Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Jul 14, 2004 #1
    Proof that gravity constant G = (3/4)(H^2)/[(pi)(density)e^3]

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

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

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


    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.


    ‘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: Jul 24, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 14, 2004 #2
    This is simply not true. Assuming that you can apply Newtonian physics to the big bang (which is a pretty big leap of faith IMO), there is no need for an inwards directed force. Consider the simple case of an explosive detonating inside an enclosed casing. The various fragments will push against each other , and the result is that all fragments experience a net outward force . Momentum is conserved because IF you added all the outwards forces and assumed they acted at a single point, the result would be zero. The CM of the exploding fragments remains motionless, but in this case there is clearly no balancing inwards gravitational pull. (Well in reality there is, but assuming this is done at everyday scales it is completely negligible and it will not bring the fragments back together, which would be the case if it was part of the action/reaction as you're suggesting).
  4. Jul 14, 2004 #3
    This is not true, see the proof. If your speculations were true, gravity would be twice as strong!

    I've proved that gravity has the correct force! Therefore you're wrong.
  5. Jul 14, 2004 #4
  6. Jul 14, 2004 #5
    What speculations? My example had nothing to do with gravity. It was a simple example of how action/reaction need not have anything to do with gravity, or a counterbalancing "inward directed force". Please show me where my explosion argument is incorrect.
  7. Jul 15, 2004 #6
    This whole thing is incorrect: I do a proof. You do not discuss the proof. You speculate it is "simply not true". I suggest you read it and before jumping to conclusions which are unscientific.

    Your speculation, that a heavy cased bomb discussion has something to do with your assertion that my proof is "simply not true" is entirely false. A heavy cased bomb has nothing to do with it! It is a pity that the moderators on this site are so pathetic and that science can't be done on the internet. You just get people attacking anything without taking the trouble to check it first.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2004
  8. Jul 15, 2004 #7
    I will not read any proof that is 10 pages long if it seems to me that you are starting from a flawed premise. Would you read a scientific paper that starts out with the statement "Grass is red, therefore..." ? If you do not want to address my concerns, that's fine, but don't expect me to read it then. This will be true for anyone else you choose to present your theory to.
    I apologize if I gave you cause to believe that I have bombed you, and I will issue a more formal apology if you need further clarification. Please try to understand that I viewed my first post as a legitimate potential issue, and not "dropping a heavy bomb". However, please do not jump to accusations that I am being "unscientific"; it is perfectly scientific to ask questions about a new theory. If I have not found your proof, then perhaps you should at least point a link to me that justifies the validity of the statements in question. I have no wish to get into a personal argument, hence I will simply wish you best of luck with your theory, and be on my way.
  9. Jul 15, 2004 #8
    1. The proof paper on the CERN server cited above is within a 3.5 page paper, and in the Electronics World 2003 article it is half a page boxed (16 steps).

    2. The proof for the density term giving e^3 is 1 page on Walter Babin's site.

    So please check your facts and not make false allegations about 10 pages. The bigots in the mathematics world often claim that unless a proof is at least 100 pages, it can't hope to sort out gravity. This is wrong, and those "mathematicians" are just cranks. No one can guess in advance how long a proof is, until it has been done.

    If you will not read it, then why comment on it by asserting that it is wrong?

    And, having refused to confront the accuracy of calculating gravity correctly to within 1.65% of the measured value, why claim it is "simply" wrong?

    I am not after apologies, just scientific discussion of this particular proof. I reaffirm the fact that you do not use this site if you want scientific discussions, because the moderators refuse to keep it scientific.

    Explosions are interesting, but this is perhaps the wrong thread to be trying to use fragmentation bombs on. I'd prefer it that people discuss their own issues about the dynamics of bomb detonations on another thread. That way, we can find out if there is any science on the internet or not.

    Many thanks,
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2004
  10. Jul 15, 2004 #9
    Allow me to further clarify some of my points.

    That much is true. However, I cannot examine those out of context. This link is definitely 10 pages:


    Those mathematicians also happen to be very smart people. No one has a monopoly on intellect, so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call them "cranks" and "bigots" out of hand. It will not further your cause in any way, except with those who have personal issues against the rest of the scientific community.

    I have not asserted that your proof is wrong. I have just asserted the two statements I highlighted are wrong. If you wish to make those into postulates, please clarify that. More on that later.

    I will not deny that the fit is impressive. However, two points can be raised. One, the Hubble constant is yet to be derived from first principles; you have just related the two constants. That in itself is a great contribution, but it's not enough for a final theory. Two, this would not be the first time that such a result would be a freak coincidence. My own advisor once made a model that allowed him to derive the EM coupling constant (~1/137) to similar accuracy. It was hopelessly flawed, but he obssessed over it for months until he managed to persuade himself it was a dead end.

    Once again, I have used the explosion example to make an analogy with your big bang model. Newton's laws do not apply to particles pushing against empty space; if you want to postulate such an extension please state it explicitly. If you do not assert that, please clarify exactly on what objects do the action and reaction forces act.

