The Final Theory

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Something just occured to me which is quite important. Normal geometry is using a single coordinate system on which we plot the motions of the two orbiting objects. Let's assume just bodies with perfect mass distribution so we don't have any erratic behavior.

 

McCutcheon's stuff requires TWO coordinate systems being used simultaneously. The motion of body A is relative to B. B is relative to A. This is the key to making sense of it mathematically. But how, is the question. Any ideas?

 

The screwy thing is that they could both move in straight lines and still be in orbit!?? The motion is relative and the one which orbits around the other, it's motion would be back and forth along its own centerline creating what would appear to be an oscillation. the key is that it is relative motion and that there are two frames of reference in operation here.

 

Assuming nothing magical is taking place here, the absolute motion must be constant. If we were to plot the centerpoints only, without regard to size on a fixed grid constant coordinate system, the motion should be constant.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

To me it seems the book is much simpler and much less abstract than Newton, Einstein and Quantum theory.

Aaron the Baron

It would seem that way, although try explaining orbits. Read Beagleworths link too. He's the first person I've heard of that has been able to understand and use and even expand on McCutcheon's atomic theory. He needs someone smart enough to discuss it with him.

[Beagleworth]

The screwy thing is that they could both move in straight lines and still be in orbit!??

 

Strangely enough, that's is what my addition says too. Matter around an object causes the relative orbiting motion : The effect only happens in the atomic world, not the subatomic.

 

Though your comments about two frames of reference is interesting. I need to think about that some more.

[Beagleworth]

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.

 

I re-read McCutcheon's orbits chapters in light of your comments. And that is what he says. He never talks about another motion. I am not sure why I thought of that. Maybe my mind was fighting his solution.

 

It is actually possible to model using expansion and vectors : Because it is a relative motion, all you need to do is recompute the relative direction vector, but using the expansion for the inward pull! It may seem like a cheat, but our math models are biased toward absolutes. A vector is an absolute quantity. If we want to make all motion relative, we have to recompute the vector based on the new information of the frame after an update.

 

This is equivalent to the Standard theory, but the difference is that McC's model is purely relative. Newton and Einstein's model are not. Newton because of its straight lines and Einstein because everything follows an absolute straight motion in space-time unless space-time is warped by matter.

 

So, McC model has more purity. The key to it all is relativity. I am not ready to dump my additions yet, but the fact that a model can be built without any other information than the expansion and the relative direction and speed at a specific timestep makes that solution more likely. This tickles something in my mind, but no new thoughts or questions are coming out yet.

[Mercenaryend]

i ordered a copy of the book , and hope its good , i read some of the first chapter but then i had to leave so i ordered a copy, i think it will be very interesting since i dont know alot about much on the whole Theory are , so instead of learning old news on this subject , i can just skip right to the new updated stuff.

its actually kinda funny my friends sit around and play video games and watch tv and they have no idea im into this kinda stuff. o well.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

I re-read McCutcheon's orbits chapters in light of your comments. And that is what he says. He never talks about another motion. I am not sure why I thought of that. Maybe my mind was fighting his solution.

This is exactly why I trust you.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

i ordered a copy of the book , and hope its good , i read some of the first chapter but then i had to leave so i ordered a copy, i think it will be very interesting since i dont know alot about much on the whole Theory are , so instead of learning old news on this subject , i can just skip right to the new updated stuff.

its actually kinda funny my friends sit around and play video games and watch tv and they have no idea im into this kinda stuff. o well.

Well, you need to be careful though. This is still just a theory. Some of us happen to think it's correct. Many more do not. Keep an open mind and study what is taught in school, assuming you're still in school.

Please try and understand the current working theories and measure them against McCutcheon's. He needs to be proven correct before massive movement will be taken in his direction and his ideas become 'standard' theory.

This is like being in that part of history where we hadn't populated the entire planet and there were still places one could go to where no people lived. Heroes are explorers. Welcome to a new world.

[Mercenaryend]

ill be in school for 6 more years.... :) :) ;)

[repeater]

Hi Beagle

 

__Addition theory__

Well done with that addition theory of yours. Very creative and I'm sure you enjoyed creating it. ;) I cannot say that it sits well with me though, and I see since then you've expressed misgivings as well.

