[dleviwing]

S.P.;
The Earth variance of motion is 25% and 27% the speed of light as it travels through the universe with the Milkyway Galaxy. The mass variance over this journey is much less than that acquired by meteor bombardment of the Earth. I don’t believe the numbers can support your concept. There are other concepts that claim the galactic cycle is the cause of the Earth’s ice ages also. I think you will have a great deal of trouble convincing the science community of such a correlation between earthquakes and the Earth’s cyclic motions in the universe.

[gautam]

Celestial bodies and for that matter any such bodies of matter are not moving as simply as we understand, they rather move along with their spacetime as integral part. This feature(AN ORDINARY CLAIM) of the MEST theory doesnot really need any evidence. Notwithstanding the fact that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences. The gravitational pull incidently relates to the mass of the earth as that mass is the main factor to create the spacetime(being just a dimension of mass/energy) curvature around the planet earth. This spacetime curvature(curved in favor of their speed) pulls the objects down as if they were falling on the outer surface of the umbrella and gaining momentum. While going up they have to pierce those layers of spacetime curved againt their speed . No scientific theory can support the idea of some force generated from the mass of earth silently pulling down everything without getting spent at all. The falling objects too thus follow the laws of QUANTAM MECHANICS. We need to quantise and quantify the spacetime curvature of the matter.
thanks and regards
Gautam

[Spiral Path]

Hi, David -
I have to say that I really enjoy this dialog with you. It keeps the neurons in my brain busy and helps me re-examine my own concepts. I'll comment again sentence by sentence in order to avoid misunderstandings:

The Earth variance of motion is 25% and 27% the speed of light as it travels through the universe with the Milkyway Galaxy

May I ask where you got the numbers 25% and 27% from? The speed of light is about 3*10^8 m/s while the solar system travels around the Milky Way at a speed somewhere between 200,000 m/s and 250,000 m/s (200 to 250 km/s). No astrophysicist has yet determined an "exact" figure as they can only estimate it at the present time from the proper motions of our neighboring stars. In addition there is the speed of the Earth around the Sun between 29 and 30 km/s, but since the Earth orbits the Sun at roughly right angles to the path of the solar system around the galactic center, it makes barely a difference in the overall speed, i.e. at 250 km/s it varies perhaps between 248 and 252 km/s maximum. 1% of the speed of light would be about 3*10^6 m/s (3 million m/s). Divide 3 million into 250,000 and you get 0.083% and into 200,000 you get 0.067; or, if you want the "variance of motion", i.e. a maximum of 4000 m/s (252 km/s minus 248 km/s) it will give you 0.0013%. That sure is a far cry from 25% or 27%.

The mass variance over this journey is much less than that acquired by meteor bombardment of the Earth

I never said that mass variance was a contributing factor in the G variance, but perhaps your concept might. On the contrary, I said it would be perceptible (or noticeable) only over millions and billions of years.

I don’t believe the numbers can support your concept.

My concept of a variable G supports the notion that mainly a change in velocity within an elliptical spiral orbit around the Milky Way Galaxy affects a change in G for every celestial body.

There are other concepts that claim the galactic cycle is the cause of the Earth’s ice ages also.

Yes, that's true, but our paper (my late brother's and mine) was the first one to my knowledge and, in my opinion, is still the most plausible one (Steiner, J., and Grillmair, E., 1973, Possible galactic causes for periodic and episodic glaciations: Geol.Soc. America Bull. v.84, p 1003-1018.

I think you will have a great deal of trouble convincing the science community of such a correlation between earthquakes and the Earth’s cyclic motions in the universe.

In this respect you are totally right and I have known that for two decades now - all the ridicule, humiliation and rejection I had to endure was sometimes almost too much for me to bear. In all these years I haven't even been able to convince my own son, an astrophysicist with NASA, of the validity of my concept. He is a firm believer in the Standard Model and shudders at the prospect of having to redo all their calculations about the "heavenly" dynamics. He tells me (fortunately with great respect) that he will not be won over to a "variable G Universe" until I can deliver him an EXACT FORMULA for this variable G. Well, that's what I am working on right now - as I mentioned in a previous post. But for that I will have to make hundreds of thousands of evaluations for a few dozen parameters in most of the major earthquakes of the past 100 years in order to get a solid statistical result and my ancient pre-Pentium computer only delivers a few hundred a day. I have calculated that at this rate I probably would have to live for another 50 years to confidently predict earthquakes and this, unfortunately, I cannot do. - Therefore, after working so hard for nearly 30 years on this project, without pay and spending all my life savings on it, I can only shrug my shoulders and say to all potential earthquake victims: "Sorry, I cannot save you from your fate as I had originally intended, but the powers that be don't want to listen to my arguments on the relationship between a variable G and earthquake prediction".

