Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
How the mechanics pull you
by throwing stones at you

    1.0   QM explains gravity as retrograde motion

    If both GR and QM are impeccable mathematically and they both explain the real universe, which should you choose to explain
    gravity to your kids? Should you tell them that a parachutist falls through relati-  vity’s warped space, but, as he nears the
    ground and distances become shorter, quantum gravitons take over and drag him the rest of the way?

    Baez’s infamous University of Riverside Physics web page, a bastion of relativity and quantum, seems to lean towards QM’s
    particle version. The site explains that a quantum graviton transfers ‘negative momentum’ to the target (Fig. 1). [1]  Think of
    momentum as motion. Mathematically, momentum has been defined as (mass times velocity) since the days of Newton and,
    therefore, ‘motion’ is still a good approximation for momentum in our present context. There is no such thing as 'static'

    Let’s put Baez’s ‘negative momentum’ proposal in familiar terms. Baez says that when the pitcher throws a baseball charged
    with retroactive motion, the catcher is dragged towards the mound. Baez Physics FAQ site proposes that it is particles pushing
    down on you that keep you from flying into outer space:

    “ pressure causes gravitational attraction... In fact, any object of mass M will form
      a black hole if it is compressed to a radius smaller than its Schwarzschild radius” [2]

    He urges the reader to believe in the graviton on the basis that its existence is predicated on impeccable mathematics.

    I have to believe that this is a joke, a caricature of Physics. Perhaps Mr. Baez moonlights as a standup comedian and I just
    happened to stumble upon a site frequented by a surrealistic claque. Then again, what makes me think that he and his
    buddies may be serious about what they say is that I read similar accounts in other 'scientific' bulwarks:

    “ antiparallel momentum and velocity, is observed.” [3]

    “ atoms have negative momentum” [4]

    “ effects of virtual graviton exchange” [5]  

    In case I could have perchance misconstrued what the mechanics are saying, Bugel says it so that a baby can understand it:

    “ The best description of what happens in quantum field theory is that the
      exchanged particle carries negative momentum - not an easy thing to
      visualize.” [6]

    [I bet!]

    McIrvin confirms this ‘official’ mainstream version of Quantum at Baez's Physics FAQ website:

    “ If the momentum transferred by the wave points in the direction from the
      receiving particle to the emitting one, the effect is that of an attractive force.”  [7]

    [Transfer momentum? Sounds like the nonsense we debunked here!]

    So again, I was not mistaken.

    Allow me to spell it out. The idiots of Quantum Mechanics are saying that your heart attracts your liver by pitching negative-
    momentum-carrying stones at it. They urge you to visualize an abstract messenger transferring the momentum it ‘carried’
    on its back to the liver which reacts by moving closer to the heart. The mathematicians sincerely believe and say that there
    is a particle called a graviton which carries a force and delivers this negative push to another one (Fig. 1). They add that this
    idiocy has never been falsified.  (I doubt that anyone could. How do you falsify Alice in Wonderland, Little Red, and Snow
    White anyways?). You can either believe the Emperor's Clothes tale Einstein's idiots are trying to sell you or join the growing
    crowd of dissidents and begin to stone them to death!
I won the race against that
buffalo by relying on
negative momentum, Bill. I
learned at Quantum School
that you run much faster
when you run backwards.

    Stenger tells us why he and his peers have willed themselves to believe this nonsense:

    “ to a particle physicist raised on a diet of Feynman diagrams, motion backward in
      time is not all that disturbing. All fundamental particle interactions work backward
      as well as forward and, with rare exceptions, do not distinguish between directions
      of time.” [15]

    Oh, I see. Well. Maybe a mathematician and a particle can’t distinguish between the future and the past, but a sober
    physicist can. The mathematicians can do anything with math and prove anything with statistics, but does this make
    you more comfortable with their conclusions about gravity?

    Of course, the tough part is producing ‘negative momentum’ at the bowling alley. Nature has so utterly fooled the
    mathematicians – they have been burnt so many times – that they no longer consider possible mechanisms. The
    outrageous explanations of quantum show that you can justify absolutely anything with equations. The educated
    mathematicians will believe any garbage, and Quantum advocates will go out of their ways to protect their beloved

    3.0   Conclusions

    In conclusion, the proposals of Quantum Mechanics – negative momentum and reverse time  show that we cannot
    rationally explain the force of pull with particles. The particle is simply an incorrect model and should be discarded by
    serious researchers. Any explanation involving particles should be treated as a Ptolemaic system and ridiculed.
    Pushing gravity people should be cleaning latrines rather than manning ‘think tanks’. They don’t have the gray matter
    to tackle Physics.

    " One might wonder, how can pushing cause attraction? ...This sounds like a
      contradiction. The solution is: The pushing of positive pressure (and the pulling
      of negative pressure) are non-gravitational forces which just move substances
      around within space without changing space itself. But the gravitational attraction
      (or repulsion) they cause operates on space itself, decreasing (or increasing) the
      amount of space between things." [16]

    [Oh brother! What a contorted explanation to say so much bullshit!]

