The Final Theory

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Nice job Crimson. I would have liked to have spoken to many of the issues you've covered but I just didn't understand them well enough to do that. I still don't. I have a crippled visualizer. :evil:

One point I've been trying to drive home on other threads is that time, like gravity, might be just an effect. I open my eyes and see only now. I close them, reopen them, still just 'now'.

I believe from considering what McC has said that time exists only in our heads and only because we have the facility to retain 'a second ago' and compare it with 'now'. i.e. we detect change. But our sense of time might be the reaction to a phenomenon that happens only inside our noodles.

If true, that might be a little premature to talk about I suppose. I suspect it will be met with even more resistance than gravity-as-an-effect. You used 'primordial time' and if my recall is correct that references that phenomenon inside the atom where behaviors are 'not of this universe'. Is that about the gist?

I just looked at what I said. hmmm. our brains might have a primordial aspect to them.

[CrimsonWolf]

Nice job Crimson. I would have liked to have spoken to many of the issues you've covered but I just didn't understand them well enough to do that. I still don't. I have a crippled visualizer. :)

One point I've been trying to drive home on other threads is that time, like gravity, might be just an effect. I open my eyes and see only now. I close them, reopen them, still just 'now'.

I believe from considering what McC has said that time exists only in our heads and only because we have the facility to retain 'a second ago' and compare it with 'now'. i.e. we detect change. But our sense of time might be the reaction to a phenomenon that happens only inside our noodles.

If true, that might be a little premature to talk about I suppose. I suspect it will be met with even more resistance than gravity-as-an-effect. You used 'primordial time' and if my recall is correct that references that phenomenon inside the atom where behaviors are 'not of this universe'. Is that about the gist?

I just looked at what I said. hmmm. our brains might have a primordial aspect to them.

 

Yeah basically primordial time refers to electron sub-atomic expansion rate. Since sub-atomic clocks at a specific rate, that rate plus any change to it would effect all of the universe. In Expansion Theory since all matter results from expansion of electron, then all of our known reality is shaped by primordial time (sub-atomic expansion rate). Past exists only as data stored in our minds. The future exists in the imagination. The present is the constant we live in, and is where all matter/energy reside within space. Neither the past or the future exist in any sort of space and therefore are remembered/imagined but never traveled to. Besides to reverse time in this theory would cause electrons to shrink instead and all particles would break down. The universe would fragment apart! Likewise going to future would speed up all expansion hence change physical properties and likely breaking down particle groups into smaller groupings.

 

Time travel and relative time do not exist in Expansion Theory. It is possible that gradually the sub-atomic expansion was once greater (universe beginning) rate and then slowed through the ages. As the rate slowed the particles would more readily group together. There are some observations being checked out that suggest perhaps nature's constants may have different in the past. Expansion gives a reason as to why that may be the case of it holds true under investigation.

[CrimsonWolf]

Sorry about repeating message. Been having technical problems.

[CrimsonWolf]

Board has got quiet.

[CrimsonWolf]

I have attempted to answer post but browser does not show as posting on the board. Darn technical problems. Darn quantum mechanical windows! :)

[CrimsonWolf]

Testing post.

[CrimsonWolf]

Well I covered most of the overall aspects of Expansion Theory. Read the book as they say to find out the rest, if some you have not already. I will address other questions/comments if requested.

 

So what about Black Holes in expansion theory? A black in expansion theory is burnout star that no longer has enough fuel for fusion. Hence the overall mass is greater than expanding plasma can push against and the object effectively compresses into solid configuration. A dense object like a neutron star can result, although it's surface gravity is quite weak due to the matter being compressed into smaller compact form. Remember size and center of mass in Expansion Theory effect overall volume increase. The amount of matter has not changed but is spread over smaller space do the collapse of the star. If the object is massive enough it will compress into super dense disk and internal pressure of the disk will eject jets of electrons in the form of X-Rays. This Black Hole will not have a super gravity like in GR. Rather it would be considerably weaker and uneven being in disk shape. It would however become rather wide and most likely spin quite rapidly. The jets result from the internal pressure of the compressed matter. The jets easily escape the disk as the expansion of the disk is no where near the speed and expansion of the X-Ray beams. Super massive Black Holes (more like a Black Disk) could result in galaxy center as has been observed or perhaps very large dense neutron star. Since the over all galaxy center rotates as if one object the central disk or neutron star must be extremely large to influence so much matter in the core.

