The Final Theory

[viscount aero]

my pleasure.

 

i emailed him and requested he write volume 2. or at least do an "expanded" edition!:D

[ldsoftwaresteve]

What are your thoughts on his examination of the concept of time in the last chapter of the book?

One thing that he does not go into or even touch upon is the development of life. But if this expansion idea turns out to be accurate, I can't help thinking that there are properties of particles that lead to the generation of awareness. But that's just wishful thinking on my part. Still... it would perhaps make the ID/Evolutionist conflict take a different direction, which I think it sorely needs. A different perspective, in other words. Any thoughts on this relative to the book?

[viscount aero]

What are your thoughts on his examination of the concept of time in the last chapter of the book?

One thing that he does not go into or even touch upon is the development of life. But if this expansion idea turns out to be accurate, I can't help thinking that there are properties of particles that lead to the generation of awareness. But that's just wishful thinking on my part. Still... it would perhaps make the ID/Evolutionist conflict take a different direction, which I think it sorely needs. A different perspective, in other words. Any thoughts on this relative to the book?

 

well, i have mixed opinions. as, according to expansion theory, matters are quite rigid with time: there is no time travel. no time dilation. time itself is not this exotic and mysterious dimension depicted in special relativity or in movies.

 

this is somewhat depressing to me, as i would like to think time can be altered, as it seems to vary according to our subjective experiences of it. but this is all in the mind, according to MMc.

 

however, i have never bought into the idea hook, line, and sinker of "spacetime" a la einstein. this realm is largely the result of purely mathematical fabrication, with the idea of symmetry in nature being a sort of "theoretical axiom." in theory, things can happen in reverse just as they do "forwards." and the whole conception of back and forth in time is taken for granted, and a result of theoretical math that bears no meaning to our reality. we cannot "uncrack" and egg, but in the realm of symmetry, yes we can. but this is ludicrous.

 

this raises the issue of possible ET visitations that allegedly use electromagnetism, ie, zero point energy, as a means of propulsion to truncate time between distant locales. but this is off the subject.

[viscount aero]

and by the way, i did not highlight in red the words "math" and such.

[viscount aero]

someone has raised this challenge to me on another forum. and i'd like your feedback on the matter:

 

"

" Let's try an experiment...

 

Two people with identical spheres on a 10 story building. One on the 10th floor and the other on the 5th floor. Person on the 10th floor drops the sphere. At the very exact moment the ball is the same elevation of the person on the 5th floor, that person drops their sphere.

 

Now freeze the camera and take a picture.

 

What we have are 2 identical spheres free floating (according to your theory) at the same elevation. Also according to your theory, the earth is accelerating up to meet those spheres at a specific rate.

 

Roll cameras.

 

 

Now, we all know via observation that, in fact, the sphere dropped from the 10th floor will hit the ground first. Your expansion theory would dictate them hitting the ground at the same time.

 

Explain this little phenomena with your theory... I look forward to hearing your explanation."

 

 

 

he's trying to invalidate expansion theory.

 

i emailed MMc and he replied with this:

 

"...The higher ball has had time to gain relative velocity with respect to the ground, and so will hit the ground first, just as if you sped up to a light at an intersection that just changed to green so you didn't have to slow down but the other cars had to slowly accelerate from a full stop. Of course you would zip past them and reach the next intersection first. Same thing here.

 

The apparent confusion seems to come from an expectation that expansion is needed to drive coasting behavior through space -- it is not. If, for example, expansion (i.e. gravity) were somehow turned off when the two balls were at the same height (as opposed to freezing time), what would happen? The higher ball wouldn't stop in mid-air any more than it would if we turned off Newtonian gravity. It would continue coasting at a constant velocity toward the ground, while the other ball sat there floating in mid-air. Any relative velocity gained is maintained unless forcefully slowed. In fact, the reason objects effectively accelerate toward the ground is because any relative velocity gained with respect to the ground in the previous second is then added-to in the next second (as expansion continues), causing an ever-increasing relative velocity.

 

So, bottom line is that Expansion Theory would state that the already speeding sphere continues to increase its relative velocity with respect to the ground, adding to its existing relative velocity, while the other sphere is at a standstill and is only beginning its relative velocity increase wrt the ground as expansion continues. No discrepancy with observation. The only way both objects could hit the ground at the same time in this scenario is if some force were applied to the higher sphere to slow it down, while not affecting the other sphere.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mark"

 

----------

so in my own words, i take this to mean that the acceleration effect upon the higher ball, or upon any object, is, too, an actual real gain in relative velocity, as is the case in "gravity assists," ie, slingshot effects. inasmuch as it is due to expansion, the velocity gains are real and actual. therefore, the higher-dropped ball is has greater relative velocity and will hit the ground first.

