Science orthodoxy = science

Above is the ‘greatest’ formula in the world, the formula used to keep progress from occurring!

‘Men are deplorably ignorant with respect to natural things … they must be made to quit the sort of learning that comes only from books, and that rests only on vain arguments from probability and upon conjectures [M-theory].’ – William Gilbert, De Magnete, 1600 AD.

Tony Smith hosts formerly secret pics of the 7-kt Fishbowl-Checkmate detonation at 147 km altitude, effectively in space: http://valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/fishbowl1.gif . I identified this test from the black rocket exhaust trails blown about by the wind at low altitudes, comparing the photos to a few stills in Dolan’s Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons, U.S. Department of Defense, 1972, chapter 1 (originally secret-restricted data). The outward force of a ‘big bang’ in space (the outward pressure times the spherical area, F=PA) should cause an inward reaction force of gauge bosons, to help explain gravity simply, and this does seem to make the right predictions: http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/.

Tony Smith’s CERN document server paper, EXT-2004-031, uses the Lie algebra E6 to avoid 1-1 boson-fermion supersymmetry:‘As usually formulated string theory works in 26 dimensions, but deals only with bosons … Superstring theory as usually formulated introduces fermions through a 1-1 supersymmetry between fermions and bosons, resulting in a reduction of spacetime dimensions from 26 to 10. The purpose of this paper is to construct … using the structure of E6 to build a string theory without 1-1 supersymmetry that nevertheless describes gravity and the Standard Model…’

I wonder why this sort of work is excluded by the string theorists who censor arXiv?

Could it be that THEY are the paranoid ones? Peter Woit says he doesn’t like the claims made for the Calabi-Yau manifold being beautiful, and that 11-d supergravity doesn’t predict anything testable. If there is useful science in M-theory, mainstream string theorists have had a decade to find it! More likely, it’s a dead end, like Kelvin’s vortex atom or Maxwell’s elastic aether. Just because Kelvin and Maxwell were top mathematicians as well as physicists, did not make their speculations correct. String theorists should study Kelvin’s vortex atom and Maxwell’s aether to see the fate of paranoia-type defence of crackpotism. Science can’t cover up the ineptitude of famous people endlessly.

See Frederick Forsyth's essay in the Daily Express (7 Oct 05, p11): 'Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media... the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by. ... An interesting man, John Reid. A socialist (actually he started out as a communist) all his life, he too has sold the pass. Now he is happy to send British troops to die in a faraway place in a war he knows perfectly well was started on a tissue of deliberate lies. It's a pity. I never flagged John Reid as a second-rater. The other apostates, Prescott, Straw, Blunkett, yes; and of course the founding Blairites, who never had a faith at all, yes; and the stark-naked power lusters, yes. But to see Reid unfazed by what happened to the old Jewish refugee and pacifist [Walter Wolfgang] and making limp excuses... that was sad. ... But I do not believe the innate dececency of the British people has gone. Asleep, sedated, conned, duped, gulled, deceived, but not abandoned.' The same applies in science!

Catt's work explained simply and briefly

‘In 1964 I went to Motorola to research into the problem of interconnecting very fast (1 ns) logic gates ... we delivered a working partially populated prototype high speed memory of 64 words, 8 bits/word, 20 ns access time. ... I developed theories to use in my work, which are outlined in my IEEE Dec 1967 article (EC-16, n6) ... In late 1975, Dr David Walton became acquainted ... I said that a high capacitance capacitor was merely a low capacitance capacitor with more added. Walton then suggested a capacitor was a transmission line. Malcolm Davidson ... said that an RC waveform [Maxwell’s continuous ‘extra current’ for the capacitor, the only original insight Maxwell made to EM] should be ... built up from little steps, illustrating the validity of the transmission line model for a capacitor [charging/discharging]. (This model was later published in Wireless World in Dec 78.)’ - Ivor Catt, Electromagnetic Theory Volume 2, St Albans, 1980, pp207-15. (See http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm)




Above: Two electrons repel because gauge bosons exchanged between them are non-redshifted, unlike the gauge bosons pushing them together from the surrounding, receding universe. So repulsion is explained. An electron and a proton are pushed together because they shield one another, being opposite charges. It is all a matter of recoil due to the momentum of gauge bosons.The electron is emitting and receiving gauge bosons from charges in all directions, but the big bang means that those from the surrounding universe suffer redshift. Between two nearby similar charges, the exchange on facing sides of the charges where they couple is not redshifted, although it is redshifted where they are being pushed together on the far sides.The net exchange is like two machine gunners firing bullets at each other; they recoil apart. The gauge bosons pushing them together are redshifted, like nearly spent bullets coming from a great distance, and are not enough to prevent repulsion.In the case of attraction, the same principle applies. The two opposite charges shield one another and get pushed together. Although each charge is radiating and receiving energy on the outer sides, the inward push is from redshifted gauge bosons, and the emission is not redshifted. The result is just like two people, standing back to back, firing machine guns. The recoil pushes them together, hence the attraction force.

‘... the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended - was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics ... physics has reached the end of the road.’ - Sir Karl Popper, 'Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics', Rowman and Littlefield, NJ, 1982, p6.

