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

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets see, my original question was;

"Really? when/where did I state that there was no center of gravity??"

Followed by your responce;

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23 Well by definition the center of gravity of a body is where the internal gravitational effects are zero, but ok. They can't cancel out at the center of gravity according to you. There.

Which proves the obvious, you can't even read.

and the red part, want to find where I stated that please, or simply admit to the above statement, as clearly, it holds more truth then you will ever admit to.

Whadda yutz!

Alexander, ever played Fuse ball?

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Furthered by the simplicity that neither of you will admit that in that, (as I had told you it was) inhomogenous and anisotropic "circle", (you do know what those two words mean, don't you?*) you cannot cancel out the unequal, and therefore not opposite, lines.

Right there you say you can't cancel out the forces at the center of gravity.

If # 1 then the force of gravity goes all the way to the center of the planet and DOES NOT self cancel, the measure of G, at the core, is NOT at zero! (as you would want me to believe)

Again a statement claiming the net force at the center of gravity is not zero.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by moi
Furthered by the simplicity that neither of you will admit that in that, (as I had told you it was) inhomogenous and anisotropic "circle", (you do know what those two words mean, don't you?*) you cannot cancel out the unequal, and therefore not opposite, lines. this statement is in reference to the idea of you two canceling everything out, prior to it getting to the center, based upon it all being equal and opposite, which it is not!

If # 1 then the force of gravity goes all the way to the center of the planet and DOES NOT self cancel, the measure of G, at the core, is NOT at zero! (as you would want me to believe) Again, your gaming, notice the insistence that you had with "zero net force", OH WAIT, WHAT WAS MY ORIGINAL QUESTION AGAIN?


OH yes,""Really? when/where did I state that there was no center of gravity??""

And your responce to that question is where?

This?
Again a statement claiming the net force at the center of gravity is not zero.

Funny what you quote says "at the core", not "at the center of gravity" Hummmm, wonders if Brad_AD23 can read, or not at all??


case you miss reading it again, here...
,""Really? when/where did I state that there was no center of gravity??""

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Until it was pointed out specifically by me that we were referring to the center of gravity, the discussion was operating under the assumption center of the Earth and core referred to the center of gravity.


and nobody is saying you said there was No center of gravity. By specific technicality you did however when you stated there was force there. Centers of gravity CANNOT have an unbalanced amount of force, otherwise they are no longer centers of gravity. Perhaps it is you who cannot grasp the differences.

 

[yogi]

Nigel - I would agree that trying to get across a new concept is not fun - its an uphill battle because you - like an inertial mass, will necessarily experience a counter force whenever you attempt to make a change - Now while I would agree that the ultimate cause of gravity is expansion - I, like Brad, would object to the physical explanation that involves mass shielding - By the way, your equation is identical to that of Friedmann for a universe where q = 1 (no slowing due to gravity). For q = 1/2 (critical density), the coefficient is 3/8 rather than 3/4 - and this leads to a value of H = 57 (close to Sandage's value (56-58). Are you getting any responses from the physics community following the publication in Electrons World?

 

[yogi]

Some more comments for Nigel - if anything useful is to come out of these forums, it will be because one person provokes another into thinking about things - or to examine their own theories - or contribute to another's idea which is not fully worked out, so with that in mind, let me ask the following: We will take for example a planet like the Earth which travels about the Sun - according to your rationale, the Sun is acting as a shield in some manner as to the field generated by expansion. Now let's reduce the size of the Sun to a Black hole - we know that from the standpoint of its affect on the Earth's orbit, it makes no difference whether the mass is concentrated in a small black hole (about 1/2 a kilometer across) or whether it is very large as it is at present - but how can the small black hole act as a shield? The mass of the Sun has not changed, but the shielding absorption area is drastically reduced. All of the lines of force that were partially absorbed by the Solar size must now be focused onto a small area (again for the Solar mass, I think the black hole radius is about a half a kilometer) and the absorption (affect) must be absolutely unchanged since the orbit of the Earth depends only upon G and the solar mass (not its size). The situation poses a radical change in the geometry of the rays that define the force lines

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Very nice one indeed Yogi! I had yet to think of that arguement. But it is indeed correct.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Braaaaaad...GO FISH!

Originally posted by Brad_AD23
From page 21
And 2 still leads to a begging question: If the shielding is so weak, and thus it can traverse through the earth, why are we not being pushed off the Earth from a mysterious force that comes out of the ground? I am not referrign to the normal force either. Or does it eventually just stop? And if that is the case, where? Certainly not the non-existant center of gravity (according to Mr. Parsons). So I guess my question still remains, how does it operate inside a massive body. And for that matter in orbits? Orbits are determined by the gravitational attraction of the body. But if it is the result of some shielding, and not the geometry of spacetime being warped, why is it that orbits exist? It should seem that any object in orbit should fall immediately towards the object it is orbiting in that case, since there is a force now pushing it towards the object but no shielding in any other direction in its orbit.

