Gravity mechanism predicts G to within 1.7%

[Nigel]

Proof that gravity constant G = (3/4)(H^2)/[(pi)(density)e^3]

The acceleration of matter outwards in the big bang is a force (Newton's 2nd law) requiring a reaction (Newton's 3rd law). The reaction is the inward directed force of gravity carried by the fabric of space.

Proof of 1.7% accuracy: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook2.htm

Background info: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

Summary:

Nugent, Physical Review Letters (v75 p394), cites decay of nickel-63 from supernovae, obtaining H = 50 km/sec/Mps (where 1 Mps = 3.086x10^22 m). The density of visible matter at our local time has long been known to be 4x10^-28 kg/m3. However, White and Fabian in the March 1995 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, using the Einstein Observatory satellite data, estimate that invisible gas increases this density by 15%.

Using these data, G = 3(H^2)/[pi(e^3)ρ] = 6.783x10^-11 Nm^2kg^-2, within 1.65% of the physical measurement for G of 6.673x10^-11 Nm^2kg^-2. (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)

Background:

‘Electronic Universe’ article (Electronics World, Vol. 109, No. 1804) proves G = 3(H^2)/(4 pi ρ). [Ref: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?f=author&p=Cook,+N and http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook1.htm.

H is the Hubble constant and ρ is the density of universe responsible for causing gravity by the inward reaction of 377-ohm physical space to the outward big bang; pi is the mathematical constant. Considering the density, it is highest at early times and thus density increases in the observable space-time trajectory, as we look further into the past with increasing distance.

But the increasing spread of matter with increasing distance partly offsets this increase, as proven when we put the observed Hubble equation (v = Hr) into the mass continuity equation and solve it. For spherical symmetry, dx = dy = dz = dr. Hence: dρ/dt = -div.(ρv) = -div.(ρHr) = 3d(ρHr)/dr = -3ρH. Solving dρ/dt = -3ρH by rearranging, integrating, then using exponentials to get rid of the natural logarithms (resulting from the integration) gives the increased density to be ρe^(3Ht), where e is Euler’s constant (2.718 ...). In the absence of gravitational retardation (i.e. with the cause of gravity as inward reaction of space to the outward big bang), H = 1/t when H = v/r = c/(radius of universe) = 1/t, where t is the age of the universe, so e^(3Ht) = e^3 = 20.1 and observed G = 3(H^2)/[4pi(e^3)ρ].

 

[sol2]

These nuclear quantum forces have a maximum range equal to the uncertainty in the time for the virtual particle multiplied by the velocity of light, d = tc. This does not happen with electromagnetic and gravitational forces, which are simply inverse square laws with no observed limiting range. So quantum gravity is incompatible with general relativity. The same happens with electromagnetism, because you cannot derive the Coulomb law from quantum electrodynamics without getting a force 137 times too high. This force is the strong nuclear force. Nobody has ever proved how an attractive force mechanically occurs from the momentum of exchanged particles, although it is obvious how repulsion could occur that way by recoil as particles exchange virtual photons. When I published the obvious mechanism in Electronics World, April 2003, along with a 16 step gravity proof, it was with electronics engineer Ivor Catt's help. All material particles spin and emit energy continuously, quite apart from photons that are emitted when particles accelerate. The continuous emission is detected as electromagnetic forces. The positive and negative particles block each other’s energy exchange, giving rise to shielding and attraction for unlike particles, repulsion occurring when both particles have similar charge and thereby exchange energy, recoiling apart. I proved that the attraction force is equal in magnitude to the repulsion force, and that because opposite particles block each other, the addition in the universe is not a straight line but a random walk. The mechanism for the electromagnetic force is the gravity mechanism multiplied by the random walk sum for all the particles of either charge in the universe, which is the square root of the number of charges, a far more accurate prediction than that involving the unexplained factor of 137 error in quantum electrodynamics (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/EW.htm).

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/central.jpg

You might want to speak to these people then.

Maybe you could speak directly to the graviton issue( refute Witten's claim, and place his derivation here as I am interested, even if it had to be a generalization for now) and detail how this would have been dismissed?

Thanks

 

[Nigel]

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/central.jpg

You might want to speak to these people then.

Maybe you could speak directly to the graviton issue( refute Witten's claim, and place his derivation here as I am interested, even if it had to be a generalization for now) and detail how this would have been dismissed?

Thanks

Newton's third law of motion is that every action has a reaction, and the reaction to the big bang is the inward force of gravity. Along the visible space-time trajectory, whereby distance = speed of light x time (and gravity goes at light speed too), the Hubble law contains a true constant.

(If we ignore the visible space-time trajectory, and try to calculate how far the stars are away after the light has traveled to us, then their distances will be further so the "constant" is not constant when considering absolute distances at a fixed time say 20 giga years after big bang.)

But on the space-time trajectory, where we deal with true observables which control gravity, it is constant because there v/r = constant = H.

Now this constant implies acceleration into the past (greater distances), a = dv/dt = d(Hr)/dt = Hv = H(Hr). The acceleration of mass implies force (F=ma). Newton's third law of motion is that every action has a reaction, and the reaction to the big bang is the inward force of gravity.

The physical space which causes this inward force is well described in electromagnetism.

 

[sol2]

Newton's third law of motion is that every action has a reaction, and the reaction to the big bang is the inward force of gravity. Along the visible space-time trajectory, whereby distance = speed of light x time (and gravity goes at light speed too), the Hubble law contains a true constant.


But on the space-time trajectory, where we deal with true observables which control gravity, it is constant because there v/r = constant = H.

Now this constant implies acceleration into the past (greater distances), a = dv/dt = d(Hr)/dt = Hv = H(Hr). The acceleration of mass implies force (F=ma). Newton's third law of motion is that every action has a reaction, and the reaction to the big bang is the inward force of gravity.

The physical space which causes this inward force is well described in electromagnetism.

Thanks for taking the time and care in those explanations.

One thing that really gave me a hard time was understanding the idea of the innate nature of curvature in the cosmos, but this becomes really easy once finding the Friedman equations and the curvature parameters.

(If we ignore the visible space-time trajectory, and try to calculate how far the stars are away after the light has traveled to us, then their distances will be further so the "constant" is not constant when considering absolute distances at a fixed time say 20 giga years after big bang.)

What also made this very easy to understand was the reality that gravity could indeed become very strong, and hence the nature of curvature much more defined?( you would have to correct here if this is wrong)

So what happened and we now have to explain this gap in our thinking

the reaction to the big bang is the inward force of gravity

There are a lot of things happening in terms of expansion, at the same time this is happening?

 

[Nigel]

The Hubble constant is real in the space-time trajectory which we observe, and in which gravity travels at light speed along with visible light. The Hubble constant (H) says that observed (visible) velocity (v) from Doppler red shift of galaxy clusters is proportional to the distances of those galaxies (d), or v = Hr. Because distance r is proportional to time past, t, the rate of change of observable velocity with respect to observable time is the acceleration a = dv/dt = d(Hr)/dt = Hv = HHr. Newton’s third law states that the mass accelerating away from us is a force which has an equal and opposite reaction upon the fabric of space, causing the downward push, gravity.

In "quantum gravity" there is the problem that the carrier particles, which are hypothetical but have nevertheless been named "gravitons" (which makes many people think that they have been observed), have to borrow energy using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The uncertainty principle says that the amount of uncertainty in the energy (and thus mass, by Einstein's E=mc^2) of the carrier particle is inversely proportional to the time that the energy is "borrowed".

Since the distance the carrier particle can go is at most the speed of light multiplied by that time, it follows that there is a limiting range for quantum forces. This works well for short-ranged nuclear forces, but not for gravity and electromagnetism. In addition, for electromagnetism the QED force theory for short ranges (ignoring the distance limit) predicts 137 times the observed force as given by the Coulomb law.

At present the official approach is to state that that the force carrier particles in electromagnetism and gravity have "no rest mass". Because they are never at rest, this is a little bit irrelevant, but if they had no transit mass then they would have no energy and thus would have an infinite range. The problem then is that, without mass, they would have no momentum to impart and would be unable to cause force.

Quite apart from these issues, the quantum force field theory for electromagnetism offers no explanation for attractive forces in terms of how momentum is exchanged, and offers no explanation for the differences in force strengths between electromagnetism, gravity and the strong nuclear force.

If you do the QED calculation, it gives you a force 137 times stronger than electromagnetism. This is equal to the strong nuclear force. In order to get the electromagnetic force using the official procedure, you divide this force by the factor 137 derived empirically by comparison with Coulomb's law. In order to get gravity, you divide by a still larger empirical factor, around 10^40, based upon Newton's law.

My work is concerned with the mechanisms for the forces by way of imparting momentum.

If you drop an apple, it gains momentum apparently from nowhere as it accelerates downward. This violates the law of conservation of momentum until you have a gravity proof which explains what is giving it momentum and why.

As Feynman said, to imagine that the particles know a formula, and can look around them, see the masses and calculate them accurately, then move in accordance to the law, is a little bit hocus pocus. The law is useful, and Einstein's modification in general relativity to conserve the potential energy of the gravitational field, predicts that light is deflected by gravity twice as much as slow moving objects. It also introduces time dilation as a result of gravity, and so on.

The only problem with general relativity is the lack of a mechanism, which means that it uses Newton's (really Laplace's) constant "G" without question. When we find that the mechanism for gravity is the equal and opposite reaction of space to the force from the acceleration of matter outwards in the big bang, we find that the furthest objects will not be slowed down, violating the gross application of general relativity to cosmology.

I predicted this via the letters page of the October 1996 issue of "Electronics World" about two years before Saul Perlmutter discovered it using CCD computerised observations of distant supernova redshifts.

 

[sol2]

The Hubble constant is real in the space-time trajectory which we observe, and in which gravity travels at light speed along with visible light. The Hubble constant (H) says that observed (visible) velocity (v) from Doppler red shift of galaxy clusters is proportional to the distances of those galaxies (d), or v = Hr. Because distance r is proportional to time past, t, the rate of change of observable velocity with respect to observable time is the acceleration a = dv/dt = d(Hr)/dt = Hv = HHr. Newton’s third law states that the mass accelerating away from us is a force which has an equal and opposite reaction upon the fabric of space, causing the downward push, gravity.

In "quantum gravity" there is the problem that the carrier particles, which are hypothetical but have nevertheless been named "gravitons" (which makes many people think that they have been observed), have to borrow energy using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The uncertainty principle says that the amount of uncertainty in the energy (and thus mass, by Einstein's E=mc^2) of the carrier particle is inversely proportional to the time that the energy is "borrowed".

Since the distance the carrier particle can go is at most the speed of light multiplied by that time, it follows that there is a limiting range for quantum forces. This works well for short-ranged nuclear forces, but not for gravity and electromagnetism. In addition, for electromagnetism the QED force theory for short ranges (ignoring the distance limit) predicts 137 times the observed force as given by the Coulomb law.

At present the official approach is to state that that the force carrier particles in electromagnetism and gravity have "no rest mass". Because they are never at rest, this is a little bit irrelevant, but if they had no transit mass then they would have no energy and thus would have an infinite range. The problem then is that, without mass, they would have no momentum to impart and would be unable to cause force.

Quite apart from these issues, the quantum force field theory for electromagnetism offers no explanation for attractive forces in terms of how momentum is exchanged, and offers no explanation for the differences in force strengths between electromagnetism, gravity and the strong nuclear force.

If you do the QED calculation, it gives you a force 137 times stronger than electromagnetism. This is equal to the strong nuclear force. In order to get the electromagnetic force using the official procedure, you divide this force by the factor 137 derived empirically by comparison with Coulomb's law. In order to get gravity, you divide by a still larger empirical factor, around 10^40, based upon Newton's law.

My work is concerned with the mechanisms for the forces by way of imparting momentum.

If you drop an apple, it gains momentum apparently from nowhere as it accelerates downward. This violates the law of conservation of momentum until you have a gravity proof which explains what is giving it momentum and why.

As Feynman said, to imagine that the particles know a formula, and can look around them, see the masses and calculate them accurately, then move in accordance to the law, is a little bit hocus pocus. The law is useful, and Einstein's modification in general relativity to conserve the potential energy of the gravitational field, predicts that light is deflected by gravity twice as much as slow moving objects. It also introduces time dilation as a result of gravity, and so on.

The only problem with general relativity is the lack of a mechanism, which means that it uses Newton's (really Laplace's) constant "G" without question. When we find that the mechanism for gravity is the equal and opposite reaction of space to the force from the acceleration of matter outwards in the big bang, we find that the furthest objects will not be slowed down, violating the gross application of general relativity to cosmology.

I predicted this via the letters page of the October 1996 issue of "Electronics World" about two years before Saul Perlmutter discovered it using CCD computerised observations of distant supernova redshifts.

In bold I higlighted your statement because as a student here, I wondered about the propogation question Michael brought up in regards to LIGO, and your statement.

In essence, the relevance of gravitational waves is understood, so if we progress here in terms of the massless particles, photon as a interactive entity, and we see where such gravitational waves this too, then why not this interaction between the two? What are we really saying? We have chosen them to represent, as carriers.

So your feelings about photon in respect of Gravitational Radiation and then I read through statements in regards to Hocus pocus of Feynmen?

What is strange to me then is the way in which such quantum geoemtry might have something to say about this issue using discription of photons long and short and how would we tackle this in face of such propogation.

To disavow credibility to answering orbital probabilites in face of gravitational wave generation as well why could we not have married the two into a quantum geometry. Even strings saids it is to fuzzy at that measurement, yet there are interactive capabilties in the issue of Glast that are truly forth coming?

 

[Nigel]

The "hocus pocus" expression is Feynman's, used in the final chapter of his book to describe the renormalisation of QED, the empirically necessary mathematical division by infinity to cancel infinity out, and so forth. It seems quite fair.


String theory is a little bit speculative still. I agree with gravitational radiation theory as predicted by general relativity. This is an effect of the acceleration of neutral/uncharged mass, whereas photon radiation comes from the acceleration of charges.

 

[sol2]

The "hocus pocus" expression is Feynman's, used in the final chapter of his book to describe the renormalisation of QED, the empirically necessary mathematical division by infinity to cancel infinity out, and so forth. It seems quite fair.

The discriptive pathways used in Feynmen's Toy models are very instructive.

That we add this feature to a very dynamcial movement in the universe does not remove pathways from the iteractions taking place in that cosmo. I think we can add this feature to the questions of Quantum geometry, and seeing your efforts, spark something else for me in terms of the "esoteric,":) on self similarity that was given in terms of isometric relationships(Rydberg atoms), that have been toted as bogus. I find these very relevant(?) from my own perspective, to the cosmological and quantum world of association, inherent in orbital discriptions. Coincidence?

http://www.amherst.edu/~rlolders/stars2/graphics/a1.jpg

http://www.amherst.edu/~rlolders/stars2/graphics/a2.jpg

This is speculation. But the topological feature of these varying states of progression needed some model for consideration, and from a interactive state, how would you do that if you had not considered the overall dynamics?

String theory is a little bit speculative still. I agree with gravitational radiation theory as predicted by general relativity. This is an effect of the acceleration of neutral/uncharged mass, whereas photon radiation comes from the acceleration of charges.

Could we not add new toy model discriptions here to Feynmen model approaches? Photon graviton interaction?

 

[Nigel]

Well, I'm saying continuous emission and absorption of energy carries the energy which causes electromagnetic forces. This results from the continuous spin of particles, which has no time variation so the frequency is zero (no oscillations per second). Spinning something which is symmetric does not create oscillating waves, just continuous energy emission. Planck's theory describes the quantum emission from charges jumping between energy levels in an atom, which is a different situation from continuous emission from a spinning charged particle.

As for the ether, I think that Professor H.A. Wilson puts it best in the 1959 4th edition of his book Modern Physics, which I quoted somewhere on the Physics Forums. Wilson, a brilliant nuclear physicist, pointed out that a vacuum has a magnetic permeability (in the equation of magnetic force) and an electric permittivity (in Coulomb's law of electric force), and that the no one has ever observed a space in which these values were zero.

Because a space empty of physical properties has never been observed, it is unscientific to make up theories about it. When you hold two magnets with the poles nearby and feel the attraction or repulsion force between them, you do not need to theorise that magic occurs. If you observe a physical force being transmitted through "empty space" then you can measure properties of space.

A particle ether, which is what a graviton mechanism would amount to - stripped of hocus pocus - would scatter photons of light in a diffuse pattern, rather than allow the smooth deflection of starlight by gravity which is actually observed during solar eclipses. In addition, a graviton particle ether would be likely to slow down planets and cause continuous drag on moving particles. The "Higgs Boson", a hyped-up particle ether invented by Peter Higgs in the early 1960s to explain inertial mass, is a bit too speculative and vague to convincingly explain what it sets out to do.

The problem with maths, if you study the history of applied mathematics, is that it is very hard to do anything for the first time. Once people have beaten a track, it is a different story. If you go to a standard mathematician, they will try to solve a problem using standard methods, ie, obvious methods, quickly. These guys are good at speed solutions needed to get A grades, but it's another story altogether when years of dedicated trial-and-error work is needed.

They don't have the imagination or dedication to follow up radical new ideas, so they all bunch up on one or two main roads, like superstrings (10 dimensions), and the entanglement interpretation of QED. Since they tend to get side-jobs as Referees for scientific journals, you find - surprise, surprise - that only these rain roads are illuminated with street lamps. The successful native paths are left in the dark (censored out).

The only way of getting these problems past the suppression barriers is to put in effort to first make the proofs clear and then probably to pay to publish them as notices in mainstream publications. I'd be happy with an energy field in space composed of equal positive and negative electromagnetic fields. When you put an electron near a proton to form a hydrogen atom, the result is neutrally charged, but in fact the energy of the positive and negative fields in the surrounding space does not cease to exist, only the net electric field becomes zero, and the mass-energy remains in the positive and negative fields.

A similar effect occurs in Young's double slit experiment, where energy arrives at the dark fringes out of phase, cancelling. When you calculate the energy for a few bright and dark fringes on the screen, the energy arriving in the bright areas is proportional to sin^2 x, where x is the scaled distance along the screen. Integrating this, you find that half the energy ends up in bright fringes and half in dark fringes. The dark fringes are produced by photons cancelling each other by interference. What happens to the energy, then, that lands up in the dark fringes?

David A. Chalmers wrote a paper in the Feb 1997 issue of the journal Science World, in which he made holes in the dark fringes of a screen, using a 0.5 milliwatt red laser as the light source, and detected light passing through the dark fringes. It seems that unless there is a hole for the light to go through, the "cancelled" light energy is simply absorbed by the screen as non-oscillatory electromagnetic energy. The light areas are merely places where the uncancelled light is received and can be reflected back.

To describe the 377 ohm fabric of space as a sea of normally cancelled-out positive and negative field energy, with a mass (given by m = energy divided by the square of the velocity of light) would be more sensible than speculating about unobserved gravitons or Higgs particles.

The energy field, while having a zero electric charge because of the equal positive and negative charges in the universe, nevertheless has mass and its interacting with moving particles would be to resist changes in velocity, ie, to cause inertia and momentum. Hence we would get Newton's laws.

 

[Nigel]

In bold I higlighted your statement because as a student here, I wondered about the propogation question Michael brought up in regards to LIGO, and your statement.

In essence, the relevance of gravitational waves is understood, so if we progress here in terms of the massless particles, photon as a interactive entity, and we see where such gravitational waves this too, then why not this interaction between the two? What are we really saying? We have chosen them to represent, as carriers.

So your feelings about photon in respect of Gravitational Radiation and then I read through statements in regards to Hocus pocus of Feynmen?

What is strange to me then is the way in which such quantum geoemtry might have something to say about this issue using discription of photons long and short and how would we tackle this in face of such propogation.

To disavow credibility to answering orbital probabilites in face of gravitational wave generation as well why could we not have married the two into a quantum geometry. Even strings saids it is to fuzzy at that measurement, yet there are interactive capabilties in the issue of Glast that are truly forth coming?

Here are H.A. Wilson's remarks on the nature of space:

"It has been supposed that empty space has no physical properties but only geometrical properties. No such empty space without physical properties has ever been observed, and the assumption that it can exist is without justification. It is convenient to ignore the physical properties of space when discussing its geometrical properties, but this ought not to have resulted in the belief in the possibility of the existence of empty space having only geometrical properties... It has specific inductive capacity and magnetic permeability." - Professor H.A. Wilson, FRS, Modern Physics, Blackie & Son Ltd, London, 4th ed., 1959, p. 361.

Basically, we don't need to get involved in ether particles speculation, we can use measured properties of the fabric of space which carry magnetic force we can feel between magnets to prove that measurable properties of a physical medium in the fabric of space, "empty space", exist. Measurable properties are scientific, so the fabric of space is a physical reality. Nobody has ever discovered a space in which the electromagnetic permittivity and permeability are zero, so an "empty space" is purely speculation. A vacuum conveys magnetic forces. We measure this as the permeability of a vacuum.

 

[sol2]

Here are H.A. Wilson's remarks on the nature of space:

"It has been supposed that empty space has no physical properties but only geometrical properties. No such empty space without physical properties has ever been observed, and the assumption that it can exist is without justification. It is convenient to ignore the physical properties of space when discussing its geometrical properties, but this ought not to have resulted in the belief in the possibility of the existence of empty space having only geometrical properties... It has specific inductive capacity and magnetic permeability." - Professor H.A. Wilson, FRS, Modern Physics, Blackie & Son Ltd, London, 4th ed., 1959, p. 361.

Basically, we don't need to get involved in ether particles speculation, we can use measured properties of the fabric of space which carry magnetic force we can feel between magnets to prove that measurable properties of a physical medium in the fabric of space, "empty space", exist. Measurable properties are scientific, so the fabric of space is a physical reality. Nobody has ever discovered a space in which the electromagnetic permittivity and permeability are zero, so an "empty space" is purely speculation. A vacuum conveys magnetic forces. We measure this as the permeability of a vacuum.

There is a interesting set of questions that come up in regards to background versus non background, and the way in which we describe the nature of this reality. By the respective tendencies, of LG or Strings this becomes specific.

If going through the issues of GR, it was evident that such graduation in thinking would have moved the discussion of the gauss field , with coordinates measures understood in those magnetic fields, yet it was part and parcel of this graduation to understand that it was to leave Euclidean perspectives. So we recognized the curvture properties in the issues of gravity where none could have existed with the normal definitions of Euclidean?

I have become confused bewteen your correspondance to the ether in context of the derivation of gravitational waves and further extension in the carrier as the graviton.

If such a "pattern" is to disavow the photon in our recognitions of the work laid out for us in the historical determinations(em considerations), then I would have to ask if the interferometer has somehow been removed from this process?

