The Final Theory

[ldsoftwaresteve]

ColdCreation:

True for cosmology, but archeology has been quite thorough. Are you saying that evolution is not correct? If not, where did archeology go wrong? If so, wht is the correct theory?

First, thank you for being a gentleman in your response. You've made valid points. My comment about worst track records stems from what I know about Archeology's past, not necessarily what has been happening lately. Specifically, the age of mankind. Today it's accepted as most probable that man has been here a lot longer than we originally thought. At one time 32,000 years was as old as we were thought to be. Violent battles took place and evidence to the contrary was deliberately covered up, ridiculed, and the people that made the discoveries had their reputations and careers ruined. That's what I mean by bad track record. Given the opportunity, they screwed with the evidence.

I don't know if evolution as it is commonly presented is correct. It sounds like it makes sense but then again, I don't think we're there yet. I wouldn't be surprised to find a stronger feedback mechanism than just blind luck. Something about the way 'matter' comes together generates a requirement for the perception of it. My gut tells me that life is nothing more than a perception machine. So I think that the gap between what's true and what we think is HUGE in this area.

You're fascinated by the response? You're facinated that most of us think the theory is untenable (for empirical reasons, ie., for the lack of empirical verification).

No, I meant what I said. I'm blind in my right eye and my left will be blind most likely in the next 10 years. Glaucoma. And so, typical of me, I think about this and wonder about other forms of blindness and what it really means. You don't necessarily appreciate something until you stand to lose it. Man has blinded himself through bad mental processes and the evidence is everywhere you look.

All of the wars, all of the blood, all of the pain, all of the frustration - all caused by self induced blindness and fallacies. Why? To maintain the status quo, to maintain value systems based upon fallacies and other blindspots. A holographic brass ring.

I'll tell you what's worth having. Sight.

And as to your other points about evidence. We don't have it yet. The models that apply to the things we have at hand, work. But as CrimsonWolf has pointed out, there are anomalies. We won't know until specific experiments are designed and performed that prove it either wrong or right. The experiment McC says will show it is to measure the moon's gravitational effect on the near and far side. The Cavendish won't work because it's like trying to watch a bubble in a hurricane. I think Beagleworth came up with another one. So, reserve judgement until then.

Oh, you mentioned you had a theory that you were working on earlier in this thread.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

ColdCreation:

True for cosmology, but archeology has been quite thorough. Are you saying that evolution is not correct? If not, where did archeology go wrong? If so, wht is the correct theory?

First, thank you for being a gentleman in your response. You've made valid points. My comment about worst track records stems from what I know about Archeology's past, not necessarily what has been happening lately. Specifically, the age of mankind. Today it's accepted as most probable that man has been here a lot longer than we originally thought. At one time 32,000 years was as old as we were thought to be. Violent battles took place and evidence to the contrary was deliberately covered up, ridiculed, and the people that made the discoveries had their reputations and careers ruined. That's what I mean by bad track record. Given the opportunity, they screwed with the evidence.

I don't know if evolution as it is commonly presented is correct. It sounds like it makes sense but then again, I don't think we're there yet. I wouldn't be surprised to find a stronger feedback mechanism than just blind luck. Something about the way 'matter' comes together generates a requirement for the perception of it. My gut tells me that life is nothing more than a perception machine. So I think that the gap between what's true and what we think is HUGE in this area.

You're fascinated by the response? You're facinated that most of us think the theory is untenable (for empirical reasons, ie., for the lack of empirical verification).

No, I meant what I said. I'm blind in my right eye and my left will be blind most likely in the next 10 years. Glaucoma. And so, typical of me, I think about this and wonder about other forms of blindness and what it really means. You don't necessarily appreciate something until you stand to lose it. Man has blinded himself through bad mental processes and the evidence is everywhere you look.

All of the wars, all of the blood, all of the pain, all of the frustration - all caused by self induced blindness and fallacies. Why? To maintain the status quo, to maintain value systems based upon fallacies and other blindspots. A holographic brass ring.

I'll tell you what's worth having. Sight.

And as to your other points about evidence. We don't have it yet. The models that apply to the things we have at hand, work. But as CrimsonWolf has pointed out, there are anomalies. We won't know until specific experiments are designed and performed that prove it either wrong or right. The experiment McC says will show it is to measure the moon's gravitational effect on the near and far side. The Cavendish won't work because it's like trying to watch a bubble in a hurricane. I think Beagleworth came up with another one. So, reserve judgement until then.

Oh, you mentioned you had a theory that you were working on earlier in this thread.

[CrimsonWolf]

Crimson, you're not telling me that 'Expansion Theory' can make up for all the above shortfalls?

 

Another thing - nowhere (to my knowledge) has the Standard Model ever claimed to be the final word. Matter of fact, one of the pillars of science in determining the admissibility of any theory in any given field, is that the theory shouldn't claim to be the final word on the matter. The US courts actually affirmed this point in a Creationist court case in 1982.

 

In other words, Science will forever be evolving, and any theory is a potential target for someone with a better explanation. The fact that Science isn't complete and never will be, isn't a weakness - it's one of its greatest strengths.

 

Actually I personally believe there is absolute way to describe nature and processes. Problem is we lack the perception, language, and quite frankly the vocabulary to describe it perfectly. Expansion Theory maybe the one or it may not. What I can say is that Expansion, String, and M theories all have one thing in common. That the universe's true nature is hidden from man's view. If correct then our road ahead will be long one if not endless one trying to picture things we cannot actually see.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CrimsonWolf:

Actually I personally believe there is absolute way to describe nature and processes. Problem is we lack the perception, language, and quite frankly the vocabulary to describe it perfectly.

YES! Check out the discussion about 'rational discussion' and give me your thoughts on what DoctorDick thinks. http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/3093-defining-nature-rational-discussion-10.htmlBoth what you say and what he says reference the tools for the job. At least, I think that's where he's heading. I feel he's pointing out another blindspot I might have. We all have them. But I get the feeling that he's implying that something we do creates them and that if we could get a handle on what that 'act' is, we'd not have as many. Also, I might be in over my head.

[repeater]

Hi Steve and other participants

 

Amazing that this thread is still going. Well THE theory has been out of my mind for a while, but here is a question for the burning fire:

 

If all "forces" are the result of expansion, does that mean magnetic and electrostatic as well? A sentence or two much appreciated!

 

Regards

[CrimsonWolf]

CrimsonWolf:YES! Check out the discussion about 'rational discussion' and give me your thoughts on what DoctorDick thinks. http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/3093-defining-nature-rational-discussion-10.htmlBoth what you say and what he says reference the tools for the job. At least, I think that's where he's heading. I feel he's pointing out another blind-spot I might have. We all have them. But I get the feeling that he's implying that something we do creates them and that if we could get a handle on what that 'act' is, we'd not have as many. Also, I might be in over my head.

 

Interesting. My view is more along the lines that I view humans and all life for that matter as the most advanced mechanisms ever created. Humans so far the highest level mechanism on Earth. Likewise just as computers have certain design limits, so do human beings. It's these in built limits that prevent us from grasping certain complicated concepts. Though I am extremely curious to explore what those mental design limits are.

 

As to those blind spots you referred too, it would be nice to be able get rid of them. :lol:

 

To many blind spots leave one stumbling through life and thought. :xparty:

[CrimsonWolf]

If I say that the Sun is just a pile of potheads smokin' it up, and what we're seeing is the sum total of a lot of lit doobies, that's my personal view and opinion. If I present if to the world at large, and specifically the scientific world, I will be asked:

"Where's the proof?"

"What does it prove?"

"Can your assumption make any predictions?"

"What experiments can we test it with?"

...etc., ad infinitum.

 

If I can't supply any of the above, or overthrow established science with what I have humbly called "The Final Theory", and a lot of people tell me that I am wrong am I being abused?

 

You shouldn't take criticism so personally, for dog's sake. Science isn't about ego. Science is about proof.

 

Expansion might just be the "Final Theory". But until I get the equations and formulas describing gravity and specifically orbits, I'm not convinced. There's a HUGE gap in this theory as far as orbits are concerned, and if it doesn't account for that, it doesn't account for gravity. Expansion of the Earth accounting for what we perceive as gravity is intuitive. But only as we sit flat on our collective butts feeling the ground sucking us down. It doesn't explain terminal velocity (a local home-grown example), or orbits.

 

Criticism as far as new theories are concerned is nothing new. But it certainly is nothing personal, either.

 

Terminal Velocity in Expansion Theory would pretty straight forward. As a object effectively falls (due to objects mutual expansion) through atmosphere the atmosphere molecules and falling object molecules interact via friction. Now remember the surface of a expanding planet is being accelerated upward accelerates into anything it encounters in surrounding space. So the atmosphere is accelerated upwards by the surface. Falling object gets slowed down when the pressure below the object pushes back equally to objects mass. Remember familiar kinetic force rule for every reaction there is a opposite reaction? This prevents object from getting accelerated any further, but does not stop the fall. The objects density is still greater than the surrounding atmosphere which allows it to still steadily go down at what is measured at a constant speed. Outer Space is empty enough that terminal velocity does not come into play very often except on planets that have atmospheres.

[CrimsonWolf]

Hi Steve and other participants

 

Amazing that this thread is still going. Well THE theory has been out of my mind for a while, but here is a question for the burning fire:

 

If all "forces" are the result of expansion, does that mean magnetic and electrostatic as well? A sentence or two much appreciated!

 

Regards

 

Perfect Timing! I have yet to discuss forces of nature in Expansion Theory version.

 

ElectroMagnetism:

 

Electricity would be non-atom bound electrons that rapidly expand from a high pressure source (battery or power grid) a long conductive path (or nothing getting in Electrons way) toward a source of low pressure source. Power runs out when electrons at both sources become equal and the flow or pushing of both sources become equal. The different pressures at the sources, is do to high pressure source has greater number of electrons than low pressure source. Static electricity happens when atoms gain from rubbing together more electrons than their internal volume can absorb, creating a electron cloud around atom.These extra electrons are outside the atoms boundary and therefore expand into surrounding space until they pushed back by another electron cloud of equal density. If it is lower density cloud or atoms that can absorb more atoms then the electron cloud of greater density pushes it back weaker cloud or gets absorbed into atoms of another object. If greater electron cloud then it is pushed back toward source. This creates static attraction we see when electrons of objects are basically in uneven number along a objects edge. When equal the clouds repel each other way. Static discharge happens when extra electrons are absorbed by near by object that has room for them. Obviously these electron clouds are still connected somewhat to object they radiate out from and therefore have limits to how far they can expand outward. This creates the observed weakening of attraction, due to further radiating farther into surrounding space. Finally the electron clouds that expand into each other also can cause spark of light as electrons flow into nearby object, which leads to next paragraph.

 

Light in expansion theory is made of groups of expanding electrons that are lined up end to end. Since they are lined up end to end this is the origin of speed of light. Electrons expand relative to atoms at speed of about 300,000,000 m/s or radial expansion of about 150,000,000 m/s. Light radiates outward due to vibrating atoms (caused by temperature or electrical current) pushing away electron clusters that gather from current or heat between atoms, into surrounding space via kinetic motion from atoms (bouncing electrons). The number of electrons clustered determine it's wavelength. The electrons mutual expansion and pushing from source keeps light beam moving through space. Since number of electrons end to end is same light stays at constant speed. Smallest clusters are in Gamma rays. The largest are in infra-red. Static electricity spark causes light do to fact that some of electrons in electron clouds combine together by expansion into clusters and are radiated away from cloud. Lightening happens in a similar fashion. Nuclear fission and fusion also causes light due to fact that as some particles are radiated away they are now basically light particles since they are also a cluster of electrons. Hence any free moving particles outside of atom that are electron clusters are also radiation.

 

Radio and Microwaves are different. They are caused by oscillating electricity either from stars or artificial means. Since electrons flow more freely on a surface than inside a object they also tend to spin around like a whirlpool along the surface which in turn is a magnetic field. The oscillating causes bands of electrons to be thrown off into space and similar to light each band pushes the next band creating radiating waves of bands of electrons. The oscillation present corresponds with frequency.

 

Magnetic field is object that is surrounded by tight bands of electrons that were drawn out by another magnetic field. The north end of magnet has more electrons than south end. Thus the electron bands start at north end and are effectively attracted to less dense south end. There is no motion of bands other than expansion so no heat is generated. Just like electron cloud of atoms the bands push away equally dense bands of other magnet of north/north or south/south end. Lower density south end of other magnet readily attracts north end of another magnet. ElectroMagnets happen due to current flowing through object flowing on outside make a field of bands of electrons. Since the electrons in this case are flowing heat is also radiated. The object in question needs to very conductive for the electromagnet to work.

[CrimsonWolf]

Strong Nuclear Force:

 

This would be due to expansion of electron. The electrons expand so rapidly (radially at 150,000,000 m/s) that pack very tightly together creating pressure through a group of electrons. However the apparent number or mass if you prefer of group/cluster electrons are not always arranged evenly which means pressure in uneven amounts can cause electrons to ejected out. No wonder then why electrons do not all simply expand to one giant clump. The groupings/clusters are more likely to break down the greater the number electrons present in particle (group/cluster).

 

Weak Nuclear Force:

 

This is when electrons or electron clusters are ejected from atoms or other clusters (particles). This happens either do unstable groups of electrons where pressure between electrons is uneven, or from particle collisions. It is formally called radiation.

 

Gravity:

 

The slow expansion of atoms do to electrons bouncing off and between atoms, keeps atoms apart. This effect also redefines space into two kinds. Atomic space and inner atomic space (or sub-atomic space). So the distance between atoms is different than the distance between sub-atomic objects. The bouncing electrons are the origin of kinetic force and also cause atomic expansion. The pushing point in matter is the center of mass where the density of a mass is greatest. Center of mass determines where all the matter of a object expands from or effectively pushes outward from. This creates the acceleration felt from gravity when objects come in contact. The larger the amount of mass in radial distance from center of mass, the greater amount of acceleration felt by objects of contacting surfaces. Lesser dense matter gives way to more dense matter. Super atoms and solids are the most dense forms of matter while plasma is the least dense form of matter. The most solid or dense part of a object determines the overall objects acceleration of objects on the surface. Hence stars and gas planets have less gravity than would a solid planet or object of same size. This expansion implies that all objects made of atoms have a slow increase of volume of about a millionth each second. Greater size objects then absorb or take up more space every second than smaller ones, plus factoring in density too. This follows the relationship of Mass and Volume to determine Density.

 

Another thing worth mentioning is that most motions that are not accelerating will appear to slow down as atomic expansion of matter decreases distances between objects. Atomic expansion however is accelerating motion that obviously increases with time. Which means several things:

 

1)All atomic objects will tend to move closer together as the pass one another. The closer the objects are the more the effect is noticeable. The farther away they are the more expansions of multiple surrounding objects will tend to interfere with the motion.

 

2)Once a object is given a motion that pass another body a orbit of typically elliptical in nature can result as long orbiting objects motion is greater than the orbited body's expansion and the direction of initial motion was parallel to the body. To slow and the object will spiral inward. To fast and the object will spiral away or arc toward another object as moves out into space. A balance between the orbiting motion and the body's expansion is essential for the orbit to be stable. The mutual expansion of objects' is what causes orbiting object to accelerate on closest approach of orbit. When orbiting object moves out to furthest distance of orbit from body, the object is slowed down by mutual objects' expansion. It takes artificial or direct force to form stable orbits. Otherwise objects will have unstable orbit or inward spiral toward a body. Stray objects cannot interfere with a stable orbit without either being quite large and close in distance or being large size and colliding. Orbits also effect other orbits if multiple orbits exist around a object(s). The size of some stable orbits within a larger orbit can act as if a larger object or smaller object there by effecting or even changing the overall larger orbit of smaller orbital system.

 

3)The orbits in a system will always tend to center which causes objects in orbits to change orbital path with time. This can appear as orbit change or at other times as a wobble in the motion.

 

4)Orbits slow with distance due to the effect of surrounding orbiting objects effectively slowing down object by mutual expansion as well the greater distance traveled. Likewise orbits move faster over shorter the distance due to orbiting objects being less affect by outside orbital objects mutual expansion and shorter orbital path.

 

5)Circular orbits are rare and require a perfect motion that counter acts body plus objects mutual expansion each second. Rotation as no effect on orbit. Curved objects naturally curve away from passing objects and help to create acceleration effect. While non-curved objects also have orbits. Farther away a object is, the more a orbited body seems smooth and curved.

[CrimsonWolf]

I shall return later!

[coldcreation]

I shall return later!

 

Dang it. Now I'm begining to think you are McC.

Keep it coming. I'm getting a good laugh.

 

CC

 

No hard feelings Steve.

[CrimsonWolf]

Dang it. Now I'm beginning to think you are McC.

Keep it coming. I'm getting a good laugh.

 

CC

 

No hard feelings Steve.

 

LOL! No I am not McC. I am probably the youngest guy here at only 26 years old. I didn't come claiming the theory is either right or wrong, just interesting. Like any science minded person I require evidence and strong experimental support to convince me a theory really works. Expansion Theory is really still in it's infancy in terms of development, so it needs work. So far it's been fun talking about the book. None of my friends or family care for science or theories at all. So had to keep the book to myself for at least 2 1/2 years. I talk to the author once in awhile by email to see what's new.

 

Personally whether the theory is accepted or rejected has little if any impact on me. Though it would be nice if the Final Theory is here. :evil:

 

Well anyway I am just science minded guy that looks at latest theories and info. Another good book I read was Hyperspace back in my teens. Been meaning to read Elegant Universe I think it's called? Right or wrong Final Theory got my old gears turning and forced me to get more intimate with Standard Theory to better compare the two. They are like oil & water do not mix well. However Expansion Theory is not supposed to plug into Standard Theory. It either is just another way of viewing things or it is completely stand alone theory that describes all known universe up to at least the sub-atomic levels. Beyond that is new uncharted territory.

[repeater]

Goodness, this is a lot of info. Thanks for your effort!

 

1.) I don't quite see the electron's expansion vs the atom's expansion. A few words more? For example when an electron flows down a cable, or when a photon flies from here to the moon.

 

2.) Do Maxwell's equations flow out of the expansion of the electron by first principles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

It is currently our best practical description of electromagnetics.

 

3.) How many constants of nature does THE theory suggest: Rate of electron expansion and acceleration of atomic expansion ?

 

4.) If atoms are composed of electrons, then I would assume an atom's mass would be a multiple of an electron's. If atoms are clusters of electrons, and photons as well...what is the difference between the two?

 

5.) Now that every major force is described...is there any equations? I would guess that the strength of the strong nuclear force would for example be predictable.

 

Regards

 

Strong Nuclear Force:

 

This would be due to expansion of electron. The electrons expand so rapidly (radially at 150,000,000 m/s) that pack very tightly together creating pressure through a group of electrons. However the apparent number or mass if you prefer of group/cluster electrons are not always arranged evenly which means pressure in uneven amounts can cause electrons to ejected out. No wonder then why electrons do not all simply expand to one giant clump. The groupings/clusters are more likely to break down the greater the number electrons present in particle (group/cluster).

...

[CrimsonWolf]

Goodness, this is a lot of info. Thanks for your effort!

 

1.) I don't quite see the electron's expansion vs the atom's expansion. A few words more? For example when an electron flows down a cable, or when a photon flies from here to the moon.

 

2.) Do Maxwell's equations flow out of the expansion of the electron by first principles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

It is currently our best practical description of electromagnetics.

 

3.) How many constants of nature does THE theory suggest: Rate of electron expansion and acceleration of atomic expansion ?

 

4.) If atoms are composed of electrons, then I would assume an atom's mass would be a multiple of an electron's. If atoms are clusters of electrons, and photons as well...what is the difference between the two?

 

5.) Now that every major force is described...is there any equations? I would guess that the strength of the strong nuclear force would for example be predictable.

 

Regards

 

Ok, I'll try to be brief this time:

 

1)Electrons expansion is more or less like a ripple in a pond according to the author. It's not exactly the same but similar for illustrative purposes. Like a ripple then the sub-atomic expansion moves at a consistent rate. However if this is just a coasting motion then if you could stand on a electron at first you would be crushed by severe acceleration. But if some how survived (no chance) once accelerated to same speed electron expansion then would feel like your floating in water or maybe air because the electron expansion is not accelerating.

