Newton’s Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality by Alan Lowey

My apologies for the hiccup in the essay sentence: "The Antarctic landmass and Greenland allow for this settling of snow and ice which brings global cooling which then leads to Arctic sea ice to forming more readily". I should have asked my mother who did the PDF conversion for me to proof-read it too!

Note that the North American landmass is also important of course for the northern hemisphere due it being so large with prevailing rains compared to the southern hemisphere's circular sea island continent of Antarctica. Would the moisture laden clouds reach the southern landmass as easily as Greenland? I doubt it, hence another contributing factor to the 400,000 year cycle, the underlying 200,000 year 3D orbital cycle of up and down which either enters the earth's southern or northern hemisphere first into the Sun's exotic plane of influence.

I just had a thought! The distribution of the earth's crust embedded exotic comets would also be critical to extra surface tides due to the either northern or southern hemisphere entry into the sun's exotic plane of influence. The Indian sub-continental plate is a prime candidate for a low angle exotic comet impact. The formerly unexplained high speed of 'drift' into the Asian plate creating the Himalayas now has an answer.

Is the moon *really* moving away from the earth or is the earth simply moving more towards Jupiter for instance? The Hidden Exotic Matter (HEM) hypothesis opens up a mulitude of new possibilities to explore.

The Higgs discovery only confirms the particle theory of physics and *doesn't* detract from the alternative view of planetary motion given in the essay.

The Hidden Exotic Matter Hypothesis gives an alternative solution to the Moon's recession and moving away at around 3.7cm per year. The Moon is likely to have been created with a slow spin rate and quickly stopped altogether. The build-up of exotic comets on the far side, unshielded by the Earth, would give it an asymmetry which becomes apparent when in high inclination, either above or below the Earth's equatorial plane. It can be modelled as if a large exotic matter object is still descending to the HEM lunar core, on the far side, half-hidden from the Earth. In reality, many small exotic comets would be descending. I've estimated the gravitational influence of exotic matter to exotic matter attraction to be approximately 15,000 times Earth's surface gravity. This is the identical underlying process to the precession of the planets and also the cause of the 1,470 year millennial cycle of our weather imo. The present woes of the UK's jet stream positioning can perhaps be attributed to it.

The Newtonian calculated inclination cycle of the Moon is 1800 years but it is assumed that with the HEM hypothesis at high inclination the Earth and Moon experience an additional accelerating force of attraction which increases the speed of the Moon's orbit and so gives the climate data figure of 1470 years. The Moon precesses despite it's apparent lack of spin with the HEM hypothesis.

The effect of the Millennial cycle is enhanced due to the Moon's highly asymmetric exotic matter build-up on the far side due it's non-spinning formation.

To summarise the theorised shape of exotic matter within the Earth, Moon and Sun:

The Earth's hidden exotic core has a counter-intuitive rugby ball shape which is standing on end so that the Moon sees a larger x-section when traversing the equatorial plane and coincides with baryonic high tide raising forces on the millennial scale. The Sun is the opposite in having a larger x-sectional area seen at high inclinations, so that the Earth experiences extra exotic tide raising forces during the glacial period which gives global cooling due to the runaway albedo effect.

Perhaps the Earth's exotic matter core is this shape due to a very high spin rate caused by the exotic comet impact creation of the Moon for example?

Hi Georgina,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and giving such encouraging comments. The shortness of the essay is just my style unfortunately. I'd like to expand on the ideas within this discussion forum if anyone is keen enough. Btw, it's still the Archimedes screw idea with exotic matter! It's simply matter which is anisotropic as opposed to Newton's isotropic matter. A bit like a two hidden core supermagnets which attract with around 15000 times the force of baryonic matter at planetary scales. It's a directional force as opposed to a force with eminates in all directions equally which therefore contradicts the notion of a space-time 'fabric'. The basics are childs play. The rewards from pursuing this line of enquiry are staggering. I never thought it would solve so much as it seems to be doing. I'm adamant that the ice age conundrum is much better served by this hypothesis. The subject in itself has a long history and can seem complicated to the uninitiated. How many cutting edge physicists know about the 5 problems with the current sunlight-only model? Not many I suspect. How many would be willing to suspect that a fundamental problem with the very first assumptions in the foundations of physics is the key to a new solution? Just one?? Only me?? I'm sure the penny will drop with someone else one day soon. I just hope it's before the CERN team throw their hands up in the air about the nature of Dark Matter though. That'd be another couple of years to wait!

Oops!! I've made a mistake when calculating the figure of 15,000 times baryonic matter interaction. I'd assumed that the Earth's 360 mile innermost core was composed of exotic matter(!). This guesstimate fits with the estimated number and size of incident exotic comets but certainly isn't strong enough for additional planetary tidal forcing. If the central very innnermost core of exotic material is assumed to be just 1 km in diameter, keeping to a sphere shape for simplicity for now, then the estimated figure is now 1.4 million times that of normal matter. This figure appears more appropriate especially when considering the amount of physical space available when quantum modelling of particle structures. But now the question is: "Where has all the exotic comet material gone to over the Earth's lifetime??". I assume that it must have annihilated and generated the internal heat of the planet! The same thing must be happening inside the sun. The model of superhot nuclear fusion is *wrong*. It's slow cold fusion. The central very innermost cores of the Earth and Sun are likely to have been original matter from the implosion event of the initial fractal-like structures of creation. They aren't from an amalgamation starting from scratch. Maybe there is a rate of build-up of exotic comet influx against a rate of annihilation.

This hypothesis is still in the creation phase. The pieces are still being fitted together with remarkable consistency. Please bare with me.

