Hi, I'm A Non-Mathematical TOE Modeller

[common_sense_seeker]

Hello to all you other fruit and nut cases. I've been hooked since my school days when my physics teacher said that the moon pulls the oceans to create the tides. I replied that it didn't make any sense why only the seawater was affected. He didn't have an answer. He also stated that every object attracts every other object according to Newton's law. Why then don't we see everyday objects being attracted to other objects. He didn't have an answer.

I went to work for the Defence Research Agency at Farnborough and obtained a BSc Astronomy with Computing. After eight years I left to go travelling and ponder the great mysteries.

Three years ago I had an epiphany-like experience when I pictured a new geometric way of how existence was created out of nothing. It explained the cosmological expansion, the inflationary period and the asymmetry of the observable universe. I still was flummaxed with the childhood physics problem on gravity. How could everyoone else be so wrong and me be right??

Then I cracked it. Another epiphany-like experience later and I had it. The moon doesn't pull the seawater, it pulls on the Earth's inner core which create a flexure of the Earth's crust which in turn creates the ocean tides. See topic 'Gravity Problem Solved' in Forces Of Nature.

Email me: amlowey@hotmail.co.uk

[baudrunner]

Hello, common_sense_seeker. Welcome to the Quest.

In your quest for the common sense of things I trust and hope that you will not fall into the role of contradictor for the sake of contradiction. After all, it seems to me that those scientists who claimed that the moon's gravity caused the tides by pulling on the water were probably right, since according to you if the moon's gravity is strong enough to pull on the Earth's inner core that it would easily be strong enough to pull on the water. Why is that not happening, as you see it?

[dleviwing]

I see no reason to think that it only pulls on one or the other; it probably does both. Tidal forces are after all, the explanations of the moons of Jupiter having hot cores.

[G_burnett]

hi fellows ... looking at the density of matter it is just a quantifiable mass of varied density, the core the mantle, the ocean .. the air ... if it is a push in force aether base and a strive to go out ... when the the moon is in place over a mass it could very well be a lessened push in as the moon takes the blunt of the force? maybe there has to be a certain area of total effect that the moon takes away from by being in a location as all planets and sol would do in there alignments to earth?
don't mind me .. just a momentary ponder. ~regards g.

[common_sense_seeker]

Hello baudrunner, thanks for the good question. I propose that GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL. Everyday objects are so orientationally mixed at a quark level that they have a net gravitational field of zero. Core material is not only uber-condensed but also aligned. Therefore it has a strong gravitational field. But this still interacts only weakly with everyday objects due to their low density. Other core material interacts very strongly though with this field, hence giving planetary motion.

Cheers,

AL

[common_sense_seeker]

Hello dleviwing, again thanks for the question. Once you get the idea that GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL and that it operates via particles rather than a Higgs Field, everything works out really easy. Gravity is more like Magnetism in my mind, or you could say that Magnetism is just a kind of 'lumpy' gravity.

Regards,

AL

[common_sense_seeker]

Hi G_burnett. You lost me from the beginning. I hope the previous two replies help clarify my position.

AL

[G_burnett]

Hi G_burnett. You lost me from the beginning. I hope the previous two replies help clarify my position.

AL

Hi Al

I am off in my own thoughts a lot.

I look at gravity as a push out effect being curtailed by condensed mass clumping by attraction MF and spin effect when they came together to lose there forward directional transient fluid state ... I think it has asymmetry to solar event as it would have on the lower look at particles to even the universal level. I like your path of interest. Hope to hear more of it in here.

My own forte in algorithms has led me to many years of self investigation of truth but I learned out of the box an study of nature to ideas an theorems that would come my way, by others a ponder when ... well you know ... there was a lacking. I like the Harvard lady stopping light and then a few years later when stopped she picked it up moving it to another cloud and started it again ... jeez what next. ... sure enough in spin research there was an article that a singular electron was made to spin back wards.

We have Venus going in an opposite direction around the sun then all the other planets but the electron thing was like Saturn for example with a reverse spin as it travels around the sun in the same orbit other then Venus and is actually a noted fact in a couple others ... sorry I am babbling a bit here ... its late lol ~ kind regards G.

[common_sense_seeker]

Hi G, you certainly do know how to ponder and babble alright. lol. I used to be just like you. I'm definitely impressed that you take spin and relative orientation seriously. That's something that the standard model describes very poorly. Mathematics takes everything to be derived from a point particle. I don't think this helps.

A core centered theory of planetary motion makes a lot of sense. Think about it.

AL

[dleviwing]

Hi Al;
You posts don’t seem to support your introduction of an education in astronomy. Do you or do you NOT have a BS degree in that or any other field. I checked the Farnborough web site and they don’t seem to have any courses in astronomy. Would you care to explain?