Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Reiku, Sep 18, 2007.
What constitutes a crackpot Q?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Q... If this test-thing be the case, then i would invite you to score perhaps two of the most pseudoscientific theories i have presented to date. As you will find, many of the concepts that this test uses, are not compatible for many arena's. Again... purely taste.
It seems to me that the hidden dimensions, curled into very tight spaces, are in fact perfect micro-chambers, to contain the idea I had in mind concerning the gravitational field’s need for the presence of dark matter; I propose that it doesn’t. Instead of saying that the mysterious matter is the extra source, created mathematically by scientists to answer for the gravitational source of the universe, saying that it might be stuck inside the hidden dimensions of spacetime. But why should it be this exotic substance? Why can’t it just be something we are struggling with at the moment already? Like a diluted sea of microscopic extremal black holes?
An extremal black hole will have a ground state of mass that is proportional to its charge and angular momentum. This means that the black hole will either radiate particle pairs at a much slower rate, or they won’t emit the particles at all. The following equation describes the curvature of spacetime round a massive spherical body;
The curvature produced by this weak sea of black holes i predict would sufficient to stabilize the gravitational forces needed. Black holes are predicted to form from the collapsed states of certain large stars, about several times larger than our star. They do so, because of gravitational acceleration, given by the formula;
Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak. We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial system to derive the acceleration due to gravity, and thus;
So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black hole in the conventional way, you could measure it against the gravitational acceleration formula, by;
We use the same method to work out the mass of the earth. The G is Newtons universal gravitational constant (6.7×10-11 m3/(kg sec2). We find the Earth's mass = 9.8 × (6.4×106)2 / (6.7 × 10-11) kilograms = 6.0 × 1024 kilograms. To make an accurate measure of the gravitation being produced in the hidden dimension, we would need to take the content of the proposed dark matter, which is about 25% of matter in the universe (as predicted by NASA), and spread that out in a uniformal distribution throughout the dimension, take the gravitational affects of the black holes, but we are dealing here with very small calculations for each extremal black hole. We would need to work out how many of these micro black holes would be needed, and if they represent particles, then the sea of black holes would have a finite number of particles consistent.
The gravitational acceleration, is then simply given as g=(GM)/d^2, and calculating the mass is gd^2/G.
To take into account the mass of this black hole sea, we can estimate the amount of matte required, proportional to the what the theory predicts. Dark matter coves 25% of all matter, so, in theory the same amount of matter would be needed to make up the gravity needed in the sea. Even just as important, we would need to scale the density D of the universe, against the radius 10^26, and measure how diluted this matter really is. We can measure the density, and radius of a black hole in a series of proportionalities. The radius R of a black hole, even a micro black hole is directly proportional to its mass (R- M). And the density of a black hole is found to be given by its mass divided by its volume (D=M/V).
I work out that there will be something like 10^9 particles that make up the black hole sea. This would mean that there is about a billion more particles making this sea, than there is the normal baryons found in matter. Neutrinos might be so lightweight that they can travel between dimensions. They would also naturally form under the relativistic effects on the energy deposition rate via neutrino pair annihilation near the rotation axis of a black hole normally, but here we are talking about a Kerr black hole. And also, these black holes won’t radiate photons or neutrinos. They’re stable radiatively.
Electron neutrinos or even antineutrinos are generated whenever neutrons change into protons or protons into neutrons, the two forms of beta decay. As we already know, about 50 trillion neutrinos pass through our bodies in just under one second! They originally came from sun. They are a gravitational king for this matter, and are themselves classed as being a form of dark matter. A source of frame-dragging at a very small scale would radiate from this sea of black holes. The black holes will spin at the speed of light, just like macroscopic black holes. The Centripetal force is proportional to the centrifugal force (F=mrW^2).
A black hole need to be of Planck Mass at smallest size 2x10^-8kg. The Compton Wavelength given as lambda=h/mc=2pi(h/mc) of a black hole is proportional to its Schwartzchild Radius 1 / (2M − r); very small black holes are very hot. This is because the decrease in size and magnification of density makes these little things extremely hot. A typical micro black hole would have a temperature of 10^16 K, which is 200 GeV.
Might the curvature produced from the extremal black holes be seeping into the other dimensions, producing the gravitation thought to be answered through the use of Dark Matter?
