Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Fascism or Nazism?

Frederick Forsyth's Daily Express piece on fascism defines it as a way of treating other people, not as a doctrinal creed. For this reason, we must call the creed of the string theorist either Nazism or some equivalent. I think for scientific clarity 'Nazism' is the best term, as it shows we are not lurking in obscurity like John S. Bell and David Bohm. We're not interested in intellectual genetic prejudices or games, but in destroying them. Progress requires the destruction of 'warped' pseudoscience which holds bach progress, the destruction of string theory. Curiously, Dr Peter Woit has retained my comment as follows:

November 1st, 2005 at 3:28 am

“The idea seems to be to get particle theorists spending their time developing software to do numerical computations…”

Monte Carlo methods and even just numerical integrations of hard to solve anayltic functions are fun. Also, why not just fit a wave equation to the group behaviour of particles (molecules in air) and talk sound waves?

Far easier than dealing with the fact that the sound wave has an outward pressure phase followed by an equal under-pressure phase, giving an outward force and equal-and-opposite inward reaction which allows music to propagate.

Nobody listens to music, so why should they worry about the physics?

Certainly they don’t listen to explosions where the outward force has an equal and opposite reaction, too, which in the case of the big bang tells us gravity. Far better to stick to horseshit computing.

Now for exposing the charlatans.

Dr John Gribbin quotes Feynman out of context as saying vaguely 'nobody understands quantum mechanics'. Feynman had invented path-integrals!

What does Feynman say about people like Dr John Gribbin who falsely claimed an earthquake would destroy Los Angeles in 1982 when Jupiter aligned with the other planets?

Feynman said, in his 1964 Cornell lectures (broadcast on BBC2 in 1965 and published in his book Character of Physical Law, pp. 171-3):

'The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculative theories of physics] you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. ... There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving i on a territory.'

On page 38 of this book, Feynman has a diagram which looks basically like this: >E S<, where E is earth and S is sun. The arrows show the push that causes gravity. This is the LeSage gravity scheme, which I now find Feynman also discusses (without the diagram) in his full Lectures on Physics. He concludes that the mechanism in its form as of 1964 contradicted the no-ether relativity model and could not make any valid predictions, but finishes off by saying (p. 39):

'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one, and I got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up to today [1964], from the time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical description of the mathematical machinery behind this law which does not either say the same thing over again, or make the mathematics harder, or predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other the mathematical form.

Does this mean Feynman is after physical mechanism, or is happy with the mathematical model? The answer is there on page 57-8:

It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities. But ... it is not good to be too prejudiced about these things.


At 4:52 AM, Blogger nige said...

Feynman's path integrals is an ether theory. Notice that Bohm basically blew their chance by coming up with speculative horseshit "hidden variables" theories which were NOT EVEN WRONG or at best WRONG.

Because the Bell test of the horseshit Bohm stuff did not work when tested experimentally, this provided the fascists with the opportunity to laugh at "hidden variables" altogether. The "hidden variables" theories of Bohm contained worse infinity problems than Feynman's QED.

Feynman's path integrals are equivalent to the mechanism on my home page for electromagnetic forces. (The traditional "ether" theories are wrong because they're like caloric, which was a false "fluid heat theory" which was eventually replaced by two distinct mechanisms: kinetic theory and radiation.)

Feynman's sum-over-histories approach is described in:

Richard P. Feynman & Albert R. Hibbs, "Quantum mechanics and Path Integrals", McGraw-Hill, NY, 1965.

The "ether" spacetime fabric is more complicated than simply being radiation or simply being a sea of static, non-spinning virtual particles. It is associated with light speed forces. There is evidence for this from various experiments, from the Casimir force to the well-known forces of gravitation and electromagnetism.

According to path integrals and the correct "ether" theory, all particles are exchanging virtual particles with one another all the time, and so are effectively in contact all the time if you allow for the light-speed transmissions.

It is not possible to destroy existing errors in theoretical physics without a replacement. When I started "Science World" magazine (ISSN 1367-6172) in February 1997 and began compiling information with help from Dr Lunch and others, the idea was this: the underlying reality of the world is as Feynman suggests.

Now, when did anti-progress fascism infect science? It coincides with the injection of fascism into Western politics.

Here's an article:


‘Like fascist Adolf Hitler in 1933, Toeknee Blare was democratically elected…’

Nigel Cook

With a dictator in a respected position of authority, people at every lower level will copy the respected authority by being petty dictators. Expedient local governments will copy the lead of fascism set by the dictator, winning official brownie points and corrupt approval, getting a chance of career progression.

The ‘politically correct’ banning of Christmas gifts to poor children abroad, Christmas lights, and Christmas in general has just hit the newspaper headlines. Christmas is now officially ‘evil’ because it upsets ethnic minorities who are intolerant of other faiths, so everyone else is forced to give up Christmas, unless perhaps they celebrate in strict secrecy and are not caught by the Gestapo and shot like the Brazilian engineer this summer. He was held down and shot repeatedly until he died.

