The Final Theory

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Me:

Now we say that straight lines do not exist, but, if one were to imagine a fixed 3-d grid and plot the centerpoints of each of the spheres over a fair amount of time, and then connect all of the dots for each of the centers....what would we see?

After I posted that I wished I hadn't said the straight lines part. If this whole thing works, there is no reason that we can't place a fixed 3-d grid over the scenario. The situation that I described should result in two straight lines, or eventually one line which may or may not be straight depending on the resolution of the mass distribution if the bodies collide. The question I was trying to pose (and this is the part I had trouble visualizing and still do) is, "is there any conceivable way two objects can travel in two straight line paths(I'm only speaking of their centers) but still be in orbit?".

Without some other force acting upon the bodies causing the centerlines to arc, we can't have an orbit OR we are missing something very strange and very simple. This is why I said you might be right. :doh:

However, I have come up with a way where the two objects traveling on straight line centerpaths can be in orbit. they would have to oscillate back and forth on their centerlines. Now that seems impossible except for the fact that their motion is relative to the other body. we picture a fixed centerline, but is it? Maybe some of the rules are different - and that would not surprise me because the frame of reference is constantly changing. For instance, the scale of the centerline would be changing constantly. We've already seen using the formulas that you and Erasmus worked with that we can have negative acceleration so is it that far fetched to say that we have the possibility that the objects can relatively oscillate?

Straightline centerpaths would only happen when an object's mass distribution is perfectly uniform. So perhaps orbits require offset center of mass objects. But that doesn't make sense because hell, we'd know that by now since we've put so many things into an orbit it would've shown up somehow.

So I guess that means we either have an unexplained 'natural orbit effect', a phenomenon taking place where orbiting bodies do affect each other- such as the one you describe, an effective oscillation such as I describe, something else which we aren't seeing, or the theory is simply wrong.

[questor]

Beagleworth, your post:

'' Well, just like Gravity as an attractive force is a built-in universal force, so his expanding matter in his theory. There is some discussion on how it may arise, but it just brings more questions.''

 

what is gravity built into? does it just exist between masses(particles), or does it exist throughout space? i have read that gravity has speed, so there must be a particle involved. i have read of waves or ripples of gravity. if gravity travels and the universe had X amount of gravity at its inception, then there must be areas of dense and thin gravity.

 

''Yes, they all expand at the same rate. Subatomic orbits are not created by the same phenomon has celestial orbits and so density does not matter. Actually, if you exclude my additions to the theory, density is not important at all for gravity in McC.''

you speak of different ''phenomenae'' for subatomic orbits compared to celestial ones. what is this phenomenon that creats orbits? where does the propulsive force originate?

 

''At what level does life lie? Same level as with the standard model : An emerging

i didn't copy the rest of this, but the life force must originate at the subatomic level or else it could be detected by our current capabilities. if it occurs at a subatomic level, what could be the initiating mechanism?

[questor]

Steve, if the universe is infinite, your two spheres would travel in a straight line to infinity without outside force. if the universe curves back upon itself, so would the paths, yielding an orbit.

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth, your post:

'' Well, just like Gravity as an attractive force is a built-in universal force, so his expanding matter in his theory. There is some discussion on how it may arise, but it just brings more questions.''

 

i have read that gravity has speed, so there must be a particle involved.

 

This is still unclear. Last week there was measure done with 25% errors!!! (A link was posted earlier. Also, the famous gravity particle is still unseen.

 

i have read of waves or ripples of gravity. if gravity travels and the universe had X amount of gravity at its inception, then there must be areas of dense and thin gravity.

 

Gravity waves are also unseen.

 

You speak of different ''phenomenae'' for subatomic orbits compared to celestial ones. what is this phenomenon that creats orbits? where does the propulsive force originate?

 

In any theory, motion is required. The original propulsion force could have come from the big bang.

 

In pure McC, the phenomenae is called the "natural orbit effect", but it does not have a convincing explanation.

 

 

''At what level does life lie? Same level as with the standard model : An emerging

i didn't copy the rest of this, but the life force must originate at the subatomic level or else it could be detected by our current capabilities. if it occurs at a subatomic level, what could be the initiating mechanism?

 

You are speaking of life as if it is some magical attribute of the universe. I will no argue with you whether or not this is really the case, because I do not have an answer.

 

Suffice to say that neither Standard Theory or McC provides anything to explain it the way you want, because the explanation they give us is that all living thing are made up of a form of DNA and the mechanic inside their body is all about chemical interaction(which subatomic, but is not secret) . Adding more of those mechanism creates more complex organism. Which means all those things can be explained with simple physics.

 

So, if we try to dicuss the meaning of life with "The final theory", we'll end up in a dead end.

[questor]

Beagleworth, i would say that any final theory would certainly have to address the issue of life. is it not the one thing we must have to even think about a final theory?

about propulsion being left over from the big bang.. i don't think we have propulsion lying around to be used when we wish. there is not a stream of propulsion we can place objects in. if an object is at rest, it stays at rest unless acted upon by external force. i would think this also applies to oscillations. there has to be a force applied.

[Beagleworth]

The question I was trying to pose (and this is the part I had trouble visualizing and still do) is, "is there any conceivable way two objects can travel in two straight line paths(I'm only speaking of their centers) but still be in orbit?".

Without some other force acting upon the bodies causing the centerlines to arc, we can't have an orbit OR we are missing something very strange and very simple. This is why I said you might be right. :doh:

 

The problem is we are inventing the straight path. If cannot happen for celestial object in any theory you can think of to explain it.

 

Things in space just move in a curved path. That's it, that's all.

 

Newton added a straight line for the force to pull on, but if he is not right and attractive force is not what causes gravity, then is no such straight line as presented by Newton.

 

In McC, if you imagine things going in straight path, they will pass each other and never orbit. That's not right.

 

The straight line is a bias view of the world.

 

However, I have come up with a way where the two objects traveling on straight line centerpaths can be in orbit. they would have to oscillate back and forth on their centerlines. Now that seems impossible except for the fact that their motion is relative to the other body. we picture a fixed centerline, but is it? Maybe some of the rules are different - and that would not surprise me because the frame of reference is constantly changing. For instance, the scale of the centerline would be changing constantly. We've already seen using the formulas that you and Erasmus worked with that we can have negative acceleration so is it that far fetched to say that we have the possibility that the objects can relatively oscillate?

 

I am not sure I see how a full orbit arise from that. Wouldn't they need to move oscilllate in different directions depending on where they are relative to one another? How can this happen?

 

Can you clarify?

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth, i would say that any final theory would certainly have to address the issue of life. is it not the one thing we must have to even think about a final theory?

 

Yes they must. I think they do it the way I explained. If you want something more, than I don't think it is in there.

 

about propulsion being left over from the big bang.. i don't think we have propulsion lying around to be used when we wish. there is not a stream of propulsion we can place objects in. if an object is at rest, it stays at rest unless acted upon by external force.

 

Once they were pushed in a certain direction from the big bang, there is no force to slow them down. So some objects will just keep flying, some will cross paths, some will crash.

 

i would think this also applies to oscillations. there has to be a force applied.

What oscillations are you talking about here?

[questor]

i was referring to the oscillations mentioned by Steve. in any oscillation a force must be applied to initiate movement. if space is curved you are correct, the objects would follow the curved path, but usually an orbit denotes a path of travel around a fixed point.

about expansion.. if two objects are close to each other, if expansion occurs, they will contact. also if expansion occurs in all particles, space must also expand to keep relationships static. supposedly galaxies are rushing away from us, so i have to assume that the edges of space are also expanding or galaxies at the edge would pierce the

boundary of space. with this expansion, what happens to matter in the intergalactic spaces, does it become thinner?

[robmog]

 

Things in space just move in a curved path. That's it, that's all.

 

 

?

 

I found your treatise on orbiting motion "Additions to the Final Theory" interesting, Beagleworth, but I think it illustrates the difficulty some Expansion theories have in explaining this branch of physics. By using the concept of compressed or warped space to account for the 'bending' motion of planets you are, by your own admission, borrowing from General Relativity. This seems to make expansion theory unnecessary at least for explaining planetary motion, as it's the bending motion that actually defines orbits.

