From: "Nigel Cook"

To:

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:55 PM

Subject: Re: Simple gravity model

Dear Edwin,

Thanks for these comments. My webpage is currently an online notebook of bits and pieces. I'm going to write up a proper paper from the material, and keep the length to below 100 kb so that Google will search the whole thing (currently it is around 600 kb plus illustrations).

The electromagnetic force-carrying radiation is also the cause of gravity, via particles which cause the mass of charged elementary particles.The vacuum particles ("higgs particle") that give rise to all mass in the Standard Model haven't been observed officially yet, and the official prediction of the energy of the particle is very vague, similar to the Top Quark mass, 172 GeV. However, my argument is that the mass of the uncharged Z-boson, 91 GeV, determines the masses of all the other particles. It works. The charged cores of quarks, electrons, etc., couple up (strongly or weakly) with a discrete number of massive trapped Z-bosons which exist inthe vacuum. This mechanism also explains QED, such as the magnetic momentof the electron 1 + alpha/(2Pi) magnetons.

Literally, the electromagnetic force-causing radiation (vector bosons) interact with charged particle cores to produce EM forces, and with the associated "higgs bosons" (gravitationally self-trapped Z-bosons) to produce the correct inertial masses and gravity for each particle.

The lepton and hadron masses are quantized, and I've built a model, discussed there and on my blog, which takes this model and uses it to predict other things. I think this is what science is all about. The mainstream (string theory, CC cosmology) is too far out, and unable to make any useful predictions.

As for the continuum: the way to understand it is through correcting Maxwell's classical theory of the vacuum. Quantum field theory heuristically accounts for electrostatic (Coulomb) forces with a radiation-exchange mechanism. In the LeSage mechanism, the radiation causing Coulomb's law causes all forces by pushing. I worked out the mechanism by which electric forces operate in the April 2003

*EW*article; attraction occurs by mutual shielding as with gravity, but is stronger due to the sum of the charges in the universe. If you have a series of parallel capacitor plates with different charges, each separated by a vacuum dielectric, you need the total (net) voltage needs to take into account the orientation of the plates.

The vector sum is the same as a statistical random walk (drunkard's walk): the total is equal to the average voltage between a pair of plates, multiplied by the square root of the total number (this allows for the angular geometry dispersion, not distance, because the universe isspherically symmetrical around us - thank God for keeping the calculation very simple! - and there is as much dispersion outward in the random walk as there is inward, so the effects of inverse square law dispersions and concentrations with distance both exactly cancel out).

Gravity is the force that comes from a straight-line sum, which is the only other option than the random walk. In a straight line, the sum of charges is zero along any vector across the universe, if that line contains an average equal number of positive and negative charges. However, it is equally likely that the straight radial line drawn at random across the universe contains an odd number of charges, in which case the average chargeis 2 units (2 units is equal to the difference between 1 negative charge and1 positive charge). Therefore, the straight line sum has two options only, each with 50% probability: even number of charges and hence zero net result, and odd number of charges which gives 2 unit charges as the net sum. The mean for the two options is simply (0 + 2) /2 = 1 unit. Hence, electromagnetism is the square root of the number of charges in the universe, times the weak option force (gravity).

Thus, electromagnetism and gravity are different ways that charges add up.Electric attraction is as stated, simply a mutual blocking of EM "vector boson" radiation by charges, like LeSage gravity. Electric repulsion is anexchange of radiation. The charges recoil apart because the underlying physics in an expanding universe (with "red-shifted" or at least reduced energy radiation pressing in from the outside, due to receding matter in thesurrounding universe) means their exchange of radiation results in recoil away from one another (imagine two people firing guns at each other, for a simple analogy; they would recoil apart).

Magnetic force is apparently, as Maxwell suggested, due to the spins of the vacuum particles, which line up. I'm carbon-copying this email to two people who are in the unfortunate position of having to nod excessively to mainstream ideas, or risk their reputations being exposed as "crackpot" by Dr Lubos Motl of Harvard.

Best wishes,

Nigel

http://feynman137.tripod.com/http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/

----- Original Message -----

From: ebudding@comu.edu.tr

To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:14 AM

Subject: Re: Simple gravity model

Dear Nigel --

> The continuum is composed of radiation!

I have been thinking about this, and I agree it is a useful way of looking at things. ...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ivor Catt, who published in IEE Trans. EC-16 and IEE Proc. 83 and 87 evidence proving that electric energy charges a capacitor at light speed and can't slow down afterward (hence electric energy has light speed), is wondering whether to throw a celebration on 26/28 May 2006 to mark the most ignored paradigm-shift in history. Catt is discovered of so-called Theory C (no electric current), which is only true in a charged capacitor (or other static charge). However, Catt fails to acknowledge that his own evidence for a light speed (spin) electron is a massive advance. In the previous posts, I've quoted results from Drs. Thomas Love, Asim O. Baruk, and others showing that the principle of superposition (which is one argument for ignoring the reality of electron spin in quantum mechanics) is a mathematical falsehood resulting from a contradiction in the two versions of the Schroedinger equation (Dr Love's discovery), since you change equations when dealing with taking a measurement!

Hence, a causal model of spin, such as a loop of gravitationally self-trapped (i.e., black hole) Heaviside electric 'energy current' (the Heaviside vector, describing light speed electric energy in conductors - Heaviside worked on the Newcastle-Denmark Morse Code telegraph line in 1872), is the reality of the electron. You can get rid of the half-integer spin problem by having the transverse vector rotate half a turn during a revolution like the Moebius strip of geometry. It is possible for a person to be so skeptical that they won't listen to anything. Science has to give sensible reasons for dismissing evidence. An empirical model based on facts which predicts other things (gravitation, all forces, all particle masses) is scientific. String 'theory' isn't.

Other News: Dr Woit is off to observe the eclipse on 29 March 2006 in the Sahara desert, Niger: 'Getting to Niger via charter flight from Paris to Agadez. Will have to spend a day or two in Paris on either end of the trip. Life is rough.'

## 1 Comments:

Copy of comment in case it gets lost

http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/03/wmap-3-year-data-release.html

nigel said...

Tony:

Thanks for these comments on Penrose. I agree that some kind of initial inflationary (faster than light) expansion may be real:

"There are two serious candidates ... According to chaotic inflation, the universe starts off in a completely random state. In some regions matter will be more energetic than in others and inflation could ensue, producing the observable universe.

"The second contender for a theory of initial conditions is quantum cosmology, the application of quantum theory to the entire universe. At first this sounds absurd because typically large systems (such as the universe) obey classical, not quantum, laws. ...

"A false vacuum is a classically stable excited state which is quantum mechanically unstable. In the quantum theory, matter which is in a false vacuum may `tunnel' to its true vacuum state. The quantum tunnelling of the matter in the early universe was described by Coleman and De Luccia. They showed that false vacuum decay proceeds via the nucleation of bubbles in the false vacuum. Inside each bubble the matter has tunnelled. Surprisingly, the interior of such a bubble is an infinite open universe in which inflation may occur." - http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html

It is plausible to me that the virtual particles in the quantum vacuum (Maxwell's medium for light waves) were initially in a higher energy state, allowing the faster-than-light inflationary era.

But all the "evidence" I've ever seen for myself related to inflation, dark energy, and also the separate problem of dark matter, seem to stem from a paradigm crisis in cosmology.

Data can be interpreted other ways. One error is possibly due to building a cosmological model of the universe by just adding fixes like the CC and inflation on to the classical GR;

instead of turning this procedure entirely on its head and seeing if quantum GR (gravitation with contraction term) are a resultant of cosmology (the big bang):

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=273#comment-5322

The recent data showing that "dark energy" varies with time just adds another epicycle. Things may appear more clearly if there is a major paradigm shift.

Nigel

3/24/2006 01:39:07 PM

Post a Comment

<< Home