The Final Theory

[Erasmus00]

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

 

According to who? Rotation of galaxies is just an expression of angular momentum. If none of the galaxies rotated, that would be crazy. Formation is a more subtle problem, but certainly not something that doesn't fit into any gravity model.

 

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

 

Yes, the pioneer anomaly hasn't been explained. For all we know, it might not even be a gravitational effect.

 

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

 

I don't think anyone would be embarrassed that we don't know everything.

 

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.

 

If you can't look at well documented, repeated experiments and take a scientists word for it, you can't do science. It is experimental fact that gravity follows an inverse square law. It is another experimental fact that gravitational and inertial mass is equal. Any good theory of gravity should embrace both.

 

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.

 

Quantum theory only applies on very small scales. In most of the experiments/length scales in question, quantum mechanics is irrelevant. It seems like your standard response to experiments you don't want to believe is "well, quantum theory..."

 

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.

 

And in the standard model it comes from the higgs field. Regardless, it doesn't matter where it comes from if you aren't doing experiments to determine the origin of inertia.

 

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.

 

Thats why you don't do the experiment with a marble. You do the experiment with the moon and the earth and use the sun as your orbitting body.

 

Heck we don't even know how big atoms or most particles are! We know a estimated guess, but no actual measurement.

 

There have been all sorts of scattering experiments, etc done to measure the cross sections of various atoms,molecules etc. Tons of "actual" measurements.

 

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.

 

And scientists have been doing quantum scale experiments for years. Nowadays, they can produce all sorts of quantum entangled photons and other such systems, they can manipulate things on incredibly small scales (building crystals one atomic layer at a time). The people doing these experiments are quite familiar with quantum theory and the requisite caution needed. And I point out that most of the experiments that shoot down McCutcheon's brand of expansion theory were done years ago and aren't at all on a quantum scale. Eotvos and Cavendish experiments.

 

In expansion theory, expansion can be less effective at a distance if other expanding objects are in the area.

 

How? If I have a two body system, and I place down a third body, the fact that the third body is expanding in no way effects the expansion rate (And hence the apparent force) between the other two.

 

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.

 

While no one has dropped things and watched, they have done cavendish type experiments with torsion balances and measured the relative effective forces(I say effective, because in expansion theory its not a real force). Always an inverse square. Also, celestial bodies orbit in conic sections (ellipses, hyperbola, parabola) this is, as far as I can tell, impossible under expansion theory.

 

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)?

 

No, what I'm saying is that inertial mass (the mass in F=ma) is the same as gravitational mass (the mass in F=-GmM/r^2). This implies all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field.

-Will

[CrimsonWolf]

We are going in circles here. Erasmuss00:)

 

The star orbits of the galaxy or any galaxy do not fit the rules of orbits, this is a fact. That is why Dark Matter idea popped up. You see the entire galaxy core is rotating as if one object (theorized to due to super massive black hole). Then further stars orbit faster! Then slow down further out. Then speed up again at the galaxy edge. Neither GR nor Newton's laws predict that. If dark matter is never found then there is no known explanation. Pretty big deal. The Dark Energy problem is even worse still.

 

Quantum corrections can be ignored on the macro scale mostly. However it reigns in micro scales. Since Expansion Theory is theory of all scales then describing Expansion at scale of particles is quite valid. Standard theory is the most successful theory around. Yet it is also a very incomplete theory ironically as it explains forces that govern matter but is unable to explain where they come from. For example mass is assumed be due to a never detected particle called Higgs Boson.

 

Which brings us to this book in the first place. Looking for a possible origin of forces.

 

It amazes me that few seem to get the fact Expansion Theory would not get different results on most experiments. The numbers should come up the same. The difference from Standard theory is the interpretation of what those numbers both mean and stand for.

 

Now the Cavendish is a mixed bag. Especially since not everyone who has done it gets the same value. It's a difficult experiment to reproduce. But enough have done it to arrive at a accepted value. Expansion theory also has given value for it as well.

 

The reason expanding objects can effect each other even at a distance is the fact it proposes every object has decreasing space between them. They will collide unless:

 

(1)Are in a orbital system

 

(2)They move so fast relative to other objects that they pass by, as long they do not have direct path motion.

