Gravity Problem Solved

[common_sense_seeker]

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.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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.

 

[Oli]

Any proof, or is this wild guessing?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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. 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.

 

[Oli]

Intuition?

And the "tightly-packed neutrons"?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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)

 

[Oli]

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?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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.

 

[Oli]

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?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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

 

[Oli]

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.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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

 

[Oli]

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.

 

[phlogistician]

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.

 

[fedr808]

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.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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.

 

[Oli]

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?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Intuitive Proof Showing Invalidity Of Newton's Law Of Gravitation

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!)

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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.

 

[fedr808]

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.