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

Published proof of gravitational mechanism

  1. Sep 10, 2004 #1
    Electronics World, October 2004, Vol. 110, No. 1822:

    Page 55 summary of gravity as per http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ [Broken]

    The outward motion of matter in the big bang causes an opposite motion of the fabric of the continuum of space, flowing around fundamental particles to fill in the vacated volume, like the reaction of water to a moving underwater submarine. Space flows give the waves of wave-particle duality. The maths for the gravity proof are at: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook1.htm

    The radial motion of matter is in all directions outward with a speed increasing linearly with observable distance (Hubble law). The resulting space pressure towards us from all directions is slightly shielded by the planet earth and other masses. Hence, the net space pressure pushes people downwards, causing things to fall, hence gravity. This proof predicted that the furthest stars would not be gravitationally slowed; later observed from supernova red-shifts.

    If we take the fabric of space with its fixed 377 ohm impedance, it is in contrast to air where the sound impedance to wave energy transfer is measured in decibels per metre. The photon fired in space suffers no cumulative retardation with distance travelled, and the inverse square law only comes on the scene statistically when you are firing photons in all directions over a diverging spherical area, instead of following the fortunes of a single photon.

    The reason for this difference between air and space is that air is molecular so energy is dispersed in all directions by numerous random molecular collisions from all directions, whereas there is no molecular basis for space. Hence the photon does not diverge in all directions and lose energy as it propagates. Space is a continuum rather than a particulate gas.

    If you stand in a room near the wall, you will not be attracted towards the wall by the absence of air pressure from the rigid wall, because the air molecules between you and the wall will have random motions and will be at the same pressure as on the other side. However, for the fabric of space there is no molecular basis to provide such a isotropic fluid dissipation of pressure in all directions. Therefore the planet earth below does provide a shielding which attracts us down.

    We would expect the result to be 10^40 times weaker than the electrostatic force between the particles given by Coulomb's law.

    It is pretty obvious to me, as I said in EW, that Eddington's observation (that the square root of the number of particles in the universe about equals the ratio of Coulomb/Gauss law electromagnetic force to gravitational force for electron and proton situations) is explained by Ivor's TEM wave. The TEM wave is trapped in a small loop of black hole radius (easily calculated, it's far smaller than the Planck length), and the resulting electric field sweeps outward in all directions.

    The EM forces act along the field lines, so there is momentum being transferred along the E and B field lines. You can't get momentum without energy, so the electron is radiating energy continuously.

    Initially you'd think that this must be wrong because the spinning electron does not evaporate by releasing energy. However, by analogy to Prevost's 1792 mechanism of thermal equilibrium, it is obvious what is going on. Everything in the universe is radiating energy along E and B field lines, and causing forces by the momentum thus exchanged, and because there is a resulting equilibrium between the rates of emission and reception, the atom is stable.

    Now because the impedance of space is 377 ohms, and because opposite charges will block energy according to whether it is similar or dissimilar in sign to itself, and because the universe is expanding, you find that like charges repel and unlike attract with equal forces for similar amounts of charge (graphical proof in April 03 EW, which took a lot of trial and error to get right). Because the charges in the universe are scattered randomly everywhere in stars, the addition is mathematically a drunkard's walk, which even for three dimensions comes out simply as a resultant equal to the average step magnitude multiplied by the square root of the number of steps. I have had people say that its crazy to put the number of steps equal to the number of particles in the universe, but they are quite wrong because we have to count every single particle of either charge sign in the universe once and once only in working out the resultant. The zig-zag path between all particles will not be confined to merely one part of the universe. Hence, we find that the Coulomb force is similar to the gravity force if the universe contained only 1 particle causing the Coulomb force, but since electric fields add up unlike the space pressure that causes gravity, we have to multiply the gravity force by the square root of the number of negative charges to get Coulomb.

    It would be useful to try to tie up the loose ends. One thing is that the gravity constant G is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant divided by density of universe. Thus, both G and the electromagnetic force constants (which are given by G multiplied by up the square root of the number of particles) will increase linearly with time as the universe ages. At time zero, G and EM forces were both zero, but they have been rising in direct proportion to the age of the universe since then. In 1948, Teller in Physical Review dismissed Dirac's idea of decreasing G (note that G is increasing, not decreasing, so Dirac guessed the wrong way due to having no mechanism worked out). Teller calculated that if G was stronger in the past, the gravitational compression in the sun would be have been greater so the fusion rate would have been higher and he estimated that the earth's ocean would have been boiling 400 million years ago when the ocean dwelling dinosaurs were bathing.

