Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Fascist Nazi mentality in science

1. Anyone who asserts an opinion in science without some kind of evidence is a charlatan.

2. Anyone who ignores evidence or dismisses it out of hand without careful study is a charlatan.

3. Anyone who offers someone else 'advice' of the obviously already-tried sort (get published in PRL, NS) is an abusive Nazi or is just a fellow-traveller of the Nazis, like the French Vichy who rightly ended up at the looped end of pieces of rope when the war ended,

4. Anyone who tells me I don't have a right to call Nazis 'Nazis' or that I'm a Nazi myself because I defend freedom and try my hardest to discredit fascists, is Hitler.

5. I didn't fight in WWII but Dr Arnold Lynch who died in January designed a major component of Colossus, the computer which broke enigma-coded German messages, helping allied victory in Europe. Lynch was an Honorary Research Fellow at I think University College, London University. He was a bigwig in the IEE, and although he knew much of Ivor Catt's efforts to save lives (
www.ivorcatt.com) were being falsely suppressed by bigots, he stepped in and co-authored a paper with Catt in 1998, the IEE paper HEE/26, A Difficulty in Electromagnetic Theory. He also corresponded with me from about 1997 onwards, helping with theoretical physics (Lynch gave the IEE centenary lecture on the discovery of the electron, because JJ Thomson - discoverer of the electron - had told him about it).


At 4:43 PM, Blogger nige said...

This post refers mainly to my post on Peter Woit's blog as follows (notice that after the "AntonB" and "Anticrank" drivel/falsehoods, they then cancelled my membership without allowing me to reply, very brave of them, like Nazis):

Nigel Says:

October 30th, 2005 at 5:56 pm

OK, so you can treat the passage of time as the expansion of the fourth dimension (time). Since the universe appears to be expanding and we see to earlier times with increasing distance in astronomy, this is very neat. I’ve had an idea that the expansion of the universe means we’re looking back in time with distance, so that the variation in recession velocities (from 0 up to c) is per corresponding times (t = 15 Giga years to 0 in age), so what Hubble was observing really an outward acceleration a=c/t = 10^-10 m/s^2. Using F=ma and the 3rd law, we get the LeSage gravity mechanism in terms of the Higgs field around fundamental particles exerting an inward pressure towards us, which gives rise to teh correct strength of gravity where this pressure is shielded by the Earth, etc. It also gives rise to the contraction in GR where the Earth is compressed radially by (1/3)GM/c^2 = 1.5 mm by the Higgs field pressure of space.

I’m not too sure what accurate quantitative predictions you are making or if you are happy with my interpretation of this. Physics forums’ moderator amusingly stated at http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36524 that the defence of scientific fact against nonsense is ‘delusions of grandeur, paranoia, and utter lack of consideration for fellow posters’. The so-called ‘fellow posters’ like ‘AntonB’ and ‘Anticrank’ consisted of people coming into a scientific discussion thread I started and stating I was wrong without having bothered to check the facts themselves. I never went on to somebody else’s theory thread and said they were wrong or stupid, and I would not even suggest such a thing without first ascertaining this. A typical false claim by these guys is ‘Anticrank’ saying: ‘In one of your claims, you state that for spherical symmetry, dx = dy = dz = dr. As anyone with a half-baked understanding will tell you, spherically, dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2.’

This is like saying 1+1 is not 2 because 2+2 = 4. These forums are moderated by intolerant bigots who don’t know anything. Here’s a little more from that ‘Anticrank’ posting:

‘Reading segments of your magnum opus however has given me good laughs, whereby you demonstrate that your scientific knowledge stems from quotes from Kepler and anecdotes from Einstein. I have yet to see any letter from Physical Review Letters (I have been keeping an eye on this just in case), but I can probably fill in the blanks. From what I can see, they haven’t forwarded your paper to peer reviewers because they know it’s useless blathering. They know full well that there isn’t enough scientific knowledge in them to fill a thimble, and whoever places your used sheets of paper in the recycle bin know that the editors don’t have the time nor want the time to read them. These people have meaningful things to do, and because the peer-review system is a thankless job at best, they don’t want to spend their time needlessly and uselessly. As for me, I know that in the same token I will never compare to them, but if I and a whole lot of other people aren’t willing to waste brain cells that would get more use by watching the Fox network, I don’t think they would either.

‘One thing that I can’t possibly understand at this point is your apparent obsession with the Nazi regime. Your continuous references to it and everything associated to it bring me continual puzzlement to no end. Applied here, your many references between the struggle of the Allied forces in WWII and your supposed “crusade” against the oppressors of this place tell me that you are in serious need of help. Those Allied war leaders would probably be dismayed that you are associating yourself with them…’

Now notice that Dr Arnold Lynch (Catt’s co-author) who helped me with my papers died in January 2005, and had designed a major portion of the Colossus computer which helped defeated Hitler in Europe by decoding enigma messages. Now Lynch had a problem with dictators, especially fascists, which is why he helped Catt. Catt didn’t help defeat Hitler, unlike Lynch, but Catt saw first-hand the Japanese fascism in 1942, just escaping while his father on the airbase had to stay behind and became a POW. So the crackpots like me, trying to write articles such as http://www.ivorcatt.com/ about life-saving technology, as dismissed as nutters.

For the historical record, it is useful to determine that with string theory fascism in charge of science, there is no escape. The harder you try to break down barriers, the harder the barriers are reinforced. This is why Kuhn et al are writing horseshit. http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/

At 1:14 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


If x, y and z are the cartesian co-ordinates of a point on the surface of a sphere of radius r, and dx, dy, dz and dr are the differentials of x, y, z and r with respect to some common variable (eg time) dx=dy=dz=dr is necessarily false.

You only need to establish the origin of the co-ordinate system as the centre of the sphere, and look at the points where the surface of the sphere cuts the axes. The co-ordinates of these points are (r,0,0), (0,r,0) and (0,0,r) (plus the -r "reflections")

It should be obvious that at (r,0,0) on the X axis, dx=dr but dy=0 and dz=0, and similarly for the other axes. Further at (-r,0,0) dx=-dr, dy=0 and dz=0.

Incidentally, one of the things that mathematicians have realised is that "1+1=2" is not a fundamental "truth", but is entirely dependent on the definition of the meaning of "1", "2", "+" and "=".

At 3:41 AM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


the problem is that you brought y and z into the argument.

What I think you're trying to argue is that because of the symmetry the derivation of dx applies in any arbitrary co-ordinate system, so you can place the x-axis through any point on the surface, so you can demonstrate that dr=dx.

This is a lot easier than what you were trying to do, which is to construct the proof in three dimensions - the important point about "dr=dx" is that while dr is in some arbitrary direction, dx is on a one-dimensional line. In introducing dy and dz you went from one dimension to three, and in three dimensions dx is dependent on y and z, and should be written with a "curly d" because we are now in partial differential territory. It happens that because of the symmetry of the sphere the partial differential of r is independent of direction (and thus x, y and z) so can (in the right places) be treated as a simple differential.

At 7:02 AM, Blogger nige said...


You say "What I think you're trying to argue is that ..."

Pilate to Jesus: "What I think you're trying to argue is that ..."

Now I suppose you will complain that I'm an egotist?

Best wishes,


Post a Comment

<< Home