The Final Theory

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth: You are probably correct here Beagleworth because you seem so certain.

 

Bad logic alert :Waldo: Please do not believe that. Go with strength of argument, not strength of tone. If you ever point a logical flaw in what I say, you will certainly notice a change in my tone.

 

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. :hyper:

 

That is a good point. The thing that is really important is the word *relative*. A straight line is as much a relative motion as a curve.

 

Having said that, I do not have a real problem with having an absolute motion that causes a relative orbiting motion. I would just like to be able to visualize one that when mixed with the expansion, can give large orbits(solar system) and smaller orbits(moons around planet). I have not been able so far, I simply decided to look for something else.

 

If someone finally describe a motion, I will go back to that.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

Bad logic alert Please do not believe that. Go with strength of argument, not strength of tone. If you ever point a logical flaw in what I say, you will certainly notice a change in my tone.

Oh, it's ok to do that if you trust the mind of the person being certain. Human nature. Certainty is a quality of leadership, mostly faked but sometimes it isn't. In your case, reasonability engenders trust.

Beagleworth:

Having said that, I do not have a real problem with having an absolute motion that causes a relative orbiting motion. I would just like to be able to visualize one that when mixed with the expansion, can give large orbits(solar system) and smaller orbits(moons around planet). I have not been able so far, I simply decided to look for something else.

I understand that and agree with it. If it's visualizable, then we can program a simulation. Have you attempted any simulations using your modifications? On my end I haven't yet, although I think I could handle the ball through the tunnel. It would make an interesting screen saver. I've just never attempted any graphics so I'll need to learn those kinds of functions. Plus, I don't have a whole lot of time and that situation is going to get much worse very soon.

[robmog]

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?

 

As I understand it, Questor, space is not full of vorticle entities, but only of the flux envelopes of nearby planets and stars. The interaction of these is what tends to keep them apart, in contrast to the expansion process which closes the gap between nearby bodies of matter. The combination of the two gives rise to the various orbiting and spiralling motions of celestial bodies.

Secondly, the remnants of vorticle collisions don't exist for long if they are unstable. They either break down into more stable vorticles or combine with others to form these more stabler forms, which are basically electrons, protons and atoms (no other atomic or subatomic forms exist for longer than a few seconds). Then they stay close to the body of matter they are part of , unless ejected by some explosive force.

 

Hope this answers your queries - keep questioning!

[questor]

Rob, the combining, breaking down, and recombining should require production or dissapation of energy. where would the energy come from to drive these reactions?

shouldn't we be able to track these bursts of energy? these vorticles sound similar

to superstrings. do you see the vorticles as larger packets than strings?

[robmog]

Rob, the combining, breaking down, and recombining should require production or dissapation of energy. where would the energy come from to drive these reactions?

shouldn't we be able to track these bursts of energy? these vorticles sound similar

to superstrings. do you see the vorticles as larger packets than strings?

 

I think the main basis for the interaction of vorticles is the First Postulate which states: A system of vorticles will interact to increase the stability of the whole system which means minimising its total energy. So when you create a collision between two relatively stable vorticles, you're putting kinetic energy into the system which is dissipated by producing less stable vorticles. These then eventually break down or combine to form stable vorts (abbrev. of vorticle) again and in so doing emit energy in some form. For example a neutron will split into an electron and a proton and emit a gamma ray.

I'm glad you mentioned superstrings. It shows that conventional physics is at last getting away from hard shell-like particles and moving towards a more vorticular subatomic model!

Vorticles can expand indefinitely until they react with other vorts (Third Postulate). So they can seem bigger in less dense environments. This sometimes makes it difficult to locate small ones like electrons, whose position and size will seem to vary according to the method of detection. In fact electrons can interact with themselves (the dirty little buggers) as in the double slit experiment, where one electron can pass through both slits.

 

Keep questing, Questor.

[questor]

Rob, since my career was in bioscience, i am particularly interested in life at the sub-atomic level. your discussion so far concerns inert matter. i'm still at sea about energy sources needed to power the activity of vorticles. is there any theory here that would explain at what level the life force, and/or thought occur? these things are not known to be particulate, or have mass, or be measurable in any way, but they obviously exist. i wonder what mechanism lies at the most elemental level of life and thought?

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth: Oh, it's ok to do that if you trust the mind of the person being certain. Human nature. Certainty is a quality of leadership, mostly faked but sometimes it isn't. In your case, reasonability engenders trust.

 

Thank you for your trust then. :Waldo:

 

Beagleworth: I understand that and agree with it. If it's visualizable, then we can program a simulation. Have you attempted any simulations using your modifications? On my end I haven't yet, although I think I could handle the ball through the tunnel. It would make an interesting screen saver. I've just never attempted any graphics so I'll need to learn those kinds of functions. Plus, I don't have a whole lot of time and that situation is going to get much worse very soon.

 

Not yet. It is on my list though.

[robmog]

Rob, since my career was in bioscience, i am particularly interested in life at the sub-atomic level. your discussion so far concerns inert matter. i'm still at sea about energy sources needed to power the activity of vorticles. is there any theory here that would explain at what level the life force, and/or thought occur? these things are not known to be particulate, or have mass, or be measurable in any way, but they obviously exist. i wonder what mechanism lies at the most elemental level of life and thought?

