The Final Theory

[Buffy]

I think we need formulas that work using different underlying priciples instead of just geometry.

Excuse me, uh...sir? Are you listening? What are those formulas please? We'd like to discuss them here!

 

Your response to Boersun above is the exact situation we're talking about: You are simply repeating what the book says, not responding to the issue that I and others have raised: you can say that the space between objects is expanding but you need to explain why it doesn't in different vectors than the 90-degree one you mention (which would require some of these equations that explain how objects "naturally" move in curved trajectories), nor why the pressure is only felt along this vector and only when in contact (search for my post on the helicopter somewhere way back in this thread).

 

What we're saying is that we're more than open to dealing with completely different paradigms of thinking, but none of the objections we raise has been met with anything more than vague allusions to different approaches and accusations of closed-minded thinking.

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.

Yep. Its called analytic geometry. And we can also throw in multi-variate calculus and differential equations to deal with complex multi-dimensional curves. Honest, some of us know a bit of math and can use that rather than innacurate visualizations to verify and understand things, that does not throw us at all. What we need is the equations to work with. The only ones I've ever seen are basically Newtons with some additions that don't have any effect of any kind on the results and aren't testable. To give a simple example, Newton says "1=1" and McCutcheon says "1=1+1-1": it doesn't tell us much of anything and its hardly "revolutionary."

 

Don't let us stop you, but really you need to move the discussion way past the basics of expansion theory's concepts and into the proof for us to be convinced. Saying we're closed minded is both false and disingenouous and makes even the most open-minded suspicious that there's no there there (I'm from Oakland so I can say that)....

 

Where's the beef?

Buffy

[CrimsonWolf]

I understand why people struggle with this. Expansion is not really the best word to describe this effect. Most people think of expansion think of giant stars or blowing air into a balloon. In other words people think of expansion in terms of a objects stretched over greater amount of space. Sort like blowing chewing gum.

 

However this not what happens in the theory described in the book when refering to atomic or subatomic expansion. The matter is not stretched at all. The matter exists in the first place because it's getting bigger all the time. This is refering to a property that the fundemental particle is basicly moving equally in all directions! The moving is called expansion because it desribes to some extent the overall size increase of a electron. Although it's more like wave ripple going in all directions. Each ripple being a individual electron. The individual electrons that makes up all other forms of matter are increasing size at the same rate. Since all other objects are made of these smaller particles, the size increase of the object in question differs by two factors. The density of the objects internal structure (it's mass basicly) and distance from objects edge to it's center of mass (aka size). Size is just refering to how many atoms or particles are lined up end to end in a object. Mass is just refering to the number of atoms or particles are present inside a object.

 

To put this so called expansion another way, electrons are increasing in mass! The electron mass is increasing at precise rate that we observe as 1c, the speed of light! Einstein was partially right, each electron has effectively infinite mass at the speed of light if it continues forever. But the electrons mass is increasing at speed of light into the surrounding space. Radially it would be only .5c. Objects keep the same relative size due to the fact that number of particles that make of the object and therefore mass is unchanged. The individual particles however are increasing mass (size) constantly.

[CrimsonWolf]

Excuse me, uh...sir? Are you listening? What are those formulas please? We'd like to discuss them here!

 

Your response to Boersun above is the exact situation we're talking about: You are simply repeating what the book says, not responding to the issue that I and others have raised: you can say that the space between objects is expanding but you need to explain why it doesn't in different vectors than the 90-degree one you mention (which would require some of these equations that explain how objects "naturally" move in curved trajectories), nor why the pressure is only felt along this vector and only when in contact (search for my post on the helicopter somewhere way back in this thread).

 

What we're saying is that we're more than open to dealing with completely different paradigms of thinking, but none of the objections we raise has been met with anything more than vague allusions to different approaches and accusations of closed-minded thinking.

Yep. Its called analytic geometry. And we can also throw in multi-variate calculus and differential equations to deal with complex multi-dimensional curves. Honest, some of us know a bit of math and can use that rather than innacurate visualizations to verify and understand things, that does not throw us at all. What we need is the equations to work with. The only ones I've ever seen are basically Newtons with some additions that don't have any effect of any kind on the results and aren't testable. To give a simple example, Newton says "1=1" and McCutcheon says "1=1+1-1": it doesn't tell us much of anything and its hardly "revolutionary."

