Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey

The simple doodles I've given above don't account for the wider field lines observed emanating from the centre of the magnet. It implies the field strength is stronger at the centre of a bar magnet. I've deduced two simple reasons for this phenomena. See attached. One correlates with a diagram I glimpsed by Winterberg just recently which is a good sign of progress.

I've combined the conclusions from the Inclination Hypothesis i.e. that the gravity field is stronger on the plane of rotation of a body with the Archimedes screw model of the graviton/anti-graviton. It begs the question of whether a graviton is in a loop which gives the anti-graviton effect i.e. like the wraparound universe giving dark energy from attractive gravitons or are different chirality gravitons actually emitted in the first place.Attachment #1: Faster_Spin_Possiblity.jpgAttachment #2: Axis_Change_Possiblity.jpg

Here's the Winterberg page that seems very relevant The Clouds of Physics. The diagram I remebered is also atatched.Attachment #1: Vortex_lattice.gif

Summary of author's foundational new ideas in physics:

Within essay:

The formation of structure before the 'big bang'.

(ii) The Archimedes screw model for a particle graviton.

(iii) Gravitons travelling around a wraparound universe can mimic a particle force of repulsion and act as an explanation for dark energy.

During discussion period with other authors:

(i) Anti-gravitons can model a particle force of repulsion.

(ii) Descartes was using the same helical screw ideas to solve magnetism.

(iii) My previously devised Inclination Hypothesis can explain the galaxy rotation curve anomaly currently attributed to galactic halo of dark matter.

(iv) My previous devised Inclination Hypothesis has the potential to explain the recession of the moon away from the Earth.

Before essay which wasn't included:

(i) The Inclination Hypothesis which combines the ice age problems and a new gravity model to explain anomalies with each current model.

(ii) The unearthing of research finds which show how Amazonian monkeys fully particpated in the megafauna of the last ice age.

(iii) The hypothesis that the sun is stronger during the ice age (due to reduced cloud cover?) and therefore the vegetation more abundant to explain worldwide ice age megafauna. The drop in temperature being due to a severe drop in global ocean tidal strengths leading to glaciation feedback scenario.

(iv) The analysis of structure before the 'big bang' is likely to result in a gravitational compression of the opposing structures against the force of creation. This means that it isn't necessary for the structures to travel around the universe as proposed in the essay, just the early graviton emissions. This model doesn't require such a near perfect spherical hypersphere and therefore seems intuitively more likely.

I wish to thank FXQi for the opportunity to express my work to a wider and more professional scientific audience. I'm also indebted to a number of author's for taking the time to engage with my enquiries and for their much valued feedback and inspiration.

David Tong has kindly responded to an email enquiry I made earlier:

Hi again David,

You made some good points earlier which I failed to respond to, namely:

>> But let's suppose that there's some way to make this work. Then there's

>> the question of whether it really looks like dark energy: is it the right

>> size? How does the force change as the Universe expands. From your

>> description, my guess would be that the force gets weaker as the Universe

>> expands. But that's not right....it should stay the same. (Of course,

>> to really figure this out we would have to do the maths, but that brings

>> me back to the first point of trying to reconcile this with our current

>> theories).

The graviton model wouldn't require an expansion of space itself to act as the mechanism behind Hubble's redshift phenomenon. Interestingly, this model requires a stable bubble of fixed size with wraparound properties. The imagery of a photon in this new model is a structural configuration of both gravitons and anti-gravitons. The graviton model explanation for the redshift of distant light is not due to stretching, but due to the uniform natural decay of the graviton itself over time, giving a natural lengthening of the photon 'wave packet'.

Kind regards,

AlanAttachment #1: Hypersphere.jpg

Here's an important post I made in the Blog discussion section:

Ray and Frank,

Thanks for the clarifications, I made two mistakes in one it seems. I have Walt Disney to thank for the 'imagineering' word then, thanks Walt. I have a question for you both which refers to a section of David Tong's superb essay quoted below:

[quote]However, it is not always so easy to construct a lattice version of a quantum field theory. The trouble lies with fermions, objects which carry half-integer spin so you have to turn around twice before you get back to where you started. There is a long history of headaches associated with lattice fermions, many of them enshrined in the celebrated "no-go theorem" due to Nielsen and Ninomiya [9]. Important progress in the 1990s [10] showed how one can circumvent many, but not all, of these problems. The current state of the art is that there is just a single class of quantum field theories which physicists do not know how to simulate on a computer [11]. This is the class in which fermions that spin in an anti-clockwise direction experience different (non-Abelian) forces from those that spin in a clockwise direction. Such theories are referred to as chiral.

Chiral theories are interesting and delicate. Subtle effects known as anomalies are always lurking, threatening to render the theory mathematically inconsistent. For this reason chiral quantum field theories are rather special. But perhaps the most special among them is the Standard Model. This is a chiral theory because only fermions that spin anti-clockwise experience the Weak force. Chirality is one of the most striking and important features of the Standard Model. Yet, when it comes to constructing a lattice version of the theory, it has consequence: no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the Standard Model. Which means that no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the current laws of physics. [end quote]

In particular, it's this sentence which intrigued me: "The trouble lies with fermions, objects which carry half-integer spin so you have to turn around twice before you get back to where you started."

My imagineering skills kicked in within my subconscious and I've come to the conclusion that fermions must have two types of spin, with one twice the rate of the other. The pictures have yet to set within my mind, but I feel that the dynamics of this scenario describes exactly what David is saying. The physical simulation of the particle configurations will simplify everything so that a bright ten year old could understand it imo. Do you begin to see the imagery I'm getting at?

The mathematical 1/2 spin is therefore very misleading imo and is in reality something much more interesting, with 1:2 spin resonance.

I also had the idea last night about the possiblity of multiple big bangs within this new scenerio. Each of the individual galaxies could have been created from it's own creation of opposing structures before implosion perhaps, each occurring at slightly different times?

A physical model is desperately needed to distinguish between bosons and fermions imoAttachment #1: Bosonfermion_spin.jpg

(Ray)

The 'flip spin' of the quarks must be reduced to zero at the proposed transition to anisotropic graviton emission. Within the Earth, I guess that this is at the boundary of the 360 mile diameter innermost coreAttachment #1: 3_Quantum_Inclination_Hypothesis.jpg

Hi Ray,

Thanks for the harmonics link, that's a whole new ball game for me to contend with, but I like the graphics and simulations so I'll get into it soon.

I like the color-confinement explanation, it's something that makes intuitive sense I think. It's the neutrons, in three quark groups, which are concentrated in a new way within the inner innermost core imo. The research says that it -isn't- solid, but 'soft', with a weak resistance to shear stress.

Btw, I had a revelation last night about the differential rotation of the center quark to the rotation of the outer two, which gives the 'illusion' of a net spin of the three as a whole in the opposite direction to the central quark. I can't scan until tommorow, so you'll have to wait for more gingerbread men until then! I find the gingerbread men help to get to the nitty gritty of the dynamics, rather than the more complicated representation of spirals, which can get confusing.

Funnily enough I haven't seen "2012", but I see that it refers to Charles Hapgood, who was an inspiration for my alternate thinking in many respects. I don't normally do Hollywood blockbusters anymore, but I might make an exception with this one. I was thinking "The Day After Tommorow" at first incidentally.

I even imagine a computer simulation model starting from a void which is composed only of gingerbread men which grow in fractal-like size to become the stars and galaxies of today! Just you wait (lol)

Cheers, Alan

Going back to the 360 mile diameter inner innermost core issue, I've thought of a neat solution. I think this is the boundary where the atom breaks down and it's neutron lattice shells which are closely packed, due to the high speed of spin and pressure on the rotational axis. If the quarks 'line-up', then this will leave holes, anlagous to the dark sunspot holes of the sun, which emit hotter solar radiation than the rest of the surface. I think that a similar process can work with graviton emission in the Earth's inner innermost core. It also gives clues to the nature of the up and down quarks w.r.t 'flip-spin'. I don't have my notes or a scanner at the moment, so I'll wait until I get back home and go to my local library before I explain the details and attach a sketch or two....

I've scanned a quick doodle I had showing the neutron lattice shell idea which would break down nearer the poles due to the lack of 'spin pressure'.

Using this hypothesis, one can therefore assume that it's the down-quarks which possess 'flip-spin' and the up-quarks which have none. This is due to the neutron being assumed to have no overall flip-spin, therefore able to form lattice shells, due to the two outer down-quarks cancelling each other out. The central up-quark doesn't produce a flip-spin torque effect. The proton on the other hand has two up-quarks on each side of a down-quark. The central down-quark therefore has the flip-spin, unhindered by the two outer up-quarks. It's a lot easier to understand than it sounds! See attached.

The difference in the two quarks is therefore due to their different helical weaves, which must be of at least three 'braids'. A symmetrical weave denotes the up-quark whilst an asymetrical weave denotes the down-quark. Perhaps a kermantle kind of rope technique is formed? I still need to iron out the details. Watch this space.

P.S I'm just about to look into the the omega-minus baryon to see how the three strange quarks fit with my new working model.Attachment #1: 1_Earths_Neutron_Core.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Quark_Dynamics.jpg

Here's a quote from an article about the strange inner innermost core:

[quote]The innermost core of the earth, which consists of highly compressed iron in a solid state, is known to have an extremely low degree of rigidity in regard to shear足-the impact of twisting or other forces. The iron at the center of the earth therefore behaves largely like a fluid, which lacks all resistance to shear, making it easy for shifts to take place in the matter in the earth's core. One consequence is that the seismic waves that move along the surface of the inner core move unexpectedly slowly.[end quote]