The Final Theory

[Sajuuk]

Indeed, you're right. I totally see your point about the "relative" absolute expansion. I'll try to ponder on that later tonight.

[Tormod]

We have been blogged, people:

 

http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/08/theory-of-everything-or-snake-oil-just.html

 

It should come as no secret that I agree fully with the blogger. :)

 

(Although my estimate of 1,000 posts was plain wrong, this topic has had over 36,000 views. Impressive.

[Bagpi]

Hello people. I have found this very interesting forum by accident after watching a doco on "This elegant universe" (String theory).

Surfing to find out more I came across McC's TFT which in turn led me to this forum. By way of introduction I am totally a lay person being ignorant of your math, while however managing to grasp (I think) the gist of what some of you are saying.

To be honest I was hoping to find out more about TFT before trying to obtain at considerable expense and bother.

I too would have liked to read the book before passing comment. Alternatively I am wading through this thread to get an idea of what it contains to justify my purchase.

I have decided possibly unfairly not to bother.

What influences my thinking is that if one simple thing is wrong with an idea then....good bye, back to the cosmic drawing board.

 

If true that the idea is, that everything is expanding, however different materials expand at different rates depending on their density, then surely Blind Freddy can see that we are in a lot of trouble, or would have been many Moons ago. Anyway could it not be said that if an object was lifted off the surface of a mass (where good old fashioned gravity was nowhere to be felt) it would stay where it was quite happily watching the other mass and itself expanding without feeling the need to wait for the larger mass to catch up with it, ie fall back to the surface? More especially if the larger mass just happened to be spinning, poor old smaller mass would be constantly be bouncing. Being thrown off then being caught up by big old nasty mass.

Sooooo...back to conventional theory as I understand it.

 

The Earth sucks.

However I thought it was the whole planet as a mass, not some magic spot somewhere in the middle.

If this is correct then our experience of gravity might be different on the surface than say 10 or 20 miles deep.

Where I am coming from is that the proposal that a hole right through the planet would cause something dropped in it to oscillate ad infinitum from one surface to the other,(saw this somewhere) might be wrong.

On the surface anywhere the complete mass of the planet would surely be in effect...downwards.I would like to know if any measurements of simply the weight of a known control have been taken at the bottom of an extremely deep pit.Where I would have thought there would be now less mass below and more and more all around, the deeper the pit??.

 

As such would something dropped through a hole right, through the planet, not in fact accelerate initially then be acted upon by more of the planets mass in all directions the deeper it went. Consequently possibly taking for ever to even get to dead centre, where it would stop.

I would really like to know your thoughts on this principally as I have other notions to put depending on whether you consider me to be a complete moron or not.

I did Google for the Tamarack experiment only to discover that it most likely is myth that it took place. The story however relates that two plum bobs at equal depths in the earth were not closer together as expected, rather they were further apart.Myth or not, if two plumb bobs were measured at equal depths would they not in fact perhaps be further apart, given the way they would be acted upon by the now (surrounding mass)?

Please be gentle with me.

Foot note....I saw a T shirt....."There's no such thing as gravity......The Earth Sucks!!!

[HIENVN]

I remember this spring, I was browsing the web, searching for something, and came across the first chapter of the book "The Final Theory". So, today i was browsing this some threads on this site, and an ad saying something like "the mystery of physics soved", or something along the lines came up, interested, i clicked on it and the ad for "The Final Theory" came up. I was just wondering if anyone here read it, and if so what they thought if it...

 

I remember reading the first chapter, i also think the it was discussed here, but could not find the topic, or maybe it wasnt discussed and im imagining things.

“The Final Theory” should be Einstein’s unified field theory, because Einstein proposed a single secret of phenomena that he could not establish in his last life. If a single secret of phenomena is introduced to the scientists, then scientists may base on this single secret to solve the whole universe.

[Tormod]

“The Final Theory” should be Einstein’s unified field theory, because Einstein proposed a single secret of phenomena that he could not establish in his last life. If a single secret of phenomena is introduced to the scientists, then scientists may base on this single secret to solve the whole universe.

 

Can you provide some sources which would support such a statement?

[HIENVN]

Can you provide some sources which would support such a statement?

When I write something in the Science Forums, I have readied some proof for what I wrote.

I am preparing my first new thread on this Science Forums to answer somebody about Einstein’s idea that I just begging to understand it.

I would like to invite you visit my new post that will come soon on this Forums; my first post will have a title “Einstein and a Single Secret of Phenomena,” that has a relation to the work of your Einstein@home.

Thanks you for your regard of my thread to the post of “The Final Theory.”

[Sajuuk]

As such would something dropped through a hole right, through the planet, not in fact accelerate initially then be acted upon by more of the planets mass in all directions the deeper it went. Consequently possibly taking for ever to even get to dead centre, where it would stop.

I would really like to know your thoughts on this principally as I have other notions to put depending on whether you consider me to be a complete moron or not.

 

If the earth wasn't rotating aroung itself and around the sun, then yes, an object falling through a side-to-side hole would oscillate forever (we also have to neglect air friction). The gravitational potential inside a solid sphere (like the earth) is proportional to the distance from the center, thus at the center of the earth the gravity field is zero. This was established in Newton's Principia.

 

We can even calculate how much time an object would take to reach the center of the earth:

 

Let's take 'x' as the axis that goes through the center of the earth (x=0 is the center). As mentioned before, the gravitational force inside a sphere is proportional to the distance from the center, thus F = -GMm/R^2 * (x/R) = ma. This means that the acceleration a = -GM/R^2 * (x/R) = -g/R * x, where g=9.8ms^-2 (the gravitational acceleration on earth's surface). Without going into the differential equation, let's just say that inside a sphere, the gravitational force is governed by Hooke's law for springs (I can prove it for those who really want to).

So we have that the position as a function of time is x=R*cos[sqrt(g/R)*t]

The first time that function reaches zero (the earth center) is when the cos argument is equal to pi/2.

So sqrt(g/R)*t = pi/2

=> t = pi/2*sqrt(R/g) = 3.1415926/2*sqrt(6400000m / 9.8ms-2) = 1269.4s = 21.15 min

 

Assuming that it has no initial speed and starts at the surface, an object falling through a small hole in the earth would reach the center in 21.15 min. Let's remember we didn't take into account the effects of the rotation of the planet around itself and the sun (this would make the object hit the wall of the hole) nor the air friction (this would slow down the fall).

 

This value may seem small (let's remember that earth's radius is around 6400km.... in 21 minutes!), but I guess that by taking account of air dragging in the differential equation it would produce a much larger value. Probably that the object could indeed take a very long time to reach the center. Does anyone know how to do that? It would be great if someone could explain it since I've never studied aerodynamics. (To get started, the differential equation I used is 0 = x" + g/R*x, 'x' is obviously derived relative to time).

[CraigD]

http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/08/theory-of-everything-or-snake-oil-just.html

I’m slightly embarrassed that, for all of our hundreds of posts in this thread, we failed to ask a very obvious question other science forums asked within a few posts:

“How does TFT explain that a donut doesn’t expand to fill its hole?”

[Tormod]

I’m slightly embarrassed that, for all of our hundreds of posts in this thread, we failed to ask a very obvious question other science forums asked within a few posts:

“How does TFT explain that a donut doesn’t expand to fill its hole?”

 

Right on Craig. :hihi:

[Sajuuk]

Hell, I don't even want to start thinking about the maths describing the expansion of a donut under TFT. As you showed in the previous page, the absolute expansion is relative to the point of observation. So the donut would probably not expand in the same way whether you're in the 'interior' part the the donut (the surface inside the hole) or on the 'exterior' part. It may also be possible that the expansion is actually an affine transformation relative the the geometrical center of the object, which means that an object would only scale up as it expands. In all cases, describing the expansion of a topological object like a donut under TFT's rules is not trivial at all.

 

(If the donut's hole really fills up, just imagine your poor blood vessels!)

[Boerseun]

It may also be possible that the expansion is actually an affine transformation relative the the geometrical center of the object, which means that an object would only scale up as it expands.

An atom, of course, would have to 'know' where the center of the object it belongs to, is. Otherwise that there donut would be screwed, and quickly.

 

I think McCutcheon gets a shiver down his spine everytime he sees a cop eating a donut...

[Sajuuk]

But if you make a ring of 5 atoms, will they ever fill up the hole in the middle?

 

(Don't assume I believe in TFT, I'm merely playing the devil's advocate.)

[Kuba]

I’m slightly embarrassed that, for all of our hundreds of posts in this thread, we failed to ask a very obvious question other science forums asked within a few posts:

“How does TFT explain that a donut doesn’t expand to fill its hole?”

 

Actually, if you take a closer look at the geometric issue of a donut shape it is actually common sense that a donut shape cannot "fill-in" its inner self.

 

A hypothetical example would be if you took 6 marbles, all of equal size, and placed them in an EXACT circle; and you then applied even pressure from the outside of the marbles (remember, the pressure from the outside would have to be equal on every marble). The end result would be that you can put as much pressure as you want but you would never be able to make the inner circumference any smaller.

 

The only way that would be possible is if you literally took out one of the marbles and connected the gap with the remaining 5 marbles.

 

What happens is that each marble has pressure to move into the center but is held back by the two marbles on either side of it.

 

Now lets take this one step further and lets imagine that we can "blow up" these marbles like we blow up balloons. If they are blown up equally at the same rate, you would notice that the outside of this donut shape gets bigger along with the inside. So the space on the inside actually gets bigger too.

 

Therefore according to Expansion Theory and basic geometry donut shapes cannot close or "fill-in".

 

Hope that answers your question.

[Kuba]

If the earth wasn't rotating aroung itself and around the sun, then yes, an object falling through a side-to-side hole would oscillate forever (we also have to neglect air friction). The gravitational potential inside a solid sphere (like the earth) is proportional to the distance from the center, thus at the center of the earth the gravity field is zero. This was established in Newton's Principia.

 

We can even calculate how much time an object would take to reach the center of the earth:

 

Let's take 'x' as the axis that goes through the center of the earth (x=0 is the center). As mentioned before, the gravitational force inside a sphere is proportional to the distance from the center, thus F = -GMm/R^2 * (x/R) = ma. This means that the acceleration a = -GM/R^2 * (x/R) = -g/R * x, where g=9.8ms^-2 (the gravitational acceleration on earth's surface). Without going into the differential equation, let's just say that inside a sphere, the gravitational force is governed by Hooke's law for springs (I can prove it for those who really want to).

So we have that the position as a function of time is x=R*cos[sqrt(g/R)*t]

The first time that function reaches zero (the earth center) is when the cos argument is equal to pi/2.

So sqrt(g/R)*t = pi/2

=> t = pi/2*sqrt(R/g) = 3.1415926/2*sqrt(6400000m / 9.8ms-2) = 1269.4s = 21.15 min

 

Assuming that it has no initial speed and starts at the surface, an object falling through a small hole in the earth would reach the center in 21.15 min. Let's remember we didn't take into account the effects of the rotation of the planet around itself and the sun (this would make the object hit the wall of the hole) nor the air friction (this would slow down the fall).

 

This value may seem small (let's remember that earth's radius is around 6400km.... in 21 minutes!), but I guess that by taking account of air dragging in the differential equation it would produce a much larger value. Probably that the object could indeed take a very long time to reach the center. Does anyone know how to do that? It would be great if someone could explain it since I've never studied aerodynamics. (To get started, the differential equation I used is 0 = x" + g/R*x, 'x' is obviously derived relative to time).

Sajuuk,

 

Your making this more complicated than it really is. Acceleration due to gravity is constant. You would, according to TFT, accelerate at the same rate until you got to the exact center in which then you would simply immidiatly stop.

 

So according to the equation for constant acceleration:

d=(1/2)at^2

Where d=6,371,000; a=9.8

 

Simple answer comes out to be 1140 seconds or 19 min.! This is of course not considering any wind resistance or the spin of the earth. (Not sure how the spin of the earth would effect the outcome, if at all)

 

EDIT: Actually, in TFT 19 min you would get the the center of the radius not the diameter, therefore you would have to double it...as a result it would be 38 min, not 19.

[Sajuuk]

I did the calculation with real physics, not TFT. In reality, gravitationnal acceleration is not a constant. It's 9.8 ms^-2 on earth's surface, but it's lower as you go further away from earth.

 

TFT's predictions are different from the standard gravitationnal theory. In the standard theory, an object falling through a hole in the earth would oscillate between the 2 ends forever (without air dragging). In TFT, the object would asymptotically go toward the center and never reach it, since the center of the expanding earth never really moves relative to the object in absolute space. But from the point of view of the object, it would take 19 min. and then stop (as you said). So TFT implies some kind of time dilation more complex than in standard special relativity (an infinite absolute time contracts to a finite one...), that's not great for a theory whose aim is to be "easier".

 

As a side note, the rotation of the earth upon itself induces the Coriolis effect, thus an object falling through a side-to-side hole would eventually hit the hole's walls (unless both ends are at the poles).

[Kuba]

Well, your right about the fact the standard theory and TFT will have different equations resulting in different times. But I don't see why TFT has to have some sort of time dilation. I see where your coming from in terms of the infinite time it would take to get to the center but what your not taking into account is that the time you used to measure the first 'second' of growth is not the same as the second 'second' in relation to the initial size of the earth. You have to understand that it is a constant accleration not a constant velocity.

 

Your thinking it in terms of infinit halves but that is a misconception of how TFT works. Theoretically you could think of infinite halves in the standard model too, but that would not mean that you couldnt get to the center.

 

Why would you hit the walls if the mass of the 'walls' around you is equal. And according to Standard Theory, gravity is caused by mass. Therefore you should be pulled from all dirrections evenlly. And the fact that it is spinning should have no effect because you are spinning at the same speed with the earth. TFT would show the same results in terms of 'not hitting the walls'.

 

I don't know, I may be wrong. Let me know what you think.

[Kuba]

This is to those people that believe that we shouldn't bother with Expansion Theory because it doesnt answer the fundamental questions......for example, i read one gentlemen's post (not on this forum) saying: ET is dismissing ST on the basis that 'gravitational force' violates the conservation of energy law but all the while ET doesnt explain where the 'energy' for the expansion of electrons comes from. It simply replaces one mystery with another.

 

Well, right on. But let me say this to those people with this mind set. IF Expansion Theory is correct then we would be asking the right questions and IF ET is correct we are wasting a LOT of time, money, and effort to answer mysteries that arise in our Standard Theory. So, in this case if we adopted ET, yes we would STILL HAVE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS but at least we would be on the right track.

 

Now, that was just assuming TFT is correct. I have an open mind to it but am not completely committed to it. Our society, scientific community and our govt. should also take this theory a little more seriously. Do some real tests that would prove or disprove the theory.