It was well evident to me that we are not talking about the esoteric nature of the medium, but of logical evdeince of energy being transferred to other means and propogation through the cosmos. The recognition of the spacetime fabric as well.

So this takes us further to the question of Dimension then and its measure in regards to TEV measures. The Gap in the sense of the black hole not only questioned the cosmological significance of the nature of this curvature but also what possibilties can exist, in the nature of the colliders.

Does this seem consistent and respective of your post.

Here is link for consideration



I am still very green here

 

[Nigel]

Yes, it does seem consistent. If we agree that space has specific properties, the vacuum is physical reality. If you have a cubic metre of space in a vacuum, it is not an imaginary non-existent geometrical construction, but has measurable physical qualities (characteristic impedance, permittivity, permeability, and conductive velocity, c). The 19th century physics journals, and the internet of today, are both found to be loaded with hypothetical models and speculative particles which fill the vacuum. Einstein was at one stage praised for dismissing them in 1905, although he restored what he called an "ether" 1920 in his inaugural lecture at Leyden University, describing a physical space with properties of a continuum as well as electromagnetic properties.

General relativity indicates, by the successful prediction of the smooth deflections of photons of starlight by the sun's strong gravity as seen during eclipses, that the fabric of space is not particulate. It is difficult to imagine how particles causing gravity could interact with particles (photons) of light without particle-particle scatter occurring.

Electromagnetic theory says the impedance of the vacuum is a fixed 377 ohms, which is highly significant as radiation is only resisted once regardless of distance traveled in space (although particles diverge as they travel outwards, the individual photon is not retarded in proportion to distance travelled). The resistance of anything composed of particles is proportional to distance (thus, ohms/metre). A fixed, once-only impedance is different from the drag you get in particle fluids, so the fabric of space in general relativity is described as an "ideal fluid". After space is forced to flow around a particle, it continues doing so without resistance. You then have to apply force to stop the particle moving, to break down the wave flowing around it.

The properties of matter such as inertia and momentum therefore accord with the properties of a space continuum implied by electromagnetism and general relativity.

 

[arivero]

Nigel, I notice nobody tells in the thread that your prediction is one to get G from a measurement of Hubble constant, not from first principles. Have they even read your webpage?

 

[Nigel]

Nigel, I notice nobody tells in the thread that your prediction is one to get G from a measurement of Hubble constant, not from first principles. Have they even read your webpage?

The proof is a proof from first principles employing observable facts such as laws of motion, density, and the motion of stars which you mean when you refer to the Hubble "constant". I start with the observed facts. Your question says that the mathematical proof for the cause of gravity is a connection between the Hubble constant and Laplace's constant G.

The important fact at stake is the mechanism explaining the connection, published seven years ago. The numerical connection made last week is further evidence that the proof is correct. By accounting fully for gravity, it excludes the possibility that there is another cause at work, such as a partial contribution to gravitation by mysterious "dark matter".

The Hubble constant is often falsely stated as being the velocity divided by the distance, but the distance will increase while the light comes to us.

Therefore, the observed constant is the velocity divided by the travel time of the light (this time is equal to the apparent observed distance divided into the velocity of light, not the actual distance where the star is now).

The crucial distinction is that the observable fact, namely velocity being proportional to travel time, implies acceleration.

You will notice that v/t is constant for continuous acceleration, and in fact has units of acceleration. In the frame of reference in which we see the stars, therefore, the Hubble recession is an acceleration of matter away from us in all directions. By Newton's 2nd Law, force = mass multiplied by acceleration, so there is a force in the observable space-time. By Newton's 3rd law, there is a reaction inwards. The calculation shows this is gravity.

When you calculate the effect of this on the fabric of space, you get gravity. There is no possibility that gravity is a law of nature as well as being the result of the mechanism here, because it would then be double its measured strength.

 

[dedaNoe]

The acceleration of matter outwards in the big bang is a force (Newton's 2nd law) requiring a reaction (Newton's 3rd law). The reaction is the inward directed force of gravity carried by the fabric of space.

Newton's mechanics which includes:
-the gravity law;
-the 3rd law;
-the 2nd law;
-the 1st law;
is inaccurate and here is whyIt is one of my sites on geocities . I'm not spaming. I'm just trying to sell what nobody is willing to buy.

Try the law of lever.

 

[Nigel]

Newton's mechanics which includes:
-the gravity law;
-the 3rd law;
-the 2nd law;
-the 1st law;
is inaccurate and here is whyIt is one of my sites on geocities . I'm not spaming. I'm just trying to sell what nobody is willing to buy.

Try the law of lever.

They're accurate enough for my purposes!

 

[Nigel]

Here's another 'objection' people sometimes make. In 1948, Dr Edward Teller took a breather from promoting his hydrogen bomb design for the benefit of the human race, and wrote a paper attacking a suggestion by Dirac that the gravity constant G varies with time.

Teller "showed" that any increase in G in the past would - because the fusion rate depends on gravitational compression in the sun - have meant the oceans were boiling when life was supposed to be evolving.

In fact, like his false hydrogen bomb design (only corrected by mathematician Stanislaw Ulam in 1951), his objection was false.

As the gravity constant G increases, so would the the Coulomb law (which is about 10^40 times stronger).

The increase in nuclear fusion in the sun due to the rising gravitational compression of the core would be offset by the rising Coulomb repulsion between protons.

So you don't get what Teller predicted. (Just as well they didn't need his hydrogen bomb design of 1948! Although I admire his promotion of unpopular civil defence countermeasures and deterrence against the Soviet Union.)

In order to fuse two nuclei (all nuclei have positive charge), you need to force them close enough together against electrostatic repulsion that the short-ranged strong nuclear force attracts them.

Therefore, you always have the issue that a variation in the Coulomb electromagnetic force offsets a variation in the gravitational compression force, whatever stars you consider.

Other people claim that G cannot vary because of properties of rocks dated by radioactive decay of uranium into lead, or similar. These claims fall down for the same reason. If there is any link between the mechanisms of different fundamental forces, then the dating of the rock's by decay products suffers from the issue that the force controlling the decay rate (the strong nuclear force or weak nuclear force, depending on the type of radioactivity) would vary. If you assume without proof one thing is constant in order to "disprove" the variation of something, the reasoning is circular!

Basically, ridicule is not a very scientific approach. It is better to look for what is positive than political-type "shoot the messenger" activities!

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Your question says that the mathematical proof for the cause of gravity is a connection between the Hubble constant and Laplace's constant G.

as far as i know G is called Newton's constant.

 

[Nigel]

as far as i know G is called Newton's constant.

Give credit where it is due, Newton's Principia does not mention G, which was introduced by Laplace in the 18th century!

 

[Nigel]

Newton's mechanics which includes:
-the gravity law;
-the 3rd law;
-the 2nd law;
-the 1st law;
is inaccurate and here is whyIt is one of my sites on geocities . I'm not spaming. I'm just trying to sell what nobody is willing to buy.

Try the law of lever.

Newton's three "Laws" of motion are observations, and in that sense not inaccurate. His gravity law is correct for the situation I analyse in my papers and obtain the mechanism of gravity from. Einstein's law states that the Ricci tensor is equal to 4 times pi times the energy tensor for the limiting everyday case (EXACTLY equivalent to Newton's Law), but a term subtracted from the Ricci tensor changes the result to 8 pi times the energy tensor in the case of light speed. Thus starlight passing near the sun experiences an acceleration of a = 2MG/r^2, whereas an apple dropped only a = MG/r^2. This difference in 1919 validated Einstein. His work in using tensors to account for the conservation of gravitational potential energy is brilliant. However, it lacks a mechanism for gravitation.

