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

(i) Yes, it's exactly the same as mainstream physics except that the graviton is assumed to be the force carrying particle. No space-time is required in my model.

You understand that the origins of space-time come from reconciling Newton's laws of motion with Maxwell's electromagnetic wave equation? Space-time has nothing to do with gravity. Curvature in space-time is related to gravity, but other space-time phenomena (time dilation, length contraction) are general properties and not due (exclusively) to gravity.

(ii) The electronic fog is seen to cause severe hallucinations in pilots, brilliantly evidence by Captain Byrd who flew over the North Pole and then the South Pole along the 70 degree parallel, which takes him directly over the Geomagnetic South Pole incidentally (see attached). This report from Charles Berlitz's book is amazing, see attached. A Polar Exotic Field would explain the air density being *HALF* that of the rest of the planet!! This field must be the easiest to detect with satellite technology surely?!

Yes it would be.

There are several satellites that study the atmosphere. There is even a satellite dedicated to polar regions. There are also several land-based radar arrays studying the poles (I am good friends with some scientists who work with these arrays). Finally, since 1998 commercial flights have flown directly over the North Pole.

Somehow none of these have noticed a 50% change in air density. Air density is a vital parameter for over-the-horizon radar, and obviously very important to aircraft.

Technically, of course, even Captain Byrd's testimony (and by that, I mean ``what some kid remembered hearing Capt. Byrd say on the radio, even though nobody else does'') doesn't suggest that there was a 50% change in air density. Somehow you have extrapolated the claims that Capt. Byrd saw verdant fields over the pole (or hallucinated the fields) as proof that there was a 2g anomalous gravity field.

If Capt. Byrd had said (or had been reported to say) ``Holy #$#%! My plane is suddenly falling from the sky like a rock, even though all flight systems are working fine!'' before crashing, that might be extrapolated to suggesting an anomalous gravity field.

(iv) Thanks for the datalink for the Probe B. They really *don't* want to emphasize all the problems they've had, do they? Gravity Probe B mission timeline. So where's the *original* data?

I am not searching for any conspiracies or coverups, so I think they have done a good job. In the official report they point out that there were unexpected signals, they show them in Figure 7, and they attempt to explain them.

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone without detailed knowledge of the actual equipment setup for Gravity Probe B would know what to do with the original data. What is wrong with the data in Figure 7?

Can we trust them that a 2g signal *hasn't* been removed from the raw data? I don't think so.

Any reasonable person could. A 2g ``signal'' would clearly manifest as a dramatic change in the orbital trajectory of the probe, not just in the precession of the gyroscopes.

P.S. Your concerns over the height of the water of a "geoid surface" being "at least a kilometer" in reaction to a 20ft wide strip of 2g graviton field have been observed it seems. (see attached, from Charles Berlitz's book 'Without A Trace'). Note that the exotic comet would have to be pointing perpendicularly to the glassy flat surface for ideal mushrooming conditions. The Puerto Rico location is an interesting one.

Ok. So we apparently have a 2g field that is enough to elevate about 500 000 000 tonnes (a cylinder 1/2 mile = 0.8 km in diameter an 1 km high) of water, but the good residents of Puerto Rico a scant 100 km away didn't notice a rather large tidal wave?

And apparently the air above this dome was unperturbed, since the good pilots did not report any sudden turbulence? (Not to mention the fact that the only pilot to go on record stating his name and his observations did not claim that the water bubble was 3000 feet tall, only that it was broad enough for JFK airport (Idlewild was the old name for JFK, so I assume that is what the pilot meant) could fit within it easily.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(i) Sep, you're being too unreasonable imo but thanks for your time.

(ii) Ah, I made a mistake earlier. It appears that the entire air-pocket including aircraft can be accelerated at around 2g, which is brilliantly seen in the Azores report attached. [scanner not working at present, will attach tomorrow]

(iii) Gravity Probe B scores 'F' in NASA review

(iv)

Well, it seems that GPB experimental results face quite a lot challenges even in China's scientists community. I have just read an excellent essay from J. Beijing University of Technology 10/2011 issue that posted a serious challenge:

A Question on Gravity Probe B Experiment Results

Dr. Hao Shi

Abstract

The final results of the Gravity Probe B (GPB) experiment for testing general relativity (GR) theory published on May 4, 2011 by NASA is somewhat controversial. Since GP-B scientific sensors have symmetric property about the satellite spin axis, we thus believe the measurement errors of both the geodetic effect and the frame-dragging effect should be close to each other. However, in the published results, the former is 2.5 times of the latter, which has not been explained by GP-B final report and thus shows that some physics is probably still missing or inadequately addressed in processing experimental data.

Quoted from J. of Beijing University of Technology 2011-10

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My latest thoughts:

(i) The Azores Great Meteor Seamount is an interesting feature as well as the New England hotspot.

