The Final Theory

[viscount aero]

Different Density? This has an affect on gravity? I was of the understanding that two bodies, neglecting air-friction, will fall at exactly the same rate. Irregardless of mass. They will have different... measured energy based on their velocity squared time half their mass.

yes, but someone is saying it is "proven" that 2 objects of the same size, of differing densities, will fall at different rates. and that the final theory is incorrect because of this.

 

the book mentions the styrofoam planet. and i think the solution has something to do with that. the styro planet's "gravity" will be lesser than the "lead" planet because, according to the book: "the styrofoam planet would be pushed backward by it's own expansion to a greater degree than the [lead] would when in contact with another object, reducing it's ability to accelerate the object, and giving the object a somewhat lesser weight."

 

i may be approaching answering my own question, maybe: identically-sized objects that are of lesser and greater density than the other "approach" our earth at differing rates because the lighter object absorbs some of it's own expansionary force. so it appears to arrive later to the surface.

 

am i on the right track, provided the final theory is true? (not that it really is, but for sake of argument i'm saying):eek2:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

viscount:

Two objects of the same physical dimensions, but different masses, falling towards the Earth. Measure the distance from the center of each object to the center of the Earth over a period of time. The center of the more massive object will approach the Earth at a faster rate than the less massive object.

As I understand it, if each object is a stable mass, that is, if they both maintain their shape, then they should expand at exactly the same rate and collide with the earth at the same time. The momentums will be different though.

[viscount aero]

viscount:As I understand it, if each object is a stable mass, that is, if they both maintain their shape, then they should expand at exactly the same rate and collide with the earth at the same time. The momentums will be different though.

then the guy's claims are false. objects do fall at the same rate via d=1/2at^2. and in the FT, size matters and not necessarly mass. mass comes into play when the centre of this mass is off the geometric centre.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

then the guy's claims are false. objects do fall at the same rate via d=1/2at^2. and in the FT, size matters and not necessarly mass. mass comes into play when the centre of this mass is off the geometric centre.

That's how I see it too.

[Boerseun]

Take a tennis ball and a basket ball. Or a golf ball and a beach ball, doesn't matter.

 

Suspend them ten meters up with their centers aligned in a vacuum tube.

Have a high-speed camera at the halfway point.

Drop them.

Their centers will pass the camera at precisely the same time.

This does not prove or disprove expansion at all, if everything was expanding, the results would've been the same. Seeing as everything falls at 9.8m/s squared due to Earth's gravity (from a non-expansion viewpoint) the results would be the same if expansion happened or if gravity is simply warped spacetime.

 

However - suspend a ball of solid lead two meters accross and a ball of styrofoam two meters accross. Suspend a small iron weigth from a long thin cable and measure the slight angle variation on the cable when the weight approaches a) the lead ball and :esmoking: the styrofoam ball. If expansion was the case, the line should point straight to the center of the Earth in all circumstances, seeing as its mounting is connected to the surface of the Earth. The reason why it might sway more towards the lead ball than the styrofoam ball can only be explained by the gravitational force exerted by the mass of the ball. Static electricity can easily be detected and removed.

If expansion was the case, both balls should exert the same 'gravitational' pull - because being the same size, they should expand at the same rate.

 

The above experiment have been done plenty times in researching gravitational phenomena, and counts as a strike against 'expansion'.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

The above experiment have been done plenty times in researching gravitational phenomena, and counts as a strike against 'expansion'.

Great. Can you give me a link to this experiment? I don't have the equipment to perform it so I'd need to see the results from someone who has done it.

[Boerseun]

Here you go, Steve.

 

Cavendish's Torsion Bar Experiment simply cannot and should not give the results it does in an 'expanding' universe. Not exactly the same setup I described in the previous post, the difference being where I had the cable with the weight he simply set up a torsion bar with a mirror to detect smaller variations. He also used considerably smaller weights. But the results are one and the same.

 

In essence, he used the distance the mirror's reflection moved to calculate the gravitational constant. If he used balls of lesser weight (non-lead), he got smaller movements. So, you could use a styrofoam ball of the same dimensions, but the gravitational attraction would be less. Because of smaller mass. Er... besides - if gravity was due to expansion, there should be NO MOVEMENT OF THE TORSION BAR AT ALL. But Cavendish's famed experiment have been repeated all over the world, with the same results blowing McCutcheon cleanly out of the water.

 

I think this should wrap it up, folks.

[CraigD]

…Cavendish's Torsion Bar Experiment…

I think this should wrap it up, folks.

I thought so, too, over a year ago back around post #35. “Search this Thread” shows 19 (now 20) finds for “Cavendish”.

 

“The Final Theory” seems hostile toward experiments that could falsify it.

[Erasmus00]

With the latex addition I can offer up a simple mathematical proof why McCutcheon can't be right.

 

First, under McCutcheon's theory gravity must be a constant force. It cannot vary with distance. This is because the apparent expansion doesn't change with distance.

 

So we have something like [math] F = -C\hat{r} [/math] the negative being because the force is attractive, the r is the unit vector in the radial direction.

 

Now we can define a potential energy for this force [math] U = -\int_0^r F \cdot dl =Cr[/math] Here r is the radial distance from the center.

 

Now we treat the total energy of one planet in orbit around the sun.

 

[math] E = \frac{1}{2} mv^2 + Cr [/math]

here v is the velocity as before, E is the energy, Cr is the potential derived before. m is the mass of the object.

