Can the Hubble Expansion Explain the Mechanism of Gravity?

[Antonio Lao]

There is no doubt that many scientists are searching for gravity waves. These waves are very weak. Their signal to noise ratios is very, very small, near the limit of undetectability. It will be easier to detect if somebody comes up with a way of boosting the S/N ratios.

 

[Nigel]

If you read the editors notes about a book called Pushing Gravity (http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm ) it tells you of a theory that describes the mechanism of gravity:

"The basic idea runs like this. Space is filled with minute particles or waves of some description which strike bodies from all sides. A tiny fraction of the incident waves or particles is absorbed in this process. A single body will not move under this influence, but where two bodies are present each will be progressively urged into the shadow of the other."

It's a nice idea at first glance - when the sun is nearby, the particles coming toward the Earth through the sun are partially absorbed - so fewer of them are coming from the sun than from the other side. Therefore the Earth feels a net impulse towards the sun which is inversley proportional to the square of the distance just as in Newtons law.

The problem, as Feynman points out in his lectures, is that the Earth is moving around the sun. This would result in more particles being absorbed from the forward side than the rear side (like running into the rain) and would produce a resistance to motion that would slow down the orbital speed. If you calcultate it, it doesn't give enough time for the Earth to still be in it's orbit.

I hope the writer of the book reads this forum...

I corresponded with the editor of the book Pushing Gravity, who stated he does not believe in the big bang, despite the 3 strong lines of evidence for the big bang (cosmological redshift, abundances of the elements, cosmic background radiation details). My answer to Feynman is suppressed by the editor of Nature, who wrote to me on 25 Nov 96 ‘… we are not able to offer to publish… we have not communicated the contents of your paper to any person outside this office.’

So there can be no discussion of why the 377 ohm dielectric of the vacuum of space, which is the same stuff that exists between the Earth and the sun beyond the atmosphere, has four electromagnetic properties (permittivity, permeability, impedance, and characteristic velocity) as well as conducting gravitational forces, yet does not slow down the planets by impact collisions like air causing drag on you as you run. The answer is that the impedance of space is not cumulative, it is a continuum.

The proof of this is Heaviside's discovery that the impedance of space is 377 ohms, period. It's not dependent on distance (unlike a wire composed of particulate charges, where the resistance is in ohms/metre of length), so there is no accumulated loss no matter how far you travel.

The drag in the continuum of space occurs only once, 377 ohms. It does not continue afterwards, since you need only set up the electromagnetic wave form once. http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

 

[Nigel]

Here is the email from the editor of the Pushing Gravity book:

From :
Matt Edwards <matt.edwards@utoronto.ca>

To :
nigel cook <nigelbryancook@hotmail.com>

CC :
ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk

Subject :
Re: Book Notice- Pushing Gravity

Date :
Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:26:15 -0400

Reply Reply All Forward Delete Put in Folder...InboxSent MessagesDraftsTrash Can Printer Friendly Version

Dear Nigel,

Thanks for your interesting e-mail. I have had a look at the website you
mentioned and found the mechanism you propose there quite novel. Your ideas
are very much in the Le Sage mode and I would say that you would almost
certainly find Pushing Gravity a useful and interesting book.

I should mention that I do not share your view that the universe is
expanding. I favour a static model. In fact, yours is the first paper I'm
aware of that ties a Le Sage mechanism of gravity explicitly to expansion of
the universe. Some of the equations in your paper look a lot like the
equations in a paper of mine that I did not publish in Pushing Gravity, and
your expression for G (in terms of H, etc.) was almost identical! I did not
go through all the math in your example, but
the similarities are quite remarkable, given that I was putting forward a
quite different mechanism. I will get that other paper out and try to see how
these similarities could have arisen.

Please let me know when your book comes out. It sounds pretty interesting.

Best wishes,
Matt

 

[kurious]

Expansion of the universe is most probably caused by electric charges of the same sign
some of which will reverse their sign and cause attraction and the eventual collapse of the universe.The high energy of the big bang must have forced the particles that carry the charge into a high energy positive or negative state that will lose energy
according to the Heisenberg relation E x t = h.We don't understand what electric charges are and we assume they are constant - perhaps they're not.I think le Sage was right about gravity being a pushing force but I think that the electric force is also a pushing force - in the case of attraction of charges.The repulsion of like charges can be explained by negative energy - energy that carries momentum in the opposite direction to which it is travelling.Le sage's ideas need putting in the context of all
the forces of nature not just gravity.

