The variable G TOE

[Spiral Path]

For several decades now I am having a running battle with the present scientific establishment about the validity of constants in the natural sciences. In mathematics, yes, there are - and will always be - certain numbers that are unchangeable, like pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius), or phi (the Golden Ratio, known to painters for many centuries now as pleasing to the eye and derived from numbers often occurring in nature), or e (the base of the natural or Napierian logarithms). But mathematics is only a theoretical tool developed by humans in order to better measure and understand the much more complex natural sciences and thus it is even required to be "constant" in its approach.

However, the natural sciences in their variety, where masses are in constant motion, do not allow to have such a simplistic methodology. The motion is there - even if we can't see it because it's either too fast or too slow to be recognized as such by our human eyes - and it distorts the results of our measurements. Besides, isn't it quite pretentious of us insignificant creatures to assume that whatever we measured here on the surface of the Earth is valid throughout the whole of the Universe?

I am talking here specifically about the gravitational "constant" G that Newton postulated and Einstein dutifully accepted as such. We all did as we all didn't dare question the authorities in school. G is supposed to be, after all, the most important "fundamental physical constant" in the physical sciences and all other "physical constants" that we use in our present calculations depend in one way or another on its value. However, after studying for half a century the most profound of the physical sciences (namely geology, which is the only one that also gives us so much evidence in the time dimension over millions and even billions of years), I have come to the conclusion that the presently accepted "Standard Model" is hopelessly outdated and, if we ever want to develop a more plausible cosmology than we have now, desperately needs to be replaced with a different concept of gravitation that contains a variable G.

That's why I have this running battle with the scientific establishment. If you want to watch it on Youtube to the tune of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, click:

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEhF-7suDsM )

Spiral Path

[MJA]

Thanks SP,

I concur. Measure be it gravity, or the speed of light, or nature itself, has no certainty. Heisenberg would be smiling today.

The utube conect was great!

Have an equal day,

MJA

[Spiral Path]

Thank you very much, MJA, for your kind comment. Yes, I guess Heisenberg would enjoy that.

I only wish that the people at the purse strings would concur too, like you. They should stop believing so fervently in a "constant" G as if it were a religion and provide the necessary funding for research into earthquake prediction. This would not only save the lives of thousands of potential earthquake victims but also provide an accurate equation for a variable G.

Warm regards,
Spiral Path

[mkirkpatrick]

Thank you very much, MJA, for your kind comment. Yes, I guess Heisenberg would enjoy that.

I only wish that the people at the purse strings would concur too, like you. They should stop believing so fervently in a "constant" G as if it were a religion and provide the necessary funding for research into earthquake prediction. This would not only save the lives of thousands of potential earthquake victims but also provide an accurate equation for a variable G.

Warm regards,
Spiral Path

Thanks SP,great to see you back posting today,will be in touch.


warm regards michael.

[Spiral Path]

That's why I have this running battle with the scientific establishment. If you want to watch it on Youtube to the tune of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, click:

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEhF-7suDsM )

Spiral Path

Since I cannot edit my first introductory post in this thread, I ask anyone who is interested in my Variable G TOE to please ignore the above quoted lines. The link doesn't work any more - so please avoid being frustrated. - I love Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and that's why I put this link in. I also found the fight of the couple shown on this video very interesting and funny to watch as in my 17-year marriage to a happy-go-lucky mountain guide, we never really had a fight. He had put me on a pedestal from the time we first met and I gratefully responded by trying to please him in every way I could. With this mutual agreement we succeeded, together with his long-time friend and partner Hans Gmoser, in building up a now multi-million dollar company (Canadian Mountain Holidays, offering heli-skiing and heli-hiking to an international clientele). - Unfortunately, where money is to be made, golddiggers soon appear. I tried to fight being pushed off my pedestal by a greedy young girl, but didn't succeed.

Now I am trying to fight the powerful Scientific Establishmenbt and their "standard model" with my new cosmological theory based on SG-gravity, but I am afraid that here I am not successful either. With my advancing age and deteriorating health, as well as lack of money, I don't have too many options left any more for fighting - except that I have common sense and the (probably still partial) truth on my side. My most important "weapon" may possibly be the fact that, in order to understand my Variable G TOE, one only needs to have some basic knowledge of classical physics (as taught in High School) as well as - and this is the clincher - an open mind that would still accept some (thoroughly examined) paradigm shifts.

Do you have such an open mind? This informal ToeQuest Forum is to me the ideal and more or less the "last battlefield" where I can fight for any real progress in physics - which right now, by the looks of it, seems to be stuck in the dead-end rut of the irreconcilabity of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

To be continued ...

S.P.

[Farsight]

I can reconcile Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But I'm meeting opposition.

Re constants in physics, many are "running constants". The speed of light c is a constant but at the same time it varies. So does Planck's constant h, and the fine structure constant α. The gravitational constant G is certainly variable. The presumption that it is absolutely constant is based upon the assumption of homogeneous space, even though people are fully aware that whilst the space between the galaxies expands, the space within does not. This has implications for dark matter involving a form of MOND.

Note however that I don't say the Standard Model is wrong, but that instead some elements of it are misguided, and it's a work in progress.

Where's your variable-G ToE? I've got an open mind, and draft book that is effectively a ToE, though I prefer the phrase "unified model". PM me and I'll email you the 8Mbyte pdf.

[Spiral Path]

Hello. Farsight -

Thank you for commenting. It seems that you and I are in agreement on some topics but are looking at the TOE from a completely different perspective. I got your book now (thanks again) and have to say that I very much like your personal writing style and incredibly thorough referencing, but considering my other work load, it will take me a while to absorb the entire perspective of your TOE. Anyway, here are my comments to some of your statements:

I can reconcile Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But I'm meeting opposition.

Since there has been so much controversy about the interpretation and semantics in these two subjects, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, my Variable-G Theory bypasses them completely and just uses the various verifyable data on hand.

Re constants in physics, many are "running constants". The speed of light c is a constant but at the same time it varies. So does Planck's constant h, and the fine structure constant α. The gravitational constant G is certainly variable.

Here we seem to agree at least in part. While you call some of the officially designated fundamental physical constants "running constants", I call them all "temporary constants" (or rather "variables") that we here on Earth can presently use as mathematical tools for calculating right now the approximate cosmological conditions we are subjected to for the time being - keeping in mind that those conditions are constantly changing during our spiralling orbit around the center of the galaxy.

The presumption that it is absolutely constant is based upon the assumption of homogeneous space, even though people are fully aware that whilst the space between the galaxies expands, the space within does not. This has implications for dark matter involving a form of MOND.

I assume that the "it" in the above quote refers to the gravitational constant (or rather function) G. You state quite correctly that it is only "absolutely constant based upon the assumption of homogeneous space". - Well, "homogeneous space" may be a convenient hypothetical construct to theoretical physicists, but to geologists like me (who work after all with objects much closer to reality) it most certainly is NOT ! Neither should it be for astrophysicists who, by just using simplified and misinterpreted Newtonian gravity, came up with another hypothetical constract - unknown "dark matter" surrounding galaxies. My SG-gravity (shifting gyration gravitational model) easily takes care of this wrong assumption. And MOND (great effort, but wrong conclusion) still bases its calculations on a constant G, i.e. homogeneous space.

One more observation: You show great insight in your book (that's why I think the name "Farsight" suits you well) and that's why I can't believe that the non-sensical words "even though people are fully aware that whilst the space between the galaxies expands, the space within does not" came from your own mind. That's another one of the hypothetical assumptions of theoretical physicists. Since galaxies have no exact boundaries and there is lots of invisible "stuff" in intergalactic space. then where exactly is the demarcation line between "space that expands" and "space that does not expand"? - In any case, I think the redshift equations that astrophysicists presently use need a thorough overhaul with another associated paradigm shift - then suddenly the universe will no longer expand, and most certainly not at an accelerated rate.

My comments for the rest of your post I leave for another night. I am too tired right now after a hard day's work.

Regards,
Spiral Path

[Farsight]

Thanks Spiral. I'd say we share a lot of common ground. Sorry about the choice of words. I'll improve that. Don't hesitate to flag up anything similar.