be tested and can't be accounted for by current explanations?
What's the size of the mass of compressed neutrons?
What's the size of the hole?What is your estimated opinion on the possibility of the doughnut idea being proved correct in the not-too-distant future? Zero percent? (ignoring the proposal of being composed of neutrons for the moment)

The flow would reverse due to the wobble of the inner core relative to the outer core.

Based on the information: exactly zero percent*.
And now you're having to introduce other factors to account for your "theory".
Why doesn't the hole get closed up due to the pressures?

Based on the information: exactly zero percent.
And now you're having to introduce other factors to account for your "theory".So your intuition is telling you that the idea has a zero percent chance of being correct?

Now, a careful study of how the speed of earthquake waves changes with the direction they take reveals that the innermost part of the inner core is obviously different from the rest of it. Dziewonski and Ishii have published their results in the Oct. 1 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Nope: I've seen nothing to indicate that there's anything like a hole in the core - and your "theory" has no grounding (come on, please tell me you did some calculations on exactly how a doughnut gives the figures achieved in the PDF - I'd love to see them) OTHER than your wild guessing.
What you've done is look at ONE paper, taken a stab in the dark and ignored everything else we know about the core.

Nope: I've seen nothing to indicate that there's anything like a hole in the core - and your "theory" has no grounding (come on, please tell me you did some calculations on exactly how a doughnut gives the figures achieved in the PDF - I'd love to see them) OTHER than your wild guessing.
What you've done is look at ONE paper, taken a stab in the dark and ignored everything else we know about the core.Time will tell. You seem to have a problem with using intuition as a powerful tool. I agree that a full university scientific study would be needed to investigate the idea further. Everyone knows that. Declaring that I don't have scientific proof is a bit lame. BTW Ishii has recently been awarded recognition for her groundbreaking work, 12 March 2009 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/ssoa-mih031109.php

On the contrary: intuition is a wonderful tool.
When coupled with actual knowledge.
Used in conjunction with pure woo wooism it's merely a waste of time.
I take it then you have no supporting data or calculations?
"Scientific proof"?
You don't have a glimmer of evidence, let alone proof.
As I stated: the effect was actually predicted - it is accounted for by current theory - it's merely the size of the effect that was unexpected.
And that may mean that nothing more than that a slight refinement is required.

Common sense. An interesting concept. I have often had to unlearn things that appeared to be correct, but experience teaches us otherwise.

Common sense isn't all it's cracked up to be. Especially when the person professing it is a crackpot.

Professor Brain Cox of CERN and TV fame has expressed his concern that a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity seems increasingly likely, especially if the results of the forthcoming LHC experiment turn out to be unexpected. I am convinced that I have found the stumbling block of modern physics:

The OBVIOUS reason of how the moon causes the ocean tides is by it pulling on the Earth's inner core, creating a flexure of the lithosphere, rather than acting on the seawater directly itself. Hence Newton's law of universal gravitation must be wrong. Once you get the simple picture in your head, there's no going back. You'll never look at the sea the same again.

Modern satellite technology has shown that the seafloor rises by about a meter. The mountains and ocean are also seen to be affected by the moon's gravitational influence, but NOTHING ELSE. It explains why it doesn't get windier on a high tide and why dust isn't affected by the moon's gravity for example.

I have a scientific background to substantiate my breakthrough, the culmination of over 25 years work.

BSc Astronomy with Computing, former computer modeller for the MoD, Defence Research Agency, Farnborough, UK.

Bullshit. No satelite can penetrate several thousand feet of seawater to take those measurements.

Bullshit. No satelite can penetrate several thousand feet of seawater to take those measurements.What about the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPEX/Poseidon. Also see Wikipdeia entry on Earth tides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide. Note that this asymmetry of the inner core could explain the oblate spheroid shape of the planet and the fact that the gravitational field is slightly stronger at the poles (Professor Brian Cox mentions this anomaly in the TV programme 'What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?'). If the same principle is applied to the Sun, perhaps it could explain the Pioneer gravity anomaly.

What about the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite?
TOPEX/Poseidon provided measurements of the surface height of 95 percent of the ice-free ocean to an accuracy of 3.3 centimeters.
Good pick...
You really made your point.

Also see Wikipdeia entry on Earth tides. Note that this asymmetry of the inner core could explain the oblate spheroid shape of the planet and the fact that the gravitational field is slightly stronger at the poles (Professor Brian Cox mentions this anomaly in the TV programme 'What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?'). If the same principle is applied to the Sun, perhaps it could explain the Pioneer gravity anomaly.
And of course, there's NO OTHER explanation for the oblateness at all is there?:rolleyes:

If the concept of two highly differing densities existing for stars and planets is thought about with regard to particles acting as the force carrier, then an interesting anomaly is revealed. Imagine a super high density (non-baryonic) inner core and a normal baryonic matter for the rest of the bodies. Newton's law doesn't seem to apply to a case where gravitons from a low density material interact with matter of super high density, due to the fact that most of the high density matter is unhit by the incoming field. It takes time to comprehend the point I'm making, but it is worth pursuing. See my doodles and sketch of the idea attached (except that I'm having trouble uploading for some reason!)

I believe Einstein's rubber sheet analogy for a gravitational field is misleading and essentially incorrect. This assumes that the force carrying particles (gravitons) interact with a secondary object proportionally in all cases. It negates the importance of the secondary object's density. This is the fundamental flaw of the 'gravity problem' in my opinion.

What about the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPEX/Poseidon. Also see Wikipdeia entry on Earth tides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide. Note that this asymmetry of the inner core could explain the oblate spheroid shape of the planet and the fact that the gravitational field is slightly stronger at the poles (Professor Brian Cox mentions this anomaly in the TV programme 'What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?'). If the same principle is applied to the Sun, perhaps it could explain the Pioneer gravity anomaly.

Yah but those satelites don't actually bounce radar off the oceans floor, they just use a radar altimeter to see how high up the satelite is, than the satelite uses signals from the ground and gps satelites and a shitload of geometry to calculate the topography.

Good pick...
You really made your point.


And of course, there's NO OTHER explanation for the oblateness at all is there?:rolleyes:I've realised that the most likely place for a toroidal inner core is the Sun. This NASA article shows the potential of the idea, I believe; http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm. I still think that the Earth's newly found innermost inner core maybe of some original neutron material and of super-high density.

I also think that considering the Sun to be a point mass via Newton could be an oversimplification. The 'neutronium' inner core's asymmetric shape could be highly important in it's gravitational field.

For someone else's opinion who has reached a similar conclusion, visit the Blaze Labs Rsearch site; http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-shadow.asp

I believe Einstein's rubber sheet analogy for a gravitational field is misleading and essentially incorrect. This assumes that the force carrying particles (gravitons) interact with a secondary object proportionally in all cases. It negates the importance of the secondary object's density. This is the fundamental flaw of the 'gravity problem' in my opinion.Clearly you've never actually done any GR because the rubber sheet analogy IS AN ANALOGY. Rocket science I know but the actual details of GR do allow you to take account of densities. Anyone whose studied things like black hole or star formation will have consider collapsing masses of time varying density. The fact you haven't, despite claiming to have a degree in astronomy, speaks volumes about your level of understanding.

Tell me, have you ever actually done any GR?

I've studied Simulation Modelling at Masters Degree level and am specialised in conceptual and abstract modelling. We simply won't agree on this issue, I know. What are your opinions on the Paradox Of A Blackhole Eclipse? Is this a case for gravitational shielding?

