Wikipedia

Talk:Gravity/Archive 3

< Talk:Gravity
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Ems57fcva in topic Nigel Cook, part II (more of this thread archived)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

217.137.107.8

I reverted the edits of this Anon, because it is full of POV. Please, discuss your intentions here, before you make more edits. Awolf002 20:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

217.137.*.*, I reverted material which should go on the talk page before it hits prime time. This material is talk page style, and should go here first. Please adhere to the principles of discussion on the Talk page before changing the encyclopedia. It is fine to explore the material on the talk page, to let the material reach consensus, first. Ancheta Wis 00:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Anon 62.253.32.5 seems to be the same person as 217.137.*.*. I hope we can persuade that person to stop dropping the same text into the article with no regards to this discussion. Awolf002 02:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

217.137.*.* is identifying himself as shown on the hacked page :http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity"

Re: Awolf002. Thanks for your comments above, it makes a change for people to delete other people's contributions repeatedly and then admit to it. Surely the idea of this particular enclclopedia, and what gives it a unique appeal, is that it sets out to reduce the barriers and red tape. The material I would like to insert has been published and checked. Either Wikipedia is going to be a laggard encyclopedia, or it is going to be ahead of the rest. Facts are not really open to debate, unlike opinions. If you have a disproof of the established facts, namely that the recession of galaxies away from us involves speeds increasing linearly with time past (not necessarily with distance, which varies while the light and gravitational influences come to us at light speed), and Newton's laws, then you are welcome to state them. I have heard all of the objections against "new" knowledge, and these facts are 10 years old, have been on the CERN Document Server, and in Electronics World which has more readers (and readers qualified in physics!) than most scientific journals (which are biased in favour of string "theory" which goes nowhere). If you look at the history of science, you see that the greatest enemy can be the humble teacher and encyclopedia compiler, who relies on authority. With dictators of "string" theory suppressing me for 10 years, it is obvious that everyone alive today will be dead and buried before these facts get known if I can't slip them into Wikipedia. My internet site has been getting 200-1,400 hits per month. However there is no mechanism to get "peer" review in Nature or Classical and Quantum Gravity, since the peer reviewers of those journals are mainstream string "theorists". Why should readers of this encyclopedia be denied access to the proved facts which have been discussed between more physicists - practical physicists (working in electronics, designing the computers used to host Wikipedia) - than would be the case for Classical and Quantum Gravity?

Many thanks 137

Wikipedia:No original research. Rhobite 20:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's not original. It's published. Please look before you leap into dismissing it as original:

Jan '04 paper "Solution to a problem with general relativity" CERN EXT-2004-007 (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=706468&ln=en) states: "It was proposed that a mechanism of gravity should be developed to rigorously test all of the consequences of the physical fluid model for the fabric of space." Instead of 10 dimensional, conscious, and multiverse space speculation, consider what physics can do to prove the cause of gravity with real experimentally-proved properties of space.

This is a preprint paper. Please, provide where it was published in a peer-reviewed publication or cited by any paper(s) in such periodicals. If the CERN paper server works like arXiv, then all you succeeded in was submitting a file that complied with the format rules of that server, right? Awolf002 02:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edwin Hubble when discovering the redshift evidence for the big bang in 1929 made the experimental error of saying H = velocity/distance which leads to cosmological problems today; the observable fact is time past, since distances can vary while the light comes to us. Individual galaxies are accelerating away in the space-time we observe in which distance is linked to time-past. We see and are affected by the past; the higher speeds refer both to earlier periods in the evolution of the universe and to greater distances. This means: (1) recession speed in big bang divided by time past we are seeing = constant acceleration, (2) F=ma so constant outward force of big bang, (3) Newton's 3rd law so inward force towards every point. The force/area or pressure acting inward thus goes as inverse square law with correct strength to within 1.65% if using consistent supernova-observation data published in Physical Review Letters and other peer-reviewed journals on the expansion rate and observed density (although the errors are about +/-20% in the data, not the 1.65% coincidence). See proof at: http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ or http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

The popular model of general relativity, as causing a flat surface like a rubber sheet to curve is unhelpful since physical space fills volume, not surface area. This surface manifold model of space has stifled progress in physics.

‘In many interesting situations… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.’ – Bernard Schutz, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

No matter how much you want to find some of the proved facts above wrong to dismiss this as crackpottery, you can't without saying proved physics is wrong. These facts are widely known in the physics community, but are being suppressed by the string theory lobby from that (crackpot) side. They are widely known in Electronics World, CERN etc.

Many thanks from 137

Please stop breaking the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Rhobite 21:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

137: First of all, please, stop forcing your text into the article. This is very rude, and can lead to a lengthy blocking of your access to Wikipedia! As long as you do this, no in-depth discussion on your intentions/suggestion will be possible. Awolf002 23:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

213.137:The retrospective facts on the cited web page are intriguing. However, it reads like a lot of cut and paste, you need to edit and present the statements with a single voice. The retrospective statements will not have the power and persuasiveness of an inference from a unified picture which you should be proposing.

If you state some logical consequences of your point of view, and then back up those inferences with some experiments designed to test your logical consequences, then you will attract some attention from the scientific community.

Thus in the publications of your article, are there any predictions of a hither-to unknown effect? (For example, is the acceleration in the expansion of the universe always linear with time? How does this match to the cosmic inflation idea?) Merely to curve-fit some selected observations ("facts"), is as non-illuminating as the list of all the stock prices for all history; where is the predictive power of all those stock prices? If you counter that you are not getting published, there are many other researchers in the same fix.

But try writing an article with a uniform style (Not just camping on the gravity article, but some other venue, with a theme and some point-by-point statements.). There are guides in this encyclopedia for good style. Try to avoid the Talk page conversation style you have been using. Make your case. You have references. Go for it. But not in the Gravity article; that is too well known and too well watched for you to try to make a splash there. I have to warn you that you have not made a good impression on the community of editors here. Ancheta Wis 00:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy with regards to this matter

From section 2 of the Wikipedia NOPV policy:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

If Bryan is correct, then he will eventually win the Nobel Prize, and this encyclopedia will have been long before updated to discuss his ideas. In the meantime, we must remember this from the NPOV policy:

"Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality."

It is not a part of current human knowledge that Bryan is right or even that he may be right. For that reason, Bryan's ideas do not belong here. Bryan chided us above about whether Wikipedia will be laggard or ahead of the rest: The answer very much is that Wikipedia is going to be, due to the nature of its mission, laggard. --EMS | Talk 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everything above by EMS57fcva is speculative and contrary to the facts: for example "Nobel prize" has nothing whatsoever to do with providing people with knowledge, and is controlled by the string lobby; in any case in discussions published in peer-reviewed Electronics World papers (see references cited on my internet page, some of the peer-reviewers are not anonymous; for example Dr David S. Walton, former assistant professor of physics, Trinity College, Dublin) and elsewhere Catt and I have pointedly make the case that this work is not egotism. The reporting of widely discussed peer-reviewed facts on physics.

The credit goes mainly to four people which do not include myself so I am not eligible for any prize, despite having actually written up and seen to publication the facts. Newton, Hubble, Einstein, and Schultz provided the facts.

Best wishes, 137

137: You say "Everything above by EMS57fcva is speculative and contrary to the facts." Please, try to understand that this discussion is about how to classify the status of your quoted theory, not about proving your stated facts. As far as I can tell up to now, you are very passionate about it. But this is not sufficient to make your write-up a part of this article. Please, address the concerns of EMS (and myself) regarding WP policy against "original research". Awolf002 12:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Bryan (I know this editor's name is Bryan, courtesy of his references) -

First and foremost: Your idea does not belong in the Gravity article even if it is true, per the NPOV policy. That is the main issue, and there is nothing speculative about it. (If you are saying that my saying that you may win the Nobel Prize is speculative, then I am more than happy to agree you, by the way.) Not only is your idea lacking in acceptance, but the scope of the article is Newton's theory anyway.

As for the facts that you cite: I do not contest them. What I do contest is your interpretation of those facts. It is not a given that they mean that gravity is due to the shielding that you describe. In fact, general relativity provides a much more elegant explanation for those observations, and the accelerating expansion of the universe is describable within its context.

The comments in your web pages on GR shows that you have a limited understanding of that theory. Those of us who are familiar with it are not too bothered with G = 8πT being uninformative to the uninitiated (not that this is a good thing). Also, it was Minkowski who added time to the manifold to create the concept of spacetime, not Riemann. As someone who was inspired by his own attempts to modify GR to take courses on it, I strongly call on you to do the same, and in your case I would study string theory too. If nothing else, "know thy enemy".

Finally, a piece of advice: You will get nowhere if you insist on treating the failure of your ideas to be published in respectable peer-reviewed journals as being the fault of others instead of yourself. It speaks of your views that they have been published in Electronics World and not Physical Review D. If journals like Nature and Physical Review are rejecting your paper without even a peer review, that speaks even more strongly against it. My own experience is that well thought out and thoughfully presented ideas have little trouble obtaining a peer review, not that it is easy to get new ideas past one (as my ideas have yet to do). It is your job to speak to the field and to put your ideas into a form where the editors of respectable journals are willing to publish them. It is not anyone else's job to understand or accept them. In their current form your ideas are more speculation than theory. You need to realize that and to realize that you have to show how your ideas differ from and improve on GR before you can legitimately seek publication. All that your attitude about string theorists dominating the discussion does is to freeze you and your ideas in place. Given that, your ideas will never go anywhere. --EMS | Talk 14:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)



To EMS "Also, it was Minkowski who added time to the manifold to create the concept of spacetime, not Riemann. As someone who was inspired by his own attempts to modify GR to take courses on it, I strongly call on you to do the same, and in your case I would study string theory too. If nothing else, "know thy enemy". "

I stated this on the webpage, so glad you have read it for information! But please don't patronise. When I help others by providing peer-reviewed information suppressed by Edward Witten, it is not appreciated that people insult me! Please learn the rudiments of courtesy and science before involving yourself in this matter in future. Thanks.

In response to the comments of Ancheta Wis above, I have updated my style on http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ In particular, the facts of the Hubble discovery and Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws:

Fact 1: big bang is receding galaxies with speed increasing linearly with time past, v/t = constant acceleration in observable space-time

Fact 2: by Newton’s 2nd law, F = ma, the mass of receding galaxies times this acceleration is outward force of big bang explosion

Fact 3: by Newton’s 3rd law, every force has an equal and opposite reactive force: so equal inward force (like an implosion type nuclear weapon)

This inward force is carried by space around accelerating matter, so the inward pressure (force/area) is the inverse-square law, causing gravitation where shielded by mass. The correct force of gravity is proved below (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ ) : F = mMG/r2, where G = (3/4) H2/( p r local e3 ) = 0.0119H2/r local = 6.7 x 10-11 Nm2kg-2. This is not speculative: all 3 facts above are hard experimental results. Electromagnetism and nuclear forces are well-known energy exchange processes, but gravity is not.

Interesting. This may be a variation of the Dirac large numbers hypothesis. BTW - That was also based on known facts and did not work out either. --EMS | Talk 29 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)

Science is not an authority-dictated enterprise, like some third world dictatorship. Proved facts are not points of view, they are not opinions, not personal pet theories. Newton’s laws and the big bang are not drivel. Unlike politics, science is controlled by natural facts, not by the authority of Stephen Hawking or some political type leader. If the boots fit, wear them. Professor Stephen Hawking may or may not know or care about the mechanism of gravity, but we do not all have to follow the example of others and bury our heads in the sand like Witten: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/Gribbin.htm

Edwin Hubble in 1929 made the experimental reporting error of assuming he had measured constant velocity/distance, which leads to the cosmological problems today; the observable fact is time past, since distances can vary while the light comes to us. He should have reported constant velocity/time past, hence constant acceleration. If somehow light went instantly and we could see and be affected by where things are in the universe at the same time, 15,000 million years after the big bang, we would not see any acceleration, but this we cannot do. We live in a universe where we always see things as they were in the past, and influences like gravity travel at the speed of light. This is observed fact. Individual galaxies are accelerating away in the space-time we observe in which distance is linked to time-past. We see and are affected by the past; the higher speeds refer both to earlier periods in the evolution of the universe and to greater distances. (In any real explosion, such as nuclear tests in space in 1962 or just TNT detonated in a vacuum, the outward speeds are greater at the greatest distances, because debris remaining near the origin has suffered equal impacts from all directions during the explosion, and has not picked up an outward speed.)

‘In many interesting situations… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.’ – Bernard Schutz, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

That is meant as an analogy. It is a highly useful one, I will admit, but still an analogy. --EMS | Talk 29 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)

The facts above are not a theory. They are not new. They have been around for a very long time. Newton's laws since 1687, Hubble's discovery since 1929, Schutz in 1986.

EMS57fcva and Awolf002 seem to taking the regular approach of insisting that Newton, Hubble, and Schutz should be suppressed, or that the facts above are just some "interpretation" (which is the only correct one since the recession speeds are linked to time past by the fact of light speed) that is too new or radical or unorthodox to be mentioned by Wikipedia. When I point out that it is not new, I am then called a failure for getting it published a decade ago in a journal with 60,000 readers.

60,000 readers, yes. But how many of them have a good understanding of non-Euclidean geometry, cosmology, and string theory? --EMS | Talk 29 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)

This is interesting, because the reason why I have been pursuing this particular path is this sort of speculation. In order for you to decide that I have failed by having it published, you have to speculate on what I want to do. Suppose that I would ideally like these facts to continue being suppressed by the media for another year, so that I can point out how silly and intolerant people have been. In that case, it would hardly make me a failure to have not received widespread recognition a decade ago! That is the danger of presuming what someone is motivated by. I did actually have a hearing defect as a child which affected my speech and made me well aware of intolerance and ridicule of anyone different, and although that is cleared up now, I am left with a thick skin.



Best wishes yet again, Nigel

Please familiarize yourself with how to write proper encyclopedia articles. You cannot add a comment to an article, complete with asides and first-person remarks. Even if you removed the personal remarks from your contribution, it would not be suitable for the article as it is POV original research. Rhobite June 29, 2005 20:00 (UTC)


Bryan (at least I hope that you prefer that to Nigel),

If you wish to treat my harsh words as an insult, then so be it. I assure you that they can be helpful to you if you are willing to let them be so. I assure you that I know the awful bitterness that comes from having one's wonderful ideas summarily rejected. I chose not to let that bitterness dominate me or keep me from improving my work. You seem to have chosen another course.

I have interspresed some additional comments into your above text above. They are meant as much for others as yourself. --EMS | Talk 29 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)



‘You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for ye cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, & therefore would take more time to consider of it… That gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so yt one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum wthout the mediation of any thing else by & through wch their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity ...’ – Isaac Newton, Letter to Richard Bentley, 1693.

‘But if, meanwhile, someone explains gravity along with all its laws by the action of some subtle matter, and shows that the motion of planets and comets will not be disturbed by this matter, I shall be far from objecting.’ – Isaac Newton, Letter to Leibniz, 1693.

‘To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities... therefore there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden University, 1920. (Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, pp. 15, 16, and 23.)

‘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.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington, MA, MSc, FRS (Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, Cambridge), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, p. 20.

‘The idealised physical reference object, which is implied in current quantum theory, is a fluid permeating all space like an aether.’ – Sir Arthur Eddington, MA, DSc, LLD, FRS, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1936, p. 180.

‘Looking back at the development of physics, we see that the ether, soon after its birth, became the enfant terrible of the family of physical substances. First, the construction of a simple mechanical picture of the ether proved to be impossible and was discarded. This caused to a great extent the breakdown of the mechanical point of view. Second, we have to give up the hope that through the presence of the ether sea, one co-ordinate system will be distinguished and lead to the recognition of absolute and not only relative motion. … After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name. We shall say our space has the physical property of transmitting waves and so omit the use of a word we have decided to avoid. The omission of a word from our vocabulary is of course no remedy; the troubles are indeed much too profound to be solved in this way. Let us now write down the facts which have been sufficiently confirmed by experiment without bothering any more about the ‘e---r’ problem.’ – Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, Evolution of Physics, 1938, pp. 184-5; written to get Jewish Infeld out of Nazi Germany and accepted as a worthy refugee in America. (Einstein was against ether in 1905 to wide praise from politicians, because ether had bogged physics down in speculation, but then in his inaugural lecture at Leyden in 1920 Einstein said ‘According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable’, and in 1938 conceded defeat at the e---r word!)

‘… with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether.’ – P.A.M. Dirac, ‘Is There an Aether?,’ Nature, v.168, 1951, p.906. See also Dirac’s paper in Proc. Roy. Soc. v.A209, 1951, p.291.

‘It has been supposed that empty space has no physical properties but only geometrical properties. No such empty space without physical properties has ever been observed, and the assumption that it can exist is without justification. It is convenient to ignore the physical properties of space when discussing its geometrical properties, but this ought not to have resulted in the belief in the possibility of the existence of empty space having only geometrical properties... It has specific inductive capacity and magnetic permeability.’ - Professor H.A. Wilson, FRS, Modern Physics, Blackie & Son Ltd, London, 4th ed., 1959, p. 361.

‘Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a theory merely because facts contradict it. They normally either invent some rescue hypothesis to explain what they then call a mere anomaly or, if they cannot explain the anomaly, they ignore it, and direct their attention to other problems. Note that scientists talk about anomalies, recalcitrant instances, not refutations. History of science, of course, is full of accounts of how crucial experiments allegedly killed theories. But such accounts are fabricated long after the theory had been abandoned. ... What really count are dramatic, unexpected, stunning predictions: a few of them are enough to tilt the balance; where theory lags behind the facts, we are dealing with miserable degenerating research programmes.

‘Now, how do scientific revolutions come about? If we have two rival research programmes, and one is progressing while the other is degenerating, scientists tend to join the progressive programme. This is the rationale of scientific revolutions. ... Criticism is not a Popperian quick kill, by refutation. Important criticism is always constructive: there is no refutation without a better theory. Kuhn is wrong in thinking that scientific revolutions are sudden, irrational changes in vision. The history of science refutes both Popper and Kuhn: on close inspection both Popperian crucial experiments and Kuhnian revolutions turn out to be myths: what normally happens is that progressive research programmes replace degenerating ones.’ - Imre Lakatos, Science and Pseudo-Science, pages 96-102 of Godfrey Vesey (editor), Philosophy in the Open, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1974.

‘You will say to me… Do you mean to tell me that a planet looks at the sun, sees how far it is, calculates the inverse square law of the distance and then decides to move in accordance with that law?’ In other words, although I have stated the mathematical law, I have given no clue about the mechanism.’ – Nobel Laureate Professor R.P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, Penguin, London, 1992, p. 33, emphasis added.

‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs. The virtual fermions with charges opposite to the bare charge will be, on average, closer to the bare charge than those virtual particles of like sign. Thus, at large distances, we observe a reduced bare charge due to this screening effect.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.


To Ems: if you wish to dismiss all the viewpoints above on the physical fabric of space as being the physical basis for gravitation, from Einstein onwards, that is personal opinion. You are entitled to do this. However, if you wish for a more pleasant discussion please stop deleting mainstream viewpoints. I understand that you favour the string lobby. However, there is no successful string theory. String theory is an attempt to unify field theory and relativity via adding extra dimensions. It fails to predict gravity, despite arm-waving claims from the likes of Edward Witten. General relativity and special relativity both imply a contraction, physical space pressure:

This inward pressure makes the radius of the earth contract by a distance of 1.5-mm. This was predicted by Einstein’s general relativity, which Einstein in 1920 at Leyden University said proved that: ‘according to the general theory of relativity, space without ether [physical fabric] is unthinkable.’ The radius contraction, discussed further down this page, is GM/(3c2). (Professor Feynman makes a confused mess of it in his relevant volume of Lectures, c42 p6, where he gives his equation 42.3 correctly for excess radius being equal to predicted radius minus measured radius, but then on the same page in the text says ‘… actual radius exceeded the predicted radius …’ Talking about ‘curvature’ when dealing with radii is not helpful and probably caused the confusion. The use of Minkowski light ray diagrams and string ‘theory’ to obfuscate the cause of gravity with talk over ‘curved space’ stems to the false model of space by the surface of a waterbed, in which heavy objects roll towards one another. This model when extended to volume type, real, space shows that space has a pressurised fabric which is shielded by mass, causing gravity.) But despite this insight, Einstein unfortunately overlooked the Hubble acceleration problem and failed to make the link with the big bang, the mechanism of gravity, which is proved below experimentally with step by step mathematics.

Above is from http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ which also includes a discussion of general relativity mathematics, and of the physical basis of those equations.

Many thanks for replying, Nigel

Nigel:

"[I]f you wish for a more pleasant discussion please stop deleting mainstream viewpoints."

Yours is not a mainstream viewpoint. If it was, you would not be reduced to trying to promote it on the gravity page of Wikipedia.

"I understand that you favour the string lobby."

Actually, I don't. However, I know that from your viewpoint I may as well. Please see my "piece of advice" to you above again. Giving you that advice is all that I can do to help you. --EMS | Talk 30 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)

"Closing the book"

I think that it is time to close the book on this business. To make my case, I will quote from the above quotations of Imre Lakatos (from Science and Pseudo-Science, pages 96-102 of Godfrey Vesey (editor), Philosophy in the Open, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1974)

"Now, how do scientific revolutions come about? If we have two rival research programmes, and one is progressing while the other is degenerating, scientists tend to join the progressive programme."

I do not see that Nigel's program is progressing. Instead I see it as being pretty much stuck in place where it was 10 years ago, offering an alternate explanation for that which is already explained.

"Important criticism is always constructive: there is no refutation without a better theory."

This points out Nigel's worse sin. He keeps refusing to accept criticism of his ideas, equating it with a desrire to suppress them. However, scientific progress is not made by scientists blindly jumping on the bandwagon of any new idea that comes along. Instead it comes from kicking the tires and trying to tear the ideas apart and seeing what happens. Ideas that cannot withstand strong scrutiny are quickly dismissed, and with good reason. However, sometimes the creator of the theory can address those criticisms and over time build a stronger edifice on the foundations of the initially dismissed idea. It is the interative reworking of ideas in the face of justified criticism that creates scientific progress. That is how string theory came to be accepted as a possibility: It's advocates worked for years to build the theory and eventually demonstrated (much to people's surprise) an underlying self-consistency. This is in accord with another of Imre Lakatos's comments:

"Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a theory merely because facts contradict it. ... What really count are dramatic, unexpected, stunning predictions: a few of them are enough to tilt the balance ...".

I see nothing dramatic in the predictions of this theory. If anything, it demands a regression to older, abandoned concepts: that gravitation is due to a force of gravity, that Big Bang was an explosion in space instead of being an explosion of space, etc. SR predicted the Fizeau effect and the inability to accelerate electrons beyond c. GR predicted the observed perihelion precession of Mercury and the bending of starlight near the Sun. Where is anything at all similar here?

There isn't. However, more important than that is this: This is Wikipedia, and Nigel's work very much is original research, and will be so until and unless he can get it published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. If it then becomes referenced and built on by others, then we will have a progressing reasearch program which is built on these ideas. At that point, there will be reason to document that program in Wikipedia, and I assume that someone else will gladly do so.

(Perhaps this should be an explicit rule here in Wikipedia: You never document your own work here nor ask another to do so, but may critique and edit the independently created attempts of others to do so.) --EMS | Talk 30 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)

To EMS: thank you for quoting my source Lakatos. Please notice that in the first place people have to document their own studies. For example, Newton claimed to work out the inverse square law in 1665 or so, and published it in 1687. It appears that he was happy to keep others in ignorance until Hooke came up with the same idea (less proof), when Newton became keen to assert priority. Similarly, Darwin kept his work under wraps for twenty years, until Wallace came up with similar arguments and submitted them for publication. It is not a sin to document old work. As I keep pointing out, although it is presently being suppressed by the string lobby - relying in Witten's 1997 article in Physics Today which claimed strings predict gravity - to deny it means disproving Hubble's law or Newton's laws, and evidence supports them.

If it is a sin to document your own work, then everyone who writes on the basis of their authority is a sinner.

Major results

The inverse-square law of gravity which formerly had to be derived empirically by Newton’s method using Kepler’s observed laws of planetary motion (hence no understanding), plus uniquely the correct universal gravitational constant G, accurate to within 1.65% for Physical Review Letters reported data, i.e., a prediction of 10 ms-2 at the earth’s surface compared to a measured 9.8 ms-2. Newton never estimated this constant, it was later worked out by Laplace by fiddling the equation to fit observations, not by a proof based on the mechanism of gravitation. This is completely unique.

There is little ‘dark matter’ around because the false ‘critical density’ in general relativity is out by a factor e^3/2 = 10.

The falsity of the ‘acceleration’ of the universe implied from supernovae red-shift (since gravity is a response to the surrounding matter, distant galaxies in the explosion are not slowed down by gravity, so there is no need to claim there is an acceleration offsetting a fictitious gravity pull-back). This was predicted via Electronics World 1996, before discovery of the ‘acceleration’ confirmed it. Nature’s editor said he was ‘unable’ to publish.

The smoothness of the ripples in the cosmic background radiation (gravity and electromagnetism forces, Electronics World April 2003, increase in direct proportion to age of universe but this does not vary the sun’s brightness as you might think because each variation offsets each other; fusion rate depends both on electric repulsion between protons and gravitational compression). (See http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ for proper symbols in the equations that follow.) Since G = (3/4) H2/( p r local e3 ) = 0.0119H2/r local , G is proportional to H2/r . H varies with the age of the universe as 1/t, while r is mass divided by volume so it varies as the inverse cube of radius and (with light speed expansion of the observable radius), inverse cube of time. G thus varies as (1/t)2/(1/t3) = t, so G gets bigger in direct proportion to the age of the universe. Since the mechanism for electromagnetism is linked to gravity by the drunkard’s statistical walk of energy between similar charges in the universe, the forces vary in the same way and no observable effects of this have been predicted to date despite ongoing efforts.

Best wishes again, Nigel

Interesting. The varying G is also predicted by the Dirac large numbers hypothesis. You may wish to research that.

I wish you well with your project. I do not think that you are right, but I am not interested in seeing anything worthwhile suppressed either. However, please realize that even if it is right, a 4-page write-up like yours is not suitable for pulication in a journal like Nature. In GR, if one assumes that the universe is 5% visible matter/energy, 25% dark matter, and 70% dark energy, then the observed charactersitics are obtained from a solution of the Einstein field equations. So is this proof that dark energy exists, or is the need for dark energy a proof that GR is not right? You can choose the later, as you have done. But in that case, you need an alternative to GR (as both of us have), and then need to describe how it differs from GR and how it still conforms to observation in the known cases. After all, GR is the existing theory and is compatible with observation, including in ways that other theories are not.

You need to realize that the burdens both of proff and of presentation are on your shoulders. You have a lot of work ahead of you, and of an amount that can only be appreciated in hindsight. You also need to come to grips with the fact that what is suppressing your views is not the opposition of string theorists but instead your blaming them for your failure to so far produce a genuine scolarly article on this subject.

So please stop trying to sneak you ideas in through the "back door" (which for an idea like this is what Wikipedia is). If it is worthy, it deserves a can obtain better than that. It it is not, then it does not belong here either.

So my best wishes to you too, --EMS | Talk 5 July 2005 04:38 (UTC).


Hello again Ems57:

This is not personal or original research, peer-reviewed articles were published as cited in Electronics World. A lot of further advances have occurred and are documented over the years, as the result of many people, in Electronics World. Physical Review Letters editor for comparison:

Sent: 02/01/03 17:47 Subject: Your_manuscript LZ8276 Cook MECHANISM OF GRAVITY: Physical Review Letters does not, in general, publish papers on alternatives to currently accepted theories… Yours sincerely, Stanley G. Brown, Editor, Physical Review Letters

(Other responses are here: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ScienceWorld.htm )

Now, why has this nice genuine guy still not published his personally endorsed proof of what is a ‘currently accepted’ prediction for the strength of gravity? Will he ever do so? Dr Brown is a nice person, but he has a difficult job. He can't have peer-reviewed anything but stringy stuff, as that is the flavour of the day. There is no point pestering him regardless of the type of article, style, or length. That is not the issue. If it were, I would get that sorted out at the request of the reviewers. The whole discovery is contrary to string speculation, and falls foul for that reason, not any other reason. It is not being rejected by Brown for a comma out of place or the long list of confirmed predictions it makes in gravitation and cosmology, and for resolving existing problems. It is being suppressed politically, as per the "alternatives to currently accepted theories" (HINT: STRING THEORY). Thank you.

You will also notice that Electronics World published two major papers, the first of 4 pages and the second of 6 pages, plus a large number of subsequent letters. The material on the internet is extensive.

On page 896 of his book Road to Reality, Roger Penrose analyses those who use string ‘theory’ as an obfuscation of gravity’s cause:

‘In the words of Edward Witten [E. Witten, ‘Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime’, Phys. Today, April 1996]: 

  "String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity,"

‘and Witten has further commented: 

  "the fact that gravity is a consequence of string theory is one of the greatest theoretical insights ever."

‘It should be emphasised, however, that in addition to the dimensionality issue, the string theory approach is (so far, in almost all respects) restricted to being merely a perturbation theory …’

String ‘theory’ has no proof of a physical mechanism and predicts not even the inverse square law, let alone the strength of gravity! (In apt words of exclusion-principle proposer Wolfgang Pauli, string ‘theory’ is in the class of belief junk, ‘not even wrong’.)

The major drive behind my work on this subject stems from suppression of the error in electronics calculations of computer crosstalk, which is due to transverse electromagnetic waves in the fabric of space. There have been problems in Maxwell's model of light ever since it was proposed, if you look at Fig. 67 in article 791, page 439 in Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" you see the classical illustration of light as electric field and magnetic field as sine waves in perpendicular directions. This has long been exposed in Wireless/Electronics World as contrary to the following facts: Maxwell's model claims that varying one field causes the other, but he illustrates them conveniently as in phase, also the peak fields are always the same. Hertz' experiments, claimed to prove Maxwell's model, ignored the fact that the peak field falls inversely with distance from the transmitter aerial for radio. We know for light that photons don't lose energy by spreading out with distance. Hence, the mechanism for radio waves is entirely different to light. Radio waves are propagating variations in the electric field strength around an aerial, not quantum packets.

If, you check my writings, you will see that I dismiss speculation: Dirac had no mechanism for his large numbers hypothesis. In addition it makes predictions about the sun's radiating power which appear to conflict with the evidence from geology, the fossil record, since the sun's radiating power is very sensitive to gravity constant G. Dirac at least in his major 1970s papers suggested that gravity is falling in strength, not rising in strength. There is no accord between the mechanism of gravitation based on facts and the speculations of Dirac, Eddington, or others.

If you look at my internet page, referenced above, you will see that many people have been killed due to the insistence of some "experts", ignorant of the real physics, on "correct" approaches. These "experts" behave like dictators, ridiculing life saving inventions (see www.ivorcatt.com for my Jan 03 Electronics World article on this). I hope you can see that the motivation here is constructive, and that the destructive approach is due to those who object.

Best wishes again, Nigel

Not again

Nigel, please do not add those links. They do not help anybody reading this article. The current discussion has not ended in a way that you could go ahead with this. Awolf002 8 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

Hello Awolf,

Could I temporarily include the link here: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=215

Peter Woit, a Columbia University mathematician (see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/; he runs ‘Not Even Wrong’ about string theory – physicist Pauli deemed speculative belief systems like strings which predict nothing and cannot be tested or checked ‘not even wrong’). He helped Davidson write the skeptical San Francisco Chronicle newspaper article (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/):

March 14 2005: Today's San Francisco Chronicle contains an article about string theory entitled "Theory of Everything" Tying Researchers Up In Knots. The lead sentence is (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/03/14/MNGRMBOURE1.DTL ):

‘The most celebrated theory in modern physics faces increasing attacks from skeptics who fear it has lured a generation of researchers down an intellectual dead end.’

Davidson contrasts Michio Kaku's very pro-string theory point of view in his new book Parallel Worlds, with the much more skeptical views of Lawrence Krauss, who has a book entitled "Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions" coming out in September 2005.

Stanford's Robert Laughlin makes the point that string theorists are trying to camouflage the theory's increasingly obvious flaws by comparing the theory to ‘a 50-year-old woman wearing way too much lipstick.’

Best wishes to you, Nigel

Nigel, I can't really see how a reader of this article is helped by this link. It might be an "interesting discussion" for some, but not for the majority of people, I think. It just does not fit into the scope of this article in my oppinion. If you want to initiate some discussion about "string theory" that also would not fit in here. AFAIK for now is that the current state of what you advocate in relation to gravity is original research and is not (yet?) ready to be included here. Hope this helps, Awolf002 8 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)


Nigel -

As far as I am concerned, the book is closed. There is no further reason to discuss your ideas here.

It is time to return to the real issue at hand: Your work, and references to it, do not belong here. Period. If this means that we are aligning ourselves with the nasty theory-eating string theorists in your eyes then so be it. Myself and others will revert each and every edit of yours, and keep on doing so until you quit. --EMS | Talk 8 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

EMS - Above I listed statements from mainstream physicists, Newton to Einstein and beyond, on the physical fabric of space. I also pointed out that this is not my work, it is other people's. Nothing on it is original. All of the "reasons" you give for not allowing Wikipedia to distribute peer-reviewed and published information are your personal opinions, unsubstantiated by any facts at all, and indeed contrary to the facts. While Wikipedia does not allow unpublished facts, it also does not allow unpublished personal opinions. I hope therefore that you will stop threatening to vandalise other people's contributions. Please realise that this Wikipedia is about information and spreading it.

Thank you in expectation of your cooperation! Best wishes, Nigel

If you truly think that what myself and others are doing is vandalism, then feel free to report it as such. Do kindly reference this thread when you do so, and be aware that you may be the one who is ruled to be the vandal. However, since both sides here are acting in good faith, it seems that under Wikipedia's rules there is no vandalism going on here. So I advise using the Wikipedia dispute resolution process if you think that you are in the right here.

For their sake the administrators, I will summarize my case against your work here:

  1. Although built on established observations and facts, the intepretation that you give them and the model that you build on that interpretation are highly speculative. For that reason, this is original research.
  2. One of the statements that you make in support of your views, that general relativity cannot describe a universe with an accelerating expansion, is just plain false.
  3. One of the predictions of your model, that the gravitational constant G varies over time, has been predicted before and is incompatible with the observed variations in the cosmic background radiation.
  4. Your work has not been either published or referenced in a relevant peer-reviewed journal such as Nature, Science, or Physical Review (amongst others).
    • As best I can tell, this work has not even been peer reviewed in such a journal, in spite of its having been submitted to them.
    • While your views have been published in Electronic World, an electronics magazine is not a journal peer reviewed by scientists trained in the fields of gravitation and cosmology.
  5. Perhaps most importantly, I know of noone else, much less any respected scientsts, who would endorse these views.
    • This disqualifies it under the NPOV which states that "if a viewpoint is held by a extemely small ... minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia ..., regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not".

Since we both are independent researchers, I will happily lay off if an adminstator/sysop tells me to do so. I wish you luck, but don't expect you to have any. I therefore offer you my apologies for not cooperating, but (as I understand it) Wikipedia is about documenting existing knowledge instead of dissemenating new knowledge. The job of dissemenating new knowledge is left to the peer reviewed journals that you assume you cannot be published in. --EMS | Talk 8 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

P.S. You really should look at the history of the article itself by going back to the article and then clicking on the "history" tab. (Be aware that clicking on the history tab while reading this talk page will give you the history of the talk page instead of the history of the article.) Of all the times that you have been reverted, I have been the one who did it only once or twice. You are not fighting me. Instead you are fighting (or trying to fight) an entire community. What I have been doing here is

  1. trying to reason with you, and
  2. acting as an advocate for the Wikipedia community.

When I wrote above that "myself and others" will revert you, I was not asking others to do so. Instead I was acting with the expectation this this would in fact continue to happen, and indeed it is happening. Noone here knows or supports your views, or has any reason to support their presense here. Without the support of others, your edits will have no staying power, even if I should choose to lay off. --EMS | Talk 8 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Hello EMS;

All of the statements above from you are false: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ shows where you are wrong.

You state :

"# Although built on established observations and facts, the intepretation that you give them and the model that you build on that interpretation are highly speculative. For that reason, this is original research.

  1. One of the statements that you make in support of your views, that general relativity cannot describe a universe with an accelerating expansion, is just plain false.
  2. One of the predictions of your model, that the gravitational constant G varies over time, has been predicted before and is incompatible with the observed variations in the cosmic background radiation.
  3. Your work has not been either published or referenced in a relevant peer-reviewed journal such as Nature, Science, or Physical Review (amongst others).
    • As best I can tell, this work has not even been peer reviewed in such a journal, in spite of its having been submitted to them.
    • While your views have been published in Electronic World, an electronics magazine is not a journal peer reviewed by scientists trained in the fields of gravitation and cosmology.
  4. Perhaps most importantly, I know of noone else, much less any respected scientsts, who would endorse these views.
    • This disqualifies it under the NPOV which states that "if a viewpoint is held by a extemely small ... minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia ..., regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". "


1. The interpretation is not "highly speculative" as it REJECTS SPECULATION.

2. I make no statement of "that general relativity cannot describe a universe with an accelerating expansion, "

3. "G varies over time, has been predicted before and is incompatible with the observed variations in the cosmic background radiation." IS TOTALLY FALSE as my webpage shows: Dirac got it wrong. I've told you this before. Please don't insult everyone by repeating it.

4. It was peer-reviewed in Electronics World, which also first published Arthur C. Clark's article on satellites in 1945. Before you start throwing insults at the people who peer-review and publish work for the first time, I suggest you remind yourself we are dealing with weeding error out of a community of physicists, not innovating. So don't insult me again please.

5. There are grave errors in general relativity stemming from an ignorance of electronics, as I have pointed out before to you, viz the physical properties of space already explained.

6. The fact that you admit to ignorance about who would endorse these views says an awful lot more about your suitability to evaluate contributions to Wikipedia. Your own admitted ignorance does not discredit anybody but yourself. Please stop insulting yourself, therefore, and wasting the time of others. The editor of the book "Pushing Gravity" has endorsed it

From : Matt Edwards <matt.edwards@utoronto.ca> To : nigel cook <nigelbryancook@hotmail.com> CC : ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk Subject : Re: Book Notice- Pushing Gravity Date : Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:26:15 -0400


Dear Nigel,

Thanks for your interesting e-mail. I have had a look at the website you mentioned and found the mechanism you propose there quite novel. …

In fact, yours is the first paper I'm aware of that ties a Le Sage mechanism of gravity explicitly to expansion of the universe …

Best wishes, Matt


7. Search for "Mechanism gravity" on Google and it is the 1st hit today. Therefore none of your false sneers has any value. Please start being objective and stop insulting other people and throwing around ignorant lies. THEY ARE VERY OFFENSIVE. I MAY WELL REPORT YOUR VANDALISM.


I hope that yopu will see fit to stop being so abusive to users of Wikipedia in future.


Best wishes,

Nigel Cook


Dear Nigel,

Since you stated above that I endorsed your theory, I have no choice but to reply. I did not endorse it. I merely noted that there were some mathematical similarities between your model and something I was working on (which did not appear in the book). Your model is premised on the Big Bang model. As I made clear in the full text of my letter to you, I do not subscribe to the Big Bang. I support a model featuring a universe in perpetual equilibrium, in the manner of Jaakkola's work. Please be more careful about quoting others.

Best wishes, Matt Edwards


Dear Matt Edwards,

I read your email and you apparently endorsed the mathematical similarities between the mechanism's prediction of my model, and the measured experimental gravity laws of Newton and Einstein, the newtonian law and the general relativity contraction mechanism. Either you want science or not. Ivor Catt has also done this, muddling the water. If you understand what science is about you know it rests on facts. If you don't subscribe to the big bang model, you need a replacement model which has at least as much testable evidence for it. It really is sickening that the few people who understand LeSage mechanism chicken out of the science of the big bang. Do you subscribe to evolution, or is it just the big bang which your personal feelings don't tag along with? Please be reasonable here. I'm talking about predictions confirmed by experimental measurements, this is the scientific criterion, not prejudice.

Best wishes, Nigel Cook

Nigel Cook, part II (more of this thread archived)

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
On the problem in physics, see http://www.ivorcatt.com/421.htm which points out:
‘Children lose interest … because a natural interest in the world around them has been replaced by an unnatural acceptance of the soundness of certain views, the correctness of particular opinions and the validity of specific claims.’ – David Lewis, You can teach your child intelligence, Book Club Associates, London, 1982, p. 258.
The problems of speculation in physics about non-causual (purely mathematical) guesswork are discussed at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/ for example http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=230 where Peter Woit of Columbia University says: 'the danger is that there may be lots of ways of “quantizing gravity”, and with no connection to experiment you could never choose amongst them. String theory became so popular partly because it held out hope for being able to put the standard model and gravity into the same structure. But there’s no reason to believe it’s the only way of doing that, and people should be trying different things in order to come up with some new ideas.'
Gravity is a prime example of the need for causality since all purely speculative attempts at finding predictive equations for quantum gravity have failed. Causality is discussed at http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=706468&ln=en and in more detail at http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/
It is unacceptable for a few to suppress proved developments giving false reasons for doing so. There is always a need on the part of some to dismiss approaches which they are ignorant of for false reasons, for example stating that they have not been properly peer-reviewed or published when they have been, and stating that they should not be included in an encyclopedia simply because they are not already in it. This sort of argument is circular. Another suppression is by the false statement that facts used to prove correct results are speculative. When the three facts are in fact well accepted, this is a false statement. (edit by User:217.137.87.10, Nigel)
You are not the first person to think that their grand insight deserves to be here, and you won't be the last.
  • If Wikipedia existed 1905, Einstein could not have placed special relativity here since it was original and (more importantly) unsupported by other physicists.
  • However, by 1910, an anti-relativist could not have kept special relativity out since it had become highly controversial and gained some significant supporters.
Wikipedia policy doesn't give a damn whether your work is right or wrong. The issue is the level of support it has in the relevant fields and/or notoriety outside of them. As best we can tell, you are utterly lacking in any significant support in the relevant fields, and may the the only person who supports or cares about your ideas. Wikipedia doesn't care why that is. Instead it cares that it is.
As for your statement that your model is based on facts: I agree. However that does not mean that it is true. Example:
  • Fact 1: The Moon is slightly green
  • Fact 2: Some cheeses are slightly green
  • Conclusion: The Moon is made of green cheese.
It therefore is not a given that your model is correct even though the intial facts are, and more importantly it is not the job of Wikipedia to rule on it's correctness anyway. --EMS | Talk 06:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. My apologies to Nigel for not having made the point this succinctly earlier, and to eveyone else for choosing to respond again. --EMS | Talk 06:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

To Ems: your statements about the moon being made from green cheese just show how ignorant you are of mechanism, unlike questionable associations based on facts. The facts are widely accepted, I am not proposing them, they are already well known, and the proof deals with the mechanism in detail. There is no mechanism in arriving in associating the moon with green cheese, so it shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Everything you have ever said has been false statements made to suppress the freedom of people to learn. You support ignorance, and that alone is what I object to. It is inexcusable for you to continue deleting references to mechanistic proof. For example, Einstein and many others supported a mechanistic view of the fabric of space in producing gravity. It is not my personal idea, all I'm doing is trying to get knowledge spread more widely. I give credit to who it is due, which is to other people:

‘… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.’ – Bernard Schutz, ‘General Relativity’, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

‘It was proposed that a mechanism of gravity should be developed to rigorously test all of the consequences of the physical fluid model for the fabric of space… The success of this model for gravity has implications for the unification of fundamental forces via quantum theory.’ – Nigel Cook, Solution to a problem with general relativity, CERN Document Server paper preprint EXT-2004-007.

Fact 1: big bang is observed as receding galaxies, with speed increasing directly in proportion to the time past that we are seeing, so increasing speed/time = acceleration in the observable space-time (if you go faster with distance in your car, you are accelerating, the acceleration being the increase in speed divided by the time interval taken)

Fact 2: by Newton’s 2nd experimentally based law (F=ma), this outward acceleration multiplied by the mass of the receding galaxies is the effective outward force of big bang explosion, 7 x 1043 N (acceleration implies a force)

Fact 3: by Newton’s 3rd experimentally based law, every force has an equal and opposite reactive force: so there is equal inward force caused by the fabric of space (like an implosion type nuclear weapon in which half the total force of TNT initially goes inward)

In quantum gravity, the big error in physics is that Hubble in 1929 divided the recession speeds by the apparent distances to get his constant, v/R = H. In fact the distances increase while the light is coming back to us. What he should have done is to represent it as a variation in speed with time past. Whereas H has units s-1 (1/age of universe), the directly observed Hubble ratio is equal to v/t = HR/(1/H) = RH2 (and therefore has units of ms-2, acceleration). In the big bang, the recession velocities from here outward vary from v = 0 towards v = c, and the corresponding times after the big bang vary from 15,000 million years (t = 1/H) towards zero time. Hence, the apparent acceleration as seen in space-time is

a = (variation in velocity)/(variation in time) = c / (1/H) = cH = 6 x 10-10 ms-2.

Although a small acceleration, a large mass of the universe is involved so the outward force (F = ma) is very large. The inward Higgs field pressure gives the right value for G, disproving the ‘critical density’ formula of general relativity by ½ e3 = 10 times. This disproves most speculative ‘dark matter’. Since gravity is the inward push caused by the Higgs field flowing around the moving fundamental particles to fill in the void left in their wake, there will only be a gravitational ‘pull’ (push) where there is a surrounding expansion. Where there is no surrounding expansion there is no gravitational retardation to slow matter down. This is in agreement with observations that there is no slowing down (a fictitious acceleration is usually postulated to explain the lack of slowing down of supernovae).

The big bang causes an outward force (Newton’s 2nd law) that results in an equal inward force (Newton’s 3rd law) which causes gravity as an inward force, Higgs field pressure. Where partially shielded by mass, the inward pressure causes gravity. Apples are pushed downwards towards the earth, a space shield.

This inward force is carried by the fabric of space around matter (Higgs bosons in the standard model), so the inward pressure (force / area) goes as the inverse-square law, causing gravitation and predicting correct G. Current teaching of general relativity, as causing a flat surface like a rubber sheet to curve into a manifold, is unhelpful to further progress in unifying quantum space with gravitation, since physical space fills volume, not surface area.

The Higgs boson explains inertial mass, which by Einstein’s equivalence principle is the same as gravitational mass. Feynman seemed to discuss this vaguely in ‘Character of Physical Law’ 1965 BBC lectures, with a diagram showing that if there is a pressure in space masses will be pushed together by mutual shielding. He elsewhere noted that the contraction effect in general relativity compresses the earth’s radius by (1/3)GM/c2 = 1.5 mm. (By the same pressure effect for inertial mass in motion, you get the FitzGerald contraction in the direction of motion, explaining the Michelson-Morley result; see discussion of general relativity below.) The gravitational contraction is radial only, not affecting the circumference, so there a difference between the true radius and that calculated by Euclidean geometry. Thus curved space using non-Euclidean geometry, or you can seek the physical basis of the pressure in the surrounding universe. If you have a big bang with speeds increasing in spacetime (v = dR/dt = RH, where H is Hubble constant) that means acceleration of a = dv/dt = [d(RH)]/[dR/(RH)] = RH2, so there is outward force F = ma due to the big bang around a mass, which means equal and opposite reaction (inward force divided by area is the Higg’s field pressure, F/A = P). The drag effect that worried Feynman is simply the increase in mass that occurs as speed rises.

(from http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ which also contains full mathematical proof)

The fact that you personally wish to keep other people in ignorance is not proof that there is no interest in science. It certainly is not proof that the information I wish to add a link to on Wikipedia is information which is my work. Other people, such as Einstein and Eddington, came up with the central work. Nigel

If everything that opposes your views is a lie, then there is no reason to discuss this further. --EMS | Talk 19:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ems: not "everything" just you, and not "my views" but the work of Einstein, Eddington, and others. It is a shame every reason you have given for deleting a single link I whish to insert to the research of Einstein and others has been shown to be wrong. Since you continue to invent reasons of increasing absurdity, such as analogy to the moon being made of cheese, you appear to be deliberately fabricating excuses for keeping this off the Wikipedia article. A rational person, once the evidence is explained, would behave in a more civilised way. Your approach has at no time been constructive on this matter. It is no good saying that science is a personal business, or that I discovered that a fluid fabric of space is the source of gravity according to general relativity. All I did was to popularise other people's work by adding a rigorous calculation of the gravity law and strength prediction from mechanism. A published correct calculation is not a view or opinion. Yours sincerely, Nigel

You hold up Einstein, Eddington, and others like a talisman. That helps you little if you do not understand their work. Example: In general relativity, gravitational effects (including the accelerating Hubble expansion) are due to inertial motion along the time-like geodesics of a curved spacetime. No forces are involved. (That is a fact about GR, whether you like it or not.) That is enough to turn your logic into a bunch of green cheese.
In fact, your using Einstein like a talisman is a red flag that something is wrong. Sir Issac Newton once said "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Yet gravity is his own work, not that of Galileo, Kepler, and Hooke. Similarly, this shielding theory is yours, even if it has been inspired by others. If it could stand on it's own, you would not need to prop it up with Einstein's name.
I have presented the above to you for your own edification, since it strikes me as unfair to you to bring up green cheese yet not explain it fully in this case. I know that you will not accept that argument any of this, but at least you have seen it. I hope that someday it will be helpful to you.
In any case, Wikipedia cares not if you are right or wrong. It cannot tell and it is not it's job to rule on it. The real question is not whether your idea deserves scientific or popular consideration but whether it is getting it. For whatever reason, it is not. That is the bottom line, and I will now leave it at that. --EMS | Talk 15:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


EMS: It is Einstein's, and acceleration is real, see: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=240:

Nigel Cook Says:

August 12th, 2005 at 2:23 pm ‘It’s just common sense to be skeptical of people who are making grandiose and radical claims unless they’ve got some good evidence for them…’

Eddington, who verified GR in 1919 wrote in his 1920 book Space Time and Gravitation, p. 152: ‘The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’

The best example of Einstein’s problems was the twin’s paradox, which is resolved by absolute acceleration, requiring general relativity, not special.

It’s the popularisations of relativity, based on out of date stuff, which discredit common sense. Or else they go with one ‘interpretation’ and quote Bohr (defending Copenhagen Interpretation wavefunction collapse) saying: ‘Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.’

This means that commonsense approaches, like the simple mechanism for gravity that Feynman discussed in a 1965 BBC lecture (click my name), are not encouraged, even if they give more testable predictions than string theory, and are consistent with general relativity!


EMS, this proves you wrong. I need to use Newton and Einstein, we all do. However much you rave madly about green cheese or your other paranoid fixations on snobbery and raging abuse without checking the facts (oh yes, the facts should not be in Wikipedia, because you hate Einstein) - other people disagree with you. Can't you understand that you are just plain wrong and everyone is laughing at you?

Thanks,

Nigel Cook

<A HREF="http://feynman137.tripod.com/">The gauge boson radiation causing gravity and electromagnetism is DISPLACEMENT CURRENT. Catt shows that Maxwell got his interpretation of this ‘displacement current’ wrong, by ignoring the time it takes light speed electricity to flow along the capacitor plates. His co-authors Drs. Walton and Davidson mathematically worked out how the transmission line theory of Heaviside can be applied to explain the charging curve of a capacitor, which is compared to reality and is a correct prediction. Catt's error follows from Heaviside’s false idea that the light speed electricity Poynting-Heaviside vector is the same as light, with the two conductors guiding the light which travels in the insulator between them. This is false, as we know electricity originates as electrons in conductors and such like, although it is true that the measured speed is that in the insulator not the wires. What is going on is plain from quantum electrodynamics, gauge bosons/photons are being exchanged via the insulator between the two conductors. This is why parallel wires carrying currents attract/repel. In addition, the radio transmitter and receiver aerial form a capacitor with air as the dielectric. The radio waves are displacement current energy, detectable just when the varying current varies the electric field across the transmitter aerial. In the same way, the displacement current flows in the capacitor only while the field in the capacitor plate is varying, due to its charging up or discharging. Maxwell's error was fiddling a theory to fit Weber's 1856 observation that 1/(root of product of permittivity and permeability) = c. This fiddle is like the application by Rayleigh of a wave equation to sound without understanding the pressure and force mechanisms involved in particulate (molecular) sound waves. Planck showed the resolution to the problem with the wave model of light by the quantum theory, while Bohr had shown that Maxwell's light theory was incompatible with the atom. Nobody corrected Maxwell's false theory, however. In reality, ‘displacement current’ is the gauge boson, causing electromagnetic and gravitational forces, and all radio and light waves. Emitted by due to the centripetal acceleration of continuous, uniformly spinning charges (fundamental particles) with no oscillation, it is undetectable radiation, but still carries pressure and force (pressure times area), causing fundamental forces.</A>

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gravity/Archive_3&oldid=648588926"