Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NatureBoff

Mathematicians Offer Unified Theory of Dark M

127 posts in this topic

Mathematicians Offer Unified Theory of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Altering Einstein Field Equations

Very interesting article and concept. I think they are on the right course. It fits with the idea of non-Newtonian matter being created at the centre of stars and spread to the planets via supernovae events and comet impacts imo. This fits with the scale limitations mentioned . Someone tell Mr Wang for me please!

Newton would have assumed that stars created non-Newtonian matter at their cores due to their spin rate and super high gravity field. Older stars would therefore have more of this extra force on the plane of rotation. This fits with the spiral galaxy rotation curves which have a central bulge of young stars and an outer disk of older stars which rotate faster than expected(!). Is the Main Seqeunce of Star Classification missing the onset of creation of non-Newtonian matter? I think it is. The evidence fits like a glove imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neat story!

For those interested, the actual article can be found here.

It fits with the idea of non-Newtonian matter being created at the centre of stars and spread to the planets via supernovae events and comet impacts imo. This fits with the scale limitations mentioned . Someone tell Mr Wang for me please!

Not really. For one thing, I think ``non-Newtonian'' is not the word you are looking for here. In the context of matter, Newtonian means matter where the stress-strain relationship is linear and unshifted. Beer is an example of a ``non-Newtonian'' fluid.

I am pretty sure the word you are looking for is ``non-Baryonic'', as you have used in the past when discussing your theories.

Newton would have assumed that stars created non-Newtonian matter at their cores due to their spin rate and super high gravity field.

I kind of doubt that Newton knew about stellar nucleosynthesis, but ok.

Older stars would therefore have more of this extra force on the plane of rotation.

How does this follow from your previous statement? Unless you are defining ``non-Newtonian'' matter as matter which magically does what ever I need it to do to fit my ideas about gravity.

This fits with the spiral galaxy rotation curves which have a central bulge of young stars and an outer disk of older stars which rotate faster than expected(!).

Now not only are you making the leap that ``non-Newtonian'' matter increases the gravitational force in the plane of rotation of a star, you are also claiming that the rotation axis of most stars is parallel with the rotation axis of the galaxy, and that this obeys the simple Newtonian rules for rotation speed under simple Newtonian gravity!

Is the Main Seqeunce of Star Classification missing the onset of creation of non-Newtonian matter? I think it is. The evidence fits like a glove imo.

What evidence?

You do understand that the article that you cite above claims that dark energy and dark matter are different polarities of a scalar field right? This is not something that would be made in the core of a star (or otherwise).

The evidence in favour of dark matter (and dark energy) pretty much require that it (whatever ``it'' is) be something that is not confined to the cores of stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks for the interest, link and informative comments. I'm not going to convince you in a few words so let's start at the beginning with a neat solution for the Earth flyby anomaly. For all three of the big energy increases the moon is in the beginning of the last quarter, heading towards a new moon. This implies that the moon was infront of the incoming spacecraft as it crosses the equatorial plane. I'm making the case that the moon contains exotic matter which produces a force of attraction which acts only on it's plane of rotation which interacts strongly with other exotic matter as well as weakly with the centre-bodied cubic geometry of iron. This hypothesis then solves the mystery of why there is also cases of small *negative* energy changes, because the moon is in a different part of its orbit and *behind* the spacecraft during it's crossing of Earth's equator.

Try and be a little open-minded before you reply please. Just because you are familiar with Einstein's GR etc doesn't make you superior to this idea. I've had physicists within the FQXi essay competition who agree with me about the moon's influence on flyby's.

The big question is then: Why is it the moon and not the Earth which is the primary factor in flyby anomalies? Therefore, why is the moon's internal composition so different to the Earth's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This implies that the moon was infront of the incoming spacecraft as it crosses the equatorial plane. I'm making the case that the moon contains exotic matter which produces a force of attraction which acts only on it's plane of rotation which interacts strongly with other exotic matter as well as weakly with the centre-bodied cubic geometry of iron. This hypothesis then solves the mystery of why there is also cases of small *negative* energy changes, because the moon is in a different part of its orbit and *behind* the spacecraft during it's crossing of Earth's equator.