...and from this page
and "nobody" is saying you said there was No center of gravity. By specific technicality you did however when you stated there was force there. Centers of gravity CANNOT have an unbalanced amount of force, otherwise they are no longer centers of gravity. Perhaps it is you who cannot grasp the differences.

Speaks for itself, nominates himself to be "Nobody"

What actually goes on at the center I have speciffically and technically told you I would NOT tell you.

Not just a limelighter, but a "fishing" limelighter at that, So "go figure", or, "go fish", but not in my pond!

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Again, you fail to read that I use that as a technical extension from your arguments which completely nullify the accepted definition of a center of gravity.

And that is fine if you don't wish to say what is going on there, but don't bring it up. This is for discussion, not saying "I am right and you are wrong, but I won't tell you what is going on that makes me right."

At any rate, I am not interested in you continuing to bring this discussion to a "he said/he said/he said/...etc" debate. You clearly disagree with the current definition of the center of gravity (which includes that inside a body the net gravitational attraction is zero) so you can't believe in that, and that is the definition I am using, not whatever yours is.

So, back to Nigel and yogi and me...we await your responses.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Again, you fail to read

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

I think that Mr Parsons raised a point that a sheet of steel should have a different weight standing on end than it would have if flat. This doesn't measurably happen because (1) the steel is not doing the shielding that causes the acceleration towards the earth, that is being done by the Earth shielding the steel, and that shield is irrespective of the orientation of the shield, and (2) the gravitational mass points in the steel (fundamental particles) are very small, and even in a large amount of material, they will not be exactly behind one another.

WOW Nigel you ever confuuuuused, "The steel is not doing the shielding that causes the acceleration"

If you had true 'proportionallity to mass', then you would not have needed to use 'surface area' in your planetary measurements.

But you have, and you obviously have confuuuused it to the point that even you don't can't understand what you are saying, ever neat!

So smart he has outsmarted himself, like the only really truly (not) (i)D(i)ot. (Wow, did you miss yourself)

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW Nigel you ever confuuuuused, "The steel is not doing the shielding that causes the acceleration"

If you had true 'proportionallity to mass', then you would not have needed to use 'surface area' in your planetary measurements.

But you have, and you obviously have confuuuused it to the point that even you don't can't understand what you are saying, ever neat!

So smart he has outsmarted himself, like the only really truly (not) (i)D(i)ot. (Wow, did you miss yourself)

No, Mr Parsons! If you drop 1 kg and 10 kg they accelerate at the same rate until air drag takes affect. Shielding of space pressure causes gravity towards the object. It is the bigger object which does the shielding. I fall down because space pressure comes from the side of me which is unshielded, not because of your rudeness!

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Speaks for itself, nominates himself to be "Nobody"

What actually goes on at the center I have speciffically and technically told you I would NOT tell you.

Not just a limelighter, but a "fishing" limelighter at that, So "go figure", or, "go fish", but not in my pond!

We are pushed up by space pressure that comes up through the earth. But it is shielded by something called the earth. Hence the push we get upwards is very slightly less than that which we get downwards.

The Earth is a pathetic shield. Go to Jupiter or Saturn, and you will be crushed by gravity, because the bigger mass shields you more. Are you testing my theory, or my patience, Homer!

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Testing your theory of course! If you are going to stick by it, patience ad infinitum is a virtue :)

I figured that was what you would say, but just wanted to make sure.

However, I believe Yogi brought up an even more interesting challenge to your theory with his post, and I am very very much interested in a reply to that.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
You still left a big gaping hole there Nigel. The vectors of the pressure that are supposedly being directed towards the mass have to have some reason for going that way. And what of when the mass is no longer at that point in space? How do these vectors readjust themselves to in effect return to this isotropic pressure field?


And 2 still leads to a begging question: If the shielding is so weak, and thus it can traverse through the earth, why are we not being pushed off the Earth from a mysterious force that comes out of the ground? I am not referrign to the normal force either. Or does it eventually just stop? And if that is the case, where? Certainly not the non-existant center of gravity (according to Mr. Parsons). So I guess my question still remains, how does it operate inside a massive body. And for that matter in orbits? Orbits are determined by the gravitational attraction of the body. But if it is the result of some shielding, and not the geometry of spacetime being warped, why is it that orbits exist? It should seem that any object in orbit should fall immediately towards the object it is orbiting in that case, since there is a force now pushing it towards the object but no shielding in any other direction in its orbit.

Also, why is it that if say the moon is at one point in its orbit, the side of the Earth opposite the moon will receive a stronger (not noticably stronger mind you) pull down? If they are already shielded from the rest of the earth, the moon should not make any difference.

OK, Brad, I've already responded to part of this through a reply in which you were quoted by Mr Parsons (reply above).

