Correcting the Hubble expansion parameter for spacetime: at present recession speeds are divided into observed distances, H = v/R. This ignores the variation with time! The distance R is increasing all the time, so is not time-independent. To get a proper Hubble ‘constant’ therefore you need to replace distance with time t = R/c. This gives recession constant as v/t which equals v/t = v/(R/c) = vc/R = cH. So the correct spacetime formulation of the cosmological recession is v/t = cH = 6 x 10^- 10 ms^-2. Outward acceleration! This means that the mass of the universe has a net outward force of F=ma = 7 x 10^43 N. (Assuming that F=ma is not bogus!) Newton’s 3rd law says there is an implosion inward of the same force, 7 x 10 ^43 N. (Assuming that Newton’s 3rd law is not bogus!) This predicts gravity as the shielding of this inward force of gauge boson radiation to within existing data! (Assuming that the inward force is carried by the gauge bosons which cause gravity.)

Causal approach to loop quantum gravity (spin foam vacuum): volume contains matter and spacetime fabric, which behaves as the perfect fluid analogy to general relativity. As particles move in the spacetime fabric, it has to flow out of the way somewhere. It goes into the void behind the moving particle. Hence, the spacetime fabric filling a similar volume goes in the opposite direction to moving matter, filling in the void behind. Two analogies: (1) 'holes' in semoconductor electronics go the other way to electrons, and (2) a 70 litre person walking south along a corridor is matched by 70 litres of air moving north. At the end, the person is at the other end to the end he was in when he started, and 70 litres of air has moved up to fill in the space he vacated. Thus, simple logic and facts give us a quantitative and predictive calculating tool: an equal volume of the fluid goes in the opposite direction with the same motion, which allows the inward vacuum spacetime fabric pressure from the big bang to be calculated. This allows gravity to be estimated the same way, with the same result as the other method. Actually, boson radiations spend part of their existence as matter-antimatter pairs. So the two calculations do not duplicate each other. If the fraction due to radiation (boson) pressure is f, that due to perfect fluid pressure is 1-f. The total remains the same: (f) + (1 - f)= 1.




Error causing dark energy problems, etc., in cosmology:

Existing cosmology: Hubble constant(H) = recession velocity (v) /observed apparent distance (R) = parameter measured in units of 1/time (reciprocal seconds, etc.).

Problem: spacetime says observed distance R is observed at time past t = R/c, where c is velocity of light. Therefore we are seeing back in time with increasing distance. Fact! So stars are not at the distances they were when observed, but have receded further in the time the light was travelling towards us from the stars. We cannot claim the recession is independent of time. Fact! In spacetime, we must write the recession as time-dependent:

Solution: the recession is: recession velocity (v) / time past (t) = v/t. Since t = R/c, and H is already defined as H = v/R, the correct recession is:

v/t = v/(R/c) = HR/(R/c) = Hc ~ 6 x 10^-10 m/s^2 (acceleration!).

'Objections' to the facts above:

1. Who cares? Solution: it's consequences include predicting gravity right, and many other things: http://feynman137.tripod.com/

2. The galaxies are not really accelerating, it's just an effect caused by spacetime (finite speed of light, gravity, etc.) as seen by the observer. If we could somehow see and feel gauge boson exchange gravity from the universe instantly without delay times, this problem would disappear. Solution: who cares? What you see is what you get. Sure, if you could see the universe without the delay times of light travelling from times in the past, it would look different. But you can't.

3.
From: "Igor Khavkine" <ikhavki@uwo.ca>
To: "Nigel Cook"
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: Reformulated post

'As to the post in question. I have seen nothing to change my original opinion. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to point out its flaws in detail. Hence I could only reply with a rejection.' - Sincerely, Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator.

Solution: (see previous post discussion of this bumptious, insulting vague crackpot). You can't get more out of these people than self-promotion. Khavkine says he sees flaws, but does not have time to point them out in 'more detail'. Those he ignorantly claimed to point out last time (see previous post) were Newton's laws and spacetime, which apply here! Personal abuse is just nonsense, since neither Ivor Catt not Igor know me personally. Their prejudices are bad.

Ivor Catt, a computer designer who has lifesaving inventions but prefers to promote his work by the 'discovery' that the Hubble recession is a hoax, claims - like Igor Khavkine - that my work is useless, and simply refuses to see the predictions it makes or comment scientifically, objectively. Instead, Ivor Catt makes personal comments, or political type sneers about spacetime. One favourite of Catt's is claiming that the sign of the Hubble expansion is 'wrong' because 'things are gaining distance but losing time'. This is political: it depends on whether you see distance or time as the more valuable. Spacetime says that any distance can be stated in terms of time t = R/c.

Big mouthed 'critics' can't do anything more than sneer. They have no facts, no scientific objection, just psychological crackpotism and personal belief in orthodox speculation, the personal pet theories of people like Dr Edward Witten and a few others. I've known this type of thing for a decade. Dr John Gribbin did not correct errors in new editions of his books when requested. Later he sent out an email to a long list of people suggesting that I might be sued for trying to get the life-costing errors in science corrected. See also my article here. As the quote at the beginning of my website says, the harder you try to better the world, the more objection from those who make money (selling books or whatever) about the old system they received their PhD in:

'The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.' - George Bernard Shaw.


Nigel Says: January 14th, 2006 at 2:18 pm

Some kind of loop quantum gravity is going to be the right theory, since it is a spin foam vacuum. People at present are obsessed with the particles that string theory deals with, to the exclusion of the force mediating vacuum. Once prejudices are overcome, proper funding of LQG should produce results.

Lee Smolin Says: January 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pm

... Thanks also to Nigel for those supporting comments. Of course more support will lead to more results, but I would stress that I don’t care nearly as much that LQG gets more support as that young people are rewarded for taking the risk to develop new ideas and proposals. To go from a situation where a young person’s career was tied to string theory to one in which it was tied to LQG would not be good enough. Instead, what is needed overall is that support for young scientists is not tied to their loyalty to particular research programs set out by we older people decades ago, but rather is on the basis only of the quality of their own ideas and work as well as their intellectual independence. If young people were in a situation where they knew they were to be supported based on their ability to invent and develop new ideas, and were discounted for working on older ideas, then they would themselves choose the most promising ideas and directions. I suspect that science has slowed down these last three decades partly as a result of a reduced level of intellectual and creative independence avaialble to young people.

Thanks,
Lee

The fact that Dr Lee Smolin says this tells you that this is not a personal problem. There is a problem of authority being abused in science to support personal pet theories, like string theory and other untestable speculation.

UPDATE: Igor Khavkine above (and mentioned in previous post below) may or may not be the problem. A co-moderator with him on sci.physics.research is Urs Schreiber, a string theorist who emailed me once when he was a moderator at 'Physics Forums' a couple of years ago. My attempts to discuss the facts there were twarted by abuse from moderators under anonymous cover who claimed falsely that the divergence operator in mathematical physics is 'disproved' by a sum of line elements, then they cancelled my membership to prevent me responding! This is a similarly false approach as that taken by Igor Khavkine when he claims that spacetime and Newton's laws don't apply to the big bang, that he doesn't have the time to defend that false assertion, and that all further submissions on this topic will automatically be rejected. Dictators have plenty of fun being abusive to others. What a pity they can't pick on pseudoscience like string theory to ridicule. See Urs' defence of string theory here.