What is Science?
After spending the greater part of a summer afternoon reading all 27 pages of posts, and referring to the articles referenced, I believe that I do have two cents to add to this debate.
The problem with Nigel's presentation and defense is that he and I do not agree on what science is. My ninth grade teacher told me once, "When you turn on a light switch, it sends a signal to some Martians, who then burn a fire in the light bulb". What that means is that there are the "Models" of science and the science itself. Nigel has presented both a Model and a system of calculations. The math may be correct, and I am sure that if the first step is correct then all of the other 16 steps do not include any errors in algebra or calculus. This does not mean that the Model is correct. Einstein presented models to the general public, which may or not be correct, they are just simplifications to make life easier for the layman. There are an INFINITE number of models that satisfy your equations, therefore you are not on the same playing field as the establishment physics.
As an establishment science teacher I would tell my students to immediatly discard the first part of your paper. NOBODY cares what causes gravity, Newton didn't, Einstein didn't, and Hawkins doesn't. You have found an interesting set of mathematical connections between Hubble's constant, and Cavindish's gravitational constant, this is certainly interesting. BUT I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH the equations have to be DIVORCED from the model!
Let me compare your work with an article published in Scientific American of August 2002 by Mordehai Milgrom. Milgrom found that by changing Newton's force law F=ma to F=ma+0(H) then there will be no need for adding dark matter to the Universe. He got his work published, even though it is "far out" and challanges the very foundations of mechanics, because he did not try to find a "why". He claims that this formula "fits" the data, and explicitly claims not to have a mechanism or a model for his equations.
If you would present your mathematics without the added burden of a model, and claim that you have found a different derivation of Freidmans law then you would be on sounder footing.
HOWEVER your 16 steps have some claims that are MODEL dependent! This is never a good thing.
1) Number 2 and 11 are the same thus there are only 15 steps.
2) Assume G = (3/4)H2/ (ðñ), it doesn't mean that ther are not other derivations as you claim. The problem is that H is not a constant. It is a measured quantity that nobody claims to know. In fact the problem with "H" is that it is easy to identify up to a certain distance, then the function of distance and velocity could be concave, convex, or linear, nobody knows or even claims to know. In fact most books claim that H is a function of &rho, so you cannot use both of them in the same equation!.
3) You claim in part 8 "velocity is really varying as a direct function of time past, i.e., velocity is proportional to time so there is acceleration," This may be true, but it doesn't make the standard version of Hubble's law wrong. If I stand on a line and a car accelerates away from me, and I have tied a tape measure to the car, and it is operating a siren. I can calculate the velocity as a function of distance. From this I can see that the farther away the car is the faster it is going. I can look at this experiment in a different light, with a stop watch instead of a tape measure and calculate the velocity as a function of time. NEITHER is "wrong" or in error. They are just two different ways of looking at the same phenomena. By calling Hubble's law wrong, you just make enemies, couldn't you just state, that this is a different way of looking at the data, and you could make more friends.
4) In equation 7 you talk about the Radius of the Universe "R", this is very problematic. What radius do you mean? Because of Special and general relativity this is a non measurable quantity. You can make some assumptions as to the size, by assuming that the distant galaxies that were measured as to their output 12-13 giga-Y ago and their velocities you can get a general number of about 40-50 glY, but this doesn't solve the main problem, presented in May Scientific American, as to is this just the Radius of the Observed Universe, or is there more after that. If we assume Big-Bang Inflationary cosmology, then we have to assume that the space of the universe is growing at light speed from the initial singularity. Both the Ricci tensor and the materiel in it are expanding! thus
5) Equation 8, falls apart as you have not definition of R that is accepted by any of the establishment.
6) The 377 ohm impendence, is not the same as resistance. This is because of the effects of space, and has you claim not dependent on distance, but always exists! HOWEVER you cannot then turn around and use this as if it were a true resistance! This mathematical beast defined by the Zo of free space is equal to the square root of the ratio of the permeability of free space (µo) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m):
Zo = (µo/Eo)1/2 Every other site then Ivor's claims that this cannot be used as resistance as drag. But even if it were you don't use the number.
7) You must either show the fully covariant/contravariant formulation of the Einstein equations, or prove that they are wrong. As your system is simple algebra and calculus, and does not attempt to provide the standard mathematical formulation it will be rejected by all establishment scientists.
In general scientists have a "bull ****" meter, that is set off by certain expressions and claims. By including claims in your paper that sound paranoid, and that claim that certain standard equations are wrong, you almost make sure that you will not be published. Take the example from Milgrom, who made one of the most extravagant claims in modern science and DID get published!
Best of Luck!
Ofek