Actually, there is one organization that seems to have firmly believed in the correctness of my theory or they wouldn't have spent, over the past 20 years, a small fortune to keep an eye on my progress. It started out in 1986 with the typical "honey trap" trick and continues to this day with intensive monitoring of all my communications. So they probably read this my post to the Toequest Forum too. Maybe, if I look at this my situation objectively, I should even be grateful for their attention. After all, if they believe so strongly in my theory, then why should I ever doubt it? - Anyway, if I ever find the time to write a book about it, it would be quite a real-life spy thriller.

S.P.

[Spiral Path]

Hello, Gautam -

Sorry for the delay in my reply to your comment, but I wasn't familiar with the MEST theory you mentioned and therefore tried to find out more about it. As it appears to me now, MEST theory only occurs in Scientology and this belief system has, as far as I understand it, the reputation of a kind of modern "religion". Now it's true that religions don't need any evidence for their claims, but how can one construct a TOE without any evidence?

Celestial bodies and for that matter any such bodies of matter are not moving as simply as we understand, they rather move along with their spacetime as integral part. This feature(AN ORDINARY CLAIM) of the MEST theory doesnot really need any evidence

.

I agree with you that celestial bodies don't move in simple orbits, but I don't quite understand how they can drag their own spacetime along with them? After all, spacetime is, in my opinion, a measuring device and therefore should NOT BE MOVED. How else could we possibly measure the velocity and orientation of the orbit of any such celestial body?

Notwithstanding the fact that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences

.

Both of us, you and I, are making extraordinary claims. I intend to present my extraordinary evidence in my future blogs - but where is your extraordinary evidence?

The gravitational pull incidently relates to the mass of the earth as that mass is the main factor to create the spacetime(being just a dimension of mass/energy) curvature around the planet earth. This spacetime curvature(curved in favor of their speed) pulls the objects down as if they were falling on the outer surface of the umbrella and gaining momentum. While going up they have to pierce those layers of spacetime curved againt their speed

.

As far as I can see, it must be pretty difficult for you to calculate any meaningful results for a "spacetime curvature" around the planet Earth in order to find its orbital speed - or even any local gravitational effect. Can you give any equations for this kind of procedure with your theory? - As I said before, I intend to elaborate in my future blogs on the easily understandable equations I am using in my theory.

No scientific theory can support the idea of some force generated from the mass of earth silently pulling down everything without getting spent at all.

I can fully agree with this your statement, but this is how Newtonian gravitational theory is presently used and, unfortunately, after 300 years invariably still taught in schools. To be sure, it does work reasonably well for most of NASA's calculations within the solar system but, not surprising to me, for galactic calculations it just doesn't work at all and nobody knows why, therefore "missing mass" and "dark energy" is conveniently hypothesized to explain the discrepancy. This happens, in my opinion, because in the Newtonian gravitational theory G is called a "constant" and used that way all over the Universe - even though it isn't constant at all throughout the galaxy but varies with the speed and distance of any particular celestial body in relation to the center of mass of its particular galaxy. At least in my theory.

The falling objects too thus follow the laws of QUANTAM MECHANICS. We need to quantise and quantify the spacetime curvature of the matter.

.

Sorry, I don't quite understand this your argument. How do falling objects follow the laws of Quantum Mechanics?

Thank you for your comment and I do hope that you have an answer for all my questions.

Regards,
Spiral Path

[David Maes]

Just adding some information which could be important concerning earthquakes...

I think earthquakes mostly occur during a solar eclipse. Some cultures even celebrated the solar eclipse and after that the big earthquake.

Gravity doesn't only attract water, it can also influence the position of the plates.
A small shift of a plate can lead to an earthquake and thus also to a tsunami (which has the property that it tries to 'enclose' the land; it's actually a wave of water with huge power which can reach a speed of about an 800 km/hour).

What I think happens is that the sun and the moon together form some kind of synergy, in which they influence the position of the plates.

So I think earthquakes are related to the universe.

I think it has to do with gravity.