Is Gravity Caused by the Motion of Particles in the Fabric of Space?

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Also, to Nigel.

Alright, you are treating spacetime (or just space) as a fluid here. How is it the sun or any other body can shield an object from pressure? If I put two balls in a tank under water, they both experience equal pressure. So, even if the sun somehow shielded the Earth from pressure, there is a lot of distance between the two, and plenty of space pressure from outside the line of sight of the two bodies to flow inbetween. Even then, in the line of sight between the two objects, there will be less pressure, due to mutual shielding..so should not objects be drawn to exist between the two? (PS I know the answer to this--it even supports you, but I want to make sure you catch it).

At any rate, let us also examine Yogi's situation. We have the same amount of mass present, but it is in a much smaller area. How does this smaller area still exert the same gravitational pull on earth? Einstein's explination of spacetime curvature serve to explain this, and one can see that in Newtonian mechanics the object is treated as a point anyways, but your explination requires there to be some surface area to shield. I agree that in a lot of cases your idea can be viewed as equivalent, but there do appear to be some differences here in what your idea will predict. The cause of gravity in your model suggests that there should be less attraction then between the black hole sun and the earth. Were that so, other observational evidence of binary systems with a black hole present would be far off from what they are (which have their orbital mechanics worked out the Einstein way).

Since air and water are not continuums, but particle-composed, they seep around gaps fairly quickly. But if you are quick you can beat the particle velocity and use them to model a continuum.

For instance, in the air the air pressure, 101 kiloPascals or 14.7 pounds per square inch, would be enough to make objects "attract" each other, if the air did not seep between them. When you have a smooth surface and you put a piece of rubber against it (called a "suction plunger" in England), then yoy find that its apparent weight is more than its actual weight by an amount equal to the 14.7 pounds per square inch air pressure. Hence the suction plunger attracts the surface because it is being pushed down by air pressure.

The weight due to gravity is likewise caused by the space pressure.

Now for black holes, their mass is calculated, and the evidence is not that precise. In addition, many assumptions are made about gravity in order to get the mass calculations done. Most of these estimates are uncertain by a very large factor, although I hope that decent results will arive soon which can test this properly.

 

[Nigel]

Robin Parsons asks repeatedly about the areas used in my calculations. It is just one way of doing the calculations, to consider the relative fraction of the surface area of a sphere surrounding you which is being blocked by mass. Notice that the area shielded is defined in terms of the total amount of mass.

When I calculate the effective shielded area, this is not the same as the surface area of the earth. The area of the actual object is immaterial. The area of the shield is equal to the shielding area of all the little particles inside the mass.

To work out the space pressure shielding by the planet earth, calculate the number of particles, multiply that by their average cross-sectional areas (for gravity, not nuclear reactions!). These areas are not involved in my calculation because other factors cancel, but for sake of argument assume that the Planck size is the average radius. Then you get a total cross-sectional area for all the particles in the planet, and you can work out the overlap by dividing that area into the surface area of the earth. Since the result is a very small fraction, the overlap is insignificant.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So long, Farewell(?) Adieux, GooBYE!

2003-06-20

So Houston's, (Oooops) we don't have a problem Houston's I am Xazen13, not Apollo 13

HugeDent, uhmmm, I mean Heusdense, well youse just a "Head Butting" anyways, ain't ya?

But tell me 'Hugedent', when you got your "Head Butting", don't you have to fight for the "Wind"? (up there? is it silent, in there, too?)

Brad_AD23, WOW Braaaaad, you think that GiGel was talking to you too, as opposed to responding, once again, to my testing of his theory of "Surface Area, 'Push Force', from spaaaaaace", personally I think you goofed it completely, Oooooops my mistake, he was addressing you, right there/here...

Originally posted by Gigel

Homer

You were right Braaaaaad, he waaaas talking to you!

Gigel, errrrr...uhmmm, I mean Nigel, well what can I tell you, The "God of Physics" has seemingly so graced you with the culminatory answer of the "Proof of the Cause of Gravity", and, according to you, the "Gods of Physics" (really just the very hard working people in the scientific publicational field who must, thankfully, socialize amongst themselves) couldn't see the blessings that the real "God of Physics" (the creator!) has thus bestowed upon you!

Maybe because the real one didn't actually give it to you, and the editors of Scientific journals know enough to forewarn each other that some peoples papers, no matter how many times they seem to be able to effectively argue around that little circle of thought, that is little more then a slight adjustment to current knowledge, yet claiming to be a "Revolutionary insight into the intimacies of gravitational theory", they could still forewarn each other, due to the restrictive nature of their time schedules, and not wanting to "waste there time" explaining to you why you are wrong!

Clearly angers you, "life’s work", not easy to see it fail, is it?

PS Gigel,

Originally posted by Gigel
Robin Parsons asks repeatedly about the areas used in my calculations.

Good shot Gigel, but nothing but "bull" as I haven't asked about it, I have simply pointed it out, as it clearly tells of your errors, in this process.
("Sheilded Earth" means NO PRESSURIZATION, HUH?? that ain't right!)

And Yogi, what the heck is a 'Yogi', a bear? no he had 'Boo Boo' as sidekick, so that is what needs to be put upon a paper, that might be written, from the conversation in this forum, Contributing (what??) authors, et Yogi? Nah!

So in remembrance of you, I will leave here, in a fashion that is devoted to your styles, with a question, because you rarely answered any of my questions, so I already know I need not come back to see if you have answered this one, cause it really don't matter, at all, anymore...

OK?

 

[yogi]

Some comments - First, while Nigels approach may not be accepatable to conventional cosmologist, let's look at the positives 1) it has the right units for G, 2)it offers a mechanism which is absent from both Newtonian and GR, 3)the value calculated for G by Nigel is close to the measured value of G if one takes the universe as having critical density.

Now I would say that what is needed is a substitute for the notion of shielding - this introduces a lot of complexity which cannot be easily resolved by experiment - in fact I cannot see how shielding can be applied since it is apparently necessary to make an adjustment each time the size of the gravitational body is changed (e.g. compressed or expanded - it would be difficult to find a mechanism that would operatively cause the particles in the gravitational body to line up or correlate in different density spheres of the same mass so as to always effect the same shielding for some other body at any arbitrary distance therefrom. In fact the only functionality that will work is to pre-suppose that every spherically symmetrical mass produces some conditioning of space that is isotropic relative to its geometric center - but this can't be a shielding effect - but it can be a spatial retardation effect acting upon expansion - one centered on the c.g. of the gravitation producing sphere.

Nigel - what I attempted to say in my earlier post is that your equation already existed - it was derived by Friedmann in 1923 - it is simply the classical retardation of the universe due to gravitational slowing - it does not depend on GRT although one can get to the same result through GRT. However, I would hasten to say that you have put a different spin on it - in effect by treating the expansion as instrumental to causation - rather than treating G as the factor that slows expansion.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
Some comments - First, while Nigels approach may not be accepatable to conventional cosmologist, let's look at the positives 1) it has the right units for G, 2)it offers a mechanism which is absent from both Newtonian and GR, 3)the value calculated for G by Nigel is close to the measured value of G if one takes the universe as having critical density.

Now I would say that what is needed is a substitute for the notion of shielding - this introduces a lot of complexity which cannot be easily resolved by experiment - in fact I cannot see how shielding can be applied since it is apparently necessary to make an adjustment each time the size of the gravitational body is changed (e.g. compressed or expanded - it would be difficult to find a mechanism that would operatively cause the particles in the gravitational body to line up or correlate in different density spheres of the same mass so as to always effect the same shielding for some other body at any arbitrary distance therefrom. In fact the only functionality that will work is to pre-suppose that every spherically symmetrical mass produces some conditioning of space that is isotropic relative to its geometric center - but this can't be a shielding effect - but it can be a spatial retardation effect acting upon expansion - one centered on the c.g. of the gravitation producing sphere.

Nigel - what I attempted to say in my earlier post is that your equation already existed - it was derived by Friedmann in 1923 - it is simply the classical retardation of the universe due to gravitational slowing - it does not depend on GRT although one can get to the same result through GRT. However, I would hasten to say that you have put a different spin on it - in effect by treating the expansion as instrumental to causation - rather than treating G as the factor that slows expansion.

Yogi, I have a proof, and the resulting equation happens to be a factor of 2 different from the "flat universe" which fell down in 1999 when Dr Perlmutter discovered that distant supernovae do not slow down as predicted by any "magic law" version of gravity.

It is quite wrong to suggest that the Planck length or the nuclear sizes of particles vary when matter is compressed. What varies is the distance between the particles, not the sizes of the particles themselves.

I am, once again, forced to say that I deplore mathematical "law" prediction guesswork. What I have always wanted to find is a mechanism behind the force of gravity. This is a different philosophy from guesswork/empirical equations. It seems that some people will always try to use old knowledge to discredit new knowledge. As a result, in order to defend new knowledge, an assault must be made on the old garbage. I would prefer to take a nice approach, to have my paper printed in Nature/Physical Review Letters, so that people are aware that there is a mechanism. However, they are at present too intolerant to allow that.

 

[yogi]

First of all - in physics there are no proofs of ideas - only relationships via algebra - one cannot prove an idea - ideas can only be disproven. Secondly, there is no proof that Purlmutters data establishes that the universe is accelerating - that is one interpretation - it may well be that some of the constants were different billions of years ago, and the dimmer 1a supernova data is the result of less energetic events (your own theory predicts a variable G) and if G were stronger in the past the supernova event would be triggered by less mass (Chandaraska's forumla). There are other explanations that would account for the dimming - but my point is that one particular interpretation is not proof - it is a theory - and if your theory depends upon another theory - it is doubly doubtful that it is the final word on gravity

When did I say that Planck length changes - I was only referring to the size of the objects that generate the so called shadowing to which you refer - the individual atoms don't have to change size unless you get to an extreme gravitational situation (neutron star or black hole).

Moreover - the flat universe has never been discredited - in fact the most recent CBR studies indicate that the universe is flat - where are you getting your information

In all due respect - I perceive that you are exhibiting some of the intolerance that you have attributed to the authorities that refuse to publish your idea. I have told you twice now that the exact same formulation has been known since 1923 - look up Freidmann's work - depending upon the value assigned to q, you get exactly the same result as you have claimed as original. At the time Friedmann derived the relationship, he considered different models of the universe - some flat, some spherical etc. For q = 1 the Friedmann relationship is G = 3H^2/4(pi)(rho) - does it look familiar?

 

[r637h]

Did the Strong, Weak, and Eletromagnetic Forces exist before Planck Time? I assume they didn't.

What about Gravity? If there was any kind of expansion before Planck Time, doesn't it follow that Gravity existed?