 

Don't let us stop you, but really you need to move the discussion way past the basics of expansion theory's concepts and into the proof for us to be convinced. Saying we're closed minded is both false and disingenouous and makes even the most open-minded suspicious that there's no there there (I'm from Oakland so I can say that)....

 

Where's the beef?

Buffy

 

I agree. More math is needed than the one equation that describes falling objects. No scientist will take the idea seriously without a mathmatical language that descibes it's effects. However String theory and M theory have very complex math that look good on paper but are meaningless in every day language or everyday sense.

 

We need a common ground here. Expansion math models that are accurate, but easy to use or describe or build more complex theorums. Since the author did not provide these, that leaves us the science minded readers to build it ourselves. I am ready for it. Are any of you?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Crimsonwolf:

To put this so called expansion another way, electrons are increasing in mass!

Only if you equate mass to size, but I don't think you should. I'd say changing the number of particles in an object constitutes a change in mass.

I can't supply the mathematics to calculate any orbital mechanics because I don't know how. How do you do it when the frame of reference changes from moment to moment? When we use a fixed frame of reference, which we do now, we must account for the 'attractive' nature of the bodies by inventing a force that pulls them together.

To do what you ask, the attractive force must be removed from the equations and replaced with the effects of expansion. We aren't built to see it. That's the first problem. We don't understand all of the ramifications of what that means. That's the second problem.

Let's take the concept of velocity. It's distance per unit of time. Since it's described in terms of a fixed unit, that unit must change along with everything else over the time frame. So an object traveling in space without thrust has a velocity expressed in terms of distance per time. In 19 minutes that velocity has to cover 2 times the original distance in space to keep the same velocity. Do we say that its velocity actually increased? No. But how is it that it covers twice the original distance? How do we explain this simple problem first?

[Buffy]

However String theory and M theory have very complex math that look good on paper but are meaningless in every day language or everyday sense.

Actually no, they don't look good on paper: they have *huge* holes. Even the proponents describe the theory as "mostly incomplete." If you are using this to support Expansion theory, I hold both in the same regard: interesting ideas that don't have a whit of proof. Comparing yourself to m/string-theory does nothing to make Expansion legitimate, and given that there's a *lot* more math to go on, I'd still argue that m/string-theory is much further advanced and has a chance of going some place. Expansion is a groovy concept with seemingly *no* mathematical underpinning, so:

I can't supply the mathematics to calculate any orbital mechanics because I don't know how. How do you do it when the frame of reference changes from moment to moment?

You haven't played with Newton yet! Newton has all the same issues in "seeming complexity" due to things "changing moment-to-moment". This is called the 3-body problem, and in English, it basically is a problem associated with figuring out where three (or more for the "N-body" problem) masses are going to go given their gravitational effect on one another. The math for this is well understood, and while complex (and prone to giving "chaotic" although computable and verifiable results), we know how to do this. The forms of math I mentioned above are useful in figuring out what is happening in dynamical systems, and quite frankly, doing something along the lines of describing trajectories in expansion theory *should* be far easier than anything happening in m/string-theory!

To do what you ask, the attractive force must be removed from the equations and replaced with the effects of expansion. We aren't built to see it.

There ya go! That's it! That's what we're looking for! But ya know what? If you use math, you don't *need* to visualize it! m/string-theory folks are off working in ELEVEN dimensions, and they don't even try to visualize it: the number of dimensions is not even why the math in *that* theory is complicated. So lets be clear: if you do have the math, you don't need to be able to "see it in your mind" or "draw a picture", although quite frankly, its not going to be too hard to do so, and I'd offered some graphics earlier in the thread that show some of the basic internal inconsistencies in expansion theory earlier in this thread.

We don't understand all of the ramifications of what that means. That's the second problem.

That's pretty much tantamount to saying there is no theory. I've posed some ramifications that I believe lead to contradictions in the theory as I've understood it, the most recent posts by me--while seemingly in jest--were very clear indications of some of them. You need to think about these....

Let's take the concept of velocity. It's distance per unit of time. Since it's described in terms of a fixed unit, that unit must change along with everything else over the time frame. So an object traveling in space without thrust has a velocity expressed in terms of distance per time. In 19 minutes that velocity has to cover 2 times the original distance in space to keep the same velocity. Do we say that its velocity actually increased? No. But how is it that it covers twice the original distance? How do we explain this simple problem first?

Its called accelleration! Confusingly for the layman, accelleration is stated as "distance per seconds squared." Using calculus, the equation for accelleration is the integral of the equation for velocity, and conversly the differential of in the opposite direction. You can have accelleration of accelleration too! Calculus and differential equations handle this stuff quite well! A little education can take you a long way!

 

Leibnizian,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Expansion... sounds neat. Sure... Why not?

 

Got two words for you though:

 

 

Testable Predictions

 

 

Make some. Test 'em. If observation matches the predictions based on the theory, then we'll hold on to the theory until a better (more accurate and encompassing) one comes along.

 

If you cannot make a testable prediction, then that's just a little too convenient for my taste. :rainbow:

[CrimsonWolf]

Expansion... sounds neat. Sure... Why not?

 

Got two words for you though:

 

 

Testable Predictions

 

 

Make some. Test 'em. If observation matches the predictions based on the theory, then we'll hold on to the theory until a better (more accurate and encompassing) one comes along.

 

If you cannot make a testable prediction, then that's just a little too convenient for my taste. :rainbow:

 

The most testable observations that come to mind are:

 

1)Land a probe on the darkside of the moon. According to the theory you cannot tell surface gravity from orbit, but have to measure directly either by surface measurements or by measuring falling object acceleration. If the predicted moon surface gravity of darkside of moon is not the predicted 1/3G then Expansion Theory cannot explain moon graviy and hence is basicly useless. If prediction is correct then it would be the first theory in history to predict a gravitational effect that no other theory predicts.

 

2)If they ever manage to split a Quark into smaller units then Standard Theory is incomplete and Expansion theory would have evidence that even Quarks are groups of electrons.

 

3)Accelerate a particle past light. According to Expansion Theory you could do it possibly. However it would require a force other than a magnetic field! That does not sound to feasible right now.

 

4)You should be theoritically be able to send vibrations through light or any other particle beam.

[Buffy]

1)Land a probe on the darkside of the moon. According to the theory you cannot tell surface gravity from orbit, but have to measure directly either by surface measurements or by measuring falling object acceleration. If the predicted moon surface gravity of darkside of moon is not the predicted 1/3G then Expansion Theory cannot explain moon graviy and hence is basicly useless. If prediction is correct then it would be the first theory in history to predict a gravitational effect that no other theory predicts.

You might want to try to be clearer here, but given I've seen this example before, I'll respond (and actually I have a longer response earlier in this thread): Newton predicts that bodies that have uneven distributions of mass will have a stronger gravitation on the side that has the greater mass. In order to create greater "pressure" under expansion, that side of the object would have to be expanding faster than the other side, producing a more and more oblong shape over time, however we do not observe that. I have had expansion proponents object with "oh but mass does matter", which of course violates the basic precept of expansion.

 

Also, under expansion, you can only measure the pressure by direct contact, thus the requirement of this experiment being getting a pressure gauge to both sides of the moon (thus trying to make the experiment "hard" to do). We can measure the unevenness of the moon's mass distribution (which everyone can see because the same side of the moon always faces the earth), but also it has been very completely measured through perturbations in the orbits of spacecraft like the Apollo command module and other lunar orbiting craft. The gravity is uneven, and orbits have to be corrected for it, but since the Moon is almost perfectly spherical, this should not be the case under expansion.

All shapes of planet etc are maintained under expansion.

2)If they ever manage to split a Quark into smaller units then Standard Theory is incomplete and Expansion theory would have evidence that even Quarks are groups of electrons.

I'm not sure what this means, but Quarks have charges, and the Up, Strange, and Top Quarks all have a *positive* charge. If they were made with electrons--no matter how many there were--they'd still have a negative charge because all electrons have a negative charge.

3)Accelerate a particle past light. According to Expansion Theory you could do it possibly.

