# Proof of cause of gravity

Nigel you mention that the 'pressure out' is equal to the 'pressure in', but in the physical measurements of the planet it is found that the density of the rock that comprises the Earth needs be quite a bit higher then what is found at the surface as to equate with the total mass of the planet.

So if the pressure was really an 'out' factor, from within the planet, then the most dense rock would be found at the surface of the planet, and it is NOT, the lighest, and least dense, is found at the surface.

If you would wish to tell me that this is a factor of the weight of all of the rock pressing down, well, then where the heck did your pressure out go?

Originally posted by Nigel

If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake. The air flows in the opposite direction. An equal volume of air to my volume goes in the opposite direction to me at the same speed, filling in the void. The same occurs with moving submarines underwater. If you have an accelerating object, you get a wave of air or water accelerating in the opposite direction. The total effective volume is equal to the volume displaced by the moving object, and the speed or acceleration is the same, except in the opposite direction.
Nigel, forgive me but your 'brilliance' is about to be 'outshined' by a candle.

Caution in all things that you do, so take a cnadle hold it in front of your chest and talk a little hike down any corridior in the world when the air is still, the Flame of the candle will reveal that there is a wind generated, actually a pressure differential, which you can prove is a vacuum space behind you, simply by walking backwards with the same candle held very close to your chest.
{That is why I caution you all first, if you try this I would suggest that you place something, a plate perhaps, against your chest, as a saftey precaution, to keep your clothing from catching fire when the flame of the candle is pushed, or pulled, towards them}

As for underwater Nigel apparently you do not have any idea of just how much money the American navy spent developing propellers that reduce the opportunity for cavitation, at pressure, under water.

They would not have spent that kind of money on a phenomenon that didn't exist.

Might I suggest that you do some further reseach Nigel, a it is not the math that is wrong, it is the "logical precepts" that direct math, that are flawed. {My opinion..........Only)

Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity and its solution of some cosmological problems. The mathematics, minus diagrams, are in the following paper on the internet:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
Nigel Cook
When an element at high temperature comes into contact with an element at low temperature, the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats.

It is not uncommon for elements to 'morph' to accommodate the stimulus of the other body in such a way as to imitate the condition of the other body.

Matter has a readily measurable property of density. The density of space is immeasurably small - if it even exists. Could gravity simply be space trying to assume a density and 'shrinking' when it comes into contact with matter. This would be more pronounced in the area between material bodies.

Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity and its solution of some cosmological problems. The mathematics, minus diagrams, are in the following paper on the internet:

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

Nigel Cook
Yours is a well thought out and thought through set of equasions and theories about gravity. I have enjoyed it alot. Thank you for that!

Please let me ask some questions with regard to electromagnetism and gravity.

1. How is the electromagnetic field of a planetary mass generated?

2. Is pressure a form of friction? (causes heat, static etc...)

3. Is the magnetic field of a planetary mass caused by a nickel/iron core or by some other magic of mass (and pressure!???)?

4. Is it possible that the pressures you speak of help to create this electromagnetic field of a planetary body and that this results in the exhibition of what we term as being gravity?

5. Would the amount of planetary mass determine the strength of it's electromagnetic field? (ie: the amount of pressure under mass being greater according to the amount of mass in question)

Thank you again!

Last edited:

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Yours is a well thought out and thought through set of equasions and theories about gravity. I have enjoyed it alot. Thank you for that!

Please let me ask some questions with regard to electromagnetism and gravity.

1. How is the electromagnetic field of a planetary mass generated?

2. Is pressure a form of friction? (causes heat, static etc...)

3. Is the magnetic field of a planetary mass caused by a nickel/iron core or by some other magic of mass (and pressure!???)?

4. Is it possible that the pressures you speak of help to create this electromagnetic field of a planetary body and that this results in the exhibition of what we term as being gravity?

5. Would the amount of planetary mass determine the strength of it's electromagnetic field? (ie: the amount of pressure under mass being greater according to the amount of mass in question)

Thank you again!

The electromagnetic field is the key to the whole business. The article in Electronics World is concerned with the mechanism and derivation of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the transverse electromagnetic wave electron (an electron is an electromagnetic wave trapped by its own gravitation into a tiny loop), the derivation of Maxwell's equations from that, including the mechanism for Gauss' law which is basically the electric field version of Coulomb's inverse square law. Gravity is the other thing which the paper deals with. For copyright reasons I can't re-publish the whole thing on the internet, but I have published the gravity proof from it on the internet since that has a strong link with cosmology.

You may be able to find Electronics World at a library, or wait until more can be re-published free on the internet. The mathematical proofs and diagrams that are needed to properly answer your questions are in there.

