Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

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

"... 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 ...

29 Comments:

At 3:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Copy of a funny fast comment I spotted on Lubos Motl's blog, in case it later disappears:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/06/barton-zwiebach-letter-to-editor.html

Lubos,

I notice from a comment on Peter's blog that one of New Scientist's own editorial staff has now written a review of NEW in the 1 July issue:

“String Weary

“Not Even Wrong ... Reviewed by Amanda Gefter

“This is like two books in one. The first is a technical overview of the mathematical structure of the standard model of particle physics. The second is a highly readable look at the sociology of string theory. In the end, Woit ties the two together in one fell swoop by suggesting that physicists should search for answers in the unexplored symmetries of the standard model, rather than in strings. Woit is taking a shot at the string theory clique, but this book is more than that - it is a call to arms for physicists to pursue multiple paths in search of truth, not funding.”

Can you get yourself into the mood to write a lengthy diatribe about this new science hater Amanda Gefter?

Compare here to Dembsi and the devil, but remember to point out they aren't as bad. Here are some helpful key terms to work into your post: moronic, ignorant, IQ below 75, sub-human, proto-human...


anon | Homepage | 06.29.06 - 6:52 pm | #

 
At 7:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see how an ordered structure of charges in the vacuum is going to allow light to go in any direction without a problem. Suppose epola or whatever theory says the electron-positron arrangement in the vacuum is like the electron and ion configuration in say a salt crystal.

Then the properties of the vacuum will depend on the absolute direction and will be different if light or matter moves diagonally or parallel to the lattice. The whole thing is just absurd from this point of view. Any orderly arrangement of vacuum charges will mean that along some lines you will get different amounts of different charges with different average spacings than along other lines.

This will affect the velocity or nature of light. Yet none of this has been experimentally observed. The properties of light are isotropic, they don't vary on the absolute direction the light goes in within the vacuum, except for gravitational field effects near mass and other force fields which slow it down. So if light is carried by charges in the vacuum those charges would have to be randomly distributed with no structure (the evidence is that the short ranged nuclear forces and energy exchanges are mediated by massive vacuum charges, which is why they are short ranged, and that long range radiation is entirely due to radiation, so Maxwell's light theory is entirely misleading).

****************************

The average time that such particles persist depends on how long another collision in the vacuum annihilates them. So Heisenberg's uncertainty relation for energy and time predicts the lifetime of any particular energy fluctuation. [There is no need to get into science fiction or metaphysics about Hawking's 'interpretations' of the uncertainty principle (parallel universes, baby universes, etc.) because that simply isn't physics, which is about checkable calculations.]

Particles which have the lowest energy exist for the longest period, a simple inverse law relationship between energy and time. Therefore, electron-positron pairs will dominate the vacuum, because they have the least rest mass-energy of all charged particles, and exist for the longest period of time.

The next particle beyond the electron has merely the same electric charge as the electron, but is over two hundred times as massive, and will therefore exist on average for under 1/200th or under 0.5% of the duration of time that electron-positron charges exist in the vacuum.

An electron-positron pair is created by 1.022 MeV = 1.634 x 10-13 J of energy, and has a lifetime according to the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship of t ~ h/E ~ (6.626 x 10^-34 m^2 kg/s) / (1.634 x 10^-13 J) ~ 4 x 10^-21 seconds, during which the maximum possible distance moved by either particle is x = ct = (3 x 10^8 m/s).(4 x 10^-21 s) = 1.2 x 10^-12 metres.

This is why the vacuum isn't observably radioactive! The virtual particles have just enough range (10^-12 metres) to continuously upset the electron orbits in atoms, creating the Schroedinger statistical wave distribution instead of classical orbits, but they don't have enough range to break up molecules. The radioactivity of the vacuum is short-ranged enough that it can only upset the orbits of electrons and nuclear particles. This is rather like the effects of a gas on producing Brownian motion of very small (micron sized) dust particles, but being unable to induce chaotic motion in large objects because statistically their effects balance out on large scales (creating pressure).

Pairs of heavier charged particles could exist closer to the core of an electron if the electric field of the electron is responsible for creating particles. This in the Yang-Mills theory is the same as saying that force-causing gauge photons - which constitute the electric field in the U(1) quantum field theory - behave like very high energy gamma rays when close to a heavy nucleus (when pair production occurs, gamma ray -> electron + positron). Obviously, this route is suggesting that gauge photons interact with one another to create vacuum charges of higher mass when closer to the electron middle. If I shield cobalt-60 with lead, some of the gamma rays (with a mean energy of 1.25 MeV) will be converted into electron-positron pairs by interacting with the strong nuclear field in the lead nucleus.

 
At 2:23 AM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; 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 03, 2006 4:48 PM
Subject: Attraction mechanism by causality


Dear Guy,

You write: "> I am aware of the explanation of gauge bosons /virtual photon
exchange with
> ice-skaters exchanging medicine balls to explain mutual repulsion of
> electrons. Please explain for me how massless gauge bosons also account
> for the mutual attraction of electron and positron ..."

See http://feynman137.tripod.com/ and scroll down to the diagrams for
electromagnetic force attraction and repulsion mechanism, which are followed
by the text:

"Above: mechanism of attraction and repulsion in electromagnetism, and the
capacitor summation of displacement current energy flowing between
accelerating (spinning) charges as gauge bosons (by analogy to Prevost's
1792 model of constant temperature as a radiation equilibrium). The net
exchange is like two machine gunners firing bullets at each other; they
recoil apart. The gauge bosons pushing them together are redshifted, like
nearly spent bullets coming from a great distance, and are not enough to
prevent repulsion. In the case of attraction, the same principle applies.
The two opposite charges shield one another and get pushed together.
Although each charge is radiating and receiving energy on the outer sides,
the inward push is from redshifted gauge bosons, and the emission is not
redshifted. The result is just like two people, standing back to back,
firing machine guns. The recoil pushes them together, hence the attraction
force.
Heuristically, gauge boson (virtual photon) transfer between charges to
cause electromagnetic forces, and those gauge bosons don't discriminate
against charges in neutral groups like atoms and neutrons. The Feynman
diagrams show no way for the gauge bosons/virtual photons to stop
interactions. Light then arises when the normal exchange of gauge bosons is
upset from its equilibrium. You can test this heuristic model in some ways.
First, most gauge bosons are going to be exchanged in a random way between
charges, which means the simple electric analogue is a series of randomly
connected charged capacitors (positive and negative charges, with vacuum
377-ohm dielectric between the 'plates'). Statistically, if you connect an
even number of charged capacitors in random along a line across the
universe, the sum will be on average be zero. But if you have an odd number,
you get an average of 1 capacitor unit. On average any line across the
universe will be as likely to have an even as an odd number of charges, so
the average charge sum will be the mean, (0 +1)/2 = 1/2 capacitor. This is
weak and always attractive, because there is no force at all in the sum = 0
case and attractive force (between oppositely charged capacitor plates) in
the sum = 1 case. Because it is weak and always attractive, it's
gravitation? The other way they charges can add is in a perfect summation
where every charge in the universe appears in the series + - + -, etc. This
looks improbable, but is statistically a drunkard's walk, and by the nature
of path-integrals gauge bosons do take every possible route, so it WILL
happen. When capacitors are arranged like this, the potential adds like a
statistical drunkard's walk because of the random orientation of 'capacitors',
the diffusion weakening the summation from the total number to just the
square root of that number because of the angular variations (two steps in
opposite directions cancel out, as does the voltage from two charged
capacitors facing one another). This vector sum of a drunkard's walk is the
average step times the square root of the number of steps, so for ~10^80
charges, you get a resultant of ~10^40. The ratio of electromagnetism to
gravity is then (~10^40) /(1/2). Notice that this model shows gravity is
electromagnetism, caused by gauge bosons. It does away with gravitons. The
distances between the charges are ignored. This is explained because on
average half the gauge bosons will be going away from the observer, and half
will be approaching the observer. The fall due to the spread over larger
areas with divergence is offset by the concentration due to convergence.

ALL electrons are emitting, so all are receiving. Hence they don't slow,
they just get juggled around and obey the chaotic Schrodinger wave formula
instead of a classical Bohr orbit.

'Arguments' against the facts of emission without net energy loss also
'disprove' real heat theory. According to the false claim that radiation
leads to net energy loss,
because everything is emitted heat radiation (separately from force causing
radiation), everything should quickly cool to absolute zero. This is wrong
for the same reason above: if everything is emitting heat, you can have
equilibrium, constant temperature.

The equation is identical to Coulomb's law except that it expresses the
force in terms of different measurables. This allows it to predict the
permittivity of free space, the electric constant in Coulomb's law. So it
is a correct, predictive scientific mechanism.

The concepts of "electric charge" and "electric field" are useful words but
are physically abstract, not directly observable: you measure "them"
indirectly by the forces they produce, and you assume that because the mass
of the electron is quantized and the charge/mass ratio only varies with the
velocity of the electron by Lorentz/Einstein's law, charge is fundamental.
Really, energy is fundamental and the amount of "electric charge" you see
depends on how much attenuation there is by the polarised vacuum, the
observed (attenuated) charge falling by 7% at 90 GeV collisions (Koltick,
PRL, 1997), and mass varies because it is due to the surrounding The forces
are actually caused by vector radiation exchange. This is established by
quantum field theory.

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 is
spherically 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 charge
is 2 units (2 units is equal to the difference between 1 negative charge and
1 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."


----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "Ian Montgomery"
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; 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, June 27, 2006 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law


> Dear Nigel
>
> Your comment below makes sense to me, at face value.
>
> I am aware of the explanation of gauge bosons /virtual photon exchange
> with ice-skaters exchanging medicine balls to explain mutual repulsion of
> electrons. Please explain for me how massless gauge bosons also account
> for the mutual attraction of electron and positron because the accounts I
> have read seem to refer only to Coulombic and hadronic repulsions.
> I have been given to understand that the boson exchange takes place by
> advanced and retarded virtual photons travelling in future time and past
> time. How can this be other than hypothetical or due to purely
> mathematical constructs?
>
> Would you accept that continually successive interactions between a
> tangible guest particle and the unobservable (virtual, in a sense) bound
> particles of the vacuum medium (in any of the models described by David T)
> could be misconstrued as gauge boson exchanges across the vacuum
> space? --- And vice versa?
>
> Best regards, Guy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
> To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe"
> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
> 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, June 27, 2006 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law
>
>
>> If the ether is radiation, there is no drag. You have to ask why drag
>> occurs in the air. It occurs because the fluid particles leaving after a
>> collision are speeded up, and so have more kinetic energy. With a
>> spacetime
>> fabric of exchange radiation, you don't have this problem, as it doesn't
>> speed up (velocity remains c).
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au
>> To: "Nigel B. Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
>> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
>> 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, June 27, 2006 7:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law
>>
>>
>>> Dear Nigel,
>>>
>>> "At the same time, the pressure on the front of the submarine causes it
>>> to
>>> contract lengthways, leaving transverse dimensions unaffected." NC.
>>>
>>> This pressure differential may explain length contraction BUT would have
>> to
>>> contribute to a drag force (leaving out potential viscosity which you
>>> discount below by saying "....binding of the fluid spacetime fabric is
>>> not
>>> like at atome or molecule based fluid.").
>>>
>>> I believe that there will always be a drag from the 'aether' if the
>>> 'particles' of the 'aether' possess mass, be it solid-like, liquid-like
>>> or
>>> gas-like. When there's mass, there's always going to be momentum
>>> transfer.
>>> Guy disputes this by saying that the net force is zero as the epo's
>> upstream
>>> force on a guest will always be exactly balanced by an opposite
>>> downstream
>>> force on the guest (is that right Guy?).
>>>
>>> I think that Arden would agree with me on this point (is that right
>> Arden?).
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Nigel B. Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
>>> To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David
>>> Tombe"
>>> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
>>> 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, June 26, 2006 8:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: The Magnetosphere
>>>
>>>
>>> > The solar wind to avoid drag is wrong, because it focusses on orbits
>>> > and
>>> > ignores the similar but more simple case of uniform motion. Why not
>>> > consider Newton's 1st law, inertia? Why does a body continue moving
>>> > in
>> a
>>> > straight line without coming to rest in a vacuum full of particles
>>> > (spacetime fabric/aether)?
>>> >
>>> > The aether causes Fitzgerald contraction in the direction of motion
>>> > and
>>> > mass
>>> > increase, not drag. If you look at physically how drag occurs in
>> fluids,
>>> > when a submarine moves, a shell of water at the front of the submarine
>> is
>>> > effectively associated with the submarine (bouncing off the front and
>>> > producing an effective static water-to-moving water interface which is
>>> > ahead
>>> > of the actual submarine surface), so the mass of that water layer adds
>> to
>>> > the effective inertial mass of the submarine.
>>> >
>>> > Hence when the submarine is in motion, its inertial mass increases due
>> to
>>> > the association of some surrounding fluid with it. The faster it
>>> > goes,
>>> > the
>>> > bigger the snowplow effect is, so the inertial mass increases. This
>>> > is
>>> > the
>>> > mechanism of the mass increase in so-called "relativity".
>>> >
>>> > At the same time, the pressure on the front of the submarine causes it
>> to
>>> > contract lengthways, leaving transverse dimensions unaffected.
>>> >
>>> > You don't get continuous drag because the binding of the fluid
>>> > spacetime
>>> > fabric is not like at atom or molecule based fluid. Drag only occurs
>>> > because you are dumping energy into the fluid, heating it and inducing
>>> > turbulence in your wake.
>>> >
>>> > The correct model of the structure of the vacuum must address (1) the
>>> > energy
>>> > needed to accelerate a body to a given speed, and (2) the lack of
>>> > energy
>>> > needed to sustain motion. To accelerate a body in a vacuum, the
>>> > energy
>>> > you
>>> > put into it is used for/stored as length compression and mass
>>> > increase.
>>> > Once moving at velocity v, it continues (unless deflected or
>>> > accelerated
>>> > by
>>> > an external force field) at v indefinitely.
>>> >
>>> > Clearly an equilibrium exists, and once the contraction and mass
>> increase
>>> > occurs, the energy exchange with the surroundings is in equilibrium.
>> The
>>> > energy lost from the front of the particle is restored behind it.
>>> > (Aristotle's arrow mechanism, applied to a fundamental particle.)
>>> >
>>> > Nigel

 
At 2:27 AM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Attraction mechanism by causality


Dear Guy,

Thanks for these questions. Unfortunately some of your questions are not
very comprehensible:

"> 6) Your comment on all particles both emitting and receiving heat
radiation
> would imply that everything quickly gets to the average temperature else
> first law TD is wrong??"

No: constan temperature there is equilibrium in emission and reception of
thermal radiation. When the temperature is changing there simply isn't.

Prevost set the scene for the replacement of caloric by thermoDYNAMICS.
According to caloric, heat (caloric, a fluid) was ONLY exchanged when
temperature was changing; caloric was a thermoSTATIC theory. False. The
correct (Prevost) explanation of 1792 is that at constant temperature,
thermal energy is still being exchanged. The Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law
tells us that every body at temperature T kelvin is cooling by radiating
heat energy at a rate proportional to T^4. If temperature is constant, the
radiation is stil being exchanged. All constant temperature implies is an
equilibrium (thermoDYNAMIC equilibrium).

This is vitally important as an analogy to the distinct (non thermal) force
exchange radiations:

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.

"> 1) How do players in different coloured shirts know to stand back to back
> when their firing machine guns, whilst members with the same team colours
> shoot face to face?"

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).

"> 2) How does one know that 'virtual gauge bosons' actually exist, rather
than
> by circumstantial evidence for 'imaginary particles' providing a suitable
> explanation ?"

Guy, I've explained in previous emails 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).

"> How does a virtual massless particle have real momentum if it is not
> imparted from vibrations of real particles?"

Light delivers momentum as it carries energy. This is experimentally
confirmed fact. The momentum of light is simply p = (energy)/c.

Best wishes,
Nigel



----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "Ian Montgomery"
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Attraction mechanism by causality


> Dear Nigel
>
> Thank you for this comprehensive, and comprehensible, reply.
> It has raised more questions than it answered for me however - I shall
> never
> get to sleep again!!! And, I have only started to read, never mind study,
> link to Feynman137. Fascinating stuff. Previously I had dismissed QM in
> favour of Quantum Field theory by Preparata as nearest practical solution
> to
> problems of Relativity. Very pleased you don't need more dimensions like
> the
> stringists, although need to read again your comments on Kalusa Klein 4
> (and
> 5D) models.
>
> 1) How do players in different coloured shirts know to stand back to back
> when their firing machine guns, whilst members with the same team colours
> shoot face to face?
>
> 2) How does one know that 'virtual gauge bosons' actually exist, rather
> than
> by circumstantial evidence for 'imaginary particles' providing a suitable
> explanation ? Plus your use of the adverb 'heuristically'.(
> "Heuristically,
> gauge boson (virtual photon) transfer ...."). Is this model not built on
> pure hypothesis, form definitions as virtual particles, and intended only
> as
> a convenient explanation of real behaviours?
>
> *Do you personally see it as a the picture of reality or just a working
> model (like an orrery is for the solar system)?
>
> In what way do small particles heavy with energy provide experimental
> proof? Are W+ W- and Z not just interpretation to fit theory of a delay or
> spacing between observing impact and liberation of beta particle plus a
> neutrino?
>
> (ps. Simhony spoke with Dirac who advised him that the epola model implied
> real electrons and positrons - not virtual holes and electrons).
>
> How does a virtual massless particle have real momentum if it is not
> imparted from vibrations of real particles?
> (Remembering I had sought and found an explanation for momentum of a real
> photon as a wave in vibrations of a lattice of real particles).
>
> How does the particle regenerate its boson ammunition? Does it receive
> more
> bullets of spent energy than it fires with full energy..... ??? How do we
> reconcile balance of numbers of massless particles? If each particle
> receives more than it fires we shall soon run out of ammo! ..Is this where
> the real photons come in ???? Is this what you referred to with loops in
> feynman137.?...How does an imbalance in virtual photons turn into real
> photons?.... please expand.
> [I guess Ian's ears are pricking up with this too, in relation to his own
> model]
>
> 3) Is the evidence for 10^80 particles of charge in the universe
> incontrovertible or derived from the measured ratio of gravity and e/m at
> ~10^39:1? Is it related to the radius of our visible universe at 'c'?
> etc... You quote as data, in Feynman137, the age of universe - how do you
> know that? ..... Please expand.
>
> 4) Do you regard the neutron as a 'neutral group' or a 'neutral particle'
> ?
> Is it made of epo pairs?
>
> 5) As a (an indoctrinated) chemist, I find plenty to support the Bohr
> orbital type atomic model. It would need more to convince me of
> alternatives
> unless you mean the Bohr model is inevitable by Schrodinger wave equations
>
> 6) Your comment on all particles both emitting and receiving heat
> radiation
> would imply that everything quickly gets to the average temperature else
> first law TD is wrong??
>
> 7) Epola model provides a real explanation for Planck's constant, which
> you
> say (Feynaman137) is based on arbitrary dimensional analysis - it was, no
> longer is! (MS' paperback ch 7 p62,3 p69).
>
> 8) You refer to David Koltick - so do I, in Intro essay on web at
> epola.co.uk, for evidence of epola (or at least for an epo soup). see
> http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/970110.Koltick.electron.html .
>
> I think that is enough for know.
> Looking forward to your response and not intending to convert you but see
> many parallels between solutions by (our chosen) two different models.
>
> Best regards, Guy

 
At 2:30 AM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; 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 03, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law

Dear Ian,

You say below: "I believe that there will always be a drag from the 'aether'
if the
> 'particles' of the 'aether' possess mass, be it solid-like, liquid-like or
> gas-like. When there's mass, there's always going to be momentum
> transfer."

Newton's 1st law is a statement based on observations, that no drag is
observed.

Electromagnetic radiation delivers momentum even though it goes at speed c
and has no rest mass.

It can't cause drag, because it can't be speeded up, so it can't carry away
energy like gas or other fluid molecules which have mass.

Where there is no mechanism, things are impossible. There is no mechanism
for drag from exchange radiation, so it can't occur.

Best wishes,
Nigel


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au
To: "Nigel B. Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
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, June 27, 2006 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law


> Dear Nigel,
>
> "At the same time, the pressure on the front of the submarine causes it to
> contract lengthways, leaving transverse dimensions unaffected." NC.
>
> This pressure differential may explain length contraction BUT would have
> to contribute to a drag force (leaving out potential viscosity which you
> discount below by saying "....binding of the fluid spacetime fabric is not
> like at atome or molecule based fluid.").
>
> I believe that there will always be a drag from the 'aether' if the
> 'particles' of the 'aether' possess mass, be it solid-like, liquid-like or
> gas-like. When there's mass, there's always going to be momentum transfer.
> Guy disputes this by saying that the net force is zero as the epo's
> upstream force on a guest will always be exactly balanced by an opposite
> downstream force on the guest (is that right Guy?).
>
> I think that Arden would agree with me on this point (is that right
> Arden?).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nigel B. Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
> To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe"
> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
> 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, June 26, 2006 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: The Magnetosphere
>
>
>> The solar wind to avoid drag is wrong, because it focusses on orbits and
>> ignores the similar but more simple case of uniform motion. Why not
>> consider Newton's 1st law, inertia? Why does a body continue moving in a
>> straight line without coming to rest in a vacuum full of particles
>> (spacetime fabric/aether)?
>>
>> The aether causes Fitzgerald contraction in the direction of motion and
>> mass
>> increase, not drag. If you look at physically how drag occurs in fluids,
>> when a submarine moves, a shell of water at the front of the submarine is
>> effectively associated with the submarine (bouncing off the front and
>> producing an effective static water-to-moving water interface which is
>> ahead
>> of the actual submarine surface), so the mass of that water layer adds to
>> the effective inertial mass of the submarine.
>>
>> Hence when the submarine is in motion, its inertial mass increases due to
>> the association of some surrounding fluid with it. The faster it goes,
>> the
>> bigger the snowplow effect is, so the inertial mass increases. This is
>> the
>> mechanism of the mass increase in so-called "relativity".
>>
>> At the same time, the pressure on the front of the submarine causes it to
>> contract lengthways, leaving transverse dimensions unaffected.
>>
>> You don't get continuous drag because the binding of the fluid spacetime
>> fabric is not like at atom or molecule based fluid. Drag only occurs
>> because you are dumping energy into the fluid, heating it and inducing
>> turbulence in your wake.
>>
>> The correct model of the structure of the vacuum must address (1) the
>> energy
>> needed to accelerate a body to a given speed, and (2) the lack of energy
>> needed to sustain motion. To accelerate a body in a vacuum, the energy
>> you
>> put into it is used for/stored as length compression and mass increase.
>> Once moving at velocity v, it continues (unless deflected or accelerated
>> by
>> an external force field) at v indefinitely.
>>
>> Clearly an equilibrium exists, and once the contraction and mass increase
>> occurs, the energy exchange with the surroundings is in equilibrium. The
>> energy lost from the front of the particle is restored behind it.
>> (Aristotle's arrow mechanism, applied to a fundamental particle.)
>>
>> Nigel
>
>

 
At 4:12 AM, Blogger nige said...

