Gravity is the biggest hoax perpetrated by physics

[Epsilon=One]

Gravity, as currently understood, is the biggest, longest-running hoax the world has known from science.

Gravity rivals an anthropic god from the theologists; though, the theologists are backing off, while physicists are becoming more entrenched.

Physicists speak, without caveat, of gravity to the layman as if its attraction is a fact; not faith based.

There is absolutely no logic that can support action-at-a-distance in any medium; there is always something unseen or unperceived.

Caltech, alone, may well spend over a billon dollars looking for gravity waves that do not exist. If as Einstein’s theories contend (erroneously) that nothing can exceed the speed of light, we would have found gravity waves long ago.

Quantum gravity is as faith based as quantum mechanics, QCD, etc.

Gravity is not a fundamental force. It is not even close to qualifying as fundamental phenomena. More over, gravity is an amalgam of several unique phenomena.

The source of gravity is unknown; as is its etiology; as is its speed, if observation and GR are reconciled and consulted.

No one less than Feynman has contended that the concept of gravity is metaphysical. And, no one has raised their voice to contradict him . . . until now.

What is referred to as gravitational attraction is actually a compression phenomenon that joins with several other “new physics” phenomena to appear counter-intuitively as observed from the anthropic scale/view of the Universe.

There is nothing metaphysical (faith as a requirement for rationalizing) about gravity. Or, for that matter any other, Natural phenomena.

[T.E. Jones]

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601218 by Mario Rabinowitz, Fen 2006:

'A Theory of Quantum Gravity may not be possible because Quantum Mechanics violates the Equivalence Principle

'Quantum mechanics clearly violates the weak equivalence principle (WEP). This implies that quantum mechanics also violates the strong equivalence principle (SEP), as shown in this paper. Therefore a theory of quantum gravity may not be possible unless it is not based upon the equivalence principle, or if quantum mechanics can change its mass dependence. Neither of these possibilities seem likely at the present time. Examination of QM in n-space, as well as relativistic QM equations does not change this conclusion.'

What Rabinowitz does is this:

Take the Schroedinger equation for an atom. Instead of putting Coulomb's attractive electromagnetic force into it to attract electron toward proton, he puts Newton's law in (page 2).

He finds that the "gravity-binded atom" contains a term with 1/(inertial mass) subtracted from a term proportional to gravitational mass.

"Even for m(inertial) = m(gravitational), ... m appears in the denominator of the kinetic energy term and the numerator of the potential energy term of the Hamiltonian."

Even in extra-dimensions (n-space), "m remains in the quantized equations of motion, even for M >> m; though m cancels out of the classical equations of motion in Newtonian gravity. One would expect m to cancel out when averaging over states with large quantum numbers that puts them effectively in the classical continuum."

On p5, he finds that the quantim gravity acceleration is quantized:

a = v²/r = -G³M³m⁴/(j.h bar)⁴.

The mass dependence on m in this equation is different from Newton's law,

a = MG/r².

Rabinowitz does the same for extra-dimensions and finds the same, then concludes basically that Witten was a ____ when he claimed:

“String theory has the remarkable property of predicting [quantum] gravity.” - Edward Witten, M-theory originator, Physics Today, April 96.

Rabinowitz does not however quote this statement by Witten, and his conclusion and title are milk-and-water.

So has he disproved M-theory?

On p9 Rabinowitz writes: "To my knowledge, my approach to the problem preventing the development of a theory of quantum gravity is original and differs from that of others. The only other paper that I was able to find which comes to the same conclusion as mine is that of Loinger [Spacetime and Substance, v 4, p 182, 2003]. However, he takes a different approach in reaching his conclusion. ...

"[Paul C.W.] Davies [quant-ph/0403027, 2004] discusses tunnelling anomalies .... Although he finds that QM violates the WEP [weak equivalence principle of GR], he does not seem to find an incompatibility between quantum mechanics and the SEP [strong equivalence principle, m(inertial) = m(gravitational)]."

“String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.” - Edward Witten, M-theory originator, Physics Today, April 96.

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

What causes gravity if it is isn't a mathematical analogy to QM?

Dr Thomas Love of California State University has shown that entangled wavefunction collapse (and related assumptions such as superimposed spin states) are a mathematical fabrication introduced as a result of the discontinuity at the instant of switch-over between time dependent and time independent versions of Schroedinger at time of measurement; Alain Aspect’s experiments merely imply that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle doesn’t apply to pairs of photons emitted in opposite directions by a single electron transition in an atom.

Heisenberg guantum mechanics: Poincare chaos applies on the small scale, since the virtual particles of the Dirac sea in the vacuum regularly interact with the electron and upset the orbit all the time, giving wobbly chaotic orbits which statistically average out to be described by the statistical Schroedinger equation - it’s causal, there is no metaphysics involved.

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

- R. P. Feynman, Character of Physical Law, November 1964 Cornell Lectures, broadcast and published in 1965 by BBC, pp. 57-8.

One suggestion that predicts strength of gravity and strength of electromagnetism accurately to within the existing experimental error of the data needed for the prediction, is this: the radiation which causes electromagnetism also causes gravity. Think of atoms as kinds of charged capacitors, positive nucleus and negative electrons.

If you have a series of parallel capacitor plates with different charges, each separated by a vacuum dielectric, you need the total (net) voltage needs to take into account the orientation of the plates.

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

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

Thus, electromagnetism and gravity are different ways that charges add up.

Gravity strength is predicted from a simple causal mechanism where momentum carried by energy of gauge bosons causes forces by pushing things: The Standard Model, which Edward Witten has done a lot of useful work on (before he went into string speculation), is the best tested physical theory. Forces result from radiation exchange in spacetime. The big bang speed is 0-c in spacetime of 0-15 billion years, so outward force F = ma = mc/t ~ 10^43 Newtons. Newton’s 3rd law implies equal inward force, carried by vector bosons (exchange radiation), predicting current cosmology, gravity and the contraction of general relativity, other forces and particle masses: http://feynman137.tripod.com/

[Epsilon=One]

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601218 by Mario Rabinowitz, Fen 2006:I am well aware of Mario’s extensive work. He phoned earlier this year, within a day or two of publishing, “A Theory of Quantum Gravity may not be possible because Quantum Mechanics violates the Equivalence Principle.”

The next day, I phoned him and told him that I thought it was the best work that he has published. If you know Mario, you know that he has been much published in the most prestigious journals . . . and he is quite often cited. I don’t necessarily agree with all of Mario’s conclusions; but, I support his critique of the standard models. Before there can be alternative theory, Pomo status quo must be sharply contested.

Mario and I have been close friends ever since the days of “Cold Fusion” in the early ‘90s when I tracked him down to discuss some of his cited publications that interested me in the “Cold Fusion” published documentation.

I can’t remember much of that first meeting that we discussed about “Cold Fusion”; but I do vividly remember an animated conversation concerning gravity, and particularly, Einstein’s Cosmological Constant and anecdotes about Feynman (RPF) who Mario was personally acquainted with. Later, Mario worked with Pauling his last several years and was always impressed with Pauling’s interest in my writings and our correspondence . . . at the time, I was proposing a rationalization of physical bonds that held some interest.

You quote RPF. He and Einstein share my great admiration. Much of my gravity critique can be traced to both.

Your post is amazingly well written, researched, and thoughtfully analyzed. I appreciate very much reading your posts.

I will have much more to say about your latest, in this space, as time allows.

[T.E. Jones]

Thanks for that (very exaggerated!) encouragement. I hope you won't now regret it, since I've got a lot more to say...

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

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

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

v^2 = 2GM/r.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia on Loop Quantum Gravity: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity#The_incompatibility_between_q uantum_mechanics_and_general_relativity)

'Quantum field theory studied on curved (non-Minkowskian) backgrounds has shown that some of the core assumptions of quantum field theory cannot be carried over. In particular, the vacuum, when it exists, is shown to depend on the path of the observer through space-time (see Unruh effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect)).'

It's strange, but after reading Woit's simple description of special relativity on page 15 of Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics, , I suddenly think I understand what special relativity is all about. It is not saying anything physical about dynamics, it is just a measurement system:

'... if I try to move at high speed in the same direction as a beam of light, no matter how fast I go, the light will always be moving away from me at the same speed.'

True, but is this just because your ruler will shrink and your clock will slow down? In other words, is there a dynamic mechanism for the contractions of special and general relativity, which cause the illusion that light speed in a vacuum is always c?

Because in general relativity light gets deflected in direction by gravity, light does not have absolute velocity in general relativity, unlike special relativity where it does. Thomas Love of California State University makes this clear with Einstein's own words. Special relativity is mathematically useful when ignoring gravity, but the principle that velocity c is invariant was falsified by the confirmation that light was bent during the eclipse of 1919.

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

However, there are probably many other heuristic models which mimic the empirically confirmed contraction result. One alternative (http://feynman137.tripod.com/) is to assume fundamental charges are trapped energy spinning around in loops at speed x. If they aren't moving, x = c. If they are moved at speed v, then x is reduced below c because the total speed of electromagnetic energy is always c. In order to enforce the condition that the speed x is consistent at every point on the loop, the direction of total motion at speed v must be perpendicular to the plane of the loop, so Pythagoras must be used: x^2 + v^2 = c^2. Taking the ratio x/c as a measure of time (because time is defined by local motion), x/c = (1 - v^2 / c^2)^1/2. Hence the right gamma factor for time-dilation, which implies (via the principle of space-time equivalence) that distance gets shortened by the same proportion.

