In Search of Continuity: Thoughts of an Epistemic Empiricist by Ian Durham

Dear Sir,

Further to our comments above, we will like to add the following.

In Coulomb's law, F = k Q1 x Q2 /d^2. In a charge neutral object, either Q1 or Q2 will be zero reducing the whole equation to zero. This implies that no interaction is possible between a charged object and a charge neutral object. But this is contrary to experience. Hence the format of Coulomb's law is wrong.

When we said "positive positive = explosive", what we meant was the fusion reaction tat leads to unleashing of huge amounts of energy. Its opposite is also true, but since it is reduction, there is less energy release.

Positive negative (total interaction) = internally creative (increased atomic number.) This means that if one proton and one electron is added to the atom, the atomic number goes up.

Positive negative (partial interaction) = externally creative (becomes an ion.) This means that if one proton or one electron is added to the atom, the atom becomes ionic.

Negative negative = no reaction. What actually it means that though there will be no reaction between the two negatively charged particles; they will appear to repel each other as their nature is confinement. Like two pots that confine water cannot occupy the same place and if one is placed near another with some areas overlapping, then both repel each other. This is shown in the "Wheeler's Aharonov-Bohm experiment".

Regards,

basudeba

I take that as a compliment still Ian. It does take some thinking about yes, especially if you've been used to something else for a long perhaps. The magnetic force is a scale larger and is again due to the pattern of graviton flux emission and absorption of the neucleons in fluid-to-solid crytsal structures. It's the scale of molecular crystal lattice solids like iron which provide the magnetic pattern of graviton emission. Ultimately, it's the rotation and density of matter in a small confined space, held together by gravity which gives the minerals and rocks we know today and are familiar with. Matter can't be understood without a working knowledge of it's history and formation.

Kind regards,

Alan

Dear Ian

I hope you are feeling better about your loss. I just saw your note dated the day before the Japan earthquake...Sorry to respond to it so late and say thanks for making the effort to read my fqxi paper. I hope it encourages you to look at my earlier longer paper where I have spelled out my theory. Enjoy your conference.

Best wishes from Vladimir

It sounds to me like you will be taking a filing cabinet worth of papers!

Robert

Dear Prof. Durham,

Good luck at the conference,and I look forward to your comments.

Robert

Hello Ian,

I have another bugging question for you. 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 from last night 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.

Kind regards,

AlanAttachment #1: Doodle.jpg

Gentlemens

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Yuri Danoyan

Thanks Yuri!

I've taken the liberty of scanning Professor Taylor's new book where he talks about the current concensus opinion on the cause of the 100,000 year ice age cycle. It's a brillint summary of the situation as it stands. See attached and also attached to the next post.

AlanAttachment #1: 2_Dance_Of_Air__Sea1.jpgAttachment #2: 2_Dance_Of_Air__Sea2.jpg

Here's the next two pages..Attachment #1: 2_Dance_Of_Air__Sea3.jpgAttachment #2: 2_Dance_Of_Air__Sea.jpg

It seems to me very interesting

http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~oliver/Nature_article.pdf

Yuri

Dear Ian,

Congratulations on being a prize winner. Well done. You answered the question in an interesting, enjoyable and relevant way and gave consideration to some issues that I also think are very important. Thank you too for taking the time to participate on your essay discussion thread. I did appreciate your reply.