    This is the appalling nonsense the mathematicians believe in after so many years in college!

    QM postulates a world of particles, where even a force (a concept) is a particle (an object). Such a world relies exclusively on
    billiard-ball physics. The incongruous thing about the Quantum version of this popular 'game' is that the mathematicians
    cannot reproduce what they are proposing at the pool table. They cannot strike the ball with a cue and deliver negative
    motion to the 8-ball. It has never happened anywhere other than in the corridors of the Departments of Theoretical Physics
    of universities around the world. Therefore, a 'hands-on' experiment in the lab resolutely falsifies the theory proposed by
    Quantum Mechanics, but no one pays attention to contrary evidence any more. The mathematicians give lip service to
    experimentation nowadays. Today, all experiments are gedanken (thought) experiments. The mathematicians play the entire
    game of billiards in their heads. That's how they can get away with telling you on the one hand that a graviton donates
    negative motion and on the other that a photon bounces against another:

    A complete theory of reaction (3) does not exist at present so we performed a
      simulation based on a two-step model in which the beam electron emits a virtual
      photon... and the virtual photon combines with laser photons to yield electron-
      positron pairs [8]

    [Burke is saying that particles of light have the ability to bounce off each other.]

    Of course, Baez will never confess that this is just a mathematical 'model'. He will present Burke's speculation as a fact:

    In quantum electrodynamics, light can scatter off light with the help of a loop of
      virtual charged particles. [9]

    A graviton is a peculiar particle that carries negative motion on its back (momentum in mathematical jargon). When a graviton
    collides with an atom, it unloads this retrograde motion and the receiving atom moves closer to the source.  Think  of  negative  
    swimming. That’s the physical interpretation the mathematical idiots of QM give gravity. Of course, to add weight to their
    arguments and in anticipation of skepticism and ridicule, the mechanic must add that this explanation follows logically from
    equations and that all Nobel Prize physicists believe in it.

    This breathtaking explanation opens up a Pandora’s Box so tantalizing that I barely know where to begin. Firstly, the
    mechanics offer no explanation for how the graviton avoids collisions with the countless particles of matter that constitute
    everyday objects, not to mention the particles that theorists tell us comprise the vacuum.

    “ Common sense tells us that a vacuum is nothing, or more precisely that it is
      empty space. However, in general relativity theory the vacuum isn’t simply that…
      For Quantum physicists the vacuum is much more complicated…the vacuum,
      which generally appears empty, is somehow packed out with electrons…
      experiments really have shown that the vacuum can produce particle and
      antiparticle pairs.”(pp. 100-102) [10]

    Then, the mathematicians define momentum as the product of velocity and mass. [11] [12] Velocity is a vector quantity,
    which means that the object in question has direction. [13]  This makes momentum also a vector quantity and reduces the
    concept of negative momentum to an oxymoron – something like: ‘an object that moves in the direction opposite the
    direction it is moving in’.

    But for graduate level university students and professionals to actually propose that a micro billiard ball strikes another and
    pulls it (through itself?) towards the cue simply boggles the mind. I think that a safer bet is that the students and their
    professors are a bunch of morons! This conclusion is easier to live with.

Fig. 1   

QM’s unattractive logic:
Negative-momentum transfer

(A particle shooting a particle at
a particle)

Fig. 2   

QM’s unattractive logic # 2
Time reversal Sequence:

1. Graviton sneaks up out of
nowhere from the future and
pushes target from behind.

2. Target moves closer to source.

3. Source shoots graviton at target.
[Don’t you just love QM!]

    2.0        Time travel

    Brown explains that the reason momentum ends up being negative has to do with time. The particle travels so fast that it ends
    up coming from the future! But make no mistake. This version is really negative-momentum-transfer in disguise:

    “ Since the forward-going transfer represents a repulsive force, and it is cancelled
      out by the backward-going transfer, it must be the case that the latter represents
      an attractive force. This is the same as saying that the momentum of a photon
      propagating in the negative t direction is negative, which is consistent with what
      we would calculate for the momentum of a massive particle going backward in
      time based on the definition p = d(mv)/dt. It can also be understood intuitively by
      considering the time-reversed version of ejecting an object, which is not to receive
      a thrown object, but to capture (draw in) an object, thereby resulting in the
      opposite momentum transfer.” [14]

    [You what? Hey Joe! Call the men with white jackets! We got another loose
    Quantum screw!]

    If Brown is serious about what he writes, we should be concerned about his mental health. In less contriving words, he is saying
    that a bowling ball travels so fast (perhaps because the bowler has such a strong arm) that it literally pulls the pins from the future.
    In Fig 1, I assumed that gravity transfers negative motion from the front. Following Brown’s instructions, in Fig. 2, I must assume
    that the graviton moonwalks and ends up donating positive momentum from tomorrow.
The Quantum Wizard is the most intelligent being
that ever lived. He is absolutely daunting. He can
solve any problem of Physics. You should do
everything in your power to try to find him.
What? You're the
Wizard? I traveled the
entire Yellow Brick Road
just to find you? What
cruel world we live in!


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008