 

Big Bang would likely not occurred either as the matter in expansion theory would have started in uneven distribution from the start. The creation event instead would have been when Electrons starting expanding. The Doppler shift in Expansion theory is caused by motion Radio and Microwaves. Infra-red through Gamma are beams and not effected by motion and hence no Doppler shift. To cause Doppler shift in light beams the beams either must be effected by high surface expansion from large stars or by passing through mediums. Such a effect has been observed and is called the Compton effect, where light is red-shifted by passing through materials. What happens according to Expansion Theory as light passes through matter it can gain electrons in the clusters and change the light shift. Effectively the material absorbs some of the light and radiates the resulting heat through the red-shifted light. The red-shift indicates the light has passed through other matter, but does indicate motion. Therefore only particles expand but the overall universe of galaxy structure is not expanding from single point. Instead matter/energy just drifts through space and tends to cluster into large groups do to matter/energy expansion.

 

This idea of universe structure is very different than current popular thought.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Quite a bit different. What we need is some solid proof that expansion is taking place. Until then we'll only have discussions about the possibility of the theory being correct. and that's good but best would be proof. Then the conversations will be a lot more serious.

I think perhaps that some people have accepted it as a slim possibility but one that requires proof before they jump on board. Personally, to me it makes just as much sense as anything else, more actually. So I'll be on board until I see proof to the contrary.

[CrimsonWolf]

Perhaps a list one some the main theories predictions should be listed? I can probably whip a few, the help would be nice in case I forget something. I am only human after all.:hihi:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

That is a great idea, thanks.

I'll help if I can.

[Khan N. Singh]

thank God this thread went to 47 pages before I got here :) so i can just agree with idsoftwaresteve and crimsonwolf at the end of it without having to wait through all of it :rolleyes:

[CrimsonWolf]

OK Expansion Theory testable predictions:

 

(1)Electron is the fundamental particle. Using higher energies in colliders should test how durable electron really is. If it split into still smaller particles then Expansion Theory and Standard Theory both would have a weak position as to explaining it. New models would need to be reconstructed. So far no electron has been observed to decay or shatter into smaller particles.

 

(2)If a particle decays or shatters then it should give off smaller particles. This has been observed. Expansion Theory would expect this, but Standard only models Weak force without suggestion of it's origin.

 

(3)If a objects mass is not distributed evenly internally then variations in surface gravity should result. The Moon is nearest body where this is predicted based on curtain data. Landing on Dark-side of Moon will verify or disprove this. The cost of a probe is considerably less than particle accelerator tests.

 

(4)Universe matter should be non-uniform. It should be lumpy and often in clustered form. Observed universe is extremely lumpy. Standard theory and GR are unable to explain lumpy universe.

 

(5)If the electron is smallest particle and therefore unit, then all matter measurements of energy and mass should occur in discrete amounts or increments. Standard theory labels this quanta but does not explain why quanta occur. Direct evidence of this so far are: Photons, Fission, Fusion, Atoms, Particles, Light, Radio waves, Micro-waves, Chemical properties, and various unstable particles.

 

(6)Number of electrons in particle determine particle stability. Observations so far that give some evidence include various particle decays and stable particles. Most particles by far are unstable. The most stable include Proton, Electron, and Quarks. Masses greater than Proton tend to be unstable. More observation needed.

 

(7)Orbits should shift and move around attempting to center. Evidence includes the planets orbits that actually move and change position somewhat through time.

 

(8)The farther light has to travel through or near matter, the more Red-shifted it becomes. Evidence of Red-Shifted light from distance sources is innumerable.

