126 replies to this topic

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 29 October 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

So if you are saying that gravity is stronger along the rotational axis of a body than along the rotation plane of a body...

No, you've got it wrong yet again. I'm saying that for planet Earth, the larger moon-creator exotic comet has a higher surface gravity than the smaller circa 2g exotic comets of the Bermuda Triangle. Due to the rolling of the planet from this impact, the large moon-creator comet is upright within the innermost core. This is the reason for the increase in polar surface gravity compared to the equatorial regions, which received later smaller impacting exotic comets, just like the newly formed moon. A prediction that the lunar gravity anomaly craters occured fractionally after the formation of the moon can therefore be made and potentially verified.

The idea of larger pieces of a 'black hole alternative' supernovae having a higher planar structure/energy density make intuitive sense imo. This will become a new law of physics in the near future, I'm sure.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 30 October 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 30 October 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

No, you've got it wrong yet again. I'm saying that for planet Earth, the larger moon-creator exotic comet has a higher surface gravity than the smaller circa 2g exotic comets of the Bermuda Triangle. Due to the rolling of the planet from this impact, the large moon-creator comet is upright within the innermost core. This is the reason for the increase in polar surface gravity compared to the equatorial regions, which received later smaller impacting exotic comets, just like the newly formed moon.

• So if exotic comets are the cause, why does the ``increase in polar surface gravity'' match almost exactly what a very simple analysis with Newtonian mechanics predicts?
  
• What exactly do you mean by ``2g exotic comet''? (2g surface gravity? At the comet's surface? At the Earth's surface?)

SunnyBlues, on 30 October 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

The idea of larger pieces of a 'black hole alternative' supernovae having a higher planar structure/energy density make intuitive sense imo.

To me it doesn't, I don't see how there is a single, unambiguous plane in an otherwise arbitrarily shaped object.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Earthquake shear waves travel through the centre of the earth to the opposite side of the planet. There is a known mystery in that these waves travel 5 seconds faster in a north-south orientation than waves travelling in an east-west orientation. My model explains this where no other can.

Discovery Of Earth's Inner, Innermost Core Confirmed (2008)

Edited by SunnyBlues, 02 November 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 02 November 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Earthquake shear waves travel through the centre of the earth to the opposite side of the planet. There is a known mystery in that these waves travel 5 seconds faster in a north-south orientation than waves travelling in an east-west orientation. My model explains this where no other can.

Really? You have an explanation for why shear waves parallel to the rotation axis are 5 seconds faster than shear waves planar to the rotation axis? If this explanation is more detailed than ``there is something there that makes this happen'' I would love to read it.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 02 November 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Really? You have an explanation for why shear waves parallel to the rotation axis are 5 seconds faster than shear waves planar to the rotation axis? If this explanation is more detailed than ``there is something there that makes this happen'' I would love to read it.

(i) In the slower east-west orientation the equatorial core ring of smaller exotic comets is transversed compared to the more compact and higher structure/energy of the upright giant moon-creator exotic comet.

(ii) The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is caused by an asymmetry in the equatorial core ring of smaller exotic comets which causes disruption of the magma flows and plumes or simply due to the opposite-end effect of the theorised Mid-Atlantic Romanche Gap exotic comet pile. It's this unique global anomaly which Flight 447 succumbed to as well felt by at least three of the earth-flyby satellites.

(iii)

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 03 November 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

(i) In the slower east-west orientation the equatorial core ring of smaller exotic comets is transversed compared to the more compact and higher structure/energy of the upright giant moon-creator exotic comet.

So....

• This is not an explanation. This is just a statement saying ``there is something there that makes this happen''.
  
• Why is the speed of shear waves slower in a ''compact/higher energy'' medium? Typically the more rigid a medium is, the faster the shear waves are.
  
• Why hasn't the study of shear waves you cited above revealed the structure you speak of?
  
• Again, why hasn't GRACE revealed these structures either?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 05 November 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

So....

• Why is the speed of shear waves slower in a ''compact/higher energy'' medium? Typically the more rigid a medium is, the faster the shear waves are.