However, I've updated the "Frequently Asked Questions" on the internet page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
which contains a discussion of what Einstein did in uniting electrodynamics with gravitation in his general theory of relativity, together with a discussion of the mathematical work he did. You may find that of interest and helpful to answering some of your intelligent questions.[?]

Originally posted by Messiah
When an element at high temperature comes into contact with an element at low temperature, the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats.

It is not uncommon for elements to 'morph' to accommodate the stimulus of the other body in such a way as to imitate the condition of the other body.

Matter has a readily measurable property of density. The density of space is immeasurably small - if it even exists. Could gravity simply be space trying to assume a density and 'shrinking' when it comes into contact with matter. This would be more pronounced in the area between material bodies.
Actually Messiah (Which you are not) it is as I have been telling the in these forums for some time now, it is heat that is the opposite energy form, to gravity!

That is why I have endevoured to tell of the inside of the event Horizon of a Black Hole as being -1 K, the absence of the measurable quality that we collectively know as heat, AKA-EMR.

Fundamentally gravity is a cooling force of energy, and has the lovely ability to actually capture HEAT, hence the inside temperature of a Black Hole, the Thermosphere of the planet Earth, the Phenomenon of the Solar observation of the Photosphere, the Corona, and the Chromosphere that demonstrate to us a cool layer of energetic activity sandwiched between two hotter layers, above and below.

This is furthered by the simplistic knowledge of a question I had posed in the previous PF as to find me a place where there is NO EMR,as it is what is actually known.

Known for some time now, from the old school photographics of astronomical observations, the negatives of the exposures where what was looked at/eyeballed and they represent the universe in it's proper light so to speak, with the bodies of mass being little black points, (there own Gravity hides them in the dark, if they are weak ones, like this planet) and the rest of the interstellar spaces being flooded with light/EMR

The Modu operandi of these phenomenons is what I had been writing about back in the mid, to late, 1990's, as it arises from the structuring of atoms themselves.

Nigel, electrons do not have gravity, and are not a balance of electrical and gravitational force.

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. That's all that is needed. There is no need to invoke some ehtereal pressure field that you claim causes gravity due to mass shielding. It is too excessive.
The paper begins: "General relativity failed to predict the recession speeds of distant supernovas. This paper reviews and extends the straightforward mathematical proof for the mechanism of gravity, published in Electronics World, resolving this problem."

You are welcome to your opinion. Without a cause of forces, however, we are stuck in the position that people are dropping out of science. Last year, the Physics Department at Essex University, UK, closed. The staff there were transferred to the Electronics Engineering department. This year, their maths department has been under threat. The whole problem is that they have masses of data from experiments and observations which cannot be explained, and students are resenting hard maths which lacks any proven basis.

Or perhaps the recession speed is caused by something outside of GR as it currently stands. A closer analogy would have been the cosmological constant, however with the current theories dealing with dark energy it would seem to be some other force at work. As such that would be like saying GR failed to predict two magnets would attract each other so strongly.

Nigel the one other thing that has been stated about gravity, for years now, is TRUE, it is an "Attraction to a Center", but the surface is not the center that it is using, the center is in the core of the planet.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...
Nigel, electrons do not have gravity, and are not a balance of electrical and gravitational force. [/B]
This is an interesting claim. J.J. Thomson measured the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron with something which is very similar to a vacuum TV picture tube.

The mass he measured was inertial, not gravitational. Some people in physics jump to conclusions too easily, and I like the fact that you do not.

When you say "electrons do not have gravity" you are making an ambiguous case, though. Do you believe:

1. That electrons are not affected by the gravity of another mass?
2. That electrons do not attract other particles to themselves?
3. Both 1 and 2 above?

Clearly, the universal gravitational constant, G, is pretty poorly known (only about 3 decimal places), so since electrons only comprise a small proportion of the inertial mass of atoms, you may be right to doubt 2. In theory, we should know whether 1 is true by the effect of gravity on electrons like beta radiation. However, I do not know of any research on this.

Originally posted by Nigel
This is an interesting claim. J.J. Thomson measured the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron with something which is very similar to a vacuum TV picture tube.

The mass he measured was inertial, not gravitational. Some people in physics jump to conclusions too easily, and I like the fact that you do not.

When you say "electrons do not have gravity" you are making an ambiguous case, though. Do you believe:

1. That electrons are not affected by the gravity of another mass?
2. That electrons do not attract other particles to themselves?
3. Both 1 and 2 above?

