The Final Theory

[CraigD]

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.

Indeed. The sketch needs a clear “not to scale” label.

 

This is my first attempt to use images in Hypography – hopefully, the quality will improve over time, as I better learn presentation techniques. B)

 

Returning to the subject on hand:

If we’ve agreed on this first, simple example, I think we can move on to a prediction that almost immediately causes some readers to reject the expansion model.

 

First, a review of what we’ve established about the expansion model so far:

1. Observed phenomena, such as the ball-toss described in post #475, are due to the expansion of objects;

2. Large object expand faster than small ones, so for the ball-toss, the expansion of ball-size objects can be ignored.

 

Now let’s add the troubling prediction:

3. The earth’s radius at the moment we tossed the ball, is about 6375 km. This can be measured in a number of ways, including, in principle, rolling a small ball in a straight line around it until arriving back at one’s starting place, counting the rotations, and multiplying the count by the radius of the ball.

4. The ball is expanding so slowly that we can ignore it’s, while the Earth is not. So, if we measure the Earth’s radius by this method, and get the expected 6,375 km result, then repeat it some time later (eg: 1 day = 86400 sec), expansion theory predicts we will get a larger result.

5. If this increase were so small as to be undetectable, there would be no trouble. However, to explain the observed acceleration of the ball in our example (about 10 (m/s)/s), the increase must be at least 37,324,800 km ((A/2)*T^2 = 5*86400^2 meters) !

 

This is wildly at odds with observed phenomena! Something is, therefore, wrong with the expansion model, as I have stated it so far.

 

My hunch is that, to get past this first failure, we must discard the assumption that small objects (eg: the ball) expand at a much lesser rate than large ones (eg: the Earth). In addition to predicting the observed ball-toss phenomenon, the model must predict the observed Earth radius measuring phenomena described here. In short, our measuring device (the ball) must be expanding at about the same rate as the Earth, and the measurement of its motion must be made using the same measuring device.

 

For those who have given serious thought to TFT, this difficulty is likely to be old and familiar. I invite such folk to provide the next step. Otherwise, after a day or 2, I, with my less-than-complete understanding of TFT, will attempt the step myself.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CraigD: 2.

Large object expand faster than small ones, so for the ball-toss, the expansion of ball-size objects can be ignored.

Be careful here, this is where Beorseun kept getting confused. Big objects expand at the same rate as small ones. The ratio of me/2 to x is the same as the earth/2 to 10m/sec^2. Me:Earth as x:10m/sec^2. x is there but it is really, really tiny. My size will increase proportionately to the earth's expansion. So to me, the earth will remain the same size and vica versa.

 

....I see you arrived at that later in your response. B)

 

What is the next step you'd like to take?

[CrimsonWolf]

Cool stuff guys! I would like to point that the atoms are all expanding at same rate. Larger object has more mass and hence absorbs more volume each second than a smaller and less massive object. I draw falling objects by using 19 minute increments and far distances. Every 19 minutes atomic objects double in size. This method helps me visualize easier.

[CrimsonWolf]

Indeed. The sketch needs a clear “not to scale” label.

 

This is my first attempt to use images in Hypography – hopefully, the quality will improve over time, as I better learn presentation techniques. B)

 

Returning to the subject on hand:

If we’ve agreed on this first, simple example, I think we can move on to a prediction that almost immediately causes some readers to reject the expansion model.

 

First, a review of what we’ve established about the expansion model so far:

1. Observed phenomena, such as the ball-toss described in post #475, are due to the expansion of objects;

2. Large object expand faster than small ones, so for the ball-toss, the expansion of ball-size objects can be ignored.

 

Now let’s add the troubling prediction:

3. The earth’s radius at the moment we tossed the ball, is about 6375 km. This can be measured in a number of ways, including, in principle, rolling a small ball in a straight line around it until arriving back at ones starting place, counting the rotations, and multiplying the count by the radius of the ball.