Which equatorial plane? The Earth's or the Moon's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6. The universe with uniform distributed matter leads to identically zero scalar

potential energy, and is unstable. It is this instability that leads to the

existence of the dark matter and dark energy, and consequently the high

non-homogeneity of the universe

and,

Second, associated with the scalar potential ϕ is the scalar potential energy

density c4

8G, which represents a new type of energy/force caused by the nonuniform

distribution of matter in the universe. This scalar potential energy density

varies as the galaxies move and matter of the universe redistributes. Like gravity,

it affects every part of the universe as a field.

From sepulchrave's link to the PDF.

I'm a little confused on these points. In the first quote, does this mean that, because a homogenious universe without dark matter/dark energy is unstable, dark matter/dark energy is spontaneously created?

And likewise, in the second quote, souldn't it read, "new type of energy/force causes the nonuniform distribution of matter in the universe", and not "the nonuniform distribution of matter in the universe causes the new type of energy/force"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused on these points. In the first quote, does this mean that, because a homogenious universe without dark matter/dark energy is unstable, dark matter/dark energy is spontaneously created?

I am not an expert in this sort of thing, but I think it the authors are suggesting that dark matter/dark energy are results of spontaneous polarization rather than spontaneous creation.

In other words, I think the authors are saying there is no such thing as dark matter/dark energy (in a classical sense, anyway), only negative or positive amplitudes of this underlying scalar field.

I have not studied the article, but I think the authors suggest that the total amplitude of this scalar field (over the entire Universe) is and always has been a constant, but locally it may be positive (dark matter-like, i.e. in the halos of galaxies) or negative (dark energy-like, i.e. in between galaxies).

One analogue to this is electromagnetism: the current argument is that the Universe has a magnetic field that reaches everywhere, however in most places this field is close to zero. If you turn on an electromagnet you don't spontaneously create a magnetic field, rather you spontaneously polarize the magnetic field: creating a region that is positive (at one end of the magnet) and negative (at the other end).

And likewise, in the second quote, souldn't it read, "new type of energy/force causes the nonuniform distribution of matter in the universe", and not "the nonuniform distribution of matter in the universe causes the new type of energy/force"?

I don't think so... (Again, I have not studied the paper in depth so this may be wrong)

Because the scalar field has positive and negative parts, it is able to balance itself. Therefore, a homogeneous equilibrium (for just this scalar field, anyway) is stable.

Gravity is mutually attractive, however, so once matter starts forming clumps the tendency is to form larger clumps rather than smooth back out (so in contrast, a homogeneous equilibrium of matter is unstable under gravity alone).

So I think once matter started to form clumps under gravity, this caused the scalar field to start deviating from equilibrium (which of course has an effect on matter and gravity, which of course leads to more deviations in the field, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks sepulchrave.

The universe with uniform distributed matter leads to identically zero scalar

potential energy, and is unstable.

From the PDF.

So, I suppose this potential energy would obey quantum uncertainty, and therefore the energy of the field can not be zero. Would this be the instability that the authors are talking about? In this sense, perhapse this energy field would have some influence in the non-nomogeniety of the matter in the universe besides the influence of gravity. (?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks sepulchrave.

From the PDF.

So, I suppose this potential energy would obey quantum uncertainty, and therefore the energy of the field can not be zero. Would this be the instability that the authors are talking about? In this sense, perhapse this energy field would have some influence in the non-nomogeniety of the matter in the universe besides the influence of gravity. (?)

I don't think so. Assuming this field can be quantized, then you would expect a non-zero energy of the field, but you couldn't predict whether the field would have a positive or negative amplitude.

If the field had a negative amplitude, then yes - it would assist matter becoming ``clumpy'' at that location. But if the field had a positive amplitude then it would be repulsive, and help ``smooth out'' matter at that location.

I think the quantum fluctuations of this field would be uncoupled from the fluctuations of matter (i.e. you would not expect a fluctuation of negative amplitude to more frequently occur in fluctuations of denser matter, since that correlation would reduce the uncertainty in the field energy), so over any significant period of time and any significant volume of space I do not think it would have any net effect.

That is my opinion, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which equatorial plane? The Earth's or the Moon's?

The Earth's of course. I'm saying that the Earth-flyby spacecraft crosses the Earth's equatorial plane. Three big increases in energy all occur when the moon is just above the equatorial plane and in front of the incoming spacecraft. Note that Wikipedia also states that when a spacecraft didn't cross the equatorial plane, no change in enrgy was recorded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sepulchrave? Is this too much for you to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late reply, I was travelling.

The Earth's of course. I'm saying that the Earth-flyby spacecraft crosses the Earth's equatorial plane. Three big increases in energy all occur when the moon is just above the equatorial plane and in front of the incoming spacecraft. Note that Wikipedia also states that when a spacecraft didn't cross the equatorial plane, no change in enrgy was recorded.

So you claim that exotic matter in the Moon has increased gravity in the rotational plane of the Earth?

How does that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late reply, I was travelling.

So you claim that exotic matter in the Moon has increased gravity in the rotational plane of the Earth?

How does that make sense?

No, I'm saying that the exotic matter in the Moon has increased gravity in it's rotational plane, which affects the spacecraft in Earth-flybys when the moon is in-line with the Earth's equatorial plane.

The lunar influence on earth flybys fits with the problems experienced by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they descended to the moon's surface. Were they in the grip of the lunar exotic matter? I think they were.

Neil Armstrong and the Landing of the Eagle UPDATED

Eagle had overshot the landing zone, Home Plate, by four miles. A slight navigational error and a faster than intended descent speed accounted for Eagle missing its planned touchdown site in the Sea of Tranquility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying that the exotic matter in the Moon has increased gravity in it's rotational plane, which affects the spacecraft in Earth-flybys when the moon is in-line with the Earth's equatorial plane.

I still don't understand why there is an effect when the spacecraft are in the Earth's equatorial plane.

According to your theory, should not the effect occur when the spacecraft are in the Moon's equatorial plane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why there is an effect when the spacecraft are in the Earth's equatorial plane.

According to your theory, should not the effect occur when the spacecraft are in the Moon's equatorial plane?

The spacecraft cross the Earth's equatorial plane first, then cross the moon's equatorial plane just after. This is the position of the moon when the three big increases in energy occur. The moon's equatorial plane is close to the Earth's equator every two weeks which gives us the spring tides. If the moon is behind the incoming spacecraft, then a negative energy change is possible. You now need to look up the phases of the moon on all the dates of the flyby data given in Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spacecraft cross the Earth's equatorial plane first, then cross the moon's equatorial plane just after. This is the position of the moon when the three big increases in energy occur. The moon's equatorial plane is close to the Earth's equator every two weeks which gives us the spring tides.

So I guess according to you there is significant ``non-baryonic'' matter at the core of the Earth?

``Regular matter'' is gravitationally symmetric (at least since Earth's gravitomagnetism is negligible), so if the equatorial plane of a ``regular'' object has no special bearing on that object's gravity.

If the moon is behind the incoming spacecraft, then a negative energy change is possible. You now need to look up the phases of the moon on all the dates of the flyby data given in Wikipedia.

I need to look up the phases of the moon ? I suppose you don't have to because you know your theory is true, and don't need any actual evidence.

Well from the wiki page you linked to, positive energy changes were reported for Gallileo 1, NEAR, Rosetta-1, and Messenger. Negative energy changes were reported for Cassini.

From this article (see Figure 12, page 20), you can see that when Gallileo was closest to the earth, it was furthest from the moon (along its trajectory, anyway, as evidenced by the local maximum in the lunar potential energy). NEAR and Rosetta-1 were approaching the moon, while Cassini and Messenger were moving away from the moon.

For Gallileo's gravity boost, the Moon's equatorial plane was close to crossing the Earth's equatorial plane (it was only about 3 degrees off, see Table 2, page 12), but in all other cases the Moon was rather far from crossing the Earth's equatorial plane.

So why did Cassini lose velocity and Messenger gain velocity if both were moving away from the Moon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I *did* look up the moon phases. Thank you for the link to the flyby article. It supports my hypothesis imo. Note that the Pioneer anomaly has recently been attributed to non-gravitational reasons. Here's a few quotes which caught my attention:

[i)At the time many found it surprising that energy

could be transferred to a spacecraft from the orbital-motion angularmomentum

of a planet about the Sun, despite the fact it had been known

since the works of Lagrange, Jacobi, and Tisserand on the three-body problem

[Moulton 1970,Danby 1988], that the energies of comets could be affected

by passing near Jupiter.

The exotic gravity force on the plane of rotation of Jupiter is the reason for our glacial cycle, as detailed in my latest FQXi essay.

(ii)We have also presented a series of intriguing real-world results associated with flybys

that belie our current understanding of the underlying physics. It is hoped

that further study, which we encourage, can reconcile this situation.

The current physics *doesn't* explain the phenomenon. An extra force is needed, as they suggest in the report as an option.

I think that you are still thinking mathematically. I'm saying that the exotic force on the plane of rotation from exotic comets *ISN'T* subject to the inverse square law as in ordinary matter. I'm saying that the Moon's extra force on this narrow plane is a band of influence, and shouldn't be considered from a point source. Therefore it doesn't matter whether the spacecraft is closer or further away in the conventional sense, it's the time that the spacecraft is within the band of influence as it crosses which is important.

The other point to note which the report states is that the exact time of velocity increases is unknown. It's just *approximately* near the time of closest approach. Also, when I'm taking about the high exotic matter content of the moon, I'm suggesting that it exerts a force on it's 'plane of rotation'. The moon no longer spins on it's own axis, so the exact angle of this plane may no longer be perfectly aligned with the moon's equatorial plane. It's an approximation which fits very well with the data. Remember that this a genuine mystery and one which shouldn't be swept under the carpet so easily. The exact position and aspect of the moon is needed for each flyby for the detailed analysis.

Juno is scheduled to resolve the situation. The voyage to Jupiter will take five years, which will include an Earth flyby in October 2013. The exotic matter hypothesis and the moon will be shown to be the primary influence imo. Let's wait and see. The Juno gravity assist from a flyby of Earth is set for Oct 9, 2013. The first quarter date is 11 October, so unfortunately this doesn't bode well for a big energy increase.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Juno%27s_interplanetary_trajectory.jpg

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that the exotic force on the plane of rotation from exotic comets *ISN'T* subject to the inverse square law as in ordinary matter.

Yes, I understand that.

I'm saying that the Moon's extra force on this narrow plane is a band of influence, and shouldn't be considered from a point source.

So what, this ``non baryonic matter'' isn't made of point-like particles?

Or the principle of superposition doesn't apply?

Therefore it doesn't matter whether the spacecraft is closer or further away in the conventional sense, it's the time that the spacecraft is within the band of influence as it crosses which is important.

Conservation of energy isn't important either, I guess?

The other point to note which the report states is that the exact time of velocity increases is unknown. It's just *approximately* near the time of closest approach. Also, when I'm taking about the high exotic matter content of the moon, I'm suggesting that it exerts a force on it's 'plane of rotation'. The moon no longer spins on it's own axis, so the exact angle of this plane may no longer be perfectly aligned with the moon's equatorial plane. It's an approximation which fits very well with the data.

Of course. Any object in orbit around Earth will cross any plane that is coincident with the Moon at some point.

Why have no satellite operators have observed anomalous energy boosts in the orbits of their satellites?

Remember that this a genuine mystery and one which shouldn't be swept under the carpet so easily.

Of course, but the solution should be commensurate with the scope of the problem.

Our ``current physics'' can calculate the trajectories of comets, asteroids, spacecraft, satellites, etc. with very high accuracy.

Your proposed solution is:

  1. Not quantitative (you have provided no theory for calculating the effect of this force),
  2. Requires a substantial addition to the Standard Model of particles (and forces), and
  3. Violates conservation of energy.

Remember, the anomalous speed gained by NEAR (the spacecraft with the largest gain, listed in the wiki) was a gain of less than one part in a million.

Finally, remember that the second and third ROSETTA flybys were also designed to test the anomalous speed gain, and they both failed to detect any anomalous gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm changed my mind about the exact mechanism involved. The evidence still shows that the moon *is* in the same phase when all three big energy increases were detected. This implies a lunar tidal explanation is highly possible. I've attached an illustration to help with my hypothesis. The tidal bulge which precedes the moon is responsible imo. I suggest that this bulge dislodges a dark matter comet within an inner halo of the Earth. This is the source of the extra force which is given as a credible solution in your research article.

There *is* evidence of such spurious energy increases of aircraft as well as spacecraft. The Vile Vortices by Ivan T. Sanderson and the mysterious aeroplane/ship disappearances is a *real* connection to the flyby phenomenon.

post-94765-0-97278500-1348132618_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence still shows that the moon *is* in the same phase when all three big energy increases were detected.

How so? The moon was waning for all three, but it wasn't the same degree of ``fullness''.