 

(9)Super dense disks can give off jets of radiation. Evidence observed so far is black holes, galaxies, radio galaxies, and quasars. Possibly Gamma Bursts could be or not be related.

 

(10)T range in electromagnetic spectrum that in Expansion Theory defines the differences and boundary of spectrum between Infra-red and micro-waves. Currently in standard theory this T range is unexplained. Evidence observed is the fact light and micro/radio waves are produced very differently.

 

(11)A object that moves away from a star, planet, moon, or system will eventually begin to slow down and be attracted back do to expansion catching up to objects motion. Unexplained in GR. Evidence observed are Pioneer spacecraft that have been measured at reducing distances, as if they are being pulled back by the Solar System despite their motion.

 

Those are a few testable ideas I can think of. There are many more. Go ahead name some off if any come to mind.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Nice job, wolf. Now I guess we wait.

 

You picked up on quite a lot more than I did from reading the book.

 

The alternative to the Big Bang, the slowing down of expansion to the point where the current 'physical laws' came into being (and the implications of that) are the most fascinating part of McCutcheon's theory for me now.

 

the expansion of the universe is currently assumed. Just drifting about, seems to be more natural in a common sense sort of way. The red shift argument is carrying a lot of weight.

 

Why 'slowing down'? Why not 'speeding up'?

[DataLabs]

I am beginning to see the TFT picture. The orbits are quite simple when you open your mind. Einstein said it in the following paraphrase: The 4th dimension is space - time. he said that a body traveling in a straight line in space-time is actually traveling a curved path in 3 dimensions. What he didn't realize is that the 4th dimension he called space time is actually atomic expansion. He said the 4 th dimension of space time was actually moving through the 3 perceivable dimensions to cause gravitational effects. He was correct, but it was not space time. It is expansion. We cannot perceive expansion since we are all expanding at the same accellerated rate. This is just like another dimension that we cannot perceive. But, we do perceive it in different ways. The obvious way we perceive it is that as time-space "flows", it is really expansion over time that is occurring and our inability to detect the expansion in the normal way that our senses operate. We do feel the earth pushing up at us at an accelerated rate (g) causing a force upon us equal to our mass x g. Einsteins equivalency priciple clearly stated this as well. IE. What causes a force upon us is always an acceleration indistinguishiable from gravity. An acceleration is a change of velocity and this change must be the same then as gravity. So, something is accelerating us on the planet surface to cause this force we call weight, so it must be actual acceleration of the planet surface upwards toward us that causes the force upon us. Now to orbits: If a ball is thrown on earth, it appears to fall as an elipse rather than the straight line in which we seemed to propel it. So, we threw the ball in a "straight line" but because of expansion of the surface of the planet, the ball APPEARS to fall in an ellipse. So, as far as Einstein was concerned, we threw the ball straight in the 4th dimension of space-time, but in our perceived three dimensions, it took a curved path. TFT says that curved path is a result of the earth coming up to the ball faster and faster at every moment of the balls trajectory. If we threw the ball straight up, it must come down. if we throw it at an angle fast enough, as the earth comes up at it, it is also moving away from the earth because of the earth's curvature away from it. if it is thrown fast enough, it will continue to circle the earth since at any given point in its travel, the earth while expanding is also curving away from it given its fast motion around the earth. To do this the ball must be thrown at escape velocity. Now let's picture this ball to be the moon orbiting the earth. Sometime in the past, the moon was thrown at a right angle to the earth at an escape velocity and as it travels in a straight line past the earth, it and the earth are expanding. But, they are both curved so the apparent motion without its 90 degree component of trajectory is to approach the earth. But since it has the 90 degree component of motion, it apparently pulls away from the earth in spite of the earth expanding to catch up. So, even though the moon is actually traveling in a straight line it appears to be in orbit. And appearance in this case is our perceived reality. To make this clearer, imagine the earth cut into 12 segments like a clock. with 12 oclock at North and 6 oclock at the south, three oclock at 90 degrees (East), and 9 oclock at 270 degrees (West), etc... Lets start the ball rolling (the moon) at 12 oclock at a ninety degree motion Easterly. It is traveling in a straight line in that direction. The earth is expanding and so is the moon. Since we don't perceive the expansion, we can only perceive the moon closing in on the earth (curving toward 1 oclock) but it's velocity is escape velocity so it does this at almost the same rate that the curved earth arcs away from the moon and just as the curved moon arcs away from the earth. So, the moon reaches 1 oclock. it appears to have arced its way to 1 oclock even though it was going straight. Now at one oclock, the moon continues its straigh line journey , but the earth and moon are still expanding while the moon is still traveling at a ninety degree angle to the line extending from 1 oclock. So the moon and earth are again closing in on one another so the moon is approaching 2 oclock but again the high velocity of the moon permits its curvature and the earths curvature to arc away from each other at about the same rate that the expansion is drawing them nearer. again the perceived motion of the moon is to arc toward 2 oclock. Notice that the earth is making an elipse or a circle under perfect conditions around the earth. This same process contiues from 2 ocolck to 3 ocloc, from 3 to 4, 4 to 5, etc...until it again reaches 12 oclock. So, it is in orbit and all it was doing the whole time is traveling in a straight line just like the ball we threw on earth that appeared to move in an eliptical motion. they were both always moving straight, but the geometrical relation of them while both expands creates the appearance and actual perceived reality of the orbital motion. We could say that the curved space time that Einstein speaks of is actually the expansion that we as expanding beings cannot perceive and so perceive the consequences of that reality as orbiting bodies. So, Einstein and McCucheon as I see it are actually on the same page, but in reality, the somewhat magical 4 th dimensional space time that Einstein purveys instead of being a curvature of space is actually the curvature of expanding bodies in relationship to each other and our only ability is to perceive the result of the expansion, but not the expansion itself, thus allowing bodies traveling in straight lines over time to be perceived as gravitational. In other words, gravity is the perceived effects of expansion - not space time and thus expansion is gravity. Imagine 2 heavenly bodies next to each other. TFT says that they grow nearer to each other since they are both expanding. Einstein saw this as the space-time in between them warping or curving to make them closer. it seems a lot more reasonable that TFT is correct and that empty space is just empty space while the massive bodies take up more and more space due to their constant expansion. I have just shown in a thought experiment how the moon makes it from due north to 1 oclock, to 2 oclock and so on back to 12 oclock again in an apparent orbit. The dynamics discussed that cause this do not happen in 12 incremnents as described however. instead it happens in a smooth transition movement constantly balancing between expansion and a straight line adjacent motion causing an apparent orbit. Now i know that the moon doesn't travel around the earth in that direction but actually moves more like around the equator, but it is easier to visualize as described and then can be appreciated since to see the real moon earth orbital relationship, you merely need to turn the entire system by 90 degrees which changes nothing with respect to the actual straight line motion that the moon is on and the perceived orbit it actually achieves. To summarize, Einstein saw an imperceivable 4 th dimension called space time that flows with time across our 3 perceivable dimensions, and TFT sees that 4th dimension as the imperceivable expansion of all heavenly bodies, matter, and organisms alike. It is difficult to imagine something going in a straight line ending up appearing and in actuality to curve, but that's what the ball thrown on eart does and thats what the moon does, and that's what all heavenly bodies do. They appear to curve instead of going straight because of the geometrical and dynamic expansion relationship they have to each other. Some people on this forum cannot see the orbit occuring. if they follow the above logic, they will see that every movement proceeding from 12 ocock North to a perfect orbit is a gradual process that never changes much from one increment to another and thats why the entire orbit occurs. This is only my second posting, and I think that TFT is real and logical. As far as expanding atoms being far fetched, I don't think it is as far fetched as curved space, yet accomplishes the same peceived affects without nearly as much reliance on unseen an unproven magical forces. I believe that all particles in space are actually waves of electrons just like radio waves, but their frequencies and other bundling characteristics and our nature allows us to perceive matter as matter rather than the bundles of waves they really are. And like all radio or magnetic spectrum, matter type waves as i will call them also ripple and travel through the universe in a never ending expansion just as light from a source expands out in every direction. When bounded in a bundle we see as matter, the expansion is much slower, compared to waves that are unbundled, but ever constantly expanding at an accelerated rate. So the cause of gravity is expansion and the cause of expansion is the basic nature of waves. So atoms are bundles of electrons, and electrons are bundles of tiny waves and wave nature is to expand and that is the final theory! I am not as some may suspect McC. I have read the book 3 times and the more I think about it the more ramifications come to mind and i suggest that anybody who has not read the book who is reading this now -- READ THE BOOK. It is very enlightening and offers an opportunity to all the scientists of the world to prove or disprove the theory and if proved to bring us into an entirely new world of enlightenment scientifically speaking. I am sorry for how long this post is but it was required to finish the needed thought process just as MCC has stated many times that his entire book is actually required to fully enlighten the reader. After reading this book several times, i see that he is right and i don't believe it is to sell books, but to give science in a stranglehold of conflicting ideas a new direction of reality. http://hypography.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