Maybe this would provide a weakness in Einstein's Special Relativity, but I don't see why this would be relevant to disproving General Relativity. I don't see how this would "prove" expansion, as there are other theories as to why you could accellerate a particle "past" light speed, and in fact SR really only says you can't go *at* the speed of light! Past might be a possibility, although one interpretations of SR's equations on this topic says the particle might move *backward* in time!

 

Now at the same time, you don't have to go *at* the speed of light to show the increase in mass as speed increases as predicted by SR, and in fact it is measurable and has been measured, and Expansion can't explain these observed effects.

4)You should be theoritically be able to send vibrations through light or any other particle beam.

Uh, you can: light is a wave phenomena and it can carry waves: the optical transmission lines we've been using for phones and the Internet for *decades* is built on this concept! What are you really referring to here?

 

Conversely,

Buffy

[detriech69]

Having read enough of 'The Final Theory' to run across some obvious errors even to my simple understanding of orbits, I wanted to share. The author goes into some detail of how expanding bodies in space would approach one another and even explains how when expanding they appear to begin orbiting one another, but then he stops before showing even one half of an orbit. If gravity or some sort of attraction between masses is illusion, then what makes two bodies revolve about a common center of mass?

I feel this book was only written to make a name and money for the author and stir up controversy, (as so many other books). While he has certainly done some serious homework to explain away all great ideas before his as incorrect or flawed, he certainly hasn't convinced me of anything. The whole notion may not be wrong, but it is also untestable. Convenient. If every atom in the universe expanded at precisely the same rate, how would we ever be able to prove it?

Am I wrong about his error in explaining orbits, or did I miss something? I must admit, I skipped around a bit after discovering this fatal flaw in his reasoning. By the way, this is my first post here.

[CrimsonWolf]

To Buffy:

 

(1)You obviously have not read the book. Expansion theory predicts the amount of matter from the center of mass, not the geometric center, produces the gravity felt. The greater the amount of matter from the center of mass the greater the gravity felt. The lesser the amount of matter from the center of mass the weaker the gravity felt. However the overall volume increase of all of the objects expanding matter would be the same as another object of equal size and mass, but with even matter distribution. The only difference between the two objects would be the different surface gravities. Easy to illustrate. Take 6,375 km long by 600 km wide tower in space. Expanding you would feel only about 2.454375 m/s acceleration on either of it's long ends. Stand at the geometric center and you would experience only 0.231 m/s expansion. Now put an amount of matter in dense form at 1/3rd of the tower that equals the mass of the other 2/3rds of the tower. Thus putting the center of mass at right between the 1/3rd and 2/3 sections. At Dense long end you would experience 1.63625 m/s acceleration. At less dense long end you would experience 3.2725 m/s acceleration. Yet the individual atomic expansion has not changed from 0.00000077 m/s acceleration. Just by changing the matter distribution a little in Expansion Theory and the surface gravity can start to vary greatly. Yet a orbit is concerned with overall shape and size of object and not it's mass. So this theory predicts any orbital measurements will detect only surface variations (non smooth surface) but not the expansion. Either you drop a object or measure surface force (weight of objects) to find the actual surface gravity/expansion. There is absolutely no other way to measure the expansion of the surface. Period.

 

(2)If you can split a Quark into lesser fragments with greater energies than have been previously used then it cannot be a fundamental particle. Higher energies will test this.

 

You obviously skipped my posts. There are no charges in Expansion Theory, it clearly states charges do not exist. They are misconception of the crossover effect of electron flow and electron clouds surrounding atoms. There are only about 3 properties for the fundamental particle (electron), none of which are like any Standard Theory particle property. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

 

(3)I am talking accelerating past light. Not hypothetical tachyons that already speed past light or light moving past c in some instances. According to Expansion Theory the only limit to acceleration or velocity is the method of propulsion and fuel needed to reach such high speed. Not to mention getting a object to survive long enough by slamming into stray particles at speeds high enough to cause nuclear fission!

 

By the way as of 2005 a serious mathematical paper was submitted that proposes large mathematical errors of the original prints of Special Relativity. If proven correct then SR has been wrong and miss used for the last century! This is not from the author of the book either. Someone brave enough to come forward and state SR's original print from Einstein broke several math laws and is incorrect. Look it up. Be interesting to see what happens.

 

(4)Physically hitting electron clusters (photons), to cause a deliberate vibrational kinetic motion down the entire light beam. Like knocking steal balls sort of. Theoretically then you could have FTL communication through light beams, because the vibration conducts through the particles in the beam faster than the beams motion! Well beyond light speed!

 

You quote Standard Theory and old Classical ideas like I am not familiar with them. Guess what? I do know them silly! I am familiar with: Thermo-Dynamics, General Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Classical Mechanics, Cosmology, and more. In no way do I claim to be the absolute master of them. But I am all to aware of their strong points and weak points. I didn't come here to discuss what I already know. I am here to simply to discuss a book I happen to enjoy, whether it is true or not. I maybe young, but I am not ignorant person. Far from it.

 

You discussing a book you have not read, is like going to book club discussion without reading the book in conversation! :rainbow:

[CrimsonWolf]

By the way GR is being tested by a orbiting satellite as we speak. It's checking for curved space.

[CrimsonWolf]

Having read enough of 'The Final Theory' to run across some obvious errors even to my simple understanding of orbits, I wanted to share. The author goes into some detail of how expanding bodies in space would approach one another and even explains how when expanding they appear to begin orbiting one another, but then he stops before showing even one half of an orbit. If gravity or some sort of attraction between masses is illusion, then what makes two bodies revolve about a common center of mass?

I feel this book was only written to make a name and money for the author and stir up controversy, (as so many other books). While he has certainly done some serious homework to explain away all great ideas before his as incorrect or flawed, he certainly hasn't convinced me of anything. The whole notion may not be wrong, but it is also untestable. Convenient. If every atom in the universe expanded at precisely the same rate, how would we ever be able to prove it?

Am I wrong about his error in explaining orbits, or did I miss something? I must admit, I skipped around a bit after discovering this fatal flaw in his reasoning. By the way, this is my first post here.

 

Hello! Welcome aboard!

 

Datalabs already mentioned this on the prior two pages. The orbits are not actual circle or elliptical paths. They just look like they are. Expansion dynamics do not work with Standard theory. The theories are two totally different ways of describing the universe. Expansion dynamics imply predictions and new math models utterly different than human experience. But Quantum Mechanics did the same thing, it utterly crushed classic views and took a generation to accept it. With hard work and patience, Expansion could possibly be a new theory that will bring down old thought and usher in a new. Remember Standard theory took decades to design and prove. Countless scientists refined it with time. Even now it is still about to altered yet again. Only time will tell if this new idea is the one we have all been waiting for.

 

The author has not earned a lot of money or reputation from the book. He simply printed it for lack of a better way to get into to public hands. Ideally he told me he would like to get it published on a larger and or more readily available scale. Recently he had a interview.

[DataLabs]

To start proving TFT, we need to do a lot of calculations on a graph. We should start with 2 circles for the moon and earth. Have them drawn to scale and increase their size according to TFT (0.0000007 R/sec). Also assume a 90 degree component of the moon to have a velocity that would tend to move the moon away from the earth. This would be the 4 d view. Now show the 3 d view by calculating where the moon would be given the assumed velocity at 90 degrees and don't show the expansion as an enlargement of the bodies but transform the expansion to reduce the velocity causing distance between the 2 objects by the incremental increase in each bodies expansion. If such a graph were drawn, it would show the moon orbiting (360 degrees0 around the earth as the graph progresses. This should be easy with a graphical computer program deigned for this special purpose. Example. Lets say the moon is moving away at 90 degrees at 25000 miles / hr. Plot the positions for this velocity, but subtract the expansion we know from the TFT theory would occur to arrive at a new position. I think a chart of values and a full orbit should have been done by McCucheon but since he didn't do it, we need to do it to prove the orbits make sense with the theory. It will take a lot of calculations, but that is what computers are best at...number crunching and resulting graphical display. Maybe I will attempt it.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy:

Its called accelleration! Confusingly for the layman, accelleration is stated as "distance per seconds squared." Using calculus, the equation for accelleration is the integral of the equation for velocity, and conversly the differential of in the opposite direction. You can have accelleration of accelleration too! Calculus and differential equations handle this stuff quite well! A little education can take you a long way!

