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

Hi Doc,

Yes, we definitely are thinking along the same lines, more than I initially thought in fact. The football-to-torus tranformation link was most appreciated, that's exactly what I'm on about. Very nice graphics. I'd forgotten about the simple knot shape, so that's particularly useful. I'm now understanding how other people's ideas are more similar to my own than I first realised. Thanks for bringing the details to my attention. I'll endeavour to give your essay another look a.s.a.p.

Bye for now, Alan

Peter:

Thanks for the vote, I need all I can! I've scored your's and appreciate the connection with the toroidal shape of structure at certain scales. It's a fascinating journey that we are all on and the answer to a full t.o.e is within our lifetimes and most likely within a year or two imo.

Cheers, Alan

Here's an attachment to explain the idea of a graviton travelling around a wraparound universe which would then seem like a force of repulsion. I'm talking to an interested third party in his Subrealsim blog. The second diagram shows my latest thoughts about the structure of the next scale up from helix rings..Attachment #1: Note2.jpgAttachment #2: Note1.jpg

My latest thoughts:

A bond is due to increased local irregularities in gluon emission streams by protons and to a lesser extent neutrons.

I've just clicked a bit..All the forces can be explained by the Archimedes screw representing the structural analogue graviton. All forces greater than the 'gravity force' are due to local irregularities of structure which exaggerate the asymmetry of the graviton-like structure itself. A graviton should be modelled as vector quantity. All the forces can be explained by the relative flux density of gravitons.Attachment #1: 1_Note1.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Note2.jpg

Hi Ray,

I'd like to applaud you on such an excellent endeavour as your grandiose book. It's just the kind of thing I've wanted to do myself. I have a non-mathematical approach to begin with though, so I would be lost quite quickly if I tried to read it perhaps. I'm sure you can gain something from the Archimedes screw idea, it can explain the galaxy rotation curve mystery as well as dark energy. See the new thread below,

You have fun too Ray,

Best wishes, Alan

The idea of the Archimedes screw as a model for the graviton leads to an explanation for the galaxy curve conundrum i.e. the reason why stars are observed to be orbiting faster than expected towards the outer edge of the spiral galaxies. See my notes for further details..Attachment #1: 2_Note2.jpgAttachment #2: Note3.jpg

On day-by-day thinking about the novel idea of a mechanical Archimedes screw in empty space representing the force of gravity by gravitons, I have deduced an explanation for the galaxy rotation curve anomaly.

The helical screw model gives matter a new fundamental shape and dynamics which the standard model lacks imo. This non-spherical emission of gravitons is in stark contrast to the Newtonian/Einsteinian acceptance that "all things exert a gravitatinal field equally in all directions". This asymmetry of the gravitational field allows for the stars to experience a greater pull towards the galactic plane, due to their rotation giving more order to the inner fluid matter of the stellar core. Both the structure of the emitter and the absorber of the gravity particles is important. It also has implications for hidden matter at the centre of the galaxies..

I've given the idea some more thought and come to the conclusion that the stars furthest from the galactic centre must have a more 'bipolar nature' than the matter of stars of the inner halo presumably. This is the reason they have wandered towards the galactic plane whilst the halo stars have not. The outer stars' configuration means they experience a greater interaction with the flux pattern of the graviton field. Are the stars of the outer arms simply spinning faster?? We are on the outer edge of a spiral arm and so this would fit with this hypothesis. Our sun could have spin which is higher that that of the average halo star. This relationship between spin and distance from the galactic centre is a fundamental feature which ties in with the suggested mechanism of their creation.

All that is needed is an additional factor of stellar spin speed as well as it's mass and distance from the galactic centre. The relationship should then give calculated values which match those of the observed.Attachment #1: GalaxyRotationCurve.jpg

I've just had a thought:

Is it -less- tidal strength which decreases the ocean currents and therefore less heat is transported from the equator to the poles? This is an even simpler explanation of why the Earth has been entering an ice age every 100,000 years!

Less tidal strength could perhaps influence the Earth's atmosphere so that more solar radiation reaches the surface..

This same logic can be applied to explain why the moon is receding from the Earth at around 3.4cm/year. Is the moon migrating towards the Earth's equatorial plane? Could the laser deflector technology be used to test this hypothesis I wonder? It would seem feasible to try and detect whether the moon's average elevation is declining, which would help validate the hypothesis.Attachment #1: Goddard_Spaceflight_Center_Laser_Ranging_Facility.jpgAttachment #2: Apollo.jpg

For completeness with respect to the non-standard core affecting climate hypothesis, there is the pervasive 1,500 year climate cycle to consider.

Dansgaard-Oeschger events are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the Holocene is referred to as Bond events, with these having around 15-20% temperature change of the ice age D-O events.

In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland icepack warmed by around 8°C over 40 years, in three steps of five years, whereas a 5°C change over 30-40 yrs is more common.

The significance of this change can not be underestimated, especially in relation to human civilisation and evolution, in the past and in the near future! Since I have a new insight into the changability of the tides and their huge effect on climate, the proposed lunar explanation needs revisiting imo. The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate changeAttachment #1: Holocene_Temperature_Variations.pngAttachment #2: 1800_year_lunar_tidal_cycle.jpg