Reply from Dr Rueda. Obviously Dr Sheldon Glashow had some idea of the summary of the paper referred to, although indeed probably did not read it. I'm sympathetic with both sides really. Dr Rueda and his coauthor did well to get a paper published, but as Dr Glashow says, it is not even wrong. It doesn't make testable predictions, and I'm obvious a little bit jealous and envious that New Scientist reported it while my testable prediction such as http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ is suppressed. The main problem is not Dr Glasshow or Dr Rueda, but string theory! String theory is suppressing and fragmenting work on these alternatives!

> From: "Alfonso Rueda"
> To: "Nigel Cook"
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 9:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Glashow
>
> Thank you so much for your stimulating remarks and for the
> information on your results. Concerning that comment in
> New Scientist, it is not so pleasant to see your work
> being dismissed by someone of influence without even
> bothering to read any of it.
>
> I will take a look at the literature you forwarded me. If
> I happen to have any substantive comment I will let you
> know.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alfonso Rueda
>
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:05:32 +0100
> "Nigel Cook" wrote:
> > Dear Dr Rueda,
> >
> > I read about your new paper in New Scientist with
> >interest. Dr Glashow is wrong and ignorant to dismiss
> >it. I worked on this subject at Gloucestershire
> >university and authored a paper: 'Solution to a Problem
> >with General Relativity', CERN Document Server paper
> >preprint EXT-2004-007. This was also published in the
> >April 2003 issue of 'Electronics World'
> >(http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ ). I have
> >recently extended the mechanism to general relativity
> >pressure (contraction effect) and electromagnetic forces,
> >with numerical predictions of all relevant constants
> >which agree well with reality:
> >http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=240
> >
> > Pressures seem to result from the big bang. The
> >recession varies from 0 to c with distance while
> >corresponding times vary from 15,000 million years
> >towards zero, so the matter of the universe has an
> >effective outward acceleration of c divided by the age of
> >the universe. By Newton's 3rd law, this outward force,
> >when properly allowing for the varying effective density
> >as a function of spacetime, has an equal and opposite
> >reaction, inward Higgs field pressure. The shielding of
> >this pressure numerically predicts gravity quite well.
> > To model both forces as pressure effects, you need find
> >you need two pressures: virtual radiation pressure for
> >charge and Higgs field for mass.
> >
> > Photon radiation: this causes electromagnetic force in a
> >similar way but is much stronger because in addition to
> >the big bang effect, the potential adds up between
> >similar charges like cells in a battery or displacement
> >current between capacitor plates. The charges are
> >randomly distributed so any straight line summation will
> >encounter similar numbers of both charges and cancel out
> >completely. The correct summation is a zig-zag so the
> >effective sum is the square root of the number of charges
> >in the universe times the gravity force: this predicts
> >the strength of Coulomb's law quite accurately. Similar
> >charges exchange extra energy and recoil apart, while
> >opposite charges partly shield one another and are pushed
> >together by a very slightly similar force due to the
> >surrounding expanding universe. The equilibrium of
> >energy exchange is distorted by the expansion of the
> >surrounding universe, so the incoming energy from great
> >distances is redshifted, which allows this to work as
> >explained.
> >
> > This predicts the right strength. It also indicates
> >that both the Higgs bosons and virtual photons causing
> >gravity and electromagnetic force can transmit pressure
> >in a given direction as a vector, without 'filling in
> >shadows'. This will allow other predictions and tests.
> >
> > All this work has been suppressed ... because of false
> > claims that [10/11 dimensional] existing string theory
> >predicts gravity, which it doesn't. (See Peter Woit's
> >internet site, Not Even Wrong,
> >http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/ for more
> >details.)
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nigel
> >
> > http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/