The mechanism of electricity is explained at:

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html

Despite this, ignorance and deception still continue to be peddled by Catt, because despite my continued efforts he and Forrest refuse to listen:


From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Forrest Bishop" forrestb@ix.netcom.com; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com; geoffrey.landis@sff.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; ivor@ivorcatt.com; ernest@cooleys.net; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: The Catt Question (itself is not even grasped)


> No Forrest.
>
> Displacement current i = dD/dt. When the voltage is steady (after the rise
> of the logic step), dD/dt = 0, hence i = 0. So in a wire carrying current
> with a steady 10 volts, there cannot be displacement current. Hence the
> Catt anomaly diagram disproves displacement current since for no time is
> voltage shown to be time-varying (the discontinuity at the front which Catt
> shows would result in a field/current rise in NO time, which is dD/0 =
> undefined, which Catt and Forrest brush under the carpet just as Feynman's
> renormalized quantum electrodynamics ignores infinities).
>
> If you could get that through Ivor Catt's head, you could make your case
> against displacement current to people much better: THE STANDARD TEM WAVE
> DIAGRAM PROVES NO DISPLACEMENT CURRENT.
>
> Electric displacement D = permittivity x E, where E is electric field
> strength measured in volts per metre. Displacement current is time varying
> displacement.
>
> When a current flows into a capacitor, the current is sustained entirely by
> displacement current at the ramp, i = dD/dt. However the textbook TEM wave
> description used by Catt assumes a discontinuity, where dD/dt has two
> solutions only:
>
> displacement current dD/dt = 0 when voltage is not varying with time (the
> flat topped portion of the energy current), HENCE NO DISPLACEMENT CURRENT.
>
> displacement current dD/dt = dD/0 = mathematically undefined (infinity??) at
> the logic step.
>
>
> Catt's question should be rewritten to ask:
>
> WHERE IS THE DISPLACEMENT CURRENT, dD/dt, IN THIS DIAGRAM? NOT ON THE LEFT,
> BECAUSE dD/dt = 0. NOT ON THE RIGHT, BECAUSE dD/dt = undefined/infinity.
>
>
> Then Catt would have to get out of his armchair and do some work, revising
> the book and his theory. But what is the old saying? "Let sleeping dog's
> lie"?
>
>
>
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Forrest Bishop" forrestb@ix.netcom.com
> To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com;
> ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
> imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com;
> jvospost2@yahoo.com; nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
> Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
> graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com; geoffrey.landis@sff.net;
> andrewpost@gmail.com; ivor@ivorcatt.com; ernest@cooleys.net;
> george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:10 AM
> Subject: Re: The Catt Question (itself is not even grasped)
>
>
>> This is an important discovery. Not only do the proponents of the old
>> (e-m) theory not understand the new (e-m) theory (Khun), and not only do
>> they not understand their own, old theory, they become incapable of even
>> grapsing the simplest possible Question regarding their own theory. This
>> discovery belongs to a different field from physics.
>>
>> "The Catt Question" itself has been shown to be not understood by a
>> number of Theory N practicioners. It is the simplest possible Question for
>> a Theory N practicioner, as "do moons circle Jupiter?" would be the
>> simplest possible Question to put to a Ptolemaic astronomer.
>>
>> Aside from the silent and abusive responses;
>>
>> We have seen this from GL, who wished to add a current-limiting resistor,
>> and claimed the answer was to be found somewhere in the equations. ["Solve
>> the Epicycles, everyone know the answer is in there."]
>>
>> We saw this from NC, who mistook "D" for "dD/dt", then insisted it was a
>> trick Question. ["You used the wong symbol for Jupiter."]
>>
>> We saw this from DT, who thought it had something to do with the plates of
>> a capacitor, and with some murky process going on inside the conductor.
>> ["We don't know if moons circle other stars."]

 
At 6:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427#comment-13199

Umm Says:

July 7th, 2006 at 8:52 am


“If you profess to have some understanding of the issues involved, surely you can tell us what gaugino condensation is, and how (and in what sense) we know it exactly.” - Hmm

Peter, can you also explain how the string theory “mental vacuum state” works and how we all know it so well, as discussed by a famous Nobel Laureate in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012

Also, please hazard a guess why my paper on the geometry of an alternative to string theory was removed within seconds from arXiv.org in 2002, while the above Josephson string theory paper is allowed to remain? Don’t tell me it is fame, as arXiv.org is open to all. So it must be string theory.

Don’t try the one about different categories, as I tried uploading my paper (which makes checkable predictions unlike string theory) to all even remotely relevant ones.

I think the group think cult of string theory makes it wrong. String theory would be less dangerous if it was not defended like a fact.

 
At 12:05 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com
To: imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.a; nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; 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: Friday, July 07, 2006 12:36 AM
Subject: Inflow Theory and Fundamental Forces


> Dear Ian,
> I'm now actually quite convinced that the fundamental forces of
> gravity, electrostatics and electromagnetism all arise exclusively from
> inflow theory, and very probably an inflow of the same medium. We may as
> well call that medium the aether, for want of a better name. I haven't got a
> clue what the aether is. It is the 'Official Nothing' itself, but it is the
> very stuff of space and the inertial frame of reference, and it flows in and
> out of sources and sinks. It is matter and space all in one.
>
> This would appear to be a shift from my original position. I no
> longer see the electron positron medium as being essential for E = vXB.
> (Actually, I realized that as soon as I realized that Maxwell's vortices
> were causing a Coriolis (gyroscopic) force to act on charged particles)
>
> I have worked it out exactly that magnetic force is quite simply a
> particular manifestation of the Coulomb/Newton inverse square law, plus
> three other rotational effects associated with the aether. These can all
> arise independently of whether an electron positron sea exists or not. The
> Maxwell equations which cover these effects are (B), (D), and (G). Hence a
> spinning electron can cause magnetic force irrespective of the existence of
> a sea of electrons and positrons, and in the absence of a magnetic field.
>
> Electromagnetic radiation, however absolutely needs a sea of
> rotating electron positron dipoles. Displacement current dictates the
> necessity for such a dielectric sea. EM radiation is all tied up with the
> density of the dipole sea, and the transverse elasticity of the sea. EM
> radiation is a complex physical thing involving vibrating particles.
>
> Basically it was originally displacement current which caused me to
> realize that an electron positron sea must exist to account for EM
> radiation. I was correct when I said that the electric sea does not explain
> the Coulomb force, but that the Coulomb force is a fundamental which exists
> between the electrons and positrons. I was wrong when I said that the
> Coulomb force is the primary force at the root of all electromagnetism. The
> Coulomb force is one aspect of a broader primary force which includes three
> rotational aspects. Ie. Centrifugal, Gyroscopic, and Angular Acceleration.
> The displacement current is commensurate with divE = charge density, because
> Coulomb's law is one of the four primary aspects of pure aethereal force.
>
> I was wrong however to assume that all EM effects were a
> consequence of the electron positron sea. I now know that the E= vXB is a
> pure aether effect, as fundamental as the inverse square law.
>
> Remember in March we discussed that fascinating general
> acceleration equation? I worked it out from that, and also using a second
> method in which I simply differentiated a fluid velocity field.
>
> It showed up gravity and magnetic force to be identical.
> Hence I have concluded that gravity is simply negative electric charge and
> that all gold leaf electroscope experiments which supposedly show negative
> charges mutually repelling, need to be re-interpreted.
>
> Have you looked at my 'inflow' paper yet?
>
> Yours sincerely
> David Tombe
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au
> Reply-To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au
> To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com,"David Tombe"
> sirius184@hotmail.com,jvospost2@yahoo.com,epola@tiscali.co.uk,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
> Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law
> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:39:07 +1000

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; forrestb@ix.netcom.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com; geoffrey.landis@sff.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; ernest@cooleys.net; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Forces arise out of an inflowing vacuum


"was wrong however to assume that all EM effects were a consequence of the electron positron sea. I now know that the E= vXB is a
pure aether effect, as fundamental as the inverse square law.

"Remember in March we discussed that fascinating general
acceleration equation? I worked it out from that, and also using a second method in which I simply differentiated a fluid velocity field.

"It showed up gravity and magnetic force to be identical. Hence I have concluded that gravity is simply negative electric charge and that all gold leaf electroscope experiments which supposedly show negative
charges mutually repelling, need to be re-interpreted.

"Have you looked at my 'inflow' paper yet?" - David (below)


Gravity is 10^40 times weaker than the magnetic force between the poles of two electrons.

Gravity is a monopole theory. Magnetism is a dipole theory.

So if you have shown gravity = magnetism, you have some problem.

It is encouraging that you write about inflow. See http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/. Have you heard of LeSage's gravity inflow? It is wrong in details (the inflow is radiation exchange) but the basic principle is ok. There is no net inflow causing gravity any more than
there is a net motion of my hand pushing against a rigid brick wall. I can exert pressure by the electron electromagnetic energy bouncing off from my hand, without the hand having to inflow (move as a whole) into the wall in order to cause force. Similarly, gas molecules can exert pressures and
forces (force = pressure x area) simply by bounding off something. The recoil delivers the momentum of the force. You don't have to have the gravity causing radiation or aether being absorbed by the object to create a force. It can simply bounce off. For LeSage's paper see http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/03/george-louis-lesage-newtonian_26.html.
For radiation exchange mechanisms see http://feynman137.tripod.com/.

Best wishes,
Nigel

 
At 12:19 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; 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: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:08 PM
Subject: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Ian,

All charges are continuously radiating energy because of their spin.
Because the universe is old, there is an equilibrium of energy exchange
established.

Light is just the disturbance to the normal continuous energy exchange
process which occurs when you accelerate a charge. This upsets the
equilibrium, and the disturbance propagates along the existing paths of
energy exchange in the relevant direction.

This is just the mechanism for the Standard Model, which is a Yang-Mills
exchange radiation theory. All forces including gravity and inertia are
caused by electromagnetic energy exchange. Did you see the recent email
reply I sent to Guy? More info: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ and
http://feynman137.tripod.com/ (scroll down to energy exchange mechanism for
electromagnetism, reason for attraction and repulsion and force difference
between electromagnetism and gravity).

Best wishes,
Nigel



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
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: Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law


> Dear Nigel,
>
> Oh sorry, the last thing I want to do is to be vague (unless after
> consuming a vat of wine where all bets are off!!).
>
> "....instead of light speed radiation forming the aether,". NC
>
> You've got me there, I'm really not sure precisely what you mean. For
> clarity in my own mind, can you please describe in a nutshell your
> meaning?
>
> What I mean when I say aether (norton sea) is the particulate carrier of
> e/m and the forces as well as the spatial and temporal absolute reference
> frame (and the source of matter).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
> To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe"
> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
> 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: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law
>
>
>> "Light has zero mass, but it delivers momentum of p = (energy)/c".
>>
>> "Exactly. For this to be so, light must be delivered by an aether that
>> itself
>> is able to deliver 'momentum' at the point of interaction with matter." -
>> Ian.
>>
>> Hello Ian,
>>
>> You need to defend your statements that light must be "delivered by" an
>> aether instead of light speed radiation forming the aether, and second
>> what you mean by your use of the term "aether".
>>
>> Your sentence above is nearly as vague as one of Ivor Catt's epigrams!
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Nigel
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au
>> To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
>> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
>> 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: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law
>>
>>
>>> Dear Nigel,
>>>
>>> "Light has zero mass, but it delivers momentum of p = (energy)/c".
>>>
>>> Exactly. For this to be so, light must be delivered by an aether that
>>> itself is able to deliver 'momentum' at the point of interaction with
>>> matter. And of course, there is the issue that the aether cannot
>>> normally possess inertial mass or we would fall into the sun.
>>>
>>> So this leads us to requiring that the aether under normal circumstances
>>> does not possess inertial mass BUT does so attain inertial mass at the
>>> 'photon' location. The nortons (electron-positron dipoles) possess no
>>> inertial mass when at normal bond length BUT attain mass when the bond
>>> length is stretched (which must occur at the 'photon' location) and we
>>> have a physical explanation for this that we're currently reticent to
>>> release at this point of time. THIS is what's happening in the Anderson
>>> Experiment. When the electron and positron come together, they don't
>>> annihilate but become undetectable because they have lost their mass and
>>> have just become another norton. Similarly, when a norton is torn apart
>>> by a 'photon', creation hasn't occurred, just a norton has been split,
>>> gained mass and become detectable.
>>>
>>> With gravity, I believe it to be an in-flow of nortons accelerating into
>>> massive bodies (on the earths surface at g) which is the only
>>> explanation of (gravitational and inertial) mass equivalence that
>>> doesn't slaughter Occam's Razor.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
>>> To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David
>>> Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
>>> epola@tiscali.co.uk; 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 04, 2006 7:29 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear Ian,
>>>>
>>>> You say: "Zero mass entities that
>>>> may put out the strongest of mechanisms will not deliver momentum..."
>>>>
>>>> Light has zero mass, but it delivers momentum of p = (energy)/c.
>>>>
>>>> Light hits the molecules in the cones and rods of the retina, inducing
>>>> electron oscillations. Release an apple by letting go of it, and it
>>>> gains momentum as it falls. Conservation of momentum tells us that the
>>>> field is delivering momentum by doing work accelerating the apple.
>>>>
>>>> I just understand such oppositions. Why don't people want to know the
>>>> gravity mechanism? Why invent false snubs of the mechanism?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> nigel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au
>>>> To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
>>>> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
>>>> 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 04, 2006 7:46 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Nigel,
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume that the 'exchange radiation' that you refer to below is the
>>>>> 'coulomb force vehicle' that acts between charges possessing
>>>>> ponderable mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now to illustrate using an analogy on the macro-scale, if one
>>>>> like-charged poolball approaches another like-charged poolball, in the
>>>>> direction of travel the second ball will speed up and the first ball
>>>>> will slow down (drag) before they touch (as you pointed out before,
>>>>> nothing really touches anyway), even though the 'exchange radiation'
>>>>> hasn't been speeded up. But if the mass of the second ball was zero,
>>>>> the first ball then would not slow down (and hence no drag as observed
>>>>> through Newton's First Law).
>>>>>
>>>>> So the aether in it's normal condition, can't possess mass or we're
>>>>> headed for the sun (unless the epola mechanism really DOES work).
>>>>>
>>>>> For me, the vehicular mechanism of the forces delivers a magnitude of
>>>>> force dependent on the inertial mass backing that force. Zero mass
>>>>> entities that may put out the strongest of mechanisms will not deliver
>>>>> momentum and will simply be blown away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I being too simplistic?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
>>>>> To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David
>>>>> Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
>>>>> epola@tiscali.co.uk; 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 04, 2006 1:44 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Ian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say below: "I believe that there will always be a drag from the
>>>>>> 'aether' if the
>>>>>>> 'particles' of the 'aether' possess mass, be it solid-like,
>>>>>>> liquid-like or gas-like. When there's mass, there's always going to
>>>>>>> be momentum transfer."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Newton's 1st law is a statement based on observations, that no drag
>>>>>> is observed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electromagnetic radiation delivers momentum even though it goes at
>>>>>> speed c and has no rest mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can't cause drag, because it can't be speeded up, so it can't
>>>>>> carry away energy like gas or other fluid molecules which have mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where there is no mechanism, things are impossible. There is no
>>>>>> mechanism for drag from exchange radiation, so it can't occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>> Nigel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au
>>>>>> To: "Nigel B. Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
>>>>>> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
>>>>>> epola@tiscali.co.uk; 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, June 27, 2006 7:18 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Nigel,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "At the same time, the pressure on the front of the submarine causes
>>>>>>> it to contract lengthways, leaving transverse dimensions
>>>>>>> unaffected." NC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This pressure differential may explain length contraction BUT would
>>>>>>> have to contribute to a drag force (leaving out potential viscosity
>>>>>>> which you discount below by saying "....binding of the fluid
>>>>>>> spacetime fabric is not like at atome or molecule based fluid.").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe that there will always be a drag from the 'aether' if the
>>>>>>> 'particles' of the 'aether' possess mass, be it solid-like,
>>>>>>> liquid-like or gas-like. When there's mass, there's always going to
>>>>>>> be momentum transfer. Guy disputes this by saying that the net force
>>>>>>> is zero as the epo's upstream force on a guest will always be
>>>>>>> exactly balanced by an opposite downstream force on the guest (is
>>>>>>> that right Guy?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that Arden would agree with me on this point (is that right
>>>>>>> Arden?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Nigel B. Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
>>>>>>> To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David
>>>>>>> Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
>>>>>>> epola@tiscali.co.uk; 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, June 26, 2006 8:14 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: The Magnetosphere
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The solar wind to avoid drag is wrong, because it focusses on
>>>>>>>> orbits and
>>>>>>>> ignores the similar but more simple case of uniform motion. Why
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> consider Newton's 1st law, inertia? Why does a body continue
>>>>>>>> moving in a
>>>>>>>> straight line without coming to rest in a vacuum full of particles
>>>>>>>> (spacetime fabric/aether)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The aether causes Fitzgerald contraction in the direction of motion
>>>>>>>> and mass
>>>>>>>> increase, not drag. If you look at physically how drag occurs in
>>>>>>>> fluids,
>>>>>>>> when a submarine moves, a shell of water at the front of the
>>>>>>>> submarine is
>>>>>>>> effectively associated with the submarine (bouncing off the front
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> producing an effective static water-to-moving water interface which
>>>>>>>> is ahead
>>>>>>>> of the actual submarine surface), so the mass of that water layer
>>>>>>>> adds to
>>>>>>>> the effective inertial mass of the submarine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hence when the submarine is in motion, its inertial mass increases
>>>>>>>> due to
>>>>>>>> the association of some surrounding fluid with it. The faster it
>>>>>>>> goes, the
>>>>>>>> bigger the snowplow effect is, so the inertial mass increases.
>>>>>>>> This is the
>>>>>>>> mechanism of the mass increase in so-called "relativity".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the same time, the pressure on the front of the submarine causes
>>>>>>>> it to
>>>>>>>> contract lengthways, leaving transverse dimensions unaffected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't get continuous drag because the binding of the fluid
>>>>>>>> spacetime
>>>>>>>> fabric is not like at atom or molecule based fluid. Drag only
>>>>>>>> occurs
>>>>>>>> because you are dumping energy into the fluid, heating it and
>>>>>>>> inducing
>>>>>>>> turbulence in your wake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct model of the structure of the vacuum must address (1)
>>>>>>>> the energy
>>>>>>>> needed to accelerate a body to a given speed, and (2) the lack of
>>>>>>>> energy
>>>>>>>> needed to sustain motion. To accelerate a body in a vacuum, the
>>>>>>>> energy you
>>>>>>>> put into it is used for/stored as length compression and mass
>>>>>>>> increase.
>>>>>>>> Once moving at velocity v, it continues (unless deflected or
>>>>>>>> accelerated by
>>>>>>>> an external force field) at v indefinitely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly an equilibrium exists, and once the contraction and mass
>>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>>> occurs, the energy exchange with the surroundings is in
>>>>>>>> equilibrium. The
>>>>>>>> energy lost from the front of the particle is restored behind it.
>>>>>>>> (Aristotle's arrow mechanism, applied to a fundamental particle.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nigel

 
At 12:26 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; forrestb@ix.netcom.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com; geoffrey.landis@sff.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; ivor@ivorcatt.com; ernest@cooleys.net; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: Catt is a carbon copy of Josephson

Catt gate crashed on Josephson after I emailed Josephson while at Glos. University.

Because Catt refused to co-author an article with me for Electronics World (he didn't want the real world to intrude into his fairy land-type electromagnetism), I asked Josephson in 2003 to co-author the article. I asked very politely, too.

Josephson emailed back what seemed like sneering abuse (all he wrote was that his tuition charges are beyond my means, which is kinda absurd since he didn't know what my means were, unless he assumed that everyone at Glos. University is poor).

I emailed him again politely, thanking him for the joke, pointing out that he will be paid for his share of co-authorship. This would have made things
far easier for Phil Reed as editor, with Josephson as a co-author. He then sent me a second email, saying something to the effect that he didn't write
trash. I eventually, under a lot of stress with many commitments and pressures, flipped and pointed out that he wasn't helping the world as a Nobel Laureate by publishing ****...*** about mathematical skills coming
from a paranormal "mental vacuum state" on physics preprint server
arXiv.org, which was censoring my physics paper since 2002:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012

Physics, abstract
physics/0312012
From: Brian D. Josephson [view email]
Date (v1): Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:47:29 GMT (7kb)
Date (revised v2): Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:15:12 GMT (7kb)
Date (revised v3): Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:25:38 GMT (8kb)
String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal
Authors: Brian D. Josephson
Comments: 20KB HTML file. To appear in the Proceedings of the Second
European Samueli Symposium, Freiburg, October 2003. In this version minor
errors have been corrected, and a concluding comment added concerning
classification. Keywords: ESP, string theory, anthropic principle, thought
bubble, universal mind, mental state
Subj-class: General Physics

"A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special 'mental vacuum state', whose origin is
explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a
state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared 'thought bubbles' generated by the participants out of the mental
vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to 'rule out' the possible existence of paranormal phenomena."


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com
To: ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com;
jvospost2@yahoo.com; forrestb@ix.netcom.com;
nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com; geoffrey.landis@sff.net;
andrewpost@gmail.com; ivor@ivorcatt.com; ernest@cooleys.net;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:08 PM
Subject: The Catt Question


> Dear Ivor,
> I don't really believe that we (the electron-positron brigade)
> are responsible for allowing Prof. Josephson to escape.
>
> Prof. Josephson was not for turning. I had a few interchanges
> with him. Ian put him on the spot with a few posers designed to expose
> Einstein's theories of relativity. Josephson responded with politician
> style answers and then said farewell to everybody.
>
> As regards the Catt question, he was basically a
> 'textboookist', although he did concede to me that the finer details of
> what exactly is going on inside the plates of a capacitor still remains an
> unresolved issue.
>
> I really don't believe that anyone was finding themselves
> under any pressure as regards the Catt Question. The issue in question is
> not wide enough to have any major impact on any syllabus or curriculum. It
> is a skirted over issue, as are thousands of unresolved issues in all
> scientific subjects. Quite honestly, its just not sensational enough. You
> build it up big on your web sites. People have to spend quite a bit of
> effort before they actually find out what the question is. When they do
> finally find out, it is a huge anti-climax. They read what Pepper says and
> what McEwan says, and they just loose interest immediately. The reason
> that it isn't interesting is because everybody knows that nobody knows
> what exactly is going on inside matter. And so they don't even have the
> energy to even investigate how Pepper's answer differs from McEwan's
> answer.
>
> You are basically trying to raise an alarm regarding some uncertainties
> surrounding matters which all scientists already know are very uncertain.
> My guess is that within all disciplines, the experts disgree over the
> finer details of certain issues.
>
> It is too specialized to be such as to bring about a
> major rift.
>
> I really think that you need to ask yourself why
> J= -dE/dt, albeit only mathematics, just happens to fit into the
> derivation of the EM wave equation so perfectly.
>
> Yours sincerely
> David Tombe
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "ivor catt" ivorcatt@electromagnetisn.demon.co.uk
> To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk,"David Tombe"
> sirius184@hotmail.com,ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk, imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au,Monitek@aol.com,jvospost2@yahoo.com,forrestb@ix.netcom.com,nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
> CC:
> marinsek@aon.at, pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au, graham@megaquebec.net, jackw97224@yahoo.com, geoffrey.landis@sff.net, andrewpost@gmail.com, ivor@ivorcatt.com, ernest@cooleys.net, george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov, tom@tomspace.com
> Subject: Re: The Original Question
> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 08:54:50 +0100
>
> "It wasn't particularly the 'Catt Question' which began this debate." -
> Tombe
> When you used the word "debate" very early on I immediately objected.
> You gate-crashed a major problem, which is that Pepper et al contradict
> Josephson et. al., and they have to resolve their differences or tell
> students that there is uncertainty at the base of Establishment
> Electromagnetic Theory.
> The noise you have generated gives them cover to avoid their clear
> responsibilities.
> Your and my theories have nothing to do with the problem.
> I shall not repeat this again to you. I have said it many many times.
> You are spamming a major problem with your own theories. The problem is
> not one of theory, but of contradiction withing the scientific
> Establishment.
> Ivor Catt

 
At 1:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CENSORSHIP

There is a problem with not having authority in science if the mainstream is saturated with nonsense like extra dimensional string theory and the paranormal.

This is because, once the mainstream throws checkability out of the window, it has to rely on the authority of the author as the deciding point. I think Dr Peter Woit first made this point lucidly on NOT EVEN WRONG weblog: in the absence of experimental evidence for a mainstream theory, it becomes a kind of religion, which can’t dismiss rivals scientifically, but instead uses “might is right” philosophy to beat up its rivals not using evidence (there is none for string theory) but “so many people can't all be wrong.”

This reminds you of the 1930s Nazi book attacking Jewish Einstein’s work, which was called “100 Authors Against Einstein”. Einstein responded: “If they were right, one author would have been enough.” Of course, Einstein had the benefit of mainstream credibility outside Germany. If someone who is being censored by the mainstream says the same thing now as Einstein said then, nobody listens. Hence, Einstein's argument presupposes that the person saying it has the authority to make others bow in awe and report it as being genius.

If the guy is already famous, the media will report his reaction in bigger headlines than the sneer. If the person is not famous, then having a book come out called “100 Authors Against Obscure Innovator” will do in the chances of the Obscure Innovator, because the press won’t have any vested sympathy and won’t try to understand if there is any substance at all in what the “100 Authors” are saying.

It is exactly like the case of asking a pretty girl out. If you are ugly and homeless, she will take it as an insult that you think you have any chance of her saying OK. However, people good looking with good prospects will receive a kinder reply. The girl is unable to behave otherwise, her response is instinctive like a machine or a computer, not a kindly human reaction based on trying to be nice to people. At the end of the day, being nice is something women reserve for those who have it all, not for people in need. Jesus is fashionable for His utility function, not for the deep message. Being without money he is in the category “loser” as far as women are concerned. Women are as bitter about offers from men hey consider below them as string theorists are of “alternative” ideas from others.