Thanks, Rudi

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
First of all - in physics there are no proofs of ideas - only relationships via algebra - one cannot prove an idea - ideas can only be disproven. Secondly, there is no proof that Purlmutters data establishes that the universe is accelerating - that is one interpretation - it may well be that some of the constants were different billions of years ago, and the dimmer 1a supernova data is the result of less energetic events (your own theory predicts a variable G) and if G were stronger in the past the supernova event would be triggered by less mass (Chandaraska's forumla). There are other explanations that would account for the dimming - but my point is that one particular interpretation is not proof - it is a theory - and if your theory depends upon another theory - it is doubly doubtful that it is the final word on gravity

When did I say that Planck length changes - I was only referring to the size of the objects that generate the so called shadowing to which you refer - the individual atoms don't have to change size unless you get to an extreme gravitational situation (neutron star or black hole).

Moreover - the flat universe has never been discredited - in fact the most recent CBR studies indicate that the universe is flat - where are you getting your information

In all due respect - I perceive that you are exhibiting some of the intolerance that you have attributed to the authorities that refuse to publish your idea. I have told you twice now that the exact same formulation has been known since 1923 - look up Freidmann's work - depending upon the value assigned to q, you get exactly the same result as you have claimed as original. At the time Friedmann derived the relationship, he considered different models of the universe - some flat, some spherical etc. For q = 1 the Friedmann relationship is G = 3H^2/4(pi)(rho) - does it look familiar?

No proof in science. You therefore think that mathematical assertions without any proof of the CAUSE of gravity by Friedmann, are acceptable. I disagree strongly. You are trying to get away from the CAUSE of gravity and escape into an ivory tower fairy land of maths. Please do. But don't waste space. Many thanks. NC.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by r637h
Did the Strong, Weak, and Eletromagnetic Forces exist before Planck Time? I assume they didn't.

What about Gravity? If there was any kind of expansion before Planck Time, doesn't it follow that Gravity existed?

Thanks, Rudi

Current textbook wisdom is that all the forces unify into a superforce when you go back as far as Planck time, but don't say anything about what happened before then.

When you consider causes, you do not automatically get varying gravity. My Electronics World paper deals with nuclear, gravitational, and electromagnetic force mechanisms, including the reasons for attraction and repulsion in electromagnetism, and why the other forces are attractive only.

I also derived Maxwell's two curl equations in that paper, and the divergence equation for electric field (which is Gauss' equation, i.e., Coulomb's law in field notation, where force = field strength times charge), and the reason for no magnetic monopoles (the fourth Maxwell equation, div.B = 0). Getting these results unified seems important to science, but there are strong forces at work to stand in the way of all progress!

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
The formulation derived by Nigel is idential to Friedmann's equation except for a factor of 2 - this does not prove that gravity is caused by expansion - it is a relationship between the deceleration of the universe due to the retarding effect of the totality of cosmic matter. Friedman's equation for critical density
[rho = 3H^2/8pi(G)] is the same. I would agree however that gravity is a consequence of expansion - I derived an identical formulation about 10 years ago based upon expansion. This was published on the net for some time under the name "Cosmodynamics"

Above quote found on page 17, from Yogi. Yogi here makes the allegation that my step by step proof of the cause of gravity gives a result which is "identical" to Friedman except for a factor of 2 difference! The factor of two is precisely the point. I notice that in your more recent statement, Yogi, that you omit the factor of 2 difference.

Then you ignore my proof. Take the 1919 solar eclipse. There were two predictions for the deflection of sunlight, the Newtonian, and Einstein's. The Newtonian was derived by Solder in the 19th century and by Einstein in 1911, when he put space-time into gravitation, omitting the energy considerations which he only included in 1915 when he became expert at tensor analysis. Therefore there was a factor of two difference.

Hence, Yogi, you should be first claiming that Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity are "identical except for a factor of 2"!

THE POINT IS THE PROOF. MATHS WITHOUT PROOF IS SPECULATION. AS FOR YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU DISCOVERED THE EQUATION FIRST, THIS CONTRADICTS YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE PROOF IS UNIMPORTANT.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
Huesdens - it isn't really necessary to involve the early universe in the mathematics of Nigel - simply consider the present state of the universe as a spherically symmetrical expansion - take the volume and differentiate twice - this gives you the volumetric acceleration (8piRc^2) - then make a volume to surface transformation using the divergence theorem (this simplifies to dividing by 4piR^2 for a sphere) - so the effective isotropic acceleration is 2c^2/R - from here you can get to Nigels result. Note that Nigels formulation predicts that G varies with time - When I first arrived at this result some years ago it bothered me because the experiments show G to be constant - but the problem is that all the experiments are measuring the MG product - not G alone - that is they measure orbital consistency of satellites over a period of years.

OK, Yogi. Found this on page 18. My proof of the cause of gravity is shielding of space pressure. Your mathematical procedure does not elucidate the mechanism of the cause of gravity! Mathematical games without understanding is not science!

 

[r637h]

My understanding is that we cannot "see" back to events beyond the uniform cosmic background in that it represents the "Big Bang" itself.

The background is uniform, but not *totally* uniform. Is that just statistical variation or does it represent the limit of sensitivity of the measurement itself; or is it *true* uniformity?

If there is *some* non-uniformity, does that give us any further clues as to the nature of its origin?

Thanks, Rudi

Mark Twain on Common Sense: "Any fool can tell the World is flat just by looking at it!"

 

[r637h]

Regarding models of the Universe: Do I understand correctly that if Friedman's q=0, then all Universes are closed?

Thanks, Rudi

"Don't confuse me with Logic" --several authors.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by r637h
My understanding is that we cannot "see" back to events beyond the uniform cosmic background in that it represents the "Big Bang" itself.

The background is uniform, but not *totally* uniform. Is that just statistical variation or does it represent the limit of sensitivity of the measurement itself; or is it *true* uniformity?

If there is *some* non-uniformity, does that give us any further clues as to the nature of its origin?

Thanks, Rudi

Mark Twain on Common Sense: "Any fool can tell the World is flat just by looking at it!"

The cosmic background is a 2.734 K blackbody spectrum, which the cosmic background explorer (COBE) satellite surveyed over a decade ago, finding variations which a NASA official called "the face of God". They know how to do their marketing, but not their science.

It eventually turned out that the ripples which were supposed to indicate the variations from which galaxy superclusters etc grew from (like seeds), do not statistically correspond to the large scale observed structure of the universe. Instead of doing something more useful, they are now hoping to repeat the attempt with a higher-resolution instrument.

Good luck to them. What pains me, though, is that fundamental questions like "what causes gravity" are not just ignored by big-time, big-budget, world publicised science, but they are also ridiculed and dismissed by the taxpayers-money-squandering speculators. Let's get science straight in theory, then we'll know what the devil to spend all that money on experimentally!

 

[yogi]

r637 - in answer to your question re the lookback time - we can see theoretically to the decoupling era - that was the time when the universe became visible so to speak - and it corresponded with inception of the cosmic background radiation - it is not the proverbeal "big bang" but a later era.

Nigel - you are confusing two different aspects of gravity - one is the prediction that gravity affects both space and time as per Einstein - that led to a doubling of the light bending by the Sun - 1/2 due to spatial distortion -- 1/2 due to temporal distortion - this has nothing to do with the rate at which the universe is expanding and how fast it is slowing or maybe accelerating - that is consequence to the particular global model we are using - Einstien developed his theory first - then Friedmann came alone and applied these principles to a mechanical model in which the actual rate of expansion and its change was uncertain (i.e., the deceleration parameter was left as a coefficient to be determined by experiment)... it was not determined by the result of the eclipse.

Nigel - the reason you are never going to get anyone who has a credible background to take your idea seriously is because it is not a proof - it is an idea, a concept ... but it is not founded upon anything new. It is exactly the same result you get when you subsitute q = 1 in the Friedmann formulation - WE don't have a perfect model of the universe - we don't know if there is missing mass, dark matter, repulsive space - Machos, wimps, zero point energy, we don't know why matter exhibits inertia, and a lot of other things -

Now I happen to agree that gravity is global and caused by expansion - but neither you nor I nor anyone else can say with certainty what the effective density of the vacuum is, or what the average density of matter is - or whether the cosmos is slowing or constant or accelerating -- yor ideas are conjecture not proof - if you knew a little more about science and mathematics you would use more guarded language.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
r637 - in answer to your question re the lookback time - we can see theoretically to the decoupling era - that was the time when the universe became visible so to speak - and it corresponded with inception of the cosmic background radiation - it is not the proverbeal "big bang" but a later era.

Nigel - you are confusing two different aspects of gravity - one is the prediction that gravity affects both space and time as per Einstein - that led to a doubling of the light bending by the Sun - 1/2 due to spatial distortion -- 1/2 due to temporal distortion - this has nothing to do with the rate at which the universe is expanding and how fast it is slowing or maybe accelerating - that is consequence to the particular global model we are using - Einstien developed his theory first - then Friedmann came alone and applied these principles to a mechanical model in which the actual rate of expansion and its change was uncertain (i.e., the deceleration parameter was left as a coefficient to be determined by experiment)... it was not determined by the result of the eclipse.

Nigel - the reason you are never going to get anyone who has a credible background to take your idea seriously is because it is not a proof - it is an idea, a concept ... but it is not founded upon anything new. It is exactly the same result you get when you subsitute q = 1 in the Friedmann formulation - WE don't have a perfect model of the universe - we don't know if there is missing mass, dark matter, repulsive space - Machos, wimps, zero point energy, we don't know why matter exhibits inertia, and a lot of other things -

Now I happen to agree that gravity is global and caused by expansion - but neither you nor I nor anyone else can say with certainty what the effective density of the vacuum is, or what the average density of matter is - or whether the cosmos is slowing or constant or accelerating -- yor ideas are conjecture not proof - if you knew a little more about science and mathematics you would use more guarded language.

Ouch! Yogi you bite. But your mathematical techniques without any proven mechanism are pseudo-scientific, like guessing that 1000 dimensions or 26 dimensions or 10 dimensions of space "explains" the universe. Please set up your own trend and see how many acolytes you get, instead of trying to replace a proven CAUSE with more mathematical trash. THANK YOU AND GOOD DAY.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Nigel
Ouch! Yogi you bite. But your mathematical techniques without any proven mechanism are pseudo-scientific, like guessing that 1000 dimensions or 26 dimensions or 10 dimensions of space "explains" the universe. Please set up your own trend and see how many acolytes you get, instead of trying to replace a proven CAUSE with more mathematical trash. THANK YOU AND GOOD DAY.

Also Yogi, you are the one confused by your own gibberish maths. You are the one needing the proof. I suggest you work through my cause mechanism and see how much hard work is needed to get something scientific sorted out. This is quite different from the trash guesswork which gets idiots famous for "multiple universe" speculation and guessed "laws" without explanation. I have added some notes on this to my web page. Nigel

 

[r637h]

I realize that we're not seeing back to the "Big Bang", but I think it is agreed that the cosmic background is the best evidentiary representation of its occurrence.

I'm just wondering if the miniscule non-uniformity is real (#1) and is it significant (#2) if so?

But back to Gravity: I absolutely agree that research and study of Gravity hyas really been short-changed.

It's amazing when one considers the breath-taking vistas that would be opened if gravitons or gravitational waves could be demonstrated and characterized.

I imagine you all have read of the Berckley experiment concerning the bending of light by Jupiter masking a quasar(pulsar?) in and attempt to confirm the speed of Gravity. They are still contending over the results.

Unfortunately, I can just barely keep up with my own field: The torrent of information in my work is overwhelming. I want to lend whatever encouragement I can to the interests of others, however.

Thanks, Rudi

"Remember, if buttered toast were lashed buttered side-up to a cats' back and they were tossed into mid-air, they would remain suspended; totally defeating the Laws of Gravity." - Isaac Newton, 1721

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by r637h
I realize that we're not seeing back to the "Big Bang", but I think it is agreed that the cosmic background is the best evidentiary representation of its occurrence.

I'm just wondering if the miniscule non-uniformity is real (#1) and is it significant (#2) if so?

But back to Gravity: I absolutely agree that research and study of Gravity hyas really been short-changed.

It's amazing when one considers the breath-taking vistas that would be opened if gravitons or gravitational waves could be demonstrated and characterized.

I imagine you all have read of the Berckley experiment concerning the bending of light by Jupiter masking a quasar(pulsar?) in and attempt to confirm the speed of Gravity. They are still contending over the results.

Unfortunately, I can just barely keep up with my own field: The torrent of information in my work is overwhelming. I want to lend whatever encouragement I can to the interests of others, however.

Thanks, Rudi

"Remember, if buttered toast were lashed buttered side-up to a cats' back and they were tossed into mid-air, they would remain suspended; totally defeating the Laws of Gravity." - Isaac Newton, 1721

The non-conformity is allegedly real, but observations made with a single satellite can be disputed. The last report on the speed of gravity that I saw, about a month ago, found that it is indeed the speed of light.

Gravitons appear to be are false; the nature of gravity does not accord with that of the weak nuclear (nucleon binding), strong nuclear (nuclei binding), or electromagnetic force "particle" theories. If there are "gravitons" they would need to be indistinguishable from the fabric of space, according to Einstein's general relativity, and as Einstein pointed out, that is a continuum. The space pressure is that of a continuum indistinguishable from the dielectric of free space in electromagnetic theory, which has a fixed impedance of 377 ohms. There is no attenuation of a particle with distance (no resistance in ohms/metre, just a fixed impedance in ohms), which is inconsistent with a graviton-composed space. As Feynman states particulate space appears to have its problems, such as drag which would slow down objects. A continuum only resists the changes in velocity which either set up or stop a wave around the moving mass/energy, because it does not contain particles to continuously collide and dissipate energy.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi

Nigel - ... but it is not founded upon anything new. It is exactly the same result you get when you subsitute q = 1 in the Friedmann formulation - WE don't have a perfect model of the universe - we don't know if there is missing mass, dark matter, repulsive space - Machos, wimps, zero point energy, we don't know why matter exhibits inertia, and a lot of other things -

Now I happen to agree that gravity is global and caused by expansion - but neither you nor I nor anyone else can say with certainty what the effective density of the vacuum is, or what the average density of matter is - or whether the cosmos is slowing or constant or accelerating -- yor ideas are conjecture not proof - if you knew a little more about science and mathematics you would use more guarded language. [/B]

Yogi - Fridemann let's you get any result by using different constants like k. Einstein had the cosmological constant to force fit a static universe model to reality. If you find that you can get the same result as my proof gives, or more likely, exactly HALF the result, then you are not dealing with a scientific prediction. My approach is entirely different from yours. It PROVES CAUSES STEP BY STEP, based on Ivor Catt's electromagnetism experimental work, as I have stated on my site at http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

As for the density contributed by different particles, I CAN and DO predict that the density in total is three quarters of the square of Hubble's constant divided into the product of pi and the universal gravitational constant. This is being tested now by researchers. The density of the universe contributed by neutrinos and dark matter, etc., can be worked out from the gravitational effects like the rotation rates of the arms of spiral galaxies.

Now, Yogi, instead of rejecting my proof, you are welcome to rewrite it as you see best, and submit it either by yourself or with me as a coauthor to a journal. Then we will see if your approach works! This is a serious offer, although I doubt that you will take it up.

 

[yogi]

Nigel - I am totally sympathetic to your plight re getting something new to be considered by the establishment - and as I have said, I concur in your conclusion that gravity is not due to particles, gravitons and the like - and I further agree that some of the wild theories that are thrown out like multiple universes are preposterous and how some of these so called theorists get their ideas published and taken seriously is beyond me. Ten years ago when i first derived some equations similar to yours I ran into the same wall of obstinacy - and like you have a pile of rejections from the authorities ... for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the theory - only that "it can't be that simple" or "the only way you can get to gravity is through group theory, or it doesn't comply with Weinbergs view, so we are not interested etc etc -- so rather than be frustrated by trying to convince others in the merits, I have simply resolved to do my work in private as a hobby - make my mistakes in private, and my amendments likewise - that way I don't get upset when I am unable to convince the so called authorities that they should look at what works (gives a value for G based upon a physical reason) , Your theory also accomplishes that objective - but as I have said, I cannot agree that it is a proof - the proof is in the eating and to me that means that you must be able to substitute the value of the critical density cosmos in the equation and the best value of H and calculate a numerical value for G. More importantly, the mathematical procedures must be at least rigorous enough to survive collateral attack. I first came across your website before you posted to these boards - the result conformed to some of my earlier equations, but I had difficulty with the approach (double differentiate Hubble's law treating H as constant but in reality H is not a constant by definition - when you treat H as a variable - you get a different result for G. But my most serious concern was in the conclusion that matter acts as some sort of a shield vis a vis the Hubble acceleration. I will review your website again to see if I can better understand what you claim to be a step by step proof

 

[yogi]

O yes - now I recall more of what I originally read - you have argued that your proposed mechanism produces an acceleration of g on Earth and therefore, if there where any other contender for a theory - it would means g would be greater by what the contender added - Nigel - there is a serious flaw to this type of logic - you have made a hole lot of assumptions such as the fact that the out going galaxies leave behind a spatial void that must be filled by incoming space - first of all the amount of particle matter is so small compared to the amount of space in the void - the spatial inflow due to this is insignificant - moreover, all conventional interpretations of expanding space is that the stars are not moving outward relative to space, but rather the whole of space is expanding and the stars are just getting carried along - in this sense space appears to simply be stretching as would be the case if you put dots on an inflating balloon - the dots don't move with respect to space - they are just carried along - so there is no inflow - and as far as local effects go - we see local galaxies converging not being pulled apart - you have to get out to near the Virgo cluster before there is significant expansion -- anyway - all these assumptions corrupt what you assert top be a proof - if the postulates fail - the theory fails - I have just mentioned a few of the problems - but your premises are in conflict with all of the generally accepted models of expansion - beginning with Friedmann - so they don't lead to a g factor on Earth and therefore you cannot bootstrap yourself up to a statement that since my theory makes gravity - there is no room for a rival theory. Sorry to be so harsh - but that's the way it is

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
O yes - now I recall more of what I originally read - you have argued that your proposed mechanism produces an acceleration of g on Earth and therefore, if there where any other contender for a theory - it would means g would be greater by what the contender added - Nigel - there is a serious flaw to this type of logic - you have made a hole lot of assumptions such as the fact that the out going galaxies leave behind a spatial void that must be filled by incoming space - first of all the amount of particle matter is so small compared to the amount of space in the void - the spatial inflow due to this is insignificant - moreover, all conventional interpretations of expanding space is that the stars are not moving outward relative to space, but rather the whole of space is expanding and the stars are just getting carried along - in this sense space appears to simply be stretching as would be the case if you put dots on an inflating balloon - the dots don't move with respect to space - they are just carried along - so there is no inflow - and as far as local effects go - we see local galaxies converging not being pulled apart - you have to get out to near the Virgo cluster before there is significant expansion -- anyway - all these assumptions corrupt what you assert top be a proof - if the postulates fail - the theory fails - I have just mentioned a few of the problems - but your premises are in conflict with all of the generally accepted models of expansion - beginning with Friedmann - so they don't lead to a g factor on Earth and therefore you cannot bootstrap yourself up to a statement that since my theory makes gravity - there is no room for a rival theory. Sorry to be so harsh - but that's the way it is

Yogi - please punctuate! Better still, if you object to any of the 16 steps in the mathematical proof, point them out. I presume that you do not object to the formula for the area of a circle, so presumably the things which you disagree with are connected to the particle-wave duality in the fabric of space.

The mention the inflating balloon analogy above. This was used to demonstrate the early idea of an infinite, expanding universe. In the big bang, absolute motion occurs, as witnessed by the +/- 3 millikKelvin cosine variation in the cosmic background radiation (the observed temperature is highest in the direction of the Earth's absolute motion, and coolest 180 degrees from that direction). An article on the Scientific American in 1978 by the discoverer of this was entitled "The New Aether Drift".

When you multiply the 400 km/s or so absolute motion of the Milky Way by the age of the universe, you find that it has traveled about 0.3 % of the radius of the universe since the big bang, assuming that the motion has been constant. Of course, some people reject Occam's Razor, and always prefer a more complex, less intelligible interpretation, such as the suggestion that there is a "great attractor" which causes the effect.

Just to acquaint you to the differing interpretations of the fabric of space, the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the reason for "wave-particle duality" in quantum mechanics (the flow of space around INDIVIDUAL SUBATOMIC PARTICLES AS THEY MOVE, giving the cause of gravity as in my model), here are a couple of quotations from Eddington, the man who VERIFIED Einstein's general relativity in 1919:

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington, MA, MSc, FRS (Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, Cambridge), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, p. 20.

‘The idealised physical reference object, which is implied in current quantum theory, is a fluid permeating all space like an aether.’ – Sir Arthur Eddington, MA, DSc, LLD, FRS, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1936, p. 180.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
Nigel - I am totally sympathetic ... my most serious concern was in the conclusion that matter acts as some sort of a shield vis a vis the Hubble acceleration. I will review your website again to see if I can better understand what you claim to be a step by step proof

Take a cup of tea, and stir it to produce some bubbles. If you watch the bubbles, they "attract" together, accelerating towards one another, and join up. The same can be produced in a sink with washing up liquid. Obviously these are surface bubbles, indenting the surface of the liquid. You can say that either they indent the fabric of the medium (water), causing curvature and giving an impressive tensor equation, or you cut through the gibberish and say that they shield one another from the water pressure, and thus are pushed together by the water pressure on the unshielded sides.

The same applies to gravity, although a better analogy is to have bubbles underwater. You find that in a glass of beer the bubbles stay against the sides, because they are being pressed by fluid pressure in the beer on all sides except that of the glass, which is rigid and therefore shields the bubbles. Hence, the bubbles are pressed against the glass, keeping them there.

Shielding is a useful concept. Again, if you want to try to "improve" my theory to make it acceptable to yourself, go ahead. If you want me a co-author, let me know. I have faith that human progress sooner or later triumphs over misguided authority and intolerance. It is a bit like climbing a mountain, a lot of people start by saying that you're an egotist or eccentric, but eventually intolerance dies out. If you want to, try translating the pressure formulation into vector calculus. The editors of journals prefer the most obscure mathematics over simplicity, because fewer people can understand it!

 

[Brad_Ad23]

But don't the bubbles move together because of the stirring? You essentially create a vortex and the bubbles will spiral together. If we have a stationary liquid, the bubbles will not move together.


edit:
yes, that is a better analogy for shielding (bubbles on the side of the glass).

Still, I wonder if that is really a good example, its more of a boundary condition, since the 'spacetime beer' ends at that point. I'd be more interested in why the bubbles don't attract each other inside the beer away from the glass.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
But don't the bubbles move together because of the stirring? You essentially create a vortex and the bubbles will spiral together. If we have a stationary liquid, the bubbles will not move together.


edit:
yes, that is a better analogy for shielding (bubbles on the side of the glass).

Still, I wonder if that is really a good example, its more of a boundary condition, since the 'spacetime beer' ends at that point. I'd be more interested in why the bubbles don't attract each other inside the beer away from the glass.

Do the experiment! The even when the stirring has died down, lone bubbles accelerate to clumps of other bubbles or to the rigid sides.

Bubbles that are not pressed against the sides of the glass cannot stick, and rise too quickly by buoyancy.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Nigel
Do the experiment! The even when the stirring has died down, lone bubbles accelerate to clumps of other bubbles or to the rigid sides.

Bubbles that are not pressed against the sides of the glass cannot stick, and rise too quickly by buoyancy.

So, my idea that pressure causes friction and thusly static electricity and, at great volume or magnitude could conceivably cause electromagnetic forces that we may mistakenly identify as "gravity" does not hold up, under water... since any presence of static electricty underwater is not likely to happen. Yet, your model involving the underwater pressure and the action of the bubbles seems to hold true and well with that of the pressures of the fabric of "space" and those collections of "matter" we call planets.

I wonder, though, how related these two mediums really are. For instance, water is a collection of molecules. Space is, at best, a collection of radiation... and vacuum... plus trace bits.

 

[pelastration]

the origin of the shields

Nigel,

can you tell us something more about the origin or concept of the shields. Please explain the mechanism behind.

Thanks.

 

[The Grimmus]

ok i just read soem of what you siad and whoa. but how would u exsplain anti-gravity?

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
So, my idea that pressure causes friction and thusly static electricity and, at great volume or magnitude could conceivably cause electromagnetic forces that we may mistakenly identify as "gravity" does not hold up, under water... since any presence of static electricty underwater is not likely to happen. Yet, your model involving the underwater pressure and the action of the bubbles seems to hold true and well with that of the pressures of the fabric of "space" and those collections of "matter" we call planets.

I wonder, though, how related these two mediums really are. For instance, water is a collection of molecules. Space is, at best, a collection of radiation... and vacuum... plus trace bits.

Well, water is not like sand, because in water there is hydrogen bonding that holds the molecules together into a whole to a certain extent. If you move something in water slowly, the drag forces are insignificant, and the resistance is just like an extra inertial mass.

Suppose you have a 1 cubic metre object under water. At very low speeds, its extra inertial mass would be equivalent to 1 ton of matter, because you have to move 1 ton of water out of its way to move it. (1 cubic metre of water = 1 ton.)

This is resistance to acceleration, just like inertia in a vacuum. The total equivalent inertial mass of an object underwater is therefore equal to its ordinary mass, plus the product of the density of water and its volume, i.e., effective inertial mass under water = M + V tons, where M is its normal mass in tons and V is its volume in cubic metres. [Obviously you also get a continuous drag at high speeds in water due to water molecules hitting surfaces with energy, where the speed is high enough to break up the hydrogen bonding forces (surface tension effect), and dissipate energy.]

But at very low speeds, water will approximate to a continuum far better than air, because in water the molecules bind to one another to some degree. Going in the other direction, water provides a crude analogy to the nature of the vacuum, explaining inertia in empty space as the resistance to acceleration, as space is forced to flow around subatomic particles as literally "waves in space." These tiny waves will naturally have a wavelength dependent on the speed of the particles responsible, just as de Broglie's wave equation states!

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by pelastration
Nigel,

can you tell us something more about the origin or concept of the shields. Please explain the mechanism behind.

Thanks.

If you have one particle in a fluid, it will constitute a small inertial shield, by virtue of having mass. In order to transmit fluid pressure, it must be pushed in one direction. It cannot be pushed in one direction if the pressure is equal on all sides, because the pushes from opposite sides then cancel out.

Hence, it acts as a "shield" if there is another particle present. The two particles then shield one another along the line joining them. You can use any fancy maths you like, but the principle stands.

