Here's my latest conclusions, see attached diagrams of this and next post:

A schematic of three quarks is shown with two concentric torus helical structures, the central core being squeezed into position during the inital 'implosion of creation' phase. The dynamics gives the overall space occupying shape of a disk i.e. the spin is in one plane only.Attachment #1: Start_With_Three_Quarks.jpg

    See that the dislocation of the central torus within a quark dramatically changes the dynamics into two types of spin, see that the protn configuration produces a spin in another plane, 90 degrees to the starting one. This gives the particle a spherical space occupying shape.

    If the two outer quarks have this dislocation, then a configuration can occur where the two extra spin torques cancel one another out, i.e. as in a neutron.Attachment #1: ProtonSphereLike.jpgAttachment #2: NeutronDiskLike.jpg

    6 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #130

    Joining the two sketches above gives a plausible schematic of a neutron/proton pair. The characteristics of this new combined particle is intersting in that the 2D spin rate will remain the same, i.e. the disk spin axis motion, whilst the proton's 3D spin motion will be halved due it now having the extra mass of the neutron but without an additional contribution to this spin direction. This gives a 3D to 2D spin ratio of 1:2 for the nucleon.

    The combined spin of the neutron/proton pair has half the spin of a lone proton.

    Using this hypothesis, the spherical spin of a hydrogen nucleus, a single proton, should be half of that of a helium atom, having a proton plus a neutron as well as any other nucleus with an equal number of protons and neutrons. This gives an new insight into the importance of isotopes and deuterium in particular. Does deuterium also have half spherical spin compared to the much more abundant light hyrodgen?

    4 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #132

    From Massive Gravity Blog:

    I see you're a man of many talents. A horticultural pianist and guitarist eh? Sounds impressive. I think I have a model which can conjure up a dynamic structure from the starting point of a void which then implodes to create quarks. These quarks then eventually combine to become neutron/proton pairs. These pairs then combine into chains of neutron/proton pairs, which vibrate with an inner resonance. These vibrating strings can then be tuned by the human ear to become harmonics. It's a fascinating tale...

    ...I was alsways a bit jealous of my more musical friends when growing up. Who wants to be good at science? It's not much of a cool subject, is it?

    Btw, I've grown to hate Feynman diagrams. I've even grown to laugh at the electron orbital model of the atom. It's a joke. The gold leaf experiment showed that the little hard nucleus exists, but it didn't show that it stayed in the middle! I have an intuitive model in the making where the proton/neutron pair are much more dynamic, occupying all of the atomic space from time to time. The 'orbiting electron' is an incorrect assumption, electrons are an effect and contantly created from the combined structure of emitted gravitons. It's the nucleons which are pulled back by the gravity web, composed of continually created gravitons. These stiff structural spirals can create larger similar structures which have an elastic effect, the so-called gluons.

    Steve, do you believe that God's ear exists? Do you think there's a God to hear humanity's music? Is it then the difference between a straight path and a retreat?

    Alan

    7 days later

    Here's Ray's reply from the Blogs:

    Hi Alan,

    Although tidal effects on earthquake activity could be relevant, I think that these effects are proprtional to mass/(distance)^3. As such, the primary tidal contributions are from the Sun and Moon, which occurs twice a month during the Spring tides. How can Omerbashich really predict an earthquake based on tidal effects if your greatest tidal effects occur biweekly?

    Bandandi was close, but not quite correct...

    Yes, I agree on the R3 relationship but your assumptions are based on simple Newtonian physics. There's a good hypothesis that the inclination angle is also of primary importance due to the work of Muller and MacDonald. This complicates the physics enormously and opens up the possibility of some truth to the orbital effects of other celestial bodies having a tipping effect. There's also the possibility of the Earth's inner innermost core having a differential rotation for example. It isn't such an open and shut case as you might like to think Ray..

    Alan

    From the Massive Gravity Blog:

    Domenico Oricchio replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 21:33 GMT

    A beautiful theory and a beautiful article.

    I think that the Moon tide is the cause of many earthquake, but that is impossible the earthquake prediction (Bendandi theory): each day we see the Moon different sky position, but we don't see earthquake each day: it is like a compressed glass plate that have a little sinusoidal stress, the sinusoidal stress is the break cause, but it is impossible the event prediction (we cannot move million of person for a probable cause, only for a sure cause).

    ...

    My reply:

    Hello Domenico,

    I'm glad someone else finds the massive gravity hypothesis so attractive and so highly plausible. I'm impressed that you are doing some empirical analysis on the 'celestial bodies causing earthquake idea'. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that it's Venus which is the trigger orbital, with it's approach to the Earth-sun plane being just as crucial, if not more so, than the closeness of it's approach. The combination of these two factors is the point of greatest tidal effect imo. I have a working hypothesis that gravity is stronger on the plane of rotation w.r.t the inner innermost cores of planetary bodies. It's too much to explain in a single post unfortunately, but I have good circumstantial evidence to support my claim.. The rotation of Venus is also opposite to that of the Earth (and other planets) which could also be a significant factor. Venus must have been flipped upside down sometime in it's past. If Earth's inner innermost core has a differential rotation than so could Venus's, but which would also in a counter direction. Bendandi could have used this simple method in making his predictions I think, either fully intentionally or not.

    Note that Dr Omarbashich states that his calculations are based on a co-planar configuration where "different orbital inclinations can be ignored". This fits with my reckoning just fine. It's the relevance of the relative inclinations in the rest of the orbital timeframe which he has missed the significance of imo.

    Here's a quote of his from one his webpages:

    KEEP IN MIND ALSO THAT NO ONE (INCLUDING THOSE WHO "REFUTE" AN EQUATION) HAS A SLIGHTEST IDEA AS TO WHAT GRAVITY IS ! (OR WHAT MECHANISM SUPPLIES ENERGY THAT DRIVES PLATES - A "LITTLE SECRET" GEOPHYSICISTS DON'T LIKE TALKING ABOUT)

    Best wishes, Alan

      • [deleted]

      • Post #140

      Here's a reply from Dr Omarbashach via email:

      Dear Mr. Lowey,

      Thank you for your message. Not sure what conclusions you are referring to? If you mean the alignments paper: note that this cannot be taken out of context (the triplet of papers from 2007, 2008, 2011). That paper is just one (empirical) of three stages in the proof of my hyperresonator concept. Other two are theoretical (which derived first analytical expression for a physical constant), and observational/instrumental (which utilized 10+billion measurements of decadal gravity by the Canadian superconducting gravimeter as the most accurate instruments in the world used also for verifying G). Obviously on Earth, the hyperresonator manifests itself as the georesonator (concept), meaning the magnification of Earth masses' (mostly the mantle's) resonance causes both tectonics and seismicity independently from each other. Much as soldiers who are step-marching across a bridge finally collapse the bridge. This concept offers the mechanism for supplying the energy needed for tectonogenesis, which is a question that baffles geophysicists for centuries. (Contrary to the popular belief paddled by general media: no one in geophysics community knows what supplies the energy needed to move the mantle/plates and cause earthquakes; see http://www.billt4.com/Documents/PhysicsHandouts/NatureEarthEvolution.pdf). Once the mechanism is known, filling all other gaps remains a formality.

      As far as the Miller's paper is concerned, I can see from your link that his spectral analysis is superficial as ever, namely as in his and his student's 2005 Nature paper I opposed earlier (http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0608014). His basic problem is that he sees spectral analysis just as a mathematical tool, but he doesn't understand or care about physical meaning of a spectral analysis. (I'm not sure he's even aware that SA can have a physical meaning). He plays with raw data as much and for as long as it pleases him to achieve a preset goal, and then goes on and calls it science. To see what Miller's science really is, see Smith's bicentennial review on my page. Same goes for pretty much all of his claims which are a hand-waving at best, which perhaps can find admirers at expensive gala-dinners at the White House, but that doesn't give any merit to his science. As far as your other link, I'm not a cosmologist so can't comment on that, but you may find interesting this paper: Steinhardt and Turok (2002) A Cyclic Model Of The Universe, Science 296: 1436-1439.

      Sincerely,

        And my email reply:

        Hi Mensur,

        Thanks for the links, most useful. I have a tentative explanation for the mystery movement of the plates. It's an asymmetric inner innermost core around 360 miles in diameter which wobbles, based on the work of Harvard professors Adam Dziewonski and Miaki Ishii http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-02z.html combined with Brouwer's Theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_fixed_point_theorem (see diagrams). It's probably too speculative for your methodology, but worth contemplating on imo.

        Best wishes, Alan

        ...Getting back to the earthquake prediction conundrum w.r.t Dr Omarbashich's non-peer reviewed work, the only way I can see a mechanism for some kind of 'resonator hypothesis' is at LOW TIDAL FORCING. See the diagram re-attached. A low tide will keep the inner innermost core shell oval shaped, whilst a high tide will tend to stretch the shell into a more circular shape. Now imagine that Venus or Mars happens to approach the co-planar configuration with Earth, i.e. a very low inclination angle in combination with a close approach. If this triggers a wobble of an asymmetric inner innnermost core of the Earth, then this could make a 'heavy contact' with the shell at a low tidal configuration. If it occured at a high tide, then the wobble of the enigma core will only make a 'light contact' with the more circular shell. It's all rather speculative, but it's just about a plausible hypothesis in my working model. I intend to do some more rigorous investigation using Mensur's tables.Attachment #1: 2_Enigma_Core_Solar_Resonance.jpg

        ...Getting back to the essay

        The latest findings by the Galaxy Evolution Explorer fit with this new imagery of opposing mega structures -before- the big bang, NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer & Anglo-Australian Telescope Help Confirm Nature of Dark Energy. If the structures emerge and grow at a constant rate, then the graviton-wraparound-darkEnergy arrival rate, before -and- after the BB, will also increase at a constant rate i.e. giving an acceleration of the expansion of the galaxies.

        [quote]PASADENA, Calif. -- A five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies, stretching back seven billion years in cosmic time, has led to one of the best independent confirmations that dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds. The survey used data from NASA's space-based Galaxy Evolution Explorer and the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Siding Spring Mountain in Australia.

        The findings offer new support for the favored theory of how dark energy works -- as a constant force, uniformly affecting the universe and propelling its runaway expansion. They contradict an alternate theory, where gravity, not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart. According to this alternate theory, with which the new survey results are not consistent, Albert Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong, and gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive when acting at great distances.

        "The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. Blake is lead author of two papers describing the results that appeared in recent issues of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. "The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed. If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."[end quote]

        My model is a third alternative which is due some major mainstream consideration.

        5 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #144

        I woke up with a revelation this morning.

        Cryptic clue: "vertical movement"

        11 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #145

        Here's someone who has similar ideas as I do:

        [copied over from Sciforums.com]

        As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified:

        I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call 'universal') gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

        From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote:

        "For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."

        That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .'

        It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force.

        It is difficult to over dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force. That is fact #1.

        Fact #1 evokes at least one question: Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied?

        That question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.

        In the first quarter of this century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprecedented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date.

        The General Principle is also misnomered as the 'Equivalence Hypothesis', or, more appropriately, 'The Principle Of Equivalence', which states:

        'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown')'.

        Regards,

        Kaiduorkhon

        http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

        13 days later

        Great Essay Alan! Your's is one of the best because the way I see it, these here Threads are a continuation of a really good Essay, no? And by that measure, your close attention and participation both strenuous and insightful qualifies you as one the best.

        And so, like an Archimedes Screw rotating in a higher-dimensional space that itself is only a projection of the to'ings-and-fro'ings of particles/fields on a two dimension surface shall we compete for membership lol! Do they even want us? Circumstantial evidence says, "no".

        Holographic projection, which is exactly what Archimedes was tracing in the sand when that over-zealous Roman soldier ran him thru...

        fqxi should we stay or should we go? sa? ?

          10 days later

          Thanks for the appreciation Tommy, much appreciated!