I gather from some of your remarks that the FT subatomic model is based on particles, as in conventional physics. This could be the problem. Steadybang theory (referred to in my post 290 above), by contrast, has a vorticular concept of atoms. It considers matter to be a form of electromagnetic radiation like light but spinning as it radiates to form vortices. This spinning motion is why energy is more concentrated in matter than in light and why it expands slower. Time is just the state of this expansion. So it follows light must have a constant velocity. The vortices (or 'vorticles' to distinguish them from 'particles') expand until their flux comes up against that of other vorticles. Then they either repel each other or combine to form a larger vorticle. Whichever: on a larger scale, a body of them e.g. a planet, has a flux envelope extending way beyond it that interacts with other bodies and then, in the same way as on the atomic level, repels and/or combines to form an orbiting system. Unfortunately the theory doesn't have a mathematical explanation of this, at least not on the website.

The beauty of this theory, though, is that the subatomic model allows it to explain, as well as gravity, the other fundamental forces in purely kinetic terms - electromagnetics by aligning atomic vorticles and the weak/strong forces by increases in vorticular stability.

[questor]

Rob, interesting theory. a few questions?

1. are all things made of vorticles?

2. what force instituted the spin?

3. do all vorticles spin the same direction?

4. are vorticles electrically charged? what would cause attraction or repulsion?

5. what would happen if two vorticles collided head on? what about if they were going in the same direction and gradually merged?

thanks

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Questor:

Steve, if the universe is infinite, your two spheres would travel in a straight line to infinity without outside force. if the universe curves back upon itself, so would the paths, yielding an orbit

Possibly given what you say is true, however, the orbit that I'm talking about would have a much smaller period of oscillation.

[Beagleworth]

i was referring to the oscillations mentioned by Steve. in any oscillation a force must be applied to initiate movement. if space is curved you are correct, the objects would follow the curved path, but usually an orbit denotes a path of travel around a fixed point.

about expansion.. if two objects are close to each other, if expansion occurs, they will contact. also if expansion occurs in all particles, space must also expand to keep relationships static. supposedly galaxies are rushing away from us, so i have to assume that the edges of space are also expanding or galaxies at the edge would pierce the

boundary of space. with this expansion, what happens to matter in the intergalactic spaces, does it become thinner?

 

The nature of space is a big question. I make the assumption that there is no edge to our space(I call it atomic space) because it is simply defined by the subatomic world. Is there an edge to the subatomic world? I honestly don't know, but it would certainly have an effect on our atomic space.

 

In my document, I think I have shown that objects can be flying away without having any sort of acceleration. So as long has they have a fast enough motion in atomic space, they will fly away without having to consider atomic space as expanding. But it unfortunately says nothing about what happens to subatomic space.

 

But to answer your question, if there is an edge and we hit it, what happens? I don't have any insight sorry. I would hope the wall of the universe would be strong enough to hold the matter in!

[Beagleworth]

I found your treatise on orbiting motion "Additions to the Final Theory" interesting, Beagleworth, but I think it illustrates the difficulty some Expansion theories have in explaining this branch of physics. By using the concept of compressed or warped space to account for the 'bending' motion of planets you are, by your own admission, borrowing from General Relativity. This seems to make expansion theory unnecessary at least for explaining planetary motion, as it's the bending motion that actually defines orbits.

 

I agree it can be seen as redundant and it bothers me. But in my document, the final movement is caused by a mix of expansion and compression. You would not get an orbit without the expansion, simply a bend where an object crosses the compression zone.

 

Compression simply defines how matter can move compared to other matter. Even though I call it a tug, I really meant it more like something following a track. (maybe I should update the document?)

 

Other thing, I assert that there is a mechanism to create the compression built in McC's theory. So, if my additions are good, then it means all you are left to answer is why things expand.

 

I gather from some of your remarks that the FT subatomic model is based on particles, as in conventional physics. This could be the problem. Steadybang theory (referred to in my post 290 above), by contrast, has a vorticular concept of atoms...

 

I read it and I found it very interesting. My first obvious concern with it is using electromagnetic raditions to make the theory works, because it is essentially building on something we do not fully understand : We can observe its effect, but we do not fully understand the mechanism. It is not enough to reject though, because it seems to logically work.

 

The beauty of this theory, though, is that the subatomic model allows it to explain, as well as gravity, the other fundamental forces in purely kinetic terms - electromagnetics by aligning atomic vorticles and the weak/strong forces by increases in vorticular stability.

 

The beauty of McCutcheon is that it explains even electromagnetics, using a new simple principle : Expansion of matter, more specifically, the expansion of the electron.

 

Strangely enough, it does explain every fundamental forces using only kinetic terms as well : The expansion.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

I am not sure I see how a full orbit arise from that. Wouldn't they need to move oscilllate in different directions depending on where they are relative to one another? How can this happen?

Oh, I could see how an 'orbit' could be simulated by an oscillation but you'd have to have movement in both directions along the centerlines as you say. I guess my point is that it was one of the possibilities, highly unlikely, but a possibility.

The only way there could be a grain of truth in it is if it's an optical illusion because of the changing frame of reference.

I like your idea better.

 

Steve

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

The problem is we are inventing the straight path. If cannot happen for celestial object in any theory you can think of to explain it.

 

Things in space just move in a curved path. That's it, that's all.

 

Newton added a straight line for the force to pull on, but if he is not right and attractive force is not what causes gravity, then is no such straight line as presented by Newton.

 

In McC, if you imagine things going in straight path, they will pass each other and never orbit. That's not right.

 

The straight line is a bias view of the world.

You are probably correct here Beagleworth because you seem so certain. It just seems so vague. If things move in a curved path, we call it curved because it's not straight. So by definition, our frame of reference is straight. We would just say it has a path, not, 'it has a curved path'. Also, curved implies an amount of curve which once again implies a standard of 'curve'. My problem is that I have a block against 'naturally curved' motion and I believe that I share that blindness wth numerous others because it's very hard to toss out the concept of momentum in a straight line. It doesn't feel natural. That doesn't make it wrong. It is or it isn't.

And it would seem that you think the same thing because your very ingenious 'tweaks' attempt to explain the nature of the curve, which implies forcing the motion off of a straight line. :Waldo:

[robmog]

Rob, interesting theory. a few questions?

1. are all things made of vorticles?

2. what force instituted the spin?

3. do all vorticles spin the same direction?

4. are vorticles electrically charged? what would cause attraction or repulsion?

5. what would happen if two vorticles collided head on? what about if they were going in the same direction and gradually merged?

thanks

 

Thanks for your interest, Questor. I hope I understand the theory well enough to answer your questions.

 

1. Yes.

2. I don't know, but if you have a concentrated explosion of energy, it usually takes a vorticular form e.g. in tornados or a nuclear bomb. The reason for this is that spinning things are more stable than non-spinning and stability or its increase seems to be the cornerstone of the theory.

3. Yes, except for anti-vorticles (equivalent to antiparticles in conventional physics) but they , if they form, soon come into contact with normal vorticles and are eliminated.

4. To understand electricity you need to know the form of the basic atomic vorticles. The electron is a simple open spiral and the atom (and neutron and protron when its broken down that much) is an open spiral torus like a mollusc shell or ammonite so the outer rim of it is an open spiral, which are the electrons of course. It spins the opposite way to how it radiates. If the atom is electrically neutral, these motions are canceled out, so there is no overall turning-motion. If we remove part of this outer spiral, which is made up of electrons, the atom will have a rotation away from it's outer radiation and towards the origin of the torus spiral. This will destabilise the atom and make it positive electrically and give it a tendency to move and be deflected by electric or magnetic fields. Adding to the outer spiral, by adding electrons, will have the opposite effect, giving it negative tendencies and opposite movements in electromagnetic fields. Ionic bonds occur when negative and positively charged atoms join together to cancel out this turning motion and form a more stable bond. Of course the electron itself being a simple open spiral will be negative and, due to being the outermost manifestation of the atom, it can be relatively easily removed by friction. In non-conducting materials this results in the phenomenon of electrostatics, but in conductors the electrons can easily return to the charged atom and neutralise it.

5. When vorticles collide several things can happen. If the collision is violent they can break up into smaller vorticles, as in a cyclotron collider. If they are relatively unstable and together they form a more stable body e.g. in ionic bonds, they can combine. If they are relatively stable they will just bounce off one another, like smoke rings or any air vortices can do.

 

I probably haven't explained this too well. To get a fuller/clearer explanation, your best bet is to go to the Steadybang website - http://www.steadybang.com - and look at the chapter on Vorticles. It lays down six postulates that define how they interact and there is an illustration of an open spiral torus.

[questor]

thanks Rob for your explanation. if vorticles exist, empty space must be full of them, since space matter is thought to account for the majority of mass in the universe. the universe

must also be full of the remnants of vorticles created by collisions. with all this matter and energy floating about, it would seem like new galaxies would be in constant formation. would you comment on this?