 

anyone else care to elaborate?

[Erasmus00]

however, i have never bought into the idea hook, line, and sinker of "spacetime" a la einstein. this realm is largely the result of purely mathematical fabrication, with the idea of symmetry in nature being a sort of "theoretical axiom."

 

Why do you consider it "purely mathematical fabrication?" The language of physics (and of nature) is mathematics. Where has something been fabricated? Where do you not agree? I hear these claims often, yet they never seem supported with any fine detail, just a lot of general harsh dismisal of mathematics.

 

Yes, Eintein preferred an elegant simplicity to his laws, but the idea of symmetry isn't an axiom but usually the result of logic/experiment. For instance, the laws of physics don't vary in space or time. These symmetries are experimentally verified as much as we can. Yesterday's physics is, to the precision of measurement, the same as today's physics. Physics in Cleveland, Ohio is (again to precision of measurement) the same physics as that of Durham, England.

 

in theory, things can happen in reverse just as they do "forwards." and the whole conception of back and forth in time is taken for granted, and a result of theoretical math that bears no meaning to our reality. we cannot "uncrack" and egg, but in the realm of symmetry, yes we can. but this is ludicrous.

 

First, any physicst will tell you that the egg doesn't uncrack in ANY theory of physics. Macroscopic phenomena are not symmetric under time reversal because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. You are confusing simply systems with large interacting ones.

 

Consider any simple system such as the following: you see a video tape of a pool table. In it, you see the one ball roll across and strike the seven ball.

 

Now the video is played again, but this time the seven ball rolls across and strikes the one ball.

 

In which situation was the video being played backward? How would you know? You can't: the physics works the same way. This is what is meant by physics having a time reversal symmetry.

 

Similarly: if we were to zoom way in on the shell of an egg what will we see when it cracks? Two neighboring atoms in the crystal are bumped and suddenly explode apart. If we run the video tape in reverse we see two atoms traveling toward each other, slamming together and sticking. Both of these are physically possible and happen all the time. You couldn't tell if the tape was being run forward or backward.

 

Its only by zooming out and looking at the macroscopic that we can discern an arrow of time. None of the microscopic interactions are irreversible. In fact: the question of how an arrow of time emerges despite the lack of such a microscopic arrow is an unanswered question that the study of emergent phenomena has only recently begun to shed light on.

 

In this discussion, I have of course left out the irreversible quantum measurement effect in order to discuss the system classically. However, if you subscribe to McCutcheon's view this is irrelevant as quantum mechanics would be wrong.

 

this raises the issue of possible ET visitations that allegedly use electromagnetism, ie, zero point energy, as a means of propulsion to truncate time between distant locales.

 

This is completely unrelated to anything involving time.

-Will

[viscount aero]

 

In which situation was the video being played backward? How would you know? You can't: the physics works the same way. This is what is meant by physics having a time reversal symmetry.

 

Similarly: if we were to zoom way in on the shell of an egg what will we see when it cracks? Two neighboring atoms in the crystal are bumped and suddenly explode apart. If we run the video tape in reverse we see two atoms traveling toward each other, slamming together and sticking. Both of these are physically possible and happen all the time. You couldn't tell if the tape was being run forward or backward.

 

Its only by zooming out and looking at the macroscopic that we can discern an arrow of time. None of the microscopic interactions are irreversible. In fact: the question of how an arrow of time emerges despite the lack of such a microscopic arrow is an unanswered question that the study of emergent phenomena has only recently begun to shed light on.

 

In this discussion, I have of course left out the irreversible quantum measurement effect in order to discuss the system classically. However, if you subscribe to McCutcheon's view this is irrelevant as quantum mechanics would be wrong.

 

"This is what is meant by physics having a time reversal symmetry. "

-----yes, and it is entirely misleading. there is no time to reverse in actuality. you cannot reverse a bomb exploding, even though you can play a tape in reverse and then call it "time reversal symmetry." what has that accomplished but a misleading idea that an explosion can happen in reverse in this exotic condition of "time reversal symmetry." this establishes the idea that time is now "reversible." when it is not. beholding microscopic interactions that behave the same forward or backwards on a tape, as well, does not assume reversible time either.