So there are several roads to heuristic modelling in relativity. The key thing is that the universe is expanding in three spatial dimensions of space-time, while masses get contracted locally due to motion or gravitation. In this sense, you are dealing with 6 dimensions: 3 continuously expanding ones which describe the big bang cosmology and 3 contractable local dimensions which describe relatively small bits of matter. This is why D. R. Lunsford's censored 6-d spacetime unification of electrodynamics and gravitation is so interesting (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=688763&ln=en), plus of course the fact it dispenses with the cosmological constant/dark energy which is an artefact of trying to naively fit the lambda CDM cosmological model to observations without having a secure understanding of gravity dynamics in place, as Professor Philip Anderson has argued:

'the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating... there’s a bit of the “phlogiston fallacy” here, one thinks if one can name Dark Energy or the Inflaton one knows something about it...' (http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/03/danger-phil-anderson/)

[Epsilon=One]

Thanks for that (very exaggerated!) encouragement. I hope you won't now regret it, since I've got a lot more to say...

Mario also has the interesting paper http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0412/0412101.pdf which an interesting discussion of how you can get a heuristic understanding of general relativity:I rarely exaggerate an appreciation of another’s work. Too often, just the opposite.

Your prior citation of Mario brought about a pleasant discussion. He seemed very pleased with your interest in his work; and, to your credit, he presented no argument with your well thought out interpretation.

I follow Mario’s work carefully. It is always well developed, thought provoking; and, from what I can tell, accurately presented.

However, for about 15 years Mario and I have disagreed, in a friendly manner, concerning the merits of GR and its interpretation of gravity. In the end, I believe he goes along with Feynman that it is, most likely, impossible to comprehend in terms of Reality. Though, I am not as certain of Mario’s position as I once was.

I have carefully read your excellent post herein. I cannot find anything that can reconcile/account for or even rationalize Cosmic Inertia, the force that is the reactive, identical force to cosmic gravity that is observed with accelerating, galactic recession. (Though, I certainly, may have misunderstood what you are saying in this thread.)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no viable conventional nor alternative theoretical theory that can account for the observed effects of gravity other than Pulsoid Theory. I do not know of anyone of note in academia that is even certain of the “speed of gravity.” In my last discussion with Kip Thorne he indicated three possibilities. One was consistent with Pulsoid Theory; and, another was the possibility that it might be: twenty-six, “26,” times the SOL!!! And, he is at the center of spending near a billion dollars looking for gravity waves (that I presume they expect cannot exceed the SOL). When I have the chance I must make a nominal bet with him that they will never be found. At last count that should be three bets that he will have lost.

You, and Mario, seem to rely heavily on GR. No one understood the limits and fallacy of GR better than Einstein. I don’t believe he had much faith that GR was much more than a heuristic symbolization of a complex force that was probably poorly understood in his day. The Big Bang must be relegated to the trash heap of speculative theory before there can be hope that gravity will be understood by Pomo theoretical physicists.

[T.E. Jones]

No one understood the limits and fallacy of GR better than Einstein. I don’t believe he had much faith that GR was much more than a heuristic symbolization of a complex force that was probably poorly understood in his day. The Big Bang must be relegated to the trash heap of speculative theory before there can be hope that gravity will be understood by Pomo theoretical physicists.

The mainstream Lambda-CDM (cold dark matter) cosmological model which says that observable mass-energy is only 4% of the total and 96% is dark matter and dark energy is an extravagant and complete fraud, so if I call some empirical facts 'the big bang', that does not imply I subscribe to mainstream crackpot orthodoxy that 96% of the universe is dark stuff.

General relativity in this purely orthodox and vulgar sense (Lambda-CDM) is indeed a 'trash heap'. It neglects the dynamics causing gravity effects, and implicitly assumes that the cosmological expansion is not the cause of the effects ascribed to gravitation. By 'big bang' I'm not referring to abject speculation that usually passes for 'big bang', but to what I have evidence are very secure facts which are empirically confirmed ('dark energy' and 'dark matter' is no more confirmed than 'caloric' and 'phlogiston' were; both of the latter were fiercely defended as the 'only consistent theory', etc., by mainstream crackpots of antiquity).

Example: there is some empirical evidence for recession and there is no evidence for redshifts being caused by some kind of tired light: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Professor Ned Wright does make some effort to show where there is strong evidence, and to show why counter arguments to expansion and the nucleosynthesis of light elements 15 x 10^9 years ago don't hold water: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html

However Wright clearly also has a vested interest in the reigning orthodoxy, and while he finds it convenient to condemn error, he will take a backseat and refuse to put his neck on the line for the sake of science by praising radical innovations which are made by unknown persons on the sidelines.

Why should he do otherwise? Here's a reformulation of the gravity mechanism: geometric volume is distinct from the content of that volume, so receding matter vacates observable volume around us by recession. Since there is no mechanism for the spacetime fabric/Dirac sea/quantum foam vacuum to do anything except fill the volume where there is no matter [Dirac's theory; it predicted antimatter], the observable recession of real mass around us in spacetime automatically results in an equal and opposite inward pressure from the Dirac sea pressing inward to fill in the volume.

This very simple model gives the same gravity prediction as the radiation exchange model (where outward acceleration of the universe's mass m is a = dv/dt = c/t = Hc where H is Hubble parameter, so F = ma is calculated and the 3rd law gives the inward force of gauge boson radiation which cause both the GR contraction and gravity 'attraction').

The main point about Loop Quantum Gravity is that it is a mathematical unification between Feynman's quantum field theory 'path integrals' and background independent general relativity, general relativity without a specific metric.

In this sense Loop Quantum Gravity, which sums Penrose spin network interaction graphs for all the interactions to arrive at the Feynman path integral, is going to be true.

All you have to do is to supply Loop Quantum Gravity (which is purely a mathematical calculating equivalence between general relativity and quantum field theory) with some dynamics for gravity and the PHYSICAL (causal) contraction which creates real compression of matter by gravity (contraction is usually falsely attributed to a metaphysical special relativity metric), and you have quantum gravity unified with general relativity.

However, as your reply indicates, the few people open-minded enough to be skeptical of Edward Witten's April 1996 stringy claim in Physics Today ('String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity') are also skeptical of anything that can be salvaged and used to get some dynamics from general relativity, spacetime, and cosmic expansion.

[Epsilon=One]

The mainstream Lambda-CDM (cold dark matter) cosmological model which says that observable mass-energy is only 4% of the total and 96% is dark matter and dark energy is an extravagant and complete fraud, so don't get the idea that people who accept the facts of the big bang somehow also subscripe to mainstream crackpot orthodoxy that 96% of the universe is dark stuff.Last night at SUSY06 (Super symmetry 2006 international conference) I listened to Frank Wilczek (2004 Nobel) for almost two hours while he basically explained QCD. During the day I had several opportunities for discussion (I may have cast some gloom on the entire conference with a question concerning accelerating, galactic recession before about 3,500 at the opening event).

Wilczek contends 5% ordinary matter, 25% dark matter, 70% dark energy; he, also, is a very strong advocate of the big bang.

In so many words:
1.) He is not concerned with unification beyond photons, electrons, quarks and gluons, which he contends are about half reconciled with excellent prognosis.

2.) He stated that he ridicules colleagues concerned with reconciliation of astronomical observations, which are beyond his interest; and, that accelerating galactic recession, for him, is not a major problem for the reconciliation of SUSY theory as gravitational energy is to “weak” for practical consideration.

And, 3.) Theoretical physicists are embarrassed with the state of their standard models reconciling with observation.

(He did indicate that String Theory showed promise, without anything quantitative) (????)

I'm not referring to abject speculation, but to the few facts which are empirically confirmed ('dark energy' and 'dark matter' is no more confirmed than 'caloric' and 'phlogiston' were; both of the latter were fiercely defended as the 'only consistent theory', etc., by mainstream crackpots of antiquity).This is where I must strongly disagree with you. First Wilczek contends that theoretical physicists “of stature” are embarrassed with empirical evidence of dark matter and energy (DM&E). I would think such would not be the case if there wasn’t some evidence of the phenomena.

There is far more direct observable evidence of DM&E than there is of almost every theoretical particle of QCD; for that matter, than any phenomena that consists of fractional “charges.” The "dance" of the entire Cosmos is an example of the effects of DM&E.

Well there is some empirical evidence for recession and there is no evidence for redshifts being caused by some kind of tired light: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Professor Ned Wright does make some effort to show where there is strong evidence, and to show why counter arguments to expansion and the nucleosynthesis of light elements 15 x 10^9 years ago: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html

However Wright clearly also has a vested interest in the reigning orthodoxy, and while he finds it convenient to condemn error, he will take a backseat and refuse to put his neck on the line for the sake of science by praising radical innovations which are made by unknown persons on the sidelines.Last year concerning supraluminal light, I exchanged several e-mails with E. L. “Ned” Wright (he is colleague and friend of three (or more??) of my close relatives at UCLA). Unfortunately, I concur completely with your assessment, which I do not mean to reflect on his expertise . . . he is, after all, part of the system.

Here's a reformulation of the gravity mechanism: geometric volume is distinct from the content of that volume, so receding matter vacates observable volume around us by recession. Since there is no mechanism for the spacetime fabric/Dirac sea/quantum foam vacuum to do anything except fill the volume where there is no matter [Dirac's theory; it predicted antimatter], the observable recession of real mass around us in spacetime automatically results in an equal and opposite inward pressure from the Dirac sea pressing inward to fill in the volume.Wilczek understands the situation much as Dirac’s theory; however, he also leans towards Feynman’s fine put down. How can anyone consider Dirac and Feynman’s thoughts when neither had knowledge of the Hubble Space Telescope observations, et al.

