The big bang as source for fundamental force mechanisms

[papageno]

1. You have no understanding of the limitations of quantum mechanics based on what your irrational belief that Bloch has solved the problem of electricity using quantum mechanics.

I have not said that Bloch solved the problem of electricity.
But his theorem is a cornerstone in the theory of metals.

2. Your vague attacks on Ivor Catt (including vague sneers in brackets), are pseudo-scientific garbage. If Ivor Catt did the horoscope for the News of the World it would not be a scientific reason to dismiss science.

Ivor Catt's not-so-vague attacks are the pseudo-scientific garbage.

I explained why I do not give him any credibility about fundamental physics: he has shown that he does not understand electromagnetism.

3. You have made no effort to understand the theories you criticise, as stated above. Can you comment on the proof of the mechanism of gravity please? Or is your definition of "science" that which is obsolete?

A "proof" based on misconceptions and misunderstandings of the theory of electromagnetism?
A "proof" where the assumptions are not discussed and explained?

[papageno]

You have no idea which thread you are in, what the purpose of science is, or anything except throwing around insults.

Would you mind to back up your assertions?

[EDIT: back -> back up]

[TravisM]

Why study or try to fully understand a theory who's original proposition is flawed?

One bright morning in the middle of the night, two dead boys got up to fight. Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other. A deaf policeman heard this noise and came and killed these two dead boys. If you don't believe me ask the blind man, he saw it all.

[Nigel]

Ivor Catt's not-so-vague attacks are the pseudo-scientific garbage.

I explained why I do not give him any credibility about fundamental physics: he has shown that he does not understand electromagnetism.

A "proof" based on misconceptions and misunderstandings of the theory of electromagnetism?
A "proof" where the assumptions are not discussed and explained?

Ivor Catt and David S. Walton had a discussion in May 1976 at the end of which Walton wanted to get an analysis of where the electron comes into it, and Ivor said "stop" or similar. This is reported in the preface to Catt's book "Electromagnetism 1" which was ridiculed by B. Lago of Germany in Wireless World and in an IEE journal review of the book.

You say he does not understand electromagnetism. Officially Maxwell's electromagnetism is incompatible with quantum electrodynamics. You have no idea what you are talking about. Officially there are two conflicting systems "bridged" by Bohr's complementary principle.

Ivor Catt works in digital electronics. He sees no need for status quo, but neither does he want to get bogged down spending his life in quantum theory. What electromagnetism lacked was mechanism to reconcile the contradictions which Gell-Mann says are Bohr's "brainwashing" of a "generation of physicists".

[Nigel]

Why study or try to fully understand a theory who's original proposition is flawed?

One bright morning in the middle of the night, two dead boys got up to fight. Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other. A deaf policeman heard this noise and came and killed these two dead boys. If you don't believe me ask the blind man, he saw it all.

Just in case you followed the phys forums links and were impressed with the science, here is my rebuttal which they haven't published:

> From: "Cook, Nigel B" <s0210616@glos.ac.uk>
> To: <Urs.Schreiber@uni-essen.de>
> Cc: <nigelbryancook@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:10 AM
> Subject: Requested post on theory development of physics forums
>

> >
> > Feynman’s gravity ( http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ ) proof resulted in two
> more threads being closed
> >
> > 1. The first was as a result of abuse hurled by Chroot, who denied
> electric energy goes at light speed and therefore starts to flow out from
> the power source before it knows whether the circuit has a load on it at the
> other end of the wires. If there is no load, the energy having charged the
> open-ended wires to the potential difference of the battery, ‘reflects’ back
> to the battery at light speed. There is an endless circulation of energy in
> this way.
> >
> > 2. The second was a political attack on my dismissal of people trying to
> bog down my science with their own science. I can understand that some
> people use this forum to vent their frustrations on others, but intolerance
> gets the world no where and should be rejected: Anti Crank is actually a
> crank since all his hyperlinks lead to lies, sneers, and political mud by
> other people being dismissed by me as anti-science. Anti Crank falsely
> stated that for spherical symmetry the elements of distance in each
> perpendicular direction are not equal. He obviously does not know the
> difference between the divergence operator and the Laplacian operator,
> employing first (gradient) and second-order derivatives respectively, and
> falsely stated something about the squares of dx, dy, dx being equal
> instead, that being obvious, and that proving my case to be ‘Herr Furher’
> gibberish. The moderator immediately closed the thread denying a response,
> indicating therefore that he agrees that somehow radial gradients in
> spherical symmetry are not equal!
> >
> > The ‘glorious leader’ scenario in science is that in which some guy is
> used as oracle to decide what is right and what is wrong. Today’s science
> depends on decisions taken by peer reviewers appointed by journals. It is
> not democratic. If you want to throw the ‘Herr Furher’ insults about
> rationally, thrown them at dictators, please. I apologise for not being able
> to ignore Professor Josephson’s bigoted abuses, but we need to understand
> the mechanisms of basic forces not set out to throw ill-informed crank stuff
> about.

[papageno]

Nigel,

I am still waiting for you to back up your assertions.

Please explain exactly where classical electromagnetism is incompatible with quantum electrodynamics.

Hint: QED incorporates Special Relativity, which in turn is THE theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies.
And if you are referring to the fact that point-like charges do not fit well in classical electromagnetism, Maxwell himself and every physicist since knows that very well. And that is the reason why we ended up with QED!