Of course, this is complete heresy, and people can easily sneer from the comfort of their armchairs, and falsely say that I’m misguided. Mark on Cosmic Variance would blow his top and say I’m the one who is bitter. Not so. I’m not bitter. Look at all the killing going on, all the wars going on in the world, the terrorism, the evil, and string hype. They are the bitter ones. There ARE REAL PROBLEMS IN HUMAN NATURE, INCLUDING GROUP THINK IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS. I’m not bitter for pointing out evidence of that. If they changed their ways and admitted that they had no evidence for any extra dimensional hype, and if Witten withdrew his 1996 Physics Today assertion that string theory has the “remarkable property of predicting gravity” (it doesn’t), then I’d change my tone instantly. So I’m not the one who is bitter, I’m merely commenting on the factual evidence that the mainstream in physics is populated and run by bitter people. I hope they will moderate their claims, and if they do I’ll report that they have ceased acting unprofessionally and bitterly towards people with real physics.

The whole episode of being censored for a decade tells you a lot about human reactions to heresy in this modern time. The time scale to radically evolve human beings is tens of thousands of years. Modern humans emerged over the ten thousand years (the holocene) since the last ice age.

Is there enough time genetically for human approaches to heresy to have evolved in the past five centuries since Copernicus argued that the earth spins daily and orbits the sun annually, instead of the sun orbiting the earth daily?

Genetically the intelligence of people alive now is similar to that five centuries ago. The idea that massive errors are a thing only of history is just a fraud.

Errors that have occurred before will go on occurring unless there is a mechanism to avert them. There is no such mechanism in extra dimensional string theory.

Nigel

 
At 6:30 AM, Blogger nige said...

Copy of new comment to Peter Woit's blog, in case deleted due to censorship:


http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427#comment-13266

nigel cook Says:

July 8th, 2006 at 9:23 am

“You have no idea whether or not it’s possible to get generic predictions out of the [string theory] landscape of vacua and neither do I.” - Aaron Bergman

Exactly! It isn’t science. So why are people working on it?

“I can’t do this again, as it is just. so. boring.” - Clifford Johnson

Yes, but that’s string theory! No physical predictions, nothing.

 
At 10:15 AM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; forrestb@ix.netcom.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com; geoffrey.landis@sff.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; ernest@cooleys.net; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: The Hollow sphere

If you look at my site, the shielding area for any fundamental mass say an electron is the the cross sectional area of the event horizon of a black hole. The black hole radius for an electron is far smaller than the Planck
length (which outside string theory metaphysics has no meaning). This means that there is negligible net attenuation by the entire mass of the earth.
It is because of the negligible shielding area that gravity is so weak compared to other fundamental forces.

Gravity is weak because despite the force pushing in of F = ma = mdv/dt = mc/t = mcH = 10^43 Newtons, gravity results from asymmetries caused by tiny
shielding areas of black hole electrons, etc. The accuracy of the proof is about 2% for predicting G. See http://feynman137.tripod.com/ and
particularly the parts http://feynman137.tripod.com/#a and http://feynman137.tripod.com/#h

What you have is an immense all round inward force of 10^43 N. A mass has a tiny shielding area. Gravity causing radiation is extremely penetrating because the cross-sectional shielding areas for masses are so small.
Gravity is the result of a tiny disturbance in the normal equilibrium of radiation exchange between masses.

Nigel


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com
To: epola@tiscali.co.uk; nigelbryancook@hotmail.com;
forrestb@ix.netcom.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
Monitek@aol.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com; geoffrey.landis@sff.net;
andrewpost@gmail.com; ernest@cooleys.net; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov;
tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: The Hollow sphere


> Dear Guy,
> I should have emphasized the fact that a hollow shell doesn't
> cause gravity inside it, but it is certainly not acting as a shield for
> the gravity generated by large bodies nearby. The 'stuff' flowing into the
> Earth will flow right through the hollow sphere.
> Yours sincerely
> David Tombe
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
> To: "David Tombe"
> sirius184@hotmail.com, nigelbryancook@hotmail.com, forrestb@ix.netcom.com, imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au, Monitek@aol.com, jvospost2@yahoo.com
> CC:
> marinsek@aon.at, pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au, graham@megaquebec.net, jackw97224@yahoo.com, geoffrey.landis@sff.net, andrewpost@gmail.com, ernest@cooleys.net, george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov, tom@tomspace.com
> Subject: Re: Gravity is Negative Electricity
> Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 10:27:30 +0100
>
> Dear David
>
> Please would you quote some examples from 'a lot of alternative evidence'
> for mutually attracting negative charges. I am not aware of this
> occurrence.
>
> Also, for an inflow theory you should explain the consequences of your
> theory applied to the inside of a hollow sphere, will the gravity be less
> or more at the hollow centre of a dense hollow sphere (than at the inner
> or outer surfaces of the shell).
>
> Best regards, Guy
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com
> To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; forrestb@ix.netcom.com;
> epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
> Monitek@aol.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com
> Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
> graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com;
> geoffrey.landis@sff.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; ernest@cooleys.net;
> george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:07 PM
> Subject: Gravity is Negative Electricity
>
>
>>Dear Nigel,
>> Regarding those objections which you raised below, only
>> about two weeks ago, I'd have been the very first person to have raised
>> those exact same objections.
>>
>> I often criticised people who tried to link gravity and
>> electrostatics into the same aether, with that very point. Ie.
>> Electrostatics is dipolar, and gravity is monopolar. More specifically, I
>> used to point out how gravity is mutually attractive, whereas
>> electrostatic like poles are mutually repulsive.
>>
>> That's why I used to advocate two aethers. (I
>> might still be forced to do so, if I'm proved wrong on this point)
>>
>> The reason that I have changed is because
>> there now exists two bodies of conflicting evidence.
>>
>> (a) Many basic experiments in surface
>> electricity, involving gold leaf electroscopes, appear to demonstrate
>> that negative charges repel.
>>
>> (b) There exists alot of alternative evidence
>> elsewhere to suggest that negative charges attract.
>>
>> As regards your question of scale, gravity has only ever been measured
>> in massive bodies. I'll bet you that all massive bodies in our immediate
>> corner of the universe have got a net negative charge, and that gravity
>> is simply negative electricity. I'll bet you that gravitational charge
>> (or gravitation mass if you prefer) is simply the surplus of negative
>> charge over positive charge, and that inertial mass is the total of the
>> modulus of the charges of all the elementary particles making up a body.
>>
>> I'll bet that g and E are exactly the same thing, except that
>> one uses one system of units and applies to massive bodies in which
>> charge to mass ratios can't be properly compared, whereas the other
>> applies on a smaller scale and so acceleration is multiplied by charge to
>> mass ratio, and a different set of units is used.
>>
>> Yours sincerely
>> David Tombe

 
At 3:33 PM, Blogger nige said...

THE "FINE ART" OF INSULTING

If your attacker is over-the-top you laugh and her or his assault backfires! If the insult is too subtle, you may not even realise it is designed to cause offense.

Hence your insulter must be careful to get it just right.

How does insult work? Why can't people laugh off 100% of insults?

I had a lot of this when a kid with a speech defect. You get mimicked. You can laugh it off and do for a long time. But (1) it continues and builds up as a form of harrassment against you, and (2) if you laugh you annoy the mimickers so much they try physical attacks, which - because you are outnumbered say 10 to 1 - does result in physical injury to you. So you can't reflect insults back on a gang by laughing at them without getting serious problems.

What you have to do is put up with it without provoking too many fights, in other words you are coerced into being quiet and keeping your head down.

At the same time, you tend to develop a healthy loathing for the group think and authority led consensus which leads to gang behaviour.

Why do people need to fit in to groups and obey a leader who may be egotistical and fallible? Winston Churchill famously mixed up the work of fighting the war with his own political ego. In 1945 after the war was won, Churchill lost the general election. He complained that people weren't grateful.

There is no better example of egotism or of democracy in action, particularly since Churchill was later re-elected and again became Prime Minister in 1951.

Nobody except Churchill and his most religious supporters confused personal gratitude with political party loyalty. The majority clearly wanted a different leadership for peace, and preferred the objectives set out by Churchill's opposition, led by the brilliant Clement Attlee.

But you can understand from Churchill's point of view that it was a strange event. To be thrown out of office after winning the war was incredible. But it was not a personal snub, and the people who woted for a new leadership were the ones who had defeated Hitler. It was not a single handed Churchill who had won the war. The votes were cast by people who had been at the receiving end of a lot. In this context, Churchill's own personal ego was not sufficient reason for chaining up the loyalties of millions of people for five years of peace following the war.

I think there is a lot to be learned from human nature by studying election results of this kind. Group-think is a key to understanding how people choose their identities.

Stereotyping is extremely important to group-think. We have all met the sort of person who immediately tries to stereotype you. They do this by a short list of questions, and think that the answers tell them exactly what your personality and value is as measured in terms of either $ or £.

This stereotyping brings us back to the subject of insulting.

Stereotyping is the perfect way to sneer at someone under cover of "understanding" them via a simplistic categorization. There is really no better way to insult than this!

If someone doesn't speak properly, they are stupid. So beautifully simple!

If someone is of a particular ethnic origin, then stereotyping them on that basis is a perfect insult, because normal people are not clones.

Individuality is the opposite of consensus and fashion following.

It is curious that individually different people are insulted by stereotyping. You would think that stereotyping can only be used to insult consensus and fashion following. How can stereotyping insult individualism? As stated, it does so because it is a falsehood.

The ignorant group-think loving sneerers are the only true to form stereotype in the world. Those who sneer at others, based on their own ignorance of the correct facts, in the process stereotype themselves as sneerers.

But they are fairly powerful. They have enough success to possess large egos. One road to success is to trample down others.

Let's be really heretical now, and consider just exactly what the mechanism is by which prejudice inflicts insults.

Why should person of X community be insulted by being called an "X-er"? Why does X not laugh? Or ignore it?

Well it is group-think. If you call the person an "X-er", you are stereotyping the person. If everyone is doing the same thing, it gradually becomes a problem.

The person being called an X-er will have a certain tolerance level, but enough is enough. Irritation repeated enough - even if by a different person each time - becomes a form of abuse or torture.

The fact that stereotyping is done by so many different people will eventually denigrate the person of community X into reduced individuality. Instead of being a person, they will become a clone statistic.

I'm interested in how insults are spread. Why do people take certain statements as insults? Has psychology advanced to the stage where a formula for insult could be programmed into a computer, which would be able to detect one? What is a sneer?

A sneer is a simple insult expressing contempt for someone. Can it be defined in such a way that a computer could detect it?

Why does anyone get denigrated by sneers?

Well, the answer seems to be that insulting is a complex human invention based upon stereotype understanding.

Suppose you issue a racist remark. You are relying on the fact that the person hearing the remark does NOT find it original. You are relying on the stereotyping idea that the person will have heard similar remarks before MANY TIMES, always in unpleasant circumstances, from hostile and unpleasant people. The person receiving the sneering, stereotyping remark feels uncomfortable precisely because of the ASSOCIATION with memories of all the previous abuse it brings up.

Hence, the reason why people do issue sneers and stereotyping insults is probably not in the hope that they are saying something original. Quite the contrary.

The sneers and stereotyping is designed to mimic what many other people will have probably said to the minority person before. It brings memories of irritation.

To issue an insult effectively by stereotyping a stranger, you are stereotyping yourself as a member of a group representing everyone the stranger has had trouble from.

That's quite an accomplishment. So you need to feel really proud of what you are doing, and pat yourself on your back. Maybe eat an extra dollop of swill as a treat to yourself. Enjoy yourself!

 
At 4:42 AM, Blogger nige said...

Copy of a comment:

http://meopemuk2.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-there-observable-of-time.html

nigel said...
Look as the physics of Maxwell's displacement current, which is supposed to flow across the vacuum between two capacitor plates while the capacitor charges up.

This is very similar mathematically and identical physically (http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html) to the Dira equation. Clearly the wavefunction in quantum field theory is related to electromagnetic fields in a simple way:

The time dependent Schroedinger equation and the Dirac equation both state that energy flow (described by the Hamiltonian) is directly proportional to the rate of change of the wavefunction. OK the Dirac equation is relativistic and uses a more complex form of the Hamiltonian than Schroedinger's, but that is because of spin and relativity effects.

For Schroedinger's time-dependent equation, the basic solution is an exponential law:

[Wavefunction_t] = [Wavefunction_0].exp[-2Pi.iH(t – t_0)/h]

This is similar to what Maxwell's "displacement current" law says, which states that the current (which at constant voltage measures energy delivery rate, since power P = VI) is:

I = [permittivity of space].dE/dt

where E is electric field (volts/metre).

Or in older electrical units,

I = dD/dt where D is "displacement" defined as [permittivity].E.