Since you object to Newton, let's see what he actually said:

Newton’s Principia corrected English translation from the Latin (revised 2nd edition, 1713).

Preface dated 8 May 1686 Trinity College to first edition, Newton ends: ‘I heartily beg that what I have here done may be read with forbearance; and that my labours in a subject so difficult may be examined, not so much with the view to censure, as to remedy their defects.’ (Interesting, when you consider that Hooke had earlier ridiculed Newton’s arrogant paper on light; pointing out an error and humiliating him. Was Newton paranoid, or genuinely trying to avert censure? Today’s historian simply says ‘Newton was humble’.)

Definitions: 1. Mass = density x volume, 2. Momentum = velocity x mass, 3. Inertia = force opposing acceleration of mass, 4. Force = action causing the acceleration of mass, 5. Centripetal force = force directed from all directions towards a point.

‘[Def.8] ... I here design only to give a mathematical notion of those forces, without considering their physical causes and seats.’

Scholium: ‘... I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion... II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure... III. Place is a part of space which a body takes up... The motion of the whole is the same with the sum of the motions of the parts... IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another...’

‘The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion, are the forces of receding from the axis of circular motion. For there are no such forces in a circular motion purely relative...’

'Axioms, or Laws of Motion: Law I. Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.

[Adapted from René Descartes’ Principia Philosophiae of 1644, where Descartes discussed ‘rules of Nature’, writing: ‘If at rest we do not believe it is ever set in motion, unless it is impelled thereto by some cause. Nor that there is any more reason if it is moved, why we should think that it would ever of its own accord, and unimpeded by anything else, interrupt this motion.’]

'Projectiles continue in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity.

[Compare this ‘observation’ with Aristotle’s actual mechanism for the projectile, whereby some type of ether – air was not understood – moves around a moving object as a wave that pushes the arrow onwards, causing inertial resistance and momentum.]

'A top, whose parts by their cohesion are continually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than it is retarded by the air. [A spinning top is not retarded by the air to any significant extent, but by heat friction of the point or bearing in motion.] The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in freer spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time.

‘Law II. The change of motion is proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed. ...

‘Law III. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. ... If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. ... the changes of the velocities made towards contrary parts are inversely proportional to the bodies.’

[i.e., momentum conservation means v2/v1 = m1/m2. This is very important, correcting the gross error in Descartes’ second ‘law of Nature’ of 1647. Descartes had written: ‘1. If two bodies have equal mass and velocity before they collide then both will be reflected by the collision, and will retain the same speeds they possessed beforehand. 2. If two bodies have unequal masses, then upon collision the lighter body will be reflected and its new velocity become equal to that of the heavier one. The velocity of the heavier body remains unchanged.’ This latter is wrong.]

Book I. The Motion of Bodies. ‘Section II. The Determination of Centripetal Forces. Proposition 1. Theorem 1. The areas which revolving bodies describe by radii drawn to an immovable centre of force ... are proportional to the times on which they are described. For suppose the time to be divided into equal parts ... suppose that a centripetal force acts at once with a great impulse, and, turning aside the body from the right line... in equal times, equal areas are described... Now let the number of those triangles be augmented, and their breadth diminished in infinitum ... Q.E.D.’

[Newton proves this using a Euclid-style geometric diagram instead of using differential calculus. The proof could be ridiculed by a bigot as being wishy-washy as it assume that it is permissible to treat a true elliptical orbit as if it is composed of lots of triangles with the force being assumed to act discretely as lots of small discrete impulses (causing each deflection of the planet towards the sun), instead of a continuously acting force! (By the same bigotry, you could deny that the exponential curve and sine curve are composed of lots of steps from a TEM wave charging a capacitor or going through inductor.) Newton nowhere writes the F=mMG/r2 law. Laplace introduced G in the eighteenth century. Planet speed, v = (circumference of orbit, 2 pi R)/(time taken for orbit, T). By Kepler’s third law, T squared over R cubed is constant. Hence centripetal acceleration (velocity squared over radius) for gravity does as the inverse square of radius. (Newton did not know the mass of the Earth or sun very well and like Catt, didn’t get involved with anything which he felt might censure him as a charlatan, falling down only with the particle nature of light, false non-adiabatic equation for speed of sound, and other trifling factual errors.)]

Book III. The System of the World (In Mathematical Treatment). General Scholium. ‘... Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets ... But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. ... And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the classical bodies, and of our sea.'

In bold print I have highlighted Newton's statement "...I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis..." which I agree with and have used myself in proof of the mechanism of gravity, based upon observables (including Hubble expansion).

Those who deny the observed Hubble expansion are refusing to put their eye to the telescope to see the redshift, or to check the red-shifted spectra for signs of scattering or tiring of light. Only one observable mechanism for the red-shift is proved, and that is the Doppler shift implying motion. The red-shifted spectra do not show the scattering which would indicate that the cause of the red-shift is dust scattering, not do they show any evidence for a red-shift which is greater at some frequencies than others (as would be implied by a tired light hypothesis, if the low energy frequencies got tired faster than higher frequencies). There is no scientific evidence and no scientific explanation for any cause beyond the Doppler effect and gravitational redshift. And since we know the masses of constant energy supernovae, their increasing redshifts with distance imply increasing Doppler velocity. This is scientific observation.

 

[Nigel]

In bold print I have highlighted Newton's statement "...I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis..." which I agree with and have used myself in proof of the mechanism of gravity, based upon observables (including Hubble expansion).

Those who deny the observed Hubble expansion are refusing to put their eye to the telescope to see the redshift, or to check the red-shifted spectra for signs of scattering or tiring of light. Only one observable mechanism for the red-shift is proved, and that is the Doppler shift implying motion. The red-shifted spectra do not show the scattering which would indicate that the cause of the red-shift is dust scattering, not do they show any evidence for a red-shift which is greater at some frequencies than others (as would be implied by a tired light hypothesis, if the low energy frequencies got tired faster than higher frequencies). There is no scientific evidence and no scientific explanation for any cause beyond the Doppler effect and gravitational redshift. And since we know the masses of constant energy supernovae, their increasing redshifts with distance imply increasing Doppler velocity. This is scientific observation.

EYE TO TELESCOPE:

From Galileo’s letter to Kepler: ‘Here, at Padua, is the principal professor of philosophy, who I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do!’ (Translation: Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, 1893, p. 106.)

 

[Nigel]

The discriptive pathways used in Feynman's Toy models are very instructive.

That we add this feature to a very dynamical movement in the universe does not remove pathways from the interactions taking place in that cosmos. I think we can add this feature to the questions of Quantum geometry, and seeing your efforts, spark something else ...

Could we not add new toy model discriptions here to Feynmen model approaches? Photon graviton interaction?

In 1965, the "Path Integrals" approach of Richard Feynman and Albert Hibbs was published in their book. The infinite-range, inverse square law forces of gravity and electromagnetism (as opposed to nuclear forces with a limited maximum range), while controlled in interactions by the Heisenberg principle, are actually different in mechanism. The virtual photons which appear to be exchanged in electromagnetic interactions are not a simple analogy to the massive particles exchanged in nuclear forces. It is therefore wrong to suppress research on other paths. I prefer Feynman's approach.

He also quite rightly said: "If we suppress all discussion, all criticism... we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before." (Feynman, What do you care what other people think?, Unwin Hyman, London, 1989, p248.)

 

[sol2]

In 1965, the "Path Integrals" approach of Richard Feynman and Albert Hibbs was published in their book. The infinite-range, inverse square law forces of gravity and electromagnetism (as opposed to nuclear forces with a limited maximum range), while controlled in interactions by the Heisenberg principle, are actually different in mechanism. The virtual photons which appear to be exchanged in electromagnetic interactions are not a simple analogy to the massive particles exchanged in nuclear forces. It is therefore wrong to suppress research on other paths. I prefer Feynman's approach.

He also quite rightly said: "If we suppress all discussion, all criticism... we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before." (Feynman, What do you care what other people think?, Unwin Hyman, London, 1989, p248.)

In supersymmetrical realization, the nature of gravity would have to be very strong?

It is therefore wrong to suppress research on other paths.

LQG's focus in SR has some interesting questions about the nature of dimension that needed to be answered? For a Gr perspective, strings recognizes something different in the continuous nature of expression?

Em considerations, are held to the brane what could that mean now? The gravitons are free from that brane and are alllowed to roam freely in the bulk.

 

[Nigel]

In supersymmetrical realization, the nature of gravity would have to be very strong?



LQG's focus in SR has some interesting questions about the nature of dimension that needed to be answered? For a Gr perspective, strings recognizes something different in the continuous nature of expression?

Em considerations, are held to the brane what could that mean now? The gravitons are free from that brane and are alllowed to roam freely in the bulk.

Gravitons constitute a fabric of space, if you go along with quantum gravity theory. If so, then the mechanism I use is compatible with gravions.

In that case, the gravitons provide the equal and opposite reaction required by Newton's 3rd law to sustain the outward force due to the accelerating mass in the big bang. Either way, the correct calculation, accurate to 1.65%, is unaffected. Here's a sad story about gravitons, however.

The Editor of Electronics World says he received messages claiming that graviton theory proves the cause of gravity to be equations, and that therefore the physical cause must be gibberish, and it was criminal that it was published.

But this is using unproved ideas to ridicule proof. Feynman:

‘You will say to me… Do you mean to tell me that a planet looks at the sun, sees how far it is, calculates the inverse square law of the distance and then decides to move in accordance with that law?' In other words, although I have stated the mathematical law, I have given no clue about the mechanism.’

-Nobel Laureate Professor R.P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, Penguin, London, 1992, p. 33.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Nigel,

Dirac predicted that the value of G decreases as the universe gets older. Do you agree?

 

[Nigel]

Nigel,

Dirac predicted that the value of G decreases as the universe gets older. Do you agree?

Antonio,

You know the answer from the start of this thread! Years ago I proved from the big bang reaction of space and its shielding by mass that the gravitational constant is G = (3/4).(square of Hubble constant)/(product of pi and the density of the universe where the outward expansion creates the greatest inward reaction).

Last week I found this density by solving the mass continuity equation (rate of change of density, plus the mathematical divergence of the product of density and velocity, equals zero). This equation models the expansion of a gas, and is based on the work of mathematicians Gauss and Green. I solved it by putting in the Hubble law, v = Hr, and spherical symmetry so that the divergence expansion, and after integrating, getting rid of natural logarithms, etc., came to the result that the effective density of the distant universe where the majority of the space recoil comes from (to cause gravity from our standpoint) is equal to the cube of the base of natural logarithms multiplied by the local density of the universe. It turns out that this gives the correct value for G to within 1.65%.

So when you ask if I say whether I agree with Dirac's guess that G decreases as the universe gets older, surely you know that I will reply no.

The great beauty of my result is that it allows a rational answer to such questions as this: G is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant divided by the density. The absolute Hubble expansion (which we can never observe, because we can only observe and feel gravity in space-time coming at the speed of light from the past to reach us) is inversely proportional to the age of the universe, while the density (of a sphere of matter whose radius expands at light speed) is inversely proportional to the cube of time.

Therefore, G is proportional to time and increases in direct proportion to the age of the universe, if the universe is expanding at constant light speed. If the electromagnetic (E.M.) force (also an inverse square law with no limiting range, unlike nuclear forces) has a mechanism related to gravity such as energy exchange between charges in a random walk to avoid straight-line cancellation by opposing charges randomly distributed (so the E.M. force is the gravity force multiplied by the square-root of the total number of charges in the universe), then it will increase like gravity does.

So, as I said in a previous posting, the effect of the variation of G on the sun's brightness will be offset by the variation of the electromagnetic forces. Stronger gravity implies higher fusion rate, but stronger E.M. implies greater Coulomb repulsion between nuclei and thus lower fusion rate. The two effects offset one another, unlike Teller's simplistic ideas of 1948.

Alan Guth's "inflationary" universe concept would allow a variation in the speed of expansion with speed higher for a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang. If light speed varies with time more generally, it would affect my discussion above. I have a hard enough job getting hard facts discussed objectively, and do not want to get involved in speculations that will allow bigots to try to rubbish my efforts.

Thanks for your message, and I hope this reply answers it!

 

[Nigel]

Nigel,

Dirac predicted that the value of G decreases as the universe gets older. Do you agree?

If my reply above is right:

1. At time zero gravity was zero, and this shows why the universe was able to expand, and not a "black hole". Normally people have to say that the big bang overcame the black hole problem by going too fast for gravity to restrain it, or similar, which is just a little bit unconvincing.

2. The weaker gravity in the past (although offset in nuclear fusion processes by the similarly weaker electromagnetic force), will have other effects on the universe. There are usually problems, for example, with the ripples in the cosmic background radiation (from 300,000 years after the big bang) appearing to be too small to allow galaxies to have formed in the time available.

The fact that gravity would have been about 67,000 times weaker at 300,000 years after the big bang indicates that the "too small" variations observed by the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite were in fact very big for such a weak gravity, and would have multiplied up very rapidly as gravity increased in strength. Hence this mechanism of gravity solves the problem of the small variations in the cosmic background radiation without the need for the inflationary theory.

Since the forces all vary in the same way with age of the universe, the ratio of one force to another remains constant (obviously when the temperature gets very high the nuclear force carrier particles change within a fraction of a second of the big bang, and you can therefore get force strengths changing and unifications). The nuclear synthesis of elements in the big bang gives the same relative abundances as in the Standard Model, since the ratios of the forces are constant one to another.

 

[Nigel]

In supersymmetrical realization, the nature of gravity would have to be very strong?



LQG's focus in SR has some interesting questions about the nature of dimension that needed to be answered? For a Gr perspective, strings recognizes something different in the continuous nature of expression?

Em considerations, are held to the brane what could that mean now? The gravitons are free from that brane and are alllowed to roam freely in the bulk.

Ian Wightman has kindly emailed me a paper of his which clearly explains some of the problems in the usual interpretations of general relativity, and has given me permission to quote from it. He discusses the usual ‘explanation’ of general relativity which says gravity is like curvature of a rubber surface which pushes masses together which ‘indent’ that surface:

‘To shed light on his ideas Einstein explained the gravitational effect with his famous analogy that visualised space-time as a flat but taut rubber sheet. The curvature of this flat sheet is initially zero and is equated with space-time that would exist in the absence of matter. In this case the gravitational potential is effectively zero.’

Ian explains that Einstein was missing a major point by using a two-dimensional surface to model more dimensions:

‘Although Einstein’s analogy can be said to be merely a simple visualisation intended only as an aid to understanding his principle of the matter induced curvature of space-time, Einstein failed to exploit his model to its full potential.’

He then suggests a better model of space time as matter imbedded within a compressible medium, which allows you to measure and define the distortion of space-time. You have a space-time carrier 377-ohm fabric in any volume.

When you consider a person walking down a corridor, for example, then you start with a man displacing say 70 litres of air at one end of the corridor and you end up with him at the other end. The net effect is that the man has traveled along the corridor in one direction, and 70 litres of air have gone the other way to fill in the space he has vacated. (This analogy is open to jokers who claim that the air just gets compressed in front of a man when he walks down a corridor, and that a vacuum forms behind!)

