Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Thursday, January 12, 2006

1. Feynman shows that forces arise from the exchange of gauge bosons (coming from distances at light speed, hence coming from times in the past).
2. The big bang mass has a speed, in the spacetime which we see, from 0 toward speed of light c with times past of 0 toward 15 billion years (or distances of 0 to 15 billion light-years), giving outward force by Newton’s 2nd empirical law: F = ma = m.dv/dt = mc/(age of universe).
3. Newton’s 3rd law gives equal inward force, carried by gauge bosons, which shielded by mass, proves gravity and electromagnetism to within 1.65%: proof is at http://feynman137.tripod.com/

Nobody has ever proved that gravity is attractive, rather than a shielding of a pressure effect (fluid model for spacetime fabric in GR), because there is no official quantum gravity yet. If gravity is a push due to gauge bosons exchanged between masses, there is not going to be a slowing down of the expansion of the universe by gravity, so Friedmann's solutions are inapplicable.The treatment of the push gravity dynamics shows that the multiplying constant in the density is not the 3/8 factor derived by Friedmann but 3/(4e^3), which is 10.04 times lower, so both dark matter and dark energy (postulated to overcome gravitational deceleration at extreme distances) are falsified by the real physics.

The exchange of gauge bosons between all masses causes expansion of the universe, the big bang. This is implicit from the mechanism and the position of the Milky Way galaxy with respect to the cosmic background radiation. The +/- 3 mK cosine redshifts and blueshifts in the 2.7 K cosmic background radiation are well measured (ripples thousands of times smaller have been measured in the same data, interpreted as the result of density variations which were the seeds of galaxy formation when the cosmic background was emitted before redshift, as 3000 K blackbody radiation some 300,000 years after time zero). The +/- 0.1% radiation in the cosmic background which is a cosine of angle varies as the earth rotates, and shows the Milky Way has an absolute motion of about 400 km/s, directed towards Andromeda. (See previous post for how general relativity differs from restricted relativity by including accelerations which are absolute, because they create measurable forces which don't obey the restricted relativity law.)

In the 15,000,000,000 years since time zero, our velocity will have varied substantially from 400 km/s. At present it is at least partly due to gravitational attraction toward Andromeda. But it is an order-of-magnitude estimate. The distance we are probably located from the initial singularity of the big bang is 400,000 m/s x 15,000,000,000 years x 32,000,000 s/year = 1.9 x 10^23 m, which is 0.13% of the radius of the universe. So we see gauge bosons pushing inward at us equally from all directions, but a galaxy near the radius of the universe is being pushed outward from gauge bosons from mass with the universe, but is experiencing a weaker inward push from the edge of the universe (material moving outward at nearly the speed of light, at vast distances, will not radiate much inward pressure, due to the immense redshift).

Why the mainstream (string theorists and their rivals) are not interested...

anon Says:

Dear Ark, the only things I can reply to are those I’ve some experience of. In mathematics, alternative theories are welcome if they are useful. In physics, alternatives are fought with rigor. One insidious method of suppressing alternatives is to say that the authors must be ignorant of the details and beauty of the mainstream model, while another is to dismiss the alternative as “speculative” (when in fact it is the maintream model that is overly speculative or even untestable, resulting in the newer model which is not so speculative and is more testable). Outsiders would imagine that such hypocrisy is easily exposed, but it isn’t, because the media seeks authority on scientific matters, which means only listening to the mainstream. So the farce just goes on.

Ignorance of spacetime and Newton's laws from Ivor Catt:


I've tested the applicability, and it works: http://feynman137.tripod.com/.

Are you saying you are sure that Newton's laws don't apply?

Thank you for replying.

Best wishes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Khavkine" <igor.kh@gmail.com>
To: "Nigel Cook"
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Gauge bosons in big bang universe
On 1/13/06, Nigel Cook <nigelbryancook@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Igor,
> Spacetime and Newton's laws are well accepted very basic physics.

True. However, like all physical laws, they have limits to their applicability. From your message, I'm not convinced that you are aware of these limits. Hence any application even of these basic laws in your messages is highly suspect. - Igor

{This abusive and fanatically personal tone ("you" and "highly suspect") is not scientifically skeptical, but is arm-wavingly vague and abusive, it is personally-sneering "you" with mindless, condescending rubbish to ignore the science. Feynman suggests how such a person should respond, namely respond to what is known, and respond by seeking to see if the facts fit objectively. Unfortunately, Igor/Ivor Catt has little to gain by being a genuine scientist.}

> However thanks for singling these out as areas you have problems in.

If you intend to remove every part of your message that can be singledout as problematic, in the end you'll end up with an empty post.Unfortunately, you'll have to get someone else to point out the restof the problems. - Sincerely,Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

{Notice that string theory which is entirely problematic is not suppressed, although false "problems" namely that spacetime and Newton's laws DO APPLY are invented to suppress this!

Rewriting the post to point out the facts even to a child does not help, they then say that there it is too simple! If you use a lot of maths, they say they don't have the time to read it or they falsely claim that the inclusion of maths makes it 'speculative'. If you don't, they say it isn't science. You can't win with crackpots like string theorists and other bigots who have untestable 'pet theories' that are not based on observed facts that can be checked...