See here :

Gallileo 1: 65% full, waning

Gallileo 2: 90% full, waning

NEAR: 30% full, waning

Cassini: 40% full, waxing

Rosetta: 50% full, waning

Messenger: 10% full, waning

This implies a lunar tidal explanation is highly possible.

I don't disagree with that.

However note that the lunar phase is only important if you are considering the Earth-Moon-Sun system. If you are not including the influence of the Sun, then the lunar phase is not important.

There *is* evidence of such spurious energy increases of aircraft as well as spacecraft. The Vile Vortices by Ivan T. Sanderson and the mysterious aeroplane/ship disappearances is a *real* connection to the flyby phenomenon.

I am not sure I would call Sanderson's work ``evidence''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have made an error with the three moon phases. They are all within 4 days of one another. The three big increases are:

(i) Galileo I : date = 12/8/1990, moon phase= 1 day before last quarter

(ii) NEAR : date = 01/23/1998, moon phase= 3 days after last quarter

(iii) Rosetta-1, date = 03/04/2005, moon phase= 1 day after last quarter

*No other* flyby dates are at this precise time in the moon's orbit. No other significant energy increases are recorded at any other moon phase. Therefore there *is* evidence to suggest that a lunar tidal explanation is highly possible, which I'm glad you agree with :).

I'm guessing that the Missing Aircraft dates will match with the same moon phase. Not every case of course, but enough for statistical significance. Holy Cow! The first two are exactly the same: I day after new moon this time! Wow, then one on the first quarter and the next 4 around the time of the full moon. There's more around the time of the full moon. I suspect that there is another reason which I don't want to discuss at the moment. The evidence is still in my favour imo.

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have made an error with the three moon phases. They are all within 4 days of one another. The three big increases are:

(i) Galileo I : date = 12/8/1990, moon phase= 1 day before last quarter

(ii) NEAR : date = 01/23/1998, moon phase= 3 days after last quarter

(iii) Rosetta-1, date = 03/04/2005, moon phase= 1 day after last quarter

Your data is basically the same as mine, when I say ``50% full, waning'' I mean ``last quarter''. But I was just eyeballing images of the moon, so we can go with your numbers.

*No other* flyby dates are at this precise time in the moon's orbit. No other significant energy increases are recorded at any other moon phase. Therefore there *is* evidence to suggest that a lunar tidal explanation is highly possible, which I'm glad you agree with :).

There is evidence, but it is weak. Your correlation consists of matching the 3 (out of 8) flybys with significant positive energy increases to a time period (4 days) which spans 14% of the possible phases of the moon (28 days or so). The magnitude of the energy increase is not correlated with the phase of the moon.

Further, the two cases with significant negative energy increases are not correlated with any particular phase (Gallileo-II occurred at almost a full moon, and Cassini occurred perhaps a day before the first quarter judging by the phases here).

I'm guessing that the Missing Aircraft dates will match with the same moon phase. Not every case of course, but enough for statistical significance. Holy Cow! The first two are exactly the same: I day after new moon this time! Wow, then one on the first quarter and the next 4 around the time of the full moon. There's more around the time of the full moon. I suspect that there is another reason which I don't want to discuss at the moment. The evidence is still in my favour imo.

Now you are just spinning your wheels.

For the spacecraft you were working under the assumption that the anomalous velocity increase occurred when the spacecraft crossed the lunar tidal point. Since the exact time at which the velocity increase occurred is unknown, and since the spacecraft - in Earth orbit - definitely would at some point be close to the tidal point, this is (remotely) plausible.

Now you are saying that out of a collection of 23 events (the wiki list of missing aircraft) perhaps 10 of them occur during the first quarter-to-full moon time-frame (about 25% of the possible moon phases?). This time frame does not overlap with the previous one (a 4-day period around the third quarter), and the odds that 10 out of 23 events would share the same quartile are about 1 in 10 which is makes the null hypothesis (the phase of the moon has no effect) pretty reasonable.

Further, you are now attaching two completely different events (spacecraft speeding up, and planes crashing) to two completely different quarters of the moon. There are only 4 quarters - or even more broadly, only 28 phases - are you going to find an anomalous (and otherwise unconnected) event to tie to each situation?

