Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Google falls for the wrongful bigotry of owner of Crank Dot Net...


Cause of gravity and mechanisms of forces 2005 Feb 12 ... gravitation . Big Bang ...
"As the big bang mass goes outward, the fabric of space must flow around each fundamental particle, filling vacated volume. The inward moving fabric exerts space pressure, increasing as it acts inward upon smaller areas, thereby causing the correct force of gravity where it is shielded by mass."

The extract above omits the maths and physics on the page linked to (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/).

Let's first ignore the fact that the quotation is taken out of its mathematically and physically defended context, and just look at what they see as being crackpot.

They think the Higgs field of the Standard Model, the 'spacetime fabric' which fills three dimensional volume, is crackpot. Wrong. It is the basis for mass in the Standard Model. They are too chicken to be specific as to what they think crackpot, so let's assume that everything they quote is what they see as being crackpot: they think the Higgs field and thus the Standard Model crackpot, as well as the perfect fluid analogy to general relativity (Feynman-Lesage gravity, see my page), and the force of gravity itself... Now remind me why I'm crackpot?


At 10:08 AM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


You ask: "Now remind me why I'm crackpot?"

Basically, you're a victim of your own webpage design. You've been putting bits of text onto it without any overall order, with the result that the page has no structure and is incoherent. You have lots of 'see below' references, but have not used the HTML device to construct proper hyperlinks within the page.

And it does not help that, for example, the section "Three 'new' facts" bears a strong resemblence to the bit out of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" where they prove that a witch weighs the same as a duck. You set off at a gallop through the "facts", without properly establishing the connecting logic.

Ivor Catt has the same trick; a careful analysis of his writing invariably reveals the false assumption that invalidates the argument.

At 11:53 AM, Blogger nige said...

Check out the latest post on my site - about Hubble being joke.

At 12:34 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


You said: "Check out the latest post on my site".

I did. You have some way to go to match Ivor Catt's magnum opus, where he had everything going backwards because of the wrong sign in the differential equations. Of course, he can't see that what makes it really funny is that the joke's on him, because he has got the sign wrong!

At 3:30 AM, Blogger nige said...


Is the joke also on Benjamin Franklin, for drawing the arrow from + towards - ?

So the conventional current goes the other way to true current?

By the way, the first open publication of nuclear EMP was by the Russian, Dr Kompaneets, in 1959. It was in a peer-reviewed Soviet physics journal.

Dr Richard Garwin in 1965 published the fact Kompaneets had the sign of the EMP wrong!

All Soviet publications of the period show the EMP electric field from a surface or air burst starting with a positive electrif field pulse.

In fact, because of Franklin, the upward compton current pulse starts the EMP electric field with a negative pulse. Apparently the Soviets never measured the EMP waveform because they couldn't work out how to photograph a microsecond transient on an oscilloscope screen. The Americans simply fixed up polaroid cameras facing the screen, and added a circuit to make the beam stay off screen until the firing signal went to the bomb. It was turned off a second after burst. Nice EMP curves resulted. The Soviets by contrast "measured" the EMP using spark-gaps and fuses and by looking at their burned out electronics.

Perhaps you should ridicule the Russian peer-review system, PhD system, and the American discoverer Franklin, first.

So Ivor is not alone in worrying about signs. For my part, I think the big bang means outward motion, which leads to the physical mechanism. The maths follows the experimental facts, so I'm not too worried about being sloppy in early formulations...

Best wishes,

At 9:20 AM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


There's no problem with Ben Franklin arbitrarily assigning a direction of "conventional" current flow - it allowed people to get on with the science without forever having to remember which way each scientist's current flowed.

Mr Catt is wrong because his signs are inconsistent within a single set of equations. He has connected up a frame of reference with the wrong polarity and the "wrong sign" is the mathematical equivalent of an exploded electrolytic capacitor.

At 1:29 AM, Blogger nige said...


In general relativity, the square of the differential element of time is used (details here Feynman gravity home page).

When you square any real number, you get a positive one. Hence -2 squared is +4, as is +2 squared.

Therefore, all your and Ivor's drievl about the sign of time is a waste fo time and is wrong.


At 3:55 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


Mr Catt might have been analysing the motion of a "High Speed Train", but 125 MPH is not high enough to require the invocation of General Relativity.

Mr Catt was still touting it as one of his "scandals in physics" as late as last year. I cannot believe that in 25 years nobody has told him precisely where his error is. He obviously won't abandon it because it is a major supporting part of his "proof" that Maxwell is wrong.

At 3:56 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

<< Home