Humblemun

Doesn't the lack of a mechanism for the gravity force bother you at all?

And what is this so called Archimedes particles?

Thanks for asking. I submitted an essay to the FQXi physics competition which tries to explain my way of thinking as simply as I can: Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?

It's a thought experiment. A pendulum in a perfect stationary geo-orbit above it'a counterpart on the Earth's surface will swing more slowly. Fact. Therefore the concept of 'time' in general mathematical equations is flawed. There is no known mechanism for the gravity force wrt relativity. If helical spinning Archimedes particles are imagined to be the mechanism to produce a force of attraction on a body in orbit, then the pendulum swinging slower makes sense. The atomic clock in the same orbit will tick faster. This is the anomaly. Extra force from gravitons decreases the speed of atomic clocks. Until we know the mechanics of how the electrons orbit the nucleus and why, this will always be a dilemma. When we do understand atomic physics in detail, I believe the spinning Archimedes screw particle will replace the currently accepted mathematical model which has no common sense mechanism.

I know no one here will agree with me, but wait until the Juno flyby on Oct 9th. Mainstream science predicts no anomaly, whilst I'm predicting a strong positive acceleration in addition to a lateral deviation to the left.

Okay, the point I'm making is that the statement "time runs faster in a lower gravitational field" is incorrect, because grandfather clocks run slower whilst atomic clocks run faster.

You've missed the point I think. I'd like to hear from some others first.

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory.

 

 

General relativity predicts an additional effect, in which an increase in gravitational potential due to altitude speeds the clocks up. That is, clocks at higher altitude tick faster than clocks on Earth's surface.

But there is a flaw to this logic. It works for atomic clocks, agreed, but it doesn't work for simple pendulum grandfather clocks. When these clocks are at a greater altitude close to space with a much lower gravitational field, they swing slower, giving a slower tick than grandfather clocks on Earth's surface. It's the opposite effect to atomic clocks.

Can anyone resolve this issue, or is it indeed a fatal flaw in Einstein's Relativity?

As the topic says I was wondering if there are any microscopic applications of logarithmic spirals in theoretical physics, or any attempts to incorporate them, or any data to support them? I was thinking that since quantum phenomena only has real significance at the quantum scale and yet is still applicable at the macro scale it might be possible that the prevalence of logarithmic spirals in nature might not be so coincidental that they would be confined to only living, macro scale objects/phenomena? To clarify: we obviously don't understand the reason for the existence of logarithmic spirals in nature, but could there be physical significance inherent to some underlying process that could be extrapolated to all matter?

 

Also, as an aside, I think discussion of the golden spiral has been left with a whimsical connotation on accident. A lot of time it seems like people consider those who talk about it "more of those damn newbies ranting about fractals."

Hi Quartile,

It's a good question you ask. There's a physics contest where I put forward the idea of an Archimedes screw as a model for the graviton. If the screw turns the opposite way it becomes a force of repulsion i.e. an anti-graviton. Why did Newton miss this obvious explanation for the spooky action-at-a-distance? Who knows. Anyway, I just discovered that Descartes had been toying with the very same ideas in 1644, and was one of the very first to draw the field lines of a magnet using this methodology.

It implies that the atomic nucleus emits both gravitons and anti-gravitons and that all modern physics based on Newton's equation are simple incorrect, despite Einstein's attempt to rectify the situation (he just made it worse in fact, oh dear(!)).

My solution for the daily tides is simply better than that of Newton's. The reason that the universal law of gravitation appears to work so well is that the size of the uber-condensed inner core of a planetesimal is proportional to it's overall size.

Professor Brian Cox of CERN and TV fame has expressed his concern that a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity seems increasingly likely, especially if the forthcoming LHC experimental results turn out to be unexpected. I am convinced that I have found the stumbling block of modern physics:

The OBVIOUS reason of how the moon causes the ocean tides is that it pulls on the Earth's inner core, creating a flexure of the lithosphere, rather than acting on the seawater directly itself. Once you have the simple picture in your mind, you'll never go back. You'll never look at the sea the same again.

Modern satellite technology has measured the seafloor to rise by about a meter in the presence of the moon. The mountains and sea are also observed to be influenced by the moon's gravitational pull, but NOTHING ELSE i.e. why doesn't it get windier on a high tide? Why isn't dust effected by the moon's gravity?

I have a scientific background to substantiate my findings, the culmination of over 25 years work.

BSc Astronomy with Computing, former computer modeller for the MoD, Defense Research Agency, Farnborough, UK.