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

[quote]A paper published today in the International Journal of Climatology finds the 18.6 year lunar-tide cycle influences rainfall and climate over adjacent land areas. According to the authors, in years of strong tides, tide-induced ocean mixing decreases sea surface temperatures and lowers air pressures, which in turn affects rainfall variability over the plains east of the subtropical Andes, South America. The opposite pattern is observed in years of weak tides. The paper adds to other peer-reviewed publications finding a lunar influence on ocean and atmospheric oscillations, which in turn have large scale effects upon climate. The IPCC ignores lunar, solar, and other planetary harmonics, which alone can explain climate change of the past century.[end quote]

New paper finds lunar-tidal cycles influence climate (17 Jul 2013)

The Enormous alien planet discovered in most distant orbit ever seen gives more credence to the extra gravity on the plane of Jupiter to explain the ice age hypothesis imv.

[quote]But, there are still problems with this scenario. For one, difference between the masses of two stars in a binary system is typically no more than a ratio of 10 to 1.

"In our case, the mass ratio is more than 100-to-1," Bailey said. "This extreme mass ratio is not predicted from binary star formation theories -- just like planet formation theory predicts that we cannot form planets so far from the host star."

Researchers are also keen to study the new planet, because leftover material from when the planet and star formed can still be detected.

"Systems like this one, where we have additional information about the environment in which the planet resides, have the potential to help us disentangle the various formation models," Bailey said. "Future observations of the planet's orbital motion and the primary star's debris disk may help answer that question."

The planet HD 106906 b is only 13 million years old, and is still glowing from the residual heat from its formation," the researchers said. By comparison, Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, which makes it roughly 350 times older than the newfound exoplanet [end quote]

Jupiter's icy moon Europa 'spouts water'

[quote]"It is travelling at 700m a second... All of this gas comes out, and almost all falls back towards the surface - it doesn't escape out into space."

These plumes appear to be transient - they arise for just seven hours at a time.

They peak when Europa is at its farthest from Jupiter (the apocentre of its orbit) and vanish when it comes closest (the pericentre).

This means that tidal acceleration could be driving water spouting - by opening cracks in the surface ice, the researchers propose.[end quote]

It's slightly counter-intuitive for the plume activity to exist at it's furthest point from Jupiter. I wonder whether this takes it closer to the proposed extra gravity of Jupiter's equatorial zone.

Europa only has a small orbital inclination which makes me think that it might be Io's influence instead.

Now that I've looked at the Wikipedia entry on the moon's of Jupiter I can see that there *is* a hint at the importance of inclination:

[quote]The orbits of Jupiter's irregular satellites, and how they cluster into groups: by semi-major axis (the horizontal axis in Gm); by orbital inclination (the vertical axis); and orbital eccentricity (the yellow lines). The relative sizes are indicated by the circles.[end quote]

I've found a missing piece of the puzzle: What do you get when you melt a neutron star? An unimaginably dense lump of strange matter and a whole new celestial beast.

Quark stars: How can a supernova explode twice?

[quote]The implications would be enormous. These stars would take pride of place alongside the other heavenly heavyweights: neutron stars and black holes. They could help solve some puzzling mysteries related to gamma-ray bursts and the formation of the heftiest elements in the universe. Back on Earth, quark stars would help us better understand the fundamental building blocks of matter in ways that even machines like the Large Hadron Collider cannot.

Astrophysicists can thank string theorist Edward Witten for quark stars. In 1984, he hypothesised that protons and neutrons may not be the most stable forms of matter.

Both are made of two types of smaller entities, known as quarks: protons are comprised of two "up" quarks and one "down" quark, whereas neutrons are made of two downs and one up. Up and down are the lightest of six distinct "flavours" of quark. Add the third lightest to the mix and you get something called strange quark matter. Witten argued that this kind of matter may have lower net energy and hence be more stable than nuclear matter made of protons and neutrons.

Quark nova.[end quote]

Wow. There's even evidence that strange quark matter has passed right through the Earth at high speed:

Did quark matter strike Earth?

I'm supposing that it's possible for a strange quark matter object to be traveling at low speed before impact with the Earth and therefore remain within it.

[quote]Edward Farhi, an MIT physicist who researched strangelets, thinks the most likely place to find strange matter is in neutron stars. These collapsing stars compress their interiors forcefully. "At the core, you have densities and pressures large enough to form strange matter. If strange matter formed in the core, it would eat its way out and consume the star," says Farhi. Underneath its crust, the star would become a lump of strange matter, or a strange star. If two strange stars collided, they could send strange matter careening toward Earth, says Farhi.