 

[Nigel]

Expansion of the universe is most probably caused by electric charges of the same sign
some of which will reverse their sign and cause attraction and the eventual collapse of the universe.The high energy of the big bang must have forced the particles that carry the charge into a high energy positive or negative state that will lose energy
according to the Heisenberg relation E x t = h.We don't understand what electric charges are and we assume they are constant - perhaps they're not.I think le Sage was right about gravity being a pushing force but I think that the electric force is also a pushing force - in the case of attraction of charges.The repulsion of like charges can be explained by negative energy - energy that carries momentum in the opposite direction to which it is travelling.Le sage's ideas need putting in the context of all
the forces of nature not just gravity.

Agreed about pushing forces being involved in gravity and electromagnetism. Repulsion is also a pushing effect, you exchange energy and thereby momentum between two particles of similar charge, and get them recoiling away from one another just as if they were firing bullets at each other in space. Attraction of unlike charges is the shielding from one another of energy carrying momentum coming in from the surrounding universe. You find that with a random distribution of + and - charges shielding one another, the net exchange summation is a random or drunkard's walk, which is an addition amounting to the square root of the number of particles. The inward pressure of the exchanged electromagnetic energy is driven by the inward dielectric pressure which causes gravity (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/). The electromagnetic force is therefore larger than the gravity force by the square root of the number of particles.

 

[kurious]

The electromagnetic force is therefore larger than the gravity force by the square root of the number of particles.

This is something I think is the key to the difference in force strengths.
I think the vacuum always has particles in it -I don't think they appear and disappear again.I reckon a W particle has as long a range as a photon and that E x t =h describes the oscillation of the W with another particle.
I'll check out that web link.

 

[Antonio Lao]

kurious,

FYI: The universe is theorized by modern physics as composed of real and virtual particles.

Since Dalton's time, the atomic theory of matter was well studied and understood. Then the subatomic theory of elementary particles was also studied and understood since 1900. Now, we have the virtual particles to worry about.

There are two kinds of virtual particles.

1. produced out of the vacuum by quantum fluctuations. Many of these must be produced in pairs in order to balance the electric charge of the universe thus preserving the law of charge conservation. The photon (unit of light) is an exception since it can be produced without any mirror image counterpart because photon is its own antiparticle.

2. In a Feynman spacetime diagram which depicts real particles as vertices, each line joining two vertices is also called a virtual particle. This virtual particle cannot be directly detected. This particle can violate the conservation law. But conservation still holds for the overall interaction,i.e., the real and virtual taken all together. For example, an electron can interact with a neutrino by emitting a virtual W minus which is then absorbed by the neutrino.

 

[felipefas]

felipefas,

We know there are two kinds of energy: the potential and kinetic. The potential is energy of position and the kinetic is energy of motion. The vacuum as a whole (sum of zero-point energies) is theorize of containing infinite amount of energy and the vacuum is not moving although it is fluctuating. But the vacuum does not seem to have any mass.

I see. But itsn mass related to energy? if there is enough energy in vacuum, there should be enough potential for mass. I wonder what would it take for a lot of energy to become mass?

 

[Antonio Lao]

If we theorize the existence of two kinds of mass: the potential and the kinetic then the reason why the vacuum has no mass is because the mass of the vacuum is the difference of potential and kinetic mass. if these are equal then the vacuum mass is zero. But these cannot be truly equal. There are two conditions for a vector quantity to be equal to another: the magnitude equality and the direction equality.

The magnitudes can always be made equal but the direction cannot. The universe has infinite directions to choose from but once an object chooses a direction, no other object can choose this same direction. An object will keep its own direction for all eternity. The magnitude of the object might increase or decrease in time but each object's direction is forever the same. Maybe, this is how the quantum entanglement can be explained that is each object has its own direction for all time and that is why two photons going in opposite direction are entangled by each own unique direction. These directions are the exact opposite of each other.

 

[Nigel]

If we theorize the existence of two kinds of mass: the potential and the kinetic then the reason why the vacuum has no mass is because the mass of the vacuum is the difference of potential and kinetic mass. if these are equal then the vacuum mass is zero. But these cannot be truly equal. There are two conditions for a vector quantity to be equal to another: the magnitude equality and the direction equality.

