Gravity mechanism predicts G to within 1.7%

[sol2]

Nigel,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nigel]

Nigel,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nigel

 

[sol2]

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

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

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

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

Nigel

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

 

[Ian]

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

 

[Nigel]

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

It is simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nigel]

Blimey Nigel! what have you done?

First you should try and understand the missing link in gravitational theory which is Newton's constant. Explain that (G) in terms of simple classical theory and go from there.
Edward Harrison at Amherst said in his book 'Cosmology'[/I] "The value of G is found by measurement, no physicist has yet been clever enough to explain it" (page 65 or 45).
If you fill that gap then you will unify physical theory, all else is as the Emperors new clothes.

If you had bothered to READ the first post on this trend, you would see that I've proved the formula for G. This has never been done. Eddington remarked in 1920 in his book Space, Time and Gravitation, that there were 200 different ideas about the cause of gravity but none gave a value for G.

Here I give the value for G, accurate to within 1.65% of the experimental value, and you are saying the opposite, and quoting some old fool who claims that he is God and somehow knows that because something has been done in the past, that prevents me from doing it now.

Please read the first post of this thread to see what it is about and what I have done. Thank you.

 

[Nigel]

Blimey Nigel! what have you done?
First you should try and understand the missing link in gravitational theory which is Newton's constant. Explain that (G) in terms of simple classical theory ...
If you fill that gap then you will unify physical theory, all else is as the Emperors new clothes.

First post repeated for your benefit, proving G from simple classical theory:

Gravity mechanism predicts G to within 1.7%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Summary:

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

Using these data, G = 3(H^2)/[4pi(e^3)ρ] = 6.783x10^-11 Nm^2kg^-2, within 1.65% of the physical measurement for G of 6.673x10^-11 Nm^2kg^-2. (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)

Background:

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Nigel : 07-06-2004 at 06:24 PM.

 

[Nigel]

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

Do you side with the aging bigot Dr Brian Josephson, who is now head of "Mind-Matter Unification" and thinks because he got the Nobel Prize for a useless liquid helium junction over 40 years ago, WHICH HAS SO FAR PROVED OF NO PRACTICAL VALUE TO ELECTRONICS OR THE REAL WORLD, he can go around preaching gibberish and denying science. Dictators who use ridicule and reject scientific argument out of hand, while suppressing advances, are nothing new in human history. Such dictators arise from ego problems:

Dear Dr Josephson,

Political decisions such as Bohr's are not physics, and people who refuse to
check mathematical proofs are politicians, not physicists.Currently taught
physics does not YET contain a causal mechanism for forces, viz the
problem with a particle carrying momentum to cause force and yet having zero
mass having to be ascribed to a force carrying particle to give make it
abide by the inverse square law rather than a range equal to a limiting
distance given by the time available under Heisenberg's law. However you do
not want to look at the evidence, and therefore you do not side with
Galileo, who was not the rude professor in the ivory tower.

From Galileo’s letter to Kepler: ‘Here, at Padua, is the principal professor
of philosophy, who I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the
moon and planets through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do.
Why are you not here? What shouts of laughter we should have at this
glorious folly!’ (Translation: Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, 1893, p.
106.)

Nigel Cook

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Josephson [mailto:bdj10@cam.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tue 04/05/2004 11:54
> To: Cook, Nigel B
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: Electromagnetic force mechanism...
> Perhaps your terminology was the problem -- it looks if your co-author
> actually meant collaborate on the research -- or, it seems from your
> attempt to elaborate on what you meant, explain physics to you. I think
> you would find my charges for being your physics tutor prohibitively
> expensive.
>
> Brian J.
>
>
> > Seriously, I just want to know why charges attract
> > and repel. There seems to be a continuous emission from spinning
> > particles that causes these forces, quite apart from the light quanta
> > emitted when they jump. The continuous emission idea stems from
> > Maxwell's equations and was suppressed by Bohr's correspondence
principle.
> >
> > The alleged problem with continuous emission was that an electron would
> > lose energy and spiral into the nucleus. In fact, this is stupid,
> > ignoring the fact that an electron would be receiving just as much
energy
> > as it emits in a universe in equilibrium.
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
> * Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
> * Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
> * Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
> * * * * * * *
>
>
>

 

[Ian]

Nigel,
I certainly don't side with Mr Josephson.
Youb are quite correct in what you said about the abscence of a "causal mechanism for forces" in physics theory. All that has been constructed to date are mathematical expressions that lack any explanation of cause. That "causal mechanism" is what I, like you, am looking for, but I find myself hampered (as you do) by those who insist that current theory is more than just a calculation.

 

[Nigel]

Nigel,
I certainly don't side with Mr Josephson.
Youb are quite correct in what you said about the abscence of a "causal mechanism for forces" in physics theory. All that has been constructed to date are mathematical expressions that lack any explanation of cause. That "causal mechanism" is what I, like you, am looking for, but I find myself hampered (as you do) by those who insist that current theory is more than just a calculation.

Thanks. I hope I never get any big ego prize that turns my brain into something fit only for sale as offal. Just look at the esteemed Mind-Matter Professor "Josephson Junction"!

One day, after insulting and obstructing genuine science a little too much, the sneering PRL or Nature editors and "nobel referee" thugs may slip on a quantum banana skin they themselves have carelessly dropped, and are amazed to discover that people don't respect them enough to walk around.

(They will respond to that not like adults, but like immature kids by screaming and complaining about being accidentally kicked very hard for obstructing the paths of people who are busy doing real science. What s****. What they don't realize is that voting each other prizes doesn't earn them respect. Pretending that "laws" explain things just makes the man in the street laugh at their mad "theories". They are trying to destroy science using the Popperian approach of guesswork theories selected by all-powerful editors while correct proofs get censored out. This is purely political. It is a bit like 1938, with some people claiming that if we appease the dictators we will "reform them" or we can "just say no" or "ignore bad people and let them alone mummy" and the Jews are safe. Anyone who attacks those childish and dangerously naive nutters is then called a nasty horrible old war monger, as was Churchill. The situation is very difficult, but if you are pacifist in the face of scum dictators - whether "Popperian scientific" or purely political, you must fight for what you believe in or everything you have proved and developed over many years will be destroyed at the flick of a switch by the scum.)

Back to gravity. We have a fabric of space, and if everything is stationary in it, there's no gravity at all.

Now you introduce the motions of matter as observed from the redshifts (Hubble observations). The matter moving out of every unit volume means that extra space fabric comes into that volume, keeping the volume full of space and matter.

Now the distant clusters of galaxies are not just moving away, but we observe that in the space-time trajectory we can actually see, they are "gaining" speed with distance and thus time (this is what we observe and what influences our gravity; I am not saying that if light and gravity somehow traveled instantly we would see and feel the same because we would not). Hence it is an acceleration.

In response, space is coming inwards towards us to balance that, generating a force towards us from every direction.

Now, that force coming at us from every direction comes almost full strength through the open sky atmosphere above, but is very slightly obstructed by this planet at our feet.

Now when you draw imaginary arrows to show forces like this on a piece of paper, you get a full big force arrow going down at you, but a slightly weaker force arrow coming upwards at you. So you get a net force which is downward, gravitation.

If you can find any effective way of illustrating this without maths, go ahead!

 

[Nigel]

I've tried to change the title of this thread to the following:

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

This doesn't work so please go to the new thread with that title. Thanks, Nigel