4. The ball is expanding so slowly that we can ignore it’s, while the Earth is not. So, if we measure the Earth’s radius by this method, and get the expected 6,375 km result, then repeat it some time later (eg: 1 day = 86400 sec), expansion theory predicts we will get a larger result.

5. If this increase were so small as to be undetectable, there would be no trouble. However, to explain the observed acceleration of the ball in our example (about 10 (m/s)/s), the increase must be at least 37,324,800 km ((A/2)*T^2 = 5*86400^2 meters) !

 

This is wildly at odds with observed phenomena! Something is, therefore, wrong with the expansion model, as I have stated it so far.

 

My hunch is that, to get past this first failure, we must discard the assumption that small objects (eg: the ball) expand at a much lesser rate than large ones (eg: the Earth). In addition to predicting the observed ball-toss phenomenon, the model must predict the observed Earth radius measuring phenomena described here. In short, our measuring device (the ball) must be expanding at about the same rate as the Earth, and the measurement of its motion must be made using the same measuring device.

 

For those who have given serious thought to TFT, this difficulty is likely to be old and familiar. I invite such folk to provide the next step. Otherwise, after a day or 2, I, with my less-than-complete understanding of TFT, will attempt the step myself.

 

That is the point. In Expansion Theory each object is increasing in size at the same percentage. The percentage is plus 0.00000077% each second. Example:

 

I drop a orange (5cm diameter) from a height of 4.9m. The apple floats in space and increases size like this:

 

Time of experiment: 1 second

 

Orange Radius = 2.5cm

 

2.5 x 1.00000077 = 2.500001925 cm or increase of 0.000001925 cm to radius.

 

Diameter increase would be 5.00000385 cm. However to you and me it looks just the same.

 

Earth estimated radius 6,375,000 meters according to your example.

 

As apple expands 0.000001925 cm toward Earth, the Earth expands as well.

 

6,375,000 x 1.00000077 = 6,375,004.90875 m or increase of 4.90875 m to radius.

Diameter of Earth increased by 9.8175 m or total new diameter of 12,750,009.8175 m

 

The result is the Earth expanded by same percentage as the orange, although they appear to have the same relative size as before. However now the orange lies on the ground as the Expanding ground moved upward 4.90875 m toward orange, overcoming the distance of 4.9 m at the start of this thought experiment. No motion here accept the expansion of the objects in question. To keep the orange on the ground with a applied force, the expansion of both objects is accelerating which we measure as weight. Otherwise the orange would seem almost weightless if the expansion were just a coasting motion.

[CrimsonWolf]

Above experiment assumes no wind resistance. Of coarse the Earth's surface accelerates the air up toward orange and results in creating drag for the orange. This happens due to air molecules kinetic force (bouncing electrons) and motion effectively pushing orange upward from Earth slightly. If the orange were dropped from much higher distance then terminal velocity would keep Earth and orange from accelerating closer. Instead the orange would basically "sink through the air" at specific velocity that is non accelerating. The much more dense orange just sinks through the less dense surrounding air. If the orange were more flat then the air could push up on orange more evenly and result in lift. However sphere shape allows air to move around orange as it rises upward.

[DataLabs]

We cannot negate our own expansion or a small balls expansion when figuring these problems. One of the important concepts is that all matter including people expand at the same accellerated rate so that we cannot perceive any expansion. So, when you figure a beginning point of reference for the size of 2 objects in space, and then figure the increase in size an increment later, you may decide how much mption the rim of the planet expanded by the effect of falling bodies, but you would not be able to express the new sizes in our apparent world. This is because our yard sticks are changing exactly at the same expansion rate. So if we say that the earth is 25,000 mile diameter now, we can say that the earth is 50,000 mile diameter 19 minutes later.

 

But we cannot measure the change in the actual diameter. It will seem to be unchanged. Our yardsticks all grew to twice their size in the same 10 minutes. So, we can only see the apparent effects, such as the force or weight of an object on the surface of the planet or how fast the surface accelerates toward the other body that seems to be falling. These optical illusions are our actual reality. This is what causes orbital curves and complete orbits as the apparent result of the inapparent expansion. That's why the inapparent expansion is a different dimension that is handled mathematically by Einstein and as space-time.

 

Space time warping cannot be seen and is considered the 4th dimension. I assert that that is actually the effect of the expansion. IE. Expansion is gravity! Expansion is the so called warping of space. Space seems to warp because of mass expanding into it. I think if we could see from outside the universe with a special human body that was not expanding and seeing from eyes that were not expanding, we would see all objects and heavenly bodies expanding at a rate of doubling their size every 19 minutes. We would see objects orbiting actually traveling in straight lines near each other while expanding. They would not collide because they have some 90 degree component of velocity to each other that stops their expansion from making them collide.

 

It kind of blows one's mind to realize that what seems like an orbit of the earth and moon in our 3d view would actually look like 2 bodies moving parallel to each other in mostly a straight line through the universe as seen in a 4d view.

 

What we need to study this is a computer program that would try to look at this expansion effect from both the 3 d view a comparative 4 d view. You would need to make the program cause the effects that we do see, but not the expansion itself. This will take a very mathematically savvy person who is also great at programming a PC using graphical models. it is unfortunately beyond my scope, but I bet there is someone in this forum capable of starting such a project. We must show that there are formulas based on the expansion parameters that yield the same results of Kepler, and Newton for slow less than relativistic velocities.

[Boerseun]

I put to you the following:

 

Expansion doesn't explain orbits. A circular orbit is simply impossible through the units in the system 'expanding'. Saying that the maths behind it explains it, doesn't mean anything unless you can put it forward and explain it. I can also say that the Sun is powered by a bunch of crazy rabid bunnies, their combined body-heat making the Sun shine, and explain it with complicated maths. Doesn't make it true, though.

 

Expansion doesn't explain why bodies don't expand into each other. Why isn't the Earth and the Moon touching? Simple. Because expansion is bunk.

 

Expansionists hold that all objects expand at the same rate. Imagine a cubic centimeter. Let's say that's the base unit. If expansion happens at the volume of the base unit doubling every minute (for the sake of the argument), then after a minute, the cube will be 2cc. But the sides won't double, right? If the outside dimensions doubled, then the volume would be 8cc after a minute. Now, imagine you have a cube of 1 cubic meter, consisting out of 1,000,000cc's. Put next to it a single cc cube. After a minute, you'll have a 2,000,000cc cube, and a 2cc cube. Because all elements are expanding at the rate of the base unit (double the volume per minute), it should be clear that visibly, big stuff will become bigger. This will be a testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable experiment: Look at Jupiter and its moons. See if Jupiter is growing, compared to its moons. It turns out its not. Why? Because expansion is bunk.

[Buffy]

Expansion doesn't explain orbits.

They say that things "naturally" move in curved paths. The curves seem change when they are near expanding objects, but since this is an optical illusion, there are no equations that could actually predict the movements that include the expansion, but just by coincidence, you can use Newtonian equations because they work, although they hide the "real" effect of expansion. So the real equations are irrelevant. Stop asking for them.

I can also say that the Sun is powered by a bunch of crazy rabid bunnies, their combined body-heat making the Sun shine, and explain it with complicated maths.

Of course there are bunnies behind the sun! See, there's this massive conspiracy by the entrenched anti-bunny establishment that prevents the Rabid Solar Bunny theory from being taken seriously by the mass media. They just hate me because I'm beautiful.

Expansion doesn't explain why bodies don't expand into each other.

Because there's something that happens the instant that you are no longer in physical contact with the other body (I think I got that right). So expansion does not affect the moon because it isn't touching the earth and the space between them is expanding because they're not touching, but when I'm touching the earth, THEN its expanding into me and me into it so I feel gravity, but this can only occur along the vector extending between you and the center of the earth and not say, drive you into the lamp post you're standing next to because the expansion is selective based on the angle due to the fact that everything moves in a curve, and that's why Galileo's balls-on-ramp experiment works the way it does. Also the expansion theory is the *only* way to explain why if you jump up and touch the ceiling that you end up staying glued to the ceiling. At least that's how Peter Parker explained it to me: but I think he's hiding something from me (not that I care because he's such a good kisser!).

 

Who needs math when the effects can't be percieved?

 

Tomfoolery,

The Amazing Buffy

[Boerseun]

Thanks, your Most Excellent Buffness. I think I'm gettin' it now.

 

Also, super cool to meet another Bunnyist.

 

But hang tough - this site is extremely prejudiced. They will hunt us down and persecute us, they will not see the truth of the Solar Bunny Theory.

 

But we're right. Simply 'cause we know. We'll show these 'the Sun-is-shining-because-of-nuclear-reactions' crowd a thing or two!

 

Fission? Bah!

[Buffy]

Shhhhh! Quiet! We don't want to let all the secrets out about how the Solar Bunnies do their stuff! The originators of the theory should get their just compensation for their ideas!

 

Those of you who are interested in the Final Bunny Theory, please go to http://www.finalbunnytheory.com. For *only* $30 we will let you in on the secret that "they" don't want you to know about! We accept MC, Visa and Paypal!

 

Fifty Cents, Cheap!

Buffy E. Neuman

[Boerseun]

Good thinking, Buffy!

 

However, I do think we should give an initial chapter away for free, just to hook'em. I mean, think about it: A kazillion bunnies writhing and hopping and jumping and generally working up their body temperature until they begin to glow at a few thousand degrees C explaining the luminescence of the Sun, is intuitive, after all. And based on it being intuitive, it must be true.

 

So - what say we donate the first chapter, and make the suckers pay for the rest?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Ah, the guardians of knowledge have arrived, swinging the same swords they've been swinging since we started this. Hey Beorseun, Buffy, we're over here. You're swinging in the wrong direction.

You fail to consider the possibility that we are discussing and you still have not latched onto the concept. So you make fun of the idea.

If proof is provided that shows McCutcheon is correct, what will you do then? To what level of stupidity will you have to sink to apologize for your ridiculous and childish behavior?

Or will you just say, "oops. Never mind."?

Beorseun, guru, put down your bottle of beer for 10 seconds and consider the possibility being discussed. Buffy, your world view is too crystalized to change. You've got everything stacked nice and neat and this would mess it all up. Fine.

And by the way, guys, we're discussing the possibility and ramifications if the theory holds true. We aren't worshipping at the alter of McCutcheon. We're considering the possibilities.

You haven't latched on to that little tidbit either.

The more you behave like that, the more I am convinced McCutcheon is on to something.

[Boerseun]

Relax, Steve. Nobody's making fun of you. We'd actually love to join in the fray, but apparently McCutcheon wants an entrance fee.

 

We can't say anything about "The Final Theory" except for what we've been generously given in the first chapter.

 

And we have to use that knowledge to try and fit it, not into our 'personal world views' or any such thing, but into daily, observable facts. And it don't mesh. Therefore, I'm pretty skeptical about what is so humbly referred to as the "Final Theory".

 

Understanding that expansion would be dependent on the expansion rate of the base unit, and also understanding the difference between expansion in volume and expansion in physical dimension would show to a three-year old that objects of different physical size would expand at different rates. In other words, Jupiter will grow faster than its moons, making it observable very quickly. If I place a soccer ball and a marble on a table, the soccer ball must keep on stretching faster than the marble, seeing as the base unit in both of them is expanding at the same rate.

 

It's bunk.

 

And its useless conjecturing or 'discussing' a 'what if' scenario based on the possibility that McCutcheon is right, because he's not. Heck - there might be a different alternative to gravity as we understand it today, but it most definitely is not 'expansion'.

 

Besides - who says the Solar Bunnies are not real?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

Understanding that expansion would be dependent on the expansion rate of the base unit, and also understanding the difference between expansion in volume and expansion in physical dimension would show to a three-year old that objects of different physical size would expand at different rates. In other words, Jupiter will grow faster than its moons, making it observable very quickly. If I place a soccer ball and a marble on a table, the soccer ball must keep on stretching faster than the marble, seeing as the base unit in both of them is expanding at the same rate.