The magnitudes can always be made equal but the direction cannot. The universe has infinite directions to choose from but once an object chooses a direction, no other object can choose this same direction. An object will keep its own direction for all eternity. The magnitude of the object might increase or decrease in time but each object's direction is forever the same. Maybe, this is how the quantum entanglement can be explained that is each object has its own direction for all time and that is why two photons going in opposite direction are entangled by each own unique direction. These directions are the exact opposite of each other.

Quantum entanglement is a speculative interpretation of the correlation between photon spins demonstrated by Alain Aspect's 1982 experiments. If you produce two photons from one atomic transition, each going in opposite directions at light speed, then even when they are several metres away you find that measuring the polarisation of one photon appears to change the uncertainty with which you can measure the other. The simple mechanical question is usually submerged in Bell's inequality theorem, with people forgetting that the root of the experiment is the 1935 Einstein, Polansky, and Rosen paradox in quantum mechanics.

There are at least three possible and diametrically opposed ways to read Aspect's results:

1. The theory of relativity is wrong and information can travel instantly (infinite speed) from one place to another across the laboratory, keeping Heisenberg's uncertainty principle valid. Thus there is "entanglement" between particles moving apart at light speed (or should we say twice light speed, since each photon is going in the opposite direction to the other?).

2. The light speed limit is true, and the quantum entanglement idea is wrong. In this case, the correlation between the polarisation states is due to some hidden variable not yet identified in the experimental set up. In other words, the experiment is a magic trick which takes in the experimenter.

3. The nature of the photon is the key to the business. In space it has been demonstrated that the apparently null fields which arise through interference do not involve nil energy. For example, wave interference can cancel out briefly, where undetectable energy still exists. In Young's double slit experiment, for instance, the dark fringes on the screen are said not to be nil energy, but places where two photons are arriving out of phase and cancelling. (There is no mechanism for energy to disappear at dark fringes, and this is denied by the principle of conservation of energy.) Similarly, where you are a metre from an uncharged mass, you have an energy field comprised of equal positive and negative charges. You may say that they cancel each other out, but they form an ether which has effects when you try to accelerate (inertia and momentum), as well as carrying light. Photons of light are to be understood in terms of this already-existing balanced field, which is always carrying energy at light speed. (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)

 

[Antonio Lao]

The entanglement is in the spin axis only if the photons are traveling in exactly opposite directions of motion. When one photon happens to collide with another photon along the way then the entanglement disappears.

My assertion is that quantum entanglement is possible only for two photons traveling in exactly opposite directions. Inherently this is because each photon has each own unique direction chosen from an infinite number of directions.

 

[felipefas]

If we theorize the existence of two kinds of mass: the potential and the kinetic then the reason why the vacuum has no mass is because the mass of the vacuum is the difference of potential and kinetic mass. if these are equal then the vacuum mass is zero. But these cannot be truly equal. There are two conditions for a vector quantity to be equal to another: the magnitude equality and the direction equality.

The magnitudes can always be made equal but the direction cannot. The universe has infinite directions to choose from but once an object chooses a direction, no other object can choose this same direction. An object will keep its own direction for all eternity. The magnitude of the object might increase or decrease in time but each object's direction is forever the same. Maybe, this is how the quantum entanglement can be explained that is each object has its own direction for all time and that is why two photons going in opposite direction are entangled by each own unique direction. These directions are the exact opposite of each other.

"If we theorize the existence of two kinds of mass: the potential and the kinetic.."

By definition, kinetic (energy) is energy being converted while potential is energy stored. If a mass is kinetic, then it would refer to the transition from mass to energy as per say a fire. and potential mass would be energy viable to become energy. How can exist a mass in an in-between stage? unless the process is occurring.

 

[Antonio Lao]

If a mass is kinetic, then it would refer to the transition from mass to energy as per say a fire. and potential mass would be energy viable to become energy. How can exist a mass in an in-between stage? unless the process is occurring.

The potential mass m_p is a function of position, r. But this functionality was not completely defined by Newton's 2nd Law of Motion or his Law of Universal Gravitation. The result shows two undefined terms, the acceleration and another mass term, m_2.