(ii) Volcanism as a mechanism of re-surfacing smaller exotic comets is also a good possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that I think you are ``cherry picking'' misleading statements about Gravity Probe B, or you did not read the reports you link to closely enough.

For example: ``Gravity Probe B scores an `F' in NASA review''. That is true, but the review was over whether or not to continue funding the analysis of the Gravity Probe B data. NASA decided that it was not worth it.

Pretty much all of the controversy over Gravity Probe B is due to its measurement of the frame-dragging effect. Gravity Probe B was supposed to provide a very precise measurement of this effect. Unfortunately problems with the data prevented the unambiguous detection of this effect.

The Gravity Probe B scientists claim that they were able to determine what caused the problems with the data (the ``Patch effect'' mentioned in the final report), model the influence of these problems, and successfully subtract them from the data (and, for the record, I believe this claim). They therefore claim to have measured the frame-dragging effect, albeit less precisely than the mission planned for (the oft-mentioned and criticised 15-20% margin of error in the measurement).

I think it is fair to be suspicious of this process, and to doubt the validity of the Gravity Probe B results in regards to the frame-dragging effect.

However Gravity Probe B was able to unambiguously measure the geodetic effect to a high accuracy. This is because the geodetic effect is considerably larger than the frame-dragging effect (170 times), and despite the unexpected ``wiggles'' in the data, the presence of the effect is very clear.

The detection of the geodetic effect is not considered very important, because the effect was already verified by earlier experiments.

Therefore, at best, Gravity Probe B's measurements of the geodetic effect and the frame-dragging effect are consistent with the predictions of General Relativity.

At worst, Gravity Probe B's measurements of the geodetic effect are consistent with the predictions of General Relativity, and the frame-dragging effect could not be measured conclusively.

----------

By the way, you should probably provide a link to the quote you copied from another site. The actual abstract to that paper can be found here. I cannot access the full-text of the paper, but in the abstract it seems that the author takes issue with the differences in the magnitudes of the errors for both measurements. I think the author is wrong - and making a rather simplistic statement as well. I would also point out that it is not clear that the author is a member of ``China's science community'', especially since the author's affiliation is a Cupertino-based private company.

---------

Lastly, for the quantitative analysis of the effects of ``supergravity'' on water that I promised; can you elaborate on or estimate on the angular spread of the ``supergravity'', and on the effective attenuation (how fast does the force reduce in strength as it gets higher above the surface)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're holding me back Sep. The evidence is coming faster than ever. I just re-watched 'Flight 447: Chaos In The Skies' after chatting with my hairdresser yesterday, who happens to be a military history enthusiast. We had a good chat about how the three pilots seemed unabled to detect the effect of plummeting nose-up from 30,000ft; "How could that be?"

"OMG", I said to myself, Bonin was pulling back on the stick because the aircraft was stuck in a 2g line of effect. They didn't feel the descent because the airpocket itself was being accelerated towards the ocean surface. The South Atlantic Anomaly was my immediate suspect. This fits with the fact that they had just crossed the equator and so ties in with the Earth fly-by anomaly.

(i) The pilots and crew should be considered heroes who reacted professionally to the end.

(ii) The passengers *wouldn't* have had a "bumpy descent" due to the entire airpocket being affected and so wouldn't have been aware of the impending danger.

(iii) The training of such future incidents should include the deviation to the right or left if in a prolonged descent because the aircraft might be tracking directly along the narrow stretch of 2g field intensity.

(iv) The pitot probes *were* working properly, as evidenced by their testing after the crash site was located.

The drift rate of the SAA is very close to the rotation differential between the Earth's core and its surface, estimated to be between 0.3 and 0.5 degrees per year.

post-94765-0-40660300-1350727884_thumb.g

post-94765-0-31730800-1350727892_thumb.p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're holding me back Sep.

I think that is what I am supposed to do.

You keep tweaking your theory when ever you come across a new event you think fits with it. Remember how this thread started? First it was exotic matter in the core of the Moon, then it was exotic matter in the core of the Earth coupled to the phase of the Moon, then it was the Bermuda Triangle, and now it is geological hotspots?

And your explanation is that a gravitationally-related force is responsible, despite the fact that it only seems to affect ships, aircraft, and spacecraft, not satellite trajectories, gravitational probes, readings from weather satellites or radar, etc.

"OMG", I said to myself, Bonin was pulling back on the stick because the aircraft was stuck in a 2g line of effect. They didn't feel the descent because the airpocket itself was being accelerated towards the ocean surface.

Have you read any of the official reports (for example here or the lengthy final report here)?

A few facts:

  1. The aircraft was at 37 500 ft, with a vertical speed of 700 ft/min 252 seconds before it hit the water. Simple kinematics shows that the average unbalanced downward force on the aircraft was about 0.04g (presumably a total downward force of 1.04g including regular gravity).
  2. Whether or not the airpocket surrounding the aircraft was also being accelerated towards the ocean or not was irrelevant from the perspective of the crew. If the airpocket was dropping with the aircraft there would be negligible air resistance, but the crew and passengers inside the aircraft would still feel like they were falling.1
  3. A sudden downwards force does not affect lateral motion. The horizontal airspeed should not have changed, so the airspeed readings should have been constant if the pitots were working properly.2

Notes:

[1] If the airpocket fell with the aircraft, then it makes sense for the aircraft to hit the water intact (as the findings indicate it did), since there would not be any excessive stress on the wings from air resistance. However, on the other hand, the average unbalanced force was only 0.04 g which I am sure is within tolerance. And, of course, having an airpocket falling with the aircraft makes no sense if the cause is gravitational; since there is air everywhere between the ground and the aircraft.

[2] Also note that the pitots appeared to give correct readings after 1 minute into the fall, the aircraft still fell for 3 minutes and 12 seconds after the pitots were consistent with ISIS readings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See attached.

post-94765-0-46219400-1350906577_thumb.j

post-94765-0-44948900-1350906584_thumb.j

post-94765-0-80906000-1350906668_thumb.j

post-94765-0-57961900-1350906716_thumb.j

post-94765-0-70470700-1350906826_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See attached.

Oops, not the Yucatan Peninsula of course, but the opposite side of the globe to the Himalayas perhaps. A circa 2g exotic comet as the impactor which generated the evolution of our special moon is a good candidate now that the Bermuda Triangle data has been decoded. The South Atlantic Anomaly is the current site of this impactor's gravitational effect. I presume it is further down in the Earth and perhaps embedded in the inner core. The anomalous 1,470yr climate cycle discovered in the ice core data and elsewhere is likely due to the moon's relation to this gravity hotspot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, not the Yucatan Peninsula of course, but the opposite side of the globe to the Himalayas perhaps. A circa 2g exotic comet as the impactor which generated the evolution of our special moon is a good candidate now that the Bermuda Triangle data has been decoded. The South Atlantic Anomaly is the current site of this impactor's gravitational effect. I presume it is further down in the Earth and perhaps embedded in the inner core. The anomalous 1,470yr climate cycle discovered in the ice core data and elsewhere is likely due to the moon's relation to this gravity hotspot.

Ah, now I've thought it through some more, the idea of a multitude of smaller exotic comets being swept into the Mid-Atlantic Trench since the the ice ages of 2 million years ago seems reasonable. The alternative of a large exotic comet at the Earth's core would presumably have such a wide circa 2g field that it's hard to imagine that It wouldn't be obvious to detect it on the surface on both sides of the globe. The SAA is clearly just on one side of the planet without a corresponding area on the opposite face of the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, now I've thought it through some more, the idea of a multitude of smaller exotic comets being swept into the Mid-Atlantic Trench since the the ice ages of 2 million years ago seems reasonable. The alternative of a large exotic comet at the Earth's core would presumably have such a wide circa 2g field that it's hard to imagine that It wouldn't be obvious to detect it on the surface on both sides of the globe. The SAA is clearly just on one side of the planet without a corresponding area on the opposite face of the globe.

It still seems logical to assume that large exotic comets have congregated nearer the centre of the earth and are perhaps evenly distributed so that their circa 2g effect is spread fairly evenly around the globes equator. An explanation for the increased gravity on the earth's equator compared to it's poles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still seems logical to assume that large exotic comets have congregated nearer the centre of the earth and are perhaps evenly distributed so that their circa 2g effect is spread fairly evenly around the globes equator. An explanation for the increased gravity on the earth's equator compared to it's poles.

I know you don't want to hear anything that conflicts with your internal narrative, but the Earth has stronger gravity at the poles than at the equator. (And the reason is well known; the differences are due to the competing but not quite equal effects of the Earth's equatorial bulge and centrifugal force, the latter being the stronger effect.)

Not only that but if the effect of these ``exotic comets'' was ``evenly distributed'' around the equator then why didn't the GRACE probe show anything special on the equator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you don't want to hear anything that conflicts with your internal narrative, but the Earth has stronger gravity at the poles than at the equator. (And the reason is well known; the differences are due to the competing but not quite equal effects of the Earth's equatorial bulge and centrifugal force, the latter being the stronger effect.)

Not only that but if the effect of these ``exotic comets'' was ``evenly distributed'' around the equator then why didn't the GRACE probe show anything special on the equator?

(i) Oops, thanks, I got that the wrong way round. Remember Sep, it's only speculation even from the mainstream point of view, or can you show me some calculations which show that "the reason is well known; the differences are due to the competing but not quite equal effects of the Earth's equatorial bulge and centrifugal force, the latter being the stronger effect". Ans=no.

(ii) The Moon's Gravity Anomalies now need further scrutiny.

The major characteristic of the Moon's gravitational field is the presence of mascons, which are large positive gravity anomalies associated with some of the giant impact basins. These anomalies greatly influence the orbit of spacecraft about the Moon, and an accurate gravitational model is necessary in the planning of both manned and unmanned missions. They were initially discovered by the analysis of Lunar Orbiter tracking data,[2] since navigation tests prior to the Apollo program experienced positioning errors much larger than mission specifications.

The origin of mascons are in part due to the presence of dense mare basaltic lava flows that fill some of the impact basins. However, lava flows by themselves cannot explain the entirety of the gravitational variations, and uplift of the crust-mantle interface is required as well. Based on Lunar Prospector gravitational models, it has been suggested that some mascons exist that do not show evidence for mare basaltic volcanism.[3] The huge expanse of mare basaltic volcanism associated with Oceanus Procellarum does not possess a positive gravity anomaly.

(iii) The mysterious crustal magnetic field of the moon can similarly be explained by exotic comet impacts imo.

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(i) Oops, thanks, I got that the wrong way round. Remember Sep, it's only speculation even from the mainstream point of view, or can you show me some calculations which show that "the reason is well known; the differences are due to the competing but not quite equal effects of the Earth's equatorial bulge and centrifugal force, the latter being the stronger effect". Ans=no.

See, I gave you sufficient information - information that, coupled with a knowledge of Newtonian physics - any knowledgeable reader should be able to understand where I was drawing my conclusions from. (I also gave links which go into greater detail.)

I respect that you may not believe Newtonian mechanics is a valid theory (or you may believe it is; I have trouble following your position on exactly what part of mainstream physics you disagree with at any given time) but you should at least understand what the claims of Newtonian mechanics are.

Anyway, to give specifics:

From the wiki the radius of the Earth at the poles is 6.3568 x 106 m, the radius of the earth at the equator is 6.3781 x 106 m, and the mass of the Earth is 5.9736 x 1024 kg. Even if you don't agree with the current theories of physics, you should still respect empirical measurements.

Making the simplifying assumption that most of the mass of the Earth is below the crust (i.e. the mass of the crust is negligible), and also assuming that only the crust bulges (i.e. the distortion of the core from a sphere is negligible) than the gravity of the Earth at the pole should be (using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation with the entire mass of the Earth approximated as a sphere below the crust, as mentioned), the gravitational acceleration at the pole is 9.866 m/s2, and the gravitational acceleration at the equator is 9.800 m/s2.

The Earth is also spinning, however; obviously making 1 rotation per day, so at the equator this is a rotational speed of 4.638 x 102 m/s. Using the rules of Newtonian mechanics for circular motion there must be a centripetal acceleration of 3.373 x 10-2 m/s2.

The total effective gravitational acceleration at the equator (based on the assumptions described above, obviously) is (9.800 - 0.034) m/s2 = 9.766 m/s2 which is a difference of (9.866 - 9.766)/ 9.766 = 1%.

(If you think about it, this is an upper limit for the difference; since the mass of the Earth is not entirely contained below the crust, and since the region below the crust is not completely spherical. This is why actual measurements suggest a difference of 0.3 - 0.5%.)

Now, if you are suggesting that there is extra gravity at the equator of the earth due to ``exotic comets'', how does this translate to having higher effective gravity at the poles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my explanation for the moon creation and the extra gravity at the poles. (see attached)

post-94765-0-14626100-1351509418_thumb.j

post-94765-0-99318600-1351509692_thumb.j

post-94765-0-05299700-1351509786_thumb.j

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you are saying that gravity is stronger along the rotational axis of a body than along the rotation plane of a body, does that mean you abandoned your previous theory that of exotic in-plane gravity (see here, for example) that you claimed explained the sequence of the ice ages, galactic rotation curves, and the previously mentioned spacecraft flyby anomalies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  1. 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?
  2. What exactly do you mean by ``2g exotic comet''? (2g surface gravity? At the comet's surface? At the Earth's surface?)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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....

  1. This is not an explanation. This is just a statement saying ``there is something there that makes this happen''.
  2. 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.
  3. Why hasn't the study of shear waves you cited above revealed the structure you speak of?
  4. Again, why hasn't GRACE revealed these structures either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So....

  1. 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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?

(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:

  1. 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)?
  2. If there is substantial polarity to the Earth's gravitational field, why do polar orbit satellites not constantly veer off course?
  3. Why has no ground-based survey of Earth's gravity field (and, of course, GRACE and also GOCE) revealed any substantial and inexplicable anomalies?
  4. 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

[media=]

[/media] Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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?)

(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 40o and 120o eastlongitude) than between the planar and axial directions.

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?

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 0.27o to 0.53o 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 40o and 120o 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.

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.