 

The atom on the other hand is accelerating do to the fact of electrons (electron shell basically) bouncing off the atom. The outermost electrons at the height of the bounce define the edge of the atom. Pass that boundary is normal space as we tend to view it. The outer most electrons' individual expansion causes very small acceleration of overall atom, do the fact half of the electron within boundary of atom. The other half lies outside the boundary of the atom. This is no small bouncing either. Be like dropping a ball on Earth at the speed of light! Since the electron does not split like atoms but has tendency to have a property that allows to rebound, it bounces to height that would be like the ball just mentioned bouncing distance of a AU! Every bounce! If the electron did not have this rebounding property it would just stick to the surface of nucleus. Of coarse electrons expanding into each other is not like our every day experience. Imagine two cars colliding into each other at speed of light and they cannot shatter! Plus unlike a ripple wave, electrons don't pass through each other!

 

Using a little speculation I would venture to say that it is obvious the universe formation in Expansion Theory could not be uniform. Instead it would be clumpy. Single electrons and others in groups from the start. Hence why nucleus would have electrons bouncing in the first place. The single electrons never had a chance to form into group. Also would explain why there are small clusters that hard to separate further. Of coarse electrons can combine like in photons for instance under the right circumstances.

 

Atom's motion would consist of it's small expansion in addition to kinetic motion caused by electrons hitting it all the time. Any wonder they jiggle around and vibrate. Electron's motion like in particle beam would be groups of particles lined up. At the beam's source the particles are pushing of from it do to the expansion into space. The source's greater mass hardly moves while the particle beam rebounds in the opposite direction. Since the beam has more and more particles being fed into it from a power source the line of particles just keeps getting longer as they are basically pushed into outside space or a medium like air. The same expansion rate causes the speed light which only varies when a medium is in the beams way and slows it down as the beams gets bounced around by atoms electrons.

 

Oops! So much for brief statement. Anyway stray particles could zip around also from novas or other sources. Cosmic rays also come to mind, which could be really just stray light particles or other particles knocked by beams. Stray particle will move along for awhile but sooner or later it will collide into something as it's kinetic induced motion slows down and expansion causes it arc toward surrounding objects.

 

2)The author sadly only made one equation for theory. The equation only accounts for atomic expansion, and basically describes the simplest expanding motions of falling objects. Not bad start, but would have been nice to expand the the math further (pun intended:D ). I would personally like to make some equations myself. Not like I have a life or anything.:)

 

Standard theory currently has simple version of Maxwell's equations wrapped into one equation by simply taking into account four dimension instead of three.

 

3)Good question. Author does not list them all together, but mentioned possible few. I had to deduce them through logic. Electron should have expansion of roughly overall of 300,000,000 m/s or radial expansion of around 150,000,000 m/s based on constant speed of light. Second a electron does not pass through another electron. Third a electron is bouncy for lack of better word (what else could you label it?). So electron has just 3 properties.

 

Atoms properties obviously consist of accelerating expansion of .00000077% or 7.7 x 10 to the negative seven power each second. Second one would be obviously that atom can only have so many electrons bouncing from it at a time. Perhaps it is roughly multiple of electrons present in nucleus. Also all atoms no matter there mass have the same expansion rate. That means the expansion of say Hydrogen atom for example is the same for Uranium atom. Nucleus mass does not play into atom's expansion is why that occurs. But larger nucleus does mean greater interia, as larger nucleus has more bouncing electrons (has more muscle:lol: )

 

Constants would be Atomic Expansion, Sub-Atomic Expansion, Number of Electrons in particle, and possibly number of bouncing electrons. So total of about 4. All other numbers in nature should at some point come from one, some, or all of the above constants.

[CrimsonWolf]

Goodness, this is a lot of info. Thanks for your effort!

 

1.) I don't quite see the electron's expansion vs the atom's expansion. A few words more? For example when an electron flows down a cable, or when a photon flies from here to the moon.

 

2.) Do Maxwell's equations flow out of the expansion of the electron by first principles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

It is currently our best practical description of electromagnetics.

 

3.) How many constants of nature does THE theory suggest: Rate of electron expansion and acceleration of atomic expansion ?

 

4.) If atoms are composed of electrons, then I would assume an atom's mass would be a multiple of an electron's. If atoms are clusters of electrons, and photons as well...what is the difference between the two?

 

5.) Now that every major force is described...is there any equations? I would guess that the strength of the strong nuclear force would for example be predictable.

 

Regards

 

4) The difference between atom and other particle is mainly that atom has electron shell (bouncing electrons) and other particles do not. Also they have completely different expansion motions and rates. Otherwise they differ only by apparent mass. However, the differences grow into big ones real quick. Without electron shell/cloud a particle will not form molecules (no shared electrons), have no kinetic push, and no distinction from radiation. End up with large clumps of matter. Probably is what a neutron star is basically (not enough electrons to hold back sub-atomic expansion). Those are a few examples.

 

Supposedly in current views Atoms have less mass than the sum of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons that make them up. This attributed to Strong Force creating a binding energy that holds nucleus together, hence some mass is converted to binding energy. Although I do not know honestly if that is actually been measured or just assumed to make the equations work correctly. Standard theory has a lot of fudged constants to make it work that remain unconfirmed.

 

Anyway if atom does have less mass that sum of the parts then maybe the electrons that form the shell come from the nucleus itself! Remember that neutron decays into a proton (gives off some particles/electrons) when unbound to a atom. Therefore perhaps the electrons in shell are from neutron decay! Then again maybe not.

 

5)Only one equation unfortunately, that models falling objects by atomic expansion rate. I do not see any reason why not that a deeper equation starting with sub-atomic expansion could derive all others from it, or at least one equation for each expansion type.

 

The theory needs a lot of work, no doubt about it. At least brings four forces down to just one. Now if we could only figure out causes the one!:)

[CrimsonWolf]

Anybody else read that Relativity Challenge link by the way (little off topic yet still indirectly related)? Serious stuff going on there.

[CrimsonWolf]

Well I have described a lot of the theory in a nut shell. I have really tried to put a lot of the theory in everyday language the best I can. Also to respect copyright I have worded a few things not exactly the same as the author, but have stayed faithful to the original thought. Plus I added details when needed.

 

Expansion does not have or need the following:

 

No charge property

 

No spin property

 

No antimatter

 

No relativistic mass

 

No partial charge property

 

No gluon

 

No gravitons

 

No sparticles

 

No curved space

 

No time dimension

 

No 10-D strings

 

No membranes

 

Expansion does have the following:

 

Forces derive from a single cause

 

Quanta are basically electrons/clusters that either combine into groupings or ejected through decay from unstable particles. The smallest quanta is a single electron and number of electrons correspond to energy levels and other measurements.

 

Photon is just groups of electrons. Gamma the smallest grouping. Infra-red is the highest grouping. However certain unstable massive particles are possible although often short lived. Specific frequencies may due to particle vibrations. Intensity is simply the number of particles of light arriving each second.

 

Waves are are conducted by medium that consists of particles. Matter conducts waves and vibrations. Radio and Microwaves are waves formed of banded electrons oscillating as they move through space and require no medium as the are composed of particles in a wave motion. Oscillation corresponds to frequencies.

 

Uncertainty principle applies to particles do the fact they are often moving and being knocked around. Plus the rapid expansion factored in as well means they are constantly on the move and never passive point like objects. All factored motion creates effective blurring object whose precise position and speeds simply shift to much to be precisely plotted in space. At best only the overall average of where it blurs can be plotted as probability range. This applies to atomic diameter which also blurs to much to be measured exactly. This also implies atomic expansion although consistent is difficult to measure exact figure because of atomic boundary always shifting around chaotically although volume increase is the same, actual gravity (acceleration felt) might vary slightly in this conjecture I propose.

 

Quantum Leaps are when electrons either shift positions between particles or tend to get combined or separated from collisions. The electron in atom for example will bounce between nuclei and is not bound to atom or any other particle grouping. Electrons also will tend to fill any gaps in matter internal volume. This gives rise to electrical flow or magnetic fields as electrons will also expand easier through less resistant medium or through space.

 

Energy is simply electrons being regrouped or used to generate forces through natural or controlled process. It often involves electrons being moved from one location to another.

 

Matter is made groupings of electrons and so is energy.

 

Energy = Matter

 

Primordial Time = The rate at which all electrons expand. If it changes then so do laws of physics. Should it stop then all matter ceases to be. If it reverses then universe shrink and all particles would move away from each other.