Change your thinking, change your life!

Consequences Of A

Spring-And-Loop Theory 5:


YouTube [17min] | MP3 [17min]

by Floyd Maxwell, BASc


Spring-And-Loop Theory refresher

From COASALT 1: The Speed Of Light
Spring-And-Loop Theory says that the entire universe is filled with ultra high energy springs and that mass is a special form of that energy, one that is stabilized into an enclosed loop. The vibrations of atoms are what happens when these ultra high energy springs become bound to lower energy loops -- a rambunctuous child holding on to a calm parental hand.

The four forces are all unified in this model. The strong force is that basic spring-loop bond. The weak force is that strong bond letting go, causing the spring to thrash around violently (until it recombines in some way). The electromagnetic force is the basic spring-spring interaction -- propagating every possible type of "particle" and exchange. Gravity, the subtle yet pervasive child of the other three forces, is the effect, on the Universal Matrix of springs, when a loop is introduced -- clamping part of a fish net creates a small effect felt everywhere in that net.

In COASALT 2: Black Holes
COASALT used this better theory of loop-spring interaction to show that when there are enough loops, light bumps can completely stop.

From COASALT 3: Einstein's Equation
We observed that the COASALT kitchen has just 3 ingredients: e (springs), m (loops) and c (spring bump speed), and left it as an exercise for the reader to create their own e=mc2 cake.

From COASALT 4: The Ether
We point out that the future of physics requires the ether.
We need it and Newton knew it.

From the 16th until the late 19th century, gravitational phenomena had also been modelled utilizing an aether. The most well-known formulation is Le Sage's theory of gravitation, although other models were proposed by Isaac Newton, Bernhard Riemann, and Lord Kelvin. None of those concepts is considered to be viable by the scientific community today. - wiki

Physics needs a working explanation of gravity as well.

Chewing our own cud

Spring-And-Loop Theory has already said what gravity is, explaining it in the original paper.

More can and should be said, both in detail and in new areas, but to "increase receptivity in the target market" we need to examine the present theory of gravity.

The best way to do this is to critique it.

With apologies to Edward de Vere

I come here to bury our current theories of gravity,
not to praise them.

The wikipedia gravitation page is 6,000 words.
The wikipedia "Law of gravity" page is also 6,000 words
...because it is the same! There is near total duplication. Why?!

I can see a wikipedia page on war, and one on the "law of war", both being the same because war is just war. It doesn't appear to follow any law. Or not any law that we could call good, just, fair, positive, or helpful.

Similarly, since we don't understand gravity, whether we are talking about gravity in general, or the "law" of gravity, we are saying the same thing:

"Ah...this is all we've got so far..."

Bowling, anyone?

Our understanding of gravity is non-existent.

Our best model of gravity -- the bowling ball on a rubber mat analogy -- is hopelessly flawed.

We know this. We admit it. And yet we use it constantly.

Yes, but how accurately do we err?

Many areas of physics are super accurately understood. To the point where all that is left is to try to increase the number of decimals in the answers.

The winner so far is the Rydberg constant:

1.0973731568539 * 107 m-1
known to 11 or so significant figures.

The silver medalist might be the speed of light, since we have defined it (!) to 8 or so significant figures. Planck's constant is also known to 8 or 9 digits, as is the vacuum permittivity. Just don't ask me what that last one is...

Gravity is known to just 5 decimals:

9.80665 m/s2
and this figure applies only at a very precise spot on Earth.

Stopped clocks being right twice a day comes to mind.

Playing with a 39 card deck

There are 13 cards per suit, and four suits per deck, for a total of 52 cards.

Good luck winning in Solitaire when one of the aces is buried.

The wikipedia gravity page "comes clean" when it lists six "observations that are not adequately accounted for".

We cover each of the six problems next.

Gravity problem 1 - Extra fast stars

"Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster (B) than they should (A) according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed."

Best demonstrated with:

The observed difference from theory is nearly total. We say speeds should drop off with distance, as they do in our solar system, and instead they stay the same. Stars are kicking sand in gravity's face.

So we fight back with "it is dark matter". The playground equivalent of saying "I know you are but what am I?!" At least some admit that "dark matter" is just a fancy word for our ignorance.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that stars rotating around a galaxy's black hole can behave differently than planets in our solar system revolving around our Sun...without breaking any part of Spring-And-Loop Theory.

That there are obviously different forces dominating at different scales. No big deal, let's investigate and figure it all out.

More specifically, Spring-And-Loop Theory imagines that space expansion (i.e. springs pushing against springs) is a more dominant force than "gravity" (i.e. "space" contraction due to spring-loop interaction) at the galactic scale. And is fine with that.

Gravity problem 2 - Gravity Assist

Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration than expected during gravity assist maneuvers.

So, at the planetary scale, the current theory of gravity underestimates the attractive forces involved.

Gravity problem 3 - Accelerating expansion

"The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all, however this conclusion is disputed."

The dark energy problem illustrates, once again, what the current theory of gravity does not encompass.

In trying to explain this particular problem, it is theorized that space is not homogenous. Yet CMB measurements indicate that space is extraordinarily homogenous, to better than one part in 100,000. Why do we propose things that are so obviously wrong?

Spring-And-Loop Theory has no problem at all with the accelerating expansion, saying it has been this way all along.

Gravity problem 4 - Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit

"Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this were solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy."

So now, at the planetary scale, gravity is overestimating the attractive forces involved?

This is 21st century physics in a nutshell. The current gravity equations are wrong in different ways depending on the problem they are trying to solve.

Spring-And-Loop Theory presents an alternative theory of gravity, in the sense that Spring-And-Loop Theory actually has a theory of how gravity works.

It is at the preliminary stage of being a model. It will need to be embraced, expanded upon and extensively simulated before it will produce the kind of hard numbers that scientists are most influenced by.

But why should we continue with the current nonsense?

Gravity problem 5 - Extra energetic photons

"Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales."

The "inverse-squared" aspect of our current theory of gravity is based on what, exactly? Simplification at best.

Oh, sure, I understand what each term in

f = m1m2/r2
means, but what makes us think that this represents reality?
The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years.
- Wiki

Spring-And-Loop Theory says 325 years is enough.

f = m1m2/r2 no longer works reliably

The "clamping part of a fish net" analogy of Spring-And-Loop Theory shows that we aren't just dealing with a simple plug-in-some-numbers situation. The known Universe is composed of about 10154 Planck-scale things

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

and they all work together. How many different things act on a given chunk of the Universal Matrix (i.e. the fish net)? And what sort of "edge effects" occur when springs clamp on to a loop?

Even with a good working model, we are a long way from being able to simulate things within our own solar system, let alone the Milky Way galaxy.

Going back in time to the "big bang" or wondering if there are 10500 possible universes are things we can not possibly work on...until we at least use a better theory of gravity.

We have spoiled ourselves with neat and tidy formulas (that fail, again and again, in spectacular ways). We need to try more intuitive models that become progressively closer to the real world.

Unless we truly have no shame.

Gravity problem 6 - Extra massive hydrogen clouds

"The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales."

The fact that anomalies 5 & 6 create opposite problems gives some idea of how flawed our gravity theories are. Even more alarming is the way "dark flow" is tossed in there, given that it is about as speculative as the speculative field of physics gets.

Final score?

Honestly, I'm shocked Wikipedia only list six problems on the gravity page. I can certainly think of others. Searching for the first "gravity" hit on the "list of unsolved problems in physics" (my favorite wikipedia
page), produces this:

"Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?"

To which Spring-And-Loop Theory would reply that the quantum 'vacuum' has "little effect" because it has zero mass, by the definition of Spring-And-Loop Theory. The "quantum vacuum" is nothing but springs, that are massless.

So they are stuck on the wrong problem, from Spring-And-Loop Theory's point of view. Their theory is the problem, not the observed discrepancies.


Then there is the Higgs...the miserable Higgs. Check out this page, especially the answer to the question:
"In the simplest, easiest, most rudimentary terms, what is the Higgs boson?"
It is a truly hopeless theory ...except that it makes the "inflation" theory look even worse. For that, I thank it.

Mom, have you seen my gravity waves?

Pop quiz: what is the most pointless activity in physics?

Right. Searching for gravity waves.

Yes there can be a gravity "wave", but how are you going to detect a wave created by the weakest force? That would be like going to an NFL football game and then trying to hear the heartbeat of a player, from your seat.

Also, gravitons (i.e. loops), do not mass-appear or mass-disappear very often. So, that game you need to go to is only played once every hundred years.

And on "finding it", what have you found? What understanding of gravity have you gained?

"Yes, that player does have a heartbeat, by golly!"

10 particles, gravity;
Gravity, 10 particles

This page details the "10 theoretical particles that could explain everything". It mentions gravity 18 times, lol.

How about, instead of trying to explain "everything" with 10 miraculous particles, we just try to explain (i.e. model) gravity?

Can we settle for that, for now?

Loop Quantum Gravity

As mentioned in the last COASALT, LQG seemed to hold some promise of describing gravity, at least going by the name of the theory, but fails, both in scope and model accuracy.

Another card analogy, please

Let's card analogize the four forces:

The Strong force?

- the Ace of Spades
- the most powerful card, of the most powerful suit

The weak force?

- the two of clubs
- the weakest card, of the weakest suit

The electromagnetic force?

- the six of diamonds
- the electromagnetic force is the life blood of the four forces
- carbon, the life blood of chemistry, has Atomic Number of 6


- the queen of hearts
- gravity is exactly like love
- the queen of hearts is the most loving card of the most loving suit

That Einstein gravity quote

"Gravitation is not responsible for two people falling in love"
- Albert Einstein
Einstein spent 30 years trying to figure out what gravity was, and never got it. Interesting that he never got what love was either -- he was a womanizer, unfaithful in marriage, and abandoned his first child.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says "Gravitation is EXACTLY like people falling in love." And that this messed up world is EXACTLY like the state of physics today.

One more analogy, for the road?

The strong force is our selfishness. We steal spend billions on useless physics experiments because what we really want is a house and a nice car.

The weak force, present when things break apart, is the force of war. Pity they never called it the "unenlightened" force instead.

The electro-magnetic force is the myriad means we use to communicate -- TV, radio, internet, voice, eye-contact, smoke signals and innuendo. Used primarily to passively watch as our world falls apart.

All because we don't understand the fourth force -- love. A force that brings us together...but only weakly compared to the selfish, destructive and ambivalent other three forces.

And now for something...

Ok, now for something more revolutionary.

Conventionally, we talk about electrons orbiting a nucleus, and "explain" this with "electromagnetic attraction".

Check out either this or this page for a good non-explanation laugh. Summary? "We can't know where the electron is."

Boy, wouldn't that save a lot of teenage car accidents if we could just say that we don't know where our teenagers are?

How does COASALT explain it?

"Consequences Of A Spring-And-Loop Theory 5: Gravity" says that gravity is involved in the electron-nucleus interaction.

COASALT_g says that electrons, having mass, are a small (perhaps the smallest) spring-loop system. And that the atomic nucleus is at the other extreme -- one of the largest spring-loop systems.

Then, using the same theory that has been applied at larger scales, COASALT says that electron spring-loop systems attract nucleus spring-loop systems by contracting spring "space". And really, it must be the other way around.

So that, not "positive attracts negative", is how electrons are attracted to a nucleus. But what keeps them from hitting the nucleus?

Wait, so we can all get along?

Prior to quantum theory, it was explained that electrons don't collide with the nucleus because "opposite charges repel".

"We charge you with burglary."
"I charge you with gifting. Can I go now?"
COASALT_g says that collisions do not occur because each spring-loop system is saturated. Think of each like a ball of duct tape that has been used as a soccer ball for a week -- it ain't got no stickum left in it.

The two spring-loop systems still "attract" each other (by contracting spring space) but do not stay together because there is too much "fluff" (i.e. springs) stuck to them, to the point where they have no sticky left.

In fact, this is the most powerfully repellant "fluff" in the Universe. Hence the reason that the electron-nuclear repulsion goes toward infinite strength as the two get closer together.

One with everything

So, COASALT finds unification of the four the nucleus. Just as it does in a black hole. Spring-And-Loop Theory works from the smallest to the largest scales.

Thanks to a working theory of gravity.

We will return to Big G, the least understood of all physics subjects, in the future...

Love on.




The Speed Of Light   Black Holes   Einstein's Equation   The Ether   Gravity
222 Answers   The Atom   Quantum World   Neutrino   Black Holes Revisited
The Comedy Of Science   et=mc3   Comparing Physics Theories
Diffuse Interstellar Bands   Einstein's Ether Talk   No Strong Force
The Electron   Relativity   Unification   Assumptions   Modeling   The Greatest Story  

My Theory

Physics Quotes & Thoughts

Big Bang   Dark Matter/Dark Energy   Dogma   Forget The Fields   Math Sucks   Particle Physics   Peer Review   Standard Model   Star Gazing   String Theory   tEmP Theories/Theorists   The Control System   Trolls  


Spring-And-Loop Theory by Floyd Maxwell is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Other subjects   Site Map   Contact

Quotes provided by:

Click here to access the 40k Quote Archive)