Here's what you can do to help your case: Using a spreadsheet, or some other graphing program, plot the anomalous change in speed for all spacecraft (even the ones with no anomalous change, or the ones that don't fit your hypothesis) against the number of days since a particular phase of the moon (any phase, I assume the 3rd quarter would be the best choice judging by your above arguments), and see if there is a trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring airships which are a different kettle of fish altogether, the percentage of missing aircraft around the time of the full moon is overwhelming. I'll do the graph just as soon as I can. The evidence is *definitely* there.

Let's look at the wikipedia Bermuda Triangle data. The first TWO match with the flyby data! My guess is that it's the Bermuda Triangle anomaly which is activated by the lunar tide at around the last quarter. This extra exotic force acts on the metal of the aircraft or ship, due to it's cubic centre-bodied structure. [Maybe ships and planes of the future will be made from plastic?!]

  1. USS Cyclops: 2 days before last quarter.
  2. Carroll A. Deering: 1 day after last quarter.
  3. Flight 19: 1 day after new moon.
  4. Star Tiger: 3 days before full moon.
  5. Star Ariel: 4 days before full moon.
  6. Douglas DC-3: 2 days before new moon.
  7. KC-135 Stratotankers: 1 day after first quarter.
  8. Connemara IV: 2 days after first quarter.

I've been honest here. The first two are a perfect fit for the anomaly hypothesis. I *know* that the rest even out the data!! More is needed for any signal to be detected.

The List of Bermuda Triangle incidents is interesting in that the first two are listed above and the next three incidents have regular reasons after an accident investigation report. Therefore 100% of *suspicious/mysterious* incidents at sea fit with the gravity anomaly hypothesis.

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at the wikipedia Bermuda Triangle data. The first TWO match with the flyby data! My guess is that it's the Bermuda Triangle anomaly which is activated by the lunar tide at around the last quarter. This extra exotic force acts on the metal of the aircraft or ship, due to it's cubic centre-bodied structure. [snip...] Therefore 100% of *suspicious/mysterious* incidents at sea fit with the gravity anomaly hypothesis.

So when the Earth and the Moon form an isosceles triangle with the Sun as the elongated vertex, then some anomalous gravitational force, which has only a significant effect on bcc metals, drags ships and planes down to their doom?

For the sake of argument, I will accept a 100% correlation between mysterious loss of ship or aircraft and the third quarter of the moon. But the above is a rather ``colourful'' hypothesis.

I still think your description of the anomalous force violates conservation of energy and let's face it: the face of the earth is covered with steel buildings but they rarely collapse spontaneously during the third quarter of the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when the Earth and the Moon form an isosceles triangle with the Sun as the elongated vertex, then some anomalous gravitational force, which has only a significant effect on bcc metals, drags ships and planes down to their doom?

Yes, that's the basics if you like.

For the sake of argument, I will accept a 100% correlation between mysterious loss of ship or aircraft and the third quarter of the moon. But the above is a rather ``colourful'' hypothesis.

Thank you for that acceptance of the correlation. There's a lot more data that Wikipedia doesn't feature of course. I'll order the relevant book just a.s.a.p. I suspect you didn't give my explanatory illustration much consideration. See attached.

I still think your description of the anomalous force violates conservation of energy..

I'm proposing that the exotic matter is created during the final spin of a supernovae collapse. Much like a washing washine. The debris is then distributed evenly with some exotic comets impacting planets and moons. I don't understand where the "violation of energy conservation" concern comes from. Can you explain further for me please?

..and let's face it: the face of the earth is covered with steel buildings but they rarely collapse spontaneously during the third quarter of the moon.
The buildings with steel girders within the Bermuda Triangle during the third quarter of the moon would experience an additional force which isn't measured by any instruments, because it isn't expected in the physics philosophy of construction. The additional force would easily be within the scope of the strength of the entire building. A ship on the other hand could be in heavy sea swell which causes the ship to suddenly list with the onset of an impulse of additional gravity force, making it take on water. The hazard to a ship is much easier to understand than to buildings on solid foundations. We should also remember that no distress calls are given before these mysterious ships are lost with no traces found. The exotic comet hypothesis fits extremely well.

This is a hypothesis with ongoing concerns. If true, it will be found out within our lifetimes for sure.

post-94765-0-58672100-1348485139_thumb.j

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sep? Do you concede that this a revolutionary new idea which can be easily tested? All it needs is permanent monitoring sites using torsion balances scattered within the Bermuda Triangle. The correlation with instuments on the exact opposite side of the globe in the SE Asian 'Dragon Sea' would be the pinnacle of achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.