    There is science on the internet. However, it is swamped by an enormous amount of pseudoscience, philosophical speculation that passes itself off as science, and pure crackpot nonsense. That's why a scientific journal is a much better medium to present new theories.

  11. Jul 16, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Deriving the gravitational constant does not explain expansion. This is why Einstein inserted the cosmological constant into GR. It was not because he wanted an 'elegant' universe. Quite the contrary. GR could not explain a universe as old as this one without it.
  12. Jul 16, 2004 #11
    A crank is someone who refuses to see that two statements he makes are mutually contradictory, such as your statement that the people who edit "scientific" journals and prevent discussion of new theories.

    July 2004 issue of Electronics World (which in 1945 published Arthur C. Clarke's discovery of the potential of geostationary satellites), Vol. 110, No. 1819, p. 54:

    "David Potter's excellent discussion of electron diffraction (EW, April) brings out the central paradox of wave-particle duality in electronics far better than any previous article. It is well researched and entertaining. I was unaware of many of the original problems of suppression, "... Born and friends conducted a satiric seminar, making fun of de Broglie's idea... Schroedinger's ... wave mechanics alarmed his wife... she feared for his sanity." Heisenberg did not help by deriving the 'uncertainty' principle using a bogus treatment of an optical gamma ray microscope, which is impossible... Sir Karl Popper ... and his acolytes created the quagmire by defining a scientific discovery as a speculative theory or a 'falsifiable proposition.' Archimedes proofs of the criteria for buoyancy... would be denied by Popper's idea, as well as every mathematical theorem."

    A crank is capable of publishing speculation and of rejecting genuine revolutionary ideas. Born (see quotation above) was a BIGOT and a crank, by the dictionary definition.

    It is helpful to imagine this as 1926. You are Born, and I'm supporting de Broglie. You then ridicule it and try to get it laughed off. Later you may appreciate it a bit more, but like Born you will never be bothered to study it in detail. Hence the Einstein-Born letters up until Einstein's death, in which Born switched sides so absurdly from being an advocate of one set of nonsense (pure particles with no waves) to the other side (wave statistics with no absolute reality). He wanted to "believe" in something like religion, not search for knowledge like a scientist!

    People like Born cannot be appeased by "being nice to them". Prime Minister Chamberlain had tea and cakes with A.H., Chancellor of Germany, in 1938 at Munich, in the hope of a peaceful settlement. He even got his written promise to be tolerant and a nice guy. But when you are dealing with a dangerous crank, you cannot win by being nice.

    Some things require a fight even to get discussed, never mind accepted. Until people like you can get your heads around that unpleasant fact, the world will remain a dump. I've tried the Chamberlain approach, and been thrashed for it. The photos of cranks with Nobel Prizes smiling cover their sadism. See the other thread I started recently on here, for a typical lunatic who tries to block people. Anonymous referees get away with anything and are completely unaccountable to the public.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2004
  13. Jul 16, 2004 #12
    Er, its a proof of the cause of gravity using observed expansion. What planet do you come from, Vulcan?
  14. Jul 16, 2004 #13
    NAME ONE WHO IS NOT A BIGOT. JUST ONE. If you can't, you are nuts.
  15. Jul 16, 2004 #14
    How do you suggest I deal with Dr Strangelove, then, wise guy:

    From Nature Editor Dr Philip Campbell’s 25 November 1996 letter to NC: ‘… we are not able to offer to publish… we have not communicated the contents of your paper to any person outside this office.’

    From Nature Physical Sciences Editor Karl Ziemelis’ 26 November 1996 letter to NC: ‘… a review article on the unification of electricity and gravity… would be unsuitable for publication in Nature.’

    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!’ (Translation: Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, 1893, p. 106.)

    Do you think that if I grovel enough to Dr Strangelove, he will publish? I tried it and can tell you that you are WRONG YET AGAIN.

    Ivor Catt and I decided in a secret meeting in 1997 that we would try to get everyone who ridicules science on the basis of previous speculations sacked. It is sadly the only way to succeed.

    Without ridicule of bigots, none of my work would have been noticed. I wish that they would behave objectively and publish it, but they won't. It's NOT their problem, it's MY problem. And sorry Zefram, but I'm not going into hiding or going to fight with my hands tied behind my back. These guys are dangerous charlatans who get high up jobs for political reasons (being to shout down others) and not for scientific reasons. They are ****s.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2004
  16. Jul 16, 2004 #15
    It is a proof of the mechanism of gravity. It does not "just relate" anything. It proves a mechanism using observed facts, not fairies. The observed facts include the expansion (Hubble constant).

    This shows that you have zero understanding of anything except outrageous political-type "shoot the messenger" propaganda. (Do you work for the British Government, by any chance?)