Clearly, the universal gravitational constant, G, is pretty poorly known (only about 3 decimal places), so since electrons only comprise a small proportion of the inertial mass of atoms, you may be right to doubt 2. In theory, we should know whether 1 is true by the effect of gravity on electrons like beta radiation. However, I do not know of any research on this.
To #1) Yes and no, dependant upon circumstances.

to #2) NO, electrons are attracted to other particles, and have interactions with them, ie; protons, but which is the attractor (outside of in a battery) is difficult to prove, because of the scale.

In what I understand about gravity, the universal constant of it is that it pulls all things to a common center, all energy that has/had been radiated.

In performing that function, it, in of itself, causes heat to be generated and radiated back out, in a cyclical nature, relative to the mass of the gravitational body/generator.

The Planet proves that, and the Moon, the Sun, Mass, the Stars, they all demonstrate the ability of being thermal capacitors, as that is what the cycle of gravitational activity performs, the capacitance of heat.

When it ends, it is in a "Big Crunch", but is is a very "COLD Big Crunch".

What is presently being thought of as 'Dark Energy', might simply be us, finally observing the activity of gravity that is the rebounding of the elastic of space itself, and the sighting of the evidence that the universe is indeed capable of reversing it's expansion, and is 'presently' (so to speak, as the distances invoke 'past' times) beginning, (or in the process of) to recontract(ing).

But all of this, is, by far, NOT all of the answer, not even close, lots of details is/are still missing.

BTW Nigel, if the medium is "Superfluid", as to afford 'no resistance' to motion, then there can be NO shadowing effect, as a shadowing effect MUST, and IS, an indication of a pressure differential.

But nice math work, just the same......a bit of the "Monte Carlo" method is it?

Originally posted by Nigel
The electromagnetic field is the key to the whole business. The article in Electronics World is concerned with the mechanism and derivation of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the transverse electromagnetic wave electron (an electron is an electromagnetic wave trapped by its own gravitation into a tiny loop), the derivation of Maxwell's equations from that, including the mechanism for Gauss' law which is basically the electric field version of Coulomb's inverse square law. Gravity is the other thing which the paper deals with. For copyright reasons I can't re-publish the whole thing on the internet, but I have published the gravity proof from it on the internet since that has a strong link with cosmology.

You may be able to find Electronics World at a library, or wait until more can be re-published free on the internet. The mathematical proofs and diagrams that are needed to properly answer your questions are in there.

However, I've updated the "Frequently Asked Questions" on the internet page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
which contains a discussion of what Einstein did in uniting electrodynamics with gravitation in his general theory of relativity, together with a discussion of the mathematical work he did. You may find that of interest and helpful to answering some of your intelligent questions.[?]
Excellent! Thanks again!

It looks more like a synergistic arrangement as we could expect in a quantum equasion... leaving sequence and/or cause and effect out of the calculations. More like a support structure comprised of electromagnetic influence and gravitational influence.

It would still be interesting to do what I have already proposed which is to run a real-time superimposition of the electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields of a planetary body over one another during the introduction of a second, smaller mass.

There may be a clue as to which field creates which in the calculations of each of these field's rate of change.

Thanks again.

12/04/2003

Nigel the reality of gravity is found in 'thermics', or 'thermology' the study of the flowing of energy. (As heat{ing})

In the thermosphere of the planet we find a layer of relatively high temperature space, ~2500 Degrees F, above drops to ~7 or 8 degrees K, and below it is a layer of the planets atmosphere that is something below 0.0 Degrees F. (my numbers are approximates as they are remembered 'roughly', but the point that they make still stands solid as evidence as we observe the inverse of the Solar effect inasmuch as we now see a layer of heat, sandwiched by two cooler layers)

We have a layer of space that is maintaining a temperature that is not generated by any activity that is measurable as "fire", yet we clearly know it is maintaining temperature over time, completely contrary to what the current laws of thermodynamics tells us, (all heat is radiant *) BUT a clear observable phenomenon, hence the laws of thermodynamics MUST be wrong! The planets observable characteristics PROVE that one.

What we end up finding out in this manner of observance of the universes operation of energy exchanges is that the moderator of motion is gravity, as it is the interface of the differential of energetic traveling, hence the motion of masses at speeds that are sub-light, as all of the energy travels at C (near enough, some exception) to generate the movements.

We hence see, that it is gravity that is actually the operator of time, (generator of it actually) time as it is measured by the motion/movements of masses.

As I had previously stated in other forums, “time is the illusion of movement” that is because the motion is an illusion, it is the moderation of energetic cycles that move the masses, but all of the energetic cycles occur at C, outside of masses, relative to C ( as propagating) inside masses.

(* It is, But there is a 'time' effect bearing upon the traveling of the energies at play, a generated ‘time’(ing) effect)

One body heats while the other cools because gravity will cause to arise an Energetic Ambience between the two masses, proportionately.

An “Energetic Ambience” (pressure) is normally measured using a thermometer, at least last time I heard anything about it…..Rumor had it?

It is a more complex answer then what you found Nigel, forgive me, it’s not my fault. (not yours either!)

Vacuum PRESSURE!

There are similar ideas to yours posted elswhere, and going back sometime ago?

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/bhboard/messages11/25.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
Lifegazer

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nigel, electrons do not have gravity, and are not a balance of electrical and gravitational force. [/B]
Really? I thought electrons had 'mass'?

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
That is why I have endevoured to tell of the inside of the event Horizon of a Black Hole as being -1 K, the absence of the measurable
quality that we collectively know as heat, AKA-EMR.
Do you perceive heat to be a quality - or a condition?
I consider 'quality' to be an inherent property of an element. Heat would be a transient condition.

Originally posted by Messiah
Do you perceive heat to be a quality - or a condition?
I consider 'quality' to be an inherent property of an element. Heat would be a transient condition.
So then 'Heat' as a "qualifiedly/quantifiable condition" of space,....is what?

Heat is actually referred to, or known as, in physics, "Ambient Energy Pressure", (AEP) as that is exactly what a thermometer measures.

AEP is the amount of energy that is 'cycling' be’twix all of the matter, in the (seemingly empty) space, where you measure it.

Aside form that, heat is also seen as a quality of matter, as in "That piece of steel is hot", as well as its (present) 'condition'.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

AEP is the amount of energy that is 'cycling' be’twix all of the matter, in the (seemingly empty) space, where you measure it.
I take - from the parenthetical note above - that you do not consider space to be 'non-existence' - or empty.

Does space exist 'beyond' the Universe/expansion of the Big Bang, or does Big Bang manufacture space "on the fly" so to speak?

Thanks for the interesting replies everyone!

The paper on the internet is the mechanism for gravity, and some of the replies touch on the other two forces of nature, which have different mechanisms and force strengths to gravity. The article in Electronics World deals with 4 forces, although two of those (electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces) are already unified in so-called electro-weak theory.

Hence, there are 3 basic forces:
Strong nuclear force
Gravitational force - http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
Electromagnetic force

I will briefly say something about the mechanisms and mathematical proofs I have published for the strong nuclear and the electromagnetic forces, since they relate to some of the replies above.

The mathematical proof I give (Electronics World, April 2003) demonstrates that the vacuum flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the strong nuclear force (137 times the electromagnetic force), while the electromagnetic force is the energy delivery by a random walk of electromagnetic fields between similar charges in the universe. Because the stars are receding, the electromagnetic momentum received continuously from spinning charges is less than they emit in any one place, so there is an asymmetry, causing a gravity shielding-attraction effect between dissimilar charges (hence electrostatic attraction) and an excessive exchange of momentum between similar charges (hence electrostatic repulsion).

The random walk occurs because a straight line summation would encounter equal numbers of positive and negative charges, thus cancelling out. When you work out the random walk, allowing for the expansion of the universe and the constant 377 ohm impedance of free space, you find that the electromagnetic forces are bigger than gravity by a multiplication factor equal to the square root of the number of charges in the universe; the proof is in the journal.

Therefore, there are three separate mechanisms accounting for 3 different basic forces. Sometimes in the past people have attributed the real mechanism of the strong nuclear force to electromagnetism, and had the paradox of a force calculation 137 times stronger than expected. This puzzled Feynman and many other maths wizards.

They should have studied Catt's research.

Originally posted by Messiah
I take - from the parenthetical note above - that you do not consider space to be 'non-existence' - or empty.

Does space exist 'beyond' the Universe/expansion of the Big Bang, or does Big Bang manufacture space "on the fly" so to speak?
On 9 July 1962, the United States wizards fired up a 1.44 megaton thermonuclear bomb on a missile, exploding at 400 km. Since the earth's atmosphere is insignificant at 100 km altitude, that was in space all right. Some people are prejudiced against explosions, so they say that every point in the universe sees every other point expanding around them. This is the worst sort of conjecture, especially when they falsely try to say that Hubble proved it. In fact, as my paper shows, the Hubble "law" (ratio of speed to distance of star = constant) is false in the sense that the distance will increase while the observed light is travelling to us, while the speed may remain the same. The whole of cosmology is jinxed by the discovery that the most distant supernovas do not slow down as predicted due to general relativity. My paper resolves that, but don't expect to see it being cited in any textbooks within the next century. Science journals are more fearful of the loss of reputation by publishing a hoax than they are of the supposed embarrassment of not publishing a genuine advance.

