The Final Theory

[coldcreation]

Gravity sucks, lambda blows.

 

Coldcreation

[Boerseun]

Dude...

 

Shorter posts, pleeze! Took me half a case of SABMiller's best just to decide whether I'm gonna read it!

 

Heck - I though this thread died, awhile ago.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseon:

Heck - I though this thread died, awhile ago

You wish. The truth, whatever it is, is independent of any and all rhetoric attempting to describe it.

If time is relative to the rate of expansion of all particles and if gravity is an effect of expansion (a simple straight-forward effect), then all attempts to describe it as some sort of mystical warping of the 'space-time-continuum' are simply an attempt to come at it from the wrong direction.

Gravity IS related to electricity but only because they are both effects from the same cause: the universal expansion of every particle in existence, which is the theory put forth by McCutcheon and talked about on this thread.

The thread may, as you say, "die" but the discussion is hardly at an end.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Thank you Rascal for the considered response. If McCutcheon did not borrow from the work you mentioned or if he did, at least now the theory is getting popular exposure. The truth will come out and a little more light will expose more of the darkness.

[DataLabs]

I am a new member of this forum which I have found to be most interesting. I also have read the book TFT 3 times and most of this thread. Sometimes i think that some of the aparently inteligent answers here discredit TFT and sometimes not, but I always come back to the fact that it still is untested and hence not disproven. I liked the long post that proposed that Einstein already points to the TFT approach but also says that space also expands which is opposite TFT by McCutcheon. I wonder if it may be a combination of the two theories that is correct or actually just Einstein and the inplied 4 dimensions and subsequently required expanding universe complete with space and matter / energy.

 

At any rate, the question as I see it is to test the theory which has previously been discussed, but I wanted to put a different slant on it. it seems if I understand TFT correctly and GRT as well, that the earth is expanding at 32 ft/sec2. The rate of expansion is calculated as .0000007 radius of earth /sec which will break down to about 9.8 m/sec2. So the earth is actually rising up to meet falling bodies. They don't actually move. They float until the ground comes up at them as they appear to fall. If this is true, then the weight of an object on top of a tall mountain will be measurably less than the weight of the same object on the ground. This is because both the earth and the mountain expand at the same rate as just the earth closer to the floor of the mountain. Since the mountain + the earth radius should have a cumulative affect on the acceleration of the top of the mountain vs the ground. Example: If the radius of the earth is 6000 km and the mountain is 5 km tall, then if the gravity on the surface of the earth is 9.8 m / sec2 then the gravity on top of the mountain is going to be .0000007 X 6005 KM. So gravity (the earth expanding and rising up toward a falling body) should be more on top of the high mountain than below wheras it should be less according to newton with the inverse square of the distance affecting the outcome. Its just like the bulge on the moon that MCC writes about. He says that the mass is not an issue and its onlt the size that counts when it comes to how fast the planet expands. This should be a relatively easy test to perform with good equipment measuring a single 1 KG lead weight at the top and the bottom using the same scale.

[DataLabs]

Correction to my last post. If TFT is correct the weight measured at the top of a mountain should be More than at the bottom since the expansion would be greater at the top of the mountain according to TFT. But according to newton or Einstein, would be less.

[IrishEyes]

NOTE TO ALL:

Please refrain from posting thesis length answers to topics. While your views are always eagerly appreciated, many of us have neither the time nor inclination to read dissertations during the few minutes we get on our computers each day.

Might I suggest that you instead contact Tormod about possibly writing a "HYPOGRAPHY" for this site, in which you can put forth your ideas to anyone interested, without making it difficult for a general user (like myself) to follow a thread?

[CrimsonWolf]

I have glanced over the discussion and would like to add to it. I like the book but remain neutal to it and most other theories. However for fun you could say I have added to a few areas to the theory that were not detailed. The book would be nice to have more math in it. For I realize few scientists will even consider it otherwise. Also the Author is a pretty nice guy and I have had email chats with him off and on. He will answer questions. I will brake my topics into seperate posts to avoid long reads. Generally makes it easier to absorb.

 

Sincerely,

Kaiza The Crimson Wolf

"Born to be free. . .like the wind."

[CrimsonWolf]

Chapter 1 Brief Comments

 

In Final Theory opening chapter the auther seems to be mostly talking about classical views of Forces. So when he discusses the work function I believe he is mostly speaking about the old classical view that energy is not required in the case of Forces. The old ways were wrong. Standard theory already shows that.

 

Do the Forces use energy to get things done. Kind of. Electo-Magnetism for example involves energy in a form Quanta known as Photons being exchanged and given off by Electrons and other cases flow of Electrons being a energy source.

 

Strong Nuclear Force exchanges energy via the Quanta known as Gluons.

 

Weak Nuclear Force exchanges Quanta by W Bosons if I remeber right.

 

The ever searched for quantum Gravity would have energy exchanged by a theoritical graviton.

[CrimsonWolf]

However the author mostly refers to old ways of thinking. Which he is right that they did apply things correctly. Standard would not be here if classical views held up. Even Einstein knew Newtons classic view of gravity was incorrect and that GR was needed.

 

Throughout the book the various models are acknowledged as having useful applications. But they do not describe the fundamental truth of nature. We already know despite Standard theories success that it is still just a model. The prove lies in the fact Gravity has not quantified. The origins and existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy were not predicted or expected. Also Constants were fudged into Standard theory to make it work as well some of properties of some particles. The origin of the Forces also remains unknown and unexplained. The number of particles found also is more than Standard theory predicts. There are particles like Muons and penta-quark that do fit in Standard with modifying the theory. Finally there are three identical particle are almost families almost the same that seem unneeded.

 

Hence why a more complete theory is being sought. Is Expansion Theory the beginning of new theory that is sought or just creative thinking. Let's findout.:cup:

[CrimsonWolf]

One last thought on chapter 1. The Geometric Orbit Equation does work. Even with earlier space probes the masses of other planets was not known and remained speculation until probe data came in. But from knowing the planets orbits and distance from Earth humans have be able to send the probes anyway. We may have had a rough idea on the masses, but not always. The moon for example was based on theory thought to be 1/4 the Earth's gravity. It end up being more about 1/6th! Oops. Jupiter is about 2.4 G which is not as strong as gravity as it is often betrayed. So prediction and reality do not come as expected.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Crimsonwolf:

Is Expansion Theory the beginning of new theory that is sought or just creative thinking. Let's findout.

Perhaps. One interesting note is that I've seen posts that claim they invented this solution years ago. Time will tell. Personally, I think he (McCutcheon) is right on the money but it'll take time and some test that unequivocably shows he's corect.

It's not easy to embrace a concept that flips everything upside down. I never embraced standard theory, it was too confusing - so in my case, nothing got wrecked.

[CrimsonWolf]

Let's start from the basic unit of all Constants and particles in Expansion Theory. In expansion matter as we know it starts with a single type of fundemental particle. The author believes it to be the electron. I see it either as electron or neutrino. The numbers on neutrinos are I think personally are not very concrete, but remain open to speculation. There may be neutrinos or may not be, more information from experiements is needed. Standard Theory does require neutrinos otherwise Nuclear Fusion in Stars would a great mystery otherwise.

 

Anyway in the book electron is suggested to the most fundemental particle. The particle has roughly just a few properties that can be deduced with logic.

 

1)It is expanding a regular consistent rate. About 150,000 m/s or .5C based on the radius. It's overall expansion should be about 300,000 m/s or C (Speed of Light). May or may not be the origin of proposed spin property in Standard Theory. This would be the origin of Speed of Light Constant however.

 

2)It's edge cannot pass through another electron through any known process, hence they cannot pass through each other. This may be part of the origin of Mass.

 

3)When it encounters another electron it can bounce off or attach itself do to mutual expansion, thus forming a larger particle.

 

Now the book suggests electron expansion (refered as subatomic expansion) is illustrated as somewhat like a ripple in a pond. Even if the ripples are different sizes to begin with, if they expand by exactly by the same amount at the edge there size would become relatively close given enough time. This would suggest the expansion moves a certain fixed amount at a regular rate.

 

Another idea that I thought of is they are the same size and have accelerating expansion. That would mean like atomic expansion (discuss later) that it would be increasing by percentage. In this case a huge percentage. I have a Standard Theory particle data table, but not a size for the electron. If any know what is it is by all means post. Then I can suggest a Constant in the form of expansion rate for a electron in the form of a number.

