The Final Theory

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseun:

But I still need an explanation of how orbits work.

Start with two spheres in motion and let it be given that one is in a perfectly circular orbit. If motion is only on their line of centers, they will collide. As A moves 'by' B it has a tangential component and a line of centers component. to visualize, fix the line of centers on one of the spheres but not on the center of the other. Let it move off the center. Over a time interval that's small it will intersect the surface of the other sphere some distance from the original surface intersect point. The distance between the surfaces of the two spheres on that original line of centers is bigger now because the second sphere's surface has dropped away (it's a circle). But the expansion will make up for that increase in distance. That's really it in a nutshell. After that small period of time, draw another line of centers and do the same thing. it behaves exactly the same. The expansion always appears as motion on the line of centers towards each other (identical to an attraction). The tangential component creates a little component away. It's wierd (probably an understatement) as hell but it works.

[CrimsonWolf]

Hey Wolf, if you haven't noticed, we were discussing expansion. Maybe you can answer this question, since IDsoftware disappeared 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, Feynman 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

 

I totally understand. The book dodges the explanation of why electron should expand by stating that a electron is expansion sort of like a ripple moving though (3-D space), stating that expansion is a electron. That is different than saying a electron expands. This ripple like or expanding structure to us seems like point like and has been labeled a particle by humans. The author states a couple possibilities which I posted earlier. Nothing concrete. Which of coarse I realize no scientist will take the theory seriously due to lack of more math descriptions of nature and no explanation to why fundamental particle expands in the first place. The author says it is basically mystery we may or may not ever solve. Hence a problem. The book is worth reading. Just don't read to much into it. Remember even Standard Theory took the work of many men. If Expansion Theory is correct more people or going to be needed to explore and perfect it. As is right now it still lacking somewhat.

 

I have started to form my one ideas as to why a particle should expand just for fun. I can discuss those with you or whoever if want to have a fun hypothetical conversation. I in no way claim my ideas are correct or wrong. Just creative.

[CrimsonWolf]

Now to continue what I was saying about orbits in Expansion Theory. My second orbit post either didn't register or was purposely deleted. Oops. Either way here I go again.

 

The basic idea is that objects in Expansion do not have straight-line motion ever due to the fact that mutual expansion of all objects as they pass each other causes distance between them to decrease over time. Allow to illustrate say with Earth and Moon.

 

As the Moon passes by the Earth it also expands according to the "Theory". So you think shouldn't the Moon expand into the Earth and vice verse! No. Here's the reason why. The Moon's relative motion to the Earth is great enough that is faster than the Expansion of the Earth each second. Hence it just goes right by and away into distance (far part of elliptical orbit). As the Moon moves away from the Earth it moves in a curved motion due to the fact that the Earth and Moon's expansion causes a them to get closer as the Moon passed by. To us it would look like a curved path of motion due to the fact we can't see the Expansion directly, hence their relative size seems unchanged. In other words all objects would tend to be attracted or put another way curve toward each other when passing each other. Anyway in the far part of the Moon orbit, the Moon slows down as moves from the Earth. This happens due to the fact that Earth's expansion starts to catch up with the Moon's motion. Plus the Moon's own expansion also causes it to slow down as the Earth Moon distance is constantly decreasing. The situation is somewhat like what happens when tossed up object is draw back to Earth due to Earth's greater expansion amount. The Moon's motion begins to swing back toward Earth, the mutual expansion between them gives the Moon effective speed increase as it approaches toward Earth in another orbital pass. The effective speed increase allows the Moon pass close to Earth and off again in another orbit.

 

If the Moon were moving directly toward Earth they would collide. However it's motion only passes by Earth. Since the Moon has greater acceleration on it's close orbit to Earth, than Earth's 9.8m/s accelerated expansion. It never collides, but instead is locked into continual orbit around Earth. Earth's curved surface also effectively curves away from orbiting object. The results of expansion, curved surface, and relative motion are what orbits come from in Expansion Theory. So as long as a objects motion is greater than Expansion of another object a orbit can result.

 

Obviously then new laws of motion come into play with Expansion Theory.

[Boerseun]

Crimson -

 

The orbital mechanics you explained simply will not work. As the moon and the Earth pass each other, and both are expanding, it would account for what would seem to be an orbital pass, but for only roughly 45 degrees.

 

This mechanism you put forward will simply not account for a full orbital pass.