[Erasmus00]

"This is what is meant by physics having a time reversal symmetry. "

-----yes, and it is entirely misleading. there is no time to reverse in actuality. you cannot reverse a bomb exploding, even though you can play a tape in reverse and then call it "time reversal symmetry." what has that accomplished but a misleading idea that an explosion can happen in reverse in this exotic condition of "time reversal symmetry." this establishes the idea that time is now "reversible." when it is not. beholding microscopic interactions that behave the same forward or backwards on a tape, as well, does not assume reversible time either.

 

 

You confuse a symmetry with an actuality. The existance of a symmetry does NOT imply that you can actually make the symmetry happen. Consider mirror relflections.

 

Does the fact that some systems obey a reflection symmetry mean that we can actually invert them left and right? Of course not. Similarly, the idea of interactions being symmetric in time in no way implies time can be reversed. It just means things would look the same if you COULD reverse time.

 

Just as the idea of reflection symmetry means that things would look the same if you COULD invert them left and right. The solar system obeys a rotation symmetry. Does that mean we can physically move all the planets around by some angle? Of course not.

 

And a bomb reassembling again is a macroscopic process. Your example again confuses the macroscopic (where there is an arrow of time and processes are irreversible) with the microscopic (where there is time reversal symmetry). The fact that a bomb can't reassmble in no way detracts from my argument. Its the egg "uncracking" all over again.

 

Lastly, I point out this time reversal symmetry isn't really related to the idea of time travel OR Einstein's spacetime. The symmetry exists in both Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations (pre-Einstein physics) though Maxwell's equations lead Einstein to his discovery.

-Will

[viscount aero]

i understand what you say.

 

it is the notion of time being able to be reversed, traversed, otherwise altered, as in time dilation (which does relate to einstein), that is not necessarily capable of being done.

 

what i maintain is that to imply time reversible symmetry, with then an arrow of time (as you suggest on the macro "reality" level) implies that time itself carries a dimensional quality of being altered, bent, reversed, manipulated. the word choice of time reversible symmetry is misleading and creates room for "bending of space time," "event horizons," "worm holes." on and on.

 

inasmuch as i would love worm holes to exist, and to traverse the cosmos by manipulating time, apparently, this is not possible under expansion theory. it's very rigid.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

sorry i took so long. been gone.

 

Now, we all know via observation that, in fact, the sphere dropped from the 10th floor will hit the ground first. Your expansion theory would dictate them hitting the ground at the same time.

 

Explain this little phenomena with your theory... I look forward to hearing your explanation."

well, that's easy. the second ball has an outward acceleration due to the expansion of the earth (someone or something is holding it), whereas the first ball is free falling.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

will:

Why do you consider it "purely mathematical fabrication?" The language of physics (and of nature) is mathematics. Where has something been fabricated? Where do you not agree? I hear these claims often, yet they never seem supported with any fine detail, just a lot of general harsh dismisal of mathematics.

You are a mathematical genius, Will. The point that viscount is making, I suspect, is that some people tend to think that reality is a reflection of mathematics and not the other way around. A hugely important and powerful tool, but not the dictator of reality. We invent mathematical methods to model an aspect of reality. Reality is not generated from mathematics, as far as we know. Hmmm. Although, I suppose if someday we find out (if we can) that existence is created using mathematical functions, then I'm full of crap. Hell, I may be full of crap anyway. :confused:

One other point, if I may. Assuming - just for the sake of exploration - that expansion is true. If we look at all current mathematical models from a birds eye view, won't that put them in a different light? I do not mean to even hint at suggesting they are invalid, just that they now take on a different uh, derivative perspective? And I mean that literally. Would that change the nature of the formulas? Wouldn't that force us to another kind of mathematical level?

[Erasmus00]

what i maintain is that to imply time reversible symmetry, with then an arrow of time (as you suggest on the macro "reality" level) implies that time itself carries a dimensional quality of being altered, bent, reversed, manipulated. the word choice of time reversible symmetry is misleading and creates room for "bending of space time," "event horizons," "worm holes." on and on.

 

I disagree. That things were symmetric in time in no way implies time is a dimension. It is the Lorentz transformations that begin to mix time and space, and I fail to see how McCutcheon's theory would effect the need for the Lorentz transformations.

 

inasmuch as i would love worm holes to exist, and to traverse the cosmos by manipulating time, apparently, this is not possible under expansion theory. it's very rigid.

 

Yes, but I firmly believe McCutcheon is wrong, and have posted a few explanations on this very thread.

-Will

[viscount aero]

I disagree. That things were symmetric in time in no way implies time is a dimension.

yes it absolutely does. when something is referred to as literally "time reversible" we begin to step into territory that can imply a host of things, such as what time is speculated to be today: something that is actually maleable and to be manipulated.

 

discussions that depict physical events, as you suggest on the micro-level, that "appear" to be "reversible" creates room for the conceptualizing of time as something that is actually able to be reversed --in some way, perhaps, under some exotic conditions. and to swear that any physicist will not ever outright state that an egg is uncrackable, ie, can be reassembled, will maintain that on the micro or "quantum" level, it's particle structure and movements as an assembled egg, and as an egg undergoing disassembly, are nearly indistinguishable.

 

and he will entertain the possibility, then, of time reversible symmetry through his allegiance to conceptual mathematics --that which largely has no bearing on any physical reality whatsoever. and this is the pillar of the argument across all of the "soft sciences" that comprise modern cosmology. we are married to erroneous but very convincing ideas through actual semantics and adherance to the altar of theoretical math. to the point that we actually believe there is this alleged "fabric of spacetime" that is actually "stretching" and "accelerating" for no apparent reason or purpose.

 

 

of course you think MCc is wrong. i've read this entire thread long before i ever joined up on this site. i know who is who.

 

your act is such that math is the king and at the top of the pyramid, as if it is revealing what reality is "really" about. and this is not at all true. whether MCc's theory proves to be true or not, math is the servant and not the master. math ceases to be credible when it swims far afield into deep water where there are too many unknowns to make it at all viable. an equation or relatioship mathematically may or may not depict a physical reality.

[viscount aero]

sorry i took so long. been gone.

 

well, that's easy. the second ball has an outward acceleration due to the expansion of the earth (someone or something is holding it), whereas the first ball is free falling.

 

i almost get it. please restate it in another way. i want to be absolutely clear. and thanks, btw :confused:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

i almost get it. please restate it in another way. i want to be absolutely clear. and thanks, btw ;)

the first ball is free falling and has no acceleration component on its position. That is not true of the second ball which is being held by someone or something - and is therefore being accelerated by the expansion of the earth (what we feel as 'gravity'). It is so simple it's hard to see. The velocity/position of the first ball, the free falling one, is not affected by the earth's expansion ... until it hits the earth. As soon as both balls have hit the earth (assuming they remain stationary and intact) they will both have exactly the same velocity (the velocity of the expansion of the earth).

You're welcome. :confused:

[viscount aero]

thank you softwaresteve.

 

like you, i am in this for the fun of it. i'm a fan of physics and cosmology and have been since i was very young. however, i'm not a math person or scientist by vocation, so i am not trying to protect my academic creds or staff position in some institution. my livelihood does not depend upon engineering or anything involving adherance to basic physics as it is traditionally taught. so i have nothing to lose. and everything to gain by exposure to alt-theories that pose serious challenges to what is taken for granted.

 

i must hand it to MCc: his work is very exhaustive and covers pretty much everything. and little of it is incomplete. at the very least, his work highlights, with brutal truth, how absolutely flawed the precepts of modern cosmology are. after reading his work, i absolutely do not believe anymore in gravity as we know it. nor do i believe much of anything printed about the latest-breaking "discoveries" in cosmology. it is as if i am among a world held back from seeing another way --even if MCc's way is not the correct one, it is never ever never ever ever never ever mentioned in mainstream science magazines (like Discover, for example).

 

and when i mention this theory to anyone, nearly 100% of people have never heard of it or know what it is or what it means. and those who have heard of it often have no idea really what it means, as they have not read the book. so they knee-jerk react against it as if it is to be ignored.

[viscount aero]

the first ball is free falling and has no acceleration component on its position. That is not true of the second ball which is being held by someone or something - and is therefore being accelerated by the expansion of the earth (what we feel as 'gravity'). It is so simple it's hard to see. The velocity/position of the first ball, the free falling one, is not affected by the earth's expansion ... until it hits the earth. As soon as both balls have hit the earth (assuming they remain stationary and intact) they will both have exactly the same velocity (the velocity of the expansion of the earth).

You're welcome. :confused:

 

i think i figured it out. here is MCc's idea again:

 

"...So, bottom line is that Expansion Theory would state that the already speeding sphere continues to increase its relative velocity with respect to the ground, adding to its existing relative velocity, while the other sphere is at a standstill and is only beginning its relative velocity increase wrt the ground as expansion continues. No discrepancy with observation. The only way both objects could hit the ground at the same time in this scenario is if some force were applied to the higher sphere to slow it down, while not affecting the other sphere."