The Final Theory

[viscount aero]

i figured it out in the post after this one. so i deleted this post's contents.

[viscount aero]

wait a minute. the first ball is free-floating and "falling."

 

the 2nd one is being held by someone, and is therefore maintaining expansion position with the earth's surface. therefore, the first ball, the one "dropped" from the higher position, will meet the earh sooner! why? because it is not being held back from hitting the ground that is racing up to meet it!

 

but the 2nd lower ball --- that one is maintaining a distance from the earth's surface racing "upwards." and is being accelerated with the earth's expanding surface. therefore, it falls later because it was being held away by a "force" acting to prevent it from hitting the earth's surface.

 

i think this is the simplest way i can put it into words. man. it took a while. am i on the right track, steve?

:confused:

[Boerseun]

Steve, would it satisfy McCutcheon if Cavendish's torsion bar experiment was repeated in space? If it was in orbit (the nature of which still eludes me under 'expansion' theory) it would in no way be connected to the Earth's expanding surface. And it could be done in any imaginable orientation. If it consistently gives the same results, then would this be a sufficient debunking of 'expansion'? I should think so.

 

Thoughts?

[Erasmus00]

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.

 

My whole point is that the reasons we beleive time to be somewhat flexible have nothing to do with time reversal symmetries! The reasons have to do with Einstein's theories of relativity and have, again, nothing to do with the time-reversal symmetry. It feels as if you are talking about apples in order to prove something about oranges. Now, on to the oranges:

 

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.

 

Please give me a specific example of a physicist misusing mathematics in the ways you imply. Give me an example of a cosmological argument or theory that relies on time being ACTUALLY reversible (instead of just the symmetry)

 

Instead of making broad accusations by putting a lot of words in quotes, please show me specifically where things go wrong. What assumptions are made in Einstein's general relativity that you disagree with? You are making broad condemnations without any specific points. I assert that physicists and cosmologists in no way reason in the way you imply.

 

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.

 

Please show me where I have sided with pure mathematics over experiment. If you'll remember, I may be the only person on this thread who has actually conducted an experiment in an attempt to test McCutcheon's theory.

 

I argue that it is the followers of expansion theory who ignore physical reality. I've posted already several places where McCutcheon's theory is tremendously at odds with experiments. (Lunar laser ranging, sattelites escaping the solar system, Eotvos type tests of the equivalence principle,etc). If reality is to be king, then should we not throw out expansion theory?

-Will

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Steve, would it satisfy McCutcheon if Cavendish's torsion bar experiment was repeated in space? If it was in orbit (the nature of which still eludes me under 'expansion' theory) it would in no way be connected to the Earth's expanding surface. And it could be done in any imaginable orientation. If it consistently gives the same results, then would this be a sufficient debunking of 'expansion'? I should think so.

 

Thoughts?

possibly. if it could even be done there. The only reason I say that is because I think it would be very hard, if not impossible, to get all of the paraphernalia situated correctly in space. I suspect a completely new physical setup would be required designed with this stuff in mind.

 

Say you let go of two balls in space. the slightest push screws things up. and you have to worry about push in all 3 dimensions making it even more complicated. The smaller the masses, the more delicate the operation. So I think you'd have to go with much larger masses.

 

And the bottom line is that this is completely new territory for doing experiments. We'd need to do experiments on doing experiments in space. It's such foreign territory. I'm reminded of some of the videos of the space walks and how complicated the simplest things become. So I suspect the entire experiment would have to be self comtained with little or no manual intervention.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

will:

I argue that it is the followers of expansion theory who ignore physical reality. I've posted already several places where McCutcheon's theory is tremendously at odds with experiments. (Lunar laser ranging, sattelites escaping the solar system, Eotvos type tests of the equivalence principle,etc). If reality is to be king, then should we not throw out expansion theory?

I don't know about lunar laser ranging or the eotvos type tests of equivalence principle but McCutcheon does mention the contradictory evidence of the spacecraft that supposedly left the solar system and how it appears that it isn't. The times between signals were supposed to keep getting longer apart but instead they're getting shorter. This, if memory serves me right, is in contradiction to what was expected.

 

Can you explain how the lunar ranging experiment works? Whatever gravitational conclusions were drawn would have to be explained as an effect of expansion or you'd have a strong case against McC.

 

And that would go for the eotvos experiments as well. Suffice it to say that I don't know what they are or how they work. If you would like to explain them to me I'd be very appreciative.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

wait a minute. the first ball is free-floating and "falling."

 

the 2nd one is being held by someone, and is therefore maintaining expansion position with the earth's surface. therefore, the first ball, the one "dropped" from the higher position, will meet the earh sooner! why? because it is not being held back from hitting the ground that is racing up to meet it!

 

but the 2nd lower ball --- that one is maintaining a distance from the earth's surface racing "upwards." and is being accelerated with the earth's expanding surface. therefore, it falls later because it was being held away by a "force" acting to prevent it from hitting the earth's surface.

 

i think this is the simplest way i can put it into words. man. it took a while. am i on the right track, steve?

:)

lol. yes. That's exactly how i see it too.

Do you remember any references in the book to the experiments that erasmus00 (will) mentioned?

[Boerseun]

possibly. if it could even be done there. The only reason I say that is because I think it would be very hard, if not impossible, to get all of the paraphernalia situated correctly in space. I suspect a completely new physical setup would be required designed with this stuff in mind.

 

Say you let go of two balls in space. the slightest push screws things up. and you have to worry about push in all 3 dimensions making it even more complicated. The smaller the masses, the more delicate the operation. So I think you'd have to go with much larger masses.

 

And the bottom line is that this is completely new territory for doing experiments. We'd need to do experiments on doing experiments in space. It's such foreign territory. I'm reminded of some of the videos of the space walks and how complicated the simplest things become. So I suspect the entire experiment would have to be self comtained with little or no manual intervention.

I can't see it being hard at all. Matter of fact, Nasa's got an experiment in orbit right now investigating the effect of gravity (the classical kind, not 'expansion') on spinning spheres, the most exact and perfect spheres ever constructed. I'll look for some links, they had an article about it on http://www.nasa.gov a few weeks ago. They made balls out of metal, so perfectly smooth that they deviated no more than 40 atoms' width from a perfect sphere - which they spun up to quite a few thousand rpm's in order to see what the Earth's gravity field would do to it. If McCutcheon holds true, then there shouldn't be any influence on these balls at all, not? I'll get the links - hang tight...

[CraigD]

… McCutcheon does mention the contradictory evidence of the spacecraft that supposedly left the solar system and how it appears that it isn't

I think Steve is referring to the Pioneer anomaly.

 

It’s a small anomaly – about 10^-9 m/s/s, or about .15% of the expected acceleration (M*G/r^2) at the distances the Pioneer 10 from the Sun (about 90 AUs) – but a genuine mystery. It may indicate something unexpected about the outer solar system (greater than expected resistance from the diffuse matter cloud out there), something unexpected with the spacecraft (a 10^-9 m/s/s acceleration can be produced by as small a thrust as is caused by the eroding of paint), or something subtly wrong with current understandings of gravity. Since TFT doesn’t make high-precision numeric predictions, it’s not useful in explaining small effects like the Pioneer anomaly, but some other basic physics theories have proposed explanations.

 

Give that these spacecraft are moving at over 12000 m/s, unless the anomaly become unexpectedly many powers of ten larger, there’s no possibility of it causing them not to escape the Sun’s gravity well, and eventually (in about 125000 years) beginning to accelerate toward another star system and away from the Sun. They’re almost certainly leaving the solar system, though not for a very long time.

[Erasmus00]

will: I don't know about lunar laser ranging or the eotvos type tests of equivalence principle but McCutcheon does mention the contradictory evidence of the spacecraft that supposedly left the solar system and how it appears that it isn't. The times between signals were supposed to keep getting longer apart but instead they're getting shorter. This, if memory serves me right, is in contradiction to what was expected.

 

The effect is very small. The satelites are very well on their way out. Also, the mere fact that they've gotten off Earth is evidence enough that there is some form of gravitational escape. This would not exist in McCutcheon's theory.

 

Can you explain how the lunar ranging experiment works? Whatever gravitational conclusions were drawn would have to be explained as an effect of expansion or you'd have a strong case against McC.

 

The equivalence principle says all objects fall at the same rate. McCutcheon tells us different: dense objects expand faster then less dense objects. Hence, not all objects appear to fall at the same rate. Lunar laser ranging measures how fast the Earth and the Moon fall toward the sun. Against McCutcheon's theory, they do.

 

And that would go for the eotvos experiments as well. Suffice it to say that I don't know what they are or how they work. If you would like to explain them to me I'd be very appreciative.

 

These are torsion balance type measurements of the equivalence principle (which McCutcheon's theory violates).

 

Also, Cavendish experiments CLEARLY indicate the inverse square nature of the gravitational force. McCutcheon's theory would indicate a constant force. As it stands, I find many experiments in favor of Newton/Einstein, very few, if any, that stand on the side of McCutcheon.

-Will

[Boerseun]

For expansion to fit what we experience as gravity, it would need to be an accellerating expansion, accellerating to the tune of 10m/s2. And that'll be just for Earth. Jupiter's surface would of course expand much faster, and the sun's surface even faster. In a previous post of mine I asked why don't these bodies eventually expand into one another, which would be a pretty obvious result of them expanding all the time. I was answered that space itself was expanding, too. I have no qualms with that, according to Hubble it does seem to be the case, although it's quite disconcerting to find that space is expanding locally - and fast.

 

Imagine: Since the formation of the Earth, the planet have been expanding directly away from its center at the rate of ten meters per second per second. Creating the accelleration 'push' of 1g on the surface that we would normally assign to 'gravity'. How long before the surface of the Earth broke through the speed of light? At a constant 1g accelleration, it won't take too long. Geologic evidence indicate that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Factor that into the acceleration equation and see what the surface outward velocity would be to have maintained 1g on the surface for that long. Many times (many times) the speed of light.

 

This is no problem, McCutcheon holds, seeing as space is expanding as well, and the velocity of light is determined by the structure of space itself. Therefore, as space expands, the speed of light would increase so that for any given (expanding) body, c would remain the same. So even light would not be aware of 'expansion', seeing as it depends on the structure of space for propagation, and space, of course, is now 'expanding' (in a very non-Hubble sense) as well. The speed of water running down a river depends very much on the angle of the riverbed, so to speak.

 

If everything 'expands', even space, then I should not be aware of the Earth's acceleration towards me. If I am to experience the Earth's 'push', then space simply must be static. Because keep in mind - the Earth's surface keeps coming at me at 1g. I'm about 6000km from the Earth's core. The physical distance between me and the core is 'expanding' as well, at the same accellerated pace. In other words, I'm being pushed back from the core not by the Earth coming at me, but because the expanding space is keeping me in my place - in which case I will not experience the Earth 'pushing' me. The only way for me to experience gravity as 'expansion', would be if space stayed static. In which case the surface of every body with a measurable gravitational pull have broken through the speed of light many, many years ago. And that isclearly not the case.

 

Skepticism is a handy tool in divorcing fancy from fact. The fact that you find the mental picture of 'expansion' a more satisfying or intuitive explanation for what we perceive as 'gravity' doesn't necessarily make it so. There are a lot of problems associated with our understanding of gravity, but that doesn't make the next idea the right one. There are severe logical inconsistencies with 'expansion' ala McCutcheon, and one shouldn't be blind for that, either.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus00:

The effect is very small. The satelites are very well on their way out. Also, the mere fact that they've gotten off Earth is evidence enough that there is some form of gravitational escape. This would not exist in McCutcheon's theory.

That doesn't make sense will. that would mean that orbits don't make sense but they do. In other words, if we can see a relative velocity that explains an orbital situation, we can explain a velocity that allows a 'higher' orbit, which is really all it is, meaning the relative velocities are greater than the effect of expansion.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

They made balls out of metal, so perfectly smooth that they deviated no more than 40 atoms' width from a perfect sphere - which they spun up to quite a few thousand rpm's in order to see what the Earth's gravity field would do to it. If McCutcheon holds true, then there shouldn't be any influence on these balls at all, not?

Sounds like a cool experiment. Let me know what they find out. Thanks.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus00:

The equivalence principle says all objects fall at the same rate. McCutcheon tells us different: dense objects expand faster then less dense objects

No, McCutcheon does not say that dense objects expand faster than less dense ones. Where did you hear that?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

For expansion to fit what we experience as gravity, it would need to be an accellerating expansion, accellerating to the tune of 10m/s2. And that'll be just for Earth. Jupiter's surface would of course expand much faster, and the sun's surface even faster. In a previous post of mine I asked why don't these bodies eventually expand into one another, which would be a pretty obvious result of them expanding all the time. I was answered that space itself was expanding, too. I have no qualms with that, according to Hubble it does seem to be the case, although it's quite disconcerting to find that space is expanding locally - and fast.

