Prediction & Proof Of New Theory Of Gravity

[common_sense_seeker]

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. Does anyone disagree that this would be a definitive proof?

[common_sense_seeker]

I'll take that as a "no" then.

[D H]

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.
Wrong. The Earth's equatorial bulge results from the Earth's rotation around its own axis. Your "theory" starts with a flawed premise.

[common_sense_seeker]

An even bulge on top of the equatorial bulge, stupid.

[goose]

what your suggesting is what the sun does... its core rotates faster than its outside surface... creating an effect that the equator rotates once every like 22 days as the polar regions rotate once every 30 days... which is why it is slightly buldged at its equator
might not be corect days, but the difference is roughly the same

or maybe im misunderstanding what your saying

[Montec]

Hello common_sense_seeker

Here is a fact that your theory will have to explain. Atomic clocks "tick" at the same rate everywhere on the Earth at sea level.

:)

[AlphaNumeric]

Given you suck at basic classical mechanics, I doubt there is anything to your 'theory'. Do you have predictive quantitative models? What are your axioms? Where's your derivation of results from axioms? How do you expect to overturn theories you don't even understand?

[Read-Only]

Given you suck at basic classical mechanics, I doubt there is anything to your 'theory'. Do you have predictive quantitative models? What are your axioms? Where's your derivation of results from axioms? How do you expect to overturn theories you don't even understand?

The OPer has a serious problem. He seems to believe that all he has to do is just think of something and it will all fall into place.

He's began numerous crackpot threads here and eventually abandoned them, presumably because he didn't have the slightest idea about how to go about supporting them - and possibly because he had hoped (without stating or asking) for help from others to do the actual work he could NOT do himself.

Regardless, they were all nothing but dead ends. The same as this one.

[goose]

im guessing that i completely misunderstood his theory... seeing as noone commented on what i said :p

[Montec]

Hello goose
From this site (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm)"The sun is the biggest and smoothest natural object in the solar system, perfect at the 0.001% level because of its extremely strong gravity," ...
If I can assume (dangerous ground here) that the surface of the sun is at the same "time rate" then the bands of rotation, north and south of the equator, must move faster or slower (ala Special Relativity) in order to maintain a uniform time rate that involves both gravity and rotational speed.

For large fluidic rotating bodies where gravity imposes a nearly perfect spherical shape then a difference in velocity is one way to establish a uniform "time rate" at the surface.

:)

[common_sense_seeker]

im guessing that i completely misunderstood his theory... seeing as noone commented on what i said :p

The concept I'm thinking of is very straight forward. It assumes that Newton's theory of matter is too simplistic. I'm proposing that the inner core has a higher constant of gravitational attraction. Therefore it will be accelerated towards the Moon or Sun more than the baryonic matter composing the rest of the Earth. This would be identified by a unique signature in the tidal earth bulge i.e. by a central 'bump' in the middle of the global bulge.

The negative responses can't except that this is a possibility. It's a good idea. I've had communication from two university professors who agree that it is interesting and requires further research. It's not just me!

[common_sense_seeker]

Hello common_sense_seeker

Here is a fact that your theory will have to explain. Atomic clocks "tick" at the same rate everywhere on the Earth at sea level.

:)

Could you explain further. I don't see why atomic clocks wouldn't "tick" at the same rate everywhere at sea level in my theory. Now I think about it, maybe the atomic clock could be used to show the small difference in gravitational field due to the tides in CCTG theory.

Thanks for the Nasa Sun oblateness link. That's circumstantial evidence for the Core Centered Theory Of Gravity (CCTG) in my mind. Could it be that the "wiggles" associated with the magnetic anomalies and sunspots are due to the exotic nature of the inner cores?

[Saxion]

Rubbish.

Common sense seeker, i hardly ever try and put down someones theory, but you make a real shame of creating theories. For starters the equitorial bulge is created from the rotation of the earth.

Why do you create theories with no scientific basis or credibility?

[common_sense_seeker]

I'm not replying to people who state the obvious which only serves to 'muddy the waters'. How many times do I have to say that I know about the bulge due to rotation, which is permanent and so isn't a major influence of the tides. It doesn't affect my basic proposal in the least. See my reply to D.H for a second opinion.

[Saxion]

You're not replying to people who state the obvious?

Is that you admitting you are wrong? I don't mind helping you, but you need to give up your delusions.

[common_sense_seeker]

You're not replying to people who state the obvious?

