*FROM http://iso42.blogspot.com/:*

**Hubble humiliated – could not calculate effective spacetime acceleration**

*Hubble measures galaxies of famous Hollywood stars accelerating away from him linearly in all directions. They reach 60 miles per hour (or 1 mile/minute) after a minute (distance gone by that time is 0.5 mile).*

To any rational folk, this equals acceleration = velocity/time = 1 mile per minute squared. (Then you can calculate the outward force – from F = ma – and study an inward push of wind/Higgs pressure that pushes in towards you, occupying the volume which the cars are vacating as they accelerate outward! I wonder what results from this Higgs pressure? Could it be gravity? No, that would be consistent with the contraction effect in general relativity! New stuff is only accepted as credible if it is wrong, not if it is right!)

But Hubble states velocity/distance = 2 miles per minute per mile = 2 per minute = 2 reciprocal minutes. (As a result, everyone sees his result as an abstract puzzle and tries to fit mathematical models to it with epicycles for dark matter and dark energy to ‘fix’ flaws.)

To any rational folk, this equals acceleration = velocity/time = 1 mile per minute squared. (Then you can calculate the outward force – from F = ma – and study an inward push of wind/Higgs pressure that pushes in towards you, occupying the volume which the cars are vacating as they accelerate outward! I wonder what results from this Higgs pressure? Could it be gravity? No, that would be consistent with the contraction effect in general relativity! New stuff is only accepted as credible if it is wrong, not if it is right!)

**UPDATE**

Kevin Brunt comments: 'Nigel,A former colleague of mine was a co-author of a paper which analysed the heights of nineteenth century British army recruits from the records at the PRO in Kew.No doubt you would criticise the paper because they did not report the rates of change of average height with time as a velocity.'

YES KEVIN! I would criticise a scientific analysis of data of heights which did not correlate average heights as a function of time. The 'velocity' you try to ridicule is vertical velocity, as in centimetres per century. Any analysis of such data needs to search for underlying trends like vertical velocity to see if the selection of Army recruits was reflecting societal height variation due to changing diet or how the average height varied above the minimum height permitted by recruitment regulations. Science is about searching for ideas, then testing and checking them. For a random example of what science is all about, see Feynman gravity home page

## 14 Comments:

Nigel,

A former colleague of mine was a co-author of a paper which analysed the heights of nineteenth century British army recruits from the records at the PRO in Kew.

No doubt you would criticise the paper because they did not report the rates of change of average height with time as a velocity.

Kevin,

Apart from the absurdity of presenting a result in reciprocal time units when the natural unit is acceleration, there are a lot of other reasons.

First, the distance is varying as the light comes back to us. For close galaxies, that's not too much time, just the time for human evolution. But more most galaxies at great distances, that's on average half the age of the universe. They go a long way in that time.

Second, the corrected interpretation of Hubble leads to gravity correctly predicted, the density of the universe corrected by a factor of (1/2)e^3 = 10, which gets rid of the dark matter problem, and a list of about 10 other major anomalies solved, as presented on my home page. The first discover was that the gravitational retardation of the universe doesn't exist and is an artifact of Hubble's error. This was predicted in 1996 before Saulmutter's CCD observations of supernovae proved it. Sadly, the sh*t editing Nature, Dr Campbell, sent me a s****y letter around 1996 saying he wouldn't publish. No matter to me, mind, I'm not the one with egg on my face.

Let the world laugh at me until they are sick of it. I'll still win, and the fun of kicking the s**t out of these w*****s will be all the merrier. I'm not a bitter nasty person, of course not. Why should I be WARPED like Dr Lisa Randall's book "Warped Passages" just because she has the success enjoyed by best selling "Mein Kampf" in the 20s and 30s. Her time will come, you'll see.

Best wishes,

Nigel

Kevin,

Don't throw a custard pie at Lisa! I was only kidding. She is really not a new dictator trying to brainwash us with her warped passages...

Now, the big bang explosion model probably originated with Dr Brode, author of "Review of Nuclear Weapons Effects" in Annual Review of Nuclear Science, v18, 1968, pp152-202. I read it in 1992 and found it interesting.

Working with John von Neumann and others at RAND corporation in the early 1950s, Brode did the first complete numerical solutions of nuclear explosions on electronic computers. In 1960 he was behind the first computer model of a cratering event, and he also developed models for the interaction between blast and heat flash energy in explosions at different altitudes.

This work was mainly for defence purposes, like ABM (using thermal/soft x-ray ablation from a space burst to deflect or destroy enemy warheads with a wide range). However, the ideas are very interesting. The US detonated four space bursts in 1962, while the Russians did three. You don't need to look to distant supernovae to try to figure out what happens when an explosion occurs in space...

But even for air bursts, you get interesting ideas. The Standard Model says there is a Higgs field to achieve SU(2)xU(1) electroweak unification, by filtering the weak gauge bosons. It also requires the Higgs field to provide mass. The Higgs field is a perfect fluid analogy to air. An air burst nuclear explosion is not a very good analogy, because you are just dealing with air and not with matter going out and Higgs field coming in. Yet it provides the idea. The blast wave goes out carrying compressed air. So what happens at ground zero? As Dr Brode's calculation shows, the air density at ground zero falls to 1% of normal, you get a partial vacuum, and you get a return of air as inward directed afterwinds, from the back side of the blast. Hence as the blast passes you at a fixed location, the air first blows out for a time, then stops, reverses and blows the other way!

A modification of these applications of computer code could probably be used to analyse the gravity mechanism from the Higgs field due to outward motion of matter. Curiously, I found Dr Brode's email address online recently and he sent me a nice reply ending:

From: HAROLD BRODE

To: Nigel Cook

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:05 PM

Subject: Re: Space burst tests

... Thanks for the introduction to your thoughts and work ... It is impressive, but I am in no position to comment.

Hal Brode

Nigel,

Try applying some trigonometry and calculus to the simple case of the distance between two points on the circumference of an expanding circle (like the ripple from a raindrop in a puddle). You will find, even though there is no acceleration involved, that at any given moment the relative velocity of any two arbitrary points is proportional to the distance between them.

The situation when you have to allow for "when" the object was observed complicates the issue, but you are not justified in the assumptions you are making about the velocities of different objects at different times. You are

interpretingthe data as an acceleration; you have not done the detailed mathematics to show that this is valid.The Hubble constant is usually quoted as velocity per distance because in that form it relates the relative velocity of a distant object (which can be measured) with its distance (which can't). This is directly useful to astronomers. Adding the "when" in as well is wandering off into theoretical cosmology.

Your "10 other major anomalies solved" reminds me of an article by Martin Gardner on the trisection of the angle. (It's reprinted in his book Mathematical Carnival.) You really ought to read it; it's all about people with just about enough mathematics to understand the question, and not enough to understand their mistakes and who, just like you and Ivor Catt, will not admit of the possibility that they are in error and instead go off and claim "censorship" and "conspiracy" and so on.

Kevin,

I hope I'm WRONG! It is better than being NOT EVEN WRONG like the censors who support superstrings. However, none of your utter bilge addresses a single point I'm making.

Here's something just about simple enough for you to understand. Take the strong nuclear force. It is stronger than EM. My calculation on this blog a few posts back gives the strength as 137 times Coulomb, with specific range depending on the energy of the gauge boson.

The EM force as per QED that we see as Coulomb's law is the residue after a 137 shielding factor due to the polarised dielectric of space surrounding the core of the electron.

Therefore the underlying reality is that all forces (electroweak + strong) apart from gravity unify close to the core of a fundamental particle.

Now for the maths that you are capable of grasping. The ratio of EM to gravity is said to be about 10^x where x is around 40. But this is using the shielded EM force. When you use the unshielded EM core force - which is 137 times stronger - you get a factor around x = 42.

The proof of important number 42 is given in a book about the galaxy, written by Douglas Adams. Do you see where we are going? Just remember, the more absurdity the better for me ;)

Feynman is the only modern physicist to discuss the mechanism, and he also in his undergraduate lectures discusses the amount of contraction implied by general relativity.

This is why he deserves credit. In chapter 1, dealing wth gravity, of his 1965 book (based on BBC lectures), "Character of Physical Law" he states (p33) "... although I have stated the mathematical law, I have given no clue about the mechanism."

Notice that in the book on p106 he deals with the disproof of conservation of parity as a general statement, whereas nowadays it is stated as being an electroweak phenomenon. It thus does NOT take the Higgs field of the Standard Model into account.

On pp38-9 Feynman states the LeSage gravity mechanism, illustrating it with a diagram labelled S for the Sun and E for the Earth. (Not exactly Heaviside's old joke that a mathematician who is mad is one who mistakes his symbols for realities, "as M for the Moon and S for the Sun".)

"... the number [of Higgs bosons or gravitons] coming from sun's direction towards the earth is less than the number coming from other sides, because they meet an obstacle, the sun. It is easy to see that the farther the sun is away ... a smaller proportion ... are being taken out. The sun will appear smaller - in fact inversely as the square of the distance. Therefore there will be an impulse on the earth towards the sun that varies inversely as the square of the distance..." (p38)

A pity that Feynman does not deal with the resulting compression from teh Higgs field as causing the contraction term of general relativity, which he says in his other lectures causes a radial contraction of the Earth's radius by (1/3)MG/c^2 = 1.5 mm. I suppose he simply did not put the two together in the saem context. Notice that general relativity does imply an inverse square law. In a popular book of the 1950s, Coleman gave general relativity as implying a slightly faster fall with distance, but does not prove it; general relativity does nto do this by itself, you need either the cosmological constant (steady state universe) which makes gravity fall to zero at the average distance between galaxies, or you need to fiddle an ad hoc "correction" to the inverse square law to roughly take account of precession such as the orbit of the planet Mercury. But in reality, general relativity is Newton's law in tensor form with a contraction that allows for conservation of energy. It does not naturally deviate from the Newtonian law except where energy conservation processes dictate, such as the shrinkage in Earth's radius, which is mathematically equivalent to a physical mechanism (compression by the Higgs field).

Feynman then, still ignoring the Higgs field mechanism (which had been proposed around 1961 by Higgs, and Feynman was lecturing in 65) says:

"... if the earth is moving it is running into the particles [Higgs field or vacuum foam virtual particles?] coming towards it and away from the ones coming from the ones that are chasing it from behind. So more particles will hit it fro the front than from the back, and there will be a force opposing any motion. [INERTIA, and the conpression which causes the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction in the direction of motion of moving objects] This force would slow the earth up in its orbit ... So that is the end of that theory." (p39)

To give Feynman credit, he then says the opposite, saying that perhaps the reader can work out a variation of the theory that works, because nobody knows the ultimate.

But it is still a big mistake to vaguely claim that the Higgs field causes drag, when the evidence from both general relativity and from electromagnetism is that it is a perfect fluid. You have to overcome resistance to start moving, the energy of which causes the contraction, but with the contraction equilibrium is restored so there is no continuous drag: energy lost at the particle is returned as the Higgs field pushes in behind it.

On balance, however, Feynman is helpful by including that discussion instead of not including any discussion at all. He did not need to get himself labelled a crackpot (I don't think he would have been given a Nobel prize if he went around saying there is an ether/Higgs field, without very good evidence).

However, I think there is very good evidence now. What is so annoying is having no power or influence to oppose the barmy trash coming from superstring "theory" which is just a total insult to everyone with sense.

Kevin,

I don't like any of Catt's presentations much myself, as his approach is Bohr's teaching method ("I'M RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS A CRACKPOT"), but if you want to see Catt's influence try looking at the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivor_Catt

Bohr's mistake was trying to shut down science to make himself immortal, rather than leaving it open for someone to work out the ether theory details and gain a better understanding of quantum leaps. I've quoted Popper's reaction in his book "Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics" on my page.

Most science (like Copernicus's false crcular orbits and havign more epicycles than Ptolemy) begins with error, proceeds with more error (Kepler's magnetic force holding the planets in elliptical orbits), moves on to mathematical mysticism (Newton's alchemical concept of force, which you admitted to on a previous post), and finishes up with a mathematical model which is physically consistent in terms of energy conservation (general relaitivity) but omits physical mechanism.

Are you saying that you can prove me wrong, or that you can do better than me, or that I'm not clever enough to be trying to do this stuff? I've already said that part of my motivation is that Catt has useful innovations which are being suppressed by the "big branes" of string "theory":

http://www.ivorcatt.com/ :

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL:

How many more air disasters?

In July last year, problems with the existing European AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL system were highlighted by the tragic death of 71 people, including 50 school children. The processing of extensive radar and other aircraft input information for European air space is a very big challenge, requiring a reliable system to warn air traffic controllers of impending disaster. So why has Ivor Catt's computer solution for Air Traffic Control been ignored by the authorities for 13 years? Nigel Cook reports.

Electronics World magazine, January 2003, pp12-14

Now you see I can claim I'm doing physics to get some publicity for Ivor Catt's invention. Actually this is not entirely false, although in reality I'm a little curious about physics for other reasons as well...

Kevin,

None of your drivel about the "sign of time" (or Ivor Catt's for that matter) have any validity whatsoever because all metrics in general relativity employ the SQUARE of the differential element of time.

When you square any number, positive or negative, you get a positive number. Since you don't know that, I don't expect further objections that pretend to be scientific.

Best wishes,

Nigel

Whoops - I mean when you square a REAL nmber you get a positive number. Obviously, all you kids out there, if you square a complex number (containing the root of -1) you get a negative number. But there is no evidence to think time is measured in units of the square root of -1. Unless, perhaps, you are a Kevin.

Nigel,

You entirely miss the point I am making about the heights. While the variations in height with time are interesting (particularly once issues of age at time of measurement are dealt with,) it is entirely unhelpful to try to visualise the first derivative as a "velocity", let alone trying to apply Newton's Laws to the result.

Much the same applies to your attempt to convert the Hubble constant into an acceleration. It could plausibly be an acceleration, but you can't just plot velocity against time and say "Ooo! Acceleration!"; you have to demonstrate that there is a causal relationship.

Incidentally, a simple plot of velocity against time has a negative slope - deceleration. In other words, the older something is, the faster it was going. While to a physicist deceleration is negative acceleration, you clearly talk about "accelerating outwards". You are plotting velocity against

age!Mr Catt got the sign of delta x wrong, you've got delta t wrong.

Nigel,

PS the "Kernel Machine" is entirely the wrong architecture for doing high-speed real-time computing on.

John Backus coined the phrase "von Neumann bottleneck" to describe the limited bandwidth between CPU and memory. Ivor Catt misunderstands this and thinks that the bottleneck is in the rate of instruction execution. What Backus was looking for was a way of increasing the memory bandwidth (with definite hints towards increased parallelism); the Kernel Machine delivers the parallelism by fragmenting the memory. This increases the bandwidth within in each fragment, but drastically reduces the bandwidth

betweensegments.To compound this, the KM's individual processors exhibit one of the worst features of the "classic" von Neumann architecture - I/O is done "through the CPU". Worse still, only the processors at the edges of the grid of processors are connected to the outside world - data has to be shifted across the grid through the bottleneck of each intervening processor.

The KM might have some use in the finite element type of simulation, where the flow of data across the grid is limited, and the amount of computation per data point is relatively large. For everything else, the KM will spend more of its time shifting data sideways than actually doing useful computation, and in doing so will squander the only advantage it has over a machine with less parallelism.

And I very much suspect that the reason that Mr Catt dislikes Turing so much is that someone has pointed out that one obvious corrollary of Turing's most important piece of work is that there is nothing that the KM can do that cannot be done on a sufficiently fast uniprocessor.

Kevin,

To answer the acceleration thing. There are more ways to cook a dinner than using the microwave, and similarly there are more ways to demonstrate the gravity mechanism at LOTS OF EVIDENCE . For example, forget accelerations and put the observed Hubble formula in the usual way into a fireball model of the big bang as a nuclear explosion, with a variation of Brode's computer code to represent the Higgs field as the perfect fluid of general relativity. As matter goes outward, an equal volume of the Higgs field must fill in the void volumes left behind the moving quarks etc. You are going to get the same gravity mechanism by more than one piece of maths. I've used two different calculations to get the same accurate prediction for gravity on that internet page. Compare my approach to mainstream which starts off guessing how many dimensions there are beyond 4, and compare to see who makes the right prediction, then remind me I'm completely mad.

Second point: Catt's Kernel Machine. The word "Kernel" refers (see my article on this starting at KERNEL MACHINE to the networking corner of the processor. Notice that Catt started off in 1964 at Motorola with cross-talk problems in a cableform. He argues with Dr David S. Walton, former physics professor at Trinity College Dublin and now an electronics engineer, that the MORE signals travel through a single pair of conductors, the less resistance you have, as signals going in opposite directions eliminate electron drift current and hence eliminate resistance while they overlap (travelling in opposite directions at light speed).

Catt therefore warmly supports fewer-conductor USB over the old many-conductor parallel printer cables, etc. Although Catt oversimplifies many things and makes shortcuts in the theory (where he knows from his published IEEE Trans. EC-16 paper experiments are justified experimentally for computer design), he is wrongly suppressed. The people who enjoy "pointing out obvious errors" don't seem to know that the short-cuts Catt takes are defended by experimental tests, and that Catt won major prizes for his earlier wafer-scale memory invention, which came to market after $16 million research. Just a pity Catt gets Modern Physics a bit wrong.

Best wishes,

Nigel

Nigel,

No matter how much calculation you do, at the end of the day all you have is a possible "gravity mechanism". As with the "TEM current" argument, demonstrating that "your" calculation comes up with the right answer neither proves that you have the correct mechanism, nor does it disprove any other mechanism which also gets the right answer.

The whole of the Kernel Machine problem is actually encapsulated here: http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ewn.htm

Mr Catt is effectively arguing that since we don't have "action at a distance", we shouldn't let physicists have computers that let them even think about it. But what happens if the mathematicians, or the economists, or the psychologists, or even the sociologists come up with a non-physical model which includes an analogue of "action at a distance"?

Mr Catt has a very narrow conception of what a computer really is. His 1969 New Scientist article shows that he had no appreciation of how far computers had evolved from the Ferranti Pegasus machine that he was taught programming on.

He has not progressed from the idea of a computer as a box of electronics to the idea of a computer system. He also has not understood the evolution from machine language programming to high-level languages, with the concommitent evolution of the view of memory from machine words to more-or-less abstract data structures that model the problem.

Kevin,

It is the only working surviving gravity mechanism that makes predictions, resolves crises like dark matter and dark energy, and does things like introduce understanding where there is none in the "accepted theory" (strings).

Notice that I've replied to your post on the latest thread of this weblog. Google does not return useful results for nuclear material as the internet is swamped with rubbish on the subject. Dr Carey Sublette has a collection of photos of nuclear tests and some physics stuff of the Copenhagen variety (maths minus any understanding of what is physically occurring). I've emailed him a few times, but had no response.

The anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear crackpots have excess attention from Google, which ignores original nuclear test reports where the facts are.

Once again, an explosion - in air or in space, creates an outward pressure and hence force (via F=PA where A is area), which by 3rd law of motion implies an inward pressure of the surroundings like the Higgs field or air. This is not cloud rise, which sets in a lot later due to buoyancy. If you look at some of the films of tests, you see the inward pressure blase of the blast is set up before the fireball begins to rise.

Brode deals with numerically integrating the equations of motion given the conservation of momentum, mass, and energy in a shock wave.

However, what physically results as shown on his charts is an outward force at the greatest distances, with an inward force within that zone, once there is a vacuum near ground zero.

The inward force of the blast (the inner concentric sphere) is the 3rd law reaction to the outward force (outer zone of the blast).

An analogy of this to the big bang in the Higgs field gives gravity right. Personally I think it was unethical of Dr Campbell of Nature to write me that he was "not able" to publish this nearly a decade ago. However, I'm sure he will get promotion and prizes for holding back progress.

Best wishes,

Nigel

Post a Comment

<< Home