 

The thing that attracted me to McC theory (beyond the thousands he blasted on online advertising ;) ) is its simplicity. Your attempt tries to fix things that don't fit, and I'm afraid in a manner that just triggers my dubiosity detector. Grafting new constructs onto a theory is something that must be done very carefully. Take black matter/energy as an example of that in my opinion.

 

I must also disclaim that I do not quite get your idea completely, so take this for what it is worth.

 

__1000 Theories of Physics on the Wall__

For those not keeping count, we've already encountered 2 other wildly different expansion theories in this thread. And I'm sure there is a thousand more.

 

Specifically, there was the vorticle one, and the expansion+electrical orbit effect thingy. All of these are based on rather extreme assumptions, questionable indeed, and rather taxing to examine. It took me ages to internalize what McC means with "no straight motion", and after all that I didn't really feel that much wiser (except for perhaps doubting my own impartiality ;) ). I think that if alternative amateur physicists want their theories be taken seriously, they should perhaps first discuss their theories with each other and explain what makes their theory so much better than others. Looking at the number of theories on the internet, it seems it is all too easy to create something new.

 

So this is a serious suggestion: Since wikipedia does not accept "original research", I'd like to see a wiki where cranks and alternative creatives can come together to explain and discuss their theories in an orderly manner. Perhaps they can then see that their theory may be special or not so special after all, and perhaps we can all learn something about science and the nature of knowledge in the process. I'm optimistic.

 

Einstein wasn't a physicist by training, yet he made a major contribution to science. It would be great if today an outsider could still offer some input into our understanding, but it seems that today that is almost impossible. I think it is sad and a bit dangerous that only those schooled in a field have a platform to say their say. There are so many physics cranks believing their Einstein, that they are widely ignored and used as punching bags. Those poor unappreciated (and sometimes slightly insane) cranks, but I do understand why scientists ignore them.

 

Take McC's theory for example: It's strength lies in its simplicity, but to claim most of modern science is wrong it needs to explain many experimental phenomena. A central place where all the phenomena is listed would be nice. (e.g. double slit experiment, relativity, neutrinos, interacting galaxies, tides).

 

So in essence, a system of peer review for cranks. ;)

Just an idea

 

Regards

[ldsoftwaresteve]

repeater:

Take McC's theory for example: It's strength lies in its simplicity, but to claim most of modern science is wrong it needs to explain many experimental phenomena. A central place where all the phenomena is listed would be nice. (e.g. double slit experiment, relativity, neutrinos, interacting galaxies, tides).

I like this idea. Let me see if I understand you. Say we have a database that contains specific phenomena. A particular theory would have to explain the phenomena. So say a 'spreadsheet' with the theories across the top, the phenomena down the side and where they cross, a link to the explanation of the phenomena.

Then it would also be nice to post weaknesses in the explanations. There should be rules. It should be objective and polite. It would be nice to have a way of grading the explanation also on a scale of 0 to 100 from the 'members?' or something like that. Maybe just to vote on the correct explanation for a specific phenomenon. just a thought.

How 'accepted' an explanation would be could end up as a color applied to the link on the spreadsheet. Or a background pattern to cover those who are color blind.

A member should be able to remove their vote for a particular explanation and add it to the explanation they think works.

Is that what you mean?

[Merek]

....still waiting for book in mail......

;) ;) ;) (cant get anough of that...) its like alexandrias little octopus hitting the ducks , only much less hypnotizing.

[repeater]

repeater:I like this idea. Let me see if I understand you. Say we have a database that contains specific phenomena. A particular theory would have to explain the phenomena. So say a 'spreadsheet' with the theories across the top, the phenomena down the side and where they cross, a link to the explanation of the phenomena.

Then it would also be nice to post weaknesses in the explanations. There should be rules. It should be objective and polite. It would be nice to have a way of grading the explanation also on a scale of 0 to 100 from the 'members?' or something like that. Maybe just to vote on the correct explanation for a specific phenomenon. just a thought.

How 'accepted' an explanation would be could end up as a color applied to the link on the spreadsheet. Or a background pattern to cover those who are color blind.

A member should be able to remove their vote for a particular explanation and add it to the explanation they think works.

Is that what you mean?

 

Yeah exactly.

 

Perhaps a few scientific qualified people can make their rounds now and then and point out weaknesses and give suggestions. The site should encourage people to create predictions and equations offering results. Basically pull people into the mold, channel their creativity to play a role in the scientific world, even be it small and insignificant.

 

Advantages

a) They can compare their theory with those of others. See what they need to do to make their theory special, perhaps learn a few things on the way.

 

:) Give an exhaustive list of phenomena that mainstream science explains, and also a list that mainstream science fails to explain. As we've seen with the McC theory, it is hard to keep track.Perhaps mainstream science should have a page as well. A theory doesn't need to be all-explaining.

 

c) Cranks are redirected away from science usergroups where they are not always wanted. Perhaps some groups will find this sufficiently appealing that they'll fund this site to be set up ;)

[robmog]

repeater:I like this idea. Let me see if I understand you. Say we have a database that contains specific phenomena. A particular theory would have to explain the phenomena. So say a 'spreadsheet' with the theories across the top, the phenomena down the side and where they cross, a link to the explanation of the phenomena.

Yes a great idea Steve, but who's going to organise and monitor it?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Robmog:

Yes a great idea Steve, but who's going to organise and monitor it?

Thanks but I'm sure it's already being built somewhere. It's been talked about before, in other threads too, at least by me and now even repeater.;)

Repeater:

Perhaps some groups will find this sufficiently appealing that they'll fund this site to be set up

I agree with the other things you said too. It belongs here, on this site. Hell, Tormod could probably throw this together in a week or two. ;) If he isn't already working on it. It's definitely needed and what better place to put it?

But imagine. We could take a phenomenon and look at A's explanation for it, B's explanation for it, C's, etc. We could see which ignore it, which don't. What people think of it, how they judge it, etc. How they disagree. Pros, cons, etc. diagrams, pictures, math, all of it.

This would be a life's work perfecting such a system and making it work the way it should. What a totally wonderful thing to do. This is something that should be and ought to be.

[sirbola]

I made a posting on this subject back in January at which time I had obtained a copy of THE book through my local library. I then bought a copy for my own use. I found two good things about THE book. One: It is an excellent compilation of all the subjects that any Universal Theory must address. In some of the prior postings a Spread Sheet was proposed, McCutcheon has compiled a pretty good list for evaluation purposes.

The second thing his book does is show that he is an otriginal thinker. Who amongst us would have thought of everything expanding explaning how our Universe woeks. It may not be how it really works but it sure is thought provoking.

 

I happen to be one of those semi-amateur physicist who has has developed not a FINAL THEORY because nothing can ever be that. But I do have a Theory developed over the last 31 years. I have the same problem a lot of the posters on this forum have. There is no really quality place to unveil a new theory to receive a fair evaluation and assistance in developing . This forum might have been a good one to do that but from what I have read of the background of a lot of posters it would be like Einstein asking High School Graduates to help him prepare his papers.

 

Maybe a forum where membership is limited to a Scientific Degree. I will wait for some comments.

[CraigD]

Maybe a forum where membership is limited to a Scientific Degree. I will wait for some comments.

I think that’s a slightly “exclusive” version of a forum like scienceforums is a very good idea, though it would likely be much smaller and a bit dull. Though the more naive perspectives here can be at times frustrating, they’re also interesting, both for some novel ideas, and for the insight they provide into how enthusiasts of many different backgrounds approach Science.

 

A nitch for BS <= folk < PhD would be nice. If you build it, they will come, without, I think reducing interest in scienceforums.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

sirbola:

Maybe a forum where membership is limited to a Scientific Degree

Interesting. You're talking about an idea proposed by a non-graduate. :confused:

 

Look at it this way: when you walk in the woods you hear many sounds so you need to learn how to filter out the ones that are not important or that don't apply to the reason you are there.

 

Wilbur and Orville Wright make an interesting case study in people without degrees that one would have been well advised to listen to, had they been smart enough to ask their advice. Their propeller (only one of their amazing inventions) operated at 80% efficiency whereas 50% was the best anyone else could do at that time.

 

There are many other examples like that. So the degree idea probably wouldn't be a good enough filter.

 

But you make a good point. How do you limit the noise?

 

You might not want to. Today's noise might be tomorrow's music.

 

One could allow voting on explanations or threads of logical chains. I once made a negative comment that we determine truth by vote and now I'm actually proposing a vote be used as a 'credence-meter'.

 

If one entered a 'zone' of discussion, perhaps they would see the theories in order of their credence-meter value. The trick is how to organize that and present it so that the visual delivery is clear and could act as a guide.