Renormalization is justified by the Yang-Mills radiation exchange dynamics

Dr Woit concludes his book Not Even Wrong with a call for new symmetry principles to develop the standard model, explaining it and solving the problem of quantum gravity. Light has zero mass, but it delivers momentum of p = (energy)/c. Why not accept the simple symmetries that explain the verified facts of quantum field theory and of general relativity?

Yang-Mills (standard model) force-causing exchange radiation seen in the context of loop quantum gravity is the loop of energy exchange from any given mass to any other: these closed loops predict definite facts like conservation of gauge boson energy. At cosmological-sized distances, redshift of such exchange radiation weakens gravity, preventing retardation of the recession of distant supernovae.

Why don't people want to know the gravity mechanism? Why invent false snubs of the mechanism?

Yang-Mills models of the forces are literally correct. Prof. Smolin's work on loop quantum gravity (a low-dimensional, empirical type, largely ignored alternative to string theory) can be understood to say that Yang-Mills (standard model) particle physics are unified with general relativity when there are closed loops of energy exchange between masses. These closed loops mean that the energy being exchanged is constant. Hence, if masses recede from each other, the energy is redshifted which they receive from each other, etc.

I've explained this simple mechanism once. But I'll try reformulating my answer to be 100% clear. There are two types of electric charge. Forces result from shielding of exchange radiation (predicting the "attraction" force accurately) and a more complex situation where two charges are the same and so exchange radiation with each other. The exchanged radiation between two charges say 1 m apart is not redshifted (weakened), but the exchange radiation from the surrounding universe is redshifted (substantially) substantially. This mechanism for similar charges predicts a mutual recoil ("repulsion") force of the right size.For the simple shielding mechanism (attraction force), the cross-sectional shield area is that of the event horizon of a black hole, which is the same for gravity. The increased strength of electromagnetism over gravity comes from the addition of similar charges in the universe by random-walk statistics as compared to straight line averages, as I've shown. Just to be clear:

(1) Opposite charges (negative and positive) shield each other 100%, and so get pushed together (attraction). The opposite charges produce a net field because the sum of charges is zero (equal positive and negative charges produce zero total charge). Hence, they cannot sustain any trapped Catt type energy current between them (any net static charge implies a trapped light speed energy current, such as the gauge boson radiation in the vacuum between two protons). Since opposite charges (net electric charge of zero) are therefore NOT exchanging energy, they are not recoiling apart. Hence the only net force is the inward force from outside, pushing them together. So opposite charges "attract".

(2) Two like charges also shield one another 100%. However they recoil apart ("repel"), because they also exchange non-redshifted (non-weakened) radiation with one another (the electric field from two electrons adds up, implying trapped light speed energy current evidence from Catt's experiments on capacitor charging and discharging via sampling oscilloscopes). Hence for similar charges, the inward (redshifted) push is smaller than the mutual recoil from the exchange of radiation between simiar charges (Catt's so-called "contrapuntal TEM wave/trapped c-speed Heaviside energy current", or quantum field theorist's "Yang-Mills gauge boson exchange radiation"; use whichever description you prefer according to your taste, physically it is precisely the same stuff). I've explained previously how CERN in 1983 discovered the electroweak gauge boson exchange radiations with the masses predicted based onYang-Mills quantum field theory (the standard model, which also predicts thousands of particle physics reaction rates to within 0.1%, and electrodynamics to far greater accuracy. It is far better tested than any other theory). Light delivers momentum as it carries energy. This is experimentally confirmed fact. The momentum of light is simply p = (energy)/c.

The age of the universe is 1/H, where H is Hubble's parameter given by the recession equation v = Hr or H = v/r, where v is recession velocity and r is radial apparent distance from us. Friedmann's solution to general relativity for the critical density and ignoring a cosmological constant is that the universe expands as the 2/3 power of time after big bang, which (after some calculation) implies an age for the universe of (2/3)/H. However, the 1998 results show that the universe is not being slowed by gravity, in other words it is expanding as the Hubble law without any slowing down. The official "explanation" is a small positive value of the cosmological constant (Lambda) in the general relativity Lambda-CDM (Cold Dark Matter) model, which is a ******* ***. I explained in an 8 page paper (available via Electronics World, Oct 96, letters pages), that gravity is a reaction to expansion and this implies there is no gravitational retardation at the greatest distances from us in spacetime.

There are several ways to get the last result. First, gravity increases in strength directly in proportion to time as the universe ages. (The strength of gravity at 1 second after the big bang was the same as now relative to electromagnetism for nucleosynthesis because nuclear reactions rely on gravitational compression offset by Coulomb repulsion, not on the absolute strength, and electromagnetism is proportional to electromagnetism once the fundamental charges have been produced in a much earlier epoch shorter than 1 second.) The greatest distances are furthest in the past, so gravity affecting them was far weaker. Second, an equivalent physical description is that redshift weakens gravity at extreme distances since the gauge bosons get lose energy by redshift. Third, draw a spherical fireball representing the universe. We have an absolute speed 400 km/s based on the +/-3 mK cosine of angle dependence of the cosmic background radiation, so taking this as an order of magnitude estimate of the speed of the matter near us over the age of the universe, we have travelled 0.13% of the radius of the universe during the age of the universe, plus or minus factor of 10. Hence, we are located between 0.013%-1.3% of the distance from the middle of the universe. This implies that the push gravity mechanism is can't slow down matter near the "outer edge" (fireball edge) of the universe, because there is simply no mechanism for an inward push; in other words there is asymmetry unless you are near the "middle". The obfuscation officially on this point comes from the arguments used to support the steady state cosmology, which is obsolete and discredited. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that the universe doesn't have an edge or a real spherical shape. There is evidence to support this! Physics is so far gone now that mainstream crackpots all sneer at this, and have the temerity to assert that there are multiple universes and 10 or 11 dimensions with absolutely no evidence. Not one person will defend the facts. Even those few who see that the mainstream is deluded where it hypes abject speculation which can't be checked, refuse to get involved in objective factual mechanisms. They are all wrong. (Sir Fred Hoyle obfuscated with the "steady state" theory, claiming that every point in the universe sees the same expansion around it. This ia a lie because the "steady state" theory is falsified by the CBM spectrum details - see Prof. Ned Wright's page discrediting "tired light" nonsense, the measured abundances of light elements created by BB fusion, etc.) The universe has only 3 observed distance dimensions (time is treated as a resultant in general relativity metrics, not as an extra distance), and a limited age. It therefore is fairly like a space burst nuclear fireball (America and Russia did quite a few such tests in 1962, eg, 1.4 Mt Starfish at 400 km up in space o 9 July 1962 and 7 kt Checkmate at 147 km up, tested during the Cuban missile crisis).

• Modern cosmology started with the steady state model of general relativity in 1916.
• When Hubble in 1929 found the recession velocities were proportional to distances nobody remembered Minkowski’s spacetime in which distance = c.time
• Someone should have said:
  “Hey, if we measure observable distances as times past, we get a Hubble parameter of velocity/time = acceleration! In the real spacetime we observe this implies outward force of F=ma = 10⁴³ newtons. Man! Where is the reaction to support that force? In the spacetime fabric, I expect. If particles have black hole size, the shielding of the inward reaction causes gravity right! so gravity is just a result of BB.”
• But nobody did say that until 1996, when the pseudo-CC was correctly predicted via Electronics World two years ahead of observational confirmation. But it was suppressed because of hardened orthodoxy (string theory for gravity and the Lambda-CDM cosmological orthodoxy) which has simply has been normalized to fit observations without prediction. This makes the facts seem nonsense, just as the solar system was nonsense in Ptolemy’s mindset.

The experimentally supported reality is that Yang-Mills (standard model type) radiation exchange is the underlying gravity dynamics, so that one complete cycle of the radiation - an exchange from one mass to another and back again to the first mass - constitutes the fundamental "loop" of the normally abstract loop quantum gravity, LQG (see Dr Christine Dantas' blog for a summary of introductory abstract reports on LQG, see Dr Lubos Motl's attack on LQG for some of the problems, also Dr Jacques Distler now compares abstract-level LQG vagueness to the string theory 'landscape').

Radiation causes contraction without causing drag. So there isn't a uniform material ether, as far as that means a material fluid in space that causes gravity.

If the spacetime fabric of the vacuum (which causes inertia, contraction and gravitation) was not radiation but matter, it would be speeded up by collisions, just like drag due to air molecules hitting a moving object. This speeding up carries away kinetic energy, causing drag in material based fluids. Radiation can't be speeded up in interactions, as it always goes at speed c, so the radiation spacetime fabric does not physically cause continuing decelerative drag, but only contraction, gravitation, and inertia.

The reason for the need for a lower limit cutoff in renormalized quantum field theories is because the vacuum is not full of matter; the virtual particles of matter are created only very close to matter by virtue of the intense force field at such nearby distances. The virtual particles thus created extend only for a small distance, which is why the polarization of the vacuum is not infinitely extensive, and this argument is a physical basis for justifying renormalization (i.e., the cutoffs, see also here, here and here). This points toward refuting the scepticism of Dirac and Feynman over the validity of renormalization, which Dr Oakley summarises nicely.

If you look below on this blog you will see previous posts on the subject of the cutoffs in calculating vacuum polarization effects for quantum field theories. This is not completely new (I've had a dual radiation pressure-based and material pressure-based gravity calculation on my home page for some months), but now I can firmly see the connections with the quantum field theory, it does say goodbye to the ether forever. It is a shame in a sense to get rid of the ether in this way. It means that the mainstream were virtually correct all the time (although grossly wrong in suppressing all efforts to progress using mechanism based causality). It also means that special relativity is no longer to be doubted simply for denying a force causing spacetime fabric.

If loop quantum gravity does indeed imply that for Yang-Mills quantum field theory the loop os a complete cycle of gauge boson radiation between masses (M₁<=> M₂) , then this tells us that the gauge boson exchange radiation is conserved at least for gravity. We have already explained that drag cannot occur because the exchange radiation (unlike air or water molecules) cannot be speeded up in collisions and so cannot take away energy. The finding that gauge boson radiation is conserved (the number of real photons like light rays is not conserved) makes this argument more rigorous: gauge boson radiation drag simply can't occur in the vacuum.

It is positive to clarify ideas. I will keep the pressure calculation analogy on my home page as well as the radiation mechanism for two reasons. First, the mass causing (Higgs?) field with which the radiation interacts to produce forces is still experimentally undetected as such (it is detected in the existence of all masses in an ad hoc way, but that 'post-prediction/post-diction' is unconvincing on its own). So electroweak symmetry breaking studies at high energy will show more about the way the gravity causing radiation interacts with mass, via intermediate or 'ether-like' mass causing fields in the vacuum (Higgs field?). Second, the analogy by which the gravity mechanism was originally made did make use of a perfect fluid analogy - which applies in to radiation. You can treat a photon radiation 'sea' like a perfect fluid. In general relativity, the gravity causing fields like the electromagnetic field, are routinely treated like a perfect fluid. So the analogy is quite proper and not overly abstract for reality.

This step forward (clearing up the mechanism dynamics) will make it easier to make progress quite rapidly. I'm restructuring and rebuilding my home page into a online book.

'In loop quantum gravity, the basic idea is to use the standard methods of quantum theory, but to change the choice of fundamental variables that one is working with. It is well known among mathematicians that an alternative to thinking about geometry in terms of curvature fields at each point in a space is to instead think about the holonomy [whole rule] around loops in space. The idea is that in a curved space, for any path that starts out somewhere and comes back to the same point (a loop), one can imagine moving along the path while carrying a set of vectors, and always keeping the new vectors parallel to older ones as one moves along. When one gets back to where one started and compares the vectors one has been carrying with the ones at the starting point, they will in general be related by a rotational transformation. This rotational transformation is called the holonomy of the loop. It can be calculated for any loop, so the holonomy of a curved space is an assignment of rotations to all loops in the space.'

- P. Woit, Not Even Wrong, Cape, London, 2006, p189.

He goes on to discuss the problem that loop quantum gravity doesn't seem to say anything useful about the Standard Model (Yang-Mills type quantum field theory).

I've described Lee Smolin's lectures on another blog post: 'He starts off with spatial topology, sets of all graphs possible with or without edges, embeddings in all possible graphs, valent nodes on graphs (by analogy to chemistry, I presume). He defines Hilbert spaces on an orthagonal basis, then Penrose's 'spin networks'. Finally he shows how Feynman's 'sum over histories' approach to quantum mechanics arises in the vacuum: each interaction is a graph and you sum over all the graphs describing interactions in spacetime to arrive at the 'sum over histories'. Smolin's second lecture dealt with 'background independence' which is the problem with special relativity. I think the recent comments of Smolin make 'background independence' clear: you don't worry about how to write the metric.'

The metric can be inserted from physical dynamics of the vacuum, as is long known ('Friedwardt Winterberg (2002) presented a simple heuristic derivation of the Schwarzschild metric....') to everyone except string theorists such as Dr Lubos Motl. (To be honest, this is not a fair attack on Dr Motl, as I've only just come across Dr Friedwardt Winterberg's work myself via an excellent arXiv.org paper by Dr Mario Rabinowitz. I've independently come up with physical reasons to insert the escape velocity into the contraction of special relativity, giving the same physical contraction of time and space as that implied by the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity. I've published my findings on this subject in places like Walter Babin's General Science Journal, as best I can bearing in mind the censorship I've encountered - such as censorship from Physics Forums, Classical and Quantum Gravity, arXiv.org, etc.)

One further issue: Yang-Mills quantum field theory for the unitary group U(1) of the standard model describes electric and magnetic force fields as the results of virtual photon exchanges.

But the photon is itself described by electric and magnetic force fields. This isn't necessarily circular reasoning or a paradox of any kind. The Yang-Mills quantum field theory is extremely abstract, by which I mean non-mechanistic in detail. It doesn't say how momentum is delivered in a mechanical way to descriminate attraction from repulsion. The way maths works, it can be a consistent mathematical model of reality without saying the details of mechanism, just as quantum mechanics works mathematically and yet is not based on - nor in itself proof of - any of the interpretations for quantum mechanics (Coperhagen versus Many Worlds, etc.). Finding the underlying gravitational mechanism is helpful for quantum field theory as it allows predictions to be made.

I can examine the virtual photons causing electric force by turning on a Van de Graaff, charging up the metal sphere, and then trying to detect the force-causing gauge bosons (photons). Basically, you can only detect the static electric field. There is no time variation in the field. This means that the exchange radiation is not detectably oscillating, or if it is then the way it is being emitted and received is phased so that the electric field appears constant as a function of time, and only falls by the inverse square law of distance. This suggests that the emission of gauge boson radiations by charge is different to the emission of what is normally called electromagnetic radiation (time-varying fields, like radio).

I don't see any problem with this, because as long as equal amounts of energy are being continuously exchanged between charges, that transmission doesn't require oscillation of the field for propagation. Think of a two wire transmission line. Energy propagates at light speed for the medium between and around the wires, and will flow providing the current in each line is in an opposite direction to that in the other; this wipes out the problem of infinite inertia caused by infinite inductance, because the magnetic field curls from each energy current partially cancel each other (geometrically you can do this in your mind: the closer the wires are together, the more efficient the cancellation will be if you picture the magnetic field lines as circles around each wire, each circle being arrowed in the opposite direction to the other).

For a single wire, the self inductance is infinite. Hence if you connect one end of a battery to a very large conductor (say ground earth), you won't discharge it much because a current can't propagate in it. Of course most physicists know about Ampere's false rule that currents always require complete circuits; what they often forget in the fundamental physics (Yang-Mills mechanism) context is the all-important exception that electromagnetic energy current will propagate in a transmission line even if the circuit is incomplete (no load between one wire and the other), because of Maxwell's 'displacement current' law i = permittivity.dE/dt.

To explain the problem that the Yang-Mills exchange radiation describes electromagnetic fields as consisting of photons, when photons (by Maxwell's model) consist of electromagnetic fields, we observe that the observable photon (gamma ray, radio wave, light, etc.) is a propagating disturbance in the normal Yang-Mills exchange radiation of the vacuum. That is to say, if you accelerate an electron, the radiation apparently emitted is just an asymmetry or disruption in the disturbance to the normal exchange radiation equilibrium.

Because the normal system for equilibrium in Yang-Mills fields must be equal energy going each way between each and every possible pair of charges, a disruption in the field due to a charge accelerating will initially only affect half the radiation (that being emitted, not that being radiated towards that charge from the others), so the apparent photon of light is in some ways more like a 'propagating hole' in a semiconductor than like a bullet; it depends on its surroundings in a direct way. Similarly, in electron transitions, the quantum emitted as radiation is a disturbance in the natural equilibrium. This explains Aspect's results on polarized photons, and such standard physics as Young's double slit, where you can see why Feynman's path integrals QFT is the best way of describing the nature of light.

I've mentioned Prevost's 1792 innovation before. Prevost, an associate of LeSage of gravity mechanism fame, put forward the correct solution to the problem of thermodynamics (then bogged down with a false theory called caloric, similar in some ways to string theory today): instead of just one mechanism, nature has two main heat mechanisms, kinetic theory of matter and radiation, and everything at constant temperature is always cooling at the same rate as it is receiving heat from everything else and being heated. Therefore, thermodynamics is a dynamic theory as its name suggests.

The deep meaning of the standard model, the Yang-Mills exchange radiation theory, is the similar. The key problem remaining is how electroweak symmetry breaking works.

The 'Higgs field' (whatever that means; it is not experimentally detected yet) stops the weak gauge bosons within a short distance, and provides the masses of quarks and leptons, by some such mechanism as their bouncing off the virtual charges of the Higgs field. Because the weak force has a maximum range of 10^-18 metre, the energy-time version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (assuming light speed force mediation, so that time multiplied by speed of light equals this maximum distance) tells us the energy of the weak force mediator – it is 250 GeV, equivalent to 10^-24 kilogram.

This energy, 250 GeV, is close to the observed mass-energy of the weak gauge bosons (W-, W+, and Z). It is also generally expected by many physicists to be close to the energy of the Higgs bosons. The weak force symmetry (which exists for energies above 250 GeV) breaks spontaneously at 250 GeV, because of the Higgs mechanism. Below 250 GeV, there is no weak force symmetry because particles have masses since they are mired in the Higgs field which causes inertia. Above 250 GeV, particles become effectively massless, simply because they can then break through the Higgs field which acts like a shield. (By analogy, it is possible to move through syrup if you have enough energy to overcome the sticky binding forces holding together the syrup molecules, but you get stopped after a short distance if you don’t have enough energy.)

Could the presumed 'Higgs field' just be an aspect of the virtual charge cloud surrounding a charge at short distances? If so, then there is a close link between the treatment of vacuum polarization in renormalized quantum field theory and the nature of the so-called 'Higgs field'. For example, electroweak symmetry breaking could be due to particles striking hard enough (high energy collisions, 250 GeV or more) to break through the low energy (electro-weak) part of the polarized shield of virtual charges around their cores, and this would allow weak and electromagnetic interactions to proceed in symmetrical fashion.

Similarly, at much higher energies, you would break through the polarized virtual charge shells determining the strong nuclear force characteristics even closer to the core of a fundamental particle. This would produce the complete unification of standard model forces, because strong and electroweak forces would then be symmetrical (no attenuation of strong relative to electroweak). This is all verified facts. Now compare to stringy superstring speculation

• Woit's String Theory: An Evaluation
• San Francisco Chronicle, 'Theory of Everything Tying Researchers Up in Knots'.
• London Guardian Newspaper on Woit's finding that string theory is 'Not Even Wrong'.
• Tech Central Station article on Woit's assessment of string theory as unhelpful.
• Discovery magazine interview of Peter Woit on string theory hype being unhelpful
• Evidence that arXiv.org politics may censor access to proper scientific discussions
• Background to Woit's book on string theory called Not Even Wrong.
• London Financial Times article by Dr Robert Matthews about Woit's book, 2 June 2006
• John Cornwell's review of Not Even Wrong, Sunday Times, 11 June 2006.
• Anjana Ahuja, 'Just as you've solved every problem in the Universe, the string breaks', The Times, London, 12 June 2006.
• Sharon Begley, 'Has String Theory Tied Up Better Ideas In Field of Physics?', Wall Street Journal, 23 June 2006.
• Sharon Begley, 'Has String Theory Tied Up Better Ideas In Field of Physics?', Northwest Florida Daily News, 24 June 2006.
• Basic Books edition of Not Even Wrong, due out in America, September 2006.

"... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ... I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. ... I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. ... All these numbers ... have no explanations in these string theories - absolutely none! ..." - Richard P. Feynman, in Davies & Brown, ‘Superstrings’ 1988, at pages 194-195.

The Standard Model, which Edward Witten has done a lot of useful work on (before he went into string speculation), is the best tested physical theory. Forces result from radiation exchange in spacetime. The big bang speed is 0-c in spacetime of 0-15 billion years, so outward force F = ma = mc/t = mc/(15 billion years) ~ 10^43 Newtons.

It is a fact that cosmology starting from a steady state abstract (non-causal) general relativity model in 1916, was so easily converted to BB by dropping the CC in 1929.

What should have happened when Hubble observed recession velocities were a linear function of observable distance, was a recollection of Minkowski’s "spacetime" in which distance and time can be converted by: distance = c.time. Taking time past as the spacetime coordinate (instead of distance, because we are seeing the earlier universe, so are seeing varying time with higher velocity), the Hubble parameter is no longer velocity/distance = H seconds^-1, but becomes
Velocity/time = acceleration. From mass of universe (density times observed volume) and this acceleration you get the effective outward force in the spacetime we actually observe: F = ma. This is newton’s 2nd law. HENCE GRAVITY:

Newton’s 3rd law implies equal inward force, which according to the possibilities of the Standard Model must be due to the momentum carried by vector bosons (exchange radiation), predicting the exact strength of gravity, and the contraction of general relativity, other forces and particle masses. It also predicts the exact alleged (fictitious) CC value, simply because there is no mechanism for gravitational retardation (the BB causes gravity, when you examine the mechanism details, gravity doesn’t retard the BB), so the CC epicycle value in the false Lambda CDM model can be predicted to be that value which mimics zero deceleration.

This is an example of a predictive quantum theory of gravity being suppressed right now due to string theory. Lee Smolin is tied to the relatively abstract mathematics, as is Peter Woit. But gravity is can be predicted as a causal effect with gauge bosons (rather than material gas) delivering forces.

If this is wrong, who will check and disprove it? Or isn't falsifiability a virtue now string theory is choking physics?

This is how string theory destroys physics. It is the survival of fascism. Heisenberg’s Nazism lives on in the lying mainstream bitterness towards causality and mechanism which is manifest in extra dimensional religion, whose sole purpose is to destroy physics with intellectual cult type paranoia.

The problems with string "theory" (there isn't a physical theory, just abject speculations which in an abstract sense past muster as a mathematical theory, which is not useful to the real world) are:

(1) It gets attention for nothing, or worse, for fiction/fantasy connections (Star Trek /Michio Kaku entangled dimensions/Brian Josephson's stringy ESP).

(2) Alternatives DO have physical basis in observables, but are ignored. For example, the loop transformation in Loop Quantum Gravity can be interpreted as the gauge boson being exchanged between masses in Yang-Mills quantum theory (the standard model of particle physics): the exchange of a force mediating boson from one mass to another and back again to the first is probably the sort of underlying loop dynamics being described.

Smolin has shown clearly in webcast Perimeter Institute lectures earlier this year that the quantum theory of gravity which doesn't depend on uncheckable extra dimensional strings/supergravity is a spin foam vacuum. It is well established from the success of the standard model that the Yang Mills quantum field theories (exchange radiation) make a lot of checkable predictions. The standard model of particle physics has 20 supposedly as-yet unexplained parameters including masses and coupling strengths for forces, but makes thousands of confirmed predictions for reactions, within 0.1% accuracy for nuclear forces (strong and weak) and far greater accuracy for electromagnetism.

Smolin gets quantum gravity into the standard model format by unifying general relativity with quantum field theory. The loops of force-causing gauge boson exchanges in Yang Mills quantum field theory can be described by Penrose spin networks, with nodes representing interaction points (eg masses). By summing graphs of all interactions between masses in the vacuum, you get the path integral of quantum field theory, which Smolin in his lectures shows to be equivalent - for gravity - to general theory without a metric. (The metric can be put in from a mechanism, for example the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity see for example http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=2315&postcount=4).

This is the causal quantum field theory of gravity. It will make checkable predictions because the Yang-Mills exchange quantum field theory for gravity requires that ALL the masses in the universe are interacting. But we know there is cosmological recession, which redshifts bosons like photons and all other radiations!

Hence it will make cosmological predictions. For example, the redshift of very long-range gauge bosons would progressively weaken gravity, preventing distant supernovae from feel a gravitational deceleration. This was actually predicted in 1996, two years before expermental results verified it. Unfortunately, the reason why galaxies are not being decelerated by gravity has been falsely attributed to unobserved "dark energy" manifested by a small positive value of the cosmological constant. The latter is completely inconsistent with physics as Nobel Laureate Phil Anderson says. On the small positive value of the CC see Phil Anderson’s comment on cosmic variance:

‘the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating’ - Prof. Phil Anderson, http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/03/danger-phil-anderson/#comment-10901

The point is that general relativity is probably not a complete theory of gravity, as it doesn’t have quantum field theory in it.

Assume Anderson is right, that gravity simply doesn’t decelerate the motion of distant supernovae.

What value of the CC does this predict quantitatively? Answer: the expansion rate without gravitational retardation is just Hubble’s law, which predicts the observed result to within experimental error! Hence the equivalent CC is predicted ACCURATELY WITHIN EXPERIMENTAL DATA LIMITS by this mechanism, implied by Yang Mills quantum field theory loop quantum gravity.

Check Woit's book (Cape edition) page 179 for the string theory prediction of the CC value: it is off by a factor of 10^113.

• Sent: 02/01/03 17:47
  Subject: Your_manuscript LZ8276 Cook
  {MECHANISM OF GRAVITY WITH QUANTITATIVE PREDICTIONS OF GRAVITY STRENGTH AND COSMOLOGY FEATURES}
• Physical Review Letters does not, in general, publish papers on alternatives to currently accepted theories…. Yours sincerely, Stanley G. Brown, Editor, Physical Review Letters

So string theory is defunct, a money-spinning empty fraud whose purpose is to falsely suppress real empirically confirmed science by claiming the latter is "alternative to currently accepted theory" All string theorists are science haters, and are bitter towards the facts: ask them and see! They will rant and scream about how clever they are and how everyone with better ideas should be exterminated by stringy peer-review. There is no science going on in string theory, just mutual applause and mutual back-slapping, and other political-type stunts. It is based on hatred towards the facts relating to the observed number of dimensions, etc. It doesn't predict gravity. In 2002 I submitted a mechanism predicting gravity to Physical Review Letters and arxiv from Gloucestershire university, but it was taken down within a few seconds (ie without even being read). The administrators of arxiv turned out to be mainly string theorists.
To them, ironically, extra dimensions are the "accepted theory" and the facts which do make predictions are somehow obviously crackpot.

This is how the coercion works when you have an organisation all thinking alike about a bad idea.

See my comment complaining about this on Professor Jacques Distler's blog: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000855.html . he is an arxiv adviser. I'm not sure if he is linked to suppressing my paper, probably not because there are so many bigots in the string community pulling the strings in physics nowadays. And I'm grateful he allows people like me to comment. But they just ignore the facts!

My CERN Document Server-hosted draft preprint paper "Solution to a problem with general relativity", EXT-2004-007, 15/01/2004, cannot be updated with an updated and expanded version because CERN now only accepts feed through arXiv.org which is blocked by "string theorists":

"String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity." - Edward Witten, M-theory originator, Physics Today, April 96. Similar intellectual dishonesty supported by irrelevant trivia:

"The famed encylopedist Denis Diderot was once invited to visit the Russian Court by the empress, Catherine the Great. To the embarrassment of his host and the rest of the court, he promptly launched into an animated defense of atheism. Reluctant to muzzle her guest directly, Catherine hatched a cunning plan. Diderot was informed that a learned mathematician had discovered an algebraical demonstration of the existence of God and would present it before the Court, if he wished to hear it. Diderot naturally consented. The mathematician Leonhard Euler duly appeared and gravely declared: "Monsieur, (a + bn)/n = x, therefore God exists!" The upshot? Diderot, entirely unschooled in algebra, was rendered speechless; peals of laughter erupted around the room; Diderot, greatly embarassed, asked for permission to return to France; and Catherine gratefully bid him adieu." - http://anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=14079

Update: copies of one thread of some recent emails (most recent first)

From: Nigel Cook
To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact
Dear Guy,

Yes. The mechanism is best understood drawing arrows towards, away from and between the relevant charges along the line of force action (the forces cancel out in other directions due to symmetry). Use thick-lined arrows to represent non-redshifted radiation being exchanged and causing repulsion, and thin-lined arrows to represent incoming red-shifted (weakened) radiation from vast distances in the universe.

Alternatively, use red lines for redshifted radiation and some other colour for non-redshifted: http://feynman137.tripod.com/Image25.gif/ The attraction force between two opposite charges in electromagnetism is identical in magnitude to the repulsion between two similar charges (of the same amount of charge charge as the opposite charges for attraction).

There is a more complex looking version of this diagram in my Electronics World article dated April 2003, picture here: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/Image11.jpg. Under each diagram there, I add up the vectors and prove that the inward force is equal to the outward force.

The neutron is dominated by strong nuclear force effects. The physics is dominated by the fact that you have several charges very close together in a neutron or proton. Each charge, even electrons, have a polarised shell of virtual charge around them, created in the strong field at short distances. I have gone into the nuclear forces in detail, as nuclear physics was originally my major interest. The short range forces are effects in the polarized shells around charged particles. If two particles get close enough that their polarized shells of virtual charges overlap, strong forces result. Once you are inside the polarized shell, the force from the polarized shell itself falls off as you approach more closely to the real cores, because the thickness of polarized shell between you are the core deceases as you approach the core. Hence the strong nuclear force actually falls at very close-in distances as you approach the core, while the electromagnetic force gets less and less shielded by polarization and ecomes stronger. The equilibrium when these force variations with distance offset one another in a nucleon causes the "asymptotic freedom" of quarks within a nucleon.

Also, suppose for sake of argument you put 3 electrons close enough together that they were separated by distances like the distances between quarks in a nucleon (neutron or proton). In that case, a very interesting piece of physics emerges very simply: all 3 particles SHARE THE SAME polarized shield, which because it is proportional in strength to the electric field strength, is then exactly 3 times stronger than in the case of a single electron, because it is contributed to by the 3 electrons instead of by just 1. So the polarization electric charge shielding factor will be increased by a factor of 3, and each electron will have an apparent charge (seen from beyond the polarised charge shell) of 1/3 of the electron's charge. The downquark has exactly this electric charge, -e/3!

Hence downquarks can be shown to be like electrons locked in pairs or triads of quarks, and the special forces and properties result from this entrapment effect on the shared polarization of the vacuum which shields the core charge. Consider energy conservation! What happens to the electric charge energy when the electric charge is shielded by a factor of 3? Simple: nuclear force field effects! This is a quantitative prediction which affects the unification of forces in the Standard Model, replacing string theory's supersymmetry (SUSY) to explain high-energy unification effects, and is better than string as it makes checkable predictions even at low energy. (See my blog.)

This nuclear mechanism appears to be on the right lines. Obviously the upquark, with charge +2/3, is more challenging than simply putting 3 positrons in close together so that they share a vacuum polarization which is 3 times stronger, shielding the individual positron charge by a factor of 3 to +e/3. The upquark charge is +2e/3 not +e/3. The reason is likely that when you put different charges together, the effects on the polarized vacuum become complex.

Suppose you have just an electron and a positron close together, like a pair of quarks in a meson. In that case the net electric field is zero at long distances. What happens to the energy of the electric field in space when you bring a positive charge beside a negative charge? The late Dr Arnold Lynch, who during the war helped build the Colossus computer that broke the Nazi codes, worked on microwave beam interference problems for BT in the 1980s. He wrote to me that experimentally the superimposed field energy is still there, even when you can't detect any fields due to perfect interference (cancellation). The fields become hidden, but the energy is still there in space, as can be shown by their immediate reappearance if the cancellation is stopped by ending one of the two interfering beams.

So in a neutron, with some electromagnetic field energy at very long distances as a magnetic field (since the neutron has a magnetic dipole moment) the physics is intricate. To calculate the amount of energy available to create and polarize virtual charge (which in turn attenuates the real core charge as seen from a large distance), you need in either a neutron or a proton (or other particles) to take account of the energy residing in the magnetic field of that particle. Neutrons and protons both have magnetic dipole moments.

The fact that nuclear particles containing quarks have magnetic moments makes the physics of where shielded energy goes, a very subtle challenge to analyse. A lot of the magnetic moment is probably from the virtual charges being polarized and aligned in the vacuum. The official mainstream theory of strong nuclear interactions, QCD or SU(3), cannot predict very much very accurately because it is an abstract analytical theory which is not easily solved by computer calculation. The whole of nuclear physics needs to be physically represented as causal models which are less abstract and more pictorial, before progress is made. The main successes of the standard model in terms of numerical predictions are for weak nuclear forces where there are only 3 gauge boson types, not strong forces with 8 gauge bosons.

Best wishes,
Nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Grantham
To: Nigel Cook ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Nigel

I'll forgive you the dowsing which is a system function and not a fundamental property!

As I understand you, the mechanism for repulsion of like charges is by the momentum and recoil of their exchanged bosons whilst less influenced by, and overcoming, the similar but weaker repulsions on their other faces.

A charged particle can put a particle of complementary charge in its shadow by stopping the other's gauge bosons without being influenced by the momentum of those bosons which causes (or allows) them to close by pressure from behind of the weaker but 'right' kind of bosons. Perhaps we could assume that the incoming gauge bosons are neutralised all around a particle by outgoing bosons of the opposite charge presenting as neutralisation at a distance of incoming potentially repulsive 'wrong' bosons and the zero charge field at a saddle point between the charged particles, this would appear as a full shadowing of repulsions only along the imaginary line joining the particles.

Yet, the attraction per unit charge at given separation by one mechanism is exactly equal to the repulsion per unit charge by the other mechanism (!) and the attraction/repulsion seems to be independent of the number or relative strength (redshift extent) of bosons emitted and received - unless those numbers are infinitely large. (?? comment??)

Moreover, a neutron, possibly containing a balance of charges in its core, neither suffers nor presents no net /gross influence by that shielding mechanism. It does however present a repulsion, only at very short range, to other neutrons and to protons (quite probably to electrons too), perhaps because it presents anisotropic emission/shielding at very short range??

Have I cracked it?

Best regards, Guy


----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel Cook
To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Guy,

" "Dissimilar charges cannot exchange any radiation between each other". Why cannot dissimilar charges accept the incoming radiation from the other team's player?" - Guy Grantham.

(1) The electric field from two electrons adds up, implying trapped light speed energy current exists inbetween them (evidence from Catt's experiments on capacitor charging and discharging via sampling oscilloscopes). The electric field from an electron and a positron cancels to zero half way inbetween them. This is some evidence (independent of the mechanism for the forces) which shows that there is evidence of energy exchange between similar charges but not dissimilar charges.

(2) As stated in a reply below, for electric field to be mediated around a negative charge by a field, the components of the field (gauge bosons) would have to deliver the properties associated with the electric charge they are representing in the force field mediation. So I think the electron has negative gauge bosons being exchanged around it with other charges, while the positron and proton have positive charged gauge bosons which do the same thing. Unfortunately, QFT textbooks/professors are too obfuscating and steer well clear of the physical dynamics.

Dissimilar charges can't accept the radiation from each other because it simply doesn't interact, so they get pushed together hard by shadowing each other not just from the straight line addition (weak) path of gravity but also from the random walk (strong) path. A weak analogy is to say it is like the house of babble: people talking different languages don't interact as such. (This could either be due simply to the lack of a mechanism by which interaction can take place, or due to a mechanism which specifically acts to prevent interaction.) A stronger analogy is to borrow from Quantum Chromo Dynamics in which there are different colour charges each with different force-mediating gluons, alhough that is too complex. In a proton, the three quarks in addition to electric charges have blue, green and red colour charges, and mediate gluons with charges such as red-blue, green-blue, etc.

Can you see what the problem here is? The more objections people raise with a theory which is on the right lines, the better it will be developed. There were a lot of mysteries in the mechanism as raised in 1996, although it made checkable predictions from day one. There are fewer questions remaining today. The absurdity would be to complete the mechanism entirely and publish it complete with all the rejections from 1996 onwards from editors of Nature etc, and the various widely ignored early publications in obscure places. The objections get ever more absurd as the predictions get better. The final objection I'll get is that "the mechanism is horseshit because it can't predict dowsing."