For people who believe in the possiblity of gravitational shielding, I run a forum where these issues can be discussed: http://www.youforum.co.uk/believersingravityshielding/index.php

I've studied Simulation Modelling at Masters Degree level and am specialised in conceptual and abstract modelling.Big wop. My dad's a professor of fluid mechanics and has 30 years experience and expertise in computational modelling but he doesn't know the first thing about black holes.

You're qualified in an area which gives you no knowledge in relation to your claims.

You didn't answer the question regarding the Paradox Of A Blackhole Eclipse. What are your opinions on this unresolved issue?

I have yet to see you demonstrate there's a paradox. You have simply claimed that along the line through the two singularities there's a gravitational shielding effect. Can you provide a source for your claims? Give me a link to a paper, journal, book or article which derives the shielding effect. A quick Google finds this thread and one on another forum you made. It would seem you have a habit of simply making things up and proclaiming them problems with physics when infact you haven't even bothered to look into the physics.

I find it hard to believe you have any kind of science related qualification. You seem to lack basic understanding of how to go about doing science.

General Relativity, as provided by Einstein, does not predict such a shadow. Common sense would suggest that there should be. Stan Byers has provided this link: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm. Xavier Borg emailed me with his latest devlopments: This year we will invest in about $10000 in new equipment dedicated to accurately measure the shielding coefficient. We should have some results by Q3 this year, so keep in touch. You may also enjoy going through a bit of history: http://wiki.blazelabs.com/wiki/index.php?title=Kinetic_Theories_of_Gravitation Cheers,Xavier.

There's little in the way of quantified experimental data in that link, it's all just telling a story, not providing data for analysis. The references on the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_shielding) show that whatever the gravitational shielding is its very very small, far smaller than seen in that experiment which suggests another cause for the effect seen in your link. Blaze Labs doesn't seem to be particularly scientific. They are privately funded which smacks of "We'll make stuff up to please our investors/funders", their website is awash with pseudoscience and all their 'published work' is either just copied out of textbooks or nonsense 'published' in an electronic journal which doesn't refuse anything, they have no reviewers and thus its zero measure of their validity.

I just figured ALL objects with mass or energy, are mutually attracted via the apparent 'gravity' force.

The ocean and the crust, and the atmosphere and the sun moon and satelites are all pulling on eachother in a gravitic system like spiderwebs i guess. Questions of crust deformation are intersting, (havent heard the idea before), but would also occur on land and be noticable by devices such as laser altimeters ?

There's little in the way of quantified experimental data in that link, it's all just telling a story, not providing data for analysis. The references on the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_shielding) show that whatever the gravitational shielding is its very very small, far smaller than seen in that experiment which suggests another cause for the effect seen in your link. Blaze Labs doesn't seem to be particularly scientific. They are privately funded which smacks of "We'll make stuff up to please our investors/funders", their website is awash with pseudoscience and all their 'published work' is either just copied out of textbooks or nonsense 'published' in an electronic journal which doesn't refuse anything, they have no reviewers and thus its zero measure of their validity.The Deep Space Gravity Explorer is being used to test GR: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J07/trans/wednesday/reynaud.pdf.

Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7946480.stm and the latest lauch details: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMZ8TJTYRF_index_0.html

The Deep Space Gravity Explorer is being used to test GR: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J07/trans/wednesday/reynaud.pdf.I didn't say we shouldn't test GR. It's just that nothing you've provided so far implies there's a paradox because there's no evidence for your claims.

And your links don't provide anything relevant to that.

If you're so convinced that Newton's law of universal gravitation is 100% correct, why is the moon moving further away from Earth, then???

YOU MUST BE WRONG

CSS, the Moon is moving further away from the Earth (at the rate of ca. 2 inches per year, if I remember Isaac Asimov correctly) because the friction caused by the movement of the tides is very gradually slowing down the rotation of the Earth. The law of the conservation of angular momentum says that if energy is lost by one body, it is gained by another body; in this case the Moon gains energy from the slowing Earth, begins moving slightly faster, and pulls away. If I understand Newton's laws correctly, this does not defy Newtonian physics. I stand to be possibly corrected on that by someone brighter than me.:)

in this case the Moon gains energy from the slowing Earth, begins moving slightly faster, and pulls away.
Er, if it's further away it would move slower, otherwise it'll leave orbit.

Er, if it's further away it would move slower, otherwise it'll leave orbit.There's also the paradox of why the moon isn't spinning about it's own axis if it is gaining angular momentum via tidal friction. There's a long running thread on this issue somewhere.

It should also be remembered that the moon moving away from the earth was a revelation, and not expected before the laser range finding experiment.

There's also the paradox of why the moon isn't spinning about it's own axis if it is gaining angular momentum via tidal friction. There's a long running thread on this issue somewhere.

It should also be remembered that the moon moving away from the earth was a revelation, and not expected before the laser range finding experiment.

Bullshit.

It was predicted in 1879 or 1880 by George Howard Darwin, SON of Charles Darwin.

George postulated that Moon was orbiting at an angular velocity Ω which was slower than the spin angular velocity  of the Earth. Hence slow orbiting Moon tries to hold back Earth’s spin. This leads to transfer of angular momentum from fast spinning Earth to slow orbiting Moon. This results in outward spiral orbit of Moon.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0100

Okay, I admit I may have made a mistake with that remark. I remember my physics teacher saying that the moon would eventually fall into the earth. That was only about 25 years ago! Prof Brian Cox (who runs the LHC experiment) has made a TV documentary entitled 'What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?'. The standard tidal solution doesn't account for all the volcanism and heat of Io, it should be remembered (I saw it on TV).

Okay, I admit I may have made a mistake with that remark. I remember my physics teacher saying that the moon would eventually fall into the earth. That was only about 25 years ago! Prof Brian Cox (who runs the LHC experiment) has made a TV documentary entitled 'What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?'. The standard tidal solution doesn't account for all the volcanism and heat of Io, it should be remembered (I saw it on TV).

Yes, it does, as far as I recall, once you take the Laplace resonance of the system into account.

Yes, it does, as far as I recall, once you take the Laplace resonance of the system into account.This report says that tidal heating is an order of magnitude short; http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JE001943.shtml

These models show that while a high-temperature convective equilibrium exists, it falls an order of magnitude short of explaining the observed heat flux. Either Io is currently out of thermal equilibrium, or another heat transport mechanism such as melt segregation determines Io's thermal state.

This report says that tidal heating is an order of magnitude short; http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JE001943.shtml

Big deal.

That proves nothing about Gravity, only that Io isn't in thermal equilibrium, or that it has another heat transport mechanism.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/2/R02/
Which cites your paper suggests a possible explanation as being that Io has only recently entered the Laplace resonance and suggests that the mantle is un-seggregated (thus implying melt seggregation bla bla bla as per your source), and then goes on to suggest observations which might clarify which it is.

Big deal, I don't think anyone would be surprised to discover that the Gallilean satelites have a dynamic element to their orbits.

Okay, I admit I may have made a mistake with that remark. So you didn't bother to check before hand? Just shows how little integrity you have.

I remember my physics teacher saying that the moon would eventually fall into the earth. That was only about 25 years ago!Teacher? Didn't you do an astronomy degree? Shouldn't you have got more advanced information from lecturer?

Prof Brian Cox (who runs the LHC experiment) No, he's involved in it. He isn't 'running it', it involves thousands of physicists and engineers. He isn't the head of CERN either.