 

Even in a orbital system Expansion theory states that each orbit can effect the surrounding orbits constantly, the book discusses this and more. I imagine once again you have not read the book? If so, read it. Then complain or debunk it. I have not posted all the book on this thread. Only a few general areas. Several subjects I skipped over assuming the other book readers already familiar with them. I would be breaking copyright if I posted the whole thing in exact wording on a public forum. So what I can post here is somewhat limited. I have been riding the edge as it is. :rainbow:

[Erasmus00]

Quantum corrections can be ignored on the macro scale mostly. However it reigns in micro scales. Since Expansion Theory is theory of all scales then describing Expansion at scale of particles is quite valid.

 

Thats fine, but the experiments that show the gaping holes in expansion theory aren't microscopic, they are very macroscopic. You don't need a "quantum expansion theory" to check expansion versus these results.

 

Standard theory is the most successful theory around. Yet it is also a very incomplete theory ironically as it explains forces that govern matter but is unable to explain where they come from.

 

That isn't true at all. The electromagnetic force in the standard model "comes from" photons, just as the weak force is mediated by W and Z bosons and the strong force by gluons. Just because something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it doesn't exist (especially if it is supposed to exist at energy scales we haven't started probing yet).

 

It amazes me that few seem to get the fact Expansion Theory would not get different results on most experiments. The numbers should come up the same. The difference from Standard theory is the interpretation of what those numbers both mean and stand for.

 

Not true. In expansion theory, the gravitational force would be a constant force, not an inverse square law. Also, inertial and gravitational mass would not be equal.

 

Now the Cavendish is a mixed bag. Especially since not everyone who has done it gets the same value. It's a difficult experiment to reproduce. But enough have done it to arrive at a accepted value. Expansion theory also has given value for it as well.

 

In expansion theory, gravity is constant, not an inverse square law. The cavendish experiment wouldn't show a drop off with distance if McCutcheon were right.

 

I imagine once again you have not read the book? If so, read it. Then complain or debunk it.

 

I've read the first chapter, which so badly distorts mechanics and Newtonian gravity that I either have to assume McCutcheon doesn't understand it, or else is being dishonest. If the book ever shows up in a library, I'll pick it up and read it, but I'm not going to shell out money for more "science" in the same mold as the first chapter.

-Will

[CrimsonWolf]

That's fine, but the experiments that show the gaping holes in expansion theory aren't microscopic, they are very macroscopic. You don't need a "quantum expansion theory" to check expansion versus these results.

 

 

 

That isn't true at all. The electromagnetic force in the standard model "comes from" photons, just as the weak force is mediated by W and Z bosons and the strong force by gluons. Just because something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it doesn't exist (especially if it is supposed to exist at energy scales we haven't started probing yet).

 

 

 

Not true. In expansion theory, the gravitational force would be a constant force, not an inverse square law. Also, inertial and gravitational mass would not be equal.

 

 

 

In expansion theory, gravity is constant, not an inverse square law. The Cavendish experiment wouldn't show a drop off with distance if McCutcheon were right.

 

 

 

I've read the first chapter, which so badly distorts mechanics and Newtonian gravity that I either have to assume McCutcheon doesn't understand it, or else is being dishonest. If the book ever shows up in a library, I'll pick it up and read it, but I'm not going to shell out money for more "science" in the same mold as the first chapter.

-Will

 

They do not know why the forces occur. Why quanta for example? Standard theory describes exchange of quanta quite well. But it does not explain why particles exchange energy in discrete amounts (quanta), just that they exchange particles when they come in contact. Not only that it's not always a sure bet what exact exchange of quanta will occur in some situations, so just a probability of what exchanges could occur is given.

 

Oh here are some interesting readings on the Cavendish experiment and measuring G.

http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/04/article6/article6.html

 

This next link is on how about testing Standard Theory did not yield expected results. The properties of Muon (One of the Leptons) were tested thoroughly and were far enough out of Standard Deviation that they do not fit Standard Theory predicted results.

 

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2004/bnlpr010804.htm

 

Ever email the author? He can sometimes be reached. If your polite that is. Ask him some questions to. After all I did not create the theory or write the book. I do not claim it is right or wrong. Just interesting.:rainbow: I do agree that the theory comes off as a first or early draft, hence needs more work to be taken more seriously.

[lindagarrette]

 

 

 

I've read the first chapter, which so badly distorts mechanics and Newtonian gravity that I either have to assume McCutcheon doesn't understand it, or else is being dishonest. If the book ever shows up in a library, I'll pick it up and read it, but I'm not going to shell out money for more "science" in the same mold as the first chapter.

-Will

Good point. I think people glom onto pseudoscience because they don't understand the accepted theories and won't admit to their ignorance.

[Erasmus00]

Why quanta for example?

 

The fact that things are quantized is a reflection of the wave nature of matter coupled with the boundary conditions. You seem as if you have picked up your knowledge of quantum mechanics from a few popular science accounts. If you have decent background in math, try Shankar's book. It should be available from a good university library and it would clear up some of the misconceptions you seem to have.

 

Oh here are some interesting readings on the Cavendish experiment and measuring G.

http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/04/article6/article6.html

 

I'm well aware that measurements of G seem variable and tricky. Also, your article is five years old, the forementioned Eot-Wash group is currently doing much more precise torsion balance experiments. I also point out that the results ALWAYS show an inverse square law. This seems to imply that McCutcheon's expansion theory is dead in the water.

 

This next link is on how about testing Standard Theory did not yield expected results.

 

I don't claim standard theory holds all the answers as is. As we probe smaller scales and higher energies, the theory will probably be modified. However, expansion theory holds none of the answers, it contradicts basic facts about gravity (inverse square, equivalence principle/all objects fall at the same rate).

 

I do agree that the theory comes off as a first or early draft, hence needs more work to be taken more seriously.

 

It needs to be thrown out. It explains far less then the standard model and doesn't hold empirically. The only thing it has going for it is that its easy to understand, which isn't really necessarily a merit.

-Will

[CrimsonWolf]

Most of Standard and other theories I learned from some science books and college online physics resource and of coarse school. :lol:

 

There are generally two types of personalities when it comes to science. The tech and the dreamer. The tech look for data and application of data. The dreamer asks why things occur and seeks unifying truths.

 

On this board I have purposely made certain statements to everybody on the thread to gain insight on their way of thinking. Seems their are two types here. The curious thinker and the tech. No dreamers though. Hence therefore I will forgo with any quantum complications to reality and stick to pure data.

 

As to references to inverse square law and inertia in experiments according to the author in the Final Theory they data has been misread and misinterpreted by current point of view used for the experiments from the beginning. In other words the other author suggests his idea is correct and everyone else is blindly following models they mistake for truth. Well he is partially correct in a lot of theories are mistaken for the truth, and are actually just models with no deep insight generally. The models are able to explain quite a bit though. I think new insights are coming. Perhaps the TOE will come in my life time or not. Who knows. Given specific conditions down the road of time complete Final Theory will come.

 

Now some of you have mistaken me as Expansionist. That is incorrect. Do I support any theory? No. They are useful tools however. I am able to take whatever logic is needed to apply a theories logic to conclusion, regardless of personal feelings. Which is what I have done here. Just followed the idea to it's conclusion. Final Theory is a fun read. It's like the flat land story. Good read. Just do not take it to seriously I would advise. There are so many experiments out there now that any TOE has terribly difficult task of satisfying millions of results.

 

If your the tech type and just go with data I suggest you move on, you'll find nothing here in the thread of value. However if your the type that likes to discuss what ifs or talk hypothetically then stick around. If the author ever revises the theory I strongly suggest he explain inverse square law, inertia, and orbits with detailed mathematical proofs as to why they are measured as they are now and why they are incorrect. They are the top 3 problems I have seen repeatedly no matter where I look and have mentally noted myself.

 

So if any want to discuss further, I will stick around. If not I will move on. Up to you guys.

[CraigD]

A week ago in, ”consensus seeking” post #475 of this thread, I proposed that we collectively consider a simple, observable phenomena – a vertically tossed ball – in terms of the “expansion” model proposed in TFT. Here’s a synopsis of that sub-thread:

• In post #475, I made a sketch showing a possible expansion model that predicts the result of the ball-toss experiment. In this model, rate of expansion is proportional to time^2, and depends on the size of the expanding object, with large objects experiencing a greater relative expansion (Diametertime=t/Diametertime=0) than small objects.
  
