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

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.

I've made a new connection: The 45 degree angle of impact to create the moon deduced from simulation modelling and the 45 degree anomaly of the 360 mile diameter innnermost core! Seismic evidence for distinct anisotropy in the innermost inner core and Giant impact hypothesis

[quote]Astronomers think the collision between Earth and Theia happened at approximately 4.53 Gya; about 30-50 million years after the Solar System began to form. In astronomical terms, the impact would have been of moderate velocity. Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle when the latter was nearly fully formed. Computer simulations of this "late-impact" scenario suggest an impact angle of about 45° and an initial impactor velocity below 4 km/s.[10] Theia's iron core would have sunk into the young Earth's core, and most of Theia's mantle accreted onto the Earth's mantle, however, a significant portion of the mantle material from both Theia and the Earth would have been ejected into orbit around the Earth. This material quickly coalesced into the Moon (possibly within less than a month, but in no more than a century). Estimates based on computer simulations of such an event suggest that some twenty percent of the original mass of Theia would have ended up as an orbiting ring of debris, and about half of this matter coalesced into the Moon.

The Earth would have gained significant amounts of angular momentum and mass from such a collision. Regardless of the speed and tilt of the Earth's rotation before the impact, it would have experienced a day some five hours long after the impact, and the Earth's equator and the Moon's orbit would have become coplanar in the aftermath of the giant impact.[end quote]

I suspect that the exotic comet impactor is still buried in the innermost core at a 45 degree angle and is non-symmetrical.Attachment #1: MoonImpactor.jpg

Is the 1,470 year millennial cycle the period between the 90 degree axes of the exotic comet core? See attached.Attachment #1: MoonImpactorAngle.jpg

Here's another clue that the millennial cycle is connected to the reversals of the core Growth of Earth's core may hint at magnetic reversal

CERN may have found exotic Higgs 'impostor' particle

My model predicts double peaks in the millennial cycleAttachment #1: Gripngrip.png

I found a reference to this double peak in real climate data, Millennial-scale storminess variability in the northeastern United States during the Holocene epoch

[quote]The pacing of storminess maxima derived from the various North Atlantic palaeoclimate records suggest a quasi-periodic cycle of 3,000 yr. Spectral analysis of our New England storminess time series reveals significant spectral power in a broad, double peak centred at a period of 3,070 yr. A similar double peak exists in the power spectrum of the GISP2 time series of aerosol deposition. Monte Carlo simulations show that the likelihood of obtaining comparable results from a composite of arbitrary lake sediment records (produced by randomly rearranging the events identified in each individual time series) is less than 1%.[end quote]

Here's another important recent paper on the subject (19 Mar 2012) Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle

[quote]...The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun. Other qualitative discussions are added about the plausibility of a planetary influence on solar activity. [end quote]

The quasi-decadal ocean climate cycle can now be directly linked with the solar sunspot cycle of 11 years. Exotic matter interaction across the solar system creates a solar core wobble of tilt which affects the surface area 'seen' by the earth-moon system. The inclination cycles of the planets and their irregular exotic cores creates the subtle changes in tidal ocean strengths on this low end of the scale. All is now in place for a complete understanding and prediction of the earth's weather and climate. The climate model should start with the correct simulation modelling of the creation of the moon imo. The rest is future history.Attachment #1: SunspotCycle.jpg

My latest thoughts:

Distance is *not* an issue with exotic matter on planetary scales. The plane of rotation band of influence diminishes with distance on the solar scale. This has the ability to solve the spiral galaxy curve conundrum imo. It's why galaxies are in all directions and higgledy-piggledy. Exotic gravity doesn't easily exist between galaxies.

Our planets are bound by exotic gravity. The sun contributes a planar exotic gravity band and overall the Milky Way diminishes outwards towards plane of rotation. This sets a natural maximum size for single galaxy formation. Much larger ones are coalitions. The model assumes that gravity particles which travel around a 4D universal hypersphere during the structural/energy build phase create Dark Energy, an apparent repulsive effect between galaxies. Clusters are created by irregularities in the universal sphere. This model assumes a geometrically perfect build and collapse just before the 'big bang'. (See my previous essay for clarification)

Hi Jim,

Yes, I like the sentence "Even orthodox views on gravity are not understood". Too true. Thank you for the in depth appreciation of the gravity problem we currently have. I'm adamant that the exotic matter element is missing from the mental pictures and calculations. This very first mis-assumption has confused everything imo.

Yes, I've finished my research as far I can go on my own now. These two essays are my legacy. Someone will take up the mantle someday soon, I'm sure.

All the best,

Alan

Sun surrounded by dark matter, claim scientists

[quote]LONDON: Scientists have claimed that the Sun is surrounded by dark matter, a phenomenon first proposed in the 1930s by a Swiss astronomer. Researchers from the University of Zurich have developed a new theory - and built a simulation of the Milky Way to test their mass-measuring method before applying it to real data, the 'Daily Mail' reported. "We are 99 per cent confident that there is dark matter near the Sun," lead author Silvia Garbari was quoted as saying by the paper.[end quote]

How long before they realise it *must be* at it's centre I wonder?