To get around silly objections, it is perhaps best to think of a submarine moving underwater, since the water displaced is virtually incompressible and we all know that when something moves under water you don’t get water being compressed or a void being created for ever behind the object. (I admit that water cavitation occurs behind a fast underwater object, like a fast propeller or torpedo, but not when swimming!)

What you find with the water analogy to space, of course, is a kind of increased inertia in which you need to put energy into setting up a wave of water flowing around a moving object from front to rear. Hence, there is a net displacement of water equal to the volume of the object, moving at the same speed but in the opposite direction. Allowing for fluid drag which does not occur in the continuum of space, you can learn something about wave-particle duality and so forth, as Ian says, when you think about moving particles in a fluid space.

By the way, the full title and publication details for the so-called 'heretical' book on the 'sum over histories' alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, by Professor Richard P. Feynman and his student Albert R. Hibbs is 'Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals', McGraw-Hill, London, 1965.

 

[sol2]

Ian explains that Einstein was missing a major point by using a two-dimensional surface to model more dimensions:

‘Although Einstein’s analogy can be said to be merely a simple visualisation intended only as an aid to understanding his principle of the matter induced curvature of space-time, Einstein failed to exploit his model to its full potential.’

He then suggests a better model of space time as matter imbedded within a compressible medium, which allows you to measure and define the distortion of space-time. You have a space-time carrier 377-ohm fabric in any volume.

When you consider a person walking down a corridor, for example, then you start with a man displacing say 70 litres of air at one end of the corridor and you end up with him at the other end. The net effect is that the man has traveled along the corridor in one direction, and 70 litres of air have gone the other way to fill in the space he has vacated. (This analogy is open to jokers who claim that the air just gets compressed in front of a man when he walks down a corridor, and that a vacuum forms behind!)

To get around silly objections, it is perhaps best to think of a submarine moving underwater, since the water displaced is virtually incompressible and we all know that when something moves under water you don’t get water being compressed or a void being created for ever behind the object. (I admit that water cavitation occurs behind a fast underwater object, like a fast propeller or torpedo, but not when swimming!)

What you find with the water analogy to space, of course, is a kind of increased inertia in which you need to put energy into setting up a wave of water flowing around a moving object from front to rear. Hence, there is a net displacement of water equal to the volume of the object, moving at the same speed but in the opposite direction. Allowing for fluid drag which does not occur in the continuum of space, you can learn something about wave-particle duality and so forth, as Ian says, when you think about moving particles in a fluid space.

By the way, the full title and publication details for the so-called 'heretical' book on the 'sum over histories' alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, by Professor Richard P. Feynman and his student Albert R. Hibbs is 'Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals', McGraw-Hill, London, 1965.

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gallery/animations/ggm01/ggm01-200.gif

There is no doubt that the visulaizations that have been extended here, would help greatly.

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@38.b2bkc0vhj9c.0@.1dde934e/118

I wrote this when I was trying to think of a better way to interpret how dimension might have been realized.

I mean from one standpoint, rotation, would have to have been considered in this analysis, but bubbles present a interesting way in which to address what you are saying.

Four years after the launch of the CHAMP satellite and more than two years after successfully placing the GRACE satellite pair into orbit a first joint meeting of the CHAMP and GRACE Science Teams will be held on July 6-8, 2004 at the GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam (GFZ).

The meeting shall stimulate a broad discussion within the international science community on the exploitation and application of the gravimetric, magnetic and atmospheric data products from these highly innovative geodetic missions in low altitude orbits. It shall also demonstrate the CHAMP/GRACE mission data potential for Earth system science studies when being used in combination with data from complementary remote sensing missions, aircrafts and ground instrumentation.

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/cosmology/flatness.gif

 

[Nigel]

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gallery/animations/ggm01/ggm01-200.gif

There is no doubt that the visulaizations that have been extended here, would help greatly.

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@38.b2bkc0vhj9c.0@.1dde934e/118

I wrote this when I was trying to think of a better way to interpret how dimension might have been realized.

I mean from one standpoint, rotation, would have to have been considered in this analysis, but bubbles present a interesting way in which to address what you are saying.



http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/cosmology/flatness.gif

Been there, done that. Wrote a paper years ago on the fluid pressure effects on bubbles in beer or lemonade. They "stick" against the rigid inside of the glass because the fluid at any depth exerts an excess (over normal atmospheric) pressure in all directions of: P = F/A = ma/A = mg/A = (liquid density)x(height of liquid above bubble)x(acceleration due to gravity).

The bubbles are pushed against the sides of the glass by the absence of pressure coming back from the rigid glass. So they stick. Unfortunately, when you use this to explain to people how gravity works, they are more interested in claiming that bubbles form on the sides due to dirt or whatever, and they fail to grasp the point. You can only take an ass to water but you can't make it drink.

However, the dielectric or fabric of space is very different to water. Whereas water has a continuous resistance or drag due to being composed of particles, the 377 ohm fabric of space is a continuum and thus behaves as one thing, causing resistance only once when velocity changes (inertia). If it was a sea of particles, its impedance would be some value in units of ohms/metre, not the measured fixed 377 ohms for displacement current in the vacuum of space regardless of distance. This means that space does not give rise to diffusive pressure like water, so the shielding by a nucleus gives a slight geometric shadowing effect to large distances unlike the side of the glass in water.

You get people trying to misunderstand gravity, claiming that if you hold an umbrella over your head, it would attract you upwards reducing your weight. This is false because the shielding effect from the umbrella is insignificant. (You'd need an umbrella with the Earth's mass to cancel out gravity!) Another claim is that gravity would be weakened inside the Earth by the shielding effect, instead of getting stronger. In fact Newton's gravity says there is no net force of gravity at the Earth's core, although the maximum pressure is found there! The reason is that the pushing effect from the outer layers of the Earth is focussed on a small small core, so the pressure (force per unit area) increases as you go inwards, despite weakening gravity (which is the same in Newton's theory as in shadowing theory). Finally, some people claim that gravity shielding would weaken significantly as not observed. But this is disproved by measured neutron cross-sectional areas which are measured in units of barns per nuclei, equal to 10^-24 square cm. In practice, quarks and electrons behave more like black holes, and the cross-sections are the effective reaction areas taking account of surrounding nuclear force fields, but in either case even the mass of the entire Earth would not significantly reduce gravity. The entire effects we get from gravity, which is the weakest known force in the universe, stem from very small shielding of a very great pressure from the fabric of space.

I've been ill lately and I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier, and if this post is a bit pessimistic. I think science is at an end because people prefer to believe in magic laws of Newton and Einstein, etc, than to search out the mechanism. Soon teachers will be taking the next step, declaring that a car goes because it's a law of nature that the accelerator pedal makes it go, end of story. (End of mechanics, just as science has been ended by charlatans.)

In place of Archimedes' style mechanical proof, we'll all be force fed Popperian speculations with the claim that any "fallible proposition" that comes from a FRS or a DSc like Hawking published in the "right place" must be a "proper" scientific theory, while anyone who proves anything using a combination of facts, observables, and logic is a charlatan.

 

[sol2]

Nigel,


https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=252279&postcount=28

This post was really instructive in terms of co-ordianted realities.

Let's forget about the surfaces for a bit here in terms of bubble attachments and just focus on bubble nucleation. You immediately recognize that the visualization techniques you are using are really speaking to a deeper reality that many do not undertand, but today Marcus gives us a fine explanation linkage from Woit on this discriptor factor in how we might approach quantum gravity?

To me, this landscape can be very selective in terms of what we choose to use in the current physics arsenal as discriptors. We had been talking about the issue of Glast and the issue of Lorentz Invariance.

We'll have to monitor Lubos's contribution to Wikpedia to see if there are any revisions:)

If you dismiss the graviton, any attempt by the Pierre Ramond question, of what the http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@128.bfTecRj8l6z.16@.1ddf4a5f/29 is, that unifies all of creation, might we have not stumbled upon, something far greater in our geometrical determinations that we have failed to add to the visualization we are currently being given. It is not so easy to remove Hulse ad Taylor from the understanding of gravitational wave production, and thus, the graviton as a carrier.

Was it wrong to use the photon, in regards to em considerations?

 

[Nigel]

Nigel,


https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=252279&postcount=28

This post was really instructive in terms of co-ordianted realities.

Let's forget about the surfaces for a bit here in terms of bubble attachments and just focus on bubble nucleation. You immediately recognize that the visualization techniques you are using are really speaking to a deeper reality that many do not undertand, but today Marcus gives us a fine explanation linkage from Woit on this discriptor factor in how we might approach quantum gravity?

To me, this landscape can be very selective in terms of what we choose to use in the current physics arsenal as discriptors. We had been talking about the issue of Glast and the issue of Lorentz Invariance.

We'll have to monitor Lubos's contribution to Wikpedia to see if there are any revisions:)

If you dismiss the graviton, any attempt by the Pierre Ramond question, of what the http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@128.bfTecRj8l6z.16@.1ddf4a5f/29 is, that unifies all of creation, might we have not stumbled upon, something far greater in our geometrical determinations that we have failed to add to the visualization we are currently being given. It is not so easy to remove Hulse ad Taylor from the understanding of gravitational wave production, and thus, the graviton as a carrier.

Was it wrong to use the photon, in regards to em considerations?

Sorry Sol, but the "graviton" is vague and unscientific guesswork which contradicts the facts because quantum gravity has the limited range issue (given by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) if the "graviton" can cause force by delivering momentum (having mass energy). If so, it has a limited range like nuclear forces, and doesn't obey the inverse square law. If not, then it must have zero mass and be unable to cause forces by delivering momentum. Either way, it is likely to scatter rather than smoothly deflect photons of light from stars passing near the sun (particle-particle interaction) as observed. Gravitons are nonsense when seen in the light of the available facts. They have never been observed, unlike the 377 ohm fabric of space. It would be more instructive to call the particles magic particles, or say "hobgoblins". That way, we won't be charlatans when we speak of imaginary gravitons - whoops - I mean hobgoblins.

Many people seem to be interested in fanciful names. Unless you know something exists for sure, it's counterproductive to name it before discovery!

Take the planet Vulcan, N-Rays, or Atlantas. These are pseudoscience. Like Caloric, Phlogiston, and the mechanical gear cog and idler wheel aether of Maxwell (unlike the observed 377 ohm continuum of space), these named hobgoblins just hold back science. We have to try to keep to things with measurable properties in physics.

If I were to invent a fancy "theory" that mysterious, unobserved "U" particles cause gravity, doubtless it would be acceptable to many people who want to believe in the latest scam - whoops - I mean the latest fashion, but it would not be science. It is impossible to make this fact clear without some very slight criticism of existing standards of science.

Nigel

 

[sol2]

Sorry Sol, but the "graviton" is vague and unscientific guesswork which contradicts the facts because quantum gravity has the limited range issue (given by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) if the "graviton" can cause force by delivering momentum (having mass energy). If so, it has a limited range like nuclear forces, and doesn't obey the inverse square law. If not, then it must have zero mass and be unable to cause forces by delivering momentum. Either way, it is likely to scatter rather than smoothly deflect photons of light from stars passing near the sun (particle-particle interaction) as observed. Gravitons are nonsense when seen in the light of the available facts. They have never been observed, unlike the 377 ohm fabric of space. It would be more instructive to call the particles magic particles, or say "hobgoblins". That way, we won't be charlatans when we speak of imaginary gravitons - whoops - I mean hobgoblins.

Many people seem to be interested in fanciful names. Unless you know something exists for sure, it's counterproductive to name it before discovery!

Take the planet Vulcan, N-Rays, or Atlantas. These are pseudoscience. Like Caloric, Phlogiston, and the mechanical gear cog and idler wheel aether of Maxwell (unlike the observed 377 ohm continuum of space), these named hobgoblins just hold back science. We have to try to keep to things with measurable properties in physics.

If I were to invent a fancy "theory" that mysterious, unobserved "U" particles cause gravity, doubtless it would be acceptable to many people who want to believe in the latest scam - whoops - I mean the latest fashion, but it would not be science. It is impossible to make this fact clear without some very slight criticism of existing standards of science.

Nigel

What do you think of the following https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=34848?

 

[Ian]

Blimey Nigel! what have you done?
If anyone can explain concisely the effect of gravity gravity then fair enough, but if you can't reproduce the effect then your'e not fair.
Keep it simple, because that is the limit of our understanding of the effect. How on Earth can you explain the complex if you cannot even understand the simple?
First you should try and understand the missing link in gravitational theory which is Newton's constant. Explain that (G) in terms of simple classical theory and go from there.
Edward Harrison at Amherst said in his book 'Cosmology'[/I] "The value of G is found by measurement, no physicist has yet been clever enough to explain it" (page 65 or 45).
If you fill that gap then you will unify physical theory, all else is as the Emperors new clothes.

 

[Nigel]

Blimey Nigel! what have you done?
If anyone can explain concisely the effect of gravity gravity then fair enough, but if you can't reproduce the effect then your'e not fair.
Keep it simple, because that is the limit of our understanding of the effect. How on Earth can you explain the complex if you cannot even understand the simple?
First you should try and understand the missing link in gravitational theory which is Newton's constant. Explain that (G) in terms of simple classical theory and go from there.
Edward Harrison at Amherst said in his book 'Cosmology'[/I] "The value of G is found by measurement, no physicist has yet been clever enough to explain it" (page 65 or 45).
If you fill that gap then you will unify physical theory, all else is as the Emperors new clothes.

It is simple.

In 1873, in the 3rd edition of his (posthumorous?) EM book, Maxwell claimed that the electric permittivity multiplied by the rate of change of electric field in a capacitor is a "displacement current" in a mechanical aether.

Around 1875, mathematician Oliver Heaviside rewrote Maxwell's equations simply and concisely while experimenting with the HARD FACTS of signalling using digital signals (called Morse Code then) between a pair of conductors in the undersea cable between Newcastle, England, and Denmark.

Heaviside noticed that when you connect a pair of long wires to a battery, even if there is no load at the other end, i.e., an open circuit, the electricity can't see in advance that there's an open circuit, so it flows at light speed as if there is no open circuit.

Now, how much current flows? How are Kirchoff's Laws of electricity maintained, not to mention Ohm's Law?

The answer is the PHYSICAL FABRIC OF SPACE BETWEEN THE WIRES. THIS FABRIC, HEAVISIDE FOUND, HAS AN IMPEDANCE OF 377 OHMS REGARDLESS OF DISTANCE SPACING OR LENGTH OF CABLE.

This is fact. Get a cable drum and oscilloscope and you can do the experiment if you have the slightest competence in electronics!

The fabric of space completes the circuit. Ivor Catt and Dr David Walton in May 1976 discovered that Heaviside's "transmission line" is just another way of looking at Maxwell's "displacement current". In fact, the fabric of space is crucial in each case.

Catt and Walton are suppressed by Professor Pepper of Catt's old university, Cambridge. Newton and Catt went to Trinity College, Cambridge, and Pepper is head of the Cavendish Laboratory Cambridge University.

This has been documented in Wireless World/Electronics World since 1978.

Do a Google search for "Pepper FRS" if you don't believe it, or check out ivor catt's website (search for "Ivor Catt").

Please keep it simple... the facts are simple.