Charged capacitors consist, most basically, of two opposite charges separated by an insulator like vacuum. The plates ‘attract’. An atom is a capacitor, and the attraction is offset by the motion of the electron. Gauge bosons deliver the electric force. If you put a line of capacitors in series, the potential difference, or voltage to use the old expression (it is like calling distance ‘mileage’ that is disapproved of by teachers who are generally better at imposing red-tape than real physics), adds up simply. A whole atom is neutral, but it is also positive and negative. Whether another particle 'sees' the atom as neutral or as containing two charges, one positive and one negative, depends on the situation:

EXAMPLE 1:

+
…….Gauge bosons cause attraction!
-


EXAMPLE 2:
+……. –
…………………Gauge bosons cease to exist?!
-……. +

(Negative charges in diagonals repel, positives in diagonals also repel, and these two forces tend to result in neutral. Actually, I think because the diagonals are a bigger distance by the square root of two, to the horizontal and vertical spacings, the point below about there being no net force is wrong in this example. The repulsion forces will be weaker due to the extra distance along diagonals and the inverse square law, than the attractive forces that act over shorter distances. But forget that. The point I’m making is that gauge bosons don’t discriminate between a lone electron and an electron in a neutral atom. The apparent lack of electric force for a balanced ‘neutral’ atom or indeed for a ‘neutral’ neutron composed of three charged quarks, is an illusion, due to equilibrium.)

In the second charge arrangement above, a square with charges at each corner, the attraction and repulsion forces are in equilibrium, so there is no net force. But as soon as you distort the geometry from a square, a net force appears.Two explanations are offered by different theories: (1) forces don't operate unless they can be measured, so there are no gauge bosons in an equilibrium (Mach's principle of economy or ignoring the unobservable), and (2) there is an equilibrium of forces, so gauge bosons continue to be exchanged between charges in all 'neutral' situations, where the net charge is zero.If electromagnetism gauge bosons do continue to be exchanged in the second situation, then we have a simple way to unify electricity and gravity quantitatively.The gauge bosons exchanged between charges in a big bang universe containing a random distribution of equal amounts of each charge has provable properties, based on the capacitor addition effect.Charged capacitors in series add up like the cells in a battery. Similarly, a series of + - + - ... charges is like a series of cells. The gauge bosons (like real bosons in Feynman's path integrals) go all possible ways, and will sniff out a zig-zag line of capacitors in the universe. The dielectric between the capacitor plates (fundamental particles, charged quarks and charged electrons, not 'neutral' atoms or 'neutral' neutrons) is vacuum, and we have vacuum capacitors that work.This zig-zag summation of every charge in the universe gives a strong electric force, since the basic charge force for a single particle gets multiplied by the square root of the number of charges in the universe. This comes from the vector resultant in a drunkard's walk statistics, where a drunk taking 100 paces, each being in a random direction, will end up on average 10 paces from where he started. This is not speculation but vector statistics, mathematical fact!With 10^80 charges in the universe (equal to roughly the volume of a sphere of 15 giga light years radius, times the average density of the universe at 15 giga years after the big bang, divided by the mass of a hydrogen atom, since the universe is mainly hydrogen), the strength of electromagnetism will be the square root of this times gravity, 10^40.Why ‘times gravity’? In say a straight line through the universe, the charges will be randomly aligned, like a series of randomly placed capacitors or indeed battery cells. The average potential from such a series is zero for an even number of cells, + -, but is 1 unit for an odd number. In the universe there will therefore be an average of (0 + 1)/2 = 1/2 cells for any straight line. This 1/2 cell is corresponds to 1 charge, gravity. The ratio of electromagnetism/gravity is thus 10^40/(1/2).You could of course ask about the distances of the charges distributed in space, and try to make the mechanism absurd on this ground. But you would be wrong. You see, on average half the gauge bosons in the universe will be going away from you, while half will be coming toward you. Those going away are diverging outward, but those approaching are converging inward. Just as divergence results in a fall by the inverse-square law, so does convergence result in an increase by the same factor. The two distance factors cancel as (R^2).(1/R^2) = 1. Hence the drunkard's walk is merely a summation of charges and the two distance factors due to proximity or non-proximity of charges simply cancel out!

The magnetic force in electromagnetism results from the spin of gauge bosons, and this seems to be one thing about Maxwell’s spacetime fabric that was not entirely wrong. Maxwell’s 1873 Treatise section 822-3: ‘The ... action of magnetism on polarised light [discovered by Faraday not Maxwell] leads ... to the conclusion that in a medium ... is something belonging to the mathematical class as an angular velocity ... This ... cannot be that of any portion of the medium of sensible dimensions rotating as a whole. We must therefore conceive the rotation to be that of very small portions of the medium, each rotating on its own axis... The displacements of the medium, during the propagation of light, will produce a disturbance of the vortices ... We shall therefore assume that the variation of vortices caused by the displacement of the medium is subject to the same conditions which Helmholtz, in his great memoir on Vortex-motion, has shewn to regulate the variation of the vortices of a perfect fluid.’