Best wishes,
Nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel Cook
To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Guy,

Regarding your last point, I didn't prove that light comes to us at 6 km/s, I just showed that if the explanation for Michelson-Morley is as Eddington says (the contraction of the instrument exactly offsets the variation in lght speed by giving it a shorter path to travel where it is slowed down), then the CBR emitted at 300,000 years after BB comes to us at 6 km/s. Light/radiation emitted at time zero will come to us at speed 0 km/s. Light emitted at half the age of the universe will come to us at 50% of c. The percentage is not a fixed fraction, but is proportional to the age of the material. All were considering is the possibility that redshift is caused by light coming to us more slowly. Hence light from the sun comes to us at c, light from galaxies at 1,500,000,000 light years comes to us at 90% of c (because they are receding from us at 10% of c), etc.

This argument is irrelevant for the gravity-electromagnetism mechanism. The figure of 10^80 hydrogen atoms in the universe is measured by multiplying the average material (directly observed) density of the universe by its spherical volume out to how far light travels in the age of the universe (time since BB).

This figure has always been the same. Back in the 1930s it was calculated by Eddington who used Hubble's grossly exaggerated value of the Hubble constant (Hubble thought it was 540 km/s/megaparsec - which is 6-8 times too high - because he under-estimated the distances to stars by confusing two populations of Cepheid variables, which he used as measuring sticks for relative distances in multiplying up absolute distances derived from accurate parallax measurements locally).

Eddington got the right answer because the two massive errors in his calculation largely cancelled each other out. He underestimated the size of the universe because the excessive Hubble constant underestimated the age of the universe (if Hubble constant H is expressed in SI units it has units of 1/seconds, and 1/H is the age of the universe ignoring gravitational deceleration, whereas 2/(3H) is the age of the universe assuming a critical density between collapse and infinite expansion, assuming falsely that gravity is independent of the BB not the result of a mechanism based on the BB), but he overestimated the density of the universe for the same reason. Hence the mass he calculated by multiplying two numbers (one a gross overestimate, and one a gross underestimate) happened to turn out fairly accurate.

Because the false (high) figure of the Hubble constant used in the 1930s implies an age of the universe 6-8 times less than today's figure (2,000 million years in the 1930s, compared to a modern figure around 15,000 million years), the apparent measured density of the universe was over-estimated by a massive factor in the 1930s.

Because masses of galaxies were not known accurately then the density estimates were known to have large error margins, but the over-estimate made the apparent density of the universe in agreement with the critical density of general relativity. Later data takes away the exaggerated (high) density value, and so there is a disagreement which is filled by the ad hoc dark matter hypothesis.

The gravity mechanism dispenses with this by showing the true density when general relativity is made a quantum theory of gravity is not the critical density but is smaller by a factor of (e^3)/2 which is a factor of just over 10. This brings the observed density of the universe today into alignment with theory. It also gets rid of dark energy because the gravity mechanism doesn't cause gravitational retardation on expansion. The postulate of dark energy comes from a small positive cosmological constant added to a general relativity cosmology with critical density (ie the Lambda-CDM model) to cancel out gravitational retardation by causing an acceleration wich cancels out the long range postulated gravitational deceleration which is not observed in supernovae redshifts. Gravity mechanism gets rid of gravitational retardation at long ranges by physical mechanism (there are several equivalent ways to formulate this argument, the most brief and least rigorous being the simple statement to people that gauge bosons are redshifted like light over vast distances, so gravity doesn't cause distant supernovae to slow down). Hence it predicted the correct supernovae recession rates via the Oct 96 issue of Electronics World, two whole years before Perlmutter's experimental results confirmed it. There is no ad hoc dark energy because that isn't needed to counteract gravitational deceleration over vast distances, because the latter is a falsehood due to ignoring the details of quantum gravity mechanism in general relativity.

Best wishes,
Nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel Cook
To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Guy,

Below is an extract from a comment dealing with the issue of obfuscation on QFT and the fact that two types of charge may require two types of charged force-mediating gauge bosons, from the Ivor Catt discussion page on Wiki where I wrote about that issue yesterday. (It seems to be that because there are two types of electric charge and gauge bosons are the mediators of the force field, the "gauge bosons" are not uncharged photons but must be charged negative in order to create a negative force field, and positive to create a positive force field; this won't violate conservation of charge since the gauge boson number will be conserved. Notice that in electroweak theory, there are charged W+ and W- gauge bosons.) My gravity-electromagnetism mechanism is focussed on the U(1) part of the Standard Model, the simple electromagnetism symmetry (less complex than the SU(3) and SU(2) symmetries which describe quark interactions and weak interactions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivor_Catt

"... if you have an electron in space, the exchange radiation around it causes the negative "electric field". It is the exchange radiation which indicates to you the presence of the electron, not the electron core itself. So for two types of electric charge (positive and negative) there are going to be two types of exchange radiation, one positive and one negative? Is this true? If so, what does this say about the nature of the exchange radiation? That it is charged and not uncharged? You can find nothing about the dynamics for quantum field theory forces in textbooks. See, for instance, the up to date and comprehensive 615 page QFT book by Prof. Mark Srednicki here: [5].

"Recently I found an error in 1st edition of the textbook Introduction to Quantum Field Theory on arXiv.org which stated the charge of the electron as shielded by the virtual electron-positron shell around it has a charge relative charge 7% higher at 92 GeV energy of collision than at 0.511 MeV. The authors actually had the equation, with 0.511 Mev and 92 GeV cutoffs, shown to be equal to the experimentally known charge. Putting the numbers into the equation shows it is totally wrong, off by a factor of 100 or so. Why? I asked Lubos Motl the string theorist [6]. It turns out that that textbook (1st ed) was wrong as it ignored all the particle creation-annihilation loops which can be created at energies between 0.511 MeV and 92 GeV. Motl emailed the Professor then replied: "Prof. Alvarez-Gaume has written me that it was a pedagogical simplification, which I fully understand and endorse, and in a future version of the text, they will have not only the right numbers but even the threshold corrections!" The second edition [7] corrects the error, with a footnote thanking Motl. Fair enough, but you can see the problems I have in getting hard facts out of quantum field theory. It is very clear to me now that the renormalization cutoffs in quantum field theory are simply due to the fact that the field at high energy density (near the electron or other particle core) actually creates the particles. (The measurement of distance in terms of collision energy, 0.511 MeV to 92 GeV, adds to the confusion. The mechanism for the creation of charge pairs exists around the electron core even if there is no collision, and the mechanism is the field energy. The reason why higher energy charge pairs appear involved at higher collision energy is simply that at higher energy you penetrate more closely to the real particle core, where the field is stronger and where there are normally more exotic charge loops being formed - regardless of whether a collision is occurring or not. So it is vital to convert units of collision energy cutoffs into the less obfuscating units of real distance from the middle of a particle. The upper energy cutoff then corresponds to the distance near the real particle core where you are measuring the increased charge within the polarization veil, whereas the lower energy cutoff corresponds to the maximum distance from the real particle core where the electromagnetic field has sufficient energy density to be capable of first creating and then polarizing virtual charges. This is the meaning of the renormalization of charges in QFT.) If the field were merely polarizing an infinite aether, the polarization of vacuum virtual charge would extend far enought to completely cancel out all real charges completely. This does not happen, because the vacuum is not full of virtual charges, just exchange radiation. None of these physical facts are bona fide subjects for discussion in quantum field theory, where extra dimensional speculation reins. This is apparently why the subject remains so illucid, even to the textbook authors. The basic facts of QFT which have empirical evidence are very strong indeed, but the mathematical trivia submerges the physical facts and it is taking a lot of effort to break it down [8]."