A Dr. Vernon Jenkins found the following facts… before we continue, we must have a look at the Greek Mathematics gematria, and the Chaldean numerical values are:
Alpha = 1
Beta = 2
Gamma = 3
Delta = 4
Epsilon = 6
Digamma = 7
Zeta = 8
Theta = 9
Iota = 10
Kappa = 20
Lambda = 30
Mu = 40
Nu = 50
Xi = 60
Omicron = 70
Pi = 80
Koppa = 90
Rho = 100
Sigma = 200
Tau = 300
Upsilon = 400
Phi = 500
Chi = 600
Psi = 700
Omega = 800
There are  Greek letters in total… 22 Hebrew letters in total… Note that 27 + 22 = 7 x 7… keep this in mind…
The idea that the ancient pages of the Kabala, is that it holds a hidden subtext of codes in numbers. This is not a myth, it is actually very much true.
Do not mistake these for the rather poor BBC 4 programmed a yonder of years back, whereas Dr. Eliyahu Rips claimed he had discovered empirical evidence of Bible code phenomena. He used a high-powered computer to [randomly] search for crossword like paragraphs speaking about events that had already happened, and events still to come to pass.
I wasn't moved by his finds. I found his contribution actually a bit shaming for the Bible mathematical community. However, he is a fantastic mathematician, well-renown actually, and he statistically put one of his codes down as 60,000 to 1.
But mathematicians came forward and found him to be incorrect, with a real statistical analysis of only 1 n 2. However, this should not deter the reader, as codes really do exist within the Bible, as i am going to show you.
Dr. Ivan Nikolayevich Panin, a scholar and famous agnostic, born in Russia found a most compelling and spine chilling set of codes... actually, hundreds of them. They where so intricate, the only explanation was intentional design... but why? It turns out that the codes where so complex, called 'the seven phenomena', no scholar or mathematician could really answer why anyone would go to such a lengthly way. The statistics of his finds go into the quadrillions to 1! [You can find his work on the internet - there are plenty of threads].
Another Dr. i wish to speak about today, and before moving onto my own personal find, is a Dr. Vernon Jenkins - he too has his own web page. He simply took the next step and applied geometric patterns into the text, and came up with some extraordinary results. He was able to obtain his calculations from an ancient Hebrew and Chaldean discipline called, 'Theomatics.' By applying each letter of the Hebrew (and) Greek alphabet with their own gematria values, he was able to devise ''whole'' answers. It turns out that these values also held quite a lot in store.
The most interesting find of his, was found in Genesis 1:1. He obtained the following values from using this system: 296-407-395-401-86-203-913.
He found the following facts (I’m mentioning just an iota of what he found) >
the entire system came to a value of 2701.
The entire system is also 37 x 73 (reflective symmetry)
The numbers 37 and 73 are the 12th and 21st primes (reflective system)
The number 2701 is the 703rd triangular number (similarities, almost an anagram) - 703 is also the calculation of 'and the earth' leaving a value of 666 + 666 + 666
This is just a pinch of what he found - you should really go to his site
His second work investigated the first paragraph of John 1:1, which is almost symmetrical in literature. He also found some rather remarkable mathematical results
the word, ''Word'' came to a value of 373... This mirrors the 37 and 73 phenomena
the entire passage valued 3627... Which is 39 x 93 (reflective symmetry)
In fact, the entire thing could be used as a plinth to support the triangular basis of 2701
All coincidence? Perhaps, but he recently put statistical averages to this and found it was highly unlikely
Now, what stood out for me, was that seven was predominant in the first sentence. There are accordingly 7 words. There are 28 letters (Hebrew letters) which is of course 7 x 4. This was indicating something, i thought.
You just need to look at the entire Bible to understand that 7 was the holy number... God rested on the 7th day. Jesus was the 77th generation from Abraham. The 7 churches. The 7 Angels. The 7 plagues. The 7 spirits. The 7 woes... ECT. ECT.
As it turned out, the three nouns 'God', 'Heaven' and 'Earth' added to 777... A triplet... remember this.
So, i decided to investigate the gematria. What ''popped'' out at me, was the numbers 37, 7 and 39. The difference between the number 7 however, is that it was encoded in a differential fasion to both the findings of the 37 and 39 phenomena. So, i treated it differently by doing the following sums...
37 x 7 = 259
39 x 7 = 273
what of these numbers - your probably wondering? Well, if you multiply the two together, they obtain a very similar picture to adding the three nouns together, giving an answer of 70707! But this was only the edge of the blade. It turns out that the joining of 37x7 multiplications with 39x7 multiplications unraveled a host of continuous calculations, that 'may' go into infinity... though, I could be wrong…
Here are the extra calculations I found… But first, I call numbers which have a pattern of (let’s hypothetically say),70707 as ‘’Island Effects’’, and are calculations that are very rare. In short, I will call the Island Effect simply (IE).
37 x 273 = 10101 Palindrome/IE
39 x 259 = 10101 Palindrome/IE
37 x 7 = 259 x 39 x 39 = 393939
37 x 7 = 259 x 93 x 93 = 939393
39 x 7 = 273 x 37 x 37 = 373737
39 x 7 = 273 x 73 x 73 = 737373
We now need to see the importance of two specific numbers… those being 13 and 11… numerically, the Bible finds these numbers highly important, as when Judas Iscariot hung himself, the 12 disciples became ‘’The Eleven,’’ and Jesus was the 13th… the Master. Also to highlight the importance of 11, just remember that there are 22 Hebrew letters, which is of course 11^2. Here I would like to add that 13 cannot be a number of wrath… but holiness
So, let us continue…
77 x 37 x 13 = 37037
77 x 73 x 13 = 73073
77 x 39 x 13 = 39039
77 x 93 x 13 = 93093
77 x 7 x 13 = 7007
7007 x 39 = 273273
7007 x 37 = 259259
Now consider the following mathematics…
2701 + 1072 (mirrored symmetry)= 3773…
3773 is also an anagram of 37 x 73 totaling the value of 2701… (This was Dr. Vernon’s discovery)… but I found a special harmony, crystallizing a supersymmetry and palindrome > totally indicating seven phenomena…
3773(37 x 13 x 39)= 70777707
Right, so i make it that the possibility of chance to be 1 in 108,775,477,775.
Thanks, but no thanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Too time consuming eh?
No the second paragraph above FIG 10, which begins:
"To clarify on terminology, there is some common confusion regarding the word “mass”. Whilst the accepted definition is rest mass, this is also called “invariant mass” or “intrinsic mass” or “proper mass”. The term “relativistic mass” is simply a measure of energy, which is why it applies to a massless photon. ...."
Your link is sometimes used, accepted to define or rate crackpots, but we have higher standards at our journal:
Comments Relating All Concepts, Karmas, Propositions Or Theories
Affectionately known by word formed from its first letters of the long title as the CRACKPOT Journal.
Almost anyone can reach that level. We, at the Crackpot Journal require an honest attempt to completely transform the field - turn everything upside down and yet doing so consistently (no internal contradictions). All components of Science, Technology, Industry, Novelty & Koolness, the STINK index, are weighted equally.
We interrupt this post to bring a special news bulletin:
The Crackpot evaluation committee has just accepted Farsight's work for Immediate Certification, by issue of temporary certification number, 5317, the honored "Lucky 5" permuted "fine structure number." (When he pays the page charges, that number will be replaced with one from the regular sequence.)
As his work "stand accepted physics on it head" to fully appreciate the significance of both his work and this number, one must stand on their head. (Actually one can just copy "5317" down, in block style digits* and then invert the paper 5317 is written on - Einstein first discovered this relativity trick.)
*(All line segments of every number are either vertical or horizontal.)
I am sorry Reiku, but your efforts are not quite up to our high standards; however, do not feel bad. It is very hard to achieve crackpot status (by our standards) in any of the fields called PsychoXXXXX. There is just so much crap already there and yet fully accepted as mainstream, that yours just does not stand out enough. In fact, it hardly even diverts the main stream, (Not even close to “turning it upside down.”), but keep trying.
You will be happy to learn that your work in post 88 is still being considered, but the honor, if awarded, will be less as crackpots in subfields of physics, especially its subfield related to relativity theory, black holes, time travel, etc are "dime a dozen." Farsight has attacked the very foundations of all of physics -few can achieve this level - why the committee acted so quickly in recognizing him by award of 5317, temporary certification number.
Sincerely, Billy T, editor CRACKPOT Journal, Ph.D., CSC.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!... oh that's ok... maybe i'll be a crackpot one day...
Picking up from where I left off:
Do check up on this Billy. It's energy that causes gravity. Mass also causes gravity, but that's because of the energy content.
I've got a whole chapter on reference frame in the "popular science book" version of this. I basically cut it out to try to keep the size down, but maybe I need to work it in somehow.
I'll look into this. If I find I've slipped up, yow, thanks in advance.
Take a look at the next two sections. However I don't explain the muon in full, maybe I'll look into that.
I'm not clear on that, Billy. I'll read it through again later and get back to you.
OK noted. I'll think about working something in on accelerated charge.
Because it's not a knot. Look at the picture of knots, and you see the trivial knot (electron) then the trefoil knot (proton). There is no knot that is a 3-twist moebius. Even the 200-twist muon is not a knot, because it decays. It "comes undone". Amazingly, there are very very few stable particles. You've electrons, protons, neutrinos, their antiparticles, and that's about it.
If it's not satisfactory to you, I need to work on it. Thanks for the feedback.
I've got a whole chapter on acknowledgements in the book version of this. I list piles of people, and say that my contribution is ten to twenty percent. It's like I said earlier, a whole lot of knowledge is second hand.
Sorry Billy, this is an important point. Pretty central. All those other properties are derivative.
No, it's a trefoil with a half-hearted half-hitch. It's not stable and never was.
Perhaps you misunderstood section 8 where I talked about the photon. It's a propagating variation in distance. Maybe I need to stress this some more and make it clearer.
It's definitely looking like you somehow missed section 8 where I explained this. Have a read of it and let me know if I need to clarify.
Yes, it's very useful Billy. Thanks. Please note that I'm no crackpot. All this material explains why the electron is not some weird little black hole. The notion that it is is crackpot, along with time travel, wormholes, and parallel universes.
This paper is the real McCoy. It will take a while to catch on though. This sort of thing always does. I don't know if you get New Scientist, but the October 6th issue had a feature on black holes, which vindicates my Black Holes Explained.
Thanks for the compliment Reiku. It's only like this because I've been putting stuff up on forums for about a year now. You should see my first effort. Pretty hopeless. But people chip in with bits and pieces, and challenges too, and it really does help to make it better and better. It'll never be perfect, but there you go.
That's in section 5 starting from page 13, maybe I should say more about it.
Thanks. I think that's the single most important sentence in that whole section. It's kinda weird how some people just glaze over at this sort of thing but insist on talking about time machines et cetera for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Whenever I see "The Arrow of Time" written in some paper or article, I think of my arrow of beans, and I have a little chuckle to myself at how people just don't think about the basics, and instead launch off into all sorts of hare-brained notions like the two dimensions of time I was reading about in this week's New Scientist.
Somebody else was saying this, was it Billy? Which makes me think all the more that I need to do some work on this bit. Thanks.
Not "in time", but I think it did "in space" - I've never felt critical of the Big Bang. Hmmn. Maybe I need to work on this some more.
Jeez, Reiku, even I have a problem with space! It's something and nothing. Very difficult to grasp.
Don't let Hawking do your thinking for you. Or anybody for that matter, even me. It's an imaginary surface, and like that imaginary time, it's an abstraction. It doesn't exist.
If you think it's confusing, I will look into it. Thanks for the suggested wording. I will definitely print this out and study it properly.
No. The electron is a photon going round and round. The photon goes at lightspeed. The electron can't. If you tried to make it do that, all you could end up with is a photon going in a straight line. It's like stretching the helix.
Thanks Reiku. Much appreciated. Sorry to have hijacked your thread here, but I hope it's been worth it. And I hope you can see why the notion of an electron as a black hole is just plain silly. I hesitate to say this: but some of these "respected physicists" don't deserve as much respect as they get.
Billy: your post above noted re the confusing paragraph.
Guys: don't let people with no interest in physics distract you from physics. Whether I'm right or wrong isn't the issue, what we all love is physics, and talking about it, and coming up with ideas and kicking them around. Some people just don't. Be aware that some will make an effort to stop you doing what you enjoy. As to why, I don't know. Personally I find I get a lot of grief from String Theorists and Mathematicians. I think it's because they've got a lot to lose here. In addition there are some who just enjoy offensive bullying and generally being a troll whilst refusing to read a paper and contributing absolutely nothing of any use whatsoever. Like I said, don't let the nonsense distract you from what you love.
I've read the read the rest now, and i think it's fine Farsight. Who am i to comment?
Yes thermal energy in a block of hot iron give it more mass and gravity than the same number of iron atoms in a cold block of Iron; however, traveling or Kinetic energy does not cause gravity. For exmple if you have a test mass (looking for gravity attraction) you will not find any increase in the gravity or it gradient) if traveling with and near a masive meteor over that rest mass gravity of that meteor.
I am sure you agree, but my test mass is long and thin and I am holding it by the end most distant from the meteor, It is just on the verge of being pulled apart by the gravity gradient of the rest mass of the meteor. My friend Tom, has an identical long thin test mass and he is just the same distance as I am from the trajectory of the meteor, (on the other side from me) but he is not in the rest frame of the meteor. According to your POV, his identical test mass will snap in two as the KE increases the gravity and its gradient (above the stress limit). Now physic is suposed to be the same for both me and Tom. How can gravity break some identical test rods and not others? ANSWER: It can't. There is no "frame-dependant gravity" due to traveling KE.
Both Tom and I will find that our test rods snap when a second molten meteor flys by as the therma energy does have mass. Here physics is the same as we both agree that the molten meteor is just at the melting point of lead (a few parts are still solid) I.e."temperature" is not frame dependant.
Another way to understand that traveling photon do not produce gravity is to imagine a super nova 11 billion years ago, whose light is just now reaching earth and two small back-yard telescopes one meter apart are taking a picture of the sky where that super nova is. (I will let you work out how little difference there is in the paths of the photons coming into the two different telescopes). Now note that phons can travel the same path, pass thru each other etc. If there were any gravitational attraction between photons on these extremely close paths for 11 billion years why have they not colessed into one path? I.e. only one of the two telescopes could then see the supernova. Infact, if photons attract each other then every time you slightly relocate your telescope and take a photo of the sky you photograph a different set of stars. - Is this true? NO, because traveling photons do not mutually attract by gravity - they make no gravity.
I gave the thermal energy makes gravity case as I am not attacking the idea that no photon can make gravity -- only attacking the idea that all energy makes gravity. It was easier to show you this, but there was a couple of threads about this approximately a year ago. People like Physics Monkey and several others who can do the general relativity did tell in that thread* the reasons from that POV, but I make following simple rule (which I think yields their same results): If the energy is the same for all frames, then it does make gravity; but if it is frame dependant., then it does not make gravity.
That is enough for now, but there is more (one less serious) I should reply to. I will say only that Yes it is important to state that space has only one property DISTANCE, (although that you seem to later contradict when you speak of the strength of space.) All I am suggesting is that you give up reference to th "one house pony" Many readers have never heard of that (Is ti a TV show?) I.e. say what you wish about space, but do not drag in some illusion to ponies, especilly that photo of one. Only think it stimulated in me was the "horse of a different color" from wizard of OZ, - Dorthy's imagination run wild in a dream - I don't think you want to develop the assoication with someones's wild dreaming. Kill the pony, not the properties of space that your think needs to be emphasized.
More serious is you reply to me:
"Look at the picture of knots, and you see the trivial knot (electron) then the trefoil knot (proton). There is no knot that is a 3-twist moebius. Even the 200-twist muon is not a knot, because it decays. It "comes undone". Amazingly, there are very very few stable particles. You've electrons, protons, neutrinos, their antiparticles, and that's about it."
An acceptible theory must ONLY predict those real particles. You theory, crudely and quickly stated is "knotted compact photons" are the praticles and hence particles are only energy. Unfortunately, for you your theory also prdicts billions of non-existent particles just a firmly as it predicts the few that do exist. Every different knot is another particle.
I specifically told you how to make a knot, not in your set of knots pictured. Namely make the photon loop length longer and instead of one twist give it three, very much like your first, most simple knot. By making the loop longer the "turning" can be less stress on space- I.e it should by your theory be more stable, yet it does not exist as a spin 3/2 particle. (and lower intrinsice magnetic moment as the turn rate is lower. The twist rate can be lower also if the pathe is mor than three times longer than your simple electron knot.)You are stuck. You can not justify your theory by some hand waving that says there are only x particals and hence the are only x stable knots. What makes your one twist "stabel" and my example of another knot with lower turn radius and same "matching of E & M lines" (on the front an back of FIG 18 strip) after 3 instead of 1 twist, "unstable."
Your theory is like the recession prediction methodoloy that has successfully predicted all 18 recession since 1800. (Unfortunately that methodology has als predicted the 213 that did not occur.) Where are all the particles that correspond to other possible knots?
*As I recall, the now prefered way to think aboput gravity is that it does not exist. It appears to exist in the math of General Relativity and in layman's terms, as a distortion or bending of space. I can not do the math to properly understand gravity, and doubt that you can either.
Sure thing. When you travel with the meteor there's no increase in gravity.
Yes, physics is the same for you and Tom. Think of it another way. Imagine the meteor is a very long steel rod. You are attracted towards it. Now imagine a very long steel rod that is bulleting along really fast. It doesn't much look like it's moving because it's shiny and when you look at it, all you see is a shiny surface. But if you're lucky you'll see a blemish whizz past. You are attracted to this rod more than you were attracted to the first one. Now flip it around and imagine that you're standing on the rod. I'm above the rod, and I'm attracted towards it. Off in the distance Tom is also above the rod, but he's barrelling along really fast coming towards us. We both agree that he is attracted to the rod to the same degree as me. But we also agree that Tom is time dilated with respect to us. His clock is running slower. So it takes fewer of his seconds to fall to the surface of the rod.
Sorry Billy, they do "make" gravity. If you annihilate an electron with a positron, you don't get a sudden reduction in gravity as their mass disappears. It's energy that causes gravity, not mass. And it takes an awful lot of gravity to attract a photon. You need a whole sun's worth of energy to bend a light beam by just a little amount.
I think I agree with this. In the example I gave about the rod, everybody falls towards it at the same rate. But the rate looks different depending on whether you're comoving or not.
Noted. Thanks for the feedback.
It's only a qualitative model, it doesn't qualify as a theory because it doesn't make quantitative predictions. All I said was most of the many particles in the "zoo" are just partial knots that come undone, and they decay so quickly and should be of limited interest. I said there are very few stable particles, and hinted that it gets more difficult to make more complex knots because you're up against the strong force. I didn't predict billions of particles. If you think I did maybe I ought to clarify that section.
The twist and the turn have to match. The electric field is the twist and the magnetic field is the turn. And they're both one and the same thing, the thing we call the electromagnetic field, but all it really is, is geometric distortion. If you move through a twist you turn. If you move through a turn you twist. To go round in a circle you have to twist and turn by just the right amount.
Nowhere. Try tying more complex knots in a steel bar a foot long.
Gravity exists, Billy. Hold a pencil up, now drop it, and you can see that gravity exists. But like Einstein said, it is a pseudoforce. There is no magical mysterious "action at a distance" delivering energy to a falling body. But anyhow, maths won't help you to understand gravity. General Relativity doesn't actually explain what it is. If you read the original Foundation of General Relativity you will notice that Einstein doesn't even use the phrase "curved spacetime". People talk about curved spacetime thinking they understand gravity, but actually they don't. They can't explain it clearly, nor can they actually picture it. And no wonder. Because gravity isn't a distortion of space. Electromagnetism is.
No... i am with Billy on this one.
I don't think Gravity should be understood as being fundamental. Why haven't we found the Graviton... and indeed the monopole? Two major particles thought to deliver the magnetic and gravitational forces, but they haven't been found.
Instead, i think that motion/acceleration causes magnetic and gravitational properties. No fundamental matter.
''Because gravity isn't a distortion of space. Electromagnetism is.''
Though is do agree with this.
My wacky idea is that everything can be traced back to electromagnetism. Let's face it, the first energy was electromagnetic, and everything comes from light. If light came from spacetime a billion chronons after big bang, then why shouldn't we trace everythin back to some electromagnetic field, rather than qauntum gravity itself?
I am too lazy to do it but it would be interesting to test this rebutal. I.e. lets say that almost all of the bending of the tangent to sun star light (during total eclipse) is due to the surface gravity acting for time it takes the photons to travel one solar radius. (Approximately correct, but an over estimate as the surface gravity only acts at one solar radius.) and compare that to the effect of mutal gravity (towards the central axis) of all "Earth bound" photons from the (pi)R^2 surface of a star in supernova acting for 11 billion years. To again make a simplfying approximation, assume that these photons are a cylinder with diameter equal to the supernova radius (They are really a cone with apex at Earth and base of radius equal to its diameter. - Because of the inverse square law, the "pulling together" of the phonons is underestimated with this cylinder approximation. - The apex or last part of their flight into your telescope is more important, and underestimated, than the first 5.5 billion years.)
That is "ad hoc" - not movated by the theory of knots. But even if we require twist and turn to be equal (by ad hoc rule) it is still possible to have version of your simple knot with three times more twist and three times more turn, but no such spin 3/2 particle exist!
I already explained that you twist the long version of your figure 3 times (instead of only once) before rejoining the ends. Now, to satisfy your ad hoc rule, I add that during the first 360 turn the photon path climbes up slightly to be "above" the starting point by "2h" when that 360 turn is complete (without yet "rejoining" the lower starting point) and then during the second 360 turn it begins its steady "dive" and is only "h" above after turning 720 degrees. (If you want and photon is long, it can pass thru itself as photon do that with ease, or the radius of the turn could not be exactly constant to "miss its own tail.") Finally, at the end of the third 360 turn this "steady dive" for last two full turns does "rejoin" at the starting point. - Thus, there are dozens of non-existent particles predicted by your "knot theory." - You are just "cherry picking" to eleminate all but one. (The electron if going one way and positron if going the other way round the loop.)
The guy who correctly predicted all the last recessions (and many more that did not happen) could, like you, concock some ad hock rule that eliminated all his false predictions. For example, some "numerology" based on the month and year must be satisfied also for it to be a "real" prediction. You eliminate lots of knots for only "ad hock" reasons like this it seems to me. Why are not all possible knots, corrsponding to particles? Even with your ad hoc rule that twist must equal turn, there are still many dozens of predicted particles (as the one I just described) that you must now invent some other ad hoc rule to eliminate.
You're just not understanding this twist is the turn Billy. Get a strip of paper and make a moebius strip. Nice and simple, one turn and one twist then sellotape the ends.
Now get another strip of paper and give it three turns followed by three twists to make your "supercharged" particle. Sellotape the ends. Now let it go. Now take a look at what you've got.
Recognise it? You really have to actually do this to understand what I'm talking about.
Note that there is a double-charged "Delta" particle, but it isn't stable. It decays. The knot is no good and it comes undone.
It's not a concoction and it's not numerology. Your reasoning for rejecting what I'm saying doesn't actually work. Do what I said with the moebius strips, you'll be surprised.
I want to reply to the statememt "And it takes an awful lot of gravity to attract a photon. You need a whole sun's worth of energy to bend a light beam just a little amount"
This could be misleading because any gravitationally collapsed mass, large or small, will have space curvature at the radius (3Gm/c squared) that is just right to bend a light beam so that it moves in a closed orbital path. See page 677 of book Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.
But a black hole still contains a greater deal of cencentrated mass... and the smaller they are, the more packed and hot they can be. Questions is, what would the mass of a black hole the size of a marble be compared to the mass of the sun?
Reiku: If the earth were gravitationally collapsed, it would have a photon capture radius (3Gm/c squared) value (approx.) 0.0133 meter. This is with a mass value 5.974x10 exp 24 kg. This radius is slightly larger than 1/2 inch, if you like to think in inches. A marble would be smaller so a black hole with a smaller photon capture radius would have a proportionally smaller mass, less than the earth mass.
The sun mass is about 1.99x10 exp 30 kg. If the sun were gravitationally collapsed, it would have a photon capture radius value (approx.) 4432.28 meter. The photon capture radius increases linearly with mass.
When we know the photon capture radius, the mass can be determined.
Separate names with a comma.