Prof Cox's Gravity Problem Solved

[common_sense_seeker]

Professor Brian Cox of CERN and TV fame has expressed his concern that a fundamental flaw in our current understanding of gravity seems increasingly likely, especially if the forthcoming LHC experimental results turn out to be unexpected. For example, why is the moon moving further away from us??

I am convinced that I have found the stumbling block of modern physics. Unbelievable as it may initially seem, I have a better explanation of the ocean tides than Sir Isaac Newton:

The reason of how the moon causes the ocean tides is that it pulls on the Earth's uper-condensed inner core. The pressure wave creates a flexure of the lithosphere, which in turn causes the seabed to rise by about a meter. This has been measured by modern satellites. I propose that the moon doesn't act on the seawater directly, anymore than it does anything else, it is the earth tides below which do all the work. Once you get the simple picture in your head, there's no going back. You'll never look at the sea the same again.

Richard Madeley (!) was the first person to really understand the significance of what I had discovered, and he very kindly posted a recognition of my scientific breakthrough on his blog (6th March 2008).

[dleviwing]

c_s_s;
Are you saying that the moon’s gravity is distorting the shape of the Earth? What is the explanation for the moon moving away from the Earth? I don’t see how you are connecting the two phenomena.

BTW: Welcome to ToeQuest.

[common_sense_seeker]

Hi dleviwing, the Moon moving away from us is just another indication that Newton's law of universal gravitation is simply not correct. The picture I have is that GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL and that the force is carried by particles in empty space. I propose that gravity is much like Magnetism, or that Magnetism is 'lumpy' gravity. Everyday objects are orientationally mixed at a quark level to give a net gravitational field of zero (except for magnets). The Earth's core material is both uber-condensed and aligned. This means that it has a strong gravitational field, but everyday objects only interact weakly with it due to their low density. Other core material, such as the Moon's core, interact very strongly with this field, so giving planetary motion.

AL

[dleviwing]

Hi Al;
The influence of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object. High density and low density is simply another way to refer to the quantitative mass value of an object.

Now for gravity being made up of force carrier particles I think you should understand what is meant when particle physicist refer to such bosonic particles. Force is one of those magic words used in science; its not quite well defined. Many people get the impression that some non-physical entity exists as a property of physical matter; that idea is reserved for religions! Physicist have found that interactive events occur in quantitative increments of energy measurements; the photon is one such measurement. If you wish to view space as being made up of another one of physics magic words called energy, then you can say that every particle of mass interacts by the absorption of a boson energy particle and we just get caught up in the flow of bosons.

BTW: that’s NOT a new idea or theory.

I forgot to mention that if I remember my science right, it is the gravity of the Sun that is nudging the moon away from the Earth. Newton's work is still quite safe.

[common_sense_seeker]

Hi David, I'm definitely a believer in the particles and empty space scenario. I played around with a 'membrane' or Higgs Field solution for years, and am glad that I'm now off it. Do you expect the Higgs particle to be found at LHC on Wednesday, confirming the standard model? I don't. I'm 100% convinced they wont.

Another forum site has got people complaining that the Moon is moving away due to the Earth's spin inducing angular momentum. But that's bull**** in my book, since the Moon would be spinning itself if that was the case.

My explanation is that the Earth's uber-condensed and aligned core is slowly reducing in mass. Conservation of energy means that the gravity particles have to come from somewhere, and so the core must be slowing down in terms of individual particle spin energy. The gravitational fields of the Earth and Moon are therefore both slowly reducing.

AL

[AntonioLao]

I propose that gravity is much like Magnetism

if this is so how do you explain that in the geological history there are magnetic reversals and intensity variations of geomagnetism. At sometime in the past the magnetic field of the earth is zero and the north magnetic pole was once the south magnetic pole.

[common_sense_seeker]

Hi AntonioLao, it was a loose analogy. I believe that there is only a single force-carrying particle of attraction at the start of the universe. I believe that the 'lumpy' effect of magnetism on iron filings, for example, is still due to the 'same' particle, except that there is obviously now a force of repulsion. It all sounds fantastically wishy-washy I'm sure.

AL

[AntonioLao]

I believe that there is only a single force-carrying particle

This might be the same as the elusive magnetic monopole that particle physicists are looking for.

[common_sense_seeker]

This might be the same as the elusive magnetic monopole that particle physicists are looking for.

Maybe so. I'm currently developing a simulation model of the creation and the subsequent big bang. My whole approach seems unique to that of the mainstream. I start with simple mental pictures and progress from there. High end mathematics is something I just didn't get into. I'm confident in my working model, the result of 25 years work. It's just that I can't convince many others!

AL

[AntonioLao]

I'm currently developing a simulation model of the creation and the subsequent big bang.

Probably the only way to convince the hardnoses of science is concrete experimental demonstration? How to simulate the infinite energy of the big bang is a very serious problem.