http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/09/dark-matter-and-3-extra-dimensions.html

Nigel said...
Dear Lumo,Have you seen http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/08/fifth-dimension-is-spacetime-fabric.html yet?I'd be glad for a comment by you.Best wishes,Nigel
9:45 AM

Lumo said...
Dear Nigel,that article involves many ideas. The holographic principle is correct in quantum gravity, at least in some contexts. Maldacena's correspondence is correct - and even more reliable and it's one of the reasons why the previous paragraph is true.Neither the holographic principle nor anything else leads us to modify the rules of quantum mechanics.No consistent deformation of the quantum mechanical postulates is known and there are many reasons to think that none is possible mathematically.I did not understand how these things should be related to kinetic theory of radiation.BestLubos
10:54 AM

Nigel said...
Dear Lumo,Thanks for your comment. I've summarised the idea in this illustration:http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/Image9.JPGI agree that the rules of quantum mechanics do not need modification. What seems to be needed however is a clear, testable way to bring in gravity.It seems that the spacetime fabric can be viewed physically as a form of radiation, pushing masses. Where shielded from this by another nearby mass, you get pushed towards that mass by the asymmetry.Best wishes,Nigel
12:56 PM
Leucipo said...
Nigel, I saw your page http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ I am amazed about how one can delude himself into believing that a result with an adjustable parameter is a prediction. I refer to equation 6, where Newton Constant is derived from Hubble constant AND a undetermined "r local" (plus an unexplained use of e^3) I am even more surprised by searching in google and noticing that you have already been around for years with this kind of equations and nobody has asked you to clarify the derivation.
6:47 AM

Nigel said...
dear Leucipo,I find it easy to "delude" myself into accepting that the base of natural logarithms is not an adjustable constant.The easy way to remember it to 9 decimals is as 2.7 followed by 1828 twice:e = 2.718281828......The local density of the universe is also easy to determine from the measured masses and separation distances of galaxies. I'm well aware that some data for density requires the Hubble constant. This is why I choose to test the model using consistent data for both Hubble and density of the local universe.By the way, the early universe was denser (like my earlier critics!), and we see the earlier universe as a function of distance because of spacetime.If you want to consider the quality of responses to my model, consider the guy who disproved pushing gravity by claiming that an unbrella is so solid it stops space pressure pushing down. He didn't even know that the radius of a nucleus is 10,000 times less than the whole atom, thus the nucleus has an area 100,000,000 times smaller in cross-sectional area than the whole atom, or that quarks are very much smaller than nucleons in the nucleus.The moderator of the argument then closed it down, saying that the unbrella disproved the model.You will not find that you win a Nobel Prize by a disproof of a new idea using a false argument, however ingenious it it. Maybe if you can do something a little more constructive (and much harder) than sneer, you might. ... .Best wishes, Nigel