Ivor Catt does not understand electromagnetism because he tried to use circuit theory to argue against the displacement current introduced by Maxwell. He is trying to use the approximation of the theory to argue against the theory itself.
He seems to be unaware that he can design digital circuits because the theory is correct.

If Ivor Catt "does not want to get bogged down spending his life in quantum theory" he is free to do it, but then he has no business arguing against it or trying to propose alternative theories based on misconceptions and misunderstandings.

[Nigel]

Nigel,

Please explain exactly where classical electromagnetism is incompatible with quantum electrodynamics.

Hint: QED incorporates Special Relativity, which in turn is THE theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies.
And if you are referring to the fact that point-like charges do not fit well in classical electromagnetism, Maxwell himself and every physicist since knows that very well. And that is the reason why we ended up with QED!

Ivor Catt does not understand electromagnetism because he tried to use circuit theory to argue against the displacement current introduced by Maxwell. He is trying to use the approximation of the theory to argue against the theory itself.
He seems to be unaware that he can design digital circuits because the theory is correct.

If Ivor Catt "does not want to get bogged down spending his life in quantum theory" he is free to do it, but then he has no business arguing against it or trying to propose alternative theories based on misconceptions and misunderstandings.

1. Special relativity as page 1 of this thread shows, is incompatible with reality: it denies the absolute motion measured by the +/- 3 mK blue and red shift in the 2.736 K microwave background that the U2 aircraft and NASA's COBE satellite measured. The fact that the predictions of Special Relativity are correct (mass increase with velocity, length contraction, etc.) prove that Einstein's mathematical framework is a MIRROR of reality.

2. Ivor Catt shows in his peer-reviewed IEEE papers (one of which is co-authored with Gibson) that the mechanism behind the capacitor, inductor, transformer, etc., is light speed TEM (transverse electromagnetic) energy. The fallacy in Einstein's argument is his assumption that the invariance in Maxwell's equations implies that no absolute motion can exist, whereas the correct interpretation is that we live in a SINGLE VELOCITY UNIVERSE, the single velocity being c. Einstein gets in a muddle when you consider the spin of the electron, which when you combine classical and QED gives 137c. This is resolved by Bohring physics, called the politics of "complementarity" and "correspondence".

3. I'm still waiting for you to ridicule the experimental fact that any charged object x metres long at v volts gives out a pulse 2x/c long at v/2 volts. This proves that "static charge" is reciprocating light speed energy. All matter is "static charge". Hence we live in a SINGLE VELOCITY UNIVERSE.

4. I'm the one arguing with Ivor to make his stuff clearer. You are under the misconception that I back up Ivor's politics. Herman Kahn of the RAND Corporation in U.S. Congressional Hearings on the Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, 22-26 June 1959, argued that if you have a choice between being killed "peacefully" or threatening a hot war, it is more moral to take the latter choice, because at least you know you did your very best and didn't slink back into the woodwork for fear of ridicule from the big mouths who don't back up their assertions. When Herman Kahn was asked whether he preferred "sunshine units" or "strontium units" (both were politically proposed names for 1 micro-micro curie of sr-90 per gram of human bone), Kahn famously replied: "I get involved in many controversies, but try to keep the number down." It may be a pity that Ivor does not do likewise, or then again, perhaps it is better that Ivor sticks to his guns, calls spades spades, and does not respond to many of the malicious attacks which result upon him.

Best wishes,
Nigel

[papageno]

1. Special relativity as page 1 of this thread shows, is incompatible with reality: it denies the absolute motion measured by the +/- 3 mK blue and red shift in the 2.736 K microwave background that the U2 aircraft and NASA's COBE satellite measured. The fact that the predictions of Special Relativity are correct (mass increase with velocity, length contraction, etc.) prove that Einstein's mathematical framework is a MIRROR of reality.

Saying "the predictions of Special Relativity are correct" and "Special Relativity is incompatible with reality" is contradictory. Experiments are done in the reality.

Using the cosmic background as a frame of reference idoes not mean that it is an absolute frame of reference.

2. Ivor Catt shows in his peer-reviewed IEEE papers (one of which is co-authored with Gibson) that the mechanism behind the capacitor, inductor, transformer, etc., is light speed TEM (transverse electromagnetic) energy.

Are you saying that he "discovered" that the energy in a circuit is contained mostly in the electric field outside the circuit?
(Electromagnetic waves are not necessarily transversal in materials.)

Which is something I learned in my second undergraduate year.

The fallacy in Einstein's argument is his assumption that the invariance in Maxwell's equations implies that no absolute motion can exist, whereas the correct interpretation is that we live in a SINGLE VELOCITY UNIVERSE, the single velocity being c.

What does "single velocity universe" mean?

Physicists gave up the concept of absolute motion since Galileo Galilei. With Einstein we gave up the concept of absolute simultaneity.

Einstein gets in a muddle when you consider the spin of the electron, which when you combine classical and QED gives 137c. This is resolved by Bohring physics, called the politics of "complementarity" and "correspondence".

Actually it was resolved by Dirac, and later perfected by quantum electrodynamics.

3. I'm still waiting for you to ridicule the experimental fact that any charged object x metres long at v volts gives out a pulse 2x/c long at v/2 volts. This proves that "static charge" is reciprocating light speed energy. All matter is "static charge". Hence we live in a SINGLE VELOCITY UNIVERSE.

I am still waiting for you to explain the setup of the experiment in clear terms.

4. I'm the one arguing with Ivor to make his stuff clearer. You are under the misconception that I back up Ivor's politics. Herman Kahn of the RAND Corporation in U.S. Congressional Hearings on the Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, 22-26 June 1959, argued that if you have a choice between being killed "peacefully" or threatening a hot war, it is more moral to take the latter choice, because at least you know you did your very best and didn't slink back into the woodwork for fear of ridicule from the big mouths who don't back up their assertions. When Herman Kahn was asked whether he preferred "sunshine units" or "strontium units" (both were politically proposed names for 1 micro-micro curie of sr-90 per gram of human bone), Kahn famously replied: "I get involved in many controversies, but try to keep the number down." It may be a pity that Ivor does not do likewise, or then again, perhaps it is better that Ivor sticks to his guns, calls spades spades, and does not respond to many of the malicious attacks which result upon him.

You said you wanted to keep the discussion to science.

[papageno]

The 377 ohm dielectric of space is that which permits forces to act with only the inverse square law dispersion with distance (no additional exponential attenuation occurs, because the impedance of 377 ohms is fixed irrespective of the distance the force acts over). By simple algebraic manipulation the 377 ohm impedance and the light speed of the TEM wave, you produce the permittivity and permeability of space.

Of course. That's how the impedance of empty space is derived in the first place.

[Nigel]

1. Saying "the predictions of Special Relativity are correct" and "Special Relativity is incompatible with reality" is contradictory. Experiments are done in the reality.

2. Using the cosmic background as a frame of reference idoes not mean that it is an absolute frame of reference.

3. Are you saying that he "discovered" that the energy in a circuit is contained mostly in the electric field outside the circuit?
(Electromagnetic waves are not necessarily transversal in materials.)

Which is something I learned in my second undergraduate year.

4. What does "single velocity universe" mean?

5. Physicists gave up the concept of absolute motion since Galileo Galilei. With Einstein we gave up the concept of absolute simultaneity.

6. Actually it was resolved by Dirac, and later perfected by quantum electrodynamics.

3. I'm still waiting for you to ridicule the experimental fact that any charged object x metres long at v volts gives out a pulse 2x/c long at v/2 volts. This proves that "static charge" is reciprocating light speed energy. All matter is "static charge". Hence we live in a SINGLE VELOCITY UNIVERSE.

I am still waiting for you to explain the setup of the experiment in clear terms.

You said you wanted to keep the discussion to science.

1. The postulates of special relativity are distinct from the predictions.

2. Say that again, more clearly, or retract it.

3. Catt states Oliver Heaviside discovered it in 1875 while signalling with Morse Code in the undersea cable between Newcastle and Denmark. Ivor's politics state that he is largely re-discovering Heaviside. Glad you had a decent teacher!

4. Everything has a single velocity given the dielectric it is in, c. Spin and orbit speeds of fundamental particles give this. It gives an explanation of why you happen to have the constant c in the equation of Einstein's E=mc2. Half the energy of matter is electric, half magnetic which is usually cancelled by Pauli pairing of adjacent electrons. ( http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ )

5. What's new?

5. Wrong! Dirac's quantum electrodynamics introduced the 137 c spin speed for the electron equator. Dirac did not "perfect" quantum electrodynamics! Instead, Dirac made the false prediction that the magnetic moment of the electron was exactly 1 Bohr magneton. It was later found to be 1.00116... Bohr magnetons. Feynman and others "perfected" quantum electrodynamics by working out diagrams to represent various virtual particle interactions between the spinning electron and its surrounding field energy, the first correction being the factor 1 + 1/(2 pi x 137) = 1.00116, and later Feynman diagram corrections get the agreement to 13 decimals or so. The coupling constant 137 comes up in various Q.E.D. situations and is also the factor you need to divide the Q.E.D. force strength by to get Coulomb's law.

[Nigel]

The 377 ohm dielectric of space is that which permits forces to act with only the inverse square law dispersion with distance (no additional exponential attenuation occurs, because the impedance of 377 ohms is fixed irrespective of the distance the force acts over). By simple algebraic manipulation the 377 ohm impedance and the light speed of the TEM wave, you produce the permittivity and permeability of space.

Of course. That's how the impedance of empty space is derived in the first place.

So you disagree with the following:

‘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.

‘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.

[papageno]

1. Saying "the predictions of Special Relativity are correct" and "Special Relativity is incompatible with reality" is contradictory. Experiments are done in the reality.

1. The postulates of special relativity are distinct from the predictions.

First postulate: in a frame of reference where the laws of mechanics are valid, the laws of electromagnetism and optics are also valid.
Is this incompatible with reality?

Second postulate: the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the state of motion of the source.
This is based on experiments. Is this incompatible with reality?

If the predictions of a theory agree with the experimental results, is the theory incompatible with reality?

2. Using the cosmic background as a frame of reference does not mean that it is an absolute frame of reference.

2. Say that again, more clearly, or retract it.

A preferred frame of reference is not necessarily an absolute.

3. Are you saying that he "discovered" that the energy in a circuit is contained mostly in the electric field outside the circuit?
(Electromagnetic waves are not necessarily transversal in materials.)

Which is something I learned in my second undergraduate year.

3. Catt states Oliver Heaviside discovered it in 1875 while signalling with Morse Code in the undersea cable between Newcastle and Denmark. Ivor's politics state that he is largely re-discovering Heaviside. Glad you had a decent teacher!

Considering that it is found in any introductory book to electromagnetism, does this mean that Ivor Catt did not read them before?

4. What does "single velocity universe" mean?

4. Everything has a single velocity given the dielectric it is in, c. Spin and orbit speeds of fundamental particles give this. It gives an explanation of why you happen to have the constant c in the equation of Einstein's E=mc2. Half the energy of matter is electric, half magnetic which is usually cancelled by Pauli pairing of adjacent electrons.

How do you explain nuclei?

5. Physicists gave up the concept of absolute motion since Galileo Galilei. With Einstein we gave up the concept of absolute simultaneity.

5. What's new?

You were saying: "The fallacy in Einstein's argument is his assumption that the invariance in Maxwell's equations implies that no absolute motion can exist..."

See above the first postulate of Special Relativity.

6. Actually it was resolved by Dirac, and later perfected by quantum electrodynamics.

6. Wrong! Dirac's quantum electrodynamics introduced the 137 c spin speed for the electron equator. Dirac did not "perfect" quantum electrodynamics!

Which is not what I said.
The problem was resolved by Dirac and the solution was perfected in QED.

By the way, "spin" does not mean that the electron has a structure and is rotating.

Instead, Dirac made the false prediction that the magnetic moment of the electron was exactly 1 Bohr magneton.

I would not say "false", but not "exact".

It was later found to be 1.00116... Bohr magnetons. Feynman and others "perfected" quantum electrodynamics by working out diagrams to represent various virtual particle interactions between the spinning electron and its surrounding field energy, the first correction being the factor 1 + 1/(2 pi x 137) = 1.00116, and later Feynman diagram corrections get the agreement to 13 decimals or so. The coupling constant 137 comes up in various Q.E.D. situations and is also the factor you need to divide the Q.E.D. force strength by to get Coulomb's law.

3. I'm still waiting for you to ridicule the experimental fact that any charged object x metres long at v volts gives out a pulse 2x/c long at v/2 volts. This proves that "static charge" is reciprocating light speed energy. All matter is "static charge". Hence we live in a SINGLE VELOCITY UNIVERSE.

I am still waiting for you to explain the setup of the experiment in clear terms.

[papageno]

The 377 ohm dielectric of space is that which permits forces to act with only the inverse square law dispersion with distance (no additional exponential attenuation occurs, because the impedance of 377 ohms is fixed irrespective of the distance the force acts over). By simple algebraic manipulation the 377 ohm impedance and the light speed of the TEM wave, you produce the permittivity and permeability of space.

Of course. That's how the impedance of empty space is derived in the first place.

So you disagree with the following:

‘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.

‘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.

Do these quote contradict that the impedance of vacuum was derived from its electric permittivity and magnetic permeabiltiy?

[Nigel]

1. First postulate: in a frame of reference where the laws of mechanics are valid, the laws of electromagnetism and optics are also valid.
Is this incompatible with reality?

Second postulate: the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the state of motion of the source.
This is based on experiments. Is this incompatible with reality?

If the predictions of a theory agree with the experimental results, is the theory incompatible with reality?

2. A preferred frame of reference is not necessarily an absolute.

3. Considering that it is found in any introductory book to electromagnetism, does this mean that Ivor Catt did not read them before?

4. How do you explain nuclei?

5. You were saying: "The fallacy in Einstein's argument is his assumption that the invariance in Maxwell's equations implies that no absolute motion can exist..." See above the first postulate of Special Relativity.

6. Which is not what I said. The problem was resolved by Dirac and the solution was perfected in QED.

I am still waiting for you to explain the setup of the experiment in clear terms.

1. I dispute the first postulate, no absolute motion, and just rephrasing Einstein's 1905 paper to obfuscate does not improve anybody's physics.

The postulate, not the prediction, disagrees with reality as I have already explained. This is another problem with Popper's "speculative theory proved by results" type of science, aside from the lack of physical mechanism. Einstein is fine as a first effort, but to put his work on a statue for all time as unassailable is frankly unscientific. We have absolute motion and Einstein's relativity is incorrect.

2. "Preferred frame of reference" is good gibberish to quote from some mathematician who lives in fairy land and thinks fairies make things fall.

3. I'm not interested in the politics of which books use Catt or Heaviside.

4. Like the next nuclear physicist, like Gell-Mann. All nuclei have magnetic moments. Even the "neutron" has a magnetic moment. From the magnetic moments and scattering experiments you nucleons (neutrons & protons) all have 2 types of charges, quarks (upquarks and downquarks). (Discussion of nuclear force mechanism in relation to the other forces is in my Electronics World article of 2003, partly on internet.)

5. See 1 above.

6. Dirac's equation plus classical EM conflict with Special Relativity by saying something (electron equator) moves 137 times faster than light! This is dealt with by some guys by admitting that there is something unresolved, and by other guys by saying that fairies control "spin".

If you don't know how to measure a discharge from a charged object using a sampling oscilloscope, try a standard textbook in a library.

Many thanks for this debate. Nigel

[Nigel]

Do these quote contradict that the impedance of vacuum was derived from its electric permittivity and magnetic permeabiltiy?

1. Ivor's postulate that the universe comprises of c-speed TEM waves and 377 ohm space allows permittivity and permeability of space to be calculated from speed c and impedance 377 ohms.

2. Ivor's postulate can be proved by measuring the TEM wave B and E fields and their speed c. All 3 perpendicular vectors, B, E and c, are measurable. From them you learn what a TEM wave is, and find for perpendicular vectors E = cB. Cases where B is not present occur when there is cancelling, e.g., in a steady charged wire the B field from the left travelling energy has a curl than cancels out the curl from the right travelling energy. Cancelled fields do not imply cancelled energy, which remains there, undetectable in the steady state. Similarly the "cancelled" energy at the dark fringes in Young's double slit experiment, and many other examples.


3. The impedance 377 ohms is also measurable using a high speed sampling oscilloscope, as Ivor Catt found. It was originally introduced by Heaviside to allow the current flow in a long pair of unterminated wires to be calculated while the energy is travelling up them towards the open circuit at light speed. Obviously you have a geometric effect of the magnetic fields partly cancelling in a pair of wires, depending on their diameters or whether it is coaxial cable. Nevertheless, you can measure the 377 ohms. You can then use the 3 facts you get from your oscilloscope (c, E = cB, and 377 ohms) to derive Maxwell's equations and the electron's characteristics, plus gravity. See http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/

Best wishes, Nigel

[papageno]

1. I dispute the first postulate, no absolute motion, and just rephrasing Einstein's 1905 paper to obfuscate does not improve anybody's physics.

The postulate, not the prediction, disagrees with reality as I have already explained. This is another problem with Popper's "speculative theory proved by results" type of science, aside from the lack of physical mechanism. Einstein is fine as a first effort, but to put his work on a statue for all time as unassailable is frankly unscientific. We have absolute motion and Einstein's relativity is incorrect.

The first postulate is a basic assumption for the theory.
If the assumption is wrong, the theory is wrong and the predictions do not agree with the experiments.
So far there is no evidence that the predictions of Special Relativity do not agree with the experiments.

And the first postulate tells us that there is no absolute motion, because there is no frame of reference where the laws of physics are expecially simple.

2. "Preferred frame of reference" is good gibberish to quote from some mathematician who lives in fairy land and thinks fairies make things fall.

Choosing the microwave background as "special" frame of reference, does not make the laws of physics especially simple. They are the same in any other frame of reference.

3. I'm not interested in the politics of which books use Catt or Heaviside.

Then let's talk about the second postulate.
Is it incompatible with reality?

4. Like the next nuclear physicist, like Gell-Mann. All nuclei have magnetic moments. Even the "neutron" has a magnetic moment. From the magnetic moments and scattering experiments you nucleons (neutrons & protons) all have 2 types of charges, quarks (upquarks and downquarks). (Discussion of nuclear force mechanism in relation to the other forces is in my Electronics World article of 2003, partly on internet.)

Alright, my question was: what keeps the nuclei together?
What prevents the protons from flying apart?
What keeps the quarks together in a nucleon?

6. Dirac's equation plus classical EM conflict with Special Relativity by saying something (electron equator) moves 137 times faster than light!

What is moving faster than light?
As far as we know, the electron has no structure and is not spinning.

This is dealt with by some guys by admitting that there is something unresolved, and by other guys by saying that fairies control "spin".

Physicists never said they have the complete theory of everything.
That does not mean that the current theories are completely worthless.

If you don't know how to measure a discharge from a charged object using a sampling oscilloscope, try a standard textbook in a library.

If you give specific references, I will do it.

[Nigel]

The first postulate is a basic assumption for the theory.
If the assumption is wrong, the theory is wrong and the predictions do not agree with the experiments.
So far there is no evidence that the predictions of Special Relativity do not agree with the experiments.

And the first postulate tells us that there is no absolute motion, because there is no frame of reference where the laws of physics are expecially simple.

Choosing the microwave background as "special" frame of reference, does not make the laws of physics especially simple. They are the same in any other frame of reference.

Alright, my question was: what keeps the nuclei together?
What prevents the protons from flying apart?
What keeps the quarks together in a nucleon?

1. You falsely say "If the assumption is wrong, the theory is wrong and the predictions do not agree with the experiments." This is as false as you can get. Beck, Bethe, and Riezler in Naturwissenshaften, 1931, "Concerning the quantum theory of absolute zero" ridiculed some of the Popperian guesswork by using dubious logic and the 137 number to get the equation for absolute zero of 1 - (2 x 137) = -273 Kelvin. Since the number 137 is dimensionless, this is gibberish. The CORRECT results alone don't prove the case, the physics proves the case!

2. We can measure absolute motion, see page 1 of this thread. It is not personal argument, it is fact. If you measure it, it is there. End of story.

3. Microwave background was emitted just 300,000 years after the big bang, when it was just 300,000/ 15,000,000,000 = 0.00002 of its present age. No theory of the big bang has ever shown any basis for how the radiation emitted that soon after the big bang could be misleading.

4. Nuclei are kept together by exchanging particles between them which act as an attractive force 137 times stronger than EM and identical - as far as experiments can determine to the QED force strength, which is why there are no elements near 137 protons in atomic number (the strong nuclear force is short ranged because the particles exchanged have a limited life time governed by the uncertainty principle). For nuclear forces binding quarks in nuclei, there is a colour force and there is a weak nuclear force for beta radioactivity like free neutron decay.

In his book "Electromagnetism 1" Catt elaborates on a letter he wrote in Wireless World about his co-author Dr David Walton's proof that when two TEM waves pass through one another, travelling in opposite directions, there is always a positive resultant force. Catt qualitatively has gravity, although he does not go into quantitative predictions because most of matter is NUCLEAR. This is where I came in, approaching the gravity mechanism from a different direction to get the proof of the correct strength and force law.

[gritmonger]

1. You falsely say "If the assumption is wrong, the theory is wrong and the predictions do not agree with the experiments." This is as false as you can get. Beck, Bethe, and Riezler in Naturwissenshaften, 1931, "Concerning the quantum theory of absolute zero" ridiculed some of the Popperian guesswork by using dubious logic and the 137 number to get the equation for absolute zero of 1 - (2 x 137) = -273 Kelvin. Since the number 137 is dimensionless, this is gibberish. The CORRECT results alone don't prove the case, the physics proves the case!

The assumption being wrong could invalidate a theory based on that assumption. For instance, assuming that meat causes flies, based on the observation that meat left out develops flies: if this assumption (meat causes flies) is shown to be false, i.e. meat can be left out in a jar with a simple screen over it that keeps out flies and not develop flies, then the assumption that meat causes flies is invalidated, so spontaneous generation theories (based on this assumption) are invalidated as well.

2. We can measure absolute motion, see page 1 of this thread. It is not personal argument, it is fact. If you measure it, it is there. End of story.

Oh, okay. Glad we sorted that out.
SR, GR, all that helps us navigate in space and keeps the GPS system in line: out the window! Totally false! Imagine, a hundred years wasted. And all the results sure seemed to work, too. Shame, really. Tsk.

3. Microwave background was emitted just 300,000 years after the big bang, when it was just 300,000/ 15,000,000,000 = 0.00002 of its present age. No theory of the big bang has ever shown any basis for how the radiation emitted that soon after the big bang could be misleading.

Statement not parsed. Error. This Program will be Closed.

[papageno]

1. You falsely say "If the assumption is wrong, the theory is wrong and the predictions do not agree with the experiments." This is as false as you can get. Beck, Bethe, and Riezler in Naturwissenshaften, 1931, "Concerning the quantum theory of absolute zero" ridiculed some of the Popperian guesswork by using dubious logic and the 137 number to get the equation for absolute zero of 1 - (2 x 137) = -273 Kelvin. Since the number 137 is dimensionless, this is gibberish. The CORRECT results alone don't prove the case, the physics proves the case!

I found a link.

By the way, what is wrong is equating degree Celsius to degrees of freedom.

But you have a point. There are examples where incorrect assumptions yield results that agree with experiments (like Drude's theory for conduction in metals).

However, Special Relativity has been tested, directly and indirectly, over a wide range of experimental conditions.

2. We can measure absolute motion, see page 1 of this thread. It is not personal argument, it is fact. If you measure it, it is there. End of story.

Motion with respect to the cosmic background: why do you say that it is absolute?

What would happen if both we and the cosmic background were moving with the same velocity with respect to something else? We would get same results, wouldn't we?

3. Microwave background was emitted just 300,000 years after the big bang, when it was just 300,000/ 15,000,000,000 = 0.00002 of its present age. No theory of the big bang has ever shown any basis for how the radiation emitted that soon after the big bang could be misleading.

What exactly are you trying to say?

4. Nuclei are kept together by exchanging particles between them which act as an attractive force 137 times stronger than EM and identical - as far as experiments can determine to the QED force strength, which is why there are no elements near 137 protons in atomic number (the strong nuclear force is short ranged because the particles exchanged have a limited life time governed by the uncertainty principle). For nuclear forces binding quarks in nuclei, there is a colour force and there is a weak nuclear force for beta radioactivity like free neutron decay.

But you said earlier:
"Half the energy of matter is electric, half magnetic which is usually cancelled by Pauli pairing of adjacent electrons."

If there is a nuclear (or "color") force, how can the all energy of matter be electric and magnetic?

In his book "Electromagnetism 1" Catt elaborates on a letter he wrote in Wireless World about his co-author Dr David Walton's proof that when two TEM waves pass through one another, travelling in opposite directions, there is always a positive resultant force.

Force on what?

Are the waves in phase?

Catt qualitatively has gravity, although he does not go into quantitative predictions because most of matter is NUCLEAR. This is where I came in, approaching the gravity mechanism from a different direction to get the proof of the correct strength and force law.

[Nigel]

The assumption that no absolute motion can be detected is at variance with the fact that we have a particular absolute motion at any time, determined the anistropy in the accurately measured background radiation. This indicated that it may be better to use a formulation which does not include the denial of absolute motion, such as the 1889 Fitzgerald contraction or the 1893 Lorentz contraction supplemented with the 1901 Larmor observation that mass varies inversely to contraction, (since constant speed of light = distance / time, you get any contradtion in distance being accompanied by similar contraction/dilation in time, keeping the speed of light constant). The original Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction solutions were intended to permit absolute motion and ether of space. The Michelson-Morley experiment which gave a null result did that because there was contraction in the direction of motion. Few physicists have any in depth understanding of the M-M experiment, in my experience. They will tell you that the speed of light was measured in two perpendicular directions and found equal, or they will tell you that when the experiment was repeated with arms of differing length it gave the same result, denying ether absolutely (in fact, the arms were never equal to the wavelength of light, and it was interference bands which were used to indicate any relative difference in light speeds when the instrument was rotated in different directions; it never actually measured any speeds at all).

Even if we deny the observed small +/-3mK cosine variation in the 2.7 K background and claim that it's impossible to have absolute motion, it does not get us any where. The mechanism of gravity is independent of whether there is relative or absolute motion, since it relies on observables (observed highly spherical symmetry in redshift of receding galaxies and clusters of galaxies, density of matter in the universe, 377 ohm fabric of space). By the way, to measure the 377 ohm fabric of space you send a logic step down a two conductor transmission line in a vacuum, and measure the magnetic field and thus permeability (u) and the velocity (c). Z = uc = (4pix10^-7)(3x10^8) = 377 ohms. This fabric of space "completes the circuit" allowing energy to enter and travel down a transmission line even if it is a cable with a short circuit at the other end. Z = 377 ohms behaves like a resistance, allowing Ohm's law and Kirchoff's first law to be violated until the circuit is completed by the passage of the light speed energy.

[papageno]

Nigel,

would you mind to address the questions I asked in my previous posts?

What would happen if both we and the cosmic background were moving with the same velocity with respect to something else? We would get same results, wouldn't we?

If there is a nuclear (or "color") force, how can the all energy of matter be electric and magnetic?

Then let's talk about the second postulate.
Is it incompatible with reality?

What is moving faster than light?
As far as we know, the electron has no structure and is not spinning.

Do these quote contradict that the impedance of vacuum was derived from its electric permittivity and magnetic permeabiltiy?

Choosing the microwave background as "special" frame of reference, does not make the laws of physics especially simple. They are the same in any other frame of reference.

Unless you can prove otherwise.

[Nigel]

Nigel,

would you mind to address the questions I asked in my previous posts?...

Unless you can prove otherwise.

I happen to agree with the Standard Model of modern physics, and with Einstein, and am not disproving anything. Any dissent over the cosmic background radiation and nuclear forces comes from other people, and I'm merely pointing out that it exists, that there is an incomplete Standard Model.

Into that situation, the analysis of mechanism of fundamental forces with a proof of their correct predictions and a proof of their mechanism in step-by-step detail, appears OK. I can see that people want debates and arguments. My search is for analysis of the mechanisms, so I beg to differ in direction.

Best wishes, Nigel

[papageno]

I happen to agree with the Standard Model of modern physics, and with Einstein, and am not disproving anything.

If you do, why do you support a "theory" that tries to explain gravity as a electromagnetic effect?

Any dissent over the cosmic background radiation and nuclear forces comes from other people, and I'm merely pointing out that it exists, that there is an incomplete Standard Model.

Disagreement about details, does not mean that the principle is wrong.

Into that situation, the analysis of mechanism of fundamental forces with a proof of their correct predictions and a proof of their mechanism in step-by-step detail, appears OK. I can see that people want debates and arguments. My search is for analysis of the mechanisms, so I beg to differ in direction.

Before you start looking at "alternative" theories, make sure you understand the currently accepted ones.

[Nigel]

Before you start looking at "alternative" theories, make sure you understand the currently accepted ones.

The colour force from quarks of different masses and charges (-1/3 or +2/3): the mass of the quarks (unlike electrons) is sufficiently large that large ‘virtual’ particles are formed in the surrounding field. The interactions are manifested by the ‘cloud’ of virtual particles around the electromagnetic core that possesses the intricate spin, electric field, and magnetic dipole moment of a fundamental particle. Hence, the colour force is caused not directly by the electromagnetic core, but rather by the cloud of virtual particles which the core’s charge, magnetism and spin affects.

When you attempt to start a discussion on a particular subject, such as mechanism of gravitation, it is surprising how far it’s implications spread. Nigel

[Nigel]

... why do you support a "theory" that tries to explain gravity as a electromagnetic effect?

Any dissent over the cosmic background radiation and nuclear forces comes from other people, and I'm merely pointing out that it exists, that there is an incomplete Standard Model.

Disagreement about details, does not mean that the principle is wrong.

Into that situation, the analysis of mechanism of fundamental forces with a proof of their correct predictions and a proof of their mechanism in step-by-step detail, appears OK. I can see that people want debates and arguments. My search is for analysis of the mechanisms, so I beg to differ in direction.

Before you start looking at "alternative" theories, make sure you understand the currently accepted ones.

I refer you to Stanley Brown's talk of "alternative" gravity mechanism ( http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ ). Officially you do not find much talk of gravity mechanism beyond the assumption that equations alone provide the gravity force. This is rather like saying that a blueprint for a car makes the car go, or that a computer model for an explosion makes the real explosion occur. It is nice that people spend so much effort trying to force fit assumptions on to reality, in that it proves the statement "fact is stranger than fiction".

Best wishes,
Nigel

[papageno]

I refer you to Stanley Brown's talk of "alternative" gravity mechanism ( http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ ). Officially you do not find much talk of gravity mechanism beyond the assumption that equations alone provide the gravity force. This is rather like saying that a blueprint for a car makes the car go, or that a computer model for an explosion makes the real explosion occur. It is nice that people spend so much effort trying to force fit assumptions on to reality, in that it proves the statement "fact is stranger than fiction".

The fact that our current understanding is not perfect or complete (or of everybody's taste), does not necessarily mean that it is entirely wrong and has to be rejected.

Alternative theories have to do better than the current one.

And if you look at the current theory, it does not say "gravity happens because of this equation", but rather "how gravity happens can be described quantitatively by these equations".
And so far it works fine without forcing the experimental results to fit the theory.

[Nigel]

The fact that our current understanding is not perfect or complete (or of everybody's taste), does not necessarily mean that it is entirely wrong and has to be rejected.

Alternative theories have to do better than the current one.

And if you look at the current theory, it does not say "gravity happens because of this equation", but rather "how gravity happens can be described quantitatively by these equations".
And so far it works fine without forcing the experimental results to fit the theory.

No, it doesn't work fine, if it did I would not have had to work on the mechanism.

1. It doesn't get the right answer for the density of the universe, unlike the mechanism.

2. It doesn't give the right expansion rate at extreme distances, where the naive application of general relativity predicts a gravitational slowing down which is not exhibited by the data of supernova redshifts collected by computerised CCD observations (Perlmutter, et al.).

The data shows that if you assume general relativity to be correct in not having any mechanism for gravity (which is actually caused by the space fabric implosion pressure response of surrounding expansion as proved http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ ) you then have to add a repulsive force into general relativity to "correct" it. Similarly, the retrograde motion of Mars was falsely "explained" in the Earth-centred universe system by adding "epicycles" to fix it.

If you go along with Ockham's Razor, you will take consideration of the simplest explanation to explain all the facts (e.g., http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ ). However, perhaps you are more impressed with tensor formulation which falls down when compared to observations?

[papageno]

The fact that our current understanding is not perfect or complete (or of everybody's taste), does not necessarily mean that it is entirely wrong and has to be rejected.

Alternative theories have to do better than the current one.

And if you look at the current theory, it does not say "gravity happens because of this equation", but rather "how gravity happens can be described quantitatively by these equations".
And so far it works fine without forcing the experimental results to fit the theory.

No, it doesn't work fine, if it did I would not have had to work on the mechanism.

1. It doesn't get the right answer for the density of the universe, unlike the mechanism.

2. It doesn't give the right expansion rate at extreme distances, where the naive application of general relativity predicts a gravitational slowing down which is not exhibited by the data of supernova redshifts collected by computerised CCD observations (Perlmutter, et al.).

So, we are missing something, therefore we must reject the whole theory?

The data shows that if you assume general relativity to be correct in not having any mechanism for gravity (which is actually caused by the space fabric implosion pressure response of surrounding expansion as proved http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ ) you then have to add a repulsive force into general relativity to "correct" it. Similarly, the retrograde motion of Mars was falsely "explained" in the Earth-centred universe system by adding "epicycles" to fix it.

Have a look at this and this

If you go along with Ockham's Razor, you will take consideration of the simplest explanation to explain all the facts (e.g., http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ ). However, perhaps you are more impressed with tensor formulation which falls down when compared to observations?

What makes you think that it "falls down"?

Would you mind to back up your claims?

And, your page is full of attacks on the establishment: why don't you focus on the physics?

[Nigel]

So, we are missing something, therefore we must reject the whole theory?

What makes you think that it "falls down"?

Would you mind to back up your claims?

And, your page is full of attacks on the establishment: why don't you focus on the physics?

1. General relativity is the theory I use. However, it is only a theory in uniting electrodynamics with gravitation and accommodating the conservation of energy (including gravitational potential energy). It is better than Newton's theory, but it lacks a mechanism.

2. General relativity can be corrected by finding a mechanism which gives the gravitational constant G of Laplace from the mechanism. By doing this, we avoid the problems of general relativity. We avoid, for example, inventing mysterious repulsive gravity to account for long range continued Hubble expansion (without gravitational retardation) and also the unobserved dark matter postulated to explain why general relativity "predicts" a higher density in the universe than can be observed.

3. I do not reject general relativity, and have always supported it. The paper I sent to Brown, editor of Physical Review Letters, went into the gravity mechanism as a supplement to the Einstein field equations of general relativity. Brown's approach is to not listen. Clearly this is my failure, not his, although if this proves to be right he may get some flak in later years (probably after he has retired or changed careers). If Brown did publish it, he would probably get bigoted abuse sent to him by those who are so in tune with pseudo-explanations that they feel they must insult everyone who takes an unconventional approach to it.

4. The physics is at the top of the page. You are not interested in the physics, only the politics. Therefore I have to accommodate people like you!

Nigel

[papageno]

1. General relativity is the theory I use. However, it is only a theory in uniting electrodynamics with gravitation and accommodating the conservation of energy (including gravitational potential energy). It is better than Newton's theory, but it lacks a mechanism.

What do you consider as "mechanism"?
In what sense does General Relativity lack a "mechanism" for gravity?

2. General relativity can be corrected by finding a mechanism which gives the gravitational constant G of Laplace from the mechanism. By doing this, we avoid the problems of general relativity. We avoid, for example, inventing mysterious repulsive gravity to account for long range continued Hubble expansion (without gravitational retardation) and also the unobserved dark matter postulated to explain why general relativity "predicts" a higher density in the universe than can be observed.

So, we are missing something in applying the theory to our universe.
Does this mean that the theory is incomplete or wrong?

3. I do not reject general relativity, and have always supported it. The paper I sent to Brown, editor of Physical Review Letters, went into the gravity mechanism as a supplement to the Einstein field equations of general relativity. Brown's approach is to not listen. Clearly this is my failure, not his, although if this proves to be right he may get some flak in later years (probably after he has retired or changed careers). If Brown did publish it, he would probably get bigoted abuse sent to him by those who are so in tune with pseudo-explanations that they feel they must insult everyone who takes an unconventional approach to it.

Considering that you said "We can measure absolute motion", this means that either you do not understand General Relativity or you do not agree with it.

4. The physics is at the top of the page. You are not interested in the physics, only the politics. Therefore I have to accommodate people like you!

Explain:
1. the "mechanism" of space-dielectric displacement by a mass;
2. what is the mass of the big-bang;
3. why the "are of shielding" is proportional to the number of particles;
4. what "implosion of pressure" is.

And this concerns just the "explanation" you've put on the top of your page.
What is still missing is the justification of each step in your "derivation".

The rest of the page, about 90% of the space, is devoted to complaints against the establishment.

By the way, have you looked at the links I posted?