Thank you Vladimir for appreciating some of the ideas that I'm presenting for the first time. The essay could have done with some expansion, agreed, but I wanted to keep to the absolute nub of the argument of which I'm trying to convey. In addition, my methodology was destined to conclude with a zen-like picture of how everything works, so it's still in an abstract phase. I assume you must be in the east states because here in the UK where the jet stream has dropped bringing wet chilly weather, we're *preying* for a heatwave. It's more likely to be the millennial cycle rather than the ice age incidentally.

You say "It is as if matter is both transparent to gravity and not transparent to it!", and yes, I totally agree that this needs some clarification. I did look at your website and the diagrams looked very familiar. I haven't fully absorbed your BU theory but agree that it's the kind of modelling that is needed. How do you feel about the concept of saturated maximum energy density matter who's gravitational attraction is dependent on it's x-sectional area, rather than the amount of material?? This assumes that the surface can't emit any more force carrying particles and is at it's maximum limit, so therefore it doesn't matter how much material is behind it at that moment relative to another body of maximum energy density material. This is at the crux of my idea for additional exotic matter tidal forcing.

I even had the idea that the Artic basin is the impact site of the proto-moon collision and that the event tipped the Earth by 90 degrees and kept in place by the orbit of the newly formed satellite.

The Spring Tides can now be also be thought of as additional exotic matter tides due to the moon lying along the equatorial plane. The moon and the sun are aligned every two weeks which result in spring tides; tides that are 20% higher than normal. The exotic matter hypothesis now adds another dimension. It's the same idea as gravity 'kicks' explained by Prof Cox as the mechanism needed to understand the Saturn's rings and the sheperding effects of it's moons. He failed to explain how this could be managed without violating Newtonian laws incidentally(!).

! I had another thought too w.r.t the 'missing' exotic comet build-up in the Earth's core which I talked about earlier. If the moon's calculated 1800 year orbit is now reduced to 1470 years, which fits with the field data, doesn't it mean that the Earth's 100,000 year glacial cycle is similarly over estimated?? The planet should speed up during the non-interglacial period which we appear to be still in and so would drastically reduce the figure to something more like 50,000 years wouldn't it?? Possible? More thought needed on this one..

My latest thoughts:

They're *all* amalgamations of 'isotropic saturated matter'. The galactic centre, the stars and the planet exotic matter cores. It's isotropic, but not as we know it. It radiates attractive force carrying particles equally in all directions from it's surface, but is dependent on size of surface areas to determine force of interaction between two exotic matter bodies. Note that the underlying Archmides screw analogy still applies, so matter is really anisotropic, which is seen at the quantum level.

The moon was created from the collision of another early planet with the earth. This left the incoming planet as a moon after the impact event, which tilted both bodies by 90 degrees so that each kept the other in this on-end configuration. The earth's and the moon's exotic matter cores shaped like central bulging disks were tipped onto their ends. The orbit of the two then changed the shape of the conglomerate cores and moulded them into rugby ball shapes. When the moon is on the earth's equator the surface area 'seen' by both is at a maximum and so gives the extra 20% tidal kick. I've done a quick sketch for illustration purposes. See attached.

The rate of exotic matter comet impacts is likely to be much higher in the past due to remnants from the 'big bang' implosion event. When all this debris is consumed by stars then only supernovae remnants are a source of incoming exotic comets.

The Late Heavy Bombardment is a clue to this new way of thinking imo.Attachment #1: Exotic_Cores.jpg

This model predicts that after the creation of the moon, tidal strength would have gradually increased due to the morphing of the conglomerate exotic cores into rugby ball shapes. Please see diagram attached.Attachment #1: Exotic_Core_Morphing.jpg

The moon's creation via the current Giant impact hypothesis has many problems.

[quote]The giant impact hypothesis is the currently-favoured scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[3] Supporting evidence includes: the identical direction of the Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit,[4] Moon samples which indicate the surface of the Moon was once molten, the Moon's relatively small iron core, lower density compared to the Earth, evidence of similar collisions in other star systems (which result in debris disks), and that giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.

There remain several questions concerning the best current models of the giant impact hypothesis, however. The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to heat Earth to produce a global 'ocean' of magma; yet there is no evidence of the resultant planetary differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle. At present, there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon. Other remaining questions include: when did the Moon lose its share of volatile elements; and why Venus, which also experienced giant impacts during its formation, does not host a similar moon.[end quote]

The exotioc very innermost core hypothesis seems to help in an explanation imo. The core of the moon would be lost to the bigger exotic core of the earth, taking most of the iron with it. The impact collision would have to be modelled totally differently and therefore likely to produce an event at a lower temperature, hence solving the 'magma ocean' conundrum.Attachment #1: Giantimpact.gif

The compositional problems suggest to me that there was no second proto-planet Theia, only an exotic comet impact which stayed with the core of earth but whose energy ejected surface matter into orbit.

[quote]There are a number of compositional inconsistencies that need to be addressed.

The ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the giant impact hypothesis. If the giant impact hypothesis is correct, they must be due to some other cause.[16]

The presence of volatiles such as water trapped in lunar basalts is more difficult to explain if the Moon was caused by an impact which would entail a catastrophic heating event.[17]

The iron oxide (FeO) content (13%) of the Moon, which is intermediate between Mars (18%) and the terrestrial mantle (8%), rules out most of the source of the proto-lunar material from the Earth's mantle.[18]

If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when, in fact, it is deficient in those.[19]

The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to those of Earth.[2] Oxygen isotopic ratios, which may be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each solar system body.[20] If Theia had been a separate proto-planet, it probably would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.[21]

The Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears so close to the Earth's (within 4 ppm), that little if any of the colliding body's mass could likely have been part of the Moon.[22][end quote]

The last titanium isotope analysis is greatly in favour of the exotic comet hypothesis instead of Theia imo.