Best wishes,
Nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Grantham
To: Nigel Cook ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Nigel

Thank you for persevering with me. I understood the similar charges repelling - as with my own quoted example of two persons on ice skates throwing medicine balls back and forth - irrespective of the colours of their team shirts.

However I fail to understand how unlike charges (different team members) can avoid reacting to the virtual photons from non-team members when virtual photons from both teams are intercepted by them.

"Dissimilar charges cannot exchange any radiation between each other".

Why cannot dissimilar charges accept the incoming radiation from the other team's player? A boson bullet is a bullet and all particle masses send out gauge bosons in all directions. Else, if not, how does the remote particle know where to aim?
Are we now back to the equivalent of the advanced and retarded waves in time with 'colour' making connections before propagating for W+ and W- bosons?

What is difference with the neutral Z boson and why is that not shielded?

If the virtual photon gauge bosons from the opposite team are unperceived, why are these team members not transparent to the bosons instead of behaving as shields? Why are real photon bosons impartial?

I understood your argument for the 'drunkard's walk' analogy given previously. I had asked why you used 10^80 as number of mass particles in universe and assumed, without your reply, it might be accepted density data related to event horizon sphere of dimension "flight time" at 'c' around Earth such that returning light was zero velocity. However, something you wrote since altered this. You showed return light speed of 6 km/s, meaning universe is not old enough for us to be at extent of our limit of vision in standard model. Can you comment further please.

Best regards, Guy

----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel Cook
To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Guy,

Thanks for asking questions on this sensible problem. All the mass in the universe is firing energy at us and it bounces back from us the way it came. The presence of another mass shields it. We are naturally in equilibrium of energy exchange in all directions, but a nearby mass disturbs the equlibrium of exchange. Firstly, a nearby mass is not receding like the universe, so it is not sending us redshifted radiation (or slowed down, low energy bullets if you prefer the analogy). Secondly, the nearby mass is also shielding us from incoming radiation from great distances.

- - - - -> Machine gunner 1 ===== Machine gunner 2 <- - - - - incoming all-round gauge boson radiation from surrounding universe (redshifted)

The gentlemen above are shooting at each other. Ignoring an outsiders shooting in at them, they will recoil apart. Since the incoming bullets from great distances around them are "redshifted" (or slowed), they have less effect and do not offset the non-redshifted exchange of bullets between the two machine gunners, and the machine gunners recoil apart. Two reasons occur for the recoil: (1) the momentum gained when bullets hit their flak jackets, and (2) the recoil when bullets are fired.

As far as I'm concerned the two are the same thing since a better analogy would be a tennis game. You get knocked back slightly by the ball hitting your racket and you also recoil back a bit when you reverse the ball's momentum and send it back to the other player. OK for why SIMILAR CHARGES repel (2 electrons, or 2 protons)?

Dissimilar charges cannot exchange any radiation between each other, they can only get pushed together by the exchange of radiation on their opposite sides, which pushes them together since they shield one another. Gravitational is electrical because there are two components.

Consider + as proton and - as electron


+ ..................- and they will attract


But what happens if you have the 4 charge situation:

+.................-


-.................+

Will the left hand side charges attract the right hand side charges?? Or because the sum of left hand charges is zero, and the sum of right hand charge sum is zero, will there be no attraction?

Obviously there is still a weak attraction, and this is GRAVITY. There are only two paths by which the voltage or potential difference carried by the gauge boson radiation adds up to a non-zero net amount in exchanges between all the charges of the universe:

(1) a straight line (which is weak, since it has a random number of positive and negative charges; but we can still analyse this precisely because on average there will be an even number of charges in a randomly drawn straight line across the universe 50% of the time, and an odd number 50% of the time too, so the mean number of charges will be half way between odd and even, corresponding to an average of half the voltage of between 1 electron and 1 proton), and

(2) a zig-zag "drunkards walk" statistical line (like brownian motion statistics) between all charges in the universe, in which the mean vector sum is equal to the voltage between one pair of charges (electron and proton) multiplied by the square root of the number of pairs of charges in the universe.

The path (1) is easily shown to be an always "attractive" force (since it relies on a none-equal number of positive and negative charges, implied by the odd charges; if the number of charges in a straight line was always an even number, it would on average be 50% positive and 50% negative and would produce no attraction and no net voltage), and is 10^40 times weaker than the force of path (2) which can be either attractive or repulsive.

Path (1) is therefore gravity, path (2) electromagnetism.

best wishes,
Nigel


----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Grantham
To: Nigel Cook ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Nigel

Despite your previous extended reply to me and this illustrated version I have to admit that I still fail to understand how the dissimilarly charged machine gunners are pushed together by shielding. What shields them and why aren't similar gunners shielded? Do we assume that dissimilarly charged bullets can be absorbed without inertia? What when they are exposed without shielding - is this a short range repulsion? Is there a converse of short range attraction, is this the broken symmetry?

Also please explain two like charges and two unlike charges are repelled/attracted with the same force at the same distance when shielding is involved in one but not the other.

I may just be simple but prefer to claim that I have been indoctrinated for too long!

Best regards, Guy ...