(i) Err, the waves are shown to be *faster* in the north-south orientation which fits exactly with the model described above.
(ii) The GRACE mission is to accurately map the ocean currents and so isn't meant to test for extremely large gravity inconsistencies. I imagine that the team used the same 'anomaly filtering' techniques that were used in the Gravity Probe B data!

Edited by SunnyBlues, 06 November 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 06 November 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

(i) Err, the waves are shown to be *faster* in the north-south orientation which fits exactly with the model described above.

Whoops, I'll eat my words now. Sorry about that! Actually, can you cite your source for the faster north-south waves?

Secondly, why hasn't the study you cited above revealed the structures you speak of?

SunnyBlues, on 06 November 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

(ii) The GRACE mission is to accurately map the ocean currents and so isn't meant to test for extremely large gravity inconsistencies. I imagine that the team used the same 'anomaly filtering' techniques that were used in the Gravity Probe B data!

No, GRACE is for measuring Earth's gravity field (as the NASA mission profile explains). One of the purposes of this is certainly to track large-scale ocean currents for climate studies. One of the reasons that tracking large-scale ocean currents is one of the main purposes is that the idea that there are ``large gravity inconsistencies'' on Earth that nobody has yet noticed is laughable. If GRACE can detect changes in the equipotential surface of the Earth on the order of millimetres, there is no way an unexpected change in surface gravity on the order of 1% (let alone more) would not instantly be noticed.

The GRACE mission uses an entirely different experimental setup than Gravity Probe B. The GRACE data set contains no unexpected signals, unlike Gravity Probe B. The GRACE data is also much simpler to interpret than that from Gravity Probe B (i.e. GRACE just measures the distance between the two probes, Gravity Probe B measures the precession of 4 gyroscopes in two different directions).

Unless you believe that the international space exploration community is one big conspiracy that covers up information that might contradict contemporary physics, I find it hard to believe that the GRACE team would intentionally smooth over something as huge as a large gravitational anomaly.

The ``1B'' GRACE data can be found here. This data has been converted from the actual experimental readout (dataset ``1A'') by this method. (Unless you know the specifics of each piece of equipment on GRACE, the 1A dataset is useless.)

Studying gravitational anomalies has been done for years, partly for scientific interest and partly because it can help locate valuable mineral deposits.

But again I must repose the same old questions:

• If there is substantial exotic matter in the Earth, why does the difference between polar and equatorial gravity agree so well with the simple predictions of Newtonian gravity (referring my calculation in a previous post)?
  
• If there is substantial polarity to the Earth's gravitational field, why do polar orbit satellites not constantly veer off course?
  
• Why has no ground-based survey of Earth's gravity field (and, of course, GRACE and also GOCE) revealed any substantial and inexplicable anomalies?
  
• Why has the study using seismic waves as a source for tomography on the Earth's core not revealed any of the structure you speak of?

[RingFenceTheCity]

(i) I've already cited my source for the core's anisotropy in post #93.

Quote

Although the anisotropy of the inner core was proposed 20 years ago, "this is the first time we have been able to piece everything together to create a three-dimensional view," Song said. "This view should help us better understand the character, mineral properties and evolution of Earth's inner core."

(ii) This is the first article I saw which describes the discovery of another structure within the inner core, Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation

Quote

An odd, previously unknown sphere, some 360 miles in diameter, has been found at the bottom of the Earth. It was detected by a Harvard professor and a graduate student who patiently examined records of hundreds of thousands of earthquake waves that passed through the center of the planet in the past 30 years.

(iii) Here's another relevant article  A Re-Examination on the Inverse Square Law - Roland Echo Birds

Quote

Every 1,800 years, the inner core turns one more time than the rest of the planet.

Connection with the millennial climate cycle anyone?

(iv) Here's a powerful song by Lana Del Rey, for those who are so inclined

Edited by SunnyBlues, 07 November 2012 - 11:25 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 07 November 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

(i) I've already cited my source for the core's anisotropy in post #93.

I agree that the core is anisotropic, but I am asking about your specific reference to NS seismic waves traversing the Earth 5s faster than WE seismic waves. I couldn't find any reference to NS waves being faster than WE waves in the article you cited, nor the original source for that article, nor the actual scientific paper.

The earlier 2002 article that you cite in your latest post does say that NS waves are faster than WE waves, but it doesn't specify any value. (Where is the 5 second value coming from?)