 

Now according to the theory all particles beyond the electron are made of groupings or clusters of electrons. Their properties coming from the number of electrons in the cluster/particle.

 

Is their a limit to how many electrons in a particle? Yes, it would seem so. apparently when the number is high enough (around 1836+ electrons aka Proton) the particle in question becomes unstable. So everything above a Proton would seem to be unstable and capable of decaying. Decaying in this theory is when a electron or larger particles are expelled from a massive particles. Apparently the sum total number of electrons mutual expansion can add up to a sort of pressure for lack of better words that will push out any electron over the stress limit. Feel free to like or hate the idea. In pinch an equation could be worked out for this. What's mind blowing here is this alternate explanation for Strong Force and the sheer pressure involved. Your talking about sub atomic objects expanding and bearing down into each at C. That has to be one the most intense situations I have heard described. It also would explain why quarks are never found isolated and why they combine so quickly.

 

Next time I will continue with this topic as well the atomic scale. Plus the Expansion Theory version of space and time.

[CrimsonWolf]

Make that 300,000,000 m/s or 300,000 km/s. Same with 150,000,000 m/s or 150,000 km/s. on C and .5C stuff. My bad.

 

Excuse my grammer errors as well. I need to proof read better. :cup:

[CraigD]

… Even with earlier space probes the masses of other planets was not known and remained speculation until probe data came in. …

This is not technically or historically accurate.

 

A planet’s mass may be calculated from the orbital data of its satellite(s) using a simple formula derived from Kepler’s 3rd law:

M = (Msun * R^3) / P^2,

Where R is the satellite’s maximum orbital radius (in AUs), P is its orbital period (in years). This had actually been done by the mid 18th century for Jupiter, giving a pretty precise value of its mass in terms of the mass of the Sun or the Earth. It wasn’t until the late 18th century that sufficiently accurate measurements of the gravitational constant has been made, allowing planetary masses to be estimated in standard units of mass (kilograms, etc.).

 

It’s also possible to obtain less precise estimates of the mass of planets from their perturbations (wobbling) of their central stellar mass. I believe this is about the only way currently available to estimate the mass of extrasolar planets (where we can’t send probes).

[ldsoftwaresteve]

We know the mass of a bowling ball because we can measure it directly. We don't know the mass of the earth. We back into it using other measurable data and some assumptions in formulas but we don't have a way to measure the mass directly. And that goes for all heavenly bodies that aren't pro football cheerleaders.

[CraigD]

We know the mass of a bowling ball because we can measure it directly. We don't know the mass of the earth. We back into it using other measurable data and some assumptions in formulas but we don't have a way to measure the mass directly. …

The measurement of the mass of a bowling ball also depends on assumptions in formulas. Although they’re more fundamental formulas (eg: Force = Mass * Acceleration), in a strict, phenomenalogical sense, we know the mass of a bowling ball no more directly than we know the mass of the Earth.

 

Although a precise measurement of the Earth’s mass relative to the Sun’s was known early in the 18th century, an absolute measurement (relative to bowling balls, etc.) couldn’t be made for another century. Since measuring the absolute mass of the Earth depends on the formula

F = G * M1 * M2 / R^2,

it requires a precise value of the gravitational constant (G). Since it’s first measured ca. 1798, the technique for measuring it hasn’t changed much (big lead globes on a rod, hung by a wire next to other big lead globes and some precise way to measure the wire’s twist), and the precision of the measurement increased only a little – from 2 significant digits to 4, for a modern value of 6.6742 +-0.001 *10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2). So while we certainly have a good idea of the mass of the Earth, it’s not as precise as many physical measurements – for example, the distance to the moon is known to over 10 significant digits due to laser rangefinding taking advantage of special reflectors placed there for just that purpose, while even an esoteric constant such as the mass/charge ratio of an electron is known to 7.

 

All this assumes that gravity is actually a force, not an effect due to unorthodox geometry involving dramatic expansion of various objects, such as McCutcheon proposes in “Final Theory”. To date, though, the old theories seem adequate for practical tasks like navigating the solar system, and speculative ones like explaining the composition of planets and moons, while the newer ones, specifically general relativity, seem adequate for such vexing problems as predicting the orbit of Mercury as precisely as observation allows us to test.