Gravity Problem Solved

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:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

gravity and trollin are pseudoscience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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'?

 

It's detective work.

 

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

 

Reply to all

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.

 

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.

 

There's no scientific evidence to disprove this simple abut effective idea, is there?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Sun's Anisotropy Inner Core Millennial Cycle

Could the sun have an anisotropic inner core like the Earth? Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation

 

Here's the undeniable proof that it has: How Did Tree-Top Monkey Grow Twice Size During The Pleistocene?

 

I think you need a dictionary.

 

Here's the real thorn in the side for the standard model: Amazon Data Contradicts Glacial Aridity Hypothesis Of The Ice Age

 

Like all other matter I'm aware of, the water has mass. And there's a huge arseload of water on the surface of this planet. Gravity acts from and on mass. Therefore the moon sucks on our seas like a two dollar daytime hooker. Obviously it acts against the planet's core as well, and every other thing around here.

 

Which 'standard model'? Quantum field theory? Gravity? Cosmology? None of them are affected by what you link to.

 

The Quantum Monkey Theory.