In the first pass, the moon is travelling 90 degrees to the surface of the earth in one direction, then, on the other side of the orbit, it's travelling in the other direction. It's a circular path not explained by being inflated or expanded. If there's no such thing as gravity, there will only be straight paths followed by cosmic objects - and expansion will not account for how something can move in a circle, like the moon, for instance.

[CrimsonWolf]

Crimson -

 

The orbital mechanics you explained simply will not work. As the moon and the Earth pass each other, and both are expanding, it would account for what would seem to be an orbital pass, but for only roughly 45 degrees.

 

This mechanism you put forward will simply not account for a full orbital pass.

In the first pass, the moon is travelling 90 degrees to the surface of the earth in one direction, then, on the other side of the orbit, it's travelling in the other direction. It's a circular path not explained by being inflated or expanded. If there's no such thing as gravity, there will only be straight paths followed by cosmic objects - and expansion will not account for how something can move in a circle, like the moon, for instance.

 

Let me give another example as well here. Keep in mind I understand your perspective. However if Expansion Theory is true then we do not actually see all of the motion of objects. We only perceive part of it. Expanding beings cannot see all of the motion of of objects that are expanding by common universal amount. It's sort of like higher-dimension theories of the universe that are popular right now, picturing motion past 3-D is near impossible for people. Likewise in Expansion Theory their is a lot of motion of objects we cannot see directly, as well as hidden internal volume within atoms too.

 

Imagine two floating spheres in 3-D space that are expanding slowly. Now imagine they are passing by each other in parallel lines, in opposite directions. As they pass by each other their respective distance between them gets shorter. First because they are moving closer as they pass by each other not unlike cars passing on opposite lanes on a road. However since they are also expanding the distance between the objects also shortens. Their relative size remains the same do to identical expansion rate. What I have described to you is the view if you could see from outside our universe. Now imagine the view in our universe as expanding observers. We see the to objects pass each other and also strangely get closer through the pass. They seem to arc toward each other a little on the pass.

 

Now you start wondering why would they do that. You may theorize that a force acted between them and even attempt to model it thinking you solved the problem. But as you try to find the origin of the force find nothing. You know it is some how connected to mass or amount of matter in the spheres from testing and observation of similar phenomenon. Also objects move in consistent rates they seem to share a mathematical relationship with amount of matter present in each object or at very least the matter distribution. You later try another approach saying that the matter of the spheres distorts the space around them making the shortest distance a curved path. For sure you think you have the answer now because now you don't need a force in this case. However you already know forces move objects otherwise everything would be still. Plus if space can curve then can't really be distance between objects. To say it curves you realize implies that space has structure of some kind. Otherwise how can it bend or curve like a material object which requires once again a force to bend or distort it? After awhile you realize that if space has structure then would be like it was Either like substance matter floats in. But you think of light experiments that show no Either there. So you say maybe space is another dimension or put another way that objects can move in more 3-D. You try looking for other dimensions and waves in space to back your ideas. Much to your shock nothing so far matches your conclusions completely. Measuring and predicting the spheres and other objects motion is pretty easy do, due to the predictable behavior. In the end you realize no matter what theory you try the evidence implies that something unseen and nearly undetectable is causing these effects of motion (gravity) you see. What could it be you ask? Something beneath matter itself? Other dimensions? The mind boggles.

 

As you have noticed this the current state of affairs. We know what gravity does, just not how. Just when we think it is figured out we find something the model cannot explain. Examples:

 

Dark Matter: Unexplained and not predicted.

 

Dark Energy: Unexplained Acceleration of galaxies. Some which are going at sub-light and increasing all the time. If they cross the light barrier then a big problem in addition to Dark Energy is created.

 

Galaxy Rotation: Does not rotate like solar system objects yet evidence shows they are still moving at a consistent rates. Dark Matter only proposed explanation.

 

Gamma Bursts: They release more energy than E=M*Csquared. Colliding black holes proposed but unconfirmed. They lay edge of known universe.

 

Quasars: They are releasing an incredible amount of energy. Black Holes proposed. No other explanation proposed.

 

Pioneer Anomaly: Some of our space probes are actually slowing down at if that continues long enough could possibly be drawn back into Solar System. Explanation unknown. Defies all known theory. Probe planned to investigate next decade.

 

Etc, etc. ...

[CrimsonWolf]

Crimson -

 

The orbital mechanics you explained simply will not work. As the moon and the Earth pass each other, and both are expanding, it would account for what would seem to be an orbital pass, but for only roughly 45 degrees.

 

This mechanism you put forward will simply not account for a full orbital pass.

In the first pass, the moon is travelling 90 degrees to the surface of the earth in one direction, then, on the other side of the orbit, it's travelling in the other direction. It's a circular path not explained by being inflated or expanded. If there's no such thing as gravity, there will only be straight paths followed by cosmic objects - and expansion will not account for how something can move in a circle, like the moon, for instance.

 

The idea is that objects seem to curve toward each other, when actually there is additional motion are eyes are not able to perceive. Expansion Theory proposes new motion laws. For example:

 

Matter is always moving, and only seems still when resting on another object or that is also moving at the same relative speed.

 

Matter always moves in curved paths and never pure straight-line trajectories. Resulting in parabolic arcs or typically elliptical paths to observers.

 

True circular motion requires applied force and never orbits as objects motion attempts to speed away in specific direction.

 

There is no force acting on orbiting matter and therefore it orbits due to expansion and motion from origin of the systems formation. Orbits can be created artificially by accelerating object past a body at a specific speed that counters expansion toward it. Expansion of body causes effect that keeps it from colliding with object due to bodies own accelerating/expansion and orbiting objects velocity from body.

[coldcreation]

Still waiting for the mechanism: What is the cause of expansion? i.e., What is the cause of gravity?

 

How do you know the apple isn't 'pushed' from space towards massive bodies, simulating an attractive force, simulating what is thought to be the earth expanding. Either option requires a mechanism if the theory is to be final (in the unified field theory sense).

 

cc

[CrimsonWolf]

Still waiting for the mechanism: What is the cause of expansion? i.e., What is the cause of gravity?

 

How do you know the apple isn't 'pushed' from space towards massive bodies, simulating an attractive force, simulating what is thought to be the earth expanding. Either option requires a mechanism if the theory is to be final (in the unified field theory sense).

 

cc

 

You want the authors explanation I have already mentioned it. Ask him yourself. He's not to hard to reach. He didn't write the book for profit. It does not improve his lifestyle or making a living at all. He works like any of us. The Theory is in book form simply because it seemed the best at the time to get the idea out there. The author does not claim he is right but lets the reader at the conclusion of the book decide for them self. Very humble in my opinion.

 

As to why a particle would expand I have few proto ideas of my own. First of all I do not think this fundamental particle in Theory that we know as the electron should be labeled as a particle. From my perspective only clusters of the object should be labeled particles. The fundamental object obviously is not like other object known to humans. I mentioned it's properties earlier so I will not repeat them. Now what could make this object expand at it's incredible 150,000,000 m/s rate you ask. Well one idea is if it is loosely similar to a ripple then perhaps there is a object within the "electron"that is vibrating in a unseen substance or maybe like a dropped pebble a wave conductive medium is disturbed. But what is that substance? I am betting it is particles or some kind of objects since most waves are conducted in some sort of medium. The curious thing with this idea is that this ripple moves so quickly and unlike ripples in a pond is completely spherical. Plus the ripples never pass through each other but stop or push against each other causing binding forces and in some cases pressure.

 

If your a religious person you could say a supreme being is feeding a sort of divine/dynamic energy into producing these particles shaping reality and the universe as it sees fit.

 

Perhaps another dimension or super sub-atomic universe supports the expansion with independent physics unlike our own.

 

Perhaps all reality are actually collections of particle of infinite forms. Forms that are similar tend band together. Maybe the expansion happens because the particle in question actually sucks up or absorbs surrounding unknown particles getting bigger all the time (unlikely). Perhaps particle replicates itself through unknown property or process constantly increasing in size as it's internal volume fills constant increase of particles.

 

Maybe the Electron is like a inflating dimension or sub-universe. Another idea is maybe 2-D or even 1-D (lines) objects fill the Electrons internal volume. The inside could be infinite number of 1-D lines that once started keeping extending from starting point to infinite in all directions and create barriers when encountering other 1-D (lines) objects resulting in defining the edges of sort of bubble filled with infinite or limited 1-D motion that constantly keeps growing from initial starting point. Thus expanding bubble or "particle" results.

 

I honestly can keep throwing ideas out there but without more thorough testing of nature and experiments the ideas don't mean anything. Neither you, me, or anyone else of Earth knows why things are here. They just exist regardless of whether we know of it or not. Why do particles have mass? Why particles? What causes particles to have properties? Why do particles have such baffling motions? If the universe has a beginning then where did the energy of it come from, when no energy and no space should have existed?! Why 3D? Is time really dimension? Are there other spacial dimensions?

 

The questions are endless. I do not know. Einstein did not know. Newton did not know. Planck did not know. Hawking's does not know. Priests and other religious figures do not know. Politicians do not know. Scientists for that matter do not know. Neither do the readers here. You do not know either. Nobody does.

 

We can debate all we want but soon or later the limits of mans intellect and perception come into play. If we could some how shrink down or see inside a particle (assuming it even has a inside) perhaps we can find some of the answers. However we will never have them all. We can't. The evidence is all to clear that our Universe is supported by something we can't see or touch but never less keeps the Universe in order. We tend to either pretend it is not there or try to describe small aspects from crude guesses and assumptions. I do believe there are answers. But like the old saying, "Beware what you ask for or may just get it.":)

[CrimsonWolf]

This stuff is never easy.

[coldcreation]

This stuff is never easy.

 

I'm still waiting for the mechanism for expansion (or gravity, call it what you will). Wolf, a question or two: Did you read the book or just chapter one? If you read the book then you must know what the mechanism is right? Ask McC? Someone above (Idsoftware?) says he doesn't email anymore, because of some virus or something. That is not why. I've read his communication online. He coudn't take the heat. There were some tough questions in there. He had no answers. I guess the final theory isn't so final. Alot of bugs need to be worked out, like the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction. It is quite evident he has not found the mechanism. Had he, everything would not be expanding. You see, any time something expands or shrinks it is because of something else, e.g., temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.

 

If you can't answer this question, and if McC is incommunicado, maybe someone who read the book can interject: What causes an electron (or anything else) to expand ?

 

cc

[CrimsonWolf]

I'm still waiting for the mechanism for expansion (or gravity, call it what you will). Wolf, a question or two: Did you read the book or just chapter one? If you read the book then you must know what the mechanism is right? Ask McC? Someone above (Idsoftware?) says he doesn't email anymore, because of some virus or something. That is not why. I've read his communication online. He coudn't take the heat. There were some tough questions in there. He had no answers. I guess the final theory isn't so final. Alot of bugs need to be worked out, like the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction. It is quite evident he has not found the mechanism. Had he, everything would not be expanding. You see, any time something expands or shrinks it is because of something else, e.g., temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.

 

If you can't answer this question, and if McC is incommunicado, maybe someone who read the book can interject: What causes an electron (or anything else) to expand ?

 

cc

 

Yes I have read the book. Several times. He does not know what causes the expansion. Period. Nobody does. So although the theory is interesting it does fall short somewhat sadly in it's current form. However I think the theory is still in it's infancy and has potential. It certainly answers more questions than it raises. Which is a good thing. However the so called TOE however may not explain everything as well you might think. Well never know everything, it's arrogant to think otherwise. Still it's worth seeing what limits to human understanding and logic there are.

 

I have already begun to see potential math formulas that can be derived from the ideas proposed in the Final Theory book.

[Boerseun]

However the so called TOE however may not explain everything as well you might think. Well never know everything, it's arrogant to think otherwise.

Haha - almost like calling it 'The Final Theory' :) :)

I have already begun to see potential math formulas that can be derived from the ideas proposed in the Final Theory book.

Unfortunately, if he's only describing the 'effects' of 'expansion', no new formulas can be derived. To explain local gravity, his formulas will have to match Newton - to explain the effect. This seems to be no great leap forward.

In actual fact, his formulas will have to be incredibly complex and inelegant (to include expansion of all the variables in the equation) to arrive at exactly the same answers as Newton did - with one tenth the effort.

I don't even want to imagine what formulas he'll need to describe orbits. I simply don't see it.

 

How can he say that the TOE won't explain as much as we think it will? The TOE doesn't even exist yet.

[vnbalakrishna]

Today the scientific class believes in the big bang theory which states that the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature. The universe was initially significantly smaller than even a pore on your skin. With the big bang, the fabric of space itself began expanding like the surface of an inflating balloon – matter simply rode along the stretching space like dust on the balloon's surface. The big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang. Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model. The evidence is overwhelming enough that in 1951, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the big bang model to be in accordance with the Bible.

But there is another scientific truism that in the three states of matter only gas can be compressed not solids or liquids. Is this not a contradiction which has been overlooked. Big Bang presumes that fantastically large amount (close to infinite) of matter was in a compressed state which blew up. Can anyone explain this contradiction?

There is an edge to what we are able to see and could ever possibly see in the universe. Light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second. That's top speed in this universe—nothing can go faster—but it's relatively slow compared to the distances to be traveled. The nearest big galaxy to our Milky Way, the Andromeda galaxy, is two million light-years away. The most distant galaxies we can now see are 10 or 12 billion light-years away. We could never see a galaxy that is farther away in light travel time than the universe is old—an estimated 14 billion or so years. Thus, we are surrounded by a "horizon" that we cannot look beyond—a horizon set by the distance that light can travel over the age of the universe.

 

However how does one explain Andromeda galaxy’s birth. It is elementary Watson. There was there another Biggest Bang that created Andromeda galaxy. If so why or who separated the two infinitely condensed matter? Andromeda no doubt is a separate universe. Then why was this separation visualized. If so by whom? If there was no visualization there must have been only one compact universe. There is a mismatch in applying the Big Bang to our universe.

 

Big Bang is a self-styled explanation to the unknown. It is too pat.

 

Scientists say that as a way of checking the Universe’s age estimate, the oldest things in the universe are 10-15 billion years old, but definitely not older. From radioactive dating of uranium isotopes, we know that the oldest isotopes were created (through nuclear reactions in supernovae) about 10 billion years ago. From our current model of star evolution, we know that the oldest stars in our Galaxy are about 12 billion years old. These ages are consistent with the age estimated from the observed expansion of the universe. This agreement suggests that the universe really began a finite time ago, providing an encouraging reason to believe in the big bang model of the universe.

 

When so many universes exists is it not assuming a paltry 10 billion years lifespan sounds like an ant assuming that a elephant must be eating food equivalent to the food consumed by million ants! If universe now is racing apart then there could be other reasons too. Maybe some unknown cosmic energy that is blowing everything apart like the wind blowing the kites flying in the sky apart?

 

I feel we are too young to come to a definitive explanation. Instead of going the whole hog on the Big Bang there is lot more thinking needed.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

ColdCreation:

He coudn't take the heat. There were some tough questions in there.

Not heat. Abuse. there's a difference. Although from what I've seen, there are some so-called scientists that aren't capable of distinguishing it.

Perhaps someday we'll place a value on honesty. Until we do, the world will be bathed in pain.

[Boerseun]

It's not abuse when the world doesn't agree with you.

 

Maybe you're just wrong.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

vnbalakrishna:

Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model. The evidence is overwhelming enough that in 1951, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the big bang model to be in accordance with the Bible.

Well, I guess that cuts it then. :)

Many years ago, I read a book by two gentlemen that delved into the evidence we use to determine the age of mankind. The Hidden History of the Human Race. by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson.

The book was shrink wrapped so I couldn't read the inside of the cover. Initially I was disappointed to find out that it was written by two Hari Krishna fellows. However, I found that their treatment of the subject was beautifully done. Their religion believes that mankind is ancient, much older than 'scientists' have proposed.

What the book shows in case after case after case is how dishonest the so-called 'scientific' community has been when dealing with archeological data. I had no idea it was as bad as it is. Lives ruined and careers crushed because a person reported and showed evidence that contradicted current paradigms. I suggest that if someone wants to see the techniques used to discredit valid research, they check this book out. it's a tome but I couldn't put it down.

I see many of the same behaviors in this thread.

In case you're wondering what would motivate people to behave that way, the book shows that as well. In the days before you could publish on the web, which McC did, if you could stop a publisher from publishing a book you could stop an idea from getting presented. They show cases where that took place. Imagine if you had written a textbook that was widely used throughout the country and an idea came along supported by valid research by professionals in the field that contradicted what you claim in your book...imagine what would happen. You'd look like an idiot and the royalties from your book would dry up.

After considering McCutcheon's ideas and accepting them as most likely correct, I can see the size of the ox getting gored every time I watch something on TV which talks about black holes, Einstein's speed of light limitation, etc. His work affects numerous works by numerous authors, producers, etc. There will be a fight over this and it will be motivated by irrational greed and not honesty.

Welcome to the world of science.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

It's not abuse when the world doesn't agree with you.

 

Maybe you're just wrong.

Oh my. I've never anyone that spoke for the world before. Cool. :)

Let me get this straight. Because McCutcheon's theory might be wrong and then I would be too, it's ok to be abusive. Is that about it?

Now that is an interesting thought. Thank you for being so up front about it.

Honesty is always a good thing even in this case.

Beorseun, please look at what you just said. Do you really believe that?