Is that you admitting you are wrong? I don't mind helping you, but you need to give up your delusions.


Please go and help someone else.

[D H]

The concept I'm thinking of is very straight forward. It assumes that Newton's theory of matter is too simplistic.
We already know that.
I'm proposing that the inner core has a higher constant of gravitational attraction.
The inner core is more dense than the rest of the Earth. We already know that, and it has nothing to do with non-baryonic dark matter. It has to do with pressure and composition.
Therefore is will be accelerated towards the Moon or Sun more than the baryonic matter composing the rest of the Earth.
Rubbish.
This would be identified by a unique signature in the tidal earth bulge i.e. by a central 'bump' in the middle of the global bulge.
It doesn't exist, falsifying your "theory". The theory of solid body tides developed by George Darwin and A.E.H. Love at the end of the 19th century explains the Earth tides quite well. That theory agrees with measurements from GPS, the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment, and from very long baseline interferometry observations. You don't even have a theory because you don't have any math.

[common_sense_seeker]

You're just like Saxion. Why do maths when an observation would prove my idea right or wrong. The shape of the bulge is proof enough to start with. Go and help someone else.

[D H]

Why do maths when an observation would prove my idea right or wrong.
You can't just say that some anomalous bulge will occur and be done with it. You have to show why it will exist with mathematics, show how big it will be with mathematics and show how to measure it with mathematics. You don't have an idea because you have no mathematics to back it up.

BTW, your anomalous bulge does not exist, at least to the extent measurable by existing technology.

Go and help someone else.
I am not trying to help you. You are a crackpot.

It is others am I am trying to help. Suppose nobody refuted your silly claims. Someone else might come along and read these unrefuted claims and take them for truth since nobody refuted them.

[Saxion]

Go and help someone else.

Go somewhere else then if you don't want help.

[Montec]

Hello common_sense_seeker

Could you explain further The "time rates" are the same at sea level even though the polar radii is approximately 22km shorter than the equatorial radii. Water will flow to the lowest point or to be more exact (given the above information) Water flows to a slower "time rate" or lower time potential. Tides and water flow are two sides of the same coin.
The only difference between water and the Earth's crust (with respect to the above effect) is that water flows more easily. So you must ask yourself "What factors affect "time rates" and how do they apply to my theory?".

(Hint: There are two experimentally proven factors the affect "time rates")

Could it be that the "wiggles" associated with the magnetic anomalies and sunspots are due to the exotic nature of the inner cores? It is my understanding that the "wiggles" are the result of magnetic fields generated by relative movement of differentially charged plasma. The movement can be lateral or vertical (with respect to the Sun's surface).

:)

[common_sense_seeker]

Hello common_sense_seeker

The "time rates" are the same at sea level even though the polar radii is approximately 22km shorter than the equatorial radii. Water will flow to the lowest point or to be more exact (given the above information) Water flows to a slower "time rate" or lower time potential. Tides and water flow are two sides of the same coin.
The only difference between water and the Earth's crust (with respect to the above effect) is that water flows more easily. So you must ask yourself "What factors affect "time rates" and how do they apply to my theory?".

(Hint: There are two experimentally proven factors the affect "time rates")

It is my understanding that the "wiggles" are the result of magnetic fields generated by relative movement of differentially charged plasma. The movement can be lateral or vertical (with respect to the Sun's surface).

:)


I appreciate the reply Montec. I'll have to look into it further to really understand what you are saying.

Incidentally, if my signature 'bump' of an exotic inner core is detected in the middle of the tidal global bulge, it would mean that Einstein's visualisation of the rubber sheet representing space-time would be inappropriate. If he had knowledge of the (supposed) result, physics would have taken a completely different direction.

[D H]

Incidentally, if my signature 'bump' of an exotic inner core is detected in the middle of the tidal global bulge, it would mean that Einstein's visualisation of the rubber sheet representing space-time would be inappropriate. If he had knowledge of the (supposed) result, physics would have taken a completely different direction.
:roflmao:
So now you are smarter than Einstein? Good one.

[common_sense_seeker]

Incidentally, if my signature 'bump' of an exotic inner core is detected in the middle of the tidal global bulge, it would mean that Einstein's visualisation of the rubber sheet representing space-time would be inappropriate. If he had knowledge of the (supposed) result, physics would have taken a completely different direction.

I do have the benefit of hindsight of course.