Gravity Problem Solved

[common_sense_seeker]

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. 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.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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. 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).

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.)

 

[common_sense_seeker]

It's not madness, I've found proof to back-up my speculation. This report shows that northern Siberia was a lot warmer than today during the last ice age, and supported a population of mammoths. This report 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?

 

[Ophiolite]

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?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Why wouldn't it?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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.

 

[Trippy]

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.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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..

 

[Ophiolite]

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?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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..

 

[Ophiolite]

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?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

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.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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?