The Final Theory

[Buffy]

Buffy: Come on Buffy, don't do that. I'm fairly good at math. Stop with the insults.

Really not trying to insult you ld! I'm explaining how it works hopefully so that we can bring it to bear on the problem at hand, so I'm with you here:

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 would like to get a model of that too. What I've been able to glean is that the expansion itself is at an accellerating rate, so that takes care of the fact that the measurements of the pressure show accelleration. But accellerated motion under the application of a force is a separate issue, I agree, but if I'm sounding "simplistic" its because we have to find some common ground on some basic observational issues on the basics of motion:

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.

To be clear, are you talking about accelleration of a falling body near a mass? In intergallactic space where you are a long way from any mass, you should see objects moving with constant velocity (within your reference frame), and they should not appear to accellerate at all. I'm goint to assume that you'd agree with that, but let me know if you don't because we need to talk about why it wouldn't.

 

On the other hand, I'm completely clueless about how this increase in velocity occurs as you get closer to a mass under expansion: It sounds like it has something to do with the "motion is naturally curved" concept (which would be violated by the "object moving in intergallactic space" observation by the way), and that its just a perception of accelleration due to the curving (although why it would always curve *toward* the object is also unclear to me if the attraction of the mass has nothing to do with it), but having never seen any math associated with explaining this motion, its hard to know where to start.

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.

Even under expansion, the basics of relative motion and speed should be *perceptually* the same, since *everything* is expanding including the space between objects, so its not that the car is accellerating in order to maintain "apparent" velocity. Of course this is one of those cases where the "expansion cancels out any perceivable change" comes up, so its hard to show what might be happening here on a level surface. I know that there's the notion that as you go up and down a hill you start to have to wonder what's going on. Why do cars roll down hill at an accellerated rate? According to expansion, as you go down hill, there's less atomic matter expanding between you and te center of mass, so the pressure should decrease and as you go uphill it should increase because there's more mass. Of course if you measure the pressure at sea level and at the top of Mount Everest, you'll see the opposite, and with the car, there would need to be something about the expansion that caused it to speed up as you moved toward the center of mass.

 

As I've mentioned before, I really don't understand why this contact with the surface thing works in the theory. The observations we have about spacecraft in motion show theres a strong correllation in motion between masses that are close, which due to the contact issue, should not be there. There's no reason for a spacecraft to curve one way or another if the only effect is expansion, but that's what we always observe.

 

There may be something I'm missing here, so please feel free to expound upon this.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Okay - let's cool it down a bit...:rainbow:

 

Just as another case in point:

 

'Expansion', being a static increase in physical dimension, won't explain what we perceive as 'gravity'. What we'd need for that, is an accelerating form of 'expansion'. If the surface of planet Earth was 'expanding' at a static rate, we wouldn't feel gravity at all, seeing as we would be moving outwards at the same rate as the surface. The surface needs to accelerate for us to feel gravity. And that being the case, the surface would need to accelerate since the formation of the planet. In other words, planet Earth's surface would've broken the light-speed barrier very soon (af few days) after formation, accelerating at a constant 1g.

 

This doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Cheers.

[CrimsonWolf]

Okay - let's cool it down a bit...:rainbow:

 

Just as another case in point:

 

'Expansion', being a static increase in physical dimension, won't explain what we perceive as 'gravity'. What we'd need for that, is an accelerating form of 'expansion'. If the surface of planet Earth was 'expanding' at a static rate, we wouldn't feel gravity at all, seeing as we would be moving outwards at the same rate as the surface. The surface needs to accelerate for us to feel gravity. And that being the case, the surface would need to accelerate since the formation of the planet. In other words, planet Earth's surface would've broken the light-speed barrier very soon (af few days) after formation, accelerating at a constant 1g.

 

This doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Cheers.

 

But in Expansion Theory light is not a barrier at all, SR rules do not apply in Expansion Theory Model. The expansion as I have previously mentioned is accelerating motion. Not a coasting motion. I am not sure if the subatomic expansion is static or accelerating the book does not clearly say. Atomic expansion however is stated as accelerating.

[CrimsonWolf]

Hey Buffy!

 

For the record I am neither Expansion Theory, Standard Theory, or any other theory supporter.

 

I am just stating what the Expansion theories logical consequences are. Following the model to it's conclusion. Then I will be ready to hammer the thing for all it's worth like some critics have. You have to look at the whole picture before you look at the art piece. :rainbow:

 

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/index.htm

 

There the SR link. I just saw it recently by accident. Found Final Theory in a similar way when I was not even looking for it!

 

The Relativity Challenge may or may not prove right. Einstein is known to have had basic problems with math. So it does not surprise me that perhaps he made some mistakes that only a sharp eye would spot. It's not like anyone has ever tested the twin paradox for real or anything. SR limits for particle accelerators may be do properties of matter we do not understand. Don't forget Quantum Theory claims we shape reality and our experiments by trying to observe nature! We may have gotten results because that is what we sought from the beginning.

 

I will get to your questions as soon as possible. Sayonara.

[repeater]

Okay - let's cool it down a bit...:rainbow:

 

Just as another case in point:

 

'Expansion', being a static increase in physical dimension, won't explain what we perceive as 'gravity'. What we'd need for that, is an accelerating form of 'expansion'. If the surface of planet Earth was 'expanding' at a static rate, we wouldn't feel gravity at all, seeing as we would be moving outwards at the same rate as the surface. The surface needs to accelerate for us to feel gravity. And that being the case, the surface would need to accelerate since the formation of the planet. In other words, planet Earth's surface would've broken the light-speed barrier very soon (af few days) after formation, accelerating at a constant 1g.

 

This doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Cheers.

 

Good day Seun

 

I've seen you ask questions along these lines a few times, and it seems you may not have gotten satisfactory answers before.

 

If I interpret your main themes correctly:

 

Q: If the Earth is expanding in an accelerating fashion why does it not promptly collide with the Sun (or Jupiter)?

A: Well, the question can be asked about the theory of gravity as well. Why doesn't the Earth fall into the Sun? The reason it because it is in orbit, and its tangential movement is so that it continues to fall around the sun. The same principle applies.

 

Q: If everything has accelerated expansion, would everything soon be expanding faster than the speed of light?

A: Apparently so. The speed of light is a result of electron's expansion, which in turn influences atomic expansion. So really the measurement metrics like "speed of light" scales together with everything else. Expanding faster than the speed of light is therefore not really something we need to worry about :rainbow:

 

Just one thing: The problems that TFT face is that is incredibly vague and deceptively paradigmatic, but the fact remains that it is still well thought out. The guy spent his entire life working on this thing, and by his words that I've read he seems quite lucid and intelligent. A good piece of fiction at least.

 

So this may all be a just-so story that is entirely useless, but I do believe you will find it to be *coherent*. So instead of ending posts with something similar to "omg i've read the first chapter, this is so bunk" like many have done, why don't we ask questions and increase our understanding? It is a good mental exercise to discuss speculations that describe things in a completely different way. Look at the world in a new light for a day or two.

 

Regards

[repeater]

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.

 

I do not understand why this gravity difference would result, but why don't we consider the Earth/Sun system and measure the gravity at the "dark side" of the Earth?

[repeater]

I have four things to say about the theory: two objections and two complements.

 

Objections:

a) Tides. We've previously discussed this and the fact that the tides and the Earth/Moon/Sun system is so intricately linked that it cannot seriously be explained by a sustained primordial "wobble".

 

:angel: Erasmus' lunar range experiments. Even though I've tried, I'm afraid I don't understand this issue exactly.

http://hypography.com/forums/75235-post379.html

 

Complements:

a) I've never liked the idea of an action over a distance Newtonesque "force" as found in gravity et al. With no further explanation attached. Messenger particles or space time curving as explanations just doesn't do it for me. Well now we still have a mysterious but unified "expansion" instead of the various "forces", but it just makes better intuitive sense to my brain, not that it may be worth much :rainbow: The theory is a good explainer, yet remains a bad predictor.

 

:Guns: It's pretty. I want to see a science fiction series with Expansion Theory as the underlying universe physics. Then instead of worrying about stupid warp drives of TOS vs TNG, scifi geeks can ponder final theory all day long. And perhaps actually discover something useful at the end of the day! :rainbow:

 

Regards

[CrimsonWolf]

I do not understand why this gravity difference would result, but why don't we consider the Earth/Sun system and measure the gravity at the "dark side" of the Earth?

 

Newton's laws would predict the Moon to be about 1/4th Earth's gravity. However it is measured at 1/6th. This explained as the moon being less dense than the Earth.

 

Expansion Theory's alternate explanation is the matter in the Moon is not less dense but unevenly dense. In other words the near side is more dense than the far side. Since the center of mass in not at the Moon's geometric center the matter pushing off from center of mass results in uneven expansion accelerations experience. Simply put the radius from the center of mass is short on the near side and longer on the far side. The far side would have 1/3rd Earth's gravity. They average to the expected overall 1/4 Earth's gravity. I realize this is odd, but it is testable. Quantum theory makes even weirder predictions yet is backed by experiments. So just something seems odd does make it right or wrong. It has to be tested.

[CrimsonWolf]

I have four things to say about the theory: two objections and two complements.

 

Objections:

a) Tides. We've previously discussed this and the fact that the tides and the Earth/Moon/Sun system is so intricately linked that it cannot seriously be explained by a sustained primordial "wobble".

 

:angel: Erasmus' lunar range experiments. Even though I've tried, I'm afraid I don't understand this issue exactly.

http://hypography.com/forums/75235-post379.html

 

Complements:

a) I've never liked the idea of an action over a distance Newtonesque "force" as found in gravity et al. With no further explanation attached. Messenger particles or space time curving as explanations just doesn't do it for me. Well now we still have a mysterious but unified "expansion" instead of the various "forces", but it just makes better intuitive sense to my brain, not that it may be worth much :rainbow: The theory is a good ex-plainer, yet remains a bad predictor.

 

:Guns: It's pretty. I want to see a science fiction series with Expansion Theory as the underlying universe physics. Then instead of worrying about stupid warp drives of TOS vs TNG, scifi geeks can ponder final theory all day long. And perhaps actually discover something useful at the end of the day! :rainbow:

 

Regards

 

The tides I understand are merely the author's opinion. It is possible tides are connected to Moon and Earth formation though. The whole planet formation models have proven completely useless for all the newly discovered planets around stars. So we don't really understand how planets form exactly. We know they form from material in space around new stars most likely but the exact process alludes us.

 

The link you posted he's trying to say that the experiment supposedly shows objects fall at the same rate despite mass or size. Quite frankly that is open interpretation. Gravity measured with quantum corrections and at micro scales has proved utterly useless thus far. Gravity does not seem to follow quanta rule. Plus do not forget the quantum rule you can not know more than one quantity of a particle at a time, but never both. Look into the experiment details. Has it been duplicated more than once? Can quantum corrections of other forces create the same observed measurements, if so then the data is meaningless.

 

Oddly enough I am working on a fiction story with Expansion Dynamics for fun.

[Erasmus00]

The whole planet formation models have proven completely useless for all the newly discovered planets around stars. So we don't really understand how planets form exactly. We know they form from material in space around new stars most likely but the exact process alludes us.

 

This would be news to many astrophysicists. While we don't know all the details, we have a fairly solid view of the sort of big picture.

 

The link you posted he's trying to say that the experiment supposedly shows objects fall at the same rate despite mass or size. Quite frankly that is open interpretation.

 

The equivalence principle has been tested to extremely high precision. There are lots of different tests including Eotvos type experiments and the lunar ranging experiment I cited. If you are willing to ignore experimental evidence, any theory seems right. As it stands, the burden of proof is on McCutcheon's believers to show how so many precision experiments can be false.

 

Gravity measured with quantum corrections and at micro scales has proved utterly useless thus far.

 

What do you mean by gravity measured with quantum corrections? Anyway, Eric Adelberger at the University of Washington has done a remarkable job of measuring very small scale gravity effects with torsion balances. The results are far from utterly useless.

 

Also, the experiment you are referring to (lunar laser ranging) has nothing to do with the microscale but rather how the Earth and the Moon move around the sun.

 

Gravity does not seem to follow quanta rule. Plus do not forget the quantum rule you can not know more than one quantity of a particle at a time, but never both.

 

You are talking of Heisenburg's uncertainty (thats the name of your quantum rule) and it only applies to certain quantity pairs (position and momentum, energy and time,etc). You can know both the position and the energy of a particle.

 

Regardless, this doesn't apply here. hbar is so small comapared to the scales involved in the experiment being discussed that quantum effects are totally negligible.

 

Look into the experiment details. Has it been duplicated more than once?

 

Yes, many times. And many different experiments all confirm the equivalence principle. The lunar ranging tests are just the most precise meaurements I'm aware of.

 

Can quantum corrections of other forces create the same observed measurements, if so then the data is meaningless.

 

What do you mean by quantum corrections of other forces? It seems to me that you are rejecting out of hand the experiments that prove McCutcheon wrong.

-Will

[CrimsonWolf]

To Buffy:

 

(1)I have not discussed the whole book. Barely even 50%. I have made simple as possible approach to my posts. With assumption the that someone has read the book. If the information here is to vague for you then read the book or just move on to something else. I am not going to endlessly keep repeating myself or describe something from 500+ page books that someone has not read. Imagine explaining Standard theory to someone unfamiliar with it, it take a hundreds of posts or hours of conversation to cover all bases!

 

Hence the problem here. Do not take of us on our word. Read the information for yourself then make your decision. You actually made your choice when you decided the price of admission was not worth your time. Which is fine. So many books who can decide which one to read and not. Not to mention lot of are not available to checkout. Right or wrong Final Theory is staying in my library. Need a good test to current theory right now.

 

(2)OK picture two equal sized (10,000km diameter) planets with equal mass. The first one has center of highest mass concentration in it's geometric center. Now expand at 0.00000077% acceleration m/s. The atoms each expand by the same amount, and expand into each other at center of mass. The sum total of all the atoms expand and bear down on a central point were highest concentration of atoms are. From this point all the atoms will push off from as they expand. To determine the amount of expansion you simply measure from this point all the way to the edge of the planet.

 

Radius: 5,000km

Diameter: 10,000km

Distance from center of mass: 5,000km

Expansion of Radius: 3.85m

Expansion of Diameter: 7.7m

Radial Total: 5,000,003.85m

Diameter Total: 10,000,007.7m

Surface Gravity: 3.85 m/s

Time: 1 second

 

Radius: 5,000km

Diameter: 10,000km

Distance from center of mass: 5,000km

Expansion of Radius: 1,386,000m

Expansion of Diameter: 2,772,000m

Radial Total: 6,386,000m

Diameter Total: 12,772,000m

Surface Gravity: 3.85 m/s

Time: 600 seconds

 

Following me so far?

[detriech69]

Crimson,

While I respect your obvious devotion to Expansion Theory, you can silence my doubts with simple charts and graphs explaining complete orbits in simple terms we can all grasp. Not partial orbits, mind you, as in the book. That glaring omission in The Final Theory did it in for me. I enjoy looking at the Universe from a different perspective and the book certainly gave me food for thought, but if this theory falls apart with something as simple as orbital geometry between two similarly sized bodies in open space, the rest needs some revision, at least. Your math skills and the time you must put into your posts are admirable, as well, but dumb it down for the rest of us, so we can all see it clearly. Pictures are worth a thousand words and more convincing than math calculations any day of the week.

If you want another theory to help explain the Cosmos, try checking out http://www.everythingforever.com. I found that gentleman very open and his ideas extremely interesting. Plus, he builds on Einsein's work and the work of other great thinkers, instead of finding ways to refute them to suit his own pet theories. Mistakes can be made by anyone, including Einstein, but to say one law of physics is wrong and then quote another to support your own new idea seems like customizing physics to fit desired results to me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be insulting, but just telling it the way I see it. Just give a complete explanation of orbits a shot for us. Saying it is too complex to easily show us is copping out. Or ask the Author to explain it to you and pass it on to us. Thanks for any renewed effort on your part.

[CrimsonWolf]

To Buffy and the curious . . .

 

If you are following me so far then let's continue. Planet number 2 does not have the same matter distribution. It's center of mass lies 1,000km from the surface on the dense side. Watch this carefully as the radius to center of mass is not uniform in this example:

 

Radius: 5,000km

Diameter: 10,000km

Shortest Distance from center of mass: 1,000km

Longest Distance from center of mass: 9,000km

Average of Distance from center of mass: 5,000km

Expansion of Short Radius: .77m

Expansion of Long Radius: 6.93m

Average of Expansion of Radius: 3.85m

Shortest Radial Total: 1,000,000.77m

Longest Radial Total: 9,000,006.93m

Average of Radial Total: 5,000,003.85m

Diameter Total: 10,000,007.7m

Smallest Radial Gravity: .77m/s

Highest Radial Gravity: 6.93m/s

Average Radial Gravity: 3.85m/s

Time: 1 second

 

Radius: 5,000km

Diameter: 10,000km

Shortest Distance from center of mass: 1,000km

Longest Distance from center of mass: 9,000km

Average Distance from center of mass: 5,000km

Expansion of Shortest Radius: 277,200m

Expansion of Longest Radius: 2,494,800m

Average of Expansion Radius: 1,386,000m

Shortest Radial Total: 1,277,200m

Longest Radial Total: 11,494,800m

Average of Radial Total: 6,386,000m

Diameter Total: 12,772,000m

Smallest Radial Gravity: .77m/s

Highest Radial Gravity: 6.93m/s

Average Radial Gravity: 3.85m/s

Time: 600 seconds

 

Did that example help at all?

[CrimsonWolf]

Crimson,

While I respect your obvious devotion to Expansion Theory, you can silence my doubts with simple charts and graphs explaining complete orbits in simple terms we can all grasp. Not partial orbits, mind you, as in the book. That glaring omission in The Final Theory did it in for me. I enjoy looking at the Universe from a different perspective and the book certainly gave me food for thought, but if this theory falls apart with something as simple as orbital geometry between two similarly sized bodies in open space, the rest needs some revision, at least. Your math skills and the time you must put into your posts are admirable, as well, but dumb it down for the rest of us, so we can all see it clearly. Pictures are worth a thousand words and more convincing than math calculations any day of the week.

If you want another theory to help explain the Cosmos, try checking out http://www.everythingforever.com. I found that gentleman very open and his ideas extremely interesting. Plus, he builds on Einstein's work and the work of other great thinkers, instead of finding ways to refute them to suit his own pet theories. Mistakes can be made by anyone, including Einstein, but to say one law of physics is wrong and then quote another to support your own new idea seems like customizing physics to fit desired results to me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be insulting, but just telling it the way I see it. Just give a complete explanation of orbits a shot for us. Saying it is too complex to easily show us is copping out. Or ask the Author to explain it to you and pass it on to us. Thanks for any renewed effort on your part.

 

LOL. Indeed. Expansion Theory is among the wildest ideas I have ever heard. Newton however he admitted he had no idea how gravity worked. Just that he seems to follow certain rules. :rainbow:

 

Well we have really weird problem. According to Quantum predictions you cannot get all the actual particle data precisely, but precise averages of what the values could be. Standard theory has 3 repeated particle families and more than a dozen constants that have fudged in, but never measured. Yet they seem to make the calculations work and no one understands why. The quantum corrections at our scale are so small that they can be ignored for the most part.:rainbow:

 

Ask and ye shall receive. I would love to post a picture on here for a complete orbit. I understand why the book does not (pages are to small). The theory needs some bloody good tests. I don't have any art software though. Any suggestions on what i can post here for a illustration. Paint shop maybe?

