Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

I have revised the page http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/It now begins with the gravity mechanism proof and then discusses the 5th dimension as being the spacetime fabric.

'It has been said that more than 200 theories of gravitation have been put forward; but the most plausible of these [the Lesage-Feynman pressure shielding scheme] have all had the defect that they lead nowhere and admit of no experimental test.' - Sir Arthur Eddington, Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, 1921, p64.

It is interesting that when I tried to start discussions on Physics Forums internet site about this between 2003-4, the majority of contributors to threads I had started just wanted to sneer with false dismissals. One was the false idea that if gravity is a pushing effect, then it would be stopped by an umbrella. Apparently, this guy thought that an umbrella has the same solidity as the planet Earth. In fact, if you consider X-rays or other radiation, the umbrella is not exactly a solid barrier to the spacetime fabric. The nucleus of an atom is the biggest block, and it is 10,000 times smaller in radius than the whole atom. The cross-sectional area of the nucleus to the whole atom will be this number squared, or 100,000,000. Even then, the nucleus isn't exactly solid itself!

The nucleus contains nucleons (neutrons and protons) comprising of quarks, which may be string-like loops of black hole size (normal string theory would guess Planck size, not black hole size, but there are problems with such speculations in science, and there is some evidence from electromagnetism that at least fundamental particles like electrons have a black hole core).

Therefore, an umbrella is not much of a barrier to space pressure. If you want to cancel out gravity, you need to hold above you another planet earth!

Really, the objection that an umbrella disproves pushing gravity is similarly feeble to the claim that if the earth is spherical then the water would be able to run off the other side (this is a real objection which was used by Greek flat-earthers). Notice that it is quicker to 'disprove' a fact than to explain to someone who comes up with a bogus disproof that they are idiots. Notice also that laymen side with the briefer claim, the false claim. It is easier to dismiss a radical idea than to defend it, and there is no polite way to tell ignorant bigots to shut up. They usually fabricate say a few bogus objections, and cycle through them repeatedly.

This is why moderated discussions are really necessary in science. The Physics Forums moderator was bigoted against pushing gravity and science, and tended to prefer established ideas or at least minor speculations, so ended up launching an attack on me for defending my own thread discussions from people who were completely ignorant and bigoted.

In hindsight you might think that Aristarchus of Samos who discovered the solar system theory did not push his theory hard enough (he did not develop elliptical orbits or universal gravitational, which proved vital when the theory was finally proved a couple of thousand years later). Why didn't other people help Aristarchus and work on his theory? Ivor Catt says the answer is all too obvious: fashion.

We all like to think we are objective, but really we are mostly tied to conventions and status quo, to 'fitting into society'. We cannot afford to be labelled crackpots. Pity the professors who could work on all sorts of radical innovations, but have their hands tied behind their backs by the risk of being censored from ARXIV or printed journals for heretical ideas. At the same time, you don't have to be completely enraged by 'cranks' or radicals, who earn nothing but insults and abuse for their efforts, and are sometimes motivated often for less commercial, less glamorous reasons than professional colleagues. Perhaps the biggest insult I have received was the claim that I must be egotistical and after a Nobel Prize. First, Nobel invented dynamite and made his money from selling explosives in the Crimean War, which hardly seems praiseworthy. Second, from the rudeness of my replies to some of the people who try to stop my research, you can see that I'm not interested in going down as a great nice guy in history.

You don't need to win prizes or to get your paper in ARXIV or in Physical Review Letters to do science. I respect professional scientists who are under all sorts of pressures, and I acknowledge the prize funds and journals as the best way in general for science to proceed.

However, there are other ways available too.


Post a Comment

<< Home