The Chief of Police, or his propaganda/brainwashing men, delayed an investigation, ‘accidentally’ lost videotape closed circuit TV evidence, and claimed falsely that the man they massacred had a rucksack! I don’t know why they bother with making excuses, but like Hitler they do (Hitler used false ‘intelligence’ about genetics to ‘justify’ his actions, and Blare similarly uses other false ‘intelligence’ to justify his crimes). We already know that ‘our’ Police State uses the ‘Prevention of Terrorism Act’ to detain an old man who shouts ‘nonsense’ merely once at the Labour Party conference during Iraq war propaganda. Blare’s secret agents (who squander immense amounts of taxpayer’s money on producing false ‘intelligence’ about weapons of mass destruction) are frauds.

Like fascist Adolf Hitler in 1933, Toeknee Blare was democratically elected. How many more men, women, and children have perished in the Iraqi war over the number Saddam himself massacred? A lot! It is curious to me is that, like the conflict between Hitler and Stalin (equally evil dictators), Blare has a conflict with Saddam, and similarly uses the other dictator as a scapegoat for massacres.

I’m addressing how dictators remain in power. How did Hitler manage to single-handedly massacre 6 million people without once going near a gas chamber? How did he retain ‘dignity’ while acting as the second most murderous dictator of the twentieth century (Stalin actually murdered more people than Hitler in the purges)? How does Blare retain his dignity while his greedy ‘civil rights-lawyer’ wife takes charity money that should have been given to cancer victims? Like Hitler did, I suppose!

Can someone point out to me that I have been disrespectful by not getting the spelling of Toeknee Blare’s name checked? I think it is refreshing when this happens, because it enables me to tell the little fascists just how much time I have for ‘great heroes’ like Toeknee Blare, who believe they are God. These egotists, Hitler, Stalin and the rest, are evil people. They should not be respected or applauded.

We see in the death tolls of the Iraq war something that would certainly make Hitler smile. The horse manure government of Britain may not be deliberately evil, but if you are really sick you can doubtless point to the first autobahn (motorways), the beetle car for the masses, the rocket technology that eventually got to the moon, and say Hitler was not, either. This is what defenders of Blare do. Are you really sick? Are you Moslem? Are you Nazi? Or do you just support terrorism for the hell of it?

When will Blare be made to do what he was elected to do, and to stop his petty dictatorship? Never!

At 12:32 PM, Blogger nige said...

I've just read the above comment and noticed a typing error: it should read "Dr Lynch" not Dr Lunch. Dr Arnold C. Lynch was told about the electron experiments of 1897 by Sir JJ Thomson himself in the 1920s or 30s. (Lynch died this January, aged in his 90s.)

He corresponded with me from 1996 or 1997 to say 2003, helping with building Catt's electromagnetic theory into quantum mechanical spin without including any unwarranted assumptions (it is easy to make a complex model, but harder in this game to keep it simple yet workable!!).

Lynch was introduced to me via Catt. I sent the proofs from the first issue of "Science World" magazine in late 1996 or early 1997 (first issue was dated Feb 97) to Lynch, and he responded with helpful suggestions.

Also in 1997, Lynch gave the centenary lecture on the electron to the IEE in London, attended by 300 people, because of his personal contact with JJ Thomson.

In 1998, after much difficulty, Lynch succeeded in getting the Catt anomaly presented to the IEE officially and published in IEE publication HEE/26, "A Difficulty in Electromagnetic Theory".

Lynch was an odd contact of Catt, the link being Heaviside. Lynch had I think been a colleague in the electronics department at the Post Office of HJ Josephs, the Heaviside-expert mathematician. (Catt has details here ).

Lynch contacted Catt for a reference on Heaviside (Catt had researched Heaviside and published Joseph's book, I think, "Oliver Heaviside: the Man"). There is a lot more to Heaviside that I've picked up from Catt, he was a real character, a cowboy mathematician! But it isn't good of Catt to worship this sort of thing, any more than the masses worship Einstein. What really matters is physics, not personality or eccentricity!

At 7:09 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


You've several times said "(Lynch died this January, aged in his 90s.)" or similar.

You ought to check here.


At 2:24 AM, Blogger nige said...


I'm indebted to you for this link. "He died on November 13, 2004, aged 90."

Catt told me he died in January 2005. However, Catt only told me this that Dr Lynch had died in February when I interviewed Catt for a DVD, and Catt might have been drinking. I corresponded with Dr Arnold Lynch from 1996 to sometime around 2003, on physics the Electronics World articles, etc. Don't trust Catt to be precise. I knew Dr Lynch was in his 80s when I began corresponding.


At 1:58 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


although Dr Lynch died in November, his obituary appeared in the Times on February 1st; the way that the Times obituaries are laid out would make it easy to miss the relatively long delay in publication.

Since Dr Lynch was born in 1914, the likely date of his "encounter" with JJ Thomson, would have been around 1936, when Lynch was 22 and Thomson 80. Thomson died in 1940, so Lynch was one of the youngest participants in one of Thomson's last "professional engagements". This obviously qualified Dr Lynch for his role in the electron centenary. It would be interesting to know if he was the very last "connection".

At 2:09 PM, Blogger nige said...


I've no idea. It's likely there are a few people around who knew JJ Thomson in some way, but they would be very old. Certainly Lynch was the most prominent IEE engineer who knew him still alive in 97.



Post a Comment

<< Home