    Best wishes
  17. Jul 16, 2004 #16
    I am sorry that your work has been rejected for publication in Physical Review Letters. However, it seems to me you are taking entirely the wrong reaction about it. The majority of papers are not accepted for publication in their first incarnation; however, once the author addresses the questions raised by the reviewers, he gets published in the majority of cases. Even Einstein had to submit to the process of peer review. You have not cited the full letter from PRL in which they denied you publication. But I am sure that it also contained scientific questions posed by the reviewers. I have seen papers get published and I can assure you, publication was not refused because of a vast conspiracy or bigotry against yourself or new theories. I am certainly not suggesting you grovel nicely to the editor; that won't get you anywhere. The best way to fight for your theories is to address the questions of your critics and resubmit your work, or submit on non-reviewed web sites such as arxiv.org where you will be able to reach a wide scientific audience. If you know the history of superstring theory, you will realize that a completely outlandish and non-traditional theory can gain mainstream acceptance by playing by the same rules as everyone else; the theory survived its critics on its own merits.

    Derision is an unfortunate result whenever a theory radically departs from the existing. Einstein and the quantum proponents had to suffer it in the early 1900's, but now their theories are mainstream because of their inherent worth in explaining experimental observations and making predictions. It is a common preconception that they were accepted from the start and quickly became a ruling clique. Nothing could be further from the truth; they had to fight hard for acceptance, but they did not do so by repeatedly insulting the rest of the community. Also, there's no secret that the early days of quantum mechanics were marred by confusion and internal bickering until opposing views were either shown to be equivalent or inconsistent with experimental data.

    Please consider the above as friendly advice, as this will be my last post in this thread. For my part, I have attempted to engage you in an earnest discussion on the validity of your theory - the very scientific dialogue you are seeking. You have not, to this point, answered any of my questions except with proclamations of "you are wrong" and "I have proved it, therefore you are wrong" and "you have zero understanding". That may be true, however, it is hardly a reasonable way to debate. Another person has posted another concern and you suggested he comes from another planet, simply because he has a concern. This is hardly the kind of dialogue I wanted.

    I would like to wish you luck in the future, however such wishes do NOT extend to your self-proclaimed crusade against other scientists. I have the utmost trust in the current system, which has produced completely spectacular results over the last century. This persists even while I am personally aware of certain isolated cases of scientific malpractice involving fringe journals. The vast majority of physics journals fulfill their obligations to their submitters and readers alike. You can rest assured that I would give up on my degree program in disgust and cry far and wide if that were not true. Farewell.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2004
  18. Jul 16, 2004 #17

    4 page original paper containing 1.5 page proof discussed on this forum last year (it ended up being moved to the archives after several thousand hits):

    ‘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.

    Proof that gravity constant G = (3/4)(H^2)/[4(pi)(density)e^3] and proof of 1.7% accuracy: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook2.htm

    However, don't bother yourself with reading what you judge. Judge the book by the cover my man. That's the way to end up becoming the "Glorious Leader" of a "democracy" (at least, in Britain it is, can't comment on the USA as I've never been there). Perhaps, after using political sniping tactics to become famous, you will be able as the "Glorious Leader" to destroy science completely? That will make you popular with your fellow bigots, like Professor Josephson Junction!

    Deepest Respect,

  19. Jul 16, 2004 #18
    More propaganda! You are now going in for disgusting Dr Goebbels style stuff.


    1. You claim that it should be published in a scientific journal, not Electronics World.

    2. I show that Wireless/Electronics World, which published it, has a track record for success, as in publishing suppressed idea by Sir Arthur C. Clarke in 1945 for geostationary satellites now used extensively.

    3. You come back with a long piece of waffle beginning on a new page of the thread stating FALSELY that my work has never been published and that I am bitter.

    Grow up and stop acting like a child. You evidently don't like the facts, and I can tell you that I don't either. The only difference between us is that I admit facts exist and you don't. You just want to have a world in which you can say anything and get away with it, without redress.
  20. Jul 16, 2004 #19
    From Nature Editor Dr Philip Campbell’s 25 November 1996 letter to NC: ‘… we are not able to offer to publish… we have not communicated the contents of your paper to any person outside this office.’

    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!’ (Translation: Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, 1893, p. 106.)

    Wrong again. The editors of both PRL and Nature refused to peer review it.

    So all your pointless speculations of questions about referees are bogus.

    Quantum gravity specialist journals are even more bigoted, not answering letters and so on even when sent by expensive recorded delivery. When you call them you are told it is "being dealt with" and they do nothing!
  21. Jul 16, 2004 #20
    On my internet site for the past year there is this quotation:

    Light aside:

    ‘[Einstein’s] final manuscript was prepared and sent to the Physical Review. It was returned to him accompanied by a lengthy referee report in which clarifications were requested. Einstein was enraged and wrote to the editor [27 July 1936] that he objected to his paper being shown to colleagues before publication… Einstein… never published in the Physical Review again.’ – Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982, p. 495.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook