• [deleted]

Caro Daniele

Your essay concentrates on quantized space - but should not the building blocks of space be the also the same as those making up matter?

In a recent post above you said "As a general remark, I do of course agree that a theory that explains gravity at a more fundamental level, which is what models of quantum space or related quantum gravity models try to do, and that in addition explains electromagnetism (electrostatics is not enough) and possibly other interactions (i.e. nuclear ones) would be better than one that only explains gravity. Unfortunately, I do not know any such complete theory yet."

I have presented just such a theory but it is incomplete say the least. Moreover for my model to function some basic notions of present-day physics (specifically GR, the notion of flexible space-time, the point photon, and of quantum probability) have to be reconstructed or reverse-engineered to a common and simpler theory - In my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory on which my present fqxi paper is based, a universal lattice of dielectric building blocks store angular momentum in units of h and transmit it to neighboring nodes. Gravitational potential (density) is caused by the rate of rotation of the nodes, and the pattern of twisting of the axes of rotation in the lattice. I would highly appreciate it if you can look at my ideas. They would only work if professionals like you pick them up and work out the details!

With best wishes for your success, Vladimir

  • [deleted]

Hi dear Daniele,

I had not read your essay, now yes, It's full of interesting things. Congratulations,and good luck for the final.

Steve

    Well, thanks a lot for reading it, and for your kind message. I am happy you liked it.

    ciao

    Daniele

    Hello Daniele,

    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: 1_Doodle.jpg

    • [deleted]

    Ciao Daniele,

    You are welcome,sincerely.

    All the best.

    Steve

    4 days later
    • [deleted]

    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

      Hi Yuri,

      Yes, Professor Wintergerg has got it to a tee. Spot on. Sorry for not looking sooner, although I find a direct link tends to aid a reader, such as The Einstein-Myth and the Crisis in Modern Physics (see link help page above).

      I want to email him a.s.a.p and tell him about the Inclination Hypothesis. He'll love it, I'm sure.

      Cheers Yuri,

      Alan

      20 days later
      • [deleted]

      Dear Daniele

      What is your prognoses about Fermilab experiment?

      http://holometer.fnal.gov/

      http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/program_planning/Nov2009PACPublic/holometer-proposal-2009.pdf

      All the best

      Yuri

      7 years later

      The question, Is Reality Digital or Analog? is misleading like chicken and egg. All closed answer question carry risks of incorrect direction.

      Reality is both digital and analog.

      Write a Reply...