The Final Theory

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I guess my point is that we know a lot more about the makeup of a bowling ball than we do the earth. This thread assumes we are talking expansion, that is what the book is about. One of the consequences of expansion theory is that the gravitational effect is not related to the mass but to the expansion and if true, the way 'standard theory' backs into some stuff using a mass/gravity relationship wouldn't be correct then.

[Erasmus00]

One of the consequences of expansion theory is that the gravitational effect is not related to the mass but to the expansion

 

This is exactly why it is untenable. The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is one of the most highly tested principles in physics. So far, it is accurate to an amazing precision (as I have noted from Lunar ranging experiments mentioned above).

 

McCutcheon's theory is empirically wrong right out of the gate. Regardless of how easy to understand something is, if it doesn't stand up to experiment, it is worthless.

-Will

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus00:

Regardless of how easy to understand something is, if it doesn't stand up to experiment, it is worthless.

True, and if the experimental results cannot be explained using expansion theory, then I agree. Perhaps you would share with us what the lunar ranging experiment shows.

[coldcreation]

Erasmus00:True, and if the experimental results cannot be explained using expansion theory, then I agree. Perhaps you would share with us what the lunar ranging experiment shows.

 

OK, I thought about this gravity-expansion problem to day as I was contracting my sphincter (what better place to ponder expansion). Here is the idea: To test the expansion idea it will suffice to examine an expanding object, say a star as it expands to form a red giant. If the gravitational redshift is known before it expands, the zgrav should be compaired with the zgrav as it reaches maximum size.

 

Why? If expansion hypothesis is real then the two expansions will combine to form a greater gravitational redshift which should be visible.

 

If expansion hypothesis in untenable, which is my point view, the zgrav will be less than the original value at the surface of the expanding star.

 

I do regret though that McC in order to explain a simple mechanism, that of gravity, has to introduce expansion: something that too requires an explanation that describes another mechansim. I would really love to hear what causes things like atoms, people and planets to expand. At least for a good laugh.

 

ldsoftwaresteve, it is hard to believe you're still so actively involved in this thread. I've been thinking for a while now that if someone wanted to keep the thread alive you would be the perfect cantidate for the job.

 

cc

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus00:True, and if the experimental results cannot be explained using expansion theory, then I agree. Perhaps you would share with us what the lunar ranging experiment shows.

 

In 2001 Williams and Anderson tested the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass down to 1.5*10^-13. In McCutcheon's theory, gravitational and inertial mass are not equivalent at all (different objects fall at different rates depending on their size). The two objects used to test in this case are the Earth and the Moon (vastly different sizes) so McCutcheon would predict effects that don't actually exist.

-Will

[Boerseun]

If McCutcheon is right, then:

 

The Earth expands at a speed we experience as 1g.

The moon expands at a speed we experience as 1/6g.

 

Thus, the Earth is clearly expanding faster than the moon.

 

This being the case, then:

 

What mechanism is constantly enlarging the moon's orbit so that the Earth doesn't expand all the way to the moon's surface?

Why (compared to the Earth) does the moon stay the same size? If the Earth is expanding faster than the moon, it should look to an observer on Earth as if the moon is actually shrinking, relative to Earth, of course.

By the same token, we humans should also shrink relative to Earth, because we're not expanding nearly as fast.

 

Thus, Expansion Theory is:

 

Absolute bollocks, poppycock, and hogwash. All rolled into one big expanding expletive.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus00:

In 2001 Williams and Anderson tested the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass down to 1.5*10^-13. In McCutcheon's theory, gravitational and inertial mass are not equivalent at all (different objects fall at different rates depending on their size).

How were the measurements taken? With respect to the falling at different rates depending on their size, if you have a ball 10 feet in diameter and a ball one foot in diameter and both fall to the earth from some distance, even assuming no wind resistance, they will hit at virtually the same time because the expansion of the balls relative to the earth's expansion is insignificant. We don't have a way to prove it with the type of accuracy that would be required or with the certainty that you seem to possess. I'm sorry will, but I don't trust scientists any more than I trust politicians. McCutcheon has stated that the best test to disprove or prove his theory is to measure the gravitational effect on the far side of the moon and on the near side. They should be different and opposite to what 'standard' theory predicts. We do that measurement and I'll abdicate the position if it supports you.