足How could strange matter be dangerous? Under special circumstances, it "eats" other matter. In order for this to happen, the strange matter has to be more stable than the matter it meets and not repel it. If those conditions are met, the other matter will "want" to convert to strange matter, and contact between the two will get things going. The result would be an ever-growing ball of strange matter, burning through matter like a fireball.

For such a disaster scenario to occur on Earth, strange matter would have to remain for more than a fraction of a second at earthly pressures, and we don't know if it can do that. It would also have to be negatively charged.

In fact, potential strange matter would probably be positively charged, says Farhi. And since the matter on our planet (including us) has positively charged atomic nuclei, it would repel strange matter. "If you had a little lump on the table, it would just sit there," says Farhi.[/quote]

Should I be afraid of strange matter?

An anisotropic 'graviton' model of quark gravity emission is all that is missing imv.

Page 22 of this paper shows a diagram which drew my attention because it's exactly the image I have of exotic matter existing at the center of the Earth. It has the magnetized ordering and the rugby ball shape on end from the equatorial perspective as well as the 45 degree polar configuration matching the inner innermost core of the Earth measured anisotropy.

Bulk viscosities of magnetized quark matter

and neutron star phenomenology

........

Wo! I've just seen page 23 for the first time:

"Strong magnetic field makes strange quark matter anisotropic"

Jackpot!

............

I propose 'cosmic rays' also emanate from the center of the Earth from strange quark matter to trigger equatorial TGF's over the oceans.

They're getting closer..

Earth may be heavier than thought due to invisible belt of dark matter

Anisotropic strange quark matter at the center of the planets lends itself to explain Mercury's precession. The angle of inclination relative to the invariable plane, which is almost the same as the plane of Jupiter, is significantly higher for the inner most planet compared to all the others:

Orbital inclination

[quote]Spin-orbit resonance

For many years it was thought that Mercury was synchronously tidally locked with the Sun, rotating once for each orbit and always keeping the same face directed towards the Sun, in the same way that the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. Radar observations in 1965 proved that the planet has a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, rotating three times for every two revolutions around the Sun; the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit makes this resonance stable--at perihelion, when the solar tide is strongest, the Sun is nearly still in Mercury's sky.[77]

The original reason astronomers thought it was synchronously locked was that, whenever Mercury was best placed for observation, it was always nearly at the same point in its 3:2 resonance, hence showing the same face. This is because, coincidentally, Mercury's rotation period is almost exactly half of its synodic period with respect to Earth. Due to Mercury's 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, a solar day (the length between two meridian transits of the Sun) lasts about 176 Earth days.[14] A sidereal day (the period of rotation) lasts about 58.7 Earth days.[14]

Simulations indicate that the orbital eccentricity of Mercury varies chaotically from nearly zero (circular) to more than 0.45 over millions of years due to perturbations from the other planets.[14][78] This is thought to explain Mercury's 3:2 spin-orbit resonance (rather than the more usual 1:1), because this state is more likely to arise during a period of high eccentricity.[79] Numerical simulations show that a future secular orbital resonant perihelion interaction with Jupiter may cause the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to increase to the point where there is a 1% chance that the planet may collide with Venus within the next five billion years.[end quote]

"Did Einstein work back from Mercury's anomalous precession?" I asked myself and then found this:

Conquering the Perihelion

[quote]On 18 November, 1915, shortly before arriving at the final field equations of general relativity, Einstein published a derivation of Mercury's orbital precession based on the vacuum field equations, which turned out to carry over unchanged in the final theory. As early as 1907 he had written to Conrad Habicht that he was working in a theory of gravitation that he hoped would account for the anomalous precession of Mercury. Now, eight years later, he was finally was able to derive this result. He told a friend that he was beside himself with excitement for several days after establishing this agreement between theory and observation. The derivation he published in 1915 is mathematically interesting, not just for how he inferred the equation of motion from the vacuum field equations (without the benefit of the Schwarzschild metric), but also for his method of inferring the amount of precession from this equation.

Hilbert may not have been aware of it, but Einstein had an advantage in "conquering" the perihelion calculation so rapidly, because he had performed the same calculation previously (together with his friend Michele Besso) based on earlier versions of his theory. From the theoretical standpoint the important part of this work was obviously deriving the equation of motion, but from a purely mathematical standpoint, in order to quantitatively compare the results with observation, the determination of the implied perihelion precession rate was also important. This step introduced no novel concepts, but it was not an entirely trivial exercise. The "quadrature" approach taken by Einstein is not followed by most modern texts (an exception being Weinberg, 1972), so it's interesting to review the paper of 18 November 1915 paper to see exactly how he did it. His explanation is rather terse (and there are a couple of typos in the published paper), so it takes a bit of effort to reconstruct his reasoning.