[Erasmus00]

The theory needs some bloody good tests. I don't have any art software though.

 

Why do new experiments when the theory can't explain old ones? Any theory of gravity should deal with the idea that all objects fall at the same rate. This equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses has been verified to extraordinary precision over many experiments.

 

Another obvious problem is that the theory implies a constant gravitational force, and not a force that falls off like 1/r^2. In a constant force field, you don't get conic section orbits, which is what we observe in our solar system. Also, the (weak field) inverse square law can be measured with torsion balances. See, for instance, the Eot-Wash group out of University of Washington.

-Will

[CrimsonWolf]

Why do new experiments when the theory can't explain old ones? Any theory of gravity should deal with the idea that all objects fall at the same rate. This equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses has been verified to extraordinary precision over many experiments.

 

Another obvious problem is that the theory implies a constant gravitational force, and not a force that falls off like 1/r^2. In a constant force field, you don't get conic section orbits, which is what we observe in our solar system. Also, the (weak field) inverse square law can be measured with torsion balances. See, for instance, the Eot-Wash group out of University of Washington.

-Will

 

Does galaxy rotation and formation fit any accepted gravity models? No.

 

The pioneer anomaly is so far from any gravity model that a probe is being planned to investigate it.

 

The Dark Energy problem is so baffling to physics it is embarrassing.

 

Now for the record I do not reject data from experiments. But I do not blindly believe them either. I have neutral stance. Some scientists are quite honest. Some however will fudge data and experiments to keep their jobs. Therefore caution should be used for any and all data or media reports. Just a simple fact. I believe what is logical and sound to reason and moderated with data to back it up.

 

Now I am sorry if my rants seemed out of place on the experiment mentioned in previous posts. However Quantum theory clearly challenges the old view that we are separate from the experiment. We can measure inertia for example. But where does it come from? What's it's origin? Expansion Theory suggests it comes from the bouncing electrons of a atom. The measurement of expanding objects of say a marble that is 1cm in diameter would be 0.00000077cm. That is so small that is extremely difficult to measure in under a second. Heck we don't even know how big atoms or most particles are! We know a estimated guess, but no actual measurement. Remember that no person has actually even seen a particle. We have models and more recent some nice looking computer imaging. But no actual direct observation. Just indirect. Even particle accelerators are not a exact science. They observe particle fragments and traced paths of some particles. Then assumed virtual particles not observed but assumed to be there to make the picture complete.

 

Am I saying all experiments are wrong? Of coarse not! The smaller the scale the greater the caution needed. That's all. The search for knowledge is very fine line.

 

In expansion theory, expansion can be less effective at a distance if other expanding objects are in the area. All the orbits in the solar system for example effect each other. Especially if the object is moving enough to go into partial orbits depending it's direction. It's not like anybody as dropped anything on Earth or moon from a great enough distance to see how consistent the drop rate is. You can't. It would be effected by expanding dynamics of other solar system objects to much.

[CrimsonWolf]

Why do new experiments when the theory can't explain old ones? Any theory of gravity should deal with the idea that all objects fall at the same rate. This equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses has been verified to extraordinary precision over many experiments.

 

Another obvious problem is that the theory implies a constant gravitational force, and not a force that falls off like 1/r^2. In a constant force field, you don't get conic section orbits, which is what we observe in our solar system. Also, the (weak field) inverse square law can be measured with torsion balances. See, for instance, the Eot-Wash group out of University of Washington.

-Will

 

By the way, are you refering to the properties of rest mass and relative mass in equivalence when under the influence of gravitational field (or curved space)?