Ivor Catt, on whose electromagnetic theory I started my research, prefers to deal just with electromagnetic energy, instead of mass. Thus, he can use E=mc^2, and treat the dielectric as an equivalent energy field instead of being an equivalent to a continuum of mass. Mass and energy being equivalent at the fundamental particle level, it is just a matter of convention.

Personally, I find it easier to deal with the analogy of water as the fabric of space, instead of the analogy of an all-round continuous (not oscillating!) electromagnetic energy field. But there is absolutely no difference.

Except that to talk of energy fields makes it sound more difficult to understand to many people, who confuse the continuous electromagnetic energy with radio waves. So I prefer to calculate gravity using the simple space pressure concept.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Nigel
Well, water is not like sand, because in water there is hydrogen bonding that holds the molecules together into a whole to a certain extent. If you move something in water slowly, the drag forces are insignificant, and the resistance is just like an extra inertial mass.

Suppose you have a 1 cubic metre object under water. At very low speeds, its extra inertial mass would be equivalent to 1 ton of matter, because you have to move 1 ton of water out of its way to move it. (1 cubic metre of water = 1 ton.)

This is resistance to acceleration, just like inertia in a vacuum. The total equivalent inertial mass of an object underwater is therefore equal to its ordinary mass, plus the product of the density of water and its volume, i.e., effective inertial mass under water = M + V tons, where M is its normal mass in tons and V is its volume in cubic metres. [Obviously you also get a continuous drag at high speeds in water due to water molecules hitting surfaces with energy, where the speed is high enough to break up the hydrogen bonding forces (surface tension effect), and dissipate energy.]

But at very low speeds, water will approximate to a continuum far better than air, because in water the molecules bind to one another to some degree. Going in the other direction, water provides a crude analogy to the nature of the vacuum, explaining inertia in empty space as the resistance to acceleration, as space is forced to flow around subatomic particles as literally "waves in space." These tiny waves will naturally have a wavelength dependent on the speed of the particles responsible, just as de Broglie's wave equation states!

thanks Nig...

You say " (just)as space is forced to flow around subatomic particles as literally "waves in space."

How is it that space makes up these waves rather than the subatomicparticles (or even photon field... or graviton field)?

Is this a similar idea as seen with electricity where the space between the electrons flowing along a conductor are as much a part of the current as are the electrons?

PS. its odd to think of space "flowing" when it has no actual content. Can you help to clarify this?

Thank you.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
thanks Nig...

You say " (just)as space is forced to flow around subatomic particles as literally "waves in space."

How is it that space makes up these waves rather than the subatomicparticles (or even photon field... or graviton field)?

Is this a similar idea as seen with electricity where the space between the electrons flowing along a conductor are as much a part of the current as are the electrons?

PS. its odd to think of space "flowing" when it has no actual content. Can you help to clarify this?

Thank you.

Space has impedance 377 ohms (dielectric of free space), a magnetic permeability, an electric permittivity, carries a characteristic velocity of c, etc.

Are you so sure that it makes sense to say "it has no content"??

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Nigel
Space has impedance 377 ohms (dielectric of free space), a magnetic permeability, an electric permittivity, carries a characteristic velocity of c, etc.

Are you so sure that it makes sense to say "it has no content"??

Say what!?

Well, actually, the layman's (note: me) understanding of space is that it is empty. When there are other elements introduced to space... the space allows them to move and wave and whatever. Its like throwing flour into the wind in order to see the wind.

I realize space is a good medium for all of the above impedances, ohms and permeabilities... but... in its purest form... say, in an absolute vacuum... will space still act in a wave-like format? Or... does it require content to appear as a wave or part of a wave?

For instance... consider this: Let's disregard physics and the fact that space is a product of the big bang or whatever people think is going on.

Let's imagine there is no radiation, no background radiation... no matter and no anything else... except for us.. the observers.

Lets just say there is only space... and that's all (plus us the observers). (Now, please bear with me as I ask another question... thanks):)

Would we observe, in this case, waves in this "empty" space?

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Say what!?

Well, actually, the layman's (note: me) understanding of space is that it is empty. When there are other elements introduced to space... the space allows them to move and wave and whatever. Its like throwing flour into the wind in order to see the wind.

I realize space is a good medium for all of the above impedances, ohms and permeabilities... but... in its purest form... say, in an absolute vacuum... will space still act in a wave-like format? Or... does it require content to appear as a wave or part of a wave?

For instance... consider this: Let's disregard physics and the fact that space is a product of the big bang or whatever people think is going on.

Let's imagine there is no radiation, no background radiation... no matter and no anything else... except for us.. the observers.

Lets just say there is only space... and that's all (plus us the observers). (Now, please bear with me as I ask another question... thanks):)

Would we observe, in this case, waves in this "empty" space?

In response to your question, I've added another animated gif to my webpage, containing a sequence of photos from a video camera of bubbles attracting in water. http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

Think about a fish. Does a fish realize that it is in water? A flying fish perhaps, because it sees a contrast with air. But normally to a fish the properties of water are not separated from the properties of space. If you try to go at an infinite speed, say sending a charged particle round an accelerator with plenty of power, you hit a snag: you can't get it to continuously increase in speed with energy. The speed of light acts as a barrier. You can say that the inertial mass of the particle becomes larger, or you say say that space physically becomes a problem. Mathematically, you can do either. But it is useful to see space as a physical medium when dealing with what happens when magnets in a vacuum attract and repel, etc. The same applies to gravity.

If there is only physical space, with nothing moving in it, there would not be any waves to observe. However, the electrons and nuclear particles in the observers would be creating little waves in space.