From: "Nigel Cook"
To: <physics-research@ncar.ucar.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Reformulated post

According to spacetime, distance is equivalent to time multiplied by the velocity of light. Therefore the Hubble recession of galaxies with speeds increasing with distances is equivalent to a recession speed increasing with time past. This is a fact. This parameter has units of acceleration, unlike the Hubble constant. This acceleration is a ~ c/t ~ 10^-10 m/s^2, where t is age of universe. Sofar no speculation, because spacetime and acceleration are well accepted concepts.To test this concept, take Newton's well established, non-speculative, second law, F=ma. This gives outward force of the big bang F ~ 10^43Newtons. Newton's third law, equally well accepted, tells us that there is equal inward force! Factual calculations show that this correctly predicts the gauge boson forcecausing gravity and the contraction effect in general relativity: My CERN preprint EXT-2004-007 expanded at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ andhttp://feynman137.tripod.com/. I'd like to get some expert assessment of this model, please. Thank you for any help!

Dear Igor,

could you not send silly insulting and personal emails from your own email address if you don't want a reply to that address. I thought this was common sense, like spacetime and Newton's laws being applicable to situations until proved otherwise. However, you seem to unaware of it. Other people at sci.physics.research may not think exactly the same thing.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Cook"
To: "Igor Khavkine" <igor.kh@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: Reformulated post

I've answered your concerns about Newton's laws and spacetime. If you don't know where they apply, you should not block discussion.

Sincerely, Nigel Cook

----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Khavkine" <igor.kh@gmail.com
To: "Nigel Cook"
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Reformulated post
I'm rejecting this post for the same reason as the previous ones. It is highly likely that future posts in the same vein will also be rejected. Also, unless there is a complelling reason not to, please submit articles by posting them to the newsgroupl Sincerely,Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

anon Says: January 14th, 2006 at 5:11 am

Dear Ark, yes in the end useful bits and pieces will have to be put together. The mainstream will first resent any interference from “outsiders” who try to change their foundations, then eventually the mainstream will make a big deal out of how “kind and generous and open-minded” they are to eventually allow publication or discussion of a radical suggestion. The farce is the double standards; they publish worthless speculation, but are scared numb (or become “angry”) about “radical” ideas which are less speculative than the string theory ideas they already have!

anon Says: January 9th, 2006 at 7:02 am
Physics already is managed like a company. It is big business: compare the costs of particle accelerators to other business costs.
Outsiders passionate about science are written off automatically as amateurs. The professionals are those who make money out of it.


At 4:09 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook"
To: physics-research@ncar.ucar.edu
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:04 AM
Subject: Gauge bosons in big bang universe

My CERN preprint EXT-2004-007 expanded at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ and http://feynman137.tripod.com/,
points out widely accepted facts which together allow calculation of the strength of gravity. The problem appears to be that the facts are absurdly simple, and people dismiss the widely accepted facts as speculative when
brought together.

Quantum field theory is well tested and widely regarded as fact. It shows that forces arises from exchange of gauge bosons. In the context of
gravity, the gauge bosons are accepted to be exchanged by all masses in the universe (let me know if you have evidence that consensus is different please, with references).

The gauge bosons travel at light speed. Spacetime in general relativity shows that distance is equivalent to time multiplied by light speed. Hence the variation in speeds of receding galaxies (speeds increasing in Hubble's
law from 0 to c with distances from 0 to 15 billion light-years), is by spacetime an acceleration, a = c/t, where t is age of universe, t = 1/H, where H is Hubble constant (there has beeb no gravitational retardation
observed, so the 2/3 multiplying factor doesn't apply).

The outward force of the big bang is in spacetime is therefore F = ma = mc/t = mcH, where m is mass of universe.

Newton's third law then tells us that the outward force of the explosion is equal to the inward force of implosion (implosion is well known in chemical explosions: anything placed in the middle of an explosive is compressed, and this principle is used in implosion-type nuclear weapons which are universal

So the inward force of the big bang is F = mcH.

Simple calculation proves that this force is something like 10^43 Newtons, far higher than is accountable by visible light. Calculation shows that it
is the force carried by gauge bosons which produce the known contraction term in general relativity, which by the equivalence principle is related to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of restricted relativity.

The detailed treatment of the push gravity dynamics at
http://feynman137.tripod.com/ show that the shielding area of a fundamental particle is the black hole cross-sectional area for that mass, not the Planck size. The Planck size is purely speculative, with no evidence
whatsoever, and is obtained by blind dimensional analysis. Multiplying constant in the density is not the 3/8 factor derived by Friedmann but
3/(4e^3), which is 10.04 times lower, so both dark matter and dark energy (postulated to overcome gravitational deceleration at extreme distances) are falsified by the real physics.

I would be glad if anyone has any specific statements regarding areas which can be improved, or if anyone is interested in trying to place a paper on this topic on to arXiv.org. Over the period since October 1996 when first
published, this has been falsely dismissed by various people, even Peter Woit, as "nonsense", without being properly checked. Thanks.


Post a Comment

<< Home