 

Now, we can split up our velocity into components

 

[math] E = \frac{1}{2}mv_r^2 +\frac{1}{2}mv_\theta^2 + Cr [/math]

 

Here vr is the velocity in the radial direction, vtheta the velocity in the tangential direction.

 

Now we use the fact that angular momentum is conserved in a central force

 

[math] l = rmv_\theta[/math] Here l is the angular momentum.

 

Hence, [math] E = \frac{1}{2}mv_r^2 +\frac{l^2}{2mr^2} +Cr [/math]

 

Now, we can split the right terms off as the "effective potential"

 

[math] U_{effective} = \frac{l^2}{2mr^2} +Cr [/math]

 

This graph is shaped like a U blowing up to infinity at both the left and right of a single critical point. All objects are tightly bound.

 

Since our solar system has had objects escape it, this immediately rules out the final theory. As these effective potential graphs show, you can't have an "escape velocity" under McCutcheon.

-Will

[Boerseun]

I thought so, too, over a year ago back around post #35. “Search this Thread” shows 19 (now 20) finds for “Cavendish”.

 

“The Final Theory” seems hostile toward experiments that could falsify it.

I can't see McCutcheon getting around Cavendish. Steve - care to spill the beans? You said in reply to post 35 that there's a chapter dealing with it. Can you maybe explain it to us?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I can't see McCutcheon getting around Cavendish. Steve - care to spill the beans? You said in reply to post 35 that there's a chapter dealing with it. Can you maybe explain it to us?

I'll try. If the cavendish can be explained as the results of an attractive 'force', then it can be explained by the effect of a simple geometric effect. The problem comes in when we consider balls of the same diameter having different weights. At first glance it seems to be a problem with expansion because expansion says the effect should be the same, or does it, always? It's important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

The cavendish experiment has the flaw of having all elements in the experiment connected physically and that's the rub with using it as a final test. As was discussed in many previous posts, the center of mass will have an effect on the net effect of the direction of expansion, so a final test - a definitive test should not be clouded by center of mass issues. Since the cavendish experiment is connected - all pieces are physically linked - it puts a cloud on the experiment.

 

One more thing to consider is that we are used to thinking in terms of an 'attractive' force. IF McCutcheon is right, the way we look at this stuff will change and phenomena that we'd previously explained one way will be explained in another. But we've been here before.

 

If you look carefully at my previous posts, I have never said McCutcheon was right. I'm fascinated by what he proposes and am giving him the benefit of the doubt. And if any of you ever bother to read his entire book you'll see that he has done a hell of a lot of work on this. He hasn't just thrown it together to make a fast buck, Beorseun. If I had to bet though, I'd put my money on him as being closer than anyone else.

 

Will, I need to study your math in order to respond to it. As you should know by now, that is not my strong suit. I may need your help.

[CraigD]

Thanks, Steve, for the synopsis. You’re a rare person, I think – someone who’s read “The Final Theory”, but doesn’t so reject conventional physics that he can’t put it into conventional terms.

The cavendish experiment has the flaw of having all elements in the experiment connected physically and that's the rub with using it as a final test

It would seem, then, that a “mini solar system” experiment such as the one proposed by Sahni and Shtanov (see 7443) would remove this flaw, and provide a sound test of McCutcheon’s expansion hypothesis.

 

Microgravity is such a wonderful place to run experiments!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Thanks, Steve, for the synopsis. You’re a rare person, I think – someone who’s read “The Final Theory”, but doesn’t so reject conventional physics that he can’t put it into conventional terms.It would seem, then, that a “mini solar system” experiment such as the one proposed by Sahni and Shtanov (see 7443) would remove this flaw, and provide a sound test of McCutcheon’s expansion hypothesis.

 

Microgravity is such a wonderful place to run experiments!

You're welcome. Great link by the way. I really like that idea.

[viscount aero]

how are Lagrange points explained by expansion theory?

 

and a 3-body problem?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

how are Lagrange points explained by expansion theory?

 

and a 3-body problem?

The same way, I suspect. That is, the geometry of the situation.

If expansion is real, then it acts exactly like an attractive 'force' - my point being that if attraction can explain those scenarios, then so can expansion.

 

I spent a hell of a lot of time trying to visualize that and one day it just dawned on me that they really act exactly the same. I didn't comprehend what McCutcheon was saying at first and I'm embarassed to admit that it took me almost a year to see what he meant.

[viscount aero]

yes. i actually emailed the man himself and asked him. and he basically said what you said as an explanation. but after i read his reply, it then dawned on me that the situation does not really change any. you will have Lagrange points in expansion theory, as there will be, as a matter geometric consequence, a region of expansionary "balance" out from bodies in an orbital relationship. it's really not any different. and i, too, felt like a dumb a$$.

 

it was one of those things that i experienced as i caught myself STILL bound by the coventions of what i was taught long ago. but expansion is an entirely different "paradigm."

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Thanks for commenting on that stuff viscount.

 

I've had trouble trying to understand his atomic model, although I haven't spent as much time at that as I did on the attraction=expansion concept.

 

I wonder if he's going to expand on that in a later work. I'm thinking of the way particles combine to form 'atoms' and 'molecules' and other more complex structures. I suspect that there might be a way to convert current models to a different scheme without having to reinvent new models from scratch.