The solution is again an exponential, just as in the case of Schroedinger's equation:

I_t = i_0.exp(-xt/[permittivity].R). = i_0.exp[-t/ (RC)]

where x is distance, R resistance, and C capacitance.

So all you have to do to grasp Schroedinger's time-dependent equation is to recognise it as a form of the "displacement current" law in Maxwell's equations.

The physics of atom is a type of capacitor, because you have separated positive and negative charge in the vacuum.

Look at the atom that way, and you start to get ideas about what quantum mechanics means. The energy levels are discrete in quantum mechanics because the atom-capacitor simply can't steadily charge up or discharge.

In a large capacitor, the amount of charge in it is always a discrete, integer number of electrons. The charge does not vary continuously.

Hence Maxwell's law i = dD/dt leading to a total charge which rises continuously is a lie.

The true amount of charge in the capacitor at any time is an integer number of electons.

It is so obvious, it is absurd that nobody notices that Maxwell's displacement current law is a continuous approximation for a stepwise curve.

The stepwise curve will of course give the solution to the problem why an atom - seen as capacitor - is unable to radiate energy continuously, so the electron doesn't spiral into the nucleus.

The flaw in the classical theory is that Maxwell's added term is a lie: his equation implies a smooth line on a graph for increasing charge, when the reality must be a quantized into fundamental charges. Statistically, Maxwell's displacement current term is fine while you are dealing with large numbers of electrons.

But it breaks down and totally fails when you take it to the extreme limit of treating an atom as a capacitor.

It is the same situation in radioactivity, where the statistical law is an exponential decay curve.

But the real curve is going to be a downward staircase of steps, representing the true number of radioactive (undecayed) atoms remaining at any given time. For a large number of atoms, the exponential curve is fine.

Yet for individual atoms it is totally insane to try to apply the statistical average!

The key thing is to try to change quantum mechanics and quantum field theory so that these don't produce continuously-variable statistical average like exponential solutions, but produce instead discrete predictions.

I thought (possibly wrongly) that I was on to this when I found Catt's paper "proving" that capacitors charge in a stepwise way and that the Maxwellian exponential law is just a statistical approximation:

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

The problem is that Catt uses Heaviside's step (discontinuity) for an electric current entering a capacitor. Because the voltage in Heaviside's step is zero before the step arrives, instantly jumps to v volts at step arrival, and afterwards is constant v volts, there is no displacement current possible at all:

(1) displacement current dD/dt = 0 when voltage is not varying with time (the flat topped portion of the energy current), hence no displacement current.

(2) displacement current dD/dt = dD/0 = mathematically undefined (infinity?) at the logic step (vertical rise).

Catt won't respond to this as it implies that the Heaviside step is not correct. Clearly from practical observation we know that no electric current pulse rises instantly to its peak value. There is a rise time in reality.

This rise time means that the Heaviside step is not true and displacement current is not infinite for a zero time when the energy arrives at a given location.

I'm not confident that Catt's treatment of the capacitor has any validity for the atom as capacitor.

The reality must be deeper still.

Only the net displacement current is considered by Maxwell's equations.

The reality is that if charges spin, the centripetal acceleration of charges makes them continuously exchange energy by "displacement current". There is no net displacement current, simply because the displacement currents are in equilibrium normally.

This means that the Yang-Mills exchange radiation for force fields in electromagnetism is identical to the background of "displacement currents".

I think this explains the complex properties of light seen in the double slit experiments etc. Maxwell's treatment of light is far too simplistic to explain it. Light is a propagating transverse disturbance in the already existing field of "displacement current" radiation.

When a charge is accelerated, its length contracts in the direction of motion as its velocity increases (Lorentz transformation). The physics of this must be understood in terms of Yang-Mills exchange radiation.

Is the charge being compressed by increased radiation pressure head-on in the vacuum? That seems likely. Is energy stored in the electron's electric field compression? The mass increases with velocity. I can't understand why people prefer the abstract maths of relativity to trying to understand it physically in terms of what is causing contractions, etc.

How can they call themselves physicists if they aren't interested in the physical dynamics?

How can they be sure that causality reached the end of the road when Bohr said so in 1927?

Physics is full of mathematicians who sneer at anything causal. They don't seem to want to understand things, just to preach that understanding is not impossible or unproductive. They offer no evidence or proof of such assertions, just evidence that there are difficulties to be overcome.

It is extremely sad that string theory has really wrecked any hope of progress. In the 1980s, things were slipping but there was still hope because physics had not been completely mixed with science fantasy. With string theory using Hollywood to hype and sell totally speculative theories as facts, there is no hope that any paper anyone writes about string being nonsense will be taken seriously.

4:38 AM

9 July 06

 
At 5:26 AM, Blogger nige said...

http://meopemuk2.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-interference-quantum-effect.html

nigel said...

Maxwell's classical light model is not physics.

See Maxwell stuff, crackpot gearcog and idler wheel models made in 1861 to "predict" that light speed is the square root of two electromagnetic constants, a fact Maxwell already knew because Weber had discovered it empirically in 1856. None of Maxwell's derivations for electromagnetism have stood the test of time, and even his equations are wrong because he sets up continuous differential equations to represent fields and energy flows, when the reality is quantum (photons, [and] discrete units of charge).

Maxwell's greatest prediction, made in an Encyclopedia Britannica article, was that the velocity of light is absolute. This prompted the Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to detect absolute motion in a Maxwellian aether. Einstein credits Maxwell with an invariant velocity of light by ignoring Maxwell's model and focussing on the Heaviside vector equations which are now falsely called "Maxwell's equations".

The worst part of Maxwell is his illustration of a light ray in one dimension (direction of propagation) with two orthagonal axes representing electric field and magnetic field.

This is a longitudinal wave, not a transverse wave. Nothing is shown as varying transversely to the propagation direction, as the two orthagonal axes depict not transverse oscillations but just field strength variations along the propagation direction.

(Most people glancing at the diagram automatically mis-understand it to be a plot of light waving in three space dimensions, not merely one.)

As for the Young double slit experiment, focus on what happens at the dark fringes.

Young is wrong, because he claimed two light rays land out of phase at the dark fringes, thereby somehow "cancelling out".

Aside from the fact that the experiment works with individual photons and not merely with large numbers on the statistical average, Young's claim would violate the conservation of energy!

What is physically happening in the double slit experiment is clear when you remember that the slits have to be close together, and that it still works when you fire one photon at a time. The photons are complex transverse propagating waves in the background field of Yang-Mills exchange radiation in space and some of the transverse component from a single photon is able to enter each slit if the slits are close together. Hence interference.

I know a lot about fields "cancelling out", white noise, etc. The late Dr Lynch who was a leading expert on microwave signal beaming showed vey simply that although you can pass electromagnetic radiation through itself in opposite directions and cancel out the observable electric and magnetic fields perfectly, the energy is still there.

All that happens is that the superimposed field strength is zero, which is different from having nothing.

Think of it like this: if you have are $1 in debt and have $1 in your pocket, you are in a different situation PHYSICALLY from simply having $0 debt and $0 cash.

A simple mathematical answer does not always automatically reflect the underlying physics, which may be more complex.

5:17 AM

9 July 06

 
At 5:58 AM, Blogger nige said...

Copy of a comment:

http://meopemuk2.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-we-can-improve-qft.html

nigel said...

Improve it by finding a full causal dynamics representation for the best verified quantum field theory, the Yang-Mills Standard Model!

For example, the exchange radiation causing forces should be quantified and represented by a dynamic model.

The physical reasons for the renormalization cutoffs required should be explained in causal terms by a model which can then itself be checked via making predictions that can be tested.

The key thing about renormalization is that the polarized vacuum around a particle cancels out most of the core charge, but not all of it.

Why doesn't the vacuum polarize enough to completely cancel out charges?

I don't think the creation-annihilation operators are clearly understood in quantum field theory.

What seems to be the case is that the strong field near a charge actually cause the virtual vacuum charges, as well as polarizing them. Because of the way the abundance of virtual charges in the vacuum falls off with distance from the real charge core, there is a limit to the amount of cancelation by polarization, so some charge continues to be seen even at long distances.

This is different from Dirac's sea, in which the entire vacuum is full of virtual charge.

So I think renormalized QFT indicates that the virtual charges of the vacuum are confined very close to the real charges, and don't extend everywhere.

This brings up the electroweak symmetry breaking problem. As I understand it, at low energy the vacuum attenuates 3 out of the 4 electroweak gauge bosons, by giving them mass (W+, Z-, Zo).

The mass breaks the symmetry, since the photon is a massless version of the Zo. This indicates that the Zo is a very important particle to study, being the massive partner of the photon.

Above electroweak unification energy, the mass causing agent (Higgs field?) dissociates from the electroweak gauge bosons, so symmetry is restored and all the gauge bosons then have infinite range.

Physically what this means is that, at high energy, things interact with a massive energy compared to the binding energy between charges and masses (Higgs particles or whatever).

Hence, the masses cease to dominate the electroweak charged gauge bosons.

Again, this raises the question what happens to the neutral but massive gauge boson Zo?

That is the key to everything. Why does it have mass?

If you look at its mass, it is very interesting. Multiply Zo mass by alpha/(2Pi), and you get 105.7 MeV, the muon mass.

Multiply Zo mass by (alpha)^2 /(2Pi) and you get 0.51 MeV, electron mass.

Finally, multiply Zo mass by n(N+1)(alpha)/(6Pi), where n is the number of real charges in close proximity (sharing the same electroweak polarized vacuum veil, eg n = 1 for leptons, n = 3 quarks for nucleons) and N is an integer.

This formula predicts quantized masses of all particles! You can test statistically and find that the data fits this formula well.

For the QFT physical mechanism behind these formula see:

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-polarization-of-vacuum-and.html

5:55 AM

9 July 06

 
At 6:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Copy of comment

Anonymous said...
http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=64

"http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011064 on page 3 shows how the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction formula for gamma can result from head-on pressure when a charge is moving in the Dirac sea [or Yang-Mills exchange-radiation filled] vacuum, quoting C. F. Frank, 'On the Equations of Motion of Crystal Dislocations', Proceedings of the Physical Society of London, Society London A 62 (1949), 131–134. ...

"Mario also has the interesting paper http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0412/0412101.pdf which an interesting discussion of how you can get a heuristic understanding of general relativity:

" 'Friedwardt Winterberg (2002) presented a simple heuristic
derivation of the Schwarzschild metric. Even though it is not rigorous, it
does provide insight into eq. (2.1) in terms of Newtonian gravity (NG) and
special relativity. It is presented here with some minor additions.'

"You equate kinetic energy of a falling object with the gravitational potential energy gained, and that gives you a relationship between the square of the velocity, ie v^2, and gravity:

"v^2 = 2GM/r.

"You then stick that equivalence into the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction of special relativity and you get the gravitational contraction factor,

"gamma = (1 - v^2 / c^2)^1/2 = [1 - 2GM/(rc^2)]^1/2

"Placed into the special relativity metric for contraction of distance by gravity, this gives you the Schwarzschild (1916) solution to the Einstein-Hilbert field equation.

"Plus, (see http://feynman137.tripod.com/ which is independent of Winterberg's earlier work) by using the binomial expansion on the gravitational contraction you get

"gamma = [1 - 2GM/(rc^2)]^1/2 = 1 – GM/(rc^2) + ...,

"So the spacetime around mass M is contracted approximately by the fraction GM/(rc^2), assuming that the gravitational field only operates in a single direction (like the contraction of special relativity). Because of the linkage of time and distance in spacetime, the contraction of distance automatically causes an identical-factor reduction in the speed of clocks locally, gravitational time-dilation.

"To see the contraction of Earth's radius, we need to multiply this fraction to Earth's radius, and to allow for the contraction to be spread over three orthagonal directions, which reduces the average contraction to 1/3 rd of that assuming only one dimension is contracted.

"Hence, contraction of Earth's radius = GM/(3c^2) = 1.5 millimetres,

"which agrees with Richard P. Feynman's finding in equation 42.3 of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 42, page 6.

"So I think general relativity can be understood in terms of very simple ideas. This contraction is what you would expect if exchange radiation (gauge bosons) cause forces by physical pressure acting at the fundamental particle level. Things get squeezed a bit by the spacetime fabric, gauge boson exchange radiation (or whatever the spacetime fabric)."

6:07 AM

 
At 6:29 AM, Blogger nige said...

http://meopemuk2.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-is-qft.html

nigel said...
I don't agree with Weinberg's point 1.