SunnyBlues, on 07 November 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

(ii) This is the first article I saw which describes the discovery of another structure within the inner core, Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation

I agree with this paper as well.

It seems to me that geologists have a pretty good handle on what the inner core is shaped like, what it is made of, and how dense it is.

And you think they are correct that there is an inner core, but wrong about everything else?

In fact, the more recent work by X. Song and X. Sun about the ``inner inner core'' suggests more anisotropy between the eastern and western halves (``eastern'' defined as between 40^o and 120^o  east longitude) than between the planar and axial directions.

SunnyBlues, on 07 November 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

(iii) Here's another relevant article  A Re-Examination on the Inverse Square Law - Roland Echo Birds

This is a perfect example of why I am perpetually confused about your arguments.

Did you actually read this article? All 5 pages of it?

You are citing an amateur article which argues that gravity is actually a by-product of electromagnetism. Ignoring for a moment that this claim is demonstrably wrong, how does this article help your theory?

This article completely agrees that the gravitational inverse square law is correct! It uses the very same analysis (in particular, the divergence theorem) which I have used before in my arguments with you!

The article argues (very poorly, and with many technical mistakes) that the origin of gravity is actually an electromagnetic effect.

Unless you have completely changed your model of gravity (are you throwing your ``Archimedes screw gravitons'' out the window?) how does this article offer any support to your theory?

Or are you just using this completely amateur article to cherry pick the datum of ``Earths inner core revolves faster than the rest of the planet by 1/(1800 years)'' and completely ignoring the rest of it (i.e. where it describes an inner core that is basically the same as described by mainstream science)?

If you want to use the faster rotation of the inner core, why don't you cite an actual scientific article like this one or an article in a more reputable publication than whatever the article you found counts as?

SunnyBlues, on 07 November 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Connection with the millennial climate cycle anyone?

Sure, why not?
The scientists in the article I cited above found that the inner core rotates faster than the Earth by about 0.27^o to 0.53^o per year. This suggests that the inner core completes one full rotation more than the rest of the Earth at some point between 679.2 and 1333.3 years.

In the study you cited, the scientists found a periodicity in climate of 1470 +/ 500 years (i.e. somewhere between 970 and 1970 years) which fits within the inner core rotation.

Finally, the analysis of the core by X. Song and X. Sun (cited above) predicts a W-E asymmetry in the  ``inner inner core''; the eastern part (currently between longitude 40^o and 120^o east) has less crystalline alignment than the western part.

From this, one could tentatively hypothesize that the orientation of the inner core with respect to the continents has some impact on climate cycles. For example, right now the less-aligned eastern part of the core is mostly under the Indian ocean or Asia.

Perhaps when this part of the core is under the Pacific ocean we will see a different climate pattern emerge.

This is a very tentative hypothesis because I do not know any mechanism which would connect the orientation of the inner core with respect to the position of the continents to the world-wide climate.

This hypothesis also has nothing to do with your particular model for gravity or whether or not there is any exotic material within the Earth.

If you want to claim that the inner structure of the Earth has an effect on the climate, or even spacecraft flybys, I would not have any argument.

If you want to claim that the inner structure of the Earth is made of some sort of as yet unobserved exotic matter which has the unique properties of looking exactly like high pressure iron whenever scientists attempt to study the core, but also has the unique property of subtly modifying the Earth's gravity field, whenever scientists aren't looking, when certain spacecraft are attempting flybys or certain airplanes are flying over the ocean, well then I do have some pretty big arguments.

[RingFenceTheCity]

(i) The 5 seconds difference in E-W orientation to N-S orientation is reported by a Harvard University professor and associate, so can be assumed to be correct imo. It's up to you to analyse the study if you don't believe it.

(ii) You say "It seems to me that geologists have a pretty good handle on what the inner core is shaped like, what it is made of, and how dense it is." but this is contrary to the view of many professionals who study the earth's interior.

(iii) Thank you for the information "In fact, the more recent work by X. Song and X. Sun about the ``inner inner core'' suggests more anisotropy between the eastern and western halves.." but a link would have been appreciated, Inner Inner Core of The Earth

Quote

Here we present a model of 3D anisotropy and texturing of iron

crystals in the inner core. We show a drastic change of the form

of the inner core anisotropy at a radius of about 590 km from 3D

non-linear inversion and direct modeling of the travel times of

core-traversing waves (PKP). The change appears to be sharp,

occurring over a depth range of less than 150 km. The radius of

the inner sphere is almost half the radius of the inner core, thus

we refer to it as the “inner inner core”

(iv) I *didn't* read all of it and perhaps I should have done although I'm time limited to 1hr internet usages a day. His general take on the fact that mainstream science doesn't have a common sense picture of gravity and the inverse square law is excellent open-minded thinking imo.

(v) I'm glad that you at least except the possibility of a millennial climate cycle and that some future climate change might possibly be connected with the innermost core rotation. My initial idea was the lunar tidal cycle incidentally The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. The way the moon points it's same face towards us and is moving *away* from the earth is a vital clue imo.

(vi) Sep, did you vote Obama??

Edited by SunnyBlues, 08 November 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 08 November 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

(ii) You say "It seems to me that geologists have a pretty good handle on what the inner core is shaped like, what it is made of, and how dense it is." but this is contrary to the  view of many professionals who study the earth's interior.

Yes, but....

Are these professionals saying:

• We have no idea what the inner core is at all!
  
• We are uncertain whether the core is x% or y% iron, and whether the density is this or possibly that, and some think the anisotropy is this but others think it is that...

I suspect it is the latter argument. I think every professional would agree the core is almost all iron, agree on a rough size of the core, and agree that anisotropy is almost entirely due to differences in shape, density, or alignment of that iron rather than completely different substances.

SunnyBlues, on 08 November 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

(iii) Thank you for the information "In fact, the more recent work by X. Song and X. Sun about the ``inner inner core'' suggests more anisotropy between the eastern and western halves.." but a link would have been appreciated, Inner Inner Core of The Earth

Sorry about that! I didn't realize they had a free version of their paper, and I forgot that the publishers link I cited requires a subscription.

SunnyBlues, on 08 November 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

(iv) I *didn't* read all of it and perhaps I should have done although I'm time limited to 1hr internet usages a day. His general take on the fact that mainstream science doesn't have a common sense picture of gravity and the inverse square law is excellent open-minded thinking imo.

Yes, but...

The arguments Newton made in his Principia are as valid today as they were when he made them.

• The simplest object is a featureless point,
  
• Any force produced by this point must be spherically symmetric,
  
• To conserve energy a spherically symmetric force produced by this point must decrease in strength as the inverse square of the distance from the point,
  
• Any more complex object can be constructed by one or more (possibly moving) points, and
  
• The force from this complex object is then constructed by summing the forces from each of the fundamental points.

One can certainly argue that we don't really know what mass is, but it is pretty clear that objects have something that we call mass. One can also make lots of arguments that we don't really understand what gravity is either, but it is pretty clear that something that we call gravity exists.

It is fair to question the assumptions inherent in the Newtonian picture of gravity and the inverse square law, but I would argue it is necessary to fully understand those assumptions, and the mathematical treatment that lead from those assumptions to the generalized inverse square law.

And I don't see any indication that Roland understands the mathematical treatment. (Especially since he gives separate equations for ``electrostatic force'' and ``electric force'' even though they are exactly the same - and indeed the equations are identical. He also gives the wrong equation for ``magnetic force'', magnetic force does not, in general, obey the inverse square law.)

SunnyBlues, on 08 November 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

(v) I'm glad that you at least except the possibility of a millennial climate cycle and that some future climate change might possibly be connected with the innermost core rotation. My initial idea was the lunar tidal cycle incidentally The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. The way the moon points it's same face towards us and is moving *away* from the earth is a vital clue imo.

There is certainly some degree of correlation between the two, which is generally a very good indication that some sort of connection exists.

SunnyBlues, on 08 November 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

(vi) Sep, did you vote Obama??

I am not an American, and I do not live in the United States - but if I was, and did, I would have.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 08 November 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

...The arguments Newton made in his Principia are as valid today as they were when he made them.