You're wrong here Beorseun. the table is expanding too. the distance between them is expanding but so is the ruler that you'd measure it with. Can't make it more plain than that.

[Buffy]

the table is expanding too. the distance between them is expanding but so is the ruler that you'd measure it with. Can't make it more plain than that.

...except when its not! As I tried to make plain in my posts way back up above, in order for expansion ot explain the "pushing" effect *and* maintain distances between objects, its got to expand space when you're "not touching" and expand it when you are, and I've yet to see the explanation of why that happens or why it even makes any sense. That is indeed why I took the liberty of spoofing it in (this post - 5 and - 7). The response to that has simply been "that's interesting, I'll have to think about that" or more unrelated arguments.

 

What we're trying to get you to understand here is that its actually quite fine if you want to continue to promote the idea (there are those who wanted to close this thread long ago, but some of us have kept it open, and you'll notice its also been kept out of Strange Claims: if anything, its being given special treatment here), but in science, you really have to defend your ideas in the public arena: its been shown all too often that those who want to keep their ideas "in the club" are hiding the fact that those ideas do not withstand scrutiny.

 

Don't let us stop you ld! But do be aware that this is just the scientific method at work, and while we'd all like to believe its all polite and decorious, people who don't like to follow the rules get hit with a wet noodle sometimes. Its really a lot less vicious than what my kid has to deal with on the school yard or the wacko partisan stuff going on over in Social Sciences! You take it personally and you're sure to be unhappy, so don't: its really not directed at *you*...

 

Playing the dozens,

Buffy

[DataLabs]

I put to you the following:

 

Expansion doesn't explain orbits. A circular orbit is simply impossible through the units in the system 'expanding'. Saying that the maths behind it explains it, doesn't mean anything unless you can put it forward and explain it. I can also say that the Sun is powered by a bunch of crazy rabid bunnies, their combined body-heat making the Sun shine, and explain it with complicated maths. Doesn't make it true, though.

 

Expansion doesn't explain why bodies don't expand into each other. Why isn't the Earth and the Moon touching? Simple. Because expansion is bunk.

 

Expansionists hold that all objects expand at the same rate. Imagine a cubic centimeter. Let's say that's the base unit. If expansion happens at the volume of the base unit doubling every minute (for the sake of the argument), then after a minute, the cube will be 2cc. But the sides won't double, right? If the outside dimensions doubled, then the volume would be 8cc after a minute. Now, imagine you have a cube of 1 cubic meter, consisting out of 1,000,000cc's. Put next to it a single cc cube. After a minute, you'll have a 2,000,000cc cube, and a 2cc cube. Because all elements are expanding at the rate of the base unit (double the volume per minute), it should be clear that visibly, big stuff will become bigger. This will be a testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable experiment: Look at Jupiter and its moons. See if Jupiter is growing, compared to its moons. It turns out its not. Why? Because expansion is bunk.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Boerseun.THINGS DO EXPAND INTO EACHOTHER WHENEVER THERE IS A COLLISION AND IT APPEARS THAT SOMETHING FELL INTO SOMETHING ELSE. WHEN IT COMES TO ORBITS, THERE WAS AT SOME POINT IN TIME A 90 DEGREE COMPONENT OF MOTION OF THE MOON TO THE EARTH AT AN ESCAPE VELOCITY THAT MAINTAINS A STABLE ORBIT. SO, AS WE ENLARGE, WE CANNOT SEE THE RAISING OF SIZE ON anything since all of our measuring sticks are also enlarging proportionately and our yardsticks enlarge, our eyes enlarge, etc...Our eyes double in size each 19 minutes just as does the moon and sun and earth and all matter. We cannot see the size difference at all. Imagine a room and everythin in it doubles in size including you. You would not notice a single change -- your chair would still be the same size and so would your TV, etc...Nothing would appear to change at all. If you measured the chair, it would be the same -- maybe 6 feet long since the yardstick would have doubled in size too. i thought we would be through understanding this basic of expansion theory by now.