(I saw it on TV). Weren't these things covered in your degree? Isn't any of your information from actual primary scientific sources rather than here-say, TV and dodgy websites?

It's intuitive lateral thinking and looking ahead. I do have a clever explanation if the pioneer anomaly is found to be genuine.

So what's your model? What are the equations of motion for gravitational systems?

So what's your model? What are the equations of motion for gravitational systems?My model is that the gravitational field of the sun increases towards the invariable plane. This is due to assymetry within the sun's core. This can be verified by showing that the two pioneer craft are actually heading towards the invariable plane. This leads to a mechanism of rapid climate change; orbital tidal mixing. It even fits with the new upcoming data that global temperatures are in fact dropping. I never would have believed this either in a million years. Now I think we need to prevent the arctic sea-ice from forming!

To you this is just waffle, I know. But there is a branch of scientific research called Simulation Modelling. There's more than one way to solve a problem.

My model is that the gravitational field of the sun increases towards the invariable plane. This is due to assymetry within the sun's core. This can be verified by showing that the two pioneer craft are actually heading towards the invariable plane. This leads to a mechanism of rapid climate change; orbital tidal mixing. It even fits with the new upcoming data that global temperatures are in fact dropping. I never would have believed this either in a million years. Now I think we need to prevent the arctic sea-ice from forming!So what's your model then? Give me the quantitative details. If you worked for an aerospace company for so long, as you claim, then surely you know how to give quantitative methods, because Boeing or Airbus aren't going to accept "I think the plane will fly", they'll want a ton of CFD simulations, wind tunnel analysis and, back in the day, some analytic fluid mechanics perhaps using conformal transformations. You claim to have worked in a business which demands details in their models but whenever I ask you for such details you never provide. Why is that?

To you this is just waffle, I know. But there is a branch of scientific research called Simulation Modelling. There's more than one way to solve a problem.I've told you before, I know of such an area of scientific research. My father has a professorship for his more than 30 years in precisely that area. He's worked on the supersonic car, the Eurofighter, the Airbus A380 (and numerous other aircraft by Boeing and Airbus), published textbooks on numerical methods and optimising mesh generations, written more papers than you've even read and now heads a department with a budget running into the tens of millions. If he said "I've got a model for [something]" he'd be able to provide anyone who asked with the governing equations, the numerical methods used to solve them, numerous simulations to justify any claims (and allow for statistical analysis) and a rundown of those results compared to other methods/models out there. You haven't done any of that.

Is your 'model' qualitative or quantitative? If qualitative then you've got nothing. If quantitative, give me the equations you're working in. If you can't then you're all talk with nothing to say. You try to avoid answering these pretty standard questions by pretending there's something special about 'simulation methods' which I don't understand. Unfortunately for you I know enough about numerical methods in practice and the area of research as a whole conceptually to know the methods you are using are not scientific or anything like those used by the actual numerical methods community. Ask yourself this, would your 'model', if written up, get published in peer review? If not, why not. If it wouldn't then it's not the amazing thing you think it is.

My intuitive model, based on a background of scientific R&D combined with simulation modelling tuition is very low key, I admit. But I have made some predictions that can be verified. If the pioneers are found to be heading towards the invariable plane, with calculations which match the rate of motion anomaly, then I have succeded in showing that my idea has potential and should be investgated further.

My intuitive model, based on a background of scientific R&D combined with simulation modelling tuition is very low key, I admit. But I have made some predictions that can be verified. If the pioneers are found to be heading towards the invariable plane, with calculations which match the rate of motion anomaly, then I have succeded in showing that my idea has potential and should be investgated further.I've had some communication with the leading Nasa expert on the subject and here's what happened:

Idea Predicts Two Distance Changes In Gravity Field Interactions‏
From: Alan Lowey (amlowey@hotmail.co.uk)
Sent: 18 September 2009 09:03:14
To: Slava Turyshev (*)

Dear Slava,

I've discovered that the Pioneer spacecraft acceleration anomaly is not due to changes within the gravitational field of the sun as I previously suggested, although I still think that it can explain the 100,000 year glacial cycle mystery. The Pioneer misprediction now makes sense, I have looked at my idea more closely and found that this is consistent with the concept of a particle theory of gravity. A change in gravity field interaction occurs between baryonic matter emitting gravitons and baryonic matter interacting with gravitons. This is intuitively assumed to reside at the end of the Oort Cloud at the edge of the solar system. The other change in gravity field interaction occurs between innermost core of 'low-entropy-density dark matter' and other similar matter at a large distance. This is assumed to be the causation of the average intersteller distance; the distance between one star and another. The Pioneer craft was a red-herring in MOND-like thinking imo and must be experiencing an apparent added acceleration towards the sun due to some other reason or combination of reasons. It all fits in my book.

Kind regards,

Alan



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: amlowey@hotmail.co.uk
To:
Subject: Pioneer Trajectories Away From Invariable Plane
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:39:57 +0000

Dear Slava,

I have looked at the Horizons system and found that:

"BACKGROUND
This mission was the first to be sent to the outer solar system and the
first to investigate the planet Jupiter, after which it followed an
escape trajectory from the solar system.

The spacecraft achieved its closest approach to Jupiter on December 4, 1973
(UTC), when it reached approximately 2.8 Jovian radii (about 200,000 km).

Last fully successful acquisition of signal was March 3, 2002. Pioneer 10
signal at the Earth (185 dBm) is now at DSN threshold limit of reception.

Launched : 1972-03-03 at 01:49:00 UTC"

If the spacecraft was launched in March 1973 and it's closest approach to Jupiter was December 1973, and from Wikipedia I found that "The invariable plane is within 0.5° of the orbital plane of Jupiter,[1]" then I have concluded that some 36 years later the Pioneer 10 is NOT heading towards the plane of angular momentum of the solar system. I can therefore rule out the notion of a possible extra gravitational acceleration towards this plane being responsible for the trajectory anomalies. I still believe that the idea can effectively explain the 100,000 year ice age mystery; by increasing the natural earth tides that travel across the ocean floors which would result in mixing of cold bottom waters and the upwelling of tons of nutrients to the surface. This combined effect would lower global temperatures an induce an ice age IMHO. Do you understand the concept I'm getting at?

Kindest of regards,

Alan


> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:29:44 -0700
> From:
> To: amlowey@hotmail.co.uk
> Subject: Re: Science Website Feedback from amlowey@hotmail.co.uk (Subject: Pioneers: Side Elevation of Trajectories)
>
> Dear Alan:
>
> The trajectories of the Pioneers are very well known and you could makes
> the plots by getting the data from JPL's Horizons system:
> http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons Please let me know what will you learn.
>
> Best wishes,
> Slava
>
> amlowey@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > EMAIL: amlowey@hotmail.co.uk
> > SUBJECT: Pioneers: Side Elevation of Trajectories
> >
> > REFERRING PAGE:
> > http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=turyshev+nasa&meta=&aq=f&oq=
> >
> > COMMENTS:
> > Dear Turyshev, Why can't we see the path of the pioneers from a side angle? It's always a plan view of the solar system. I have a prediction that both pioneers are heading towards the plane of angular momentum of the solar system (approx equal to the orbital plane of Jupiter). It would verify the idea of a non-uniform gravity field emitting from a non-baryonic innermost core of the sun.
> >
> > Best wishes, Alan
> >
>
> --
> Dr. Slava G. Turyshev, Research Scientist
> Relativistic Astrophysics Research Group
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS 301-486
> 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Phone: +1(818)-393-2600 Fax: +1(818)-393-5239

Wow, so you've lowered yourself to spamming NASA scientists with your "I've got the answer to everything, my ideas are consistent with quantum gravity and I explain the ice ages". I am sure he and his colleagues are laughing at your emails right now.