• The simplest object is a featureless point,[/quote]

Ahh, I take issue with this first statement you try to make. The idea of Eygptians writing mathematical expressions on papyrus to create a short hand for the number of drainage canals for a particular crop makes intuitive sense imo. This surely contributed as to why they were so successful. For Newton to take this concept and write an expression that the force which creates the fall of an apple is the same force which keeps the moon in orbit was a revolutionary step. Unfortunately for him, the concept *hasn't* proved to be 100% successful. I wish to make the common sense notion that an *ENTITY* is something that exists in reality, which can be represented by a character in a mathematical expression. This is what the Eygptians did. A "featureless point" is *not* an entity, because it doesn't exist in reality. It is therefore *not* an object either, other than an object of your imagination. He fell at the first hurdle. This is why a modern theory of everything has been so elusive and still a long way off.

sepulchrave, on 08 November 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

...There is certainly some degree of correlation between the two, which is generally a very good indication that some sort of connection exists.

Good, we can talk some more about this another day.

sepulchrave, on 08 November 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

I am not an American, and I do not live in the United States - but if I was, and did, I would have.

Okay, my mistake, but glad to hear the answer. If you'd said Romney, I had this prepared incidentally (fantastic song btw)


My latest thoughts:
(i) The moon's sudden added acceleration as it crosses exactly over the gravity cone from the Romanche Gap Exotic Pile is responsible for the inner core spinning slightly faster than the rest of the planet imo. As the moon moves to a slightly inner orbit the tidal bulge of the Earth is increased, creating an increase in rotational friction due to the increase in mantle convection. Because the inner core is a *solid* is will be less affected by this tidal braking phenomenon than the rest of the viscous planet.
(ii) The calculation for the Bermuda Triangle cone of influence was around 6 degrees. A stack of exotic comets, one on top of the other, would give a much narrower cone of a near 2g graviton field. Unbelievable, the cone of influence from the Romanche Gap could extend all the way to the moon, and still maintain a signifcant increase in gravity! The angular diameter of the full moon viewed from earth is about ½ degree. The Romanche Gap Pile would only have to be around 12 times more 'concentrated' than a single small exotic comet for the idea to work! A stack of 2g comets in the Mid-Atlantic Trench could conceivably fit the bill imo.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 09 November 2012 - 02:44 PM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 09 November 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

For Newton to take this concept and write an expression that the force which creates the fall of an apple is the same force which keeps the moon in orbit was a revolutionary step. Unfortunately for him, the concept *hasn't* proved to be 100% successful.

True. But I am not sure predicting the orbits of every moon, planet, asteroid, and comet in the Solar System (as well as the trajectories of apples here on Earth) to an accuracy that almost perfectly agrees with our measurements constitutes a ``failure'', either. The biggest error in Newton's theory is that the actual precession of the orbit of Mercury (NOT the orbit itself, but the precession of that orbit) deviates from Newtonian predictions by a mere 2%.

This agreement is based on the superposition of gravity from the Sun and other planets, where the gravity field of each object individually is treated as a spherically symmetric field whose magnitude depends only on the mass of the planet or Sun and the inverse-square of the distance from that object.

Newtonian Mechanics was later extended by General Relativity, and currently the orbits of all the planets agree with measurement.

SunnyBlues, on 09 November 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

I wish to make the common sense notion that an *ENTITY* is something that exists in reality, which can be represented by a character in a mathematical expression.

I agree completely.

SunnyBlues, on 09 November 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

A "featureless point" is *not* an entity, because it doesn't exist in reality. It is therefore *not* an object either, other than an object of your imagination.He fell at the first hurdle. This is why a modern theory of everything has been so elusive and still a long way off.

I agree completely.

HOWEVER, a ``featureless point'' is a good place to start. If you have a mathematical theory that you think applies to reality, it makes sense to see what that theory predicts an extremely simple hypothetical object will do.

And fortunately for Newton, and later Einstein, the behaviour of objects in reality very very very closely resembles the behaviour of featureless points.

In fact, I am glad you brought this up. There are definitely many parts of reality that General Relativity does not predict to adequate accuracy, as you well know. But your prescription for solving this seems to be to throw General Relativity out completely, rather than providing more accurate initial conditions for the equations.