Lawrence M. Krauss, probably understood dark energy better than anyone. See: www.CQthus.com/PT/Proof .

This very simple model gives the same gravity prediction as the radiation exchange model (where outward acceleration of the universe's mass m is a = dv/dt = c/t = Hc where H is Hubble parameter, so F = ma is calculated and the 3rd law gives the inward force of gauge boson radiation which cause both the GR contraction and gravity 'attraction').Gauge boson radiation is a contrivance that if it’s an actuality should have been observable by now.

The main point about Loop Quantum Gravity is that it is a mathematical unification between Feynman's quantum field theory 'path integrals' and background independent general relativity, general relativity without a specific metric.

In this sense Loop Quantum Gravity, which sums Penrose spin network interaction graphs for all the interactions to arrive at the Feynman path integral, is going to be true.There is much merit to LQG; however, it’s reliance upon mythical standard model forces would seem to doom the entire enterprise.

All you have to do is to supply Loop Quantum Gravity (which is purely a mathematical calculating equivalence between general relativity and quantum field theory) with some dynamics for gravity and the PHYSICAL (causal) contraction which creates real compression of matter by gravity (contraction is usually falsely attributed to a metaphysical special relativity metric), and you have quantum gravity unified with general relativity.

However, as your reply indicates, the few people open-minded enough to be skeptical of Edward Witten's April 1996 stringy claim in Physics Today ('String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity') are also skeptical of anything that can be salvaged and used to get some dynamics from general relativity, spacetime, and cosmic expansion...With all this said, where do you come down with your rationalization of gravitational attraction and universal entanglement?

[T.E. Jones]

OK. Dark matter is defended with two false arguments. First the Friedmann solution to general relativity, density = 3/8 times a combination of terms including the square of Hubble constant, etc. This is false, the corrected formula having the mechanism proved multiplying factor of 3/(4e^3), which is almost exactly 10 times lower than the 3/8 Friedmann factor. This gets rid of the dark matter. The second piece of evidence for dark matter is the rotation rates of spiral galaxies, which is also modified by the gravity mechanism.

Friedmann's solution to GR assumes that gravity is somehow slowing down distant receding matter, In fact, the recession causes gravity here. In our frame of reference in spacetime, there is less inward gravitational push as you look out toward the spacetime horizon 15,000 million light years away. Gravity being the shielding effect or asymmetry in gauge boson radiation, the receding galaxies receive no deceleration as Phil Anderson said (he wasn't thinking of the gravity mechanism, because it was censored off arxiv, although an older and less complete version is on CERN at http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=706468&ln=en - for update see http://feynman137.tripod.com/ which has been built up in a ramshackle way over several years but will soon be replaced by a structured and properly edited free book).

Dark energy is killed off by the gravity mechanism in the same way as dark matter: because there is theoretically no gravitational retardation on expansion, you can't invent dark energy as an ad hoc fix to map the observed expansion rate on to the false "no retardation" model. Two problems - dark matter and dark energy - killed by one mechanism.

[Epsilon=One]

Dark energy is killed off by the gravity mechanism in the same way as dark matter: because there is theoretically no gravitational retardation on expansion, you can't invent dark energy as an ad hoc fix to the map the observed expansion rate on to the false "no retardation" model. Two problems - dark matter and dark energy - killed by one mechanism.Oh, if only it were so.

Many world-class theoretical physicists would be sleeping much easier. Though, many others would be looking to Wall Street for employment.

Feynman, unaware of observations over the last 15 years, still seems to have the last word in academia regarding gravitational attraction, which directly relates to dark matter, and indirectly to dark energy."The theory of gravitation...(is) not understandable
from the laws of motion...it stands isolated from...
other theories.

Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of
other phenomena."

Richard P. Feynman [1918-1988]
QED Gravity itself, and Cosmic Inertia as a force, can only be explained with dark matter, unless somehow you believe that gravity is an attractive “action-at-a-distance force” with mysterious QCD attractive interactions which would require three forces (reach, grasp, and pull) between all matter, and groups of matter, that exist . . . down to the infinitesimal.

Wilczek has gone through all your arguments and concluded the gravitational effect is inexplicable, at this time, as observed by cosmologists; thus, I would assume that if gauge boson radiation truly existed, he has ruled it out as a possible solution to the gravitational problems and by extension to dark matter and dark energy as being nothing but fictious anomalies of observation.

I find very little in Friedmann's solutions. To begin, he is basing most conclusions on erroneous standard model extensions beyond their relevance. What follows is GIGO.

[T.E. Jones]

Observed Hubble recession velocity (radial, spherically symmetric):

v = Hx,

H is Hubble parameter, x is distance from us.

Error in this: spacetime, because x can also be expressed in terms of time x = ct. In fact, this is the best way to describe it, because we're seeing earlier times with increasing distance. For example, we don't know anything except as it was at the time x/c in the past, where x is the observable distance.

‘The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.’ – Hermann Minkowski, 1908

Now when we correct this for spacetime, voilà!

v = H(ct)

A variation of v as a function of time is described as an acceleration.

Since there is evidence that gravity in general relativity is supposed to go at light speed (not instantly), this spacetime representation is what counts.

The outward effective acceleration is dv/dt = Hc(t - 0)/(0 + t) = Hc

F = ma = mHc ~ 10^43 Newtons outward from us. (We know mass of universe, it is density times observable volume.)

Newton's 3rd law: every action has equal and opposite reaction.

Gauge boson radiation therefore pushes inward with F = mHc ~ 10^43 N.

This pushes things together locally, and causes the gravitational contraction effect in GR. (Local masses don't exchange forceful Yang-Mills radiation because they aren't receding from each other at enormous speed. So a static mass relative to the observer acts as a shield, and you get pushed towards the earth.)

Dark energy is a myth because gravity is a reaction to surrounding expansion.

The most distant stuff near the horizon can't be slowed down because there is nothing further beyond to send back gauge boson radiation. So there is no inward gravity effect that would cause retardation. This is the major difference between this fact-based model and the mainstream speculative lambda-CDM model of GR.

Hence it is a crime to invent dark energy. There is no evidence that the Hubble empirical expansion rate, v = Hx, is slowing down. There is simply no gravitational retardation. What the Lambda-CDM model does is to avoid having the 1998 supernova results falsify the prediction by adding a fiddle:

Mainstream: (a) gravitational retardation is not falsified by observations which disagree with it, (b) we don't see any gravitational retardation in the expansion data because of unseen dark energy which causes a small positive cosmological constant that just keeps everything nice and cosy for the mainstream.

Mechanism: there is no gravitational retardation, because the mechanism published via October 1996 Electronics World forbids it (Campbell and Ziemelis of Nature wouldn't review it, Cook's tutors at Open University such as Dr Bob Lambourne suggested that string theory rules out alternatives, and although IoP's journal Classical and Quantum Gravity had a more helpful editor who did send it for peer review, apparently the reviewer was related to Lubos Motl).

The mechanism predicts the correct value for the strength of gravity.

Kindly show me some evidence for dark energy. It is totally fraudulent. In 1996 Cook could predict the exact amount of fictitious dark energy by comparing v = Hx to the bogus CC GR model, which indicates a small positive CC (the exact figure is sensitive to the Hubble parameter). This value can then be compared to the 'observed' value based on fitting the supernovae observations to the Lambda-CDM model. It agrees very nicely indeed.

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

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

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

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

This relates to 1964. Your own quote of Feynman relates to the 1980s. Although string theory has become even more tied up during the last twenty years, models based on observed empirically defensible phenomenology do solve the key problems. If you are going to defend dark energy, perhaps you should give some reasons why you think it is science.

[Epsilon=One]

‘The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.’ – Hermann Minkowski, 1908 Both Minkowski and Einstein were wrong. Space and time are two entirely different concepts; however their occurrence is closely associated with the formation of a seminal quantum of space; thus they can be easily commingled, which is what causes many of the fundamental problems when the Standard Models (SM) are extended and irreconcilable.

Newton's 3rd law: every action has equal and opposite reaction.This would argue strongly for Cosmic Inertia (CI), which is only rationalized as a reactive force with the assumption that there is dark matter (DM) that creates a compressive force as it is being compressed by its continual formation from . . . yes, you guessed it . . . from dark energy (DE).

Gauge boson radiation therefore pushes inward with F = mHc ~ 10^43 N.

This pushes things together locally, and causes the gravitational contraction effect in GR. (Local masses don't exchange forceful Yang-Mills radiation because they aren't receding from each other at enormous speed. So a static mass relative to the observer acts as a shield, and you get pushed towards the earth.) This statement is fraught with error. GR is a simplistic, flawed equation when it comes to describing gravity. Einstein gave up trying to explain this. Once he died you would think that GR was from God . . . much like the Christian Bible.

Dark energy is a myth because gravity is a reaction to surrounding expansion.See: Post #3 for more detail and response at http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=72

The mechanism predicts the correct value for the strength of gravity.The last understanding that I had is: of all the “standard constants” the gravitational constant is the most unreliable.

Kindly show me some evidence for dark energy. It is totally fraudulent. In 1996 Cook could predict the exact amount of fictitious dark energy by comparing v = Hx to the bogus CC GR model, which indicates a small positive CC (the exact figure is sensitive to the Hubble parameter). This value can then be compared to the 'observed' value based on fitting the supernovae observations to the Lambda-CDM model. It agrees very nicely indeed.I doubt if any world-class physicist involved with SUSY or QCD has any doubt that the majority of everything that exists is comprised of dark energy. Frank Wilczek in 2006 states clearly: “Dark…energy contributes about 67% of the total density (of the universe).” And, “To me (FW), the discrepancy concerning the density of empty space is the most mysterious fact in all of physical science…"

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

"The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculative theories of physics] you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. ... There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving in on a territory."Feynman and Wilczek were closely acquainted. Wilczek went on to generalize Feynman’s QED to QCD winning a Nobel for the effort. (Feynman is at the top of my idols; however, when it comes to observing emergent forces from "empty" space, I must side with Wilczek in 2006.)

