Let us try to explain it to you then. Here's the start of Gerard Caudal's paper 'The hypothesis of a spin-orbit resonance between the Earth and Venus’ core':
I can answer these questions, which is really just a single question in disguise. My personal model has gravitational torques due to two different gravity gradients. The first one is the gravity field gradient created by baryonic matter (with a highly chaotic entropy) and the second one is the gravity field gradient created by non-baryonic core matter (with a low chaotic entropy). This new model generates much more complex and interesting planetary interactions than in the classical Newtonian model. Your estimate of the sun's gravity being "47,850 times stronger than the Earth's on Venus" is hugely overvalued because you haven't used the new model and the R 'to-power-four' law (or is it R cubed?) for tidal effects. The nearer Earth is to Venus, then the greater the significance of the non-Newtonian model proposed. If you starting drawing some doodles you'll soon begin to understand what all the fuss is about, I promise.
I too have a non-Newtonian model that generates much much more complex and interesting planetary interactions:
That is nice of you, but misbehave and they will apply a torque to you spinning you insides clockwise and skin layers counter clockwise.
Wrong. The models are not equally valid despite there being any direct evidence or not. The reason for this is that intuition dictates (you know, intuition, that thing Newton had to use to come up with a simple theory of gravity in the first place) that Gerard Caudal's work, a recognised mainstream professional, lends itself to this new vision of reality. If you are ignorant of his work, then that is what you are. :shrug:
Are you stating that Gerard Caudal has accepted as valid your "personal model {that} has gravitational torques due to two different gravity gradients." (That is what you said in your post.) If so, my opinion of his knowledge in the area sinks even lower.
Which is just made up nonsense. Can you model anything? Does it involve any mathematics?
So you're claiming there's two kinds of gravitational charge? Evidence.Plenty of known non-baryonic matter interacts with gravity, non-baryonic just means its not made of quarks.
Why do you bother throwing in pointless buzzwords like "chaotic entropy". Everyone knows you don't know what chaos or entropy is, do you think no one noticed you haven't got a clue? Or are you just deliberately making up lies?
Prove it. I bet you don't have a working model which you've developed, unless all you did was just change the potential for some basic PDE system on a computer. And given Newtonian gravitational interactions are very accurate coming up with 'more interesting and complex' new ones is both a waste of time and experimentally falsified. Can you actually accurately model the orbits of the solar system's objects? Prove it if you say 'yes'.
So your retort to his criticism of your claims is that he doesn't agree with your claims and so he's wrong? Circular logic. Besides, your claims about your work are hugely over-values since you produce nothing.
And if you bothered to read textbooks and journals rather than pop science magazines and 'Bigfoot Monthly' you'd not be the ignorant, common sense lacking, naive liar you are. I promise.
I've sent him a further email with my additional ideas. No doubt he gets this kind of thing all the time. Maybe he looked at it and maybe he didn't. Anyhow, I'm NOT saying that the professor supports my views, just that I support his.
Then you agree that my colored electron (they are non-baryons too) fairies model of gravity is just as valid as your non-baryon model.
Except that the actual iron in the core would annihilate it. In fact any material would cause it to disintegrate.
Off the cuff based on nothing.
Antimatter doesn't repel normal matter or itself or anything else via gravity. There are planned experiments to test this but no model or theory says otherwise. Gravity is attractive between all matter (and antimatter). This can be proven in terms of effective couplings for spin 2 particles, which the graviton would be. It is covered in Peskin & Schroeder. I can provide page references if needs to.
Only where they come into contact head on and in phase. A spherical 'icore' (innermost inner core) would only come into contact with the inner rim of the inner core at certain points of orbital resonance with other planets. At these particular times, annihilation reactions could take place, generating energy and be a source of geothermal heat. The baryonic/anti-baryonic fluid within the icore ('magnefluid') would both annihilate and form a least resistance fluid structure, keeping matter/anti-matter apart. It's this internal flow which gives our geomagnetic field imo. It continues that it's the differential rotation of the icore which gives the Earth it's electric field.