The Final Theory

[Boerseun]

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

Quite a few pages back in this thread, that was indeed what was explained to me in defence of 'expansion'. That was to get away from the logical inconsistency of planets and stars 'expanding' into each other if space stays static.

So, in order for expansion to hold, space simply must expand, and at the same rate the massive bodies like planets and stars are - and also at a similarly accellerating pace. In which case you will not feel the pull of gravity, because you exist in space as well, which is now also 'expanding'.

That's what I'm getting at with the logical inconsistencies inherent in expansion. ONE of the above must be true - either space is expanding, or not.

 

Let's see:

 

1 - IF space is not expanding, then the planets must 'expand' into each other.

2 - IF space is expanding, then you won't feel the pull of gravity at a planet's surface.

 

1 is clearly not the case, because the planets aren't touching. They're not even approaching each other.

2 is clearly not the case either, because if classical 'gravity' is true or not, we sure feel something at the surface.

 

How do we get by this, now? We haven't even gotten around to Lagrange points. How does expansion cater for them?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

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

No will. They should have the same effect on an object on their surface. If the density of the least dense structure is not strong enough to support the surface object, then it would sink into the structure. But each would expand at the same rate. Each would have the same effective gravity. You are mixing reference points perhaps.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

So, in order for expansion to hold, space simply must expand, and at the same rate the massive bodies like planets and stars are - and also at a similarly accellerating pace. In which case you will not feel the pull of gravity, because you exist in space as well, which is now also 'expanding'.

The conundrum here is trying to treat space as something. It isn't. It's nothing. If it is anything, it is a context in which a thing exists. You cannot measure anything in relation to a pure space. It doesn't provide a reference point in and of itself. Without a thing in it, well, think about sensory deprivation. You are not the first down this path Beorseun. It goes without saying that if McCutcheon is right, our understanding of the nature of existence is headed for some rather major changes.

I think the key to understanding what you refer to is in understanding momentum and what it really means. You cannot deal with a fixed frame of reference any more. Nor can you mix a little of expansion and a little of standard theory. The reference frames of each are 180 out.

[Boerseun]

Steve, let's follow a pretty obvious argument here:

 

Would you agree with me that the physical distance between two objects can be said to be the 'size' of the 'space' between them? Let's say my coffee cup and my stapler is exactly 20cm apart. The expansion argument would be that as they expand, so too does the ruler I use to measure the distance. They will never 'expand' into one another, and I would not be able to detect any growth in size using a ruler that's expanding at the same rate. They are both lying on the same table which is expanding at the same rate, keeping them apart.

 

Agreed?

 

Now, for planets, things become more tricky:

 

Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that Earth's orbit is a billion miles from Jupiter's. Keep in mind that they are in circular orbits around the sun (not perfectly circular, mind you, but for this argument it will suffice). These two planets are now 'expanding', causing what we perceive as 'gravity' by their outward accelleration.

 

Now, the only way that the observed distance between these two planets from each other (and from the sun) can be maintained would be if their orbits around the sun expanded continuously as well. Their orbits are the 'table' in the coffee cup and stapler analogy above.

 

So, a planet's orbit simply must expand as well, and at the same rate as everything else.

 

Now, here's a conundrum:

 

Say I'm standing somewhere on planet Earth. I am experiencing 1g. Let's say it's midnight, and I'm standing at the equator. I am now experiencing the 'push' of expansion from the Earth expanding below my feet as well as the added component of Earth's orbit expanding away from the sun.

Let's say I hang around for twelve hours, and now it's noon. The sun is directly above me. Now I'm experiencing expansion from Earth minus the effect from orbital expansion. And seeing as orbital expansion would need to be quite high in order to keep the planets apart, it must be measurable. In other words, at midnight I should experience 1.5g and at noon only 0.5g. Things will weight differently through the course of a day. This isn't the case either.

 

Orbits around a star simply have to expand outward and away from the star in question in order to keep planets from expanding into each other. But here's another problem:

 

What, then, is keeping stars from expanding into each other? The only answer to this will be that their orbits around the galactic core must be expanding as well. And then what's keeping galaxies from expanding into each other? Well, it could only be that their orbits around their common centers of mass is expanding, too. And so on and so forth, whatever bigger scale we go to, the question remains the same. And so, too, does the answer. The common denominator here is that the orbits are expanding around whatever would be the source of 'expansion', their centers of mass, according to classical theory, would dictate the gravitational center around which they orbit.

 

And the only thing changing in the orbits is simply the distance. I.e. space. And, if space is expanding, we would not perceive the effect of expansion at all. So - what to do?

 

(I'll take you up on that case of beer, though :friday:)

[Erasmus00]

No will. They should have the same effect on an object on their surface. If the density of the least dense structure is not strong enough to support the surface object, then it would sink into the structure. But each would expand at the same rate. Each would have the same effective gravity. You are mixing reference points perhaps.

 

A ball of lead has a stronger gravitational pull then a similar ball of aluminium. This is experimental fact. Similarly, a neutron star the size of the Earth has a greater pull then the Earth. This can be observed by the objects orbiting it.

 

In regular Newtonian physics this is explained by the greater mass. In McCutcheon's theory, how can this be explained other then faster expansion? If expansion isn't somehow coupled to mass the theory is trivially unworkable: centuries of tests confirm that gravity is tied to mass.

 

Even if we go with McCutcheon's view that expansion is based on size, larger objects will still apparently "fall" faster then smaller objects. The equivalence principle is still violated. Also, lunar laser ranging is still a valid test, because on top of the density differences, the Earth is a great deal larger then the moon.

-Will

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

So, a planet's orbit simply must expand as well, and at the same rate as everything else.

Agreed. But keep in mind that the measurements are relative to something that is expanding. Space doesn't expand.

Say I'm standing somewhere on planet Earth. I am experiencing 1g. Let's say it's midnight, and I'm standing at the equator. I am now experiencing the 'push' of expansion from the Earth expanding below my feet as well as the added component of Earth's orbit expanding away from the sun.

the problem here is that you are still holding onto the view that the earth is being pulled by the sun and that our path through space is affected by that. It isn't. The orbit is a geometric affect of the expansion and the motion. I will only feel the effect of the earth's expansion. The sun has no effect at all on my experiencing gravity. You are mixing contexts.

McC's outlook is quite alien to the way we see it today. The nub of the problem is trying to contemplate how two bodies can maintain a constant distance using only expansion and their beginning relative motion to explain it. It's like a really nasty logic puzzle that some perverse sob thought up one day.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus:

A ball of lead has a stronger gravitational pull then a similar ball of aluminium. This is experimental fact. Similarly, a neutron star the size of the Earth has a greater pull then the Earth. This can be observed by the objects orbiting it.

Well, unless you've done the experiment in space without the experiment being in contact with other material, there is reasonable doubt. As to the neutron star reference, I couldn't say. I think the conclusions from that evidence have certain given preconditions (like gravitational pull). I would think you'd have used a more local case such as Jupiter and its moons to show this. Don't we presume Jupiter's effective mass from looking at assumed masses of its moons and the motions of their orbits?

In other words, we're backing into the 'mass' by using orbits and gravitational 'pull'. I would think you could disprove McC pretty easy by using just the sizes of planets and their moons. Since you didn't, I assume you can't.

[Boerseun]

the problem here is that you are still holding onto the view that the earth is being pulled by the sun and that our path through space is affected by that. It isn't.

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly. In saying that the perceived 'orbits' of the planets around the sun must expand in order to maintain the distances between the planets, to which you have agreed, there must be a noticeable and measurable change in our perception of 'gravity' during the course of a day, when our orientation to the sun (from which we are clearly 'expanding' away) changes.

 

Why would we perceive the effect of 'expansion' of the Earth, but not of the accellerating expansion of our orbit? What is the fundamental difference between the two? I don't think it will suffice to keep answering these questions with saying that my problem with McCutcheon lies in my misunderstanding his premise, or me holding on to gravitational preconceptions. The above is a definite logical inconsistency in 'expansion' theory and will not easily go away.

 

Another problem with McCutcheon's easy dismissal of Cavendish's torsion bar experiment by saying that everything is linked to the Earth's expanding surface, and therefore cannot give a proper result, would be the simple switching of the two weights. If you take a polystyrene ball 50cms across and a lead ball of the same dimensions, McCutcheon would have them both expanding at the same rate and therefore have the same gravitational effect on other objects. The torsion bar experiment would always swing to the lead ball. If the fact that the experiment is physically connected to the Earth is a problem, all you have to do is to perform the experiment one way and then change the balls and see which way the bar swings. You can do this a hundred times. Heck - you can do this a million times and change the balls to your heart's content. The lead ball will be the winner every single time. And the only way to explain this would be that gravity is indeed a property of mass, and that expansion is clearly not the case.

 

It'll be interesting to hear McCutcheon's take on this.

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus: Well, unless you've done the experiment in space without the experiment being in contact with other material, there is reasonable doubt.

 

Expansion outward from the surface shouldn't effect an attraction along the surface.

 

How is it that this contact could obscure the results? Why is it that contact with other materials always works to support Newton's theories? Do we have to throw out all experiments due to this mysterious contact? Or do we only throw out those that disagree with McCutcheon?

 

Anyway, the way I see it, McCutcheon's universe can be modeled as Newtons with one small modification, instead of an inverse square law, McCutcheon's gravity is constant. Unfortuntaely, this has been measured, and sides against McCutcheon.

 

I would think you could disprove McC pretty easy by using just the sizes of planets and their moons. Since you didn't, I assume you can't.

 

It doesn't seem to matter what I say, people are willing to cling to McCutcheon despite the evidence. I've suggested many, many times that the mere fact that planets/comets orbit in conic sections proves an inverse square law for the gravitational force. Since McCutcheon's theory leads to a constant gravitational force, it clearly isn't right.

 

I'd go so far as to say that McCutcheon's theory stands AGAINST nearly all precise measurements of gravity/mass/equivalence principle. McCutcheon's theory might be easy to understand, but it is easy to falsify experimentally.

-Will

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly. In saying that the perceived 'orbits' of the planets around the sun must expand in order to maintain the distances between the planets, to which you have agreed, there must be a noticeable and measurable change in our perception of 'gravity' during the course of a day, when our orientation to the sun (from which we are clearly 'expanding' away) changes.

You are actually missing the point of how strange McC's theory is. The geometry of expansion is really stranger than is imagined here. We don't travel in a circle on the end of a string. That's the only thing we've experienced that even comes close to the geometric affect of expansion and relative motion. Keep in mind that we have no archetypes for this motion. It doesn't exist anywhere on earth. We have no reference for it.

Perhaps the logic puzzle that I mentioned in the previous post is better stated like this: can two objects traveling in 'straight' lines effectively orbit each other? Under what condition would they? And if the reference frame changes over time, how do you define straight? That's the real issue here and you are not alone in your confusion. There's a damn good reason this approach has been overlooked: it's extremely difficult to visualize. All of our experiential knowledge fights against it.

[Sajuuk]

Hello all. I haven't read McCutcheon's book but I'll still try to argue (almost) blindly against it (I at least made the effort of looking at his website...).

 

I just don't see how his "simple" theory can account for any orbit at all. I argue that in an absolute space, you cannot build an expanding two-body system which will never collide. I guess a mathematical proof would involve only simple vector calculus, but there is nothing like trying it yourself. Anyone who believe in McCutcheon's theory should try to code the following little program. Create two objects with random positions and velocities in space; give them a non-zero and expanding radius (the expansion should be governed by a square law of the form r = a*t^2 + k, where 'a' is a constant and 'k' is the inital radius). Now, I argue that you will never find a value of initial velocities, positions, 'a' and 'k' where the 2 objects do not eventually collide, which basically tells us that stable circular orbits cannot exist in an expansion theory of gravity. This will be true unless your 2 objects are accelerating away from each other, in which case you completly lost the point of McCutcheon's theory to remove the "invisible" force of gravity (since acceleration implies force).

 

Now, a few words on the motivation behind most attempts one can have to reinvent physics by himself. First, for most situations, physics work (unless you think that physics is only about blackholes, galaxy-sized structures and undiscovered particles, where there is unarguably advances to be made). Second, it is not *that* hard to understand (only the maths are, but if you don't understand them don't argue against them please). In fact, special relativity can be entirely derived from 2 very simple postulates, one is the constance of the speed of light. Then, without adding any extra postulate, you can discover the curvature of space by extrapolating what you know about special relativity to a rigid rotating disc. Then you pose an equivalence principle that says that gravity cannot be distingished from an accelerating frame. Finally, state that mass (and energy) curves space and you just got the entire theory of general relativity (which works in most cases but still has to be refined for extreme situations.... this is the way of science). In one sentence: don't waste your time trying to "simplify" physics, most of the fondamental ideas that support it are not that hard to grasp and have been extensively tested.

 

If you really want to tackle something weird, try quantum mechanics instead (most of it is only simple linear algebra!). I am confident that you'll find an extremely rich world of phenomenas that you have no way of explaining outside the framework of QM (try explaining quantum teleportation using only the concepts from McCutheon's expansion theory!).

[Boerseun]

I don't often find the need to quote myself, but here goes:

I don't think it will suffice to keep answering these questions with saying that my problem with McCutcheon lies in my misunderstanding his premise, or me holding on to gravitational preconceptions.

...which was answered with:

You are actually missing the point of how strange McC's theory is.

and

That's the real issue here and you are not alone in your confusion. There's a damn good reason this approach has been overlooked: it's extremely difficult to visualize.

I'm not going out of my way to be a pain in the ***, Steve, but what we propose here are serious logical inconsistencies that are simply not being answered.

 

Besides - Einstein explained in one of his famous thought experiments how you would not be able to discern gravity from an accelerating frame, using an elevator as an example. You won't know whether you're in freefall or in space untill you actually hit the ground, or not. This explains the similarity of the two on a small scale, but does not cater for orbits, which are elegantly described by the curvature of space. The curvature of space, of course, can be visibly demonstrated with solar eclipses, and how the sun curves starlight coming from behind. How would expansion cater for that? What other possible explanation can be given for that? I'm not completely blind to alternatives, but expansion doesn't seem to make the grade. All it does is provide an easy and intuitive explanation for what we perceive as gravity. Space being curved, on the other hand, explains gravity on a small scale, as well as bigger things like orbits, the structure of galaxies, etc.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I guess what I'll agree to do is not argue with anyone who has not actually read the book. I'm tired of doing it. That, I suppose, constitutes a 'victory' on your part. But for what?

If you cannot see that expansion can account for the exact same effect as an attractive force, then there is no point in discussing it further. You don't want to know.

We have a fundamental disagreement there.

McCutcheon is pointing out that we don't actually understand things like momentum or movement. That's what he's doing. But you don't want to hear it.

Only time will tell. One day we'll perform the correct experiments in space where there won't be any doubt as to the voracity of the experiment. And until then we simply won't know for sure.

I wish I had your certainty, those of you who do not find any truth in his theory or are afraid to actually read the book, but I don't. My mind is open to the possibility that we can be blind to a very significant phenomenon and yours is not. Are you afraid to think you actually might have a fundamental flaw?

I challenge you to show me one thing you know for a fact. You don't. Especially about this subject. Christ, you can find 10 scientists that don't agree on 10% of the anyones theory.

But you can pretend to know. So can I. But it doesn't change what is at all. Our observations only affect us and absolutely nothing else in the universe unless we share the observation. We are all free to accept or deny the validity of the observations. And when someone comes along and says that what we see is really a derivative of what is taking place, and quite possibly an illusion, you run in fear. That's what I'm seeing here. That's my observation. Deny it if you wish, but that's what I have to offer you.

McCutcheon's one defining characteristic is that he appears to have absolutely no fear. None. If you read the book you'd see that. If you'd had discussions with him, you'd see that.

And perhaps that is what rubs so many of you the wrong way.

[Erasmus00]

If you cannot see that expansion can account for the exact same effect as an attractive force, then there is no point in discussing it further. You don't want to know.

 

The only thing attraction can do is create a CONSTANT foce. It cannot create an inverse square law. However, conic section orbits (what we observe) can only occur in an inverse square law (the proof can be found in many analytical mechanics texts, such as Goldstein). So, right away we find the existance of the solar system disagrees with McCutcheon.

 

Are you afraid to think you actually might have a fundamental flaw?

 

Given that McCutcheon makes dozens of mistakes in his free chapter, I expect there to be many more in subsequent chapters. I can't afford to purchase a book I know is flawed.

 

I challenge you to show me one thing you know for a fact. You don't. Especially about this subject.

 

I suggest that the presence of the solar system gives me complete confidence in asserting an inverse square law for gravity, at least at the level of the solar system.

 

And when someone comes along and says that what we see is really a derivative of what is taking place, and quite possibly an illusion, you run in fear. That's what I'm seeing here. That's my observation. Deny it if you wish, but that's what I have to offer you.

McCutcheon's one defining characteristic is that he appears to have absolutely no fear. None. If you read the book you'd see that. If you'd had discussions with him, you'd see that.

And perhaps that is what rubs so many of you the wrong way.

 

Why is it that supporters of McCutcheon run in fear of experimental evidence? McCutcheon himself told me that a modified cavendish type experiment would quickly show his theory correct. I ran such an experiment for him, and found the standard results. At this point McCutcheon broke off discussion with me.

 

McCutcheon is also intellectually dishonest. His first chapter of the book is full of mischaracterizations (straw men) of Newtonian theory.

-Will

[Boerseun]

Steve - calm down, dude.

 

You've posted one long rant about us not wanting to see McCutcheon's 'truth'. You still haven't answered any of my questions, which were posted, believe it or not, in good faith.

 

I'm still waiting, though.

 

I've got a lot of patience with this thread, seeing as it's the thread I've stumbled across and found Hypo along the way more than a year ago, but I don't have a lot of patience for unsupported pseudoscience. I am asking valid questions, and instead of answers I get ravings such as your last post.

 

Answers, is what we're looking for. And, no, I'm not going to pay good money for somebody's pet theory in ebook form - that's not how honest science works. Especially after he (in all honesty) made a complete and utter fool of himself in the first (and only free) chapter.

[Sajuuk]

I guess what I'll agree to do is not argue with anyone who has not actually read the book.

 

Then, should we stop argumenting with you if you never opened a real physics textbook to study its content? That would close the debate pretty quickly and sadly no one would have gained anything from it...

 

Now, if you want facts and numbers (again) here we go! Let's calculate the revolution period of the moon (the time it takes to make one orbit around the earth).

 

First, we can use Newton's gravitational law : F = G*M*m / r^2, where 'F' is the gravitational force, 'M' is the mass of the first object, 'm' is the mass of the second object, and 'r' is the distance between the centers of the 2 objects.

 

We combine it with Newton's second law of movement : F = m*a, where 'F' is the sum of all forces on a given object (the moon in our case), 'm' is the mass of the object (the moon again, this is the same 'm' as in the first equation) and 'a' is its acceleration. Thus, we get F = G*M*m / r^2 = m*a, if we suppose that earth's gravity is the only force acting on the moon.

 

Now, it is very easily proven through vector calculus that an object with velocity 'v' perpendicular to a radial acceleration 'a' is governed by the following formula : a = v^2 / r, where 'r' is the curvature radius. For simplicity sake, we will suppose that the moon moves on a circular orbit around the earth, thus the 'a's and the 'r's in the equations are the same! This assumption may seem arbitrary but it should still give us a good average value of the revolution period of the moon since an elliptical orbit can be approximatly averaged to a circle. By replacing the 'a', dropping the 'F' from the equation of the last paragraph and doing some simple algebra, we get : v = sqrt(G*M / r), where sqrt() is the square root. This means that the tangential velocity of the moon only depends on the earth's mass and the distance between the two bodies (or the curvature radius)!

 

We know from geometry that the circonference of a circle is C = 2*pi*r. We also know that the time it takes to cover some distance at a constant speed is T = d / v (plain common sense!). So the time is take to go around a circonference 'C' while going at speed 'v' is T = 2*pi*r / v. Let's put the value of 'v' from the last paragraph in this equation to finally get :

T = 2*pi*r^(3/2) / sqrt(G*M)

 

Now, we use the standard values :

pi = 3.1415926

r = 384 400 000 m (this is the mean radius of the moon's orbit)

G = 6.6742e-11 N m^2 kg^-2 (gravitational constant)

M = 5.9742e24 kg (earth's mass)

 

... and make the numerical calculation :

 

T = 2*3.1415926*(384 400 000 m)^(3/2) / sqrt(6.6742e-11 N m^2 kg^-2*5.9742e24 kg) = 2.371e6 s = 27.4 days

 

So we get a revolution period of 27.4 days. The real measured value is 27.321 days. This quick calculation is not so bad if we take into account the very broad approximations we made (the circularity of the moon's orbit, no gravity influence from the sun, etc.).

 

I, for one, made the effort of writting some maths (the real language of physics).

 

NOW, I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COME UP WITH A SIMILAR VALUE USING ONLY THE MATHS AND HYPOTHESIS GIVEN BY MCCUTHEON.

 

This is real world physics of very easily observable values. Similar calculations where done in the 16th century and the revolution period of the moon has been known and studied for thousands of years by many civilizations. If McCutheon's theory can't give a good value then it's clearly worthless since it doesn't account for reality (which is the goal of any physical theory!).

 

It's not even a question of open mind here, it's just plain honesty. As I hinted before, if you really want to test your 'open-mindness', try reading and understanding what quantum mechanics has to say about your concepts of realism and locality...

[CraigD]

NOW, I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COME UP WITH A SIMILAR VALUE [for the orbital period of the moon] USING ONLY THE MATHS AND HYPOTHESIS GIVEN BY MCCUTHEON.

I’ve tried, and I can’t. Using information provided in this thread and reasoning similar to Sajuuk’s previous post in this thread, I’ve proven to my satisfaction that it cannot be done.

(the expansion should be governed by a square law of the form r = a*t^2 + k, where 'a' is a constant and 'k' is the inital radius)

A point of accuracy – because TFT states (sort of) that measuring sticks also expand, the expansion formula has to be of the form r_absolute = f(t), where (d –f(t))/f(t) = roughly a*(t +:eek_big:^2, where d is the distance from the center of the expanding body to an arbitrary point body falling toward it. This requires f(t) to be roughly of the form f(t) = d/(1 -e*(t +f)^2), where d, e, and f are constants.

 

This is of little help in answering Sajuuk’s challenge, but it does raise a weird consequence of TFT – under it, “absolute expansion” is dependent on the position of a body experiencing the gravitational acceleration associated with the expansion.

 

While the exercise of working out the details of these and other novel consequences of TFT are potentially interesting, their lack of correspondence to observed nature is discouraging, making such an exercise one of mathematical formalism, not practical Physics.