• In post #476, Idsoftwaresteve agreed that the sketch matched his understanding of the expansion model, but that its scale was off, tending to lead one to inaccurate conclusions
  
• In post #477, I noted that having relative expansion rate depend on size gave rise to a serious problem in which large object, such as the Earth, noticeably “growing” as perceived by an ordinary human being.
  
• In post #478, Idsoftwaresteve confirmed that size-dependent relative expansion needed to be dropped from the working model
  
• In posts #479 and 480, CrimsonWolf agreed, and supplied a specific value for the relative rate of expansion - 1.00000077/sec. He gave an example showing that this rate accounts for an object dropped from about 5 meters height reaching the ground in about 1 sec.
  
• In post #481, CrimsonWolf notes that our thought experiments/examples so far have ignored air resistance, so would have problems if much greater heights were involved.
  
• In post #482, DataLabs agreed that size-dependent relative expansion needed to be dropped from the working model, and suggested writing a computer program to illustrate the expansion model
  

With a few exceptions, posts #482 – 533 were not in the “consensus seeking” subthread, leaving its simple “tossed ball” example far behind in a fairly wild free-for-all of objections to and defenses of TFT and several more well-supported theories.

 

I’d like to return to the “consensus seeking” subthread with an analysis my attempt to remove size-dependent relative expansion from the working model.

 

In numeric terms, the ball-toss sketch can now be described:

R1= r10*f^T

R2= r20*f^T

D= d0 -(r10+r20)*f^T +v0*T

Da= D*r20/R2

, where

R10 and R20 are the radii of the Earth and ball,

f is the relative rate of expansion,

T is the time from the beginning of the experiment,

d0 is the initial distance between the centers of the earth and the ball,

v0 is the initial upward velocity of the ball,

D is the distance between the surface of the ball and the Earth, in absolute units that would be measured by a ruler not subject to expansion, and

Da is the observed distance between the surface of the ball and the Earth, in units as measured by a ruler subject to expansion.

 

We observation that for r10=6375000, r20=1, and d0=6375002 meters, v0=10 m/s, Da = d0 -(r10+r20) = 1 at T=0 and 2 seconds. Solving for f:

d0 -(r10+r20) = (v0*T +d0)/f^T -(r10+r20)

1 = 6375022/f^2 -6375001

f = (6375022/6375002)^.5 =~ 1.000001568625728569

 

:lol: So far, so good! (although my value for expansion constant f is almost precisely twice the one CrimsonWolf supplied)

 

Now, let’s repeat the experiment with a different initial velocity v0, 20 m/s. We observe Da = d0 -(r10+r20) = 1 at T=0 and 4 seconds.

d0 -(r10+r20) = (v0*T +d0)/f^T -(r10+r20), however, gives

d0 -(r10+r20) = (20*4 +6375001)/1.000001568625728569^4 -6375001 = 40 meters!

:)

Solving (using numeric, not algebraic methods) for T, gives T=0 and 800978, the non-zero solution much greater than the observed 4 seconds

 

Some other comparisons to observed data are at odds with the predictions of our current expansion model:

• For V0=10, we observe a maximum height of about 6 m (5 m above initial height of 1 m) at T=1 sec. The model predicts about 1.0000078 m at T=1 sec.
  
• For V0=20, we observe a maximum height of 21 m at T=2 sec. The model predicts about 1358273 at 318751 seconds.
  

Our current, working version of the expansion model is clearly at odds with observed data, and in need of correction. The expansion factor f appears to need to be a function of time, but a different function for each experiment that is being observed.