Lorentz invariance for the Hamiltonian doesn't give the a sef consistent equation. You have to modify Lorentz invariance to get the Dirac equation.

The Lorentz Hamiltonian is

H = [(mc2)^2 + p^2c^2]^2,

Dirac's is:

H = apc + bmc^2,

which is totally different to the Lorentz/special relativity trash.

6:19 AM


nigel said...
Although the Klein-Gordon equation is reconciled with the Lorentz/special relativity formula above, it only deals with second order variation of the wavefunction.

This is why I get infuriated by Lubos Motl claiming that QFT is the unification of SR and QM. It isn't.

In addition to the fact SR doesn't work in QFT (proved by the fact Dirac's Hamiltonian is so different from that predicted by SR), QFT also has a vacuum with properties which SR dismisses.

Of the next five quotations disproving SR, the first two were found by Dr Thomas Love and are taken from his paper Towards and Einsteinian Theory of Quantum Gravity:

‘... the law of the constancy of the velocity of light. But ... the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law. On the contrary, we arrived at the result according to this latter theory, the velocity of light must always depend on the coordinates when a gravitational field is present.’ - Albert Einstein, Relativity, The Special and General Theory, Henry Holt and Co., 1920, p111.

‘... the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified, since we easily recognise that the path of a ray of light ... must in general be curvilinear...’ - Albert Einstein, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, 1923, p114.

‘The special theory of relativity ... does not extend to non-uniform motion ... The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity... The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). ...’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, p23.

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.... The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

6:27 AM

 
At 3:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2006/06/string-theory.html

Knotted String said...

I read somewhere (I'm sorry I didn't save the hyperlink) that many years ago, at a Czech Republic university, a then obscure Lubos Motl uploaded a paper on string theory to arXix.org.

Edward Witten emailed Lubos encouragement a few hours later!

This is exactly what the arXiv is supposed to be about, speeding up the exchange of information and allowing researchers to cut through the traditional red tape.

It's just ironic that string theory is not actual science, and that arXiv.org now censors stuff on the basis of academic affiliation.

The Calabi-Yau 6-dimensional manifold added to 4 or 5 dimensional spacetime to achieve SUSY, is very abstract and intellectually Platonic mathematics.

Can I just ask how is it that it has a finite rather than infinite number of solutions? Surely the parameters of the Calabi-Yau manifold affecting the supersymmetry unification energy and thereby the vacuum energy and are not quantized, and a continuously variable parameter implies an infinite number of exact solutions for the vacuum energy?

I know the string is supposed to be able to resonate at a set of discrete frequencies to represent different particles (without being able to predict particle masses or anything), but I don't see how this can lead to 10^100 - 10^1000 vacuum states rather than any other range.

It all depends on what you want from a theory. If you think a purely abject, uncheckable, extra dimensional mathematical model is elegant then why choose M-theory?

Why not move back to the epicycles of Ptolemy. Every time the theory disagrees with observation, modify the theory by adding an extra epicycle. (Then defend it by saying that if the earth rotated, we'd feel it moving under our feet.)

In 1989 there was 12 part TV series "The Nuclear Age" made by Channel 4 in the UK in conjunction with American and Japanese TV companies.

One of Kennedy's advisers is interviewed and complained that science was becoming a "substitute for religion."

I thought that was over the top. But it makes more sense now. People do need some kind of faith and belief system in their lives, even scientists.

They have to believe in some kind of scientific method or ultimate objective. String theory is just more of Plato's beautiful and elegant theorizing. It is the most ideal type of religion you can possibly believe in, containing all the vital vagueness and lack of falsification which is vital to inspire widespread confidence.

When people genuinely believe in a religion, they are not sincere seekers of fact, but are in need of comfort. The key comfort provided by a religion like string is the lack of falsifiability.

If string theory was in danger of being falsified from one day to the next, it would not inspire any more confidence that that of any other "crackpot" theory.

The reason why it has shot to the top is precisely that it is secure, providing a community of researchers with the security they need in order to remain confident, hopeful and optimistic.

Religion is a collective paranoia and superstition which serves the utility function of insulating human life from the harsh realities of the universe. So it is entirely natural that religion should infiltrate high energy theoretical physics at its most vulnerable frontier point.

3:29 AM

 
At 5:04 AM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; 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 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

> 1. If charge is the exchange of gauge bosons radiating out of matter in
> all directions at light speed and keeping in mind the incredibly low
> matter volume to vacuum volume of the universe, why wouldn't have all the
> bosons disappeared over the last fourteen billion years (or is the
> universe surrounded by a huge reflecting sphere)? -Ian Montgomery


The gauge bosons haven't disappeared, they cause forces. The universe at
the furthest distances is expanding at light speed, which is the speed of
gauge bosons. So the percentage of gauge bosons confined to the universe is
100.0000...% What an amazingly accurate prediction, it is accurate to an
infinite number of decimals!!

> 2. The gauge bosons would all have to travel at c regardless of source
> velocity. How is this possible?

You claim they all have to travel at c and then ask me how is this possible.
My gravity calculation points out very clearly that there is zero
contribution of gauge boson radiation from the greatest distances. Whether
this is due to redshift (reduced energy) or to reduced relocity (because the
matter emitting it is moving away from us at nearly c), the mathematical
effect is the same: zero contribution.

The facts are: we see the universe further back in time with increasing
distance. This means that in our frame of reference, time past is linked to
apparent distance by the formula r = ct. Hence the variation in in Hubble's
observations v = Hr implies v = Hct, which is a variation in velocity as a
function of tme, i.e., an ACCELERATION from our frame of reference. Hence
outward force F = ma. The mass of the universe is known to be about 10^80
hydrogen atoms, and the acceleration a = dv/dt = Hc ~ 10^-10 ms^-2. Hence
force outward is ~10^43 N. By Newton's 3rd law, equal inward force causes
gravity, predicting G.

However, this description is just to give you the feel for the kind of
argument. The ten years of work I've done is far more detailed, including
two independent proofs using different mathematical approaches and input
facts as starting points, which both give the same result.

The key discovery after gravity was that the inward contributions to the
inward force from greater distances would become infinite if there was no
redshift (or possibly slowing down) of gauge bosons from extreme distances.
This is because of the increased density of the universe at earlier times,
when it was more compressed. Density falls off as the inverse-cube of time
as the universe expands. Hence, it shoots up towards infinity as you look
back to very early times. The reason why gravity contributins don't also
shoot up towards infinity, is because the gauge boson redshift (possibly
associated with slowing of gauge boson speeds), which reduces the strength
of contributions. From the very maximum distance where recession speed is
c, density is infinity but redshift of gauge boson energy reduces the energy
of gauge bosons to zero. Infinity times zero is zero. (The actual
calculations I've done are quite sophisticated, and in this email I'm just
giving a very brief idea of what is going on.)

There is a kind of paradox in the big bang, in that at the greatest
distances you see the least times after the big bang. You would expect the
universe to be smallest at the least times after the big bang, and for the
size to expand from being tiny initially (age t ~ 0) to enormous now (age t
~ 15 Gyr).

So how come when we see the biggest distances, we see the earliest times?
Officially the standard cosmology today is based on Alan Guth's "inflation"
theory which is the idea that the universe expanded exponentially at a rate
far higher than light speed when the vacuum was in a higher energy state
than the ground state, a fraction of a second after the big bang. This is
used to smooth out the density of the universe, making the model consistent
with the findings on the CBR that the CBR is very smooth and uniform, with
very little "seeding" for galaxy formation, at 300,000 years after the BB
when the CBR was emitted. However, my mechanism predicts the same
smoothness since it shows that gravity strength increases with time after
BB, so gravity was far weaker at 300,000 years after BB causing only small
density variations which cause only small ripples in the CBR, exactly as
observed. The variation of gravity is undetectable by other means, for
example the fusion rates in the BB would proceed as if gravity was the same
then as now, because fusion depends on gravity (attraction) offset by
electric repulsion of protons, the force of which varies with time just as
gravity. So the increased attraction for fusion is offset by increased
electric repulsion if gravity is higher, and vice-versa if gravity is weaker
(this disproves all the arguments against gravity varying which Professor
Sean Carroll has).

Although the absolute furthest expansion velocity in all directions is
limited to c, I've explained Einstein repudiated special relativity when he
was forced to create general relativity. Eddington points out that
according to general relativity, contraction is a physical explanation for
the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to measure absolute velocity
of light. The instrument gets shorter in absolute direction of motion in
space, so the light rays travelling in that direction have a shorter path,
which by geometry cancels out exactly the altered speed of light on that
path. So it is possible that light and gauge bosons emitted towards us by
distant receding matter is coming more slowly than c, although in practice
it would be virtually impossible to measure it. To measure the speed of CBR
microwaves you would need a long metal tube in space with fast acting
shutters at one end and a CBR detector at the other. By allowing the
shutters to admit a brief pulse you could time how long it takes to reach
the detector. This would resolve the issue.

It is not vital to my gravity mechanism whether the redshift is or is not
accompanied by a reduction in gauge boson speed, but it is vital to getting
to the bottom of SR and the nature of light.

> 3. With your gravity shielding idea, wasn't this deemed to be impossible
> by Richard Feynman? I'm sure I read it somewhere (perhaps six easy
> pieces).

No, Richard Feynman liked mechanism, he ridiculed string theory, and he only
said (in his Lectures on Physics and Cornell lectures on Character of
Physical Law)that a material aether like a gas would slow planets down. We
are dealing with RADIATION that can't get speeded up merely by hitting
something (unlike gas molecules), and I've already explained since gauge
boson radiation is conserved in Smolin loops flowing between all masses in
the universe (for consistency of Yang-Mills quantum field theory with
general relativity), and since for gravity and electromagnetism the gauge
bosons have light speed, they can't be speeded up and cannot carry away
energy like gas molecules.

There is no mechanism by which the gauge boson radiaton can cause the
problem of drag which Feynman pointed out exists in the Lesage mechanism.
I've been through this carefully. http://feynman137.tripod.com/:

Feynman said, in his 1964 Cornell lectures (broadcast on BBC2 in 1965 and
published in his book Character of Physical Law, pp. 171-3):

"The inexperienced [string theorists], and crackpots [string theorists], and
people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive
knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculative theories of physics]
you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. ...
There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great
explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving i on a territory."

On page 38 of this book, Feynman has a diagram which looks basically like
this: >E S<, where E is earth and S is sun. The arrows show the push that
causes gravity. This is the LeSage gravity scheme, which I now find Feynman
also discusses (without the diagram) in his full Lectures on Physics. He
concludes that the mechanism in its form as of 1964 contradicted the
no-ether relativity model and could not make any valid predictions, but
finishes off by saying (p. 39):

"'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one, and I got rid of the mathematics for a
while. Maybe I could invent a better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody
knows the ultimate. But up to today [1964], from the time of Newton, no one
has invented another theoretical description of the mathematical machinery
behind this law which does not either say the same thing over again, or make
the mathematics harder, or predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no
model of the theory of gravitation today, other the mathematical form."

Does this mean Feynman is after physical mechanism, or is happy with the
mathematical model? The answer is there on page 57-8:

"It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them
today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations
to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no
matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny
space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one
tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis
that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in
the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be
simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities."






----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
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: Saturday, July 08, 2006 4:11 AM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact


> Dear Nigel,
>
> I scrolled through your two (enormous) sites for some time looking for the
> below quoted headings and I must be going blind as I could find these
> headings. Can you please give me a percentage of how far down they are
> (and which site).
>
> After a quick surf around to get a gist of your ideas, a few of questions
> spring to mind.
>
> 1. If charge is the exchange of gauge bosons radiating out of matter in
> all directions at light speed and keeping in mind the incredibly low
> matter volume to vacuum volume of the universe, why wouldn't have all the
> bosons disappeared over the last fourteen billion years (or is the
> universe surrounded by a huge reflecting sphere)?
>
> 2. The gauge bosons would all have to travel at c regardless of source
> velocity. How is this possible?
>
> 3. With your gravity shielding idea, wasn't this deemed to be impossible
> by Richard Feynman? I'm sure I read it somewhere (perhaps six easy
> pieces).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
> To: "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe"
> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
> 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: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:08 PM
> Subject: Light speed energy exchange is fact
>
>
>> Dear Ian,
>>
>> All charges are continuously radiating energy because of their spin.
>> Because the universe is old, there is an equilibrium of energy exchange
>> established.
>>
>> Light is just the disturbance to the normal continuous energy exchange
>> process which occurs when you accelerate a charge. This upsets the
>> equilibrium, and the disturbance propagates along the existing paths of
>> energy exchange in the relevant direction.
>>
>> This is just the mechanism for the Standard Model, which is a Yang-Mills
>> exchange radiation theory. All forces including gravity and inertia are
>> caused by electromagnetic energy exchange. Did you see the recent email
>> reply I sent to Guy? More info: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ and
>> http://feynman137.tripod.com/ (scroll down to energy exchange mechanism
>> for electromagnetism, reason for attraction and repulsion and force
>> difference between electromagnetism and gravity).
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Nigel

 
At 7:41 AM, Blogger nige said...