    However, Teller assumed falsely first that G decreased with time, and secondly that the Coulomb force did not vary with time. In fact, I estimate no effect of G varying on the sun's output because the identical time variation in the Coulomb force would cancel it out.

    For example, if gravity is half normal in the sun, then the pressure will be less so you might expect less nuclear fusion. Wrong! Because th Coulomb force is linked to gravity and is similarly only half as strong, the repulsion between protons (preventing them from approaching close enough together for the strong nuclear force to act and fuse them) will be diminished.

    The reduction of gravity will cause less fusion-inducing pressure in the sun, but the reduction in the Coulomb force will cause less resistance to fusion. Hence the one effect will offset the other, so the fusion rate is unaffected. The same goes for all stars. Teller's evidence for unchanging G is based on assumptions which are false.

    Another loose end is the idea people keep coming up with against us being pushed down: they claim that an umbrella disproves this because it would stop a downward push and eliminate gravity. They do not comprehend that X-rays are possible and that the dielectric of space is a bit like an ocean in electrons are spaced widely apart. Thus, you would need an umbrella with the earth's mass to cancel out gravity. (Naturally such people would be squashed instead of enjoying weightlessness.)

    The purpose of this long post is to justify some of the points which have been experimentally proved and published in IEE/IEEE and Electronics World magazine over 30 years for readers who remain unfamiliar. Otherwise, it will be dismissed as "theory development" or speculative. In order to prove conformity in a large territory, some space is needed.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 10, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What is this "fabric"? Does it have inertia? Is it compressible? Is it continuous, or composed of particles?
  4. Sep 10, 2004 #3
    ‘It has been supposed that empty space has no physical properties but only geometrical properties. No such empty space without physical properties has ever been observed, and the assumption that it can exist is without justification. It is convenient to ignore the physical properties of space when discussing its geometrical properties, but this ought not to have resulted in the belief in the possibility of the existence of empty space having only geometrical properties... It has specific inductive capacity and magnetic permeability.’ - Professor H.A. Wilson, FRS, Modern Physics, Blackie & Son Ltd, London, 4th ed., 1959, p. 361.

    The fabric of space (see http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ [Broken] for full discussion) has an impedance of 377 ohms. Every piece of material has a resistance in terms of ohms per metre of distance, due to cumulative number of resisting atoms or molecules the electromagnetic energy and conduction electrons encounter. The fact that the impedance of the vacuum is not 0, not infinity, not 377 ohms/metre, but is a fixed 377 ohms, tells us that it is not particulate-based but what einstein preferred to term a continuum. Nevertheless, if you put a particle into it, virtual particles will form in the field energy surrounding it. Such virtual particles should not be confused with the continuum itself.

    Get a long pair of wires and connect them to a battery, with an open circuit at the other end. Now Ohm's Law and Kirchoff's first law tell you that electric current can't flow in the wires because there is an open circuit at the other end. But einstein says the energy cannot know that there is an open circuit at the other end of the wires, because information only goes at light speed, not infinitely. So Ohm's Law and Kirchoff's first law are inadequate when you are dealing with transients as Oliver Heaviside discovered in 1875 when signalling with morse code logic steps at light speed between Newcastle and Denmark, using an undersea cable.

    Heaviside amended Ohm's law to include the impedance of free space. If you deal with radio transmission the impedance of the fabric of space is 377 ohms, but for 2 wire situations you have to multiply this by a geometrical factor depending on the shape of the wires and the ratio of their diameter to separation distance. But for most cables the result is typically a "characteristic impedance" of 100 ohms or so.

    If you connect 2 long wires to a 9 volt battery, therefore, you get a current flowing through the cable to the open end at light speed which carries a current of I = V/R = 9/100 = 90 milliamps, neglecting for the moment the small resistance in the wires themselves (which is proportional to their length).

    This 90 milliamps does not drain the battery forever, because as soon as it reaches the open circuit, the energy reflects back at light speed and returns to the battery. Nevertheless, this light speed motion of energy in an open circuit is very important and neglected in high school physics classes and textbooks where it is falsely suggested that no current flows in an open circuit. It is important since, as Heaviside (who developed Maxwell's equations from the mess Maxwell created in his Treatise) showed, it proves the reality of the fabric of space as an experimentally measurable reality.

    As nuclear physicist Professor Wilson (quoted above) said, it is shameful that some people take short cuts in their teaching and are ignorant of the facts.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  5. Sep 10, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is this crap? Currents flowing at light speed? Energy bouncing off of open circuits? I highly suggest you learn a bit more about physics and engineering before making such non-sensical statements in public.

    We no longer permit abject speculation on this site.

    - Warren
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook