Submissions | Add Your Comments | Physics Site Links | Home Page |

Email: Nigel B. Cook |

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO OBTAIN SCIENTIFIC ANSWERS

Nigel B. Cook

Alternate email:nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

INTRODUCTION

‘(1). The idea is nonsense. (2). Somebody thought of it before you did. (3). We believed it all the time.’ - Professor R.A. Lyttleton's summary of inexcusable censorship (quoted by Sir Fred Hoyle in ‘Home is Where the Wind Blows’ Oxford University Press, 1997, p154).

Because of Drs Susskind and Witten, the media has let string theory go on without asking for definite testable predictions. I don’t think the layman public takes much notice of ‘theory’ it can’t understand. There are three types of not-yet-falsified theory:

1. Experimentally confirmed but mathematically abstract and possibly incomplete (Standard Model, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)

2. Not experimentally confirmed but popularised with best selling books, but possibly testable (Hawking radiation, gravity waves, etc)

3. Untestable/not falsifiable (over-hyped string theory’s vague landscape
‘predicting’ 10^{500} vacua, 10/11 dimensions, vague suggestions of
superpartners without predicting their energy to show if they can be potentially
checked or not, ‘prediction’ of unobservable gravitons without any testable
predictions of gravity)

Back in 1996, ‘popular physics’ authors were flooding the media with hype
about backward time travel, 10 dimensional strings, parallel universes and Kaku
flying saucer speculation, and were obviously lying that such *unpopular
non-testable guesses* were science.

These are all existing accepted facts; the Feynman diagrams are widely accepted, as is the spacetime, the big bang, Newton’s laws of motion. The result, that apples fall at the measured acceleration, is apparently ‘only a personal pet theory that should be suppressed from arXiv.org and ignored’. Drs Lee Smolin and Peter Woit could sit under an apple tree to verify that existing ‘string theory’ gravity is ‘speculative gibberish’: it is an effort to destroy science using untestable hocus pocus ‘string theory’!

*Nigel** Says: **January 14th, 2006 at 2:18 pm*

Some
kind of loop quantum gravity is going to be the right theory, since it is a spin
foam vacuum. People at present are obsessed with the particles that string
theory deals with, to the exclusion of the force mediating vacuum. Once
prejudices are overcome, proper funding of LQG should produce
results.

Lee Smolin Says: *January 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pm*

..
Thanks also to Nigel for those supporting comments. Of course more support will
lead to more results, but I would stress that I don’t care nearly as much that
LQG gets more support as that young people are rewarded for taking the risk to
develop new ideas and proposals. To go from a situation where a young person’s
career was tied to string theory to one in which it was tied to LQG would not be
good enough. Instead, what is needed overall is that support for young
scientists is not tied to their loyalty to particular research programs set out
by we older people decades ago, but rather is on the basis only of the quality
of their own ideas and work as well as their intellectual independence. If young
people were in a situation where they knew they were to be supported based on
their ability to invent and develop new ideas, and were discounted for working
on older ideas, then they would themselves choose the most promising ideas and
directions. I suspect that science has slowed down these last three decades
partly as a result of a reduced level of intellectual and creative independence
available to young people.

Thanks,

Lee

Sadly then, Dr Lubos Motl, string ‘theorist’ and assistant professor at
harvard, tried to ridicule this aproach by the false claim that Dirac’s quantum
field theory disproves a spacetme babric, as it is allegedly a unification of
special relativity (which denies spacetime fabric) and quantum mechanics. Motl
tried to ridicule me with this, although I had already explained the reason to
him! * "An important part of all totalitarian systems is an efficient
propaganda machine. ... to protect the 'official opinion' as the only opinion
that one is effectively allowed to have."* - STRING
THEORIST Dr Lubos Motl: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/power-of-propaganda.html Here is a summary of the reasons why Dirac’s unification is only for the
maths of special relativity, not the principle of no-fabric, and in fact Dirac
was an electrical engineer before becoming a theoretical physicist, and later
wrote:

‘… with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual
particles] we are rather forced to have an aether.’ – Paul A. M. Dirac, ‘Is
There an Aether?,’ Nature, v168, 1951, p906. (If you have a kid playing with
magnets, how do you explain the pull and push forces felt through space? As
‘magic’?) See also Dirac’s paper in *Proc. Roy. Soc. *v.A209, 1951,
p.291.