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
--------

 
At 9:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Copies of someone's discussion with string theory Lubos Motl on the fast comments of his blog post

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/jacques-distlers-patience.html


Dear Lubos,

You are an expert on LQG as well as string theory. If LQG is such rubbish, why did you study LQG so carefully?

Now what do you consider to be the best alternatives to stringy theory?

Best wishes,
anon

PS - Please don't reply that there are no alternatives, and that everyone who does not believe in $usskind's Cosmic Landscape is an intellectual failure.
anon | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 11:43 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The best alternative is the Topological J-Theory I invented.
lunatic | 07.10.06 - 11:59 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Lubos,

Thank you for your reply!

best

anon

PS - does J-theory predict anything?
anon | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 12:25 pm | #

 
At 9:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Copies of someone's discussion with string theory Lubos Motl on the fast comments of his blog post

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/jacques-distlers-patience.html


Dear Lubos,

You are an expert on LQG as well as string theory. If LQG is such rubbish, why did you study LQG so carefully?

Now what do you consider to be the best alternatives to stringy theory?

Best wishes,
anon

PS - Please don't reply that there are no alternatives, and that everyone who does not believe in $usskind's Cosmic Landscape is an intellectual failure.
anon | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 11:43 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The best alternative is the Topological J-Theory I invented.
lunatic | 07.10.06 - 11:59 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Lubos,

Thank you for your reply!

best

anon

PS - does J-theory predict anything?
anon | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 12:25 pm | #

 
At 2:05 AM, Blogger nige said...

From wikipedia discussion on QFT and Catt Anomaly

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


LC to Nigel

Nigel, you will know (by your involvement with Catt) that to convince people of your beliefs it takes a great deal of patience and a necessity to go very slowly. We may not agree with what we THINK youre saying , but are we understanding you right? You may well be correct, but you have to convince us of our erroneous thinking.8-)--Light current 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Light current, Thank you! There are some facts with plenty of evidence, falsely dismissed as personal opinion/belief or pet theory. On the topic of being lucid, I try my best to update and improve anything I can, and I answer any questions asked of me. You cannot simultaneously ignore other people's work when presented to you and complain about censorship. The two actions are mutually incompatible, it is sheer hypocrisy. So I do study a lot of stuff sent to me. Catt does not do this, and this is a major cause of dispute between us. Catt was quite proud to tell me that after 20 or more years of association with Professor Hillman of Surrey University, neither understands each other's work. Catt cites this as an example that you can still get along without bothering to grasp one another. I don't have any sympathy at all. Darwin took great pains writing and editing the evidence in Origin of Species in a lucid way over a twenty-year period. Obviously this is something worth trying. There is very little quality information available. But as soon as you start writing a lucid textbook on this stuff, you are faced with a lot of difficult decisions requiring time and thought. I don't think Catt put enough into writing Electromagnetism 1 which was ridiculed by Lago in the IEE review. You have to understand that there are many problems.

For example, 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]. Really it is not up to me to sort out things like the presentation of QFT, but if it will help make those people listen I will do so. Nigel 172.215.63.55 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Kevin to Nigel

Nigel, if the velocity of propagation of a transmission line were independent of the construction of the line, manufacturers of coaxial cable would not need to supply the inormation on their datasheets. You are confusing the speed with which the change in the magnetic field spreads when you slide a fridge magnet around your fridge door with the speed that the fridge magnet itself is moving. -- Kevin Brunt 12:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, we're talking about conductors with vacuum as the insulator; coaxial has a speed equal to light speed for the dielectric (the dielectric contains plastic insulator with a molecular dielectric that becomes polarised in an electric field). For vacuum, the velocity in a transmission line is always 300,000 km/s, and changing the construction of the line only alters the characteristic impedance and resistance. Make the conductors thicker and you can decrease the resistance (ohms per m of length) and impedance (ohms). Look at the diagram on the page: radiation is emitted perpendicular to the direction electrons are accelerated to cause a drift current. So you are confused! Before you go on that the electrons are already moving, the electrons inside me are already moving before I begin to walk but I still have to accelerate them to move (the net velocity before is zero, and after the wavefront passes the net drift velocity is 1 mm/s or so for 1 amp, which implies an acceleration). Nigel 172.212.60.237 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nigel, this is appears to be a useful link - Electromagnetic waves, James B Calvert Basically, it demonstrates that if the relative permeability of the conductors is sufficiently close to unity that it can be disregarded, and if the current is oscillating at a high enough frequency that the skin effect is sufficiently pronounced that the thickness of the skin can also be disregarded that the fields around a pair of parallel cylindrical conductors are independent of the diameter of the conductors and is thus identical to the situation where the conductors' diameter is reduced to zero, at which point we have the purely theoretical situation of current flow in free space. I will concede that my mathematics do not run to demonstrating whether the argument applies to the situation where the conductors are parallel plates of arbitrary width.

However, it is well worth noting that Prof Calvert's analysis starts from the premise that there is charge in the conductor, so that the whole exercise is highly inimical to Catt's "there is no charge" position. Note also Calvert's comment "The Poynting vector must be interpreted and used with care" which also has application when considering Catt's writing.

There is an curious aside in the article as well. Calvert is an "associate professor emeritus of engineering", which means that he has retired, and is likely of the same general vintage as Catt. Calvert clearly has a bee in his bonnet about the SI scheme of units, which he likes to refer to in such ways "the Giorgi or MKS units". He would appear to have been taught in the CGS system of units, and so has acquired a variant of the "anti-metrication" attitude. I suspect some parallels with Catt's anti-academic, anti-calculus prejudices. -- Kevin Brunt 23:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, Prof Calvert's argument as you summarise it would allow the Catt Anomaly to be simplified by reducing the wire diameters until you remove the wires altogether and just have two parallel beams of electrons (like beta particles) being fired in space in opposite directions. The absurdity of this model is at once apparent: it can't simulate the TEM wave. Two beams of electrons representing current flows in conductors would limit the speed to that of the electrons, which is less than light. As said before, the TEM wave is not caused by electron drift. The light speed TEM wave in current physics is an effect of light-speed, force-causing Yang-Mills radiation, because that is what the electromagnetic field is composed of in the highly successful Standard Model. Electrons move in response to this field. When the electrons move they radiate energy at right angles to the direction they accelerate, and this radiated energy gets exchanged between conductors. Nigel 172.215.63.55 17:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 
At 4:55 AM, Blogger nige said...

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

 
At 3:24 PM, Blogger nige said...

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel Cook
To: Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; epola@tiscali.co.uk ; 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 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact




Above: mechanism of attraction and repulsion in electromagnetism, and the capacitor summation of displacement current energy flowing between accelerating (spinning) charges as gauge bosons (by analogy to Prevost’s 1792 model of constant temperature as a radiation equilibrium). The net exchange is like two machine gunners firing bullets at each other; they recoil apart. The gauge bosons pushing them together are redshifted, like nearly spent bullets coming from a great distance, and are not enough to prevent repulsion. In the case of attraction, the same principle applies. The two opposite charges shield one another and get pushed together. Although each charge is radiating and receiving energy on the outer sides, the inward push is from redshifted gauge bosons, and the emission is not redshifted. The result is just like two people, standing back to back, firing machine guns. The recoil pushes them together, hence the attraction force.

Heuristically, gauge boson (virtual photon) transfer between charges to cause electromagnetic forces, and those gauge bosons don’t discriminate against charges in neutral groups like atoms and neutrons. The Feynman diagrams show no way for the gauge bosons/virtual photons to stop interactions. Light then arises when the normal exchange of gauge bosons is upset from its equilibrium. You can test this heuristic model in some ways. First, most gauge bosons are going to be exchanged in a random way between charges, which means the simple electric analogue is a series of randomly connected charged capacitors (positive and negative charges, with vacuum 377-ohm dielectric between the ‘plates’). Statistically, if you connect an even number of charged capacitors in random along a line across the universe, the sum will be on average be zero. But if you have an odd number, you get an average of 1 capacitor unit. On average any line across the universe will be as likely to have an even as an odd number of charges, so the average charge sum will be the mean, (0 +1)/2 = 1/2 capacitor. This is weak and always attractive, because there is no force at all in the sum = 0 case and attractive force (between oppositely charged capacitor plates) in the sum = 1 case. Because it is weak and always attractive, it's gravitation? The other way they charges can add is in a perfect summation where every charge in the universe appears in the series + - + -, etc. This looks improbable, but is statistically a drunkard's walk, and by the nature of path-integrals gauge bosons do take every possible route, so it WILL happen. When capacitors are arranged like this, the potential adds like a statistical drunkard's walk because of the random orientation of ‘capacitors’, the diffusion weakening the summation from the total number to just the square root of that number because of the angular variations (two steps in opposite directions cancel out, as does the voltage from two charged capacitors facing one another). This vector sum of a drunkard's walk is the average step times the square root of the number of steps, so for ~1080 charges, you get a resultant of ~1040. The ratio of electromagnetism to gravity is then (~1040) /(1/2). Notice that this model shows gravity is electromagnetism, caused by gauge bosons. It does away with gravitons. The distances between the charges are ignored. This is explained because on average half the gauge bosons will be going away from the observer, and half will be approaching the observer. The fall due to the spread over larger areas with divergence is offset by the concentration due to convergence.

ALL electrons are emitting, so all are receiving. Hence they don't slow, they just get juggled around and obey the chaotic Schrodinger wave formula instead of a classical Bohr orbit.

‘Arguments’ against the facts of emission without net energy loss also ‘disprove’ real heat theory. According to the false claim that radiation leads to net energy loss,
because everything is emitted heat radiation (separately from force causing radiation), everything should quickly cool to absolute zero. This is wrong for the same reason above: if everything is emitting heat, you can have equilibrium, constant temperature.

The equation is identical to Coulomb's law except that it expresses the
force in terms of different measurables. This allows it to predict the
permittivity of free space, the electric constant in Coulomb's law. So it
is a correct, predictive scientific mechanism.

The concepts of "electric charge" and "electric field" are useful words but
are physically abstract, not directly observable: you measure "them"
indirectly by the forces they produce, and you assume that because the mass
of the electron is quantized and the charge/mass ratio only varies with the
velocity of the electron by Lorentz/Einstein's law, charge is fundamental.
Really, energy is fundamental and the amount of "electric charge" you see
depends on how much attenuation there is by the polarised vacuum, the
observed (attenuated) charge falling by 7% at 90 GeV collisions (Koltick,
PRL, 1997), and mass varies because it is due to the surrounding The forces
are actually caused by vector radiation exchange. This is established by
quantum field theory.

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 is
spherically 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 charge
is 2 units (2 units is equal to the difference between 1 negative charge and
1 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.
ABOVE IS FROM http://feynman137.tripod.com/

STUFF BELOW IS FROM http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/


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....

 
At 5:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Copy of a comment to

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/evaluating-extreme-approaches-to.html

Dear Lubos,

You keep on about the Dirac equation and how it's well understood for 80 years.

But you stringers don't grasp the significance of the Dirac equation. You think it is Schroedinger's time dependent equation plus special relativity, whereas Dirac found that putting SR into the Schroedinger equation Hamiltonian gave paradoxes.

The true Dirac equation uses a modified (non-SR) Hamiltonian.

Next, the physical basis of the Dirac equation is that it is a generalisation of the Schroedinger time-dependent equation of QM, which states that energy transfer is proportional to the rate of change of the wavefunction; just as Maxwell's displacement current law (i = dD/dt where D is electric displacement, which is electric field strength E volts/metre multiplied by permittivit) says that virtual "displacement" current transfer is proportional to the rate of hange of electric field strength.

The whole particle-wave duality basis of QM stems from the fact trapped wave energy constitutes particles, and the waves are electromagnetic or other fields.

Therefore, the time-dependent Schroedinger equation (and the Dirac equation) is completely reconcilable with classical Maxwellian "displacement current".

Best,
anon
anon | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 8:56 am | #

 

Post a Comment

<< Home