 

So even though the moon is moving away, it always appears in a stable orbit since the mutual expansion balances the motion.

 

The nature of the expansion is that the radius of any object big or small expands at an acceleration of .0000007 times the radius per second. All of our yardsticks do too so we cannot see that we are further from the moon as we both enlarge since our eyes double in size every time the earth doubles in size. Any yardstick follows suit. So, Yes, when we think of time passing, we can think of the current and future and past state of the expansion of all mass in the universe with no ability to see the expansion. Everything always remains in perfect scale. As the sun doubles, so does Jupitor and so does the earth and moon. It is simply or not so simply the property of matter to expand just as electromagnetic waves expand since matter is a type of electomagnetic wave, but is bound in a tight binding to make it matter form of electomagnetic fields.

 

So while the electromagnetic fields expand at the speed of light, matter type fields expand at a rate of double their radius -- not volume each 19 minutes in a slow gradual expansion. So since we cannot perveive that, we see the results of it in different ways. You are thinking Newtonian and need to open your mind to see this. So I think your debunking is way off the mark.

 

Also, I would like to discuss that the smallest expanding particles, probably electrons are actually boucing at the speed of light off the nucleas of atoms and being caught time and again by the protons and boucing again to slowly enlarge the atoms. Who knows? Maybe we even age because of the continuous expansion of our bodies from the time we are born and maybe there are quantum fluctuations that cause the aging condition over time..

 

Another interesting thing about TFT is that when we say the speed of light is x amount/sec, the yardstick is constantly changing as the speed of light is only perceived to be constant while always expanding to keep up with the expanding universe. So, 1000 years ago, the universe was like a postage stamp compared to today and the speed of light was soooooo slow, but since it is all relative and we never perceive it, there is no consequence to the change in scale as time rolls on.

 

And for orbits, if the moon didn't have the required 90 degree escape velocity component from the beginning, it would not be in orbit now to talk about. it would have left its orbit to go out into the solar system or toward the sun or collided with earth. When you throw a ball up in the air, the distance between the ball and the surface of the earth does indeed collide as you said in the beginning of your very close minded debunking.

[DataLabs]

They say that things "naturally" move in curved paths. The curves seem change when they are near expanding objects, but since this is an optical illusion, there are no equations that could actually predict the movements that include the expansion, but just by coincidence, you can use Newtonian equations because they work, although they hide the "real" effect of expansion. So the real equations are irrelevant. Stop asking for them.

Of course there are bunnies behind the sun! See, there's this massive conspiracy by the entrenched anti-bunny establishment that prevents the Rabid Solar Bunny theory from being taken seriously by the mass media. They just hate me because I'm beautiful.Because there's something that happens the instant that you are no longer in physical contact with the other body (I think I got that right). So expansion does not affect the moon because it isn't touching the earth and the space between them is expanding because they're not touching, but when I'm touching the earth, THEN its expanding into me and me into it so I feel gravity, but this can only occur along the vector extending between you and the center of the earth and not say, drive you into the lamp post you're standing next to because the expansion is selective based on the angle due to the fact that everything moves in a curve, and that's why Galileo's balls-on-ramp experiment works the way it does. Also the expansion theory is the *only* way to explain why if you jump up and touch the ceiling that you end up staying glued to the ceiling. At least that's how Peter Parker explained it to me: but I think he's hiding something from me (not that I care because he's such a good kisser!).

 

Who needs math when the effects can't be percieved?

 

Tomfoolery,

The Amazing Buffy

 

I think we need formulas that work using different underlying priciples instead of just geometry. Sure, well get the same formulas, but we'll get them in a different way that would help prove the underlying expansion theory. For example, each circumference of an object would be expanding, but that would have to be transformed into the relative motion of the 2 objects since the expansion could not be seen in the 3d view. But working the equations for the 4 d view and transforming them into the 3 d view should yield the same results as the original formulas which are not really based on physics but just pure math. Even Newton didn't believe of a force of gravity at a distance. it just seemed to work.