It's very disconcerting to even imagine expansion at all. The only thing I can say about that is our idea of size is a relative thing and that we might not really understand what it really means at all. In a way, it is very terrifying to contemplate. On the other hand, as each moment goes by we're still ok so whatever it is, we're built to handle it.

Imagine: Since the formation of the Earth, the planet have been expanding directly away from its center at the rate of ten meters per second per second. Creating the accelleration 'push' of 1g on the surface that we would normally assign to 'gravity'. How long before the surface of the Earth broke through the speed of light? At a constant 1g accelleration, it won't take too long. Geologic evidence indicate that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Factor that into the acceleration equation and see what the surface outward velocity would be to have maintained 1g on the surface for that long. Many times (many times) the speed of light.

You know Beorseun, I owe you at least a case of beer. You're using standard concepts (light is a wave and not a particle) and that is going to mess it up. McCutcheon declares that light is just a particle or rather, each color of light is a combination of particles. As all structures expand, so will light since it is a particle.

 

This is no problem, McCutcheon holds, seeing as space is expanding as well, and the velocity of light is determined by the structure of space itself. Therefore, as space expands, the speed of light would increase so that for any given (expanding) body, c would remain the same. So even light would not be aware of 'expansion', seeing as it depends on the structure of space for propagation, and space, of course, is now 'expanding' (in a very non-Hubble sense) as well. The speed of water running down a river depends very much on the angle of the riverbed, so to speak.

Actually, Beorseun, McCutcheon does not say space is expanding. Only particles and things made of particles expand.

If everything 'expands', even space, then I should not be aware of the Earth's acceleration towards me. If I am to experience the Earth's 'push', then space simply must be static. Because keep in mind - the Earth's surface keeps coming at me at 1g. I'm about 6000km from the Earth's core. The physical distance between me and the core is 'expanding' as well, at the same accellerated pace. In other words, I'm being pushed back from the core not by the Earth coming at me, but because the expanding space is keeping me in my place - in which case I will not experience the Earth 'pushing' me. The only way for me to experience gravity as 'expansion', would be if space stayed static. In which case the surface of every body with a measurable gravitational pull have broken through the speed of light many, many years ago. And that isclearly not the case.

Again, space isn't expanding.

Skepticism is a handy tool in divorcing fancy from fact. The fact that you find the mental picture of 'expansion' a more satisfying or intuitive explanation for what we perceive as 'gravity' doesn't necessarily make it so. There are a lot of problems associated with our understanding of gravity, but that doesn't make the next idea the right one. There are severe logical inconsistencies with 'expansion' ala McCutcheon, and one shouldn't be blind for that, either.

I almost totally agree with that Beorseun, except for the 'severe logical inconsistencies with expansion' part. That has yet to be proven.

By assuming light is different than what McC says it is, you've changed contexts on the fly. Try assuming that the problems you are having with his theory are problems he had too. Because he did you know. And I suspect that the very things you're pointing out led him to conclude that light was itself a particle. Because if it isn't, if it is an imutable reference that does not change over time and expand with all things, then you are in fact totally correct.

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus00:No, McCutcheon does not say that dense objects expand faster than less dense ones. Where did you hear that?

 

Its the logical extension of his theory. If two objects are the same size,the one with the bigger mass has a stronger gravitational pull (trivially). As such, dense objects must be expanding faster (to account for the stronger gravity). This means that in McCutcheon's theory, apparently, objects fall at different rates.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus00:That doesn't make sense will. that would mean that orbits don't make sense but they do. In other words, if we can see a relative velocity that explains an orbital situation, we can explain a velocity that allows a 'higher' orbit, which is really all it is, meaning the relative velocities are greater than the effect of expansion.

 

No, orbits are seperate from escape situations. In McCutcheon's theory, everything needs to orbitting everything else. There is no area where you the attractive force between objects drops to 0. Also consider that gravitational detection of objects orbiting stars would be impossible in McCutcheon's theory. There are many, many experimental observations that disagree with expansion.

-Will