As for your vectors. Put a globe of the Earth under water. It has a pressure acting on its surface from the water, and you can represent it by your vector arrows. Now take the globe away. You still have the arrows, but they converge and cancel one another, leaving just water pressure. The same happens with space pressure.

The fun thing: I can answer questions until the cows come home, but will anything ever come of it? Will the physics professors ever listen?

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
Nigel - I would agree that trying to get across a new concept is not fun - its an uphill battle because you - like an inertial mass, will necessarily experience a counter force whenever you attempt to make a change - Now while I would agree that the ultimate cause of gravity is expansion - I, like Brad, would object to the physical explanation that involves mass shielding - By the way, your equation is identical to that of Friedmann for a universe where q = 1 (no slowing due to gravity). For q = 1/2 (critical density), the coefficient is 3/8 rather than 3/4 - and this leads to a value of H = 57 (close to Sandage's value (56-58). Are you getting any responses from the physics community following the publication in Electrons World?

I don't deal with Friedman. The derivation has nothing to do with Friedman. I have already explained that while the result is a factor of 2 different from the "flat universe", I do not accept general relativity as it stands because it is just a mathematical marriage between space-time electrodynamics, gravitational potential energy conservation, and Newtonian gravity, which is fiddled into general relativity by setting the weak field solution equal to Newton.

In other words, Einstein had no mechanism. I respect what Einstein did as being the work of a genius. I just want a mechanism, and having had to derive it myself I want to make it available to people properly. This I am prevented from doing by the Gods of physics.

All I can really hope is that experimental data on the density of the universe will provide further validation, and that eventually people will investigate it properly in well-equipped computing and experimental labs, which are not available to me. My university does not even have a physics department. Thanks for your sympathy with the problems.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
Some more comments for Nigel - if anything useful is to come out of these forums, it will be because one person provokes another into thinking about things - or to examine their own theories - or contribute to another's idea which is not fully worked out, so with that in mind, let me ask the following: We will take for example a planet like the Earth which travels about the Sun - according to your rationale, the Sun is acting as a shield in some manner as to the field generated by expansion. Now let's reduce the size of the Sun to a Black hole - we know that from the standpoint of its affect on the Earth's orbit, it makes no difference whether the mass is concentrated in a small black hole (about 1/2 a kilometer across) or whether it is very large as it is at present - but how can the small black hole act as a shield? The mass of the Sun has not changed, but the shielding absorption area is drastically reduced. All of the lines of force that were partially absorbed by the Solar size must now be focused onto a small area (again for the Solar mass, I think the black hole radius is about a half a kilometer) and the absorption (affect) must be absolutely unchanged since the orbit of the Earth depends only upon G and the solar mass (not its size). The situation poses a radical change in the geometry of the rays that define the force lines

Yes, Yogi. The shielding depends on the probability of two particles being in a line, which depends on their sizes. As the overall volume decreases, the particles of matter are compressed, and are closer. So there is more likelyhood of them statistically blocking each other. This would mean that for a black hole caused by a collapsing star, gravity might be less than currently predicted by the blanket application of Newton/Einstein. However, it would not be much. The Pauli exclusion principle limits the compression of matter, and applies to nuclear particles as well when you get down to that state. If particles are of the size of the Planck radius, then you need a lot of compression before any noticeable difference will occur between the Newton/Einstein empirical law and my mechanism.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel
We are pushed up by space pressure that comes up through the earth. But it is shielded by something called the earth. Hence the push we get upwards is very slightly less than that which we get downwards.

The Earth is a pathetic shield. Go to Jupiter or Saturn, and you will be crushed by gravity, because the bigger mass shields you more. Are you testing my theory, or my patience,

Why did you bother to 'cite me' when you refer to none of it, what a maroooon.

As for testing your theory, no point in testing what is proven to be wrong, now is there. (then again, with your "two sidekicks" now...why bother)

And then there's Brad_AD23, didn't read carefully enough to realize Nigel was responding to me, not him, get some glasses Brad_AD23, or learn how to read Brad_AD23, or give it up Brad_AD23!

Just read this, by you, Nigel...

In other words, Einstein had no mechanism. I respect what Einstein did as being the work of a genius. I just want a mechanism, and having had to derive it myself I want to make it available to people properly. This I am prevented from doing by the Gods of physics.

Had to come back, to EDIT this, to tell you, "Thank You! Nigel" you just gave me the biggest laugh of my day!

Ps Nigel, so you don't think gravity goes past the surface of the earth, like down in the mines it no longer works, right? (How {insert insult} is that? rhetorically asked, of course)

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Parsons I believe he was responding to both of us. The first part had a quote from you yes, but the second part has the answer to one of my questions (that is, if the space pressure can go through the Earth and push up on is). How funny...I guess you did not read that :)

 

[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).

 

[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.