Wow, so you've lowered yourself to spamming NASA scientists with your "I've got the answer to everything, my ideas are consistent with quantum gravity and I explain the ice ages". I am sure he and his colleagues are laughing at your emails right now.You really shouldn't judge other people by your own standards. Funnily enough I remember a similar outcome of a MOND-like proposal where the gravity field is predicted to fall off and then increase. It was in Nicolson's 'Dark Universe' I think, I'll look it up. Incidentally I now think there are four distances of change of gravity field interactions which could correspond to the four forces within baryonic matter, defined by geometric gravity interactions. This is a new groundbreaking area for me and may take some time to tease out the details but I'm confident that I'll get there.

You really shouldn't judge other people by your own standards.
You're emailing a guy from NASA. I would imagine he doesn't appreciate the emails if all you're doing is just monologuing about your 'theories'. My 'own standards' involve having quantitative stuff to back me up, I would imagine a NASA worker has similar criteria.

Funnily enough I remember a similar outcome of a MOND-like proposal where the gravity field is predicted to fall off and then increase. It was in Nicolson's 'Dark Universe' I think, I'll look it up. Incidentally I now think there are four distances of change of gravity field interactions which could correspond to the four forces within baryonic matter, defined by geometric gravity interactions. This is a new groundbreaking area for me and may take some time to tease out the details but I'm confident that I'll get there.'Details'? You've never provided details. IT's funny, you spend ages saying "Oh my idea is worth a look at" because you don't provide any details and when a short amount of time on Google provides proof you're wrong you utterly fail to realise that my criticism of you have been proven right and you just change to a new random postulation.

AN; your repeated use of the phrase "your random postulations" is rather tiresome. I'm making good progress thanks. My idea is direct verification of MOND and provides an intuitive overall picture:

MOND and its implications by R.H Sanders (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sujdysomNNwC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=dark+universe+MOND&source=bl&ots=58bs8SmMhy&sig=nMxP4-1Hj0BEsHAt8xPdoc78X6E&hl=en&ei=6H-zSvCBKcGG4gaixvF8&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=dark%20universe%20MOND&f=false) . I quote from page 72:

This is why that, on a epistemological level, MOND is more successful than dark matter. But, of course, MOND must fit into a larger picture. One may naturally ask - what are the larger scale implications of modified dynamics - specifically, what are the implications for gravitational lensing and does MOND imply a reasonable cosmology and cosmogony? These are the questions which require a more basic theory underlying MOND, and this is, at present, the essential weakness of the idea.

Is anyone else a MOND-man?

Can you explain why your 'work' isn't random postulations? You spent considerable time in this forum saying how it was worth everyone looking at your ideas because you had a simple and elegant explaination for galaxy rotation curves, the Pioneer anomaly and the glacial cycles of the Earth and when someone finally manages to push some raw data infront of your nose (which you are too inept to find yourself) and you realise your claims were wrong all along you simply change claims and carry on as if no problem has occured at all.

That isn't science, that's self deception.

Can you explain why your 'work' isn't random postulations? You spent considerable time in this forum saying how it was worth everyone looking at your ideas because you had a simple and elegant explaination for galaxy rotation curves, the Pioneer anomaly and the glacial cycles of the Earth .. lol. I'll admit I made a boo-boo with the Pioneer prediction, but the finding that I made a mistake and that the basic idea is still valid has made me see deeper. The Ice Age cycle is somehow beyond you; others manage to understand what I mean. The new find that the main problem with MOND is the lack of a basic understanding and an overall picture means that I can see the finish line. I'm more than confident that I'll have something concrete very soon.

The mountains and ocean are also seen to be affected by the moon's gravitational influence, but NOTHING ELSE.

You are effected by moon gravity as well...you alone of all the billions of people on this planet, along with the mountains and oceans. :p

moon's selective you see.

You are effected by moon gravity as well...you alone of all the billions of people on this planet, along with the mountains and oceans. :p

moon's selective you see.This early quote from around a year ago now was meant to say that the idea fits with the Moon's and Sun's gravitational influence being most prevalent on the innermost core of the earth due to an extra gravitational pull on 'low-entropy-density-matter' to create a bulge of the lithosphere; hence the oceans and mountains move.

lol. I'll admit I made a boo-boo with the Pioneer prediction, And the only reason you are admitting that is that I found you the data you were - to borrow a phrase - too inept to find for yourself. Do you really think your other ideas will stand up to even cursory scrutiny?

but the finding that I made a mistake and that the basic idea is still valid has made me see deeper.No. No. No. You made a mistake. That is true. You did find that. You did not find that the basic idea is still valid. Making a sentence with a conjunction and two subordinate clauses does not automatically validate the contents of the sentence.

The Ice Age cycle is somehow beyond you; others manage to understand what I mean. .There appear to be three categories of person who have understood what you mean in relation to the ice age
1. People who are being polite.
2. People whom you have misunderstood.
3. People who are as screwed up as yourself.

The new find that the main problem with MOND is the lack of a basic understanding and an overall picture means that I can see the finish line. I'm more than confident that I'll have something concrete very soon.I give you full marks for being one of the most intelligent delusional personas I've run across on forums.

I give you full marks for being one of the most intelligent delusional personas I've run across on forums.I'll take that as a compliment. Thnx.

I'll take that as a compliment. Thnx.
Why not. You've misinterpreted everything else you have read.

Why not. You've misinterpreted everything else you have read.lol!

Here's more evidence of an increase in gravitational acceleration upon a 'low-entropy-density-innercore' (LEDI theory) w.r.t satellite galaxies. This ScienceDaily report (Apr 2009) seems to suggest that the idea of changing Newton's basic law of gravity isn't so daft as some people like to think: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Challenge Newtonian Model (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422085830.htm). What's your opinion?

“ “There is something odd about their distribution”, explains Professor Kroupa. “They should be uniformly arranged around the Milky Way, but this is not what we found.” The astronomers discovered that the eleven brightest of the dwarf galaxies lie more or less in the same plane - in a kind of disk shape - and that they revolve in the same direction around the Milky Way (in the same way as planets in the Solar System revolve around the Sun). Professor Kroupa and the other physicists believe that this can only be explained if today’s satellite galaxies were created by ancient collisions between young galaxies. Team member and former colleague Dr Manuel Metz, now at the Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft- and Raumfahrt, also worked on the study. “Fragments from early collisions can form the revolving dwarf galaxies we see today” comments Dr Metz. But he adds that this introduces a paradox. “Calculations suggest that the dwarf satellites cannot contain any dark matter if they were created in this way. But this directly contradicts other evidence. Unless the dark matter is present, the stars in the galaxies are moving around much faster than predicted by Newton’s standard theory of gravitation.”

The proposed LED matter is based on a geometry of a radiating spinning helix and therefore most likely to have an increase in gravitational acceleration upon other LED matter on it's rotational plane. This 'original material from the big bang' or 'low-entropy-matter' explains why the planets revolve on a plane around the sun, why the stars revolve together within a plane and why the eleven brightest of the Milky Way's own dwarf galaxies lie more or less in a kind of disk shape and revolve in the same direction on a plane. The picture of such matter and radiated gravity densities shows that the gravitational pull from a star will begin to fall in magnitude when acting on another star at a certain distance. This is due to the saturation by incoming gravitons falling below the density of fundamental particles within the target star's innermostcore. This theory defines the interstellar distance and the shape of galaxies and their motion within a galaxy. The next step is computer simulation verification.

Here's more evidence of an increase in gravitational acceleration upon a 'low-entropy-density-innercore' (LEDI theory) w.r.t satellite galaxies. This ScienceDaily report (Apr 2009) seems to suggest that the idea of changing Newton's basic law of gravity isn't so daft as some people like to think: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Challenge Newtonian Model (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422085830.htm). What's your opinion?



The proposed LED matter is based on a geometry of a radiating spinning helix and therefore most likely to have an increase in gravitational acceleration upon other LED matter on it's rotational plane. This 'original material from the big bang' or 'low-entropy-matter' explains why the planets revolve on a plane around the sun, why the stars revolve together within a plane and why the eleven brightest of the Milky Way's own dwarf galaxies lie more or less in a kind of disk shape and revolve in the same direction on a plane. The picture of such matter and radiated gravity densities shows that the gravitational pull from a star will begin to fall in magnitude when acting on another star at a certain distance. This is due to the saturation by incoming gravitons falling below the density of fundamental particles within the target star's innermostcore. This theory defines the interstellar distance and the shape of galaxies and their motion within a galaxy. The next step is computer simulation verification.Combine this with the imagery of fractal pattern gravity tubes of higher than average flux density and tubes with lower than average 'gravitonian flux densities'. This can answer the precession problem of Mercury's orbit without the need of Einstein's picture of twisted fabric. These irregularities of the sun's innermostcore would be descended from the irregularities of the big bang.

Edit: Mercury's Precession by Modified Newtonian Tidal Effects: Another answer to Mercury's precession is by tidal interactions with a modified picture of the planet and sun. A non-baryonic innermost core concept could dramatically increase the tidal bulge during parts of it's orbit and so cause a change of it's angular momentum (analogous to the standard explanation of why the moon is moving further away from the earth).

This paper suggests (although doesn't discuss) that an increased tidal dynamic between the Sun and Mercury could indeed account for the anomalous precession imo: Mercury's Orbital Precession, General Relativity, and the Solar Bulge (http://crib.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/mercury_orbit.html)

Also NNTD of the earth would predict that the tidal bulge due to the sun increases during the glacial period of our orbit, overtaking that of the moon. This will inevitably have consequences and I predict that the Gulf Stream increases it's northern reach, entering and circling the outer arctic basin.

Also NNTD of the earth would predict that the tidal bulge due to the sun increases during the glacial period of our orbit, overtaking that of the moon. How do you know it would 'overtake that of the moon'? Demonstrate that it would do so and not merely increase to say 75% of the moon's influence. In other words, show us the math or STFU.

This will inevitably have consequences .......Really! Is that what they used to call cause and effect?


This .... I predict that the Gulf Stream increases it's northern reach, entering and circling the outer arctic basin.On what basis would the increment in solar tidal bulge lead to an extension of the North Atlantic Drift? (i.e. Show us the math or STFU.)

It's not madness, I've found proof to back-up my speculation. This report (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:A-LbkDjYVdcJ:people.su.se/~mjako/PDF/Hubberten_etal_QSR_2004_QUEEN_issue.pdf+The+perigl acial+climate+andenvironment+in+northern+Eurasia&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk) shows that northern Siberia was a lot warmer than today during the last ice age, and supported a population of mammoths. This report (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdf) shows evidence of forest cover over northern Siberia during the Holocene:

"Abstract

Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P.

Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however, appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern. The development of forest and expansion of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation, the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover, greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation".

The only question which now needs answering is: What makes the Gulf Stream stronger?

Okay, it's all speculative, I admit. But it also makes intuitive and logical sense. Until LIGO shows evidence of Einstein's fabric, then I won't keep quiet, thanks. You're a mathematical fundamentalist and I'm unorthodox. What's new?

It's not madness, I've found proof to back-up my speculation. You have not demonstrated, nor found proof, nor evidence for the mechanism you have proposed. Why would the increment in solar tidal bulge lead to an extension of the North Atlantic Drift?

Why wouldn't it?

It could reduce the Atlantic Drift. Why wouldn't it? Provide evidence your random guess is not just a random guess.

Your just blinkered to the possibility to something that you hold dear: your job. And that's perfectly understandable. I left my job to counter balance this tendency to corridor creativity. I'm a science creative with no boundaries on my thought processes that would be otherwise skewed by mainstream dogma and protocol. It takes something away from the norm to solve the bigger picture. To resuffle the deck and paint something new. Something that works like a dream. I'm not trying to convince you, it's the people of the future I'm interested in. Things are changing very swiftly, the truth can't be far away, one way or the other.

My job is to do original research, if it isn't creative and new its not worth doing. So don't try and come off "Oh I'm all creative and you're not!". What have you got to show for it? You can't even justify your claims. Ever.

If you could you'd have done so rather than try and avoid my challenge to prove your claim isn't just a random guess. Clearly you know it is, maybe all your 'creative ability' is blocking your rationality.

Why wouldn't it?Are you serious? Do you really believe that is a valid response? Let's look at the facts so far.

You have made a claim: "The increment in the solar tidal bulge would lead to an extension of the Gulf Stream."

I have asked you to explain why it would do this?

Your response, "Why wouldn't it?"

Well, would it also lead to the spontaneous combustion of all oak trees north of the 23rd parallel? I mean why wouldn't it?

Your response is so inane that, coupled with the records of your earlier postings, I genuinely wonder if you are suffering from damage to your brain. Such a response is neither logical, nor scientific. How can you defend it?

It's like trying to explain how a jigsaw puzzle works to a child for the first time. If haven't got the will to think laterally, it will never happen naturally. All the things you accuse me of, you're just the same. It depends on your ability for instinctive detective work. You've either got it or you haven't. Frank Ryan's got it, and we got on fine. I've got something ready should the Einstein/Newtonian view become unpopular with some latest findings. My ideas are only a slight adjustment of the mainstream if you actually listened.

It's like trying to explain how a jigsaw puzzle works to a child for the first time. If haven't got the will to think laterally, it will never happen naturally. All the things you accuse me of, you're just the same. It depends on your ability for instinctive detective work. You've either got it or you haven't. Frank Ryan's got it, and we got on fine. I've got something ready should the Einstein/Newtonian view become unpopular with some latest findings. My ideas are only a slight adjustment of the mainstream if you actually listened.

Just like a frontal lobectomy is a slight adjutment of your neurology.

Just like a frontal lobectomy is a slight adjutment of your neurology.Just the opposite actually. A new approach, detailing a small change from the begining can lead to a totally new clarity of understanding. Analagous to chaos theory or evolution in general..

It's like trying to explain how a jigsaw puzzle works to a child for the first time. If haven't got the will to think laterally, it will never happen naturally. All the things you accuse me of, you're just the same. It depends on your ability for instinctive detective work. You've either got it or you haven't. Frank Ryan's got it, and we got on fine. I've got something ready should the Einstein/Newtonian view become unpopular with some latest findings. My ideas are only a slight adjustment of the mainstream if you actually listened.
Very good, so why would the increment in solar tidal bulge lead to an extension of the North Atlantic Drift?

Very good, so why would the increment in solar tidal bulge lead to an extension of the North Atlantic Drift?It's an intuitive guess of course, based on a lifetime of lateral thinking and knowledge gathering. It's a prediction that no-one else has made (to my knowledge). I like to 'get in early' just in case someone just happens to working on the same idea somewhere else in the world. Since I don't have much to lose, I can risk the possibility of an error..

It's an intuitive guess of course, based on a lifetime of lateral thinking and knowledge gathering. It's a prediction that no-one else has made (to my knowledge). I like to 'get in early' just in case someone just happens to working on the same idea somewhere else in the world. Since I don't have much to lose, I can risk the possibility of an error..Very good, but you still have not explained why the increment in solar tidal bulge would lead to an extension of the North Atlantic Drift? You have said you have guessed that it would. Surely you are not saying this was just a random thought? You are not saying this is equivalent to me 'guessing' that Notre Dame in Paris will be partially destroyed by a fire this year, simply because I 'felt' it might be.You are claiming a relationship between the North Atlantic drift and the solar tidal bulge. What is that relationship? Why would the increment in solar tidal bulge lead to an extension of the North Atlantic Drift?

You have to read around the subject for it to make sense. I spent months looking at reports of the holocene climate changes and the latest theories of oceanic current changes that occur. It's the natural intuitive sense of detective work that operates all the time that is needed. It might not make sense to you, but to someone else it may just trigger what they are looking for.

If haven't got the will to think laterally, it will never happen naturally. All the things you accuse me of, you're just the same.How am I the same? I don't claim original results without evidence to back it up. I am knowledgeable in the area I make claims about. I understand the requirement for justification and logic.

None of those apply to you.

It depends on your ability for instinctive detective work. You didn't even bother to try to find out information about the trajectory of the Pioneer probe before making claims about it. You don't bother to check any of your claims. You have no detective skills.

It's an intuitive guess of course, based on a lifetime of lateral thinking and knowledge gathering We've already seen your 'intuition' is terrible and you have no knowledge of any relevant physics. So your claims are actually based on nothing.

You have to read around the subject for it to make sense. I I've previously commented that all you ever link to are people's personal websites and refer only to pop science books. That isn't 'reading around the subject'. Doing work on the edge of scientific understanding requires you to 'read around the subject' by reading journals. I don't count my hour or two flicking through New Scientist as 'reading about physics' because nothing in New Scientist ever has enough detail or complexity to be of any use to me when I do my work. Instead I read papers on www.arxiv.org. That is reading around.

You are seriously deluding yourself if you think reading the home pages of nuts and reading books you find in the popular science section of Waterstones is 'reading around'. If you had a really scientifically curious mind you'd not be deliberately avoiding actual work in science.

You have to read around the subject for it to make sense. If you weren't lying through your teeth you'd be able to show how gravitational interactions from a bulging Sun alters the forces on the Earth's oceans to produce the effect you claim. But you don't. Because you have no evidence or justification.

You have to read around the subject for it to make sense. I spent months looking at reports of the holocene climate changes and the latest theories of oceanic current changes that occur. It's the natural intuitive sense of detective work that operates all the time that is needed. It might not make sense to you, but to someone else it may just trigger what they are looking for.
So, explain it in your own words. Stop repeating the catch phrase from the X-Files. Why would the increment in solar tidal bulge lead to an extension of the North Atlantic Drift?

'New-Newtonian Tidal Theory' can also explain why the moon has been found to be moving away from the earth. Check out this thread: Post#275: Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85000&page=14).

Where's your evidence? Let's see how you calculated the precise rate which we know the Moon is moving away from the Earth.

Or don't you have that?

Where's your evidence? Let's see how you calculated the precise rate which we know the Moon is moving away from the Earth.

Or don't you have that?Just the same as the tidal bulge due to the Sun and Moon can't be guaranteed to be entirely due to the gravity gradient across the diameter of the planet. Extra acceleration of a non-baryonic innermost core could also cause a flexure of the lithosphere and be a substantial part of the tidal system.

Just the same as the tidal bulge due to the Sun and Moon can't be guaranteed to be entirely due to the gravity gradient across the diameter of the planet. Extra acceleration of a non-baryonic innermost core could also cause a flexure of the lithosphere and be a substantial part of the tidal system.
Ifs, buts and maybes do not constitute science.
You are a silly little man, with silly little ideas.
Worse, you consistently fail to address any specific questions with a specific answer. That is frustrating, ignorant and unscientific.

It's the additional solution to the 100,000 year glacial cycle by use of the 100,000 year inclination cycle as opposed to the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle which clinches it though. Diagram showing eccentricity cycle (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Milankovitch-cycles_hg.png).
Wiki quote:
Orbital inclination
The inclination of Earth's orbit drifts up and down relative to its present orbit with a cycle having a period of about 70,000 years. Milankovitch did not study this three-dimensional movement. This movement is known as "precession of the ecliptic" or "planetary precession".

More recent researchers noted this drift and that the orbit also moves relative to the orbits of the other planets. The invariable plane, the plane that represents the angular momentum of the solar system, is approximately the orbital plane of Jupiter. The inclination of the Earth's orbit has a 100,000 year cycle relative to the invariable plane; by chance, this is very similar to the 100,000 year eccentricity period. This 100,000-year cycle closely matches the 100,000-year pattern of ice ages.
and:
100,000-year problem
Main article: 100,000-year problem
The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively large 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.

Extra acceleration of a non-baryonic innermost core could also cause a flexure of the lithosphere and be a substantial part of the tidal system.Or it could do precisely the opposite and infact is entirely inconsistent with your claimed conclusion. Without you doing some actual modelling you have nothing which supports your claims. Each and every one of your "This explains it all!" suggestions I could just as easily have said "It does precisely the opposite of what you claim" because you offer nothing to show your claimed cause does what you claim it does.

How do we know that a core of 'non-baryonic matter' doesn't reduce the acceleration on the lithosphere? We don't. You have nothing, NOTHING, of any worth to say.

Or is that you're simply too ignorant of the 'ice age problem', the cycle with the biggest influence on the world's climate? Only yesterday, I saw a TV advert where Exxon Mobil intend to fuel the world and 'reduce global warming' by the use of algae technology (something which Frank Ryan touched upon). On the face of it this sounds fantastic, I admit, but what if a new understanding in the not-too-distant future created a new world view where extra heat is needed to avert an oncoming ice age? Sounds crazy to the uninitiated, but it could well be true. Is it worth taking the risk without first having a unified theory of everything? I think not.

Is it worth taking the risk without first having a unified theory of everything? I think not.
Excellent suggestion.
"We don't know everything, so let's not do anything".

Excellent suggestion.
"We don't know everything, so let's not do anything".It's the big irreversible decisions that should be delayed until a TOE is finalised. Remember that companies like Exxon Mobil are primarily profit driven, and will naturally interpret the facts to their own advantage.

Or is that you're simply too ignorant of the 'ice age problem', the cycle with the biggest influence on the world's climate? Only yesterday, I saw a TV advert where Exxon Mobil intend to fuel the world and 'reduce global warming' by the use of algae technology (something which Frank Ryan touched upon). On the face of it this sounds fantastic, I admit, but what if a new understanding in the not-too-distant future created a new world view where extra heat is needed to avert an oncoming ice age? Sounds crazy to the uninitiated, but it could well be true. Is it worth taking the risk without first having a unified theory of everything? I think not.But your approach is not going to produce a unified theory of everything. You have no interest in constructing models which could be potential candidates for such a theory, you just throw out vapid baseless random guesses and unsupported claims.

You say that perhaps I'm ignorant of the problem yet you're utterly ignorant of anything to do with physics. You have practically no knowledge of any current models of gravity or electromagnetism or celestial mechanics or plate tectonics and certainly no working knowledge. You make no attempt to justify your claims. You make no attempt to make your claims even fall inline with observations.

If you think we should have a unified theory of eveything and you are so interested in 'the ice age problem' why on Earth are you demonstrating the opposite kind of behaviour needed to go about building a theory of everything? You avoid learning, you ignore everyone, you are ignorant of previous work and you have no regard for the scientific method. You are a poster boy for how not to do science.

One sole person is not going to achieve the T.O.E. obviously. I've presented a piece of work (100 threads) which can be expanded upon by others. It may just twig a new way of thinking or something. If in the future it is found that NNTT is essentially correct, then I hope to get some recognition. Is that so wrong? (Boy, do I expect some personal insults for that post)

It's the big irreversible decisions that should be delayed until a TOE is finalised.
Really?
And how do we know which decisions are irreversible?
Any schedule for the completion of a ToE?
Next week? Week after?

It'd be helpful, just so we don't die out through NOT taking action while we wait.

Remember that companies like Exxon Mobil are primarily profit driven, and will naturally interpret the facts to their own advantage.
Interpret facts?
At least that's a step up from from what you do.

One sole person is not going to achieve the T.O.E. obviously. I've presented a piece of work (100 threads) which can be expanded upon by others. It may just twig a new way of thinking or something. If in the future it is found that NNTT is essentially correct, then I hope to get some recognition. Is that so wrong? (Boy, do I expect some personal insults for that post)Who precisely are these 'others' you talk of? I am a researcher in theoretical physics, particularly the properties of curved space-time and its dynamics, I am the kind of person who might, in principle, be able to help develop a new model of gravity but NOTHING in your posts ever is in the slightest bit relevant to such a development.

If I'm wrong about this then state clearly and concisely the current status and principles of NNTT which you think someone else would be able to develop.

I've presented a piece of work (100 threads)
You have presented a piece of shit. There is nothing in your posts except empty words without meaning or significance. It is not that I am too dumb to understand them, it is that there is nothing about them to understand. They are emptier than an intergalactic vacuum. Just once would you try an express something specific. Even if you cannot use math perhaps you could try to outline the precise relationships you feel exist between variables. Failure to do so will simply maintain the belief that you are a frigging retard.

I was right then.

If you're 'right' why are you incapable of replying to my questions about you actually showing your work.I asked you a bunch of questions here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2394432&postcount=282) and you ignored them all. probably because the questions required you to do more than just make up vague wordy claims and unjustified nonsense.

I haven't got mathematical proof. Yes, well done. It's a lack of a theory of everything which is the big giveaway that there's a fundamental problem with our current understanding of matter and gravity. Newton's calculus isn't the right tool for the job imo.

You say 'IMO' but that would be your uninformed opinion since you don't know calculus. You denounce current ideas without knowing or understanding them.

In the thread I linked to you said "I'm considering the idea of a non-static deformation of the moon due to a non-constant gravitational stress on it." but if you aren't doing that considerations by using mathematics how exactly are you doing it? You have no method of logical deduction, you must be simply guessing the answers. That's precisely what QWC does, he says some assumption and then guesses its implications and ignores how the assumptions might lead to utterly different conclusions.

That is precisely how NOT to go about doing science. Why do you use the one method certain not to lead to a theory of everything? You must want to waste your time, I can't see any other reason why you'd obviously put in time to talk about science but go about it in the opposite way to the scientific method.

You must want to waste your time, I can't see any other reason why you'd obviously put in time to talk about science but go about it in the opposite way to the scientific method.I have previously offered the falsifiable hypothesis that this is due to brain damage. An MRI scan should determine whether or not this is so.

So you must all believe in time travel then, as predicted by Einstein? Sad, even a panel of TV celebs in 'It's Only A Theory' last night concluded that it must be a load of Bull. (Miniture wormholes that need expanding with exotic matter is the mainstream answer to solve the Grandfather paradox apparently)

Sad, even a panel of TV celebs in 'It's Only A Theory' last night concluded that it must be a load of Bull.
That's right, we keep forgetting.

Notice to all SciForums scientists and science fans:
NEVER EVER forget that TV celebrities are the final authoritative word on real science.

(Miniture wormholes that need expanding with exotic matter is the mainstream answer to solve the Grandfather paradox apparently)
Balls.

So you must all believe in time travel then, as predicted by Einstein?Where do you come up with this trash? I find it truly difficult to believe that a human can be this dense. It seems much more likely you are a psychology student seeing for how long you can string along the likes of Arcane and myself. Nevertheless, I shall bite.

Your above quoted statement has no meaningful connection with our discussion to date. You are trying to sidestep the issue because you are cornered. Well, it won't work.

Sad, even a panel of TV celebs in 'It's Only A Theory' last night concluded that it must be a load of Bull.To echo John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!", or Victor Meldrew "I don't believe it!"
Dywyddyr has captured my thoughts perfectly. Your comment was assinine, but then almost all of them are.

Answer a direct question for once: what is your motivation for being such a fool?

Miniture wormholes that need expanding with exotic matter is the mainstream answer to solve the Grandfather paradox apparentlyAnd your problem with this - other than your inability to type correctly, use punctuation or employ grammar - is what exactly?

Sad, even a panel of TV celebs in 'It's Only A Theory' last night concluded that it must be a load of Bull.Wow, so a bunch of people who are as clueless as you and are easily swayed by popular opinion and unsupported heresay don't agree with people who DO spend their time doing this stuff.

Well if a bunch of TV celebs consider a science worthless then they must surely be right. After all, they spend their time doing such educated and informed things as "I'm a celebrity get my career out of here" and "Strictly come watch me prance about in the hopes of reigniting my flagging career".

God, are you that stupid!? You claim to have worked in the aerospace industry but I cannot believe that you could possibly have done so with such an utterly naive view of science and such blatant disregard for rationality!

You claim to have worked in the aerospace industry
OMG he'd better quit that and get another job.
I saw the results of a poll of five year olds and the verdict was "aeroplanes are noisy".
Can't be long left for BAE (http://www.baesystems.com/) now, before they get shut down due to such expert advice.

Touchy, touchy...

So you continue to avoid direct questions. Are you a coward as well as stupid?

"Miniature wormholes that need expanding with exotic matter is the mainstream answer to solve the 'Grandfather paradox' apparently" And your problem with this.. is what exactly?The same as 99.99% of the rest of the country I imagine. Where are the space tourists from the future, then?

The same as 99.99% of the rest of the country I imagine. Where are the space tourists from the future, then?
One more example of your utter failure to understand what you reference.

One more example of your utter failure to understand what you reference.No. The established expert (unlike yourselves) said that Stephen Hawking actually made a mistake with his rationale. Space tourists could only appear from the time of the invention of the time machine (obviously). Hawking's conjecture that there must be a unknown reason that time travel isn't possible is something that I agree with. The difference is that I think (+ 99.99% of everyone) that it's all based on flawed ideas.