 

I’m at a loss to suggest how to go about correcting it. Unless someone can provide a solution to this difficulty, I must conclude that the size-invariant relative expansion model is unable to both:

1. Predict the observed ball-toss data
   
2. Not predict an increase in the observed radius of the Earth, as measured using the ball, or another measuring stick
   

[detriech69]

Well done! I'll assume your calculations are correct and I haven't the time to varify, but this is another problem with this theory. Orbits are another. I just think there is some major tweaking to do if Expansion is even a testable hypothesis. It is a fascinating concept and some of it may explain electromagnetism better than any other "explanation" offered in the past. Perhaps gravity itself is real, but dependent on electromagnetic forces instead of mass somehow attracting other mass at a distance. Maybe it depends on the amount of heavy semi and metallic elements are in a planetary body as to how much attraction or their magnetic fields or a combination of all three!!! This is the first teaser chapter in a nutshell and is why I bought the book in the first place. So, the Gravity may still be an attracting force, but is based on something that may be explaned by a variant of Expansion Theory Mr. Macutcheon (sp.) put forth. Perhaps Gravity waves are merely magnetic fields in play between 2 or more bodies and we have been detecting them all along. But whatever changes must be made to Standard Theory, they must still form a cohesive mesh together with proven axioms and form a complete Unified Theory and do so that the whole scientific community must accept it as obvious truth.

[CrimsonWolf]

Full equation for atomic expansion is as follows:

 

D' = D - n squared * Xa * (R1 + R2) / 1 + n squared * Xa

 

D' = New Distance from surfaces

 

D = Distance from surfaces

 

R1 = Radius

 

R2 = 2nd Radius

 

n = Time in seconds

 

s = seconds

 

Xa = 0.00000077 /s squared ( or 7.7 x 10 -7th power /s squared)

 

Here is expansion in different time intervals.

 

Example:

 

Expansion in .001 seconds 7.7 x -13th power

Expansion in .01 seconds 7.7 x -11th power

Expansion in .1 second: .0000000077

Expansion in 1 second: .00000077

Expansion in 10 second: 0.000077

Expansion in 60 seconds: .002772

Expansion in 3600 seconds: 9.9792

[CrimsonWolf]

For data on tossed ball using atomic expansion equation. Assuming velocity of 10m upward for ball, assuming zero air resistance vacuum conditions. Keep in mind this is a 0% to 0.00000154% acceleration for the expansion each second, with average increase of 0.00000077% each second.

 

1m - 2 squared * 0.00000077 * (6,375,000m + 1m) / 1 + n squared * 0.00000077

 

Simplifies to: -18.63500308 / 1.00000308 = -18.63494568m +20 = 1.365054316m new distance from surfaces

 

Earth radial expansion in 2 seconds: 19.635m (acceleration 0 m/s to 19.635 m/s with a average increase of 14.72625m/s)

 

Tossed Ball expansion in 2 seconds: .00000308m (acceleration 0 m/s to 0.00000308 m/s with a average increase of 0.00000231 m/s)

 

Tossed ball moves upward 20m in 2 seconds.

 

With velocity of 20m/s upward for ball and 4 seconds time, the result of the fall would be: 2.46094296 new distance from surfaces.

 

Earth radial expansion in 4 seconds: 78.54m (acceleration 0 m/s to 38.73 m/s with average increase of 34.30875 m/s)

 

Tossed Ball expansion in 4 seconds: 0.00001232m (acceleration 0 m/s to 0.00001232 m/s with a average increase of 0.00001155 m/s)

 

Tossed Balled moved upward 80m in 4 seconds.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CraigD, thanks for the post attempting to sum up the other posts.

I think you are pointing out the major flaw in these forums. Regardless of the subject, the number of posts, all the arguments, sub arguments, arguments about the arguments and all the noise, if we could distill a thread down to its essence, that would be a major improvement. After a while, a thread gets so ungainly that nobody will bother reading the whole thing. Not worth it. too much bullshit (I'll accept that a lot of it is mine).

But how do we do that? You've taken a step in the right direction. But how do we implement that? Do we show a parallel logic flow (if that's possible)?

Anyway, just thought I'd remark about that. Perhaps that would make a good subject for another thread? That would really set this forum apart from others and perhaps lead to something quite important. I'm sure others have considered this too. Any progress on a solution?

[detriech69]

A forum that is free to the public, as this one is, must accept any and all opinions and views expressed without censorship, unless the poster violates the rules laid down when one joins. Free speech and the first ammendment in this country (USA) demand such a state of affairs. If you really want only serious minds, a fee should be charged on a renewable basis, like membership dues. This would prevent lurkers and die-hard skeptics from making such threads so cumbersome. I must admit expressing opinions only, as I haven't the math skills or the time available to do all the number crunching involved in a lot of these posts. I envy those who have the time and ability for these tedious calculations or better yet, those who enjoy doing them.