As for what is beyond the universe - I don't know. If the gravity mechanism is correct (I think it is because the logical proof has support from what we know about the fabric of space in electromagnetism, and also the Hubble equation when corrected gives rise to acceleration) then it looks as if the universe is an explosion in pre-existing space. Whether the pre-existing space is actually infinite, or not, I cannot even try to guess. I would like to see computer modelling of the universe using a nuclear fireball computer code. By fitting the results from a computer simulation for a 10^55 megatons detonation to what is observed for the universe, something useful might be learned. At present, that area is surrounded in secrecy.

Originally posted by Messiah
I take - from the parenthetical note above - that you do not consider space to be 'non-existence' - or empty.

Does space exist 'beyond' the Universe/expansion of the Big Bang, or does Big Bang manufacture space "on the fly" so to speak?
Current cosmological understanding, as I have read of it, is that the Big Bang was/is the explosion of space itself.

Empty space, find me a place in space that is NOT filled with EMR, other then the inside of the event horizon of a Black Hole.

As for a fabric, it is both deducable, provable, and has been noted by some of the hisorically noted greatest minds known to be soemthing that the universe itself, has been telling us, is there, all along, it is simply the proving of that, with repeatablity, and standardized testing, that will end that!

[q]demonstrates that the vacuum flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the strong nuclear force [/q]

But in your paper you claim that spacetime is continuous. Vacuum fluctuations manifest themsevles as a discreteness in the fabric of spacetime, commonly known as quantum foam. This is the central problem in quantizizing gravity and why such new developments as loop quantum gravity and any new theoretical models are tending towards a discerete spacetime that is actually formed, not independent.

Also,

Upon further reading of your paper, I must wholly protest the claim you make that the total Volume of spacetime is constant. That simply cannot be so in an expanding universe.

When you say H has units of acceleration, does that mean the units of H are meters per second per second?

v = rH = dr/dt. Hence: dt = dr/(rH).
So what you are saying then, is that the position function for r is

r = CeHt with C being some constant. So far that seems to be a nice acceleration model for the velocity. Of that I can say the math is sound going back and forth (though what an odd little constant that H is). I still have the rest of the maths to look through however. And again I urge one to remember what works in math does not always work in reality. It should be interesting to see where my analysis leads me.

Also, I hope you are not too offended by my criticisms. It is good measure to always meet new ideas with skepticism. So onward I go.

Last edited:

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for a fabric, it is both deducable, provable, and has been noted by some of the hisorically noted greatest minds known to be soemthing that the universe itself, has been telling us, is there, all along, it is simply the proving of that, with repeatablity, and standardized testing, that will end that!
Does it require any more proof than already exists - or is it just a matter of getting the semantics correct?

If one defines 'exist' as 'having physical presence in the Universe', then it is already proven that space 'exists'. The fact we cannot discern any attributes other than that it has volume, location and the property of inertness (which - in itself - is a quality) is no more remarkable than the fact early man considered air to be 'nothing'.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Empty space, find me a place in space that is NOT filled with EMR, other then the inside of the event horizon of a Black Hole.
If Big Bang is expanding into space, there must be space into which BB has not yet arrived. If BB 'created' the Universe, then there should be nothing outside of the volume of BB (even EMR) except more space.

Else BB 'creates' space on the fly.

NO??

Try it this way, the vessel of the universe, as we see it, is EMR, and it is currently known that this would extend beyond the range of our collective abilities to see it/ observe it.

As 'proof' of a fabric really goes, it is demonstrably provable, the semantics aside.

It is preferable to have that proof as it is evidence of the nature of the vessel of the universe's encapsulation of matter.

It's nature is important to understand as it is intimately involved in the workings of the universe.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Try it this way, the vessel of the universe, as we see it, is EMR, and it is currently known that this would extend beyond the range of our collective abilities to see it/ observe it.

As 'proof' of a fabric really goes, it is demonstrably provable, the semantics aside.

It is preferable to have that proof as it is evidence of the nature of the vessel of the universe's encapsulation of matter.

It's nature is important to understand as it is intimately involved in the workings of the universe.
Sounds reasonable - however, there may be factors in the Universe which have a direct bearing upon our measurements and those factors may NEVER be observable within the lifetime of our species.

If the Universe (some prefer omniverse, but I choose to define Universe as "all which exists") is infinite and our BB is a local phenomenon, there may be neighboring cosmic engines (BB's) beyond our detection producing systems which make neutron stars look like sponge.

Dark Matter??