No. The established expert (unlike yourselves) said that Stephen Hawking actually made a mistake with his rationale. Space tourists could only appear from the time of the invention of the time machine (obviously). Hawking's conjecture that there must be a unknown reason that time travel isn't possible is something that I agree with. The difference is that I think (+ 99.99% of everyone) that it's all based on flawed ideas.
Superb!!
Another fine example of your failures.
The "established expert" says that does he?
Nope.
It's one possible explanation based on one possible method of "time travel".*
As stated by the "established expert".
Unless you have sources new to me that say that that is exactly (and only) THE correct "solution".

* All of it being theory and speculation of course.

No. The established expert (unlike yourselves)You'll use anyone who agrees with your views as a reference. I'm a trillion times more knowledgeable and capable in mathematics and physics than you but you ignore everything I say and instead say "The TV celebs on last night agree with me!". Don't try to claim you're talking from a position of informed judgment or that you're using a logical rationale in your thought processes.

You'll use anyone who agrees with your views as a reference. I'm a trillion times more knowledgeable and capable in mathematics and physics than you but you ignore everything I say and instead say "The TV celebs on last night agree with me!". Don't try to claim you're talking from a position of informed judgment or that you're using a logical rationale in your thought processes.So, do you believe that time travel via a time machine is possible, then?

So, do you believe that time travel via a time machine is possible, then?There are insufficient data on which to form a firm conclusion. It appears that time travel may be possible from a theoretical point of view. (If I understand correctly it may be possible form more than one, differing theoretical viewpoint.) If any of these theories are correct time travel is possible and we are then faced with a complex engineering problem that appears to be well beyond current technology.

Please note lack_of_common_sense_seeker that my response is loaded with caveats. Given the uncertain nature of this topic those caveats are wholly appropriate. I am not given to expressing my flights of fancy as though they were reality; I do not go in search of quotations that seem to support a bizarre world view; I do not misinterpret and misunderstand genuine research in order to support my delusions. I guess we are just different.

I wasn't asking you.

Tell you what, why don't you answer my question about how precisely you're going about describing the deformations in the Moon due to a non-constant gravitational field in your 'New Newtonian Tidal Theory' and then I'll answer your question.

I'm doing this because it seems you are unwilling (and almost certainly incapable) of responding to any post which requires you show an iota of actual knowledge.

I wasn't asking you.This forum is an open forum. Unless you specify otherwise a question is presumed to be directed to all who have been active in the discussion. You seem to be ignorant not only of science, but forum etiquette.

This forum is an open forum. Unless you specify otherwise a question is presumed to be directed to all who have been active in the discussion. You seem to be ignorant not only of science, but forum etiquette.I'm so sorry your mightiness.

I'm so sorry your mightiness.
Don't get abrupt with me. You are the one who breached forum etiquette. Taking a supercilious tone is not the way to apologise for such a breach. Try a genunine apology or STFU.

oooh

So, do you believe that time travel via a time machine is possible, then?Alpha Numeric; You must have taught this to your beloved students during your career presumably? Do you deny it?

For any guests who are interested, the basic idea I present can also explain the laser range findings of the moon moving AWAY from the earth by around 3cm/year:

Billy T; would it be easier to discuss an imaginary, alternative universe much like ours, but which is slightly different? You're right, of course, with everything you say about the mechanics of our solar system. That isn't in dispute. In this different solar system, if the central core of a moon was composed of matter which experienced a greater acceleration than the rest of the body, could this not cause tidal friction and so slow the moon's spin and therefore move it to a higher orbit? Just talking about an imaginary universe.

So rather than an observed mechanism where energy is dissipated by the dissipative properties of the oceans you're suggesting the Moon has at its core matter which has never been observed and which is otherwise undetectable?

gravity and trollin are pseudoscience.

So rather than an observed mechanism where energy is dissipated by the dissipative properties of the oceans you're suggesting the Moon has at its core matter which has never been observed and which is otherwise undetectable?No, you've made a simple but very important mistake: the observed mechanism where energy is dissipated by the dissipative properties of the oceans still applies, but there is an additional component in the make-up of the lithospheric force which creates the ocean tides in the first place. Not only is there the force due to the gravity gradient across the width of the planet but also a force due to the matter gradient across the planet.

And how, precisely, are you examining such things? Are you using vector calculus or are you simply making crap up and claiming it as 'your prediction'?

And how, precisely, are you examining such things? Are you using vector calculus or are you simply making crap up and claiming it as 'your prediction'?It's detective work.

That's your way of saying you're just guessing.

Will you people PLEASE stop using wiki references? At least give common sense seeker and D H the kudos for knowing how to research without using google.

Ohhh, and I was curious (if fact, it's why I've found the scifourms)...
I had a dream last night that extra terrestrials used the moon as symbolism (for how much time we had before our destruction) and caused the moon to crumble during a evening eclipse, causing a disruption in the gravitational pulls between the sun and moon. As our scientists were so focused on how to replace the moon, (or live without it) the E.T.'s waited for the moon to completely crumble, and then proceeded with ending our species by blowing up the planet.
I planned on not even posting about the dream due to it simply just being my sub-conscious (correct?) But, as I read along the arguments between common_sense and D_H (with the rest of you folks), I realized that most of the points you are all arguing are exactly what the scientists (In dream) were arguing before the end of humans.
Thought it was kind of... a coincidence? Right... a coincidence.

Will you people PLEASE stop using wiki references? At least give common sense seeker and D H the kudos for knowing how to research without using google.What prompted this nonsense?
Who is using a wiki reference? Post number, for example.
In addition wiki references have their place.
I give no kudos to Common_nonsense_seeker for his 'research' because he has never understood anything he has read.

No, you've made a simple but very important mistake: the observed mechanism where energy is dissipated by the dissipative properties of the oceans still applies, but there is an additional component in the make-up of the lithospheric force which creates the ocean tides in the first place. Not only is there the force due to the gravity gradient across the width of the planet but also a force due to the matter gradient across the planet.There's no scientific evidence to disprove this simple abut effective idea, is there?

Will you people PLEASE stop using wiki references? At least give common sense seeker and D H the kudos for knowing how to research without using google.
I object! I object! I object! I object to any positive comparison of common_sense_seeker's research capabilities compared to mine.

Seriously, look at the utter nonsense CSS spouts. He has zero research capability.

There's no scientific evidence to disprove this simple abut effective idea, is there?That isn't how science works. A great deal of things can't be disproved. For instance, suppose two people propose models of gravity :

Person A proposes the general theory of relativity.

Person B proposes the general theory of relativity and the existence of Mole People living on Jupiter.

Exactly the same amount of support exists for each theory but Person B proposes an utterly unsupported hypothesis in addition. Occams Razor says you pick the simplest model which accurately explains the phenomena. Hence Person A's work is taken to be scientific, Person B's is not. This is why God has no place in science. He/She/It/They is/are by definition supernatural, you can always tag onto any claim "And God was in the background doing nothing, but he was there!!".

Firstly, your claims have absolutely no support. Secondly, they model nothing. Thirdly, they are often hyperbolic and frankly bloody stupid. Having no negation of your claims is not the same as having support for it. Science is about the simplest working explaination. Your claims don't work.

Honestly, you did lie about working in the aeronautics industry, didn't you? Come on, admit it. You're just desperately trying to lend your nonsense some credibility because you think people might say "Well his ideas sound like the mad ranting of an idiot with brain damage but since he worked in the aeronautics industry he must be onto something!!".

Unfortunately only the first half of that hypothetical thought is anywhere close to reality.