Although string theory has become even more tied up during the last twenty years, models based on observed empirically defensible phenomenology do solve the key problems. If you are going to defend dark energy, perhaps you should give some reasons why you think it is science.I will be glad to argue the point. Is it dark energy or string theory (ST) that you want reasons for “why…it is science”? I’ve discussed with John Schwarz why I think ST can never unify the metaphysical forces because its premises are within the flawed standard models. He could not persuade me otherwise. Each topic ST and DE can be exhausting . . . pick one.

[T.E. Jones]

Thank you for the humorous response! I asked what evidence you have for dark energy. However, the answer you give will probably be the same as if I asked for evidence of strings. The kind of 'evidence' for this which exists is very similar to the 'evidence' people had for caloric, phlogiston, mechanical (Maxwellian gear cogs/idler wheel) aether, and Kelvin's unsplittable vortex atoms.

LeSage's pushing gravity is a fact; the gauge bosons of electromagnetism are physically carrying momentum and cause gravity as well. Therefore spin-2 gravitons are superfluous and string theory is disproved. If and when you do come up with some evidence for dark energy, or an objection to the factual evidence cited let me know. (I loved your dismissal of the prediction of gravity strength on the basis that gravity strength is only known to about 4 decimal places! Guess how many decimals it was known to when Newton founded universal gravitation? Newton never formulated the equation, and never gave a value for the universal gravitational constant. It was Laplace who came up with the symbol G and Cavendish who measured it accurately.)

I'd be interested to know if you think that http://feynman137.tripod.com/ would be more interesting written up as a structured free book titled:

"The Accurate Prediction of Gravity and Standard Model Parameters from an Evidence-Based Mechanism, Disproving Mainstream Stringy Theory"

(proving gravity is a residual of electromagnetism, and that there is no room for gravitons because gravity is fully accounted for without them). I know the writer of that page has stated that he intends to write the sketchy notes up as a proper scientific paper on causal mechanisms. One thing which is delaying the rewrite is the detailed electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism.

[Epsilon=One]

I agree with most all that you write in this post . . . I just don't accept your conclusions regarding gravity, dark matter and dark energy. You seem to be relying too much on the standard models (See: Feynman) and calculus (See: Gödel) that are all flawed in their fundamental premises of what is happening.

Of course, if I am wrong you, or those you cite, can begin lining up in Stockholm.

I will attempt a more detailed reply to this post this weekend as time allows. SUSY06 is winding up today, and there is much on my calendar.

I'd be interested to know if you think that http://feynman137.tripod.com/ would be more interesting written up as a structured free book titled:

"The Accurate Prediction of Gravity and Standard Model Parameters from an Evidence-Based Mechanism, Disproving Mainstream Stringy Theory"Your title is little more than a double oxymoron.

[T.E. Jones]

I agree with most all that you write in this post . . . I just don't accept your conclusions regarding gravity, dark matter and dark energy. You seem to be relying too much on the standard models (See: Feynman) and calculus (See: Gödel) that are all flawed in their fundamental premises of what is happening.

Of course, if I am wrong you, or those you cite, can begin lining up in Stockholm.

I will attempt a more detailed reply to this post this weekend as time allows. SUSY06 is winding up today, and there is much on my calendar.

Your title is little more than a double oxymoron.

The Standard Model and general relativity, within a certain tested range of energies/field strengths, work very well predicting checkable things to an accuracy of +/-0.1% or whatever. I don't think prizes will result: more likely assassination attempts, seeing the very negative comments made about mainstream theory. Prizes get awarded to well behaved people, not fanatics. No Stockholm committee is going to vote prizes here.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Must protest the title of this thread as a "Hoax" is something that is perpetuated intentionally, Science NEVER intentionally perpetuated (the theory of) Gravity as a "Hoax" or as Anything other then the current understanding of the 'Phenomenon' (Stuff falls/falling 'downwards'/towards the Earth) that is currently being studied.

As for the rest, well as your already aware (I) think your Wrong in your assertion that gravity isn't what it is said to be "Attraction to a common center" as that is what it provably is.

[T.E. Jones]

I remember the great times on another discussion blog, where you contributed: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-846.html

For spherical symmetry of the divergence operator, dx = dy = dz = dr. The bigots at Physics Forums published an abusive anonymous claim from a crackpot falsely claiming that this is untrue because the squares of the line elements are equal, like claiming that 2+2 is false because the "correct" equation is really 2 x 2 = 4. They then banned any response or any further posts from Nigel!

See http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36524 Quotation:

"While having some initial hope, your gravity model of action/reaction forces is hopelessly flawed, compounded by a lack of understanding of Newtonian mechanics and elementary calculus. In one of your claims, you state that for spherical symmetry, dx = dy = dz = dr. As anyone with a half-baked understanding will tell you, spherically, dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2. Most of the time errors can be written off as simple misunderstandings, but when it's something as fundamental as this, one can only wonder how systemic this erroneous thought can possibly be."

Divergence doesn't involve the squares of line elements. It has nothing to do with it. The anonymous Physics Forums attack goes on:

"As we've already seen, whenever something of the sort happens, you retreat behind a wall of insults, proclamations of "you are wrong", and total incomprehension of opposing arguments whenever your proofs are challenged. Welcome to the wonderful world of cognitive dissonance."

No wonder this happens, when string theorists are so ignorant about the number of dimensions and then call others ignorant and shut down discussion:

"[Editors at PRL] haven't forwarded your paper to peer reviewers because they know it's useless blathering. They know full well that there isn't enough scientific knowledge in them to fill a thimble, and whoever places your used sheets of paper in the recycle bin know that the editors don't have the time nor want the time to read them. These people have meaningful things to do, and because the peer-review system is a thankless job at best, they don't want to spend their time needlessly and uselessly. As for me, I know that in the same token I will never compare to them, but if I and a whole lot of other people aren't willing to waste brain cells that would get more use by watching the Fox network, I don't think they would either."

The fascist continues:

"One thing that I can't possibly understand at this point is your apparent obsession with the Nazi regime. Your continuous references to it and everything associated to it bring me continual puzzlement to no end. Applied here, your many references between the struggle of the Allied forces in WWII and your supposed "crusade" against the oppressors of this place tell me that you are in serious need of help."

In fact, Nigel was helped in physics by Dr Arnold C. Lynch, and credits Lynch in the April 2003 Electronics World article. Lynch designed a vital part of the Colossus computer used to break the top secret German "Fish" code (tougher than Enigma) and decode German messages to help win the war.

Lynch was not happy with mainstream string theory dominating science with warped propaganda, for similar reasons that he was not happy with allowing the Nazis to win WWII.

"Those Allied war leaders would probably be dismayed..."

Nope. Winston Churchill: "Never surrender to evil." So they'd be delighted.

"You paint anyone who opposes you as extremists, where we are all apparently Science Nazis. According to you, the entire body of physics should have one Fuehrer Herr Nigel Brian Cook,..."

Nope: if you had read his writings, he hates fascist. Nigel is stating facts, it is clear to see where the fascist propaganda is coming from (it is coming from the mainstream extra dimensional stringers).

"The fact that you've repeatedly attempted to preach your own theory and disown everyone else's..."

Nope. He started discussion threads. Other people (stringy fascists) came into his threads and started hurling around pet theories like M-theory etc, devoid of physical content. They merely got answered back with facts, which of course are not welcome in in fantasy land (extra dimensions, etc).

"Your site and associated posts here on this forum state quite explicitly that you fully intend to push your own views by ridiculing the scientific community for its apparent and unforgivable sin of denying publication to your perfect theory."

Nope. A fact is not a personal view. He didn't claim the theory was perfect, merely that it works and agrees with nature, unlike extra dimensional trash.

"Electronics World doesn't count, because though it is most likely a good publication for electronics, fundamental physics is probably a little out-of-context in terms of the magazine. What you've managed to accomplish is akin to trying to publish Counter-Strike strategies to a magazine that caters to those fun Lego sets I used to play with as a child: while possibly useful, it's horribly out of context. As for them publishing the paper by Arthur Clark, it's easier to see that what he had created is more in line versus what you somehow managed to cook up. Out of respect to the publication, I will assume that the editor probably had a slow edition, and just needed to fill up some space next to the advertisements."

Actually, Nigel has had material published under four successive editors (Frank Ogden, Martin Eccles, Phil Reed and the new current editor). The particular material on gravity mechanism first came out via October 1996 issue as an 8-page separate supplement. Feature length articles followed.

"Nonetheless, I have to compliment you on your imagination. It certainly takes great leaps and bounds to come up with the utter rubbish that you have been able to conceive in your own little world. Perhaps you can apply your own gravely inept knowledge of calculus as shown above and try to determine how long it'll be before you are simply put in your place and locked away."

This is the paranoia dished out by string theorists and others (see some of Lubos Motl's diatribes) to anyone challenging status quo with hard fact.

Similarly, in a fascist state where they suspect someone but have not a shred of evidence, they simply falsify evidence. The calculus issue where the anonymous attacker claims that if you write down a metric you have disproved divergence (similarly: placing apples on the table clearly disproves the existence of things called oranges) is a beautifully convincing proof of the widespread corruption in mainstream physics today. Nobody wants to pursue a model that works. Imagine you are taking a stroll aboard the deck of the Titanic. You happen to spot the iceberg ahead before anyone else, while there is still plenty of time to avert disaster. Every effort to deliver this information results in your being curtly informed that (1) you don't know what you are talking about, (2) you are insulting everyone in charge of the ship by interfering with the mainstream/orthodoxy in charge (which soon of course does become true, given the insults they are giving you!), (3) icebergs don't come this far south, (4) the ship is unsinkable anyhow so stop worrying!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

As (I) seem to recall, 'Nigel' Couldn't get past the R = 5 R = 2 conundrum relative to the Compression of Mass (Core) that the Planet represents.

It was not to say he wasn't a bright/smart/intelligent/knowledgable enough Person, but his theory couldn't accomodate the Presently Known >>Siesmically read<< Knowledge/Information ....

An Inability to 'fit the known facts' tends to diswade one from believing in someones' Theory....

Calculus aside.

Most Peer Review Journals have alread dealt with enough "Push Force ....from Space" theories, to the point that they Seem to Agree(?) that it is NOT the Answer, as it Cannot fit enough of the Known Facts/Measurements.

It is Also Generally Known and/or realized that if your smart enough to come up with a 'Reasonable' theory, you should also be (Somewhat) Capable of ensuring that you are not simply following a Historically known Pathway that has already been 'precluded' by expert refutation....and if your smart enough to be able to do that, have you also been capable of refuting the (Historical) arguements of the Expert?

(If not, Well, you already know where your theory stands, as it has throughout its' History)

"If your smart enough" includes being able to discover why your theory is wrong ....at least, in "theory"

[T.E. Jones]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

As (I) seem to recall, 'Nigel' Couldn't get past the R = 5 R = 2 conundrum relative to the Compression of Mass (Core) that the Planet represents....

An Inability to 'fit the known facts' tends to diswade one from believing in someones' Theory....

Calculus aside.

Most Peer Review Journals have alread dealt with enough "Push Force ....from Space" theories, to the point that they Seem to Agree(?) that it is NOT the Answer, as it Cannot fit enough of the Known Facts/Measurements.

It is Also Generally Known and/or realized that if your smart enough to come up with a 'Reasonable' theory, you should also be (Somewhat) Capable of ensuring that you are not simply following a Historically known Pathway that has already been 'precluded' by expert refutation....and if your smart enough to be able to do that, have you also been capable of refuting the (Historical) arguements of the Expert?
"

Name any journal which has disproved this mechanism.

The Standard Model is based on Yang-Mills theory whereby forces are due to the exchange of radiation. String theorists make claims about gravity which are totally misleading (example: "String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity" - Witten, Apr 96 Physics Today). (In fact string theory makes no checkable predictions about gravity whatsoever, so it is really a complete fantasy to claim it predicts gravity.) Feynman's BBC-filmed November 1964 Cornell lectures Character of Physical Law (published and broadcast in 1965) discusses the LeSage mechanism, pointing out that if the radiation is massive, it will slow down the planets like moving in a gas. The exchange radiation is not massive particles, but radiation, and it is proved that motion in the radiation field not decelerative grag, but instead causes the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction in the direction of motion. The Yang-Mills theory-based Standard Model of fields and particles (accurate within 0.1% for many particle reactions) was developed in the 1970s.

Nigel's calculation reproduces the standard gravity law, the universal gravitational constant G to within 2%, and the distance contraction/time-dilation (spacetime) cause in general and special relativity. Hence it is checkable in results, and not just checkable in the rigor of the empirically defensible facts used as the theory input.

If you have a paradox that needs explaining about the compression of the earth's core, that is going to be the same in the standard description of gravity. You rushed in with the first comment on the post, you stated:

"Nice explaination, just that if it is the pressure exerted from outside that is the cause of gravity, then how is the pressure that is within the earth, far exceeding the external pressure, generated at the levels required, for what is observed." - Mr Robin Parsons, 04-06-2003, 07:59 AM, http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-846.html

The "question" (it is mainly statement, of the "you're just wrong" type) you were asking about the compression of the earth's core is geology. If you predict the law governing how two atoms attract by gravity, and predict the strength of the force correctly, then you're basically done. That is supposed to be the big problem.

The exchange radiation which causes gravity does not cause a pressure only on the outside, like the downward pressure the earth's atmosphere (14.7 psi, 10 metric tons per square metre). The gravity causing radiation is a pressure which penetrates and acts directly on all the particles inside the earth, because the cross sectional (interaction/shielding) area of a fundamental particle is very small.

Earth's radius gets contracted 1.5 mm (general relativity gives this number) but that is not like the earth being squeezed like a hand squeezing an orange, because it is not being pushed on the observable surface area of the outside in that way. The gauge boson radiation is extremely penetrating, it acts on the very small fundamental particles. Comparison of the two:

1. Gas pressure of atmosphere => pushes surface of the earth down. In addition to the atmosphere, the earth at any depth has the pressure from the weight of earth above it pushing downwards as well. Pressure is passed on by one atom of soil pushing another atom, and so on, right the way down.

2. Gauge boson force radiation => basically the same as the spacetime fabric, penetrates the spaces in atoms like hard radiation. Pressure is delivered to each fundamental particle with mass directly (without being first absorbed on the macroscopic visible surface area of the planet).

The two mechanisms for compression are therefore completely different. To calculate the pressure of the earth's core you are dealing with mechanism 1, and mechanism 2 is the cause of the gravity. Do you grasp that it is not helpful to throw red-herrings around? Your "question" is a bogus attack! It is interesting however to see how people respond. (Historical precedent: the idea the earth rotated daily was dismissed by the mainstream before 1500 AD simply on the false "logical" basis that because a rotating earth would have to rotate 1000 miles/hour at the equator, it would - they alleged - throw people off, and cause the clouds to always zoom past at 1000 miles per hour. Ptolemy's Almagest contains this stuff; Copernicus refutes it.)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) 1. Gas pressure of atmosphere => pushes surface of the earth down. In addition to the atmosphere, the earth at any depth has the pressure from the weight of earth above it pushing downwards as well. Pressure is passed on by one atom of soil pushing another atom, and so on, right the way down. (SNoP)


© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Funny, your falling for the same fallacy that the others in that same thread fell for, paraphrasing them from then, 'it's from all of the weight above it' where 'all of the weight above' is only weight if gravity keeps acting upon it ....all the way down to the Center, and what they explained in that discourse in that thread at physicsforums, was that the gravitational energy was self cancelling as it approached the center, ergo there would be NO 'weight from above' as there would be NO gravitational energy compressing it, or causing it to have the quality of weight


Please read (carefully) before you post.

BTW accusing someone who asks a 'Question' of Attacking well, (I) suspect that you are simply describing yourself as (I) ask Questions to help find solutions/answers and/or methods for discovery of either of those two.

(SNIP) Name any journal which has disproved this mechanism.. (SNoP)
Never said they had, "Disproved" simply said that they have dealt with enough of them to know what the problems with that kind of theory ARE!


Just in case you need to re-read what (I) wrote.....
Most Peer Review Journals have alread dealt with enough "Push Force ....from Space" theories, to the point that they Seem to Agree(?) that it is NOT the Answer, as it Cannot fit enough of the Known Facts/Measurements. As YOU had Quoted/cited me.......

[T.E. Jones]

Funny, your falling for the same fallacy that the others in that same thread fell for, paraphrasing them from then, 'it's from all of the weight above it' where 'all of the weight above' is only weight if gravity keeps acting upon it ....all the way down to the Center, and what they explained in that discourse in that thread at physicsforums, was that the gravitational energy was self cancelling as it approached the center, ergo there would be NO 'weight from above' as there would be NO gravitational energy compressing it, or causing it to have the quality of weight

Robin, true, in the centre of the earth there is no acceleration due to gravity.

This is the same in Newtonian gravity as in the gravity mechanism.

Yes, gravity falls off as you get closer to the earth's centre. But no, this is not unique to this mechanism. It is exactly the same in Newton's and Einstein's laws as in this mechanism, which actually also explains the cause!

Newton, bless him, showed geometrically that there is no gravity acceleration at any point inside a hollow spherical shell of mass. This is quite simple to visualise. Similarly, inside the earth at distance x from the middle, you can calculate gravity based on the amount of mass within radius x from the centre of the earth, and ignoring all the mass beyond radius x.

The reason is that gravity contributions inside the shell are proportional to the amount of mass visible in a solid angle, divided by the inverse square of distance. Get close to the shell edge (inside the shell), with the shell at your left, and although that mass to the left is very close to you, the majority of the mass of the entire shell will then be way over to your right hand side. (The two effects cancel out: to get a large fraction of the shell mass on one side of you, you must get well away from it, so effect of the increase in mass to one side of you is counter-balanced by effect of the increased average distance of that mass from you.) Inside the earth is like being inside concentric shells of mass, which contribute nothing to gravity, so the gravity falls off in strength as you get deeper and approach the core.

In Newton's scheme (and thus general relativity also, which borrows Newton's law and the low speed, weak field limit to get the force constant into the Einstein field equation by normalization), the fall of gravity as you approach the earth's core is due to geometric cancellation. In the mechanism, it is clearer as you say (gravity is due to asymmetry in shielding, at the earth's core there is spherically symmetric shielding and hence no asymmetry, thus there is no gravity).

Where you go wrong is in assuming that this mechanism disagrees with nature or with the Newtonian result for the purpose of geophysics. Although there is no gravity at the earth's centre, there is pressure of course.

So what you think is a problem in the model is not a problem, because it agrees with what is already known and not controversial in the area you mention.

The fact that you and virtually everyone else who looks at this keeps asking such inadequately considered questions will tend to put off other people from looking at the proved mechanism. They will see a long list of questions and replies, and think "this is controversial and suspect", when it is proved fact. The kind of people who do LQG, who you want to win over and convince to take this mechanism seriously, like Lee Smolin, are probably happy to dismiss this on the basis that when it is raised the responses are dismissive. Since they have spent 20 years teaching quantum field theory and general relativity, they probably have forgotten the Newtonian stuff, and seeing your comments will think that this is all complete nonsense!

On the other hand, perhaps if it is made to look like nonsense, it will help because it might attract string theorists. They are always attracted to nonsense (extra dimensions, superpartners, gravitons, branes, the cosmic landscape flying pigs).

Perhaps Professors Susskind, Motl and Distler will drop in to say such "alternatives" to mainstream string theory are crackpot and evil?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) Where you go wrong is in assuming that this mechanism disagrees with nature or with the Newtonian result for the purpose of geophysics. Although there is no gravity at the earth's centre, there is pressure of course. (SNoP)

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

'Nature' has Never 'Spoken' on the Subject, but its' truth is, Reasonable speaking, "self evident"....just that, sometimes 'we' need tools to demonstrate that, like Seismographs.....

So then, you will now explain to me How to Achieve Pressure of that enormous Quantity without ANY gravity, ergo Weight bearing down upon it, as the Simplicity is that, without gravity, there is NO QUALITY known as Weight....there is 'Mass' but the 'Mass' has NO WEIGHT.

BTW Mr. Jones, when Newton came to the Conclusion he did, well, the Best Seismic "Knowledge" of that day was; "Well Govner, It, the Ground Sir, It Shook Sir, it Shook ALOT!"

He, Newton, DID not KNOW that the Inside of the Earth was PRESSURIZED to 4 Mbars, he had no way of Knowing it, no one back in those days did, hence His theory was Viable only as a result of Being absent of that Evidence!

If he (Sir Isaac Newton) were here today, knowing that the Inside of the Earth was/IS pressurized, to the Degree that it is, he would probably recant his own theory.

Now, your turn, explain to us all (please) how you can develop such a mechanical Pressure Completely ABSENT of (ANY) FORCE!

Perhaps you should go re-read that thread, as even the people involved in it, at the time of its construct, realized that (I) had presented them with a Dilema that they COULD NOT RESOLVE, as you CANNOT develop Pressures of/to 4Mbars without the application of TREMENDOUS FORCE.

OH yes, Please Do Not Tell Me It Is "ALL OF THE WEIGHT ABOVE!" as "weight" is a Quality of the Measurement of attractiveness between two Gravitational masses, or .... NO gravity! = NO weight!

Other then that, been nice talking to you.

Oh Yes, If there was NO gravity at the Center of the Planet, then there would be No Mass there, either, it would be Hollow, and it is NOT! Seismic Proves IT.

Just because something is 'currently taught' doesn't make it the Right answer, simply the 'Current' one, if your in doubt of that, well, Guess what, 'Science' is getting back to the "Ether" as meduim of propagation of Light, BECAUSE proof is NOW available that the Planet is Dragging Space around with it.

Things Change for a reason, usually it's because of a better answer or, because of New evidence......Like Seismology, and Seismological Readings/Proofs.

So (I) will await your, or anyone elses' 'explaination' of How you can develop 4 Mbars of Pressure, Without FORCE!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

6:02 PM 20/06/2006

Two notations ....and an assist?

#1) Just in case you are actually capable of developing 'something' that can develop 4 Mbars of Pressure, absent of the use of ANY force, (I) would repsectfully counsel you to 'Keep it quiet', NOT to post it here, inasmuch as, there are probably many people who would be quite willing to make you a VERY (Monetarily) 'Rich' man, for knowing, how to.

#2) You have mentioned the name of a Renowned Canadian Physicist, seemingly someone you seem to think (I) am required, or need, to Impress ......(I) can, reasonably, assure you, Sir, (I) have no Need of 'Impressing' ANYONE!

If, while on the face of the Planet, (I) place you upon a 'Scale' a device used in measuring that quality 'weight' it should give a reading, BUT according to YOU, if (I) dig a Hole approx four thousand miles deep, (center of the planet, roughly) and try the same thing, there, well, according to YOU, there is NO Acceleration from Gravity there, so the Scale is going to tell me that you weight "Nothing" (or as close to that 'zero point' as is possible) How then, do you develop the Pressure of 4 Mbars?

P.S. at that point, "all of the weight above" isn't 'weight' anymore, as there is NO gravity beneath it to Make it "weigh in"

Can you, now, see the 'flaw' in the 'thinking' (theory) you are using??

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
6:16 PM 20/06/2006

.....taken from this page Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton) ....Wikipedia.org....

Sir Isaac Newtons' Biography, dating His Lifetime, Birth/Death at these dates....

4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727

...then, from the Same Source, (Wiki) Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology) this statement, about Seismological History....

"One of the first attempts at the scientific study of earthquakes followed the 1755 Lisbon earthquake."
Note the DATE....
Get the Idea?

[T.E. Jones]

So then, you will now explain to me How to Achieve Pressure of that enormous Quantity without ANY gravity, ...

He, Newton, DID not KNOW that the Inside of the Earth was PRESSURIZED to 4 Mbars, ...

If he (Sir Isaac Newton) were here today, knowing that the Inside of the Earth was/IS pressurized, to the Degree that it is, he would probably recant his own theory.

Now, your turn, explain to us all (please) how you can develop such a mechanical Pressure Completely ABSENT of (ANY) FORCE! ...

Other then that, been nice talking to you.

Oh Yes, If there was NO gravity at the Center of the Planet, then there would be No Mass there, either, it would be Hollow, and it is NOT! Seismic Proves IT. ...

So (I) will await your, or anyone elses' 'explaination' of How you can develop 4 Mbars of Pressure, Without FORCE!

Robin, at least you are attacking Newton here: "If he (Sir Isaac Newton) were here today, knowing that the Inside of the Earth was/IS pressurized, to the Degree that it is, he would probably recant his own theory."

The word force can in this case be replaced by the words pressure multiplied by area. The compression of earth's core in the middle doesn't mean there has to be gravity acceleration there. There's no gravity acceleration in the middle of the earth's core.

The pressure is due to material force, not directly due to gravity force. Gravity acts on matter well away from the very middle, and this matter in turn creates the material pressure in the middle of the earth.

Think about the pressure of air inside a balloon. The elastic rubber of the balloon makes the air inside compressed. The air in the middle of the balloon is compressed, even though it is well away from the elastic rubber which is causing it. The reason is that the elastic rubber causes gas compression, which is a force in its own right.

Elastic rubber balloon skin force -> Air pressure, P -> Force of gas, F = PA

Similarly for the earth:

Gravity force -> Earth pressure, P -> Earth force, F = PA.

Please remember the advice, "When stuck in a hole, keep digging"!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Robin, at least you are attacking Newton here: No, (I) am NOT 'attacking" but simply demonstrating that HE did NOT know about the Seismic knowledge that we have, now that can change things you know, NEW knowledge, its' happened before, Re: Dr. A. Einstein.

The word force can in this case be replaced by the words pressure multiplied by area. The compression of earth's core in the middle doesn't mean there has to be gravity acceleration there. There's no gravity acceleration in the middle of the earth's core.
The pressure is due to material force, not directly due to gravity force. Gravity acts on matter well away from the very middle, and this matter in turn creates the material pressure in the middle of the earth.
Think about the pressure of air inside a balloon. The elastic rubber of the balloon makes the air inside compressed. The air in the middle of the balloon is compressed, even though it is well away from the elastic rubber which is causing it. The reason is that the elastic rubber causes gas compression, which is a force in its own right.
Elastic rubber balloon skin force -> Air pressure, P -> Force of gas, F = PA
Similarly for the earth:
Gravity force -> Earth pressure, P -> Earth force, F = PA.
Please remember the advice, "When stuck in a hole, keep digging"!
And Please follow your own advice, cause that has got to be the cheapest (and most inane) dodge (I) have ever encountered, the air pressure in a ballon is isotropic, the pressurization of the planet, is NOT!

Try again! but perhaps you should actually read (fully) that thread you linked, as this information is already in there....as it was used to defeat these kinds of inanities.....

No acceleration due to gravity, = no weight, = no pressure, especially no INCREASING PRESSURE on decent, and that is exactly what the seismic evidence (Know that kind of stuff? usually called 'f-a-c-t-s') shows!

Try Again. :p

[T.E. Jones]

the air pressure in a ballon is isotropic, the pressurization of the planet, is NOT!

Try again! but perhaps you should actually read (fully) that thread you linked, as this information is already in there....as it was used to defeat these kinds of inanities.....

No acceleration due to gravity, = no weight, = no pressure, especially no INCREASING PRESSURE on decent, and that is exactly what the seismic evidence (Know that kind of stuff? usually called 'f-a-c-t-s') shows!

Try Again. :p

Thanks for taking my advice (keep digging when in a hole). This is entertaining.

Right, the pressure in a balloon is isotropic. The point you missed is that the pressure in the middle of the earth is also isotropic!

Try again.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Thanks for taking my advice (keep digging when in a hole). This is entertaining.
Right, the pressure in a balloon is isotropic. The point you missed is that the pressure in the middle of the earth is also isotropic!
Try again.
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
5:26 PM 21/06/2006

O.K. Firstly the gas pressure inside the ballon was produced by someone FORCING air into the ballon, ergo pressuring it, it is NOT as a result of the Stretching of the Latex as this is simply what Maintains that pressure after it has been established by a FORCE, FORCING air in.

SO you Blew it, completely on that one.

Next, your text as (I) have emboldened it, you are a Very Misleading Fellow aren't you, at least it is Exceedingly evident that you will attempt to be misleading to see if you can get yourself out of the Four thousand Mile deep hole you think your Floating in......Cause, Yes, the pressure in the Center of the Earth Is (roughly) Isotrop(h)ic, to a degree (Cause it all Depends upon what radius/measurement you take as being "the Center") BUT the Earth itself, it's entirety, IS NOT Isotrop(h)ically pressurized, it is Anisotrop(h)ically pressurized, as in, the pressure INCREASES with Depth, something that can NOT be done in a Decreasing gravitationally accelerative Environment....so, careful! cause, you are about to discover that you are quite wrong, and that the 'hole' that you think are floating (As per no Acceleration by gravitational force{s}) in, is about to become a HIGHLY pressurized environment because the aceleration due to gravity is really quite strong there.

As (I) asked you to do before, GO READ THAT THREAD, this has all been dealt with before, mechanical pressurizations produce isotrop(h)ic pressurizations, your Ballon example is an example of a Mechanical pressurization, and (I) would defy you to reproduce the same kind of Anisotrop(h)ic pressurization that the Earth Demonstrates, Seismically, inside your ballon!

(Just in case, Means (I) want him to pressurize a Ballon such that, it has one readable pressure at its' Inside outer edge, and a readably HIGHER pressure at its' center!! ...and no physical barriers between the two pressures)

(**Runs off** Holding onto his Butt, tightly, as he really doesn't like "laughing it off" makes it too difficult to poo!)

Any 'Lay person' can figure out that, that, simply put, cannot be done!!

Keep Going....Keep Trying.....Your proving why your signature is a 'Grossness of a Falsehood' inasmuch as, you would wish the rest of the world to remain ignorant of just what the right answers (the 'truth' of it) are, such that, fellows like yourself can get/KEEP them believing in your Inane dreamings, and falsehoods! :eek:

(Do you act this way because it pays well??) :p

EDITING NOTE The (h) is a Spelling Error! Sorry.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
6:16 PM 20/06/2006

.....taken from this page Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton) ....Wikipedia.org....

Sir Isaac Newtons' Biography, dating His Lifetime, Birth/Death at these dates....

4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727

...then, from the Same Source, (Wiki) Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology) this statement, about Seismological History....


Note the DATE....
Get the Idea?

If you have Bothered to go read, and you could reason properly, you would have realized that (I) am Actually DEFENDING Sir Isaac Newton, and His work, simply by Pointing out that, at the Time He Formulated His theory, He (and everyone esle for that matter) was CLEARLY ABSENT of some Very Vital Evidence .....SEISMIC evidence, evidence that 'we' NOW have! Evidence of the INCREASING pressure/pressurization Upon descent towards the Core of the Planet!

Or Are you still missing that? or anything else?

(Yup! :D (I) could make a suggestion, or two, or many more... :eek: ) :cool:

[T.E. Jones]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
5:26 PM 21/06/2006

O.K. Firstly the gas pressure inside the ballon was produced by someone FORCING air into the ballon, ergo pressuring it, it is NOT as a result of the Stretching of the Latex as this is simply what Maintains that pressure after it has been established by a FORCE, FORCING air in.

SO you Blew it, completely on that one.

...Yes, the pressure in the Center of the Earth Is (roughly) Isotrophic, to a degree (Cause it all Depends upon what radius/measurement you take as being "the Center") BUT the Earth itself, it's entirety, IS NOT Isotrophically pressurized, it is Anisotrophically pressurized, as in, the pressure INCREASES with Depth, something that can NOT be done in a Decreasing gravitationally accelerative Environment....

LOL. Thanks! That was very funny. You are WRONG. I did NOT force any air into the balloon. I let a little air into it without any pressure and tied the neck of the balloon. To make it expand, I then placed the floopy balloon into a decompression chamber, and pumped out the air around it. The balloon then inflated due to the expansion of the tiny amount of air inside it which had entered of its own free will without being forced in.

So you completely blew your chance to make a fool of me! Ha ha ha.

Yes pressure increases with depth in the earth. Notice that the pressure is not proportional to gravity at the depth that you are determining the pressure. Suppose earth's radius is R, and the distance you are from the core is x, then the pressure acting down on you is the weight from each layer of the column above you, a column which is R - x high.

If the density {rho} and gravity acceleration g were both constant then the pressure is: P = {rho}g(R - x).

However, density increases with depth (due to compression), while gravity acceleration decreases with depth (due to having a smaller fraction of the earth's mass contributing to the gravity acceleration).

g = MG/R^2 where M is mean density of earth times volume of earth, so:

g = {rho}[(4/3){Pi}R^3]G/R^2

= 4{rho}{Pi}RG/3

Because of Newton's proof that at a depth within the earth there is no contribution to gravity from matter beyond your own radius from the earth's core (it cancels out in Newton's geometry, and also in the asymmetry mechanism):

g = 4{rho}{Pi}xG/3

So really the way to calculate the core pressure is to replace P = {rho}g(R - x) by a differential equation including variable {rho} and variable g, and then integrate it over radius from x = 0 to x = R.

But if we assume density is constant (your argument is based on varying gravity and the variation in density is smaller anyway), we can avoid calculus and because g varies linearly with x, we can use a mean value for g:

g(mean) = 0.5[g(x=0) + g(x=R)] = 0.5(0 + 9.82) = 4.91 ms^-2

(Actually however, although this is the mean acceleration in the earth, if the density is assumed uniform, most of the mass will be located at large radii since they are associated with larger volumes than smaller radii. Hence the true effective value of gravitational acceleration will be between this mean and the value on the earth's surface, i.e., in the range 4.91-9.82 m/s^2.)

The mean density of the earth is something like 5,500 kg/m^3

Thus the pressure at the core is:

P = {rho}gR = (5,500)(4.91)(6,400,000)
= 1.73 x 10^11 Pascals = 1.73 Mbar (1 bar = 100,000 Pa).


It is evident that your claim "the pressure INCREASES with Depth, something that can NOT be done in a Decreasing gravitationally accelerative Environment" is false.

The pressure increases with depth because gravity only becomes zero in the middle of the earth.

Are you going to throw the shovel in now Robin, or continue digging?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) LOL. Thanks! That was very funny. You are WRONG. I did NOT force any air into the balloon. I let a little air into it without any pressure and tied the neck of the balloon. To make it expand, I then placed the floopy balloon into a decompression chamber, and pumped out the air around it. The balloon then inflated due to the expansion of the tiny amount of air inside it which had entered of its own free will without being forced in.
So you completely blew your chance to make a fool of me! Ha ha ha. (SNoP)
Actually you succeeded quite well on your own, as you have clearly Validated what (I) stated about you.....
(SNIP) you are a Very Misleading Fellow aren't you (SNoP) Cause cleary you have proven that with your, once again, DODGE.

BTW FORce was used, whether you admit it, or not.

Here again your DODGE....

(SNIP) Yes pressure increases with depth in the earth. Notice that the pressure is not proportional to gravity at the depth that you are determining the pressure. Suppose earth's radius is R, and the distance you are from the core is x, then the pressure acting down on you is the weight from each layer of the column above you a column which is R - x high. (SNIP) Once again, cause you still are falling for your own fallacy, and it would be remiss to allow it to stand, remise that others might fall for your ignorant DODGING style, .......so, there is NO WEIGHT FROM ABOVE YOU, IF THERE IS NO GRAVITY PULLING THE MASS DOWNWARDS.

THAT you keep 'Beating the drum' of YOUR IGNORACE in this manner suprises me not, NOT at all!

Like this......
[color=blue] (SNIP) [color]However, density increases with depth (due to compression), while gravity acceleration decreases with depth (due to having a smaller fraction of the earth's mass contributing to the gravity acceleration).[color=blue] (SNIP) [color]
You admit it is due to compression, yet if there is no acceleration due to gravity, then there is, can be, NO COMPRESSION....that this flies over your head so simply, easily, tells me a great deal about you, probably more then (I) would want to know....

Your simply repeating the same fallacy, in various word arrangements, thinking somehow this will solve the problem, it does not.

now, as a quick reference (30 seconds or less) (I) found this notation about the Earths interior structure....Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth) wherein if you read the part about the Mantle, above the core, it says this; "Earth's mantle extends to a depth of 2890 km. The pressure, at the bottom of the mantle, is ~140 GPa (1.4 Matm). " you do know what a GPa is don't you....cause what else is new, your wrong!

Gotta go, times up for me on this computer, but God wiling (I) will be back at it in the morning

P.S. (I)'d throw in the shovel but (I)'m afraid of hurting you when it hits you in the head, then again, maybe that would do you some good!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
10:40 PM 21/06/2006

Soooooo....from this site: Phyorg (http://www.physorg.com/news4717.html)

(assuming you can, and do, actually 'read' ...as you have, seemingly, yet to read the full thread from the physicsforums.com site where-from you seem to want to defend Nigels' work...)

"As depth increases inside the Earth, so does the pressure and heat. The pressure in the core varies from 1.4 million times the pressure at sea level at the outer edge of the core, to 3.6 million times that pressure at its center.

So Mr. Jones if there is no acceleration due to gravity there is NO WEIGHT, proven if (I) fly you to the moon, cause there, the Acceleration due to Gravity is less, and so is the result that arises from placing you upon a WEIGHT scale, ERGO when acceleration, due to gravity, drops off, so does the WEIGHT reading (read by use of a scale) of any mass above the Gravitational source, so "all of the weight above" isn't HEAVY-WEIGHT anymore, ergo, it's ability to pressurize, as 'weight' drops off, too!