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus00: How were the measurements taken? With respect to the falling at different rates depending on their size, if you have a ball 10 feet in diameter and a ball one foot in diameter and both fall to the earth from some distance, even assuming no wind resistance, they will hit at virtually the same time because the expansion of the balls relative to the earth's expansion is insignificant. We don't have a way to prove it with the type of accuracy that would be required or with the certainty that you seem to possess. I'm sorry will, but I don't trust scientists any more than I trust politicians. McCutcheon has stated that the best test to disprove or prove his theory is to measure the gravitational effect on the far side of the moon and on the near side. They should be different and opposite to what 'standard' theory predicts. We do that measurement and I'll abdicate the position if it supports you.

 

Williams et all measured the rate at which the Earth and the Moon fall around the Sun. By using laser ranging on the moon, they were able to establish the equivalence to the above quoted accuracy. Given the vast differences in size between the two, I expect this as good a test as any. And if you don't trust the scientist, read their paper and try to pick that apart.

-Will

[CrimsonWolf]

Ok. Read the current posts. Time for me move up to the atomic scale and Expansion theory version of space.

 

Now as I mentioned earlier in Expansion theory all particle types are made of one particle in groups. The particles are held together by their mutual expansion, which is basically Expansion Theory version of Strong Force.

 

What causes expansion? That is hard to say. One suggestion in the book is that expanding particles could be similar to computer simulation of expanding objects, mentioned for illustrative purposes. Another is that expanding electron could be similar some what to a expanding wave or ripple like pattern, with a hypothetical medium (sort of like air or water conduction) to conduct it. The book mentions vaguely that perhaps a sea of yet unknown smaller particles (scale would be at levels like that of String or M-Theory or maybe GUTS) act as the medium. But the book mentions that since that a scale below subatomic may not be physically possible to explore due to the fact Expansion Theory explains all of the physical universe but not what supports the particle that makes it up. But it may be possible we can go on forever trying to explain particles and never understand why they exist. Who know?

 

Now for Atomic expansion. Now in Expansion theory a atom is composed of a group of particles we know as Proton and Neutron in different number of groupings. They form the nucleus. The outer part (or shell if you prefer) consists of bouncing electrons that are continually expanding into the nucleus. Apparently they also rebound off creating a effective bouncing. Why bouncing you may ask? Well the author simply states the electrons bounce. Personally I see about 3 possibilities hypothetically speaking:

 

1. When expansion started (universe beginning) the matter was not evenly spread out. Some electrons were in groups and others by themselves. Single electrons giving way to more massive particles/groups by kinetic motion from expansion. They bounce/knocked away, and then fall/expand back toward atoms.

 

2. The fundamental particle may in fact be particles of same mass but have unidentified properties they allow some to attach in groups and others not.

 

3. The electrons are actually repeatedly being ejected from the nucleus of a Atoms and then reabsorbed.

 

Now the atomic expansion is caused by difference in space mostly.

 

What is Space in Expansion Theory you may ask?

 

Space in expansion theory is distance between objects. Particles being similar to points like some basic math, especially graphs with points. However in Expansion theory there are 2 types of space: Atomic and Subatomic. The distance out side the atom is different than it's internal space. Think of the inner atom like another dimension with it's own separate space. The electrons act as the boundary between are familiar space and internal space inside the atom.

 

Plotting the electron bounces at different heights is like catching freeze frame picture of electrons in motion or position. Plotting the data you end up with patterns like probability Electron cloud that Standard Theory uses. Atomic structure is complete in the sense the expansion is concerned with radius of objects. Half of electron lies in definition of atom, the outer half of electron outside of atom. This outer half of electron expansion and the bouncing motion cause a slow expansion effect of atom. No matter the number of electrons or kind of atom the effect of atomic expansion always is the same percentage of expansion.

 

So all objects made of atoms relative to each other expand by the same percentage. This is why objects have constant relative size in this theory. The expansion is invisible to expanding observers (like humans). But the fact that space between objects seems to decrease with time (gravity) reveals the expansion. So basically observers would see universe of constant size objects that tend to move closer to each other or come together. The inner Atomic space remains completely unseen as does the rapid Subatomic expansion except through certain physical processes.

 

More to come. I know the above violates Standard theory, but 10 dimensional movement for strings is nearly impossible to picture either.

[CrimsonWolf]

So one has to ask, how do you find atomic expansion? One way on Earth is take distance traveled by falling object in a second and divide by Earth's surface radius. It comes out to about 0.00000077 each second. So it's roughly a millionth percent each second, very small indeed. Compared to a planet everyday objects have expansion that would be negligible in comparison. So in Expansion Theory, Atomic expansion is indirectly related to mass, but unlike Standard theory the size (the way matter is spread-out) determines the basic understanding of gravity acceleration felt.

 

It's important to note the Atomic expansion is accelerating percentage, otherwise gravity would not accelerate us toward the Earth for example if just a coasting motion rate of increase.

 

Density of the mass involved and how it is arranged in object does effect the expansion and hence the gravity felt. This happens because as the matter in object expands, it's bears down on the center of mass internally. Pressure ends being produced, as the matter deep inside center of mass of object has the surrounding matter around bearing down on it. If the center of mass does not lay within geometric center of object then the result is varied surface gravity of differing amounts. Some matter also resists being moved more than other matter (again density and mass) and also some matter gives to motion easily. The center of mass can cause large differences in surface gravity as it is the pushing or starting point of atoms pushing against each other by expansion.

 

For example Moon is predicted by theory to have 1/6th G on near side and 1/3 G on far side. This is suggested to be the case because of near side has greater matter density than far side. The radius from center of mass is shorter on near side than on far side. The overall average is expected 1/4th G that theory predicts initially, before modification suggested by moon probes data.

[CrimsonWolf]

The basic thing to point out is that expansion theory basically predicts center of mass, not always the geometric center, determines gravity.

 

The author did not discuss how various states of matter could possibly effect Gravity as well. So if the readers don't mind I will interject my own logic here.

 

I realized that gas planets and stars gravity would be different than mostly solid/water worlds. Let me explain why.

 

The hotter a object is the more it's atoms move around. Translating that to Expansion Theory then means atoms kinetic motion (vibrating of nucleus) moves electrons further from atom, weakening atomic bonds. In solid matter bouncing electrons keep atomic nuclei apart but bouncing off more than one nucleus creates weak bonds. Stronger bonds happen when a atom lacks enough electrons to keep other atoms away, but gains electrons from nearby atom, the shared electrons complete both atoms. This process would create chemical bonds. Electrons are not bound to any atom. They simply bounce around between atoms. Differences in density of these "Electron Clouds" results in familiar chemical bonds, and yet keeps atoms apart. Therefore as stated earlier the more kinetic motion the atom has the weaker the bonds. Liquids are weakened chemical bonds of atoms. Gases are very weak chemical bonds. Plasma would of coarse be when bonds are nearly gone and the electrons are free too bounce away due to intense kinetic motion of atoms.

 

Now what the point is that liquid and gases have been observed to give way to motion more easily than solids. So logically then only the dense parts of stars and gas plants are the main source of the resulting gravity. Much like how Earth's air is accelerated upward by the surface causing density variation in air and different pressure. The familiar acceleration we feel is the solid matter beneath our feet pushing us up as it expands into surrounding space. Like wise dense matter pushes less dense matter more easily. So dense core of a star were fusion takes place or the solid core of a gas planet is what actually causes the gravity of those objects.

 

Thus planets like Jupiter or star like the Sun have less gravity than their size would first indicate. This fits observations since Jupiter and Sun have less gravity than either Newton's law, Special Relativity, or Expansion Theory would first predict without looking deeper.

[CrimsonWolf]

Obviously this theory of Expansion is quite radical. :shrug:

 

A basic theme of Expansion Theory is that Subatomic Expansion is constantly hid beneath Atomic Expansion.

 

The basic equation at Expansion Theory's core is as follows and is quoted from page 89 of the The Final Theory: Rethinking Are Scientific Legacy

, to give honor to authors copyrights.

 

D'= D - n squared * Xa *(R1 +R2) / 1 + n squared * Xa

 

D' = Distance between objects decreased by mutual expansion

 

D = Original distance between objects

 

R1, R2, etc ... = Radius of objects

 

n = Seconds of time

 

Xa = Expansion amount per second of 0.00000077/s squared or 7.7 x 10 negative 7th power /s squared

 

Now before I start describing Electricity and ElectroMagnetism let me discuss motion and of coarse orbits in Expansion Theory in some detail.

 

Now a expanding object you would think would also seem to slow down in a specific direction (velocity) as expansion overcomes the distance being traveled.

 

But what if moving a expanding object causes the expansion to sort of move toward or be directed to a specific direction. What I mean by this is a expanding by object by itself moves equally in all directions. Logically to measure motion we have to compare surrounding objects. If you push a expanding object obviously it's atoms will all push against each other causing electrons to bounce rapidly plus more vigorously. The result being atoms resist getting close or being pushed on. Apply enough force long enough to a object though and a objects atoms will eventually give way and move. Resulting either in bonds breaking down or movement in a specific direction. The old formula F= ma comes to mind. Just maybe by moving a expanding object in specific direction you have given the expansion that is normally equal in all directions a unequal expansion into space. If that were the case then expansion in a specific direction equals velocity or even acceleration as see normally. Think about the moving atom which pushes atoms on edge toward a particular direction caused by applied force of other atoms electrons. The electrons opposite of direction would tend to lag behind the atom. The forward electrons would get closer to the nucleus which delivers extra kinetic motion to electrons caused by a applied force. Following this odd logic further then motion could move in specific relative velocities to matter of the applied force or even constant acceleration if applied force continues.

 

If that logic is true then expanding objects very well could move according to observations, only slowing when friction or another object(s) come into contact with the object in question. Friction then of coarse would be actually a form of kinetic motion resulting when objects pass to close.

 

Agree or disagree freely with Expansion Theory. I do not claim this Theory is correct or false. I am just here to explain it's consequence's.:cup:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CrimsonWolf:

For example Moon is predicted by theory to have 1/6 th G on near side and 1/3 G on far side. This is suggested to be the case because of far side has greater matter density than near side. The radius from center of mass is shorter on far side than on near side. The overall average is expected 1/4th G that theory predicts intially, before modification suggested by moon probes data.

1/6th on near side and 1/3 on far side would be McCutcheon's concept. And that would follow because it is denser on the near side and most of the effective expansion would be on the far side. Right?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseun:

What mechanism is constantly enlarging the moon's orbit so that the Earth doesn't expand all the way to the moon's surface?

its motion.

Why (compared to the Earth) does the moon stay the same size? If the Earth is expanding faster than the moon, it should look to an observer on Earth as if the moon is actually shrinking, relative to Earth, of course.

By the same token, we humans should also shrink relative to Earth, because we're not expanding nearly as fast.

We've been here before. The number of particles is the same from one moment to the next. Think about it. Stop and think about it. You have a blindspot here. You're a good guy but man, slow down and think about it. :shrug:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus00:

Williams et all measured the rate at which the Earth and the Moon fall around the Sun. By using laser ranging on the moon, they were able to establish the equivalence to the above quoted accuracy.

In McCutcheon's view the light is made up of the fundamental particles which would be expanding too. The statement that I made about the effect only being a result of the expansion was innacurate. The effect is also affected by the mass dispersion in the body on which the measurement is taken. If the center of mass is not in the geometric center, then the effect will not be uniform on the surface of the body.

The accuracy of the experiment to which you refer might actually be a measure of the constancy of the rate of expansion.

[coldcreation]

Erasmus00:In McCutcheon's view the light is made up of the fundamental particles which would be expanding too. The statement that I made about the effect only being a result of the expansion was innacurate. The effect is also affected by the mass dispersion in the body on which the measurement is taken. If the center of mass is not in the geometric center, then the effect will not be uniform on the surface of the body.

The accuracy of the experiment to which you refer might actually be a measure of the constancy of the rate of expansion.

 

No way.

Now way to the post just before too. Think about it ID. McC is a car salesman and you just bought a car from him. The thing don't go no where. You load it with gas and it still don't go no where. You give it a push because it ain't going nowhere and it still don't go no where. You try to jump-start it cause it ain't going nowhere but it don't start so you push it again and it still ain't going no where. Finally, because it aint going nowhere you shove it down a hill. It's going somewhere now. It's in a free-fall...Straight for the dump. Its time for a new final theory. An ultimate theory that don't introduce another magical thing (expansion) that itself needs another mechanism and another and another and another ad infinitium.

 

Unless McC comes online to argue his points, I propose we move on to a different thread.

 

PS "motion" is a lame excuse for the distance between objects remaining the same despite eternal universal expansion of all undifferentiated matter.

 

cc

[vnbalakrishna]

From where does the earth get so much energy to orbit perfectly, that is maintaining its speed so accurately which it has been doing for billions of years and probably would do so in the future? How does the earth direct itself in its orbit. Sun of course holds all planets, including the earth from becoming runaways (that is spinning out of control). Then the question arises from where does the sun get so much intelligence to keep the other planets in check. Is there more to the sun's brilliance and intelligence then mere fire and light? :shrug: :cup: