My Astronomy lecturer once said that if I thought I had a t.o.e in the making then it needs to explain the mystery of the ice ages. I think I've done just that. I'm 100% convinced that this proposed Inclination Hypothesis will be 100x more enlightening than the Archimedes screw model for the graviton/anti-graviton. It's a real eye-opener this one.

The precession of Mercury can be explained in the same way that the 100,000 year glacial cycle can be explained by the inclination hypothesis that has reduced tide raising forces with increased inclination. The reduced tides lowers the distribution of warm equatorial waters to the poles, which induces glaciation in the high latitudes. The combination of these two papers Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity and The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change can be used to reconcile the 1,800 year cycle to the 1,470 year cycle seen in physical data Timing of Abrupt Climate Change: A Precise Clock.

I've scanned a quick doodle which shows how the planet Mercury, due to it's high eccentricity, has very different distances above and below the orbital plane when nearing the planet and when furthest away. This means that the tide raising forces will be very different from one half of it's inclination orbit compared to the other half, despite it only having an inclination angle of around 6 degrees. This difference in gravitational forces from the calculated Newtonian forces is the reason for the discrepancy of it's orbital precession. I need to do the calcs, I know.

This proposed increase in gravitational attraction on the rotational plane of a celestial body has a surprising number of possible examples. This article on the Pan and Atlas moons of Saturn mentions the problem of their formation from ring debris alone, it simply wouldn't happen under the gravity laws. They say that a gravitational 'seed' would be needed which is exactly the same conclusion that the Harvard professors came to when analysing their 360 mile wide innermost core of the Earth Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation.

Any comments on this new combination of ideas?

Kind regards,

Alan

P.S In the doodle attached I should have written d1>>d2Attachment #1: 3_Doodle.jpg

Note to self:

Why did Newton miss this obvious explanation for the spooky action-at-a-distance? Who knows. Anyway, I just discovered that Descartes had been toying with the very same ideas in 1644, and was one of the very first to draw the field lines of a magnet using this methodology.

It implies that the atomic nucleus dipole emits both gravitons and anti-gravitons and that all modern physics based on Newton's equation are simple incorrect, despite Einstein's attempt to rectify the situation (he just made it worse in fact, oh dear(!)).Attachment #1: Descartes_magnetic_field.jpg

    Implications are that both protons and neutrons are gravity dipoles. A greater flux density of gravitons is emmited from one side whilst a greater flux density of anti-gravitons is emmited from the other. Here's a simulation graphic of a fluctuating dipole from Wikipedia which I find a helpful visual aid.

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #108

    The U-shaped proton will have the effect of bending the base quark into a lens shape. This will focus the graviton/anti-graviton emissions into a particle, the electron, which will then continue to travel outward as a discrete unit due it's new configuration.Attachment #1: Quark_Lens_Creates_Electron.jpg

    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.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #111

    My very latest thoughts:

    The Amazonian megafuana could have been due to the proposed event of 40,000 BP. Speculation has existed for a long time that a massive body close encounter has occurred in the Earth's recent past, possibly in the order of a few moon diameters from the Earth's surface, creating a flexure of the lithosphere. A temporarily disrupted magnetic field would allow much more cosmic rays and solar radiation to reach the surface during this time. Three main pieces of evidence point to this conclusion:

    (i) The frozen Siberian mammoths in near standing positions with buttercups in their mouths, dated to around 40,000 BP. This would fit with the sudden liquefaction and elevation of the landmass into freezing air temperatures above.

    (ii) The DNA analysis of the first human colonisation of the Australian continent all converge on the date of 40,000 BP. This fits with the hypothesis of a temporary land bridge between S.E Asia and the Australian land mass, crossing the mammalian/marsupial Wallace line.

    (iii) The enormous guano mud flow in the high Niah Cave complex of Borneo dated to around 40,000 BP has been attributed to an inexpicable sudden influx of a large volume of water. This is consistent with a mega tsunami which would have been associated with the flexing of the Earth's crust due to the gravitational close encounter of the celestial body.

    Take note that the other non-DNA dating techniques used would be adversly affected by a dramatic change in the Earth's magnetic field due to this proposed event. This should cause the previously given dates earlier than 40,000 BP to be treated with renewed suspicion and require a complete re-evaluation of their reliability.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #112

    Yuri has just sent me this very intersting link Physicists discover new way to visualize warped space and time (April 11, 2011). I sent a feedback to the PhysOrg editors explaining that the research and modelling can just as easily be applied to an Archimedes screw model of gravity in empty space. Because the particle screw can model a force of repulsion as well, this makes it even more relevant to the Electrostatic and Magnetic forces, compared to the mainstream concept of space-time.

    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.

      Note to self:

      Dark energy is now not needed for galactic redshift, but it would be a good candidate for a kind of early inflation perhaps?

      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?

      • [deleted]

      • Post #118

      See attached for more simple diagrams of fermion 2 types of spin. Also, I can see where the problem lies in current quantum dynamics:

      (i) Schrodinger's euqation uses Coulomb's force equation which is an -isotropic- inverse square law

      (ii) Therefore incorrect w.r.t the Inclination Hypothesis

      (iii) Suggests that renormalisation , Feynman's "hocus pocus" remedies this situation

      (iv) Physical explanation of renormalisation is needed w.r.t boson helical screw model as a force carrierAttachment #1: GingerbreadMen.jpg

      • [deleted]

      • Post #119

      I've spoken to Ray before about how the inverse square law should be treated with caution. Within a light bulb, a -straight spiral- tungsten filament will emit slightly more photons along it's length compared to it's two ends. This effect can be amplified in the interior of a spinning celestial body such as the Earth and Sun. The high pressure and high speeds of rotation will create a tendency for the 'ring donut shaped' quarks in protons and neutrons to align themselves 'vertically' against the equatorial plane (see sketch attached).Attachment #1: Quantum_Inclination_Hypothesis.jpg