Smile

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Welcome DataLabs. Thanks, nice post. That is the longest paragraph I have ever seen. :lol:

I liked your connecting space-time-warp with expansion. I've thought the exact same thing for some time now and to the extent that I understood it, I considered Einstein's warping to be exactly what you described. In other words, he was right on it but just attributed it to the wrong thing.

I think that in retrospect we'll find that there were other cases where the truth was hidden by an optical illusion, where the thinker was right on the money but just took the wrong turn.

[CraigD]

While this thread continues to draw a steady number of posts, I believe the discussion has become “polarized”. People who believe McCutcheon's theory post to support one another in this belief, while those who do not, post, with decreasing frequency, to attempt to dissuade those who do.

 

TFT appears to be a large, comprehensive body of work, endeavoring to describe every physical phenomena. To facilitate discussion, I think it’s necessary to focus on a single, well-defined part of it. I propose we focus, in a step-by-step manner, on TFT’s use of “expansion” to explain the motion of bodies, compared to classical Physic’s use of “gravity”. Examined in a very idealized way, I think this can quickly expose an area where the believers and disbeliever reach a major disagreement, and guide the discussion toward a consensus agreement.

 

For an starting example, let’s consider the motion of an ordinary ball thrown directly upward from near the surface of the Earth with a velocity (relative to the surface of the Earth) of about 10 m/s. Observation reveals that 1 sec later, the ball has a velocity of 0, and a height 5 meters greater than initially. 1 sec later, it has a downward velocity of 10 m/s, and has returned to its initial height.

 

According to the gravitational model of classical Physics, this is due to a nearly constant force of gravity effecting a nearly uniform downward acceleration. Because Acceleration = constant / distance between the center of the earth and the ball ^2, and 5 meters is not an appreciable fraction of this distance, we can consider this acceleration to be constant.

 

According to the expansion model of TFT, it is due to a nearly uniform increase in the velocity with which the earth is expanding of about 20 m/s. Since TFT predict that a small object such as a ball expands at a lesser rate than a large one such as the earth, we can ignore the expansion of everything but the earth in this example.

 

(see the attached image for a sketch of these 2 models’ explanation of the observation in question)

 

Can we achieve a consensus that this description is sufficiently accurate for both theories? If not, how can we change it to be accurate?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Thanks CraigD. Very good idea.

I would agree with your representation of the ball and the earth. I wasn't able to see the drawings very well but I think I got the gist of it. The only thing I'd reflect on is the representation of sizes and how small the actual expansion is over time. As shown, it implies a much larger effect than is actually there. Relative to the radius of the earth, the expansion is quite small each second. I think that confuses some people (it did me). The brain runs with the representation and draws the wrong conclusions.