Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Sunday, October 30, 2005

The IGNORANT falsely 'believe' there is no inward force in big bang

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. If you look at some of the films of tests, you see the inward pressure phase 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. His type always do.

How do the horses*** artists, the string theorists, get away with their rubbish on gravity? Answer: society pays them to invent 10 dimensional horses*** speculation which cannot be tested and is not based on fact.

Question: why isn't the big bang treated as an explosion, as indicated above? Why am I suppressed? Who is responsible? Answer: Jeremy Webb BSc, editor of New Scientist, and his friends like Dr John Gribbin. Also Ivor Catt, who thinks facts proved in science can be ignored using Ockham's Razor which allows him to 'accept only falsely simplistic models which bend the facts to fit them'.

Now tell me that science is a matter of Popper's personal pet theories, not experimentally proved facts and testable predictions.


The universe is receding; galaxies apart from a few nearby galaxies like Andromeda, all have a red shift. While there are speculations that the red shift may be tired light, there is no mechanism and no evidence of this from the spectrum of the red shifted light. In fact, the best ever experimental black body radiation spectrum was obtained by the cosmic background explorer satellite in 1992 from the 2.7 K (microwave) red-shifted 3,000 K (infrared) big bang radiation flash. This frequency spectrum was uniformly reduced by over 1,000 times by red shift, not by the effects of scattering of radiation (scattering is frequency-dependent). It was emitted about 300,000 years after the big bang. The three pieces of evidence for the big bang, namely (1) red shifts, (2) microwave background spectrum, and (3) the abundance of hydrogen, deuterium and helium in the universe are conclusive proof of the big bang in general. The purpose of this paper is to establish a fourth piece of evidence and to clarify what more we can learn from the big bang by proved experiments rather than by speculation. ...

Georges Louis LeSage, between 1747-82, explained gravity classically as a shadowing effect of space pressure by masses. The speculative, non-quantitative mechanism was published in French and is available online (G.L. LeSage, Lucrece Newtonien, Nouveaux Memoires De L’Academie Royal de Sciences et Belle Letters, 1782, pp. 404-31). Because gravity depends on the mass within the whole earth’s volume, LeSage predicted that the atomic structure was mostly void, a kind of nuclear atom which was confirmed by Rutherford’s work in 1911. LeSage argued that there is some kind of pressure in space, and that masses shield one another from the space pressure, thus being pushed together by the unshielded space pressure on the opposite side. Feynman explained that the major advance of general relativity, the contraction term, shortens the radius of every mass. He does not derive the equation, but we will do so below. ...

The contraction of space is by (1/3) GM/c2. This is the 1.5-mm contraction of earth’s radius Feynman obtains, as if there is pressure in space. An equivalent pressure effect causes the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of objects in the direction of their motion in space, similar to the wind pressure when moving in air, but without viscosity. Feynman was unable to proceed with the LeSage gravity and gave up on it in 1965. However, we have a solution.
The big bang causes an outward force (Newton’s 2nd law) that results in an equal inward force (Newton’s 3rd law) which causes gravity as an inward force, Higgs field pressure. Where partially shielded by mass, the inward pressure causes gravity. Apples are pushed downwards towards the earth, a shield. ...


Illustration: http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/Image1.jpg

There is strong evidence from electromagnetic theory (April 2003 Electronics World paper, reprinted near the end of this page) that every fundamental particle has black-hole properties. The effective shielding radius of a black hole of mass M is equal to 2GM/c2. A shield, like the planet earth, is composed of very small, sub-atomic particles. The very small shielding area per particle means that there will be an insignificant chance of the fundamental particles within the earth ‘overlapping’ one another by being directly behind each other. The total shield area is therefore directly proportional to the total mass: the total shield area is equal to the area of shielding by 1 fundamental particle, multiplied by the total number of particles. The earth’s mass in the standard model is due to particles associated with up and down quarks: the Higgs field. From the illustration above, the total outward force of the big bang, (total outward force) = ma = (mass of universe).(Hubble acceleration, see below), while the gravity force is the shielded inward reaction (by Newton’s 3rd law the outward force has an equal and opposite reaction): F = (total outward force).(cross-sectional area of shield projected to radius R) / (total spherical area with radius R). The cross-sectional area of shield projected to radius R is equal to the area of the fundamental particle (p multiplied by the square of the radius of the black hole of similar mass), multiplied by the (R/r)2 which is the inverse-square law for the geometry of the implosion. The total spherical area with radius R is simply four times p, multiplied by the square of R. Inserting simple Hubble law results c = RH and R/c = 1/H give us F = (4/3)p r G2M2/(Hr)2. We then set this equal to F=Ma and solve, getting G = (3/4)H2/(p r ). When the effect of the higher density in the local universe at the great distance R is included, this becomes G = (3/4)H2/(p r (local) e3), which is accurate and identical to that obtained in the other type of proof below (which does not require the shielding area to be inserted). ...

(Symbols for density rho and for pi have not come out - just the letters p and r, nor has superscript, in the paragraph above, see http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/.)


At 1:19 AM, Blogger nige said...

Just for the benefit of people like Kevin who don't want to grasp the analogy and just want to argue about trivia in the blast wave...

There are 3 different reference frames in the blast wave situation.

1. The still air ahead of the blast.

2. The supersonic shock front, moving outward at speed U (faster than the ambient speed of sound).

3. The sonic speed (c) outward ambient pressure between the outer, outward-pressure compression blast zone and the inner, inward-pressure suction zone.

The duration of "positive" (outward winds, compression) phase of the blast increases while U (shock front velocity) exceeds c (the sound speed in the ambient pressure air between the two blast phases or inner and outer zone).

Gradually, U falls until it is equal to c, and from then on the blast width, x (and thus also the blast duration, t = x/c, where c is sound speed) stops increasing and is constant.

At this time the blast wave is a sound wave. A sound wave is perhaps a more simple example than a blast wave for understanding teh outward force and inward reaction produced.

In a sound wave, there is a compression phase followed by an equal and opposite rarefaction phase.

If you can hear the music, the compression phase of the sound wave is followed by a phase of below normal pressure. The outward force of the pressure in the compression phase gets its reaction from the inward force of the rarefaction phase behind it.

OK, there is also drag which stops the sound wave from actually accelerating in speed (it is continuously hitting ambient air ahead of it).

But there is still outward force and inward force. All I'm saying is, people should look into the facts and predictions resulting from the treatment of the big bang as a space burst explosion, instead of as a purely abstract mathematical fiddle to general relativity. Ta!

At 4:06 AM, Blogger nige said...

It is really interesting what Ivor Catt’s motivation is. He doesn’t care about what causes fundamental forces or about fundamental particles, or the mathematics, and he uses a lot of political-style arguments to avoid being drawn into real science. He sticks to Heaviside’s myths, controversy and politics.

I think you have to look at his upbringing. He spent his childhood moving around the world, with his father an electronics expert in the RAF.

In 1942, he was in Singapore when Japan entered the war and, aged seven, he watched the shells flying overhead in the preliminary barrage. He got away in one of the last four boats to leave (two of which were sunk), but his father had to remain behind on the airbase, becoming a prisoner of war.

This kind of childhood excitement and experience of imperial fascism somehow sets the scene for Catt’s outlook, leaving aside the name Ivor Catt itself, which even in Wireless World in the 80s caused ridicule. People wrote in to the editor anonymous sneers, signing off the letters with ‘I’ve a dog’!

While I’m frustrated that Catt will not focus on physics and trying to understand the problems in detail (he instead uses Heaviside’s simplistic mathematical model, akin to the modern physics he loathes), he is entitled to do whatever he wishes. Freedom means that he can write as much political material as he wants and host it on his internet site. Some of his results and ideas are nevertheless very important.

Any failure such as myself has various options. First, I dupe myself that I’m not a failure, and that sooner or later the accurate model will magically be viewed as a success! Second, I blame everyone else for my failure, imagining I’m a success and everyone who rejects my model is a failure! Third, I immerse myself in other things, and consider my model to be a winning ticket in some future lottery!

The third option is what has happened, but it is not my choice. It is a cop-out to take the third option completely, which is of course what Newton and Darwin did, hiding stuff for decades until they had all the evidence, and only being pushed into publication by a rival trying to publish first (Hooke in Newton’s case, Wallace in Darwin’s). I notice that Glasstone (in his ‘Sourcebook on Atomic Energy’, 1967) notes a couple of examples of ‘rediscovery’ and actually dismisses the original innovators for not having the persistence or aptitude to make them ‘effective in the stream of science’. So the classic approach of Newton and Darwin, to hide away like insects in the woodwork, keeping the discovery secret, and then jumping out in anger when someone else publishes, proclaiming ‘I did it first!’ when someone else has had to go to the trouble of re-discovering it, is horses***.

It is a bit like the mad ‘inventor’ who comes up with an idea, patents it, and does not bother to do anything, just waiting like a spider in a web for someone else to re-invent it, and then to basically use the law to steal that person’s deserved money. I am sympathetic with the ‘re-inventors’ and ‘re-discovers’ who do the work of popularising earlier guys that had half-baked ideas. Ultimately, this is what happens in life. Lacking the aptitude to popularise or force my own model into the limelight, I have to hope someone else will do this marketing work. Sadly, I got a grade A for a marketing theory module, so you can be sure that I’m completely INEPT at marketing. (Brilliant salesmen don’t read theory textbooks, take exams and write essays: they learn by experience, and sell in the real world.)

I spent about five years doing a boring office job (mainly because of the nice girls, but none had time for my obsessive interests in physics). Then I made some money selling property, went back to college, went back to free-lance magazine writing, and for the first time in my life had the time to travel a bit and try things like a windsurfing course. This was not sensible, as I can hardly swim, but I passed anyway (the wetsuits are buoyant).

In fact it is not as depressing as you might think to be a complete failure officially. And there is always the possibility of reformulating the presentation of the model to make it more attractive to the mainsteam. Kevin’s arguments are a bit annoying, but they make you think and try to reformulate it!

At 6:29 AM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


What I picked you up on was the use of the term "afterwind", which a Google search clearly reveals is generally used to refer to the flow of air back into the centre of the explosion once the initial impetus of the "Bang" has died out. You were using the word in connection with motion during the "bang phase".

If you are considering the force due to gas pressure acting on a surface, the 3rd Law reaction is the force that the surface exerts on the gas at the interface. This applies even if the surface is the boundary between two regions at different pressure.

You are getting entangled in the distinction between the gas pressure issues (which are analysed in by the section of Mechanics known as "Statics") and the motion of the gas (which is "Dynamics".) The basic premise is that if you understand the motion of a body and the forces acting on it, you can work out what it'll do next (and, yes, this is why Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle causes problems at the subatomic level.) The corollary is that in order to get things to work, you have correctly identify what the "body" in question is, what the forces are and what the motion is, and then apply the correct set of equations for the situation.

In the case of the "void in the fireball", the initial expansion is due to the out-of-equilibrium state established by the sudden conversion of mass into kinetic energy at the point of detonation. The fireball expands because the surrounding gas, at lower pressure, exerts less force on the "surface" of the fireball, than the internal pressure is exerting in the opposite direction. There is a net outward force, and the 3rd Law requires a balancing reaction. The "surface" moves. Since work = force x distance, the motion with the force transfers energy out, while the motion against the force removes it from within.

THe "dynamics" of the situation allow the expansion to "overshoot" and create a "void" at the centre. This is a new out-of-equilibrium situation. While it is more difficult to define a "surface", there is now a pressure gradient creating a force acting back in towards the centre. In fact, even as the "void" is forming the pressure difference will be generating a force opposing its formation. This is entirely separate from anything going on at the outer edge, which are only connected because they are both processes affecting the pressure.

There is a separate issue due to the "echo" when the shock wave hits the ground.

Basically, the "void" is due to the motion at the centre, not that at the outside; the "inward pressure" is due to what was at the centre having moved outward, and the subsequent inward motion is due to "Nature abhors a vacuum", which is really an expression of Newton's First Law, as restated as "A body ... will cease to remain ... when acted upon by an external force."

At 9:41 AM, Blogger nige said...


You say: "If you are considering the force due to gas pressure acting on a surface, the 3rd Law reaction is the force that the surface exerts on the gas at the interface. This applies even if the surface is the boundary between two regions at different pressure."

I've made it clear I'm NOT considering the interface between the shock front and the undisturbed air ahead of it. The pressure drops behind the shock front until it reaches ambient pressure (14.7 pounds/sq inch or 101 kilopascals) and this is the interface between the outer part of the blast wave (the "overpressure" with outward wind) and the inner part (the "underpressure" with inward wind).

Again, take the sound wave. The outer half cycle of a sound wave, which is longitudinal, is compression of air, while the inner half cycle is suction. For it to be a sound wave (rather than a supersonic shock wave) the pressure variations are small compared to ambient pressure.

If the pressure variation is too big, you get a pile up into a shock front which goes faster than sound waves, and the compression part becomes a brief tall spike, while the suction phase becomes a long, relatively moderate inward force.

The key insight here is that in a sound wave you have an outward force (high pressure) followed by an inward force (with low pressure). You cannot propagate a sound wave with just high pressure, as it would not be a propagating wave.

I am going to put material on the internet dealing with the mathematical aspects.

When TNT around a plutonium core goes off, the TNT compresses the core. Similarly, in the big bang, the inward force of reaction of Higgs field (flowing around quarks going outward) compresses the earth's radius the 1.5 mm that GR gives by abstract math reasoning (energy conservation for gravity).

You have to remember that GR and QFT are abstract maths models which lack physical mechanism not because such mechanisms simply don't exist, but because they were not known when the abstract maths were guessed in 1915 and 1929 etc.

Best wishes,

At 12:17 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


Your comment an "outward force" followed by an "inward force" is very informative. It points up very precisely what your misconception about Newton's 3rd Law is, and it lies in the word "follows".

What the 3rd Law says is that at any instant in time if body A is applying a force to body B, body B is applying a force of identical magnitude and opposite sense to body A. What this implies is that the vector sum of the forces is always 0.

This is obvious for a body at rest. It is slightly less so for (say) a body falling under gravity, but if you look carefully you will realise that the forces involved are the one that the Earth exerts on the body and the one that the body exerts on the Earth.

When a body moves relative to a force applied to it work is done. (Hence Work done = Force x Distance moved). When a body moves relative to identical opposing forces, the work done on the body as it moves with one force is exactly counterbalanced by the work by the body as it moved against the opposing force. Thus the total energy of the body is unchanged.

When the forces are unbalanced and acceleration of the body occurs and the overall work done on the body is non-zero. There has to be a corresponding movement at the "opposite end" (where the 3rd Law reaction force is) to maintain conservation of energy (or energy must be converted by some other process.)

Incidentally, if you start from "voltage is related to force" and consider Ohm's Law, I=V/R (the current that flows for a given applied voltage) and V=IR (the voltage developed for a given current) are a 3rd Law action/reaction situation.

Your outward/inward motion is based on a different part of the theory. Where there is a pressure difference there will be a force acting in a sense that tends to reduce the difference. This means that if you create a pressure difference it will always tend to dissipate. A little thought will reveal that the creation of the pressure difference requires the transfer of energy so that the Gas Law relationships are maintained, and that the return to equal pressure will redistribute the energy evenly throughout the volume.

The crux of this is that this redistribution happens at the speed of sound, so as the cone of a loudspeaker moves it creates a pressure front which moves away at the speed of sound. Energy has been transfered to (or from) the pressure front, and this propagates outward. The mechanism of propagation obeys 3rd Law, but the reason why it propagates is an out-of-equilibrium force, which is 1st Law, and the force is a result of the properties of gases.

You say: "there is always the possibility of reformulating the presentation of the model".

This is what science, and indeed all academic activity is about - particularly if you leave out the word "presentation" as well. Your invocation of the 3rd Law as a mechanism for the reverse motion doesn't work and you need to replace it with one that can explain why your Higgs field "wants" to equilibrate. The equilibration of the gas conforms both to Newton's 1st Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

At 6:44 AM, Blogger nige said...


You're talking horseshit. All I can understand from your writings is that you don't understand science.



Post a Comment

<< Home