My problem with this theory is that it just doesn't feel right to me, besides the obvious flaws that most of us seem to agree on.

[InfiniteNow]

A forum that is free to the public, as this one is, must accept any and all opinions and views expressed without censorship, unless the poster violates the rules laid down when one joins. Free speech and the first ammendment in this country (USA) demand such a state of affairs.

 

Quick point detriech69... posters on this site are spread around the globe. US regulations need not apply.

 

 

If you really want only serious minds, a fee should be charged on a renewable basis, like membership dues. This would prevent lurkers and die-hard skeptics from making such threads so cumbersome. I must admit expressing opinions only, as I haven't the math skills or the time available to do all the number crunching involved in a lot of these posts. I envy those who have the time and ability for these tedious calculations or better yet, those who enjoy doing them.

 

You'd then be limiting dialogue to only those who are able (and willing) to pay, which seems a bit too much of an exclusive club concept for any real openess of ideas... If nothing else, you'd substantially limit your population of thinkers in the group. I'd much rather have to look past the occasionaly nonsense in order to view all of the other strokes of brilliance so frequently demonstrated here.

 

Try to remember, you too must accept all views and opinions and lengths and forms of communication... or change the channel... I mean, don't visit the site.

 

 

Anyway, cheers! :lol:

[CrimsonWolf]

Whether theory is wrong or right I am having a blast. I have been looking for good logic and math workout to keep me sharp. Practice makes perfect as they say.

 

Maybe we should call it the Expansion Hypothesis, it be a little more accurate and sounds less authoritative.

 

I have read about 60% of the posts on this thread. The unread ones are older stuff before I came around to the forums. But I looked that the main issues. This is my last attempt to speak online about the book. Past attempts were filled with some of the most arrogant and rude kinds of people. What areas to want to explore? Want to make a list? Organize a bit?

 

I am currently working on some mathematical models for kicks and possible insight on several debated issues.

[Buffy]

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

...

Smallest Radial Gravity: .77m/s

Highest Radial Gravity: 6.93m/s

...

Did that example help at all?

Yep. Two things:

• It says very clearly that the side that's less dense expands faster: In real life, the *opposite* is true. How do you explain that?
  
• It says that expansion is linear rather than geometric. I know that Expansion says that inertia is an illusion, and that motions in elemental particles cause it, but objects pressure against one another is expressed as "meters per second per second" not "meters per second". As a result, the "observed inertia" would have to be increasing geometrically, and if inertia did so, we would observe *all* objects moving *perpendicular* to the radial lines from the center of a mass moving at accellerated rates, which of course we don't.

Actually when I plug your numbers into a spreadsheet, they don't come out the same at all, so maybe you want to expand on what you've posted here.

 

You sound like a smart guy. I think you can explain the theory just fine. I realize that the book does posit that all assumptions made by Newton and Einstein are wrong, but it still has to match observations. Where the numerous assumptions in the book insist that those observations are "illusions" then they become issues that are part of what we are discussing here, and saying "you would understand that if you read the book," only makes it look like you are hiding behind assumptions that are false: you need to bring these into your argument, because its not just the results that are weak, its the assumptions too!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

ditreich69:

A forum that is free to the public, as this one is, must accept any and all opinions and views expressed without censorship, unless the poster violates the rules laid down when one joins.

My point wasn't to suppress or limit anything. It was to just start thinking about how one would go about having something in parallel perhaps that showed the path of the discussion. That's not an easy thing to do and it's certainly not an easy thing to explain. And it sure won't be easy to implement. But eventually, it's gonna have to happen.

For instance, say this thread just starts repeating (for the 5th time) subjects that were covered way back at the beginning? I would not blame people for skipping to the end. How do we allow people to pick up on pathways that were lost in the middle? How do we allow people to continue on a particular thought or sequence? Even trying to find the words to explain what I mean is hard.

So how do we keep it fresh. How do we keep it to the point. And how do we show the trails and steps down those trails?

Unless we are just talking to hear ourselves talk, how do we make sure that we have progress or brick walls (contradictions)?

CraigD's attempt at summation was very nice to see and very apropos.