For example, in the flyby anomaly, some - but not all - of the spacecraft gained or lost an unexpected amount of speed. But the change in speed was only about 0.00001% (or less) of the total speed. It is a testament to how accurate our telemetry is (telemetry that, by the way, is calculated based on the principles of contemporary physics) that we could even detect this minute change!

However when calculating what the gravity boost for these spacecraft ``should'' be, many approximations were made. I guarantee you that the Earth was treated, at best, as an idealized geoid, rather than a more accurate measured geoid, and certainly not a time-dependent geoid depicting local surface gravity during the actual flyby. Also, was only the Earth, Sun, and Moon considered? What about the other planets? What about the influence of the Solar wind? What about the influence of the Earth, Sun, and galactic magnetic fields?

To accurately calculate the spacecraft velocity, and fix this error in our theory of 0.0001%, should we explicitly include all of the things listed above in our calculations, or should we throw out the theory entirely? It seems to me that you are leaning towards the latter argument.

SunnyBlues, on 09 November 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

My latest thoughts:
(i) The moon's sudden added acceleration as it crosses exactly over the gravity cone from the Romanche Gap Exotic Pile is responsible for the inner core spinning slightly faster than the rest of the planet imo. As the moon moves to a slightly inner orbit the tidal bulge of the Earth is increased, creating an increase in rotational friction due to the increase in mantle convection. Because the inner core is a *solid* is will be less affected by this tidal braking phenomenon than the rest of the viscous planet.
(ii) The calculation for the Bermuda Triangle cone of influence was around 6 degrees. A stack of exotic comets, one on top of the other, would give a much narrower cone of a near 2g graviton field. Unbelievable, the cone of influence from the Romanche Gap could extend all the way to the moon, and still maintain a signifcant increase in gravity! The angular diameter of the full moon viewed from earth is about ½ degree. The Romanche Gap Pile would only have to be around 12 times more 'concentrated' than a single small exotic comet for the idea to work! A stack of 2g comets in the Mid-Atlantic Trench could conceivably fit the bill imo.

Again, again, again: Are you seriously suggesting that the surface gravity of Earth could double in one region and nobody would notice? SERIOUSLY???

You shoot down existing theories of gravity because they fail to provide accuracies greater than 1 in 100 000, but you are quite happy to replace this with a suggestion that there are ``double gravity exotic comets'' in the Earth, and nobody has directly felt their effects?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 09 November 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

The biggest error in Newton's theory is that the actual precession of the orbit of Mercury (NOT the orbit itself, but the precession of that orbit) deviates from Newtonian predictions by a mere 2%.

(i) It's the *persistence* of the failure of a T.O.E. after a hundred years from Einstein's intervention which sticks out like a sore thumb imo. It's a strong indication of a basic problem in the underlying assumptions of physics. It *isn't* just me saying this, but hundreds of highly qualified physicists, mathematicians, technicians and scientists. See the latest FQXi essay competition entrants if you don't believe me Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?. There's a high percentage of university professor level essays in the competition for example.

(ii) The *evidence* is clear if you read it!! There's detailed accounts of hundreds of incidents which indicate a narrow 2g gravity cone at the earth's surface. You have simply shown yourself to be someone who hasn't even looked at the easily accessible evidence given as an alternative solution to the gravity problem. Satellite data is assumed to have a high probabiility of error when over the South Atlantic Anomaly area, which is why the double gravity data is removed in the first filtering stage.

(iii) On a lighter note, here's the song which reminded me of the Democrat candidate (before I saw the video incidentally):



My latest thoughts:
(i) The larger exotic comets which descend to the core  must be 'absorbed'  by the giant upright moon-creator comet and irregularities 'smoothed' out around it's equatorial regions.
(ii) The uniqueness of our planet in maintaining life is the biggest clue as to the importance of that so called "0.0001% error" in the mainstream theory. The fact that our planet was struck squarely by the remnants of a 'black hole alternative supernova' gives us the special relationship of a large moon which periodically moves towards the surface and then slowly tries to return to an equilibrium. It's this interaction of exotic matter which maintains our planet's convection and shields us from cosmic rays with a magnetic field. It's this unique formation of our satellite and the legacy it left behind which has shaped our evolution.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 10 November 2012 - 11:00 AM.