Let's start with the inertial force F_i=m_1 a and the inertial mass is given by m_1 = \frac{F_i}{a}. Insert this into the gravity force F_g= G \frac{m_1 m_2}{R^2} by the Principle of Equivalence gives a = G \frac{m_2}{R^2}.

The kinetic mass m_k is a function of velocity. To be continued.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The inertial acceleration a is given in MKS system as 9.8 m/s^2 and m_2 is the mass of planet earth. G is the universal gravitational constant with value given in CGS as 6.67 \times 10^{-8} dyne cm^2/gm^2.
These constants seem to be defining among themselves without clarifying the fundamental definitions for absolute acceleration and kinetic mass. Will be continued.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Invoking the Principle of Equivalence, m_p = m_k, this introduces a gravity field as curvature of spacetime. This just deepen the mystery because of a new concept of spacetime. What GR wanted to do is really to find the equivalence of a force and spacetime. The Law of Universal Gravitation is subtly implying a mass disparity. That is to say one mass has to be very large and the other very small in order for the 2nd Law of Motion to become equivalence. If the two masses are equal then the inertial force between them becomes zero because the acceleration is zero and clearly applied by the 3rd Law of Motion (action and reaction). To be continued.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The potential mass of the photon is zero. But if now we defined a kinetic mass for the photon, this mass is hidden in the momentum of photon given by p = \frac{E}{c}. In SR, there is no distinction between rest mass (potential mass) and kinetic mass at low speed. But the kinetic mass begins to appear when the speed approaches light speed. There is a subtle relationship between relativistic mass and kinetic mass, the former is given by

m_r = \frac {m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

where m_0 is the rest mass.

 

[Antonio Lao]

When we make an equivalence between a force and spacetime, essentially, we can say that the product of a generalized mass and the time derivative of the absolute acceleration is equal to some constant, K.

m \frac{da}{dt} = K

 

[Antonio Lao]

By integration,

\int m da = \int K dt

But I am stuck at this point. What is the infinitesimal meaning of da? Can it be da = \frac{dv}{dt}?

 

[Antonio Lao]

If da = dv/dt then, I supposed, further intergration can be done.

\int m \frac{dv}{dt} = \int K dt

\int m dv = \int \int K dt dt

 

[Antonio Lao]

The last integral indicates that linear momentum is proportional to the square of time.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I can see similarity with Stokes' theorem in vector analysis. But mass and time are not vectors by current definitions.

 

[felipefas]

I see what you are saying. But it will take me some time to visualize the concept

 

[Antonio Lao]

We are in the same boat. I am still trying to make more sense from them to satisfy my own supposedly rational thinking and trying to be logically minded.

 

[Nigel]

"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.

Consider this question to get a vitally important intuitive result. "When a submarine moves, how much water moves, and at what net velocity?" This net volume being displaced is simply equal to the submarine's own volume, and it's velocity is minus the submarine velocity (ie, water moves at the same speed, but in the opposite direction). This is because a wave of fluid flows around a moving object, and continuously fills the void forming behind it. This explains the "paradox" of wave-particle duality. If that submarine is continuously accelerating, the water is accelerated in the opposite direction. In the big bang, the clusters of galaxies represent submarines accelerating radially away. The dielectric acceleration is the other way, towards us. From this result, we know the quantity of the 377 ohm vacuum dielectric moving, as well as its motion. The imbalance due to the mass of the Earth below us gives a correct prediction for the force of gravity, with a formula for G to go into Einstein's field.

Consider a static point in space near the Earth's surface. The fabric of space remains static despite a 9.8 ms^-2 gravitational downward acceleration field, because the downward force, Mg, is balanced by an upward force, ma = Mg, where m is the mass of the Earth, a is the acceleration due to the Hubble expansion (H = v/r, where H is the Hubble constant, v is velocity, and r is distance, so a = dv/dt = H^2 r), M is the accelerating dielectric mass for the volume of space defining the field strength g, and g is the downward acceleration. So "ma = Mg" becomes approximately m(H^2 r) = (4/3 pi r^3 rho)g, which rearranges to give gravity, g = 3H^2 m/(4 pi r^2 rho), where rho is the mean density of matter in space (exactly equal to the effective density of the accelerating dielectric which causes gravity). A more rigorous 16 step treatment of the geometry gives the same result; published in the April 2003 issue of Electronics World (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)

In the last paragraph, rho is the Greek symbol, while H^2 symbolises H squared.