So Mr. Jones. YOU LOSE!

Gonna keep trying? cause (I) no longer need any proof of your want of deceptive practises, nor of your willingness to try decietful Dodging tactics, or much else of what you have been trying, so far......

(I) may not answer you anymore as (I) have typed up most of this before, and (I)'ve little need to repeat it, here, just for you. (just to help you)

BTW Need a Shovel .....to hit yourself in the head with?

[T.E. Jones]

...there is NO WEIGHT FROM ABOVE YOU, IF THERE IS NO GRAVITY PULLING THE MASS DOWNWARDS.... if there is no acceleration due to gravity, then there is, can be, NO COMPRESSION....that this flies over your head so simply, easily, tells me a great deal about you, probably more then (I) would want to know.... you do know what a GPa is don't you....cause what else is new, your wrong!

Gotta go, times up for me on this computer, but God wiling (I) will be back at it in the morning

P.S. (I)'d throw in the shovel but (I)'m afraid of hurting you when it hits you in the head, then again, maybe that would do you some good!

Thank you for continuing. It is interesting that the pressure at the middle of the core doesn't come from the gravity there, since there is none there.

Gravity acts on earth well above the core, giving it a downward force.

Suppose you have a column and you push one end. The force communicates to the other end, which pushes and exerts pressure.

Just because you aren't at the other end where the pressure is delivered, doesn't prevent pressure from being delivered there. Gravity doesn't need to be acting in a place for there to be pressure created by the effect of gravity elsewhere. There is no mechanism whereby the downward push of matter well away from the middle of the earth can prevent the pressure being passed to the middle.

To be honest, all this stuff about the earth's pressure is a revelation to be. It is interesting and important, and thanks for arguing. Negative publicity is better than no publicity.

By the way GPa is giga Pascals, giga is 1000 x mega. Hence 1 GPa = 10^9 Pa. I used the Mbar unit previously because you had used that your self earlier on this discussion. Just trying to be helpful...

Hope God is on your side and that you find the opportunity to strike back.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Thank you for continuing. It is interesting that the pressure at the middle of the core doesn't come from the gravity there, since there is none there.
Gravity acts on earth well above the core, giving it a downward force.
Suppose you have a column and you push one end. The force communicates to the other end, which pushes and exerts pressure.
Just because you aren't at the other end where the pressure is delivered, doesn't prevent pressure from being delivered there. Gravity doesn't need to be acting in a place for there to be pressure created by the effect of gravity elsewhere. There is no mechanism whereby the downward push of matter well away from the middle of the earth can prevent the pressure being passed to the middle.
To be honest, all this stuff about the earth's pressure is a revelation to be. It is interesting and important, and thanks for arguing. Negative publicity is better than no publicity.
By the way GPa is giga Pascals, giga is 1000 x mega. Hence 1 GPa = 10^9 Pa. I used the Mbar unit previously because you had used that your self earlier on this discussion. Just trying to be helpful... NO need (onlineconversions.com) Hope God is on your side and that you find the opportunity to strike back.

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

So, for the interested Reader, a Small Piece of this writing (Quoted above) is a Description of a Mechanical Pressure, which any Lay person could find out/know, (or tell you) is an Isotropic pressure, so it cannot do what the 'Poster'/Writer/Author claims it does, generate an Anisotropic pressure.

In English, Well, when you pressurize a Piece of Steel by squeezing it, if you could measure the pressure 'anywhere' inside of it, you would find out that it is Equal All Over, Everywhere you read/measure the pressure, inside of the steel, you would get the very same 'readings' Or 'Math" (That is roughly what isotropic means: Same in all directions) But what the Earth Is/does is called a Pressure Gradient, Increasing Pressure in a Given Direction, or a measure of Pressure that changes according to Where you measure it. If you measure in 'one' place, you get 'one' result, Measure in another place, a Different result, so the 'math' on this one, does not always give you the Same answer, it varies dependant upon where you look at/measure it, and that is What is Known about the Earth, The Pressure Increases as you Travel towards its' Center.

There is NO Known/provable Mechanical Method of Accomplishing that Feat, generating that kind of Persistant Pressure Gradient.

So, Please Do Not be Fooled By Mr. Jones' Explaination, all he's/she's Really (Doing is playing a Game) explaining is 'Mechanical Pressurization', he's/She's just trying to use 'Direction' ("It's all the 'Weight' from Above") to try to fool everyone/anyone...

Mr/Ms Jones (I)"m :o 'ed, for doing this, to you, now........ :rolleyes:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Oh yes, BTW if you compress a bar of steel, in a Vise, lengthwise, then Clamp it again, at the Center, you will get an anisotropic pressurization of it.

Here, in trying to 'model' the Earth, we are trying to compress a Sphere, if you have difficulty 'imagining' that, try it as a round disc of steel, if you place equal 'pressures' all around the outer edge, then you will have generated an isotropic pressurization of the disc, (equal throughout it's mass) ...so, see if you can figure out a way to pressurize the center of the disc, to a Higher degree, then the rest of the disc, but you can only apply 'pressures' (more or less) from around the outer ring of it, as, to use this to model a sphere's compression, that would be the only option/manner/method of operation, open to you, un-equal outer pressure(s) >> to pressurize the center, to a higher degree, then the outer edges.....

P.S>ssst, except by Gravity, it cannot be done.

As thought experiment, use your Gravity Neutralizer and shut down the gravity, in a 'circle' under your feet. Now, while you, or anything else, is inside that circle, wherein acceleration due to gravitational force, is Zero! well, now anything (any Mass) you bring, into that 'circle' weighs nothing so you can, now, Carry ANYTHING ....The Empire State Building (as long as your gravity neutralized 'circle' accomodates it's base width), plus the CN Tower, ON TOP of the Empire State Building, Then You can stick the Planet Jupiter on top of that, OOOoooops Nope, its has a Gravitational Pull ALL of its' Own, and its' HUGE/ENORMOUS/REALLYREALLYBIG and your Gravitational Neutralizer is starting to overHEAT...{inset sCreaming) ABORT ABORT.... .... . ... ....

Get it?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

11.37 AM 6/24/2006

BTW Mr/Ms Jones....

(SNIP) ....You Lose.... (SNoP) Well, actually, the only reason why there is an Appearance of The "You Lose" Factor, is because, (As 'metaphore') You, and (I) are standing in a Large Room with Lots of 'Other' People, One Cries out "Look! there! ...an Elephant!" to Which (I)/myself/(andmanyothers) look over, and agree, "Yup! ...An Elephant..." but YOU, YOU look at the 'Guest List' and tell us all that: 'According to the "Guest list" (AKA 'Current(?) Gravitational Theory') there is NO Elephant, There cannot Be, because the Guest list SAYS so!' and that>>therefore: All of 'Us' .....must just be dreaming

See Ms/Mr Jones, if you could admit that, Perhaps the theory that you have been following, is Wrong inasmuch as Obviously it cannot 'see' that 'Elephant' then you wouldn't be "Losing" ....you would be 'Winning' .......more

But, "seemingly" ...so far, you cannot.

That is What would be making you into a 'Loser' YOUR decision to try to do what your signature "Rales against" having/getting done, cause there you are, trying to Defend a Theory as the "Right one" The 'Correct' Answer, THE Final Answer, the one that 'most aptly describes' what is Transpiring, in Reality (as per its' given ability to Model that{?}..but yours' can't) as Opposed to one that was formulated IN Knowlwedge of the Missing Vital Information that, the Other one had been Forumlated under, in Complete Absence of That (Apparently) Vital Information, and that, in Light of that Vital Information That formulation of Theory can NO longer Stand as 'Apt Descriptor' of.

See, if you could Simply admit that Perhaps 'you' (What you have supported, as 'theory' Actually) had been wrong, then you wouldn't be a Loser, you would be well on your way to Winning (actually) as in, you would be profiting from more accurate knowledge, knowledge that allows you to know better what is, and isn't, possible ....perhaps you would waste less time .....that way, everyones.

Oh Yes, You still can, there is still time....you can 'recant' &/or 'Accept' it ......simply.

(BTW Doing that doesn't make "YOU" wrong, just means you followed a theory which, in light of New {Recent} Knowledge, was Shown to Be Inadequate to the Task!, Precious little else ....well, that is Probably the problem, you take it as if YOU were Wrong, But YOU are not the One who Formulated that theory ....soooo ....?????)

Or, Maybe, YOU Can find an EVEN better one! ....Maaaaybe.....or, ....not.

You seem to see through the 'Mirror' but not realizing that what you are looking at, on the other side of that mirror, is still you! your reflection, & it shows, in your 'signature' .....its'/thats' more 'about' you, then you know....just remove the slight twist in it, and it fits you like .....well, you ...as in how 'you' fits' 'you'

Understand All Of that?

Well ....wait a second! don't bother answering that! ......Please, Don't Bother. :p

Oh yes, you had mentioned that (I) had "missed an opporutnity, to make a fool out of you" well, kinda don't need to, as you have been doing that, quite well, without any help from me.


(Mr. Robin Parsons Sits, pondering If His Having 'thrown in the Shovel' will result in Injury to Mr/Ms Jones, inasmuch as, if the Acceleration due to Gravity Increases as to Generate those pressure readings, then, {perhaps} if the Shovel Accelerates to a Speed greater then the Speed of Sound, Will Mr/Ms Jones hear the Forewarning He (Mr. Robin Parsons) Shouted...
((((Look out belooooow!!
....Right Before He "threw in the Shovel" .....after all, four thousand miles is a Long way [depth} to fall)