First we should reiterate that Einstein did not arrive at the final form of the field equations (with the "trace" term) until November 25th, but the perihelion motion depends only on the vacuum solution, which is unaffected by the trace term, so its absence didn't invalidate the November 18 results on Mercury's precession.

Similarly, in a review of gravitation theories, Walter Ritz wrote in 1909

Astronomical observations carried out over many centuries have revealed some deviations between observation and calculation, which cannot be explained by Newton's law up to now, and which a new theory will have to explain. Of these anomalies by far the largest is of the planet Mercury, whose ellipse precesses slowly, under the effect of the remaining planets; but the observed precession is larger by approximately 42 arc-seconds per century than the computed. The difference is small, but nevertheless unquestionable and unexplained.

Again this clearly indicates not only that the precession of Mercury's orbit was considered anomalous, but that it was widely suspected that its resolution would come from a new theory of gravity. Of course, Einstein was very familiar with Ritz's work, having engaged him in a public debate in 1909 on the subject of the advanced solutions of Maxwell's equations.

Considering that Einstein began his search for a new gravitational theory in 1907 with the expressed purpose (as stated in his letter to Habicht) of explaining the anomalous precession of Mercury, and that he kept this objective in view throughout the intermediate development (including the Entwurf of 1913), and considering that Einstein listed the failure of the Entwurf theory to give the correct perihelion of Mercury as one of the three reasons that led him to lose faith in that theory, which then led him to the fully covariant theory of general relativity, it seems hard to justify the claim that general relativity was developed without any attention to this problem. This claim is somewhat similar to Einstein's assertions that special relativity was developed without any attention to the Michelson and Morley experiment - despite the fact that at other times (notably his 1922 talk in Japan on how he developed the theory of relativity) he acknowledged that this experiment had been an important factor in his thinking. Of course, in both cases it's perfectly correct to say that the theories follow logically and almost without ambiguity from very broad and fundamental principles, so they were certainly not ad hoc explanations of the respective experimental facts. Nevertheless it is historically inaccurate to claim that general relativity was developed "without any attention" to Mercury's anomalous precession.[end quote]

The key to solving the 100ky ice age problem as well as the anomalous precession of Mercury is the invariable plane:

[quote]The invariable plane of a planetary system, also called Laplace's invariable plane, is the plane passing through its barycenter (center of mass) perpendicular to its angular momentum vector. In the Solar System, about 98% of this effect is contributed by the orbital angular momenta of the four jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). The invariable plane is within 0.5° of the orbital plane of Jupiter, and may be regarded as the weighted average of all planetary orbital and rotational planes.

...

All planetary orbital planes wobble around the invariable plane, meaning that they rotate around its axis while their inclinations to it vary, both of which are caused by the gravitational perturbation of the other planets. That of *Earth rotates with a quasi-period of 100,000 years* and an inclination that varies from 0.1° to 3°.[end quote]

In order to explain the 100ky ice age conundrum I have assumed an increase in equatorial tidal strength due to the crossing of Jupiter's orbital plane or the invariable plane in general. Mercury's larger than expected precession is due it's high orbital speed as well as it's high inclination, which makes it cross Jupiter's orbital plane or the invariable plane in general, much more often than the other planets. Therefore the additional force is applied more often compared to the other planets, which gives a larger than expected perturbation.

Page 22 of Bulk viscosities of magnetized quark matter and neutron star phenomenology shows the 'rugby ball on end' shape within the strange quark matter sphere seen from an equatorial perspective. This is the image shape at the center of the Earth I had thought of initially to explain the tidal ice age hypothesis. A greater surface area is seen from the equatorial plane which gives greater SQM to SQM gravity induced tidal bulging within the core. Greater tides exist when the Earth is in equatorial alignment with Jupiter (and other planets) in it's 100ky inclination cycle with the plane of angular momentum of the solar system. Strong magnetic fields makes SQM anisotropic.

This latest finding corroborates the hypothesis of planetary high orbital speed giving a large precession but also hints at something else:

Kepler Finds a Very Wobbly Planet

[quote]The planet, designated Kepler-413b, precesses, or wobbles, wildly on its spin axis, much like a child's top. The tilt of the planet's spin axis can vary by as much as 30 degrees over 11 years, leading to rapid and erratic changes in seasons. In contrast, Earth's rotational precession is 23.5 degrees over 26,000 years. Researchers are amazed that this far-off planet is precessing on a human timescale.

Kepler 413-b is located 2,300 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus. It circles a close pair of orange and red dwarf stars every 66 days. The planet's orbit around the binary stars appears to wobble, too, because the plane of its orbit is tilted 2.5 degrees with respect to the plane of the star pair's orbit. As seen from Earth, the wobbling orbit moves up and down continuously.[end quote]

**It suggests to me that the binary star system is the key and that SQM is located in the center of the stars as well.**