I have some ideas about this, Questor, but need to clarify them - will get back to you in a few days.

Cheers.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Me:

I think I could handle the ball through the tunnel. It would make an interesting screen saver.

Good God, I'm talking to myself!

This is trickier than it sounds. The only way I can see being able to create an actual physical test for this is to find an object which has or could be given zero rotational velocity.

Any object on the surface will have the rotational velocity of the surface. As it moves toward the center, it will hit the side of the tunnel in very short order because its rv will be greater than the material it is going past.

So in this scenario we could actually determine angular velocity without an outside frame of reference, i.e. if it hits the side of the tunnel it is rotating. Depending on the size of the ball and the diameter of the tunnel, etc., we could actually determine the amount of velocity too.

One other thought. Wouldn't that actually give us a fixed universal frame of reference without requiring getting fixed on a distant star? That sounds really interesting and I don't know why.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Questor:

i wonder what mechanism lies at the most elemental level of life and thought?

That's quite a fascinating topic and I suspect that as we learn how the atomic level really functions and what is really going on down there, we'll get some better insights into the answer to your question. My gut feeling is that life is an effect, a complicated one to be sure, but one that is a natural outcome of the way things work. Somehow it brings balance to something that needs it.

Having said that, I should say that it is not a topic in McCutcheon's book "The Final Theory" so it would probably be appropriate to have Tormod set up a new thread for that discussion or a thread for the discussion of vorticles. If there is truth in the concept of vorticles, you really should make that a separate discussion so that it becomes visible otherwise it'll get swallowed up in this one and nobody will see it except by accident.

Steve

[ldsoftwaresteve]

me:

One other thought. Wouldn't that actually give us a fixed universal frame of reference without requiring getting fixed on a distant star? That sounds really interesting and I don't know why.

Still talking to myself.

I've changed my mind after the blood actually flowed back into my brain. We'd need more than one tunnel and we'd need to make sure there was no angular momentum with the tunnel as an axis. My "universal frame of reference" would be completely arbitrary, depending on the orientation. A set of gyroscopes would accomplish the same thing.

[repeater]

Hey Beagle, thanks for replying!

 

 

#1

McC says the orbit is only a relative geometric behavior created by the natural movement of things and their expansion. This means that if you removed the Earth, then the dynamic has changed. Note that the whole dynamic of the expansion of the solar system is caused by interaction of *all* the objects in the solar system because they are all expanding toward each other. Kepler's 3rd law points to that(that they are involved, not that they expand).

 

So I think the relative motion of the moon would go from an orbit to... well I cannot tell you what would happen because there is currently no way to describe the natural motion under McC at this point.

 

It is like Steve said: Expansion is just a reframing of our current view of gravity as a force. Even though McC declares mass somewhat irrelevant, the dynamics of the two are not that much different.

 

Still a stretch...in general the theory requires one to adjust your common sense. Quantum asks you to do so, since it has experimental backing, but all this theory offers is well written prose. I'd be careful.

 

#2 the peek of the wobble is aligned with the Moon from its creation. So because there is no drag in space or any other force to slow or change that motion, there is not reason to believe that alignment has changed. But, if a massive object would strike the Earth or the Moon, then it would seem possible that motion changed. But I do not how to compute the size of such an object and if such collision happened.

 

Direct cause and effect in such a system just seems more obvious to me. I've never heard of a cosmic system that has such an extensive historical relationship, so that is why I'm a bit skeptical.

 

There are various combinations of sun and moon alignment that causes tides of various specific heights. The wobble should therefore mathematically describe these phenomena rather exactly.

 

Oh btw, I've just read your Additions document, and I see that you now have a different view on the matter. I'll see if I can reply to that topic later.

 

#3 Could you clarify your question. I am not sure why you say it would be cheating because a velocity vector can only be computed with a reference frame. So if an object is circling around another, and you look at short time step, you would always find a tangential velocity.

 

It is just that orbits arise rather easily in such a view, almost by definition. Interesting. This only applies to circular orbits of course, and erratic orbits is another matter. I see that you also address it in your Additions.

 

#4 It does not have a lot of value, but it can offers a compelling theoritical or logical answer that can push our minds in different direction to find the solution. From McC, the answer is computable though, it would actually require the measurement of the expansion and motion of the solar system. But because the whole theory is currently short on Math, deriving the equation is ... difficult.

 

I don't know if his explanation of the pionneer anomaly was presented anywhere this thread, but I will go over it anyway(for people who did not read the book).

 

What I meant ealier by the expansion of the solar system is since all objects expands, but because of their orbits keep a similar distance between them, we can say the solar system is expanping. Actually, we can say that each orbital ring is expanding. It does not mean that space is expanding, it is only the natural orbit effect that is causing the motion of planet that causes them to fight the expansion.

 

 

When we launch a probe in the solar system, what we actually do is make it go from obirtal rings to orbital rings. By doing so, without even noticing it, we make it participate in the dynamic and so it will always keep going away from the Sun.

 

But once the probe has exited the solar system, it is not part of the dynamic anymore and so he is not in a space that is "expanding". It is now a free floating object trying to get away from the expanding solar system. This means if it is not going fast enough, it will look it is being dragged back toward the solar system

 

One quirk of the explanation is that it requires the solar system to be properly defined : If we ever find another large body orbiting the sun, it would affect how the dynamic of the solar system works and so could affect how the probe acts.

 

Note that I mentionned Large bodies. Since a big part of the dynamic is caused by the expansion, small objects will have little effect on the orbits.

 

-----------------

 

So #1 and #2 leave a chalky taste in my mouth. I don't see any problem with number 3(unless your question was deeper than that). 4 is intellectually appealing, but will require Math and number for a real acceptation.

 

I didn't quite follow #4 completely...but thanks!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

If we stabilized a body in an orbit and didn't allow it any rotational velocity on any of the 3 axis, would that have an effect on its orbit?

[robmog]

Rob, since my career was in bioscience, i am particularly interested in life at the sub-atomic level. your discussion so far concerns inert matter. i'm still at sea about energy sources needed to power the activity of vorticles. is there any theory here that would explain at what level the life force, and/or thought occur? these things are not known to be particulate, or have mass, or be measurable in any way, but they obviously exist. i wonder what mechanism lies at the most elemental level of life and thought?

I think the energy of vorticles is kinetic (as is all energy according to Steadybang Theory) and doesn't have a source but has always existed in varying forms. Unless you are a Creationist or Big Bang supporter, this is the only sensible viewpoint you can take. Personally, I think the Big Bang will become a damp squib in the next 5 to 10 years, as more and more holes are found in the theory (See the 'Big Bang Disproved' page on the Steadybang website for some good arguments against it)!

As regards life-force, according to vorticle theory, all bodies, whether inert or alive, extend beyond their physical boundaries.Their flux envelopes extend indefinitely, but are not normally detected unless reinforced by combining with others. Aligning the vorticles of one or more bodies gives rise to electromagnetic phenomena where bodies can influence each other at a distance. I imagine that there is a certain amount of vorticular alignment in living organisms which causes their flux envelopes to be detected and have influence outside their physical boundaries. The word 'aura' springs to mind. There is a meditation technique developed by a chap called Roy Masters back in the sixties which enables you to experience this 'aura'. It involves visualising the back of your hand being joined to your forehead by elastic so that it is drawn up slowly to touch your head. In effect you feel your forehead before you actually touch it physically and get the weird feeling of your hand sinking into your brain. If you go to his website at http://www.fhu.com/meditation_begin.html you can download the meditation and try it - it does have some philosophical overtones which you may or not like.

 

I hope this is of some help in your quest, Questor.

[Synergetic Awareness]

I think you're taking the heat from the other user very well. I have read the book and just like you have been looking for others to discuss it with. To me it seems the book is much simpler and much less abstract than Newton, Einstein and Quantum theory. I have a tendency to leap before I look and I whole-heartedly believe in the Final Theory. Curiously enough I noticed some remarkable corespondence with Bucky Fuller's Synergetic Geometry. Let's get a conversation going on this stuff!!!

 

Aaron the Baron

[Beagleworth]

It is like Steve said: Expansion is just a reframing of our current view of gravity as a force. Even though McC declares mass somewhat irrelevant, the dynamics of the two are not that much different.

 

Still a stretch...in general the theory requires one to adjust your common sense. Quantum asks you to do so, since it has experimental backing, but all this theory offers is well written prose. I'd be careful.

 

Yes, it is a stretch, but in my opinion, it is balanced by the strength of the rest of his theory.

 

 

Oh btw, I've just read your Additions document, and I see that you now have a different view on the matter. I'll see if I can reply to that topic later.

 

I would surely be interested in having some comments, or really more questions. I would like to dig deeper into it but from another perspective.

 

It is just that orbits arise rather easily in such a view, almost by definition. Interesting. This only applies to circular orbits of course, and erratic orbits is another matter. I see that you also address it in your Additions.

 

That's why he calls it the natural orbit effect. Actually, non-circular orbit would be more common in his theory because you have to include expansion. So perfect spheres would give rise to circular orbits, but deformed objects would create erratic orbits.

 

So in McC, an orbit would have 2 components : The expansion and "some other undefined behavior.

 

My additions simply try to give that second component.

 

 

I didn't quite follow #4 completely...but thanks!

 

Well, this is much easier to see with diagrams. Maybe some other time.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

So in McC, an orbit would have 2 components : The expansion and "some other undefined behavior.

I'm back to my original view on this again so I have to disagree with you. It doesn't matter if we can't visualize it, here's the nut of the thing: expansion behaves exactly like an attraction. As one sphere passes another, the expansion of the two behaves as though they've moved toward each other. As long as there's a tangential component that can make the two 'move apart', it's a break even type of thing. Expansion accelerates but the tangential motion does too because of the shapes. As one body moves past the other the 'edges' of the circles drop off fast, effectively accelerating away.

We don't need an extra component. But I have to commend you on the beautiful attempt to integrate orbits into the atomic view.