Come on Buffy, don't do that. I'm fairly good at math. Stop with the insults. The problem I was trying to point out here is that we need to come up with an explanation of how expansion results in an underneath change in velocity. I don't have a problem with a car maintaining a velocity but I do with a spacecraft not under thrust. In other words, what's the physical explanation for the change in velocity that has to occur because 19 minutes from now it's covering 'twice' the space in the same amount of time. There's something fundamental to the theory in this scenario.

In the case of the car, everything in the car is getting bigger and its momentum will continue to apply its now larger wheels, etc. and its speed will remain the same. But the spacecraft is different. I have a blindspot here and need to get past it.

[detriech69]

Falling objects on the Earth are all well and good, but earlier a gravity map of the Moon was proposed to see if mass distribution was indeed measurable as differences in gravitational attraction. Well, unless I'm mistaken, there already exists such a map for this planet, Earth!

Also, please explain with more than one complete orbit using two objects of similar size going into orbit about one another in empty space. Use graphs and/or figures to prove to us how complete orbits can be explained w/o mass attracting forces and just expansion, please. If this can not be done to everyone's satisfaction with at least two orbits, Expansion theory must be wrong.

Thank you in advance and please show your work here and don't refer us to the book.

[Buffy]

(1)You obviously have not read the book.

Yep, but then I haven't read Einstein's original paper either: others have provided much better expositions of his theory. Mr. McCutcheon wants to keep his secret. Is it cuz he's poor? Does he really need the money? does he not have the marketing chops to realize he could make *much* more money if he just distributed it freely? Well, that's for another discussion: lets just say I think he's his own worst enemy in this respect... At any rate, you guys have provided most of it for free and I spent my $35 at Macy's instead...

Expansion theory predicts the amount of matter from the center of mass, not the geometric center, produces the gravity felt.

I know, that's what I've been told. I understand that the expansion is supposed to be at an atomic level, and more densly packed matter will expand more than less densly packed matter. Now that's precicely the problem, because if the more dense sections of mass are expanding faster, then they will *grow* faster than the less dense parts. That's why you really need to explain why some how magically this does not happen:

The greater the amount of matter from the center of mass the greater the gravity felt. The lesser the amount of matter from the center of mass the weaker the gravity felt. However the overall volume increase of all of the objects expanding matter would be the same as another object of equal size and mass, but with even matter distribution.

There since according to expansion, the *only* perception of gravity is the pressure due to expansion, if the growth of the entire sphere is the same on both sides then the pressure will be the same on both sides. However if the mass distribution is uneven and as expansion says, the more dense areas will expand faster than the less dense areas, then the two sides will grow at different rates and you will measure different surface pressures, BUT that also means that the sphere will grow into an egg shape! Here is the concept using Mr. McCutcheon's beam-in-space example:

Take 6,375 km long by 600 km wide tower in space. Expanding you would feel only about 2.454375 m/s acceleration on either of it's long ends. Stand at the geometric center and you would experience only 0.231 m/s expansion. Now put an amount of matter in dense form at 1/3rd of the tower that equals the mass of the other 2/3rds of the tower. Thus putting the center of mass at right between the 1/3rd and 2/3 sections. At Dense long end you would experience 1.63625 m/s acceleration. At less dense long end you would experience 3.2725 m/s acceleration. Yet the individual atomic expansion has not changed from 0.00000077 m/s acceleration.

To extend this, mark the half way point on the beam. Wait a minute, now measure the distance from each end to that marked point. If the accelleration at both ends is different, then that distance should have changed at *different rates*, thus the same (now expanded!) ruler will measure the distance from one end to the center as being longer than the other end does! Take your beam and put a sphere around it and you'll see that one side of the planet now has to have a larger radius than the other, making it egg shaped! Note that I'm using the same expanding ruler, the difference is in the rates of accelleration: if the sphere stays a sphere, its going to have the same pressure measurement on each side of the sphere or beam or whatever, but if they are different then the sphere or beam has to grow unevenly. You cannot have both of these be true at the same time, even when I use the expansion theory only, and have no dependencies at all on Newton or Einstein. Please let me know why this is not a contradiction, because its certainly not obvious!

So this theory predicts any orbital measurements will detect only surface variations (non smooth surface) but not the expansion. Either you drop a object or measure surface force (weight of objects) to find the actual surface gravity/expansion. There is absolutely no other way to measure the expansion of the surface. Period.

Right, and that's why its so confusing to try to come up with how orbits of satellites work under expansion: their orbits are obviously affected by the distribution of mass and the expansion, but according to this, they should be following a curved path that is not dependent upon anything more than the distance to the surface of the object that is expanding toward them. Can you explain why we observe these perturbations when you say that for orbiting objects distribution of mass *does not* have an effect?

There are no charges in Expansion Theory, it clearly states charges do not exist. They are misconception of the crossover effect of electron flow and electron clouds surrounding atoms. There are only about 3 properties for the fundamental particle (electron), none of which are like any Standard Theory particle property. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

Cool! Can ya tell us what they are? How is charge generated by "electron flow"? Can you create a positive charge by reversing the direction of the flow? What causes positive charge in protons? Do they flow too? Please explain further.

I am talking accelerating past light. According to Expansion Theory the only limit to acceleration or velocity is the method of propulsion and fuel needed to reach such high speed.

Cool. But how does expansion theory explain that particles accellerated in linear accellerators to very large fractions of the speed of light experience increases in mass exactly as predicted by Einstein? What Einstein predicts is that mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, and the experiments follow the curves his equations predict. To do what you say, expansion would have to have some kink in the curve at a point past what we've observed. Is there an expansion equation relevant to this?

By the way as of 2005 a serious mathematical paper was submitted that proposes large mathematical errors of the original prints of Special Relativity. If proven correct then SR has been wrong and miss used for the last century!

Would love to see the link to that! The irony of course is that of course there are further advances yet to come that will obsolete SR (you'd be an ignoramous to claim otherwise), but the fact of the matter is that that theory still has to explain what we observe, and SR's predictions have a perfect track record and it is "the most tested theory in the history of science" according to many.

(4)Physically hitting electron clusters (photons), to cause a deliberate vibrational kinetic motion down the entire light beam. Like knocking steal balls sort of. Theoretically then you could have FTL communication through light beams, because the vibration conducts through the particles in the beam faster than the beams motion! Well beyond light speed!

And what is the reason for the fact that we don't observe this? These bits you're reading right now just travelled over some light beams! This is really well understood, production infrastructure. Is it invisible for some reason? Can you propose a test to make it appear?

You quote Standard Theory and old Classical ideas like I am not familiar with them. ... I didn't come here to discuss what I already know. I am here to simply to discuss a book I happen to enjoy, whether it is true or not.

As I said to ld above: don't take it personally: the problem is that you're not really discussing how the theories interact, being just as dismissive of the "old" ones as you claim some of us are, and thus you come across as not really understanding them or their implications. No one is asking you to take them at face value, but you do seem to want to dismiss existing experiments *without* saying how the expansion theory both replicates observations *and* is demonstrable and superior to the existing theories.

 

I may be "old" but that does not mean that I'm "stuck on the old theories". :rainbow: I hope you can see that in virtually all of my posts I seek to avoid any argument of the form "that can't be true because it disagrees with Newton's/Einstein's *theories*." What I do insist on is that if you're going to be arguing a theory, it should *agree with experimentation*, and when the only response I get is either "its would require an experiment we can't do now" (which usually turns out to be false), or "we can't perceive it because our perceptions are altering along with the effect," then you're avoiding the contradiction rather than explaining it, thene you're really doing yourself a disservice in pursuit of the truth and look more like a "believer" than a "scientist." :rainbow:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Erasmus00]

By the way as of 2005 a serious mathematical paper was submitted that proposes large mathematical errors of the original prints of Special Relativity. If proven correct then SR has been wrong and miss used for the last century! This is not from the author of the book either. Someone brave enough to come forward and state SR's original print from Einstein broke several math laws and is incorrect. Look it up. Be interesting to see what happens.

 

I've attempted to look this up. Can't find a paper in any journal, etc of the kind you describe. I'd appreciate a link.

-Will