The Final Theory

[CrimsonWolf]

That would be correct.

[CrimsonWolf]

CrimsonWolf: 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?

Oops! I meant to have quote. My mistake.

 

Yes, your observation would be correct.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

ColdCreation:

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

You can. This car will still be moving long after we're both gone.

 

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

So you wish. But that's the reason they stay apart, your sphincter nothwistanding. It's a purely geometric effect of the motion and expansion occuring simultaneously.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CrimsonWolf:

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.

Well Crimson, I'm not sure I can agree with this. When you say 'gravity' you need to keep in mind that we're talking about an effect of expansion. Refer back to my response to Boerseun where I mention the bowling ball. The number of particles do not change from one moment to the next and assuming that the basic structure of the body isn't changing, it will maintain its same relative size, that includes the sun and Jupitor.

You say that we've measured the gravity of Jupitor and the Sun....well, no, we haven't. We've backed into those values. Gravity waves have never been detected or measured.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

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.

This was the hardest thing for me to understand. The answer is that the bodies are in motion relative to each other. There isn't anything to stop that so however they got this motion, its just continuing on. The orbits are purely a geometric effect, as hard as that is to visualize, thats all it is. It took me well over a year to be able to visualize it. We're not used to seeing it that way and the 'attractive force' concept sends out mental roots that affect a whole raft of visualizations. Many people reject it out of hand because they have to remove the tendrils and simply don't want to.

Sun of course holds all planets, including the earth from becoming runaways (that is spinning out of control).

Well, that the sun doesn't 'hold' anything is a major point of the theory. If everything is expanding, well, the first thing that we have to rethink is how we look at orbits. It isn't easy. But it will make sense if you work at it. Because it makes sense intuitively, I didn't let go and give up.

[vnbalakrishna]

"This was the hardest thing for me to understand. The answer is that the bodies are in motion relative to each other. There isn't anything to stop that so however they got this motion, its just continuing on."

 

ldsoftwaresteve, the answer is too simplistic. If there is nothing to stop the planets then the motion ought to be catastrophic proportions not the orderly type we witness. Then there wouldn't be any motion relative or otherwise. There is somewhere a super umpire watching everything until he decides to end it.

[Boerseun]

Well, that the sun doesn't 'hold' anything is a major point of the theory. If everything is expanding, well, the first thing that we have to rethink is how we look at orbits. It isn't easy. But it will make sense if you work at it. Because it makes sense intuitively, I didn't let go and give up.

Sorry, I fail to understand how 'expansion' can account for orbits. And I don't find it intuitive at all.

Care to expound on the geometry you imply being accountable for it?

I know I sound like a broken record, but if the sun keeps expanding, and the earth and planets keep expanding, well then, why would the earth keep on going 'around' the sun if we take the sun's 'holding' power, i.e. gravity, out of the equation?

Expansion doesn't include anything that'll make things orbit each other. Or I'm missing something here.

Expansion is saying that if an apple falls out of a tree, it's not actually falling: it's the Earth that's expanding towards the apple.

And this expansion has been measured - 9.8m/s2 - an ever-increasing speed.

Which means that the Earth's surface would have broken the speed of light not long after the Earth's formation. In other words, C isn't a limit.

Expansion won't explain other, simpler things, either: Why does a skydiver reach terminal velocity? He's not going anywhere - the planet's coming closer at an accelerating pace!

[coldcreation]

This was the hardest thing for me to understand. The answer is that the bodies are in motion relative to each other.

 

ldsoftwaresteve, please answer this question honestly. I've suspected this for quite some time now: Are you M. McC., the author of the book under study in this thread?

 

I can't understand why anyone else would defend the theory so ardently.

 

The answer is that the bodies are in motion relative to each other. There isn't anything to stop that so however they got this motion, its just continuing on. The orbits are purely a geometric effect, as hard as that is to visualize, .

 

That's not hard to visualize, gravity accoeding to Einstein's GR is a geometric property of spacetime. The beauty of GR (as opposed to McC's concept) is that in addition to curvature, expansion is not required. GR is more beautiful and simple because it explains more with less.

 

thats all it is. It took me well over a year to be able to visualize it. We're not used to seeing it that way and the 'attractive force' concept sends out mental roots that affect a whole raft of visualizations. Many people reject it out of hand because they have to remove the tendrils and simply don't want to.

Well, that the sun doesn't 'hold' anything is a major point of the theory. If everything is expanding, well, the first thing that we have to rethink is how we look at orbits. It isn't easy. But it will make sense if you work at it. Because it makes sense intuitively, I didn't let go and give up.

 

True, the Newtonian 'attractive force' concept is missing something.

 

Really, the only thing missing from GR was the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction. I still have not heard McC's (your?) mechanism. Expansion is NOT a mechanism. McC's (your??) expansion idea still requires a mechanisms, i.e., what causes everything to expand. What is it?

 

I'll be back.

 

PS. I'm not S. Hawking

 

cc

[CrimsonWolf]

CrimsonWolf:Well Crimson, I'm not sure I can agree with this. When you say 'gravity' you need to keep in mind that we're talking about an effect of expansion. Refer back to my response to Boerseun where I mention the bowling ball. The number of particles do not change from one moment to the next and assuming that the basic structure of the body isn't changing, it will maintain its same relative size, that includes the sun and Jupiter.

You say that we've measured the gravity of Jupiter and the Sun....well, no, we haven't. We've backed into those values. Gravity waves have never been detected or measured.

 

Very true. However we do know the rate which objects fall at a lot of planets. Which their gravity using Newton' s Laws or GR has be based on that rate of fall. Escape velocity for other worlds is known to some degree, based on Satellite movement and data collected.

 

My point is that Expanding matter in the states of gas and to lesser extent liquid will not push on you the same way solid state matter does. Hence the gravity felt would be weaker with gas and liquids. Although their expansion would remain in the same. Stars and gas planets would be dense objects at the core, that push (due to expansion) the surrounding gas outward.

[CrimsonWolf]

Ok it is time to discuss Expansion Theory version of orbits.

 

In Expansion Theory orbits are pure geometric effect.

 

Some important points to keep in mind:

 

1)Our models of orbits only work in our Solar System. Galaxy motions contradict current orbit models.

 

2)The cause of gravity is still a mystery. General Relativity and Newton's Laws describe gravity effects rather nice, but not why it works. All attempts at quantifying gravity have failed as well. There is satellite data collected over a year that is being looked at right now testing GR. It's looking for verification of curved space. Look it up of curious.

 

3)Planet orbits in nearby star systems do not match the Solar System at all. They are far more chaotic. This information combined with new discovered objects beyond Pluto have shattered all models of planet formation. Something is very odd here. We do not understand how orbits in nature form. We can form them easily enough through artificial means but, nature's process is different and remains unconfirmed.

[coldcreation]

Ok it is time to discuss Expansion Theory version of orbits.

 

In Expansion Theory orbits are pure geometric effect.

 

Some important points to keep in mind:

 

1)Our models of orbits only work in our Solar System. Galaxy motions contradict current orbit models.

 

2)The cause of gravity is still a mystery. General Relativity and Newton's Laws describe gravity effects rather nice, but not why it works. All attempts at quantifying gravity have failed as well. There is satellite data collected over a year that is being looked at right now testing GR. It's looking for verification of curved space. Look it up of curious.

 

3)Planet orbits in nearby star systems do not match the Solar System at all. They are far more chaotic. This information combined with new discovered objects beyond Pluto have shattered all models of planet formation. Something is very odd here. We do not understand how orbits in nature form. We can form them easily enough through artificial means but, nature's process is different and remains unconfirmed.

 

Hey Wolf, if you haven't noticed, we were discussing expansion. Maybe you can answer this quesion, since IDsoftware dissappeared temporarily, and McC seems to be boycotting his own subject (his bad experiences online have lead him to not discuss his ideas online anymore, at least not under his own name): What is the mechanism that causes expansion.

 

If you can answer this question, you will have solved the problem that Newton, Einstein, Feynmann and others had not accomplished.

 

I repeat: What causes expansion? i.e., What causes gravity? What is the mechanism?

 

If that question is too difficult, try to answer this one: Why should all things expand rather than shrink, or as observed, stay the same?

 

Until an answer follows I will consider the entire McC claim (it is not yet a theory) nothing more than a lame attempt to sell a book and make a buck.

 

cc

[vnbalakrishna]

Ages ago Lord Krishna said (see Bhagavad Gita 9.8):

The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under My will it is annihilated at the end.

 

The material nature (of the material world), which is one of My energies, is workding under My direction, O son of Kunti (refers to Arjuna), producing all moving and non-moving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again. (9.9)

 

So when we analyse logically logic itself fails. If the sun is only a ball of fire which logic tells us how does it direct everything. Even pluto is under its grip and obeys the hidden laws of the supreme sun. Could it not be that the sun is directed by a mysterious force, so mysterious that it would never be possible for us puny earthlings ever to understand with this material body gripping our senses? The realisation has to be transcendental beyond the grip of this material body!!!

[Boerseun]

I see no problem with gravity being the response of matter to curved space, being curved by matter itself...

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

Sorry, I fail to understand how 'expansion' can account for orbits. And I don't find it intuitive at all.

Don't be sorry. It isn't intuitive at all when it comes to orbits. It's painfully hard to visualize. What IS intuitive is the idea of the earth pushing up (as long as one accepts expansion as a possibility and cause).

Care to expound on the geometry you imply being accountable for it?

I know I sound like a broken record, but if the sun keeps expanding, and the earth and planets keep expanding, well then, why would the earth keep on going 'around' the sun if we take the sun's 'holding' power, i.e. gravity, out of the equation?

Expansion doesn't include anything that'll make things orbit each other. Or I'm missing something here.

Well, hey, I bought the principle but couldn't see it either for well over a year. When it finally made sense to me was when I realized that the spherical nature of the bodies makes the expansion along the line of centers behave exactly like an attracting force. Have you ever looked at something until you saw it differently? A good example is the movie, "Patch Adams" where the guy holds up 4 fingers and asks, 'how many do you see?'. You can see 4 or 8 depending on how your eyes are focused.

Expansion is saying that if an apple falls out of a tree, it's not actually falling: it's the Earth that's expanding towards the apple.

Yup.

And this expansion has been measured - 9.8m/s2 - an ever-increasing speed.

Which means that the Earth's surface would have broken the speed of light not long after the Earth's formation. In other words, C isn't a limit.

Not quite. :) you haven't been reading Beorseun. In his theory, light is a particle and expands too. And....there is no fixed frame of reference. Perhaps this is the hardest thing to accept. Then again, it's the reason this path has not been explored very well. A mile is relative to a standard that changes with each moment.

Expansion won't explain other, simpler things, either: Why does a skydiver reach terminal velocity? He's not going anywhere - the planet's coming closer at an accelerating pace!

Yes. the expansion is accelerating because it is relative to the particles size which changes every moment. But it does explain terminal velocity.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

duplicate post. how can I get rid of it?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

ColdCreation:

ldsoftwaresteve, please answer this question honestly. I've suspected this for quite some time now: Are you M. McC., the author of the book under study in this thread?

 

I can't understand why anyone else would defend the theory so ardently.

CC, you say the nicest things! LOL. No, I'm not. He's a hell of a lot younger than me and a lot busier not to mention a whole lot brighter.

I defend his theory because I think it's correct. Whatever the truth is, it's worth pursuing - and I have no life :).

I knew McC was having problems with viruses being sent online but didn't realize he's stopped communicating altogether. That is truly sad. Imagine the gentleness of the mentality one needed to accomplish this and to have this be the response of the 'scientific community', well, to say it would be painful is an understatement. I hope the rewards will be worth it.

Incidentally, the 'warping' might just be the change in the frame of reference.

[Boerseun]

Beorseun: Don't be sorry. It isn't intuitive at all when it comes to orbits. It's painfully hard to visualize. What IS intuitive is the idea of the earth pushing up (as long as one accepts expansion as a possibility and cause).

Yes... It's all fine and dandy to explain the 'pushing' force of gravity. But I still need an explanation of how orbits work.

But it does explain terminal velocity.

How, exactly?