Thankfully, Peter Woit has retained so far a comment on the discussion post for loop quantum gravity which points out that Motl is wrong:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=330

anonymous Says:

January 21st, 2006 at 1:19 pm

*Lumos has a long list of publications about speculation on unobservables. So
I guess he’s well qualified to make vacuous assertions. What I’d like to see
debated is the fact that the spin foam vacuum is modelling physical processes
KNOWN to exist, as even the string theorists authors of **http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0601129** admit,
p14:*

Strangely, the ‘critics’ are ignoring the consensus on where LQG is a useful approach, and just trying to ridicule it. In a recent post on his blog, for example, Motl states that special relativity should come from LQG. Surely Motl knows that GR deals better with the situation than SR, which is a restricted theory that is not even able to deal with the spacetime fabric (SR implicitly assumes NO spacetime fabric curvature, to avoid acceleration!).

When asked, Motl responds by saying Dirac’s equation in QFT is a unification of SR and QM. What Motl doesn’t grasp is that the ‘SR’ EQUATIONS are the same in GR as in SR, but the background is totally different:

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

*What a pity Motl can’t understand the distinction and its implications.*

(See also http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ and scroll down; http://lqg.blogspot.com/, and http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/)

Light has momentum and exerts pressure, delivering energy. Continuous exchange of high-energy gauge bosons can only be detected as the normal forces and inertia they produce.

QUANTUM LOOP GRAVITY: SPIN FOAM VACUUM

The fabric of spacetime is a sea in which boson radiations spend part of their time converted into a perfect fluid of matter-antimatter.

‘In 1986, Abhay
Ashtekar reformulated Einstein’s field equations of
general relativity using what have come to be known as Ashtekar
variables, a particular flavor of Einstein-Cartan theory with a complex connection.
He was able to quantize gravity using gauge field
theory. In the Ashtekar formulation, the fundamental
objects are a rule for parallel
transport (technically, a connection) and a coordinate frame (called a
vierbein) at each point. Because the Ashtekar
formulation was background-independent, it was possible to use Wilson
loops as the basis for a nonperturbative quantization of
gravity. Explicit (spatial) diffeomorphism invariance of the vacuum
state plays an essential role in the regularization of
the Wilson loop states. Around 1990, Carlo Rovelli and Lee
Smolin obtained an explicit basis of states of quantum
geometry, which turned out to be labelled by Penrose’s spin
networks.’ - *Wikipedia.*

In the October 1996 issue letters page of *Electronics World* the basic
mechanism was first released, with further notices placed in the June 1999 and
January 2001 issues. Two articles in the August 2002 and April 2003 issues, were
followed by letters in various issues. In 2004, the result r = r_{local} e^{3} was obtained using the mass continuity equation of
hydrodynamics and the Hubble law, allowing for the higher density of the earlier
time big bang universe with increasing distance (divergence in spacetime or
redshift of gauge bosons, prevents the increase in effective observable density
from going to infinity with increasing distance/time past!). In 2005, a
radiation pressure-based calculation was added and many consequences were worked
out. The first approach worked on is the ‘alternative proof’ below, the fluid
spacetime fabric: the fabric of spacetime described by the Feynman path
integrals can be usefully modelled by the ‘spin foam vacuum’ of ‘loop quantum
gravity’.

The observed supernova dimming was predicted via the Oct 96 Electronics World
magazine, ahead of discovery by Perlmutter, *et al.* The omitted mechanism
(above) from general relativity does away with ‘dark energy’ by showing that
gravity generated by the mechanism of expansion does now slow down the
recession. In addition, it proves that the ‘critical density’ obtained by
general relativity ignoring the gravity mechanism above is too high by a factor
of half the cube of mathematical constant e, in other words a factor of 10. The
prediction was not published in PRL, Nature, CQG, etc., because of bigotry
toward ‘alternatives’ to vacuous string theory:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=215#comment-4082:

Nigel Says:

July 7th, 2005 at 7:15 pm

Editor of Physical
Review Letters says

Sent: 02/01/03 17:47

Subject: Your_manuscript
LZ8276 Cook

{MECHANISM OF GRAVITY}

Physical Review Letters does not, in
general, publish papers on alternatives to currently accepted theories…. Yours
sincerely, Stanley G. Brown, Editor, Physical Review Letters

Now, why has
this nice genuine guy still not published his personally endorsed proof of what
is a ‘currently accepted’ prediction for the strength of gravity? Will he ever
do so?

‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity’:
false claim by Edward Witten in the April 1996 issue of *Physics Today,*
repudiated by Roger Penrose on page 896 of his book *The Road to Reality,*
2004: ‘in addition to the dimensionality issue, the string theory approach is
(so far, in almost all respects) restricted to being merely a perturbation
theory’. String theory does not predict the strength constant of gravity,
*G!* However, the *Physical Review Letters *editor still ‘believes in’
Edward Witten and *Physics Today.*

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=215#comment-4081:

Peter Woit Says:

July 7th, 2005 at 7:27 pm

I’m tempted
to delete the previous comment, but am leaving it since I think that, if
accurate, it is interesting to see that the editor of PRL is resorting to an
indefensible argument in dealing with nonsense submitted to him (although the
"…" may hide a more defensible argument). Please discuss this with the author of
this comment on his weblog, not here. I’ll be deleting any further comments
about this.

‘(1). The idea is nonsense. (2). Somebody thought of it before you did. (3). We believed it all the time.’ - Professor R.A. Lyttleton's summary of inexcusable censorship (quoted by Sir Fred Hoyle in ‘Home is Where the Wind Blows’ Oxford University Press, 1997, p154).

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=215#comment-4080:

Alejandro Rivero Says:

July 8th, 2005 at 6:34 am
*currently accepted*

is not different of the typical forms
to request funds in some project, where you are basically asked what are you to
discover, and when. I call this part of science, very botanic-wise, the
"classification" side. The (also botanic) counterpart, "exploration", is always
more problematic. Smolin article … was about this, wasn’t it?

*********************

- The media is too chicken to report it, to save attacks from ‘string theorists’ who can’t even convince their own wives of their propaganda. It is independent proof of Catt’s experiment evidence that charges are gravitationally trapped energy. Fundamental particles have a black hole (not Planck) sized shielding area, predicting gravity. The mechanism for gravity is proved by a second calculation that doesn’t require shielding area (below).

Light has momentum and exerts pressure, delivering energy. The pressure
towards us due to the gauge bosons (force-causing radiation of quantum field
theory), produces the *contraction effect of general relativity and also
gravity* by pushing us from all directions equally, except where reduced by
the shielding of the planet earth below us. Hence, the overriding push is that
coming downwards from the stars above us, which is greater than the shielded
effect coming up through the earth. This is the mechanism of the acceleration
due to gravity. We are seeing the past with distance in the big bang! Gravity
consists of gauge boson radiation, coming from the past just like light itself.
The big bang causes outward acceleration in observable spacetime (variation in
speed from 0 toward c per variation of times past from 0 toward 15,000,000,000
years), hence force by Newton’s empirical 2^{nd} law, *F = ma*. The
3^{rd} empirical law of Newton says there’s equal inward force, carried
by gauge bosons that get shielded by mass, proving gravity to within 1.65%.

The proofs below show that the local density (i.e., density at 15,000,000,000
years after origin) of the universe is: r _{(local)} =
*3H ^{2}/(4*

Hence, outward force of big bang: *F = Ma = *[*(4/3)** pR ^{3}* r

The heuristic explanation of this 137 anomaly is just the shielding factor by the polarised vacuum

‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend
part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs. The virtual
fermions with charges opposite to the bare charge will be, on average, closer to
the bare charge than those virtual particles of like sign. Thus, at large
distances, we observe a reduced bare charge due to this screening effect.’ – I.
Levine, D. Koltick, et al., *Physical Review Letters,* v.78, 1997, no.3,
p.424.

The muon is 1.5 units on this scale but this is heuristically
explained by a coupling of the core (mass 1) with a virtual particle, just as
the electron couples increasing its magnetic moment to about 1 +
1/(2p 137). The mass
increase of a muon is 1 + 1/2 because Pi is due to spin and the 137 shielding
factor doesn’t apply to bare particles cores in proximity, as it is due to the
polarised vacuum veil at longer ranges. This is why unification of forces is
approached with higher energy interactions, which penetrate the veil.

The mechanism is that the 137 number is the ratio between the strong nuclear
and the electromagnetic force strength, which is a unification arising due to
the polarisation of the vacuum around a fundamental particle core. Therefore,
the Coulomb force near the core of the electron is the same as the strong
nuclear force (137 times the observed Coulomb force), but 99.27% of the core
force is shielded by the veil of polarised vacuum surrounding the core.
Therefore, if the mass-causing Higgs bosons of the vacuum are
**outside** the polarised veil, they couple weakly, giving a mass
137 times smaller (electron mass), and if they are **inside** the
veil of polarised vacuum, they couple 137 times more strongly, giving higher
mass particles like muons, quarks, etc (depending on the discrete number of
Higgs bosons coupling to the particle core: the for all directly observable
elementary particle masses (quarks are not directly observable, only as mesons
and baryons) is (0.511 Mev).(137/2)n(N + 1) = 35n(N + 1) Mev

This idea predicts that a particle core with n fundamental particles (n=1
for leptons, n = 2 for mesons, and obviously n=3 for baryons) coupling to N
virtual vacuum particles (N is an integer) will have an associative inertial
mass of Higgs bosons of:

(0.511 Mev).(137/2)n(N + 1) = 35n(N + 1) Mev,

where 0.511 Mev is the electron mass. Thus we get everything from this one mass plus integers 1,2,3 etc, with a mechanism. We test this below against data for mass of muon and all ‘long-lived’ hadrons.

The problem is that people are used to looking to abstruse theory due to the success of QFT in some areas, and looking at the data is out of fashion. If you look at history of chemistry there were particle masses of atoms and it took school teachers like Dalton and a Russian to work out periodicity, because the bigwigs were obsessed with vortex atom maths, the ‘string theory’ of that age. Eventually, the obscure school teachers won out over the mathematicians, because the vortex atom (or string theory equivalent) did nothing, but empirical analysis did stuff. It was eventually explained theoretically!

There was a crude empirical equation for lepton masses by A.O. Barut,
*PRL,* v. 42 (1979), p. 1251. We can extend the basic idea to hadrons. The
muon is 1.5 units on this scale but this is heuristically explained by a
coupling of the core (mass 1) with a virtual particle, just as the electron
couples increasing its magnetic moment to about 1 + 1/(2.Pi.137). The mass
increase of a muon is 1 + 1/2 because Pi is due to spin and the 137 shielding
factor doesn’t apply to bare particles cores in proximity, as it is due to the
polarised vacuum veil at longer ranges. This is why unification of forces is
approached with higher energy interactions, which penetrate the veil. This idea
predicts that a particle core with n fundamental particles (n=1 for leptons, n =
2 for mesons, and obviously n=3 for baryons) coupling to N virtual vacuum
particles (N is an integer) will have an associative inertial mass of Higgs
bosons of: (0.511 Mev).(137)n(N + 1)/2 = 35n(N +1) Mev.

Accuracy tested against data for mass of muon and all ‘long-lived’ hadrons:

LEPTON (n=1)

Muon (N=2): 105 Mev (105.66 Mev measured), 0.6% error!

HADRONS

Mesons (contain n=2 quarks):

Pions (N=1): 140 Mev (139.57 and 134.96 actual), 0.3% and 3.7%
errors!

Kaons (N=6): 490 Mev (493.67 and 497.67 actual), 0.7% and 1.6%
errors!

Eta (N=7): 560 Mev (548.8 actual), 2% error!

Baryons (contain n=3 quarks):

Nucleons (N=8): 945 Mev (938.28 and 939.57 actual), 0.7% and 0.6%
errors!

Lambda (N=10): 1155 Mev (1115.60 actual), 3.5% error!

Sigmas
(N=10): 1155 Mev (1189.36, 1192.46, and 1197.34 actual), 3.0%, 3.2% and 3.7%
errors!

Xi (N=12): 1365 Mev (1314.9 and 1321.3 actual), 3.8% and 3.3%
errors!

Omega (N=15): 1680 Mev (1672.5 actual), 0.4%
error!

The mechanism is that the charge of the bare electron core is 137 times the Coulomb (polarisation-shielded) value, so vacuum interactions of bare cores of fundamental particles attract 137 times as much virtual mass from the vacuum, increasing the inertia similarly. It is absurd that these close fits, with only a few percent deviation, are random chance, and this can be shown by statistical testing using random numbers as the null hypothesis. So there is empirical evidence that this heuristic interpretation is on the right lines, whereas the ‘renormalisation’ is bogus: http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/

Masses of Mesons:

Pions = 1.99 (charged), 1.93 (neutral)

Kaons = 7.05 (charged), 7.11 (neutral)

Eta = 7.84

Masses of Baryons:

Nucleons = 13.4

Lambda = 15.9

Sigmas = 17.0 (positive and neutral), 17.1 (negative)

Xi = 18.8 (neutral), 18.9 (negative)

Omega = 23.9

The masses above for all the major long-lived hadrons are in units of
(electron mass)x137. A statistical Chi-squared correlation test against random
numbers as the null hypothesis, indeed gives positive statistical evidence that
they are close to *integers.* The mechanism is that the charge of the bare
electron core is 137 times the Coulomb (polarisation-shielded) value, so vacuum
interactions of bare cores of fundamental particles attract 137 times as much
virtual mass from the vacuum, increasing the inertia that much too. Leptons and
nucleons are the things most people focus on, and are not integers when the
masses are in units of (electron mass)x137. The muon is about 1.5 units on this
scale but this can be explained by a coupling of the core (mass 1) with a
virtual particle, just as the electron couples increasing its magnetic moment to
1 + 1/(2.Pi.137). The mass increase of the muon is 1 + 1/2 because the Pi is due
to spin and the 137 shielding factor doesn’t apply to bare cores in
proximity.

To recap, the big bang has an outward force of 6.0266 x 10^{42}
Newtons (by Newton’s 2nd law) that results in an equal inward force (by Newton’s
3rd law) which causes gravity as a shielded inward force, Higgs field or rather
gauge boson pressure. This is based on standard heuristic quantum field theory
(for the Feynman path integral approach), where forces are due not to empirical
equations but to the *exchange of gauge boson radiation.* Where partially
shielded by mass, the inward pressure causes gravity. Apples are pushed
downwards towards the earth, a shield: ‘… the source of the gravitational field
[gauge boson radiation] can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a
continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all
antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid
elements is pressure.’ – Bernard Schutz, *General Relativity, *Cambridge
University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

LeSage in 1748 argued that there is some kind of pressure in space, and that
masses shield one another from the space pressure, thus being pushed together by
the unshielded space pressure on the opposite side. Feynman discussed LeSage in
November 1964 lectures *Character of Physical Law,* and elsewhere explained
that the major advance of general relativity, the contraction term, shortens the
radius of every mass, like the effect of a pressure mechanism for gravity! He
does not derive the equation, but we will do so below.

GENERAL RELATIVITY’S HEURISTICALLY EXPLAINED PRESSURE-CONTRACTION EFFECT AND INERTIAL ACCELERATION-RESISTANCE CONTRACTION

Penrose’s Perimeter Institute lecture is interesting: ‘Are We Due for a New
Revolution in Fundamental Physics?’ Penrose suggests quantum gravity will come
from modifying quantum field theory to make it compatible with general
relativity…I like the questions at the end where Penrose is asked about the
‘funnel’ spatial pictures of blackholes, and points out they’re misleading
illustrations, since you’re really dealing with spacetime not a hole or
distortion in 2 dimensions. The funnel picture really shows a 2-d surface
distorted into 3 dimensions, where in reality you have a 3-dimensional surface
distorted into 4 dimensional spacetime. In his essay on general relativity in
the book ‘It Must Be Beautiful’, Penrose writes: ‘… when there is matter present
in the vicinity of the deviating geodesics, the volume reduction is proportional
to the total mass that is surrounded by the geodesics. This volume reduction is
an average of the geodesic deviation in all directions … Thus, we need an
appropriate entity that measures such curvature averages. Indeed, there is such
an entity, referred to as the Ricci tensor …’ Feynman discussed this simply as a
reduction in radial distance around a mass of (1/3)MG/c^{2} = 1.5 mm for
Earth. It’s such a shame that the physical basics of general relativity are not
taught, and the whole thing gets abstruse. The curved space or 4-d spacetime
description is needed to avoid Pi varying due to gravitational contraction of
radial distances but not circumferences.

The velocity needed to escape from the gravitational field of a
mass (ignoring atmospheric drag), beginning at distance *x* from the centre
of mass, by Newton’s law will be *v* = (2*GM/x*)^{1/2}, so
*v ^{2}* = 2

By *Einstein’s principle of equivalence* between inertial
and gravitational mass, this gravitational acceleration field produces an
identical effect to ordinary motion. Therefore, we can place the square of
escape velocity (*v ^{2}* = 2

However, there is an important difference between this
gravitational transformation and the usual Fitzgerald-Lorentz transformation,
since length is only contracted in one dimension with velocity, whereas length
is contracted equally in 3 dimensions (in other words, *radially outward in 3
dimensions*, not sideways between radial lines!), with spherically symmetric
gravity. Using the binomial expansion to the first two terms of each:

Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect: g = *x/x _{0}* =

Gravitational contraction effect:* **g *= *x/x _{0}* =

where for spherical symmetry ( *x = y = z = r*), we have
the contraction spread over three perpendicular dimensions not just one as is
the case for the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction: *x/x _{0}* +

Therefore, clocks slow down not only when moving at high
velocity, but also in gravitational fields, and distance contracts in all
directions toward the centre of a static mass. The variation in mass with
location within a gravitational field shown in the equation above is due to
variations in gravitational potential energy. The contraction of space is by
(1/3) *GM*/*c ^{2}*.

This is the 1.5-mm contraction of earth’s radius Feynman obtains, *as if
there is pressure in space*. An equivalent pressure effect causes the
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of objects in the direction of their motion in
space, similar to the wind pressure when moving in air, but without viscosity.
Feynman was unable to proceed with the LeSage gravity and gave up on it in 1965.
However, we have a solution…

PROOF BY RADIATION PRESSURE: There is strong evidence from electromagnetic theory that every fundamental particle has black-hole cross-sectional shield area for the fluid analogy of general relativity. The effective shielding radius of a black hole of mass M is equal to
2GM/c The total shield area is therefore directly proportional to the total mass: the total shield area is equal to the area of shielding by 1 fundamental particle, multiplied by the total number of particles. (Newton showed that a spherically symmetrical arrangement of masses, say in the earth, by the inverse-square gravity law is similar to the gravity from the same mass located at the centre, because the mass within a shell depends on its area and the square of its radius.) The earth’s mass in the standard model is due to particles associated with up and down quarks: the Higgs field. From the illustration above, the (total outward force) = ma = (mass of universe).(Hubble
acceleration, while the gravity force is the shielded inward reaction (by Newton’s
3 F = (total outward force).(cross-sectional area of shield projected to radius R) / (total spherical area with radius R). The cross-sectional area of shield projected to radius R is equal to
the area of the fundamental particle (p multiplied by the square of the radius of the
black hole of similar mass), multiplied by the (R/r) G = (3/4)H Feynman discuss the LeSage gravity idea in ‘Character of Physical Law’
1965 BBC lectures, with a diagram showing that if there is a pressure in
space, shielding masses will create a net push. ‘If your paper isn’t read,
they |
## PROOF BY THE SPACETIME FOAM FABRIC:## Apples fall because of gauge boson shielding by nuclear atoms (mainly void space). The same pressure causes the general relativity contraction term.STEP 1: Pressure is force/area. By geometry (illustrated here), the scaled
area of shielding below you is equal to the area of space pressure above
that is pushing you down. The shielded area of the sky is 100% if the
shield mass is the mass of the universe, so: A (1) Force, F = P Next (see step 2 below): introduce F (2) F = F STEP 2: Air is flowing around you like a wave as you as you walk down a corridor (an equal volume goes in the other direction at the same speed, filling in the volume you are vacating as you move). It is not possible for the surrounding fluid to move in the same direction, or a void would form BEHIND and fluid pressure would continuously increase in FRONT until motion stopped. Therefore, an equal volume of the surrounding fluid moves in the opposite direction at the same speed, pemitting uniform motion to occur! Similarly, as fundamental particles move in space, a similar amount of mass-energy in the fabric of space (spin foam vacuum field) is displaced as a wave around the particles in the opposite direction, filling in the void volume being continuously vacated behind them. For the mass of the big bang, the mass-energy of Higgs/virtual particle field particles in the moving fabric of space is similar to the mass of the universe. As the big bang mass goes outward, the fabric of space goes inward around each fundamental particle, filling in the vacated volume. (This inward moving fabric of space exerts pressure, causing the force of gravity.)
‘Popular accounts, and even astronomers, talk about expanding space. But how is it possible for space … to expand? … ‘Good question,’ says [Steven] Weinberg. ‘The answer is: space does not expand. Cosmologists sometimes talk about expanding space – but they should know better.’ [Martin] Rees agrees wholeheartedly. ‘Expanding space is a very unhelpful concept’.’ – New Scientist, 17 April 1993, pp. 32-3.
The effective mass of the spacetime fabric moving inward which actually
produces the gravity effect is equal to that which is exactly shielded by
the mass (illustrated here). So
m The big bang recession velocities vary from 0 to (3) F = m(R/r) Next, for mass continuity, dr/dt = -Ñ.(rv) = -3rH. Hence, r = r (4) F = (3/4) mMH |

SYMBOLS

F = force = ma = PA

M = mass of Earth

- m = mass of person or apple

P = force / area = F/A = ‘pressure’

A = surface area of a sphere, 4p times (radius squared)

r = distance from person to centre of mass of shield (Earth)

R = radius to big bang gravity source

H = Hubble constant = apparent speed v of galaxy clusters radially from us divided by their distance R when the light was emitted = v/R, hence v = HR = dR/dt, so dt = dR/(RH):

a_{H} = dv/dt = [d(RH)]/[dR/(RH)] = RH.d(RH)/dR = RH^{2} =
cH; a constant (Hubble saw light coming from fixed times past, not from stars at
fixed distances).

r = density of universe (higher at great
distances in space time, when the age was less and it was more
compressed, dr/dt = -Ñ .(rv) = -3rH. So: r = r _{local} e^{3}, see
be)

G = universal gravitational constant (previously impossible to predict from general relativity or string theory)

p = circumference divided by the diameter of a circle, approx. 3.14159265…

e = base of natural logarithms, approx. 2.718281828…

‘… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.’ – Professor Bernard Schutz, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

Notice that in SR, there is no mechanism for mass, but the Standard Model says the mass has a physical mechanism: the surrounding Higgs field. When you move a fundamental particle in the Higgs field, and approach light speed, the Higgs field has less and less time to flow out of the way, so it mires the particle more, increasing its mass. You can't move a particle at light speed, because the Higgs field would have ZERO time to flow out of the way (since Higgs bosons are limited to light speed themselves), so inertial mass would be infinite. The increase in mass due to a surrounding fluid is known in hydrodynamics:

‘In this chapter it is proposed to study the very interesting dynamical problem furnished by the motion of one or more solids in a frictionless liquid. The development of this subject is due mainly to Thomson and Tait [Natural Philosophy, Art. 320] and to Kirchhoff [‘Ueber die Bewegung eines Rotationskörpers in einer Flüssigkeit’, Crelle, lxxi. 237 (1869); Mechanik, c. xix]. … it appeared that the whole effect of the fluid might be represented by an addition to the inertia of the solid. The same result will be found to hold in general, provided we use the term ‘inertia’ in a somewhat extended sense.’ – Sir Horace Lamb, Hydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press, 6th ed., 1932, p. 160. (Hence, the gauge boson radiation of the gravitational field causes inertia. This is also explored in the works of Drs Rueda and Haisch: see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209016 , http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html and http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/ns-ijv081005.php .)

So the Feynman problem with virtual particles in the spacetime fabric retarding motion does indeed cause the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction, just as they cause the radial gravitationally produced contraction of distances around any mass (equivalent to the effect of the pressure of space squeezing things and impeding accelerations). What Feynman thought may cause difficulties is really the mechanism of inertia!

In his essay on general relativity in the book ‘It Must Be Beautiful’, Penrose writes: ‘… when there is matter present in the vicinity of the deviating geodesics, the volume reduction is proportional to the total mass that is surrounded by the geodesics. This volume reduction is an average of the geodesic deviation in all directions … Thus, we need an appropriate entity that measures such curvature averages. Indeed, there is such an entity, referred to as the Ricci tensor …’ Feynman discussed this simply as a reduction in radial distance around a mass of (1/3)MG/c2 = 1.5 mm for Earth. It’s such a shame that the physical basics of general relativity are not taught, and the whole thing gets abstruse. The curved space or 4-d spacetime description is needed to avoid Pi varying due to gravitational contraction of radial distances but not circumferences.

The velocity needed to escape from the gravitational field of a mass (ignoring atmospheric drag), beginning at distance x from the centre of mass, by Newton’s law will be v = (2GM/x)1/2, so v2 = 2GM/x. The situation is symmetrical; ignoring atmospheric drag, the speed that a ball falls back and hits you is equal to the speed with which you threw it upwards (the conservation of energy). Therefore, the energy of mass in a gravitational field at radius x from the centre of mass is equivalent to the energy of an object falling there from an infinite distance, which by symmetry is equal to the energy of a mass travelling with escape velocity v.

By Einstein’s principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, this gravitational acceleration field produces an identical effect to ordinary motion. Therefore, we can place the square of escape velocity (v2 = 2GM/x) into the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, giving g = (1 – v2/c2)1/2 = [1 – 2GM/(xc2)]1/2.

However, there is an important difference between this gravitational transformation and the usual Fitzgerald-Lorentz transformation, since length is only contracted in one dimension with velocity, whereas length is contracted equally in 3 dimensions (in other words, radially outward in 3 dimensions, not sideways between radial lines!), with spherically symmetric gravity. Using the binomial expansion to the first two terms of each:

Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect: g = x/x0 = t/t0 = m0/m = (1 – v2/c2)1/2 = 1 – ½v2/c2 + ...

Gravitational contraction effect: g = x/x0 = t/t0 = m0/m = [1 – 2GM/(xc2)]1/2 = 1 – GM/(xc2) + ...,

where for spherical symmetry ( x = y = z = r), we have the contraction spread over three perpendicular dimensions not just one as is the case for the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction: x/x0 + y/y0 + z/z0 = 3r/r0. Hence the radial contraction of space around a mass is r/r0 = 1 – GM/(xc2) = 1 – GM/[(3rc2]

Therefore, clocks slow down not only when moving at high velocity, but also in gravitational fields, and distance contracts in all directions toward the centre of a static mass. The variation in mass with location within a gravitational field shown in the equation above is due to variations in gravitational potential energy. The contraction of space is by (1/3) GM/c2.

This is the 1.5-mm contraction of earth’s radius Feynman obtains, as if there is pressure in space. An equivalent pressure effect causes the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of objects in the direction of their motion in space, similar to the wind pressure when moving in air, but without viscosity. Feynman was unable to proceed with the LeSage gravity and gave up on it in 1965. However, we have a solution…

‘Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden University lecture on ‘Ether and Relativity’, 1920. (Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, pp. 15, 16, and 23.)

‘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…. The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), MA, MSc, FRS, Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

‘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.

‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs. The virtual fermions with charges opposite to the bare charge will be, on average, closer to the bare charge than those virtual particles of like sign. Thus, at large distances, we observe a reduced bare charge due to this screening effect.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.

If the electron moves at speed v as a whole in a direction orthogonal (perpendicular) to the plane of the spin, then the c speed of spin will be reduced according to Pythagoras: v2 + x2 = c2 where x is the new spin speed. For v = 0 this gives x = c. What is interesting is that this model gives rise to the Lorentz-FitzGerald transformation naturally, because: x = c(1 - v2 / c2 )1/2 . Since all time is defined by motion, this (1 - v2 / c2 )1/2 factor of reduction of fundamental particle spin speed is therefore the time-dilation factor for the electron when moving at speed v.

Motl's quibbles about the metric of SR is just ignorance. The contraction is a physical effect as shown above, with length contraction in direction of motion, mass increase and time dilation having physical causes. The equivalence principle and the contraction physics of spacetime "curvature" are the advances of GR. GR is a replacement of the false SR which gives wrong answers for all real (curved) motions since it can't deal with acceleration: the TWINS PARADOX.

Strangely, the ‘critics’ are ignoring the consensus on where LQG is a useful approach, and just trying to ridicule it. In a recent post on his blog, for example, Motl states that special relativity should come from LQG. Surely Motl knows that GR deals better with the situation than SR, which is a restricted theory that is not even able to deal with the spacetime fabric (SR implicitly assumes NO spacetime fabric curvature, to avoid acceleration!).

When asked, Motl responds by saying Dirac’s equation in QFT is a unification of SR and QM. What Motl doesn’t grasp is that the ‘SR’ EQUATIONS are the same in GR as in SR, but the background is totally different:

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

Phil Reed

Letters to the Editor

Electronics World

30 June 2004

Dear Sir:

‘Electronic Universe’ article, Apr. 2003 EW, proves G =
3H^{2}/(4πρ). Here H is Hubble constant
and ρ is density of universe responsible for causing gravity by reaction of
Catt’s 377-ohm space to the big bang. 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. Mass continuity implies: dρ/dt =
-Ñ (ρv) =
-Ñ .(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} and
observed G = 3H^{2}/(4πe^{3}ρ).

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/m^{3}. 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 = 3H^{2}/(4πe^{3}ρ) = 6.783x10^{-11}
Nm^{2}kg^{-2}, 1.65% higher than the physical measurement for G
of 6.673x10^{-11} Nm^{2}kg^{-2}. So current data
predicts acceleration of just under 10 ms^{-2} at the Earth’s surface,
compared to the observed value of about 9.8 ms^{-2}. This proves Catt’s
insistence on the reality of the 377-ohm fabric of space beyond any reasonable
doubt.

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Cook

**PROOF CHECK (LONG VERSION) **Nigel Cook

Standard equation for mass continuity (conservation of mass in an expanding gas, etc):

dρ/dt + Ñ (ρv) = 0

Or

dρ/dt = -Ñ (ρv)

Where divergence term -Ñ .(ρv) = -[{d(ρv)_{x}/dx} + {d(ρv)_{y}/dy} +
{d(ρv)_{z}/dz}]

For spherical symmetry

dx = dy = dz = dr, where r is radius (note: this has nothing to do with the sum of the squares of the differential elements of distance, so the abusive anonymous ‘moderator’ on ‘Physics Forums’ who claimed this so, made vacuous personal sneers, and then banned all response, merely proved the ignorance of charlatans)

Hubble equation

v = Hr

Hence

dρ/dt = -Ñ (ρv) = -Ñ .(ρHr) = -[{d(ρHr)/dr} + {d(ρHr)/dr} + {d(ρHr)/dr}]

= -3d(ρHr)/dr

= -3ρHdr/dr

= -3ρH

So dρ/dt = -3ρH. Rearranging:

-3Hdt = ò (1/ρ) dρ. Integrating both sides:

-3Ht = (ln ρ_{1}) – (ln ρ). Using the base of natural logarithms e to get rid
of the ln’s:

e^{-3Ht} = ρ_{1}/ρ

Because H = v/r = c/(radius of universe) = 1/(age of universe, t) = 1/t:

e^{-3Ht} = ρ_{1}/ρ

= e^{-3(1/t)t} = e^{-3}

Therefore

ρ = ρ_{1}e^{3} = 20.085537 ρ_{1}.

So using the result in the April 2003 EW,

G = 3H^{2}/(4πρ)

= 3H^{2}/(4πe^{3}ρ_{1})

where ρ_{1} is the local-time observed
density of the universe. This is correct to within 1.7%.

It beats ‘quantum gravity’ speculations which give no prediction of G whatsoever, whereas general relativity actually uses the measured value of G as a constant to make calculations, rather than predicting it.