The Final Theory

[Boerseun]

Kuba, I would recommend you read a few pages back in this thread where we proposed a simple torsion bar experiment to debunk expansion. I cannot find anything wrong with the proposed experiment. ET-proponents have said that because the torsion bar is connected to the surface of the 'expanding' Earth, the results would be skewed, and therefore not trustworthy.

 

Problem is - the proposed expansion only happens on the vertical plane, whilst the torsion bar would measure gravity (indicating that mass is indeed the culprit) on the horisontal; therefore, a torsion bar experiment would indeed indicate gravity's cause. Mention this to ET proponents, and they will tell you that you "simply don't understand" what McCutcheon is saying.

 

I think they are "simply not seeing" the results of this experiment for what it is.

 

ET is correct we are wasting a LOT of time, money, and effort to answer mysteries that arise in our Standard Theory.

Sure - and if the Standard Theory is correct, we are wasting a lot of time and resources in exploring alternative theories, like Expansion, for instance. But we have to do it in order to validate Standard Theory - the first theory that comes along which can explain natural phenomena like gravity will replace Standard Theory - that's how science works. But, if any proposed theory cannot stand up to particular experiment (like the torsion bar), then it is a waste of time to continue along that path.

 

ET is a waste of time and resources, because it isn't internally consistent and does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

Invent one single experiment to disprove Standard Theory, and you'll be the next Einstein.

[Kuba]

Boerseun,

I don't understand your logic. All that the cavendish experiment shows is that objects appear to "attract" each other. And the results are well within ET. If two people jump straight up in the air next to each other, they would actually get closer but the distance would be so negligible that you would never actually see it.

 

>"the proposed expansion only happens on the vertical plane, whilst the >torsion bar would measure gravity (indicating that mass is indeed the >culprit) on the horisontal"

 

Expansion occurs in all directions, not just vertical. How does that indicate that mass, as opposed to size, is the culprit?

 

This test does not disprove ET.... actually it supports it. BTW, this test has been done all over the world and the results always vary because people believe that the mass of the object is more important to its size.

 

And I don't believe that we should stop funding or researching ST. I just believe that we should also look at alternatives...ET being, in my opinion, a very good alternative.

[Sajuuk]

If you could simply show how the orbit of the moon around the earth arises from TFT I bet the theory would get much more attention. But if it can't even account for the simpliest solar system mechanics it's not worth further investigation (nobody really cares about things that don't work).

 

So it would really take the debate to another level if you could do simple maths to calculate the orbital period of the moon around the earth. Good luck to you since I absolutely don't know how someone could do that...

[Sebastian]

Hi, this seems to be the longest running science discussion ever in Hypography, so I decided to join in the discussion.

I came across the book recently and, from what I see, many people think he is trying to make a quick buck from the ignorant public. Although I am not a supporter of expansion theory, I don’t think he is a fraud or a crackpot. Expansion theory is a very good attempt at a TOE but falls apart in orbital mechanics. If a theory cannot resolve a simple issue like how orbits of planetary bodies occur, people tend to take the whole theory as rubbish. I think the rest of the theory is solid but needs mathematical descriptions of the events it describes in his book. His theory on Orbits needs serious revision.

[Boerseun]

Boerseun,

I don't understand your logic. All that the cavendish experiment shows is that objects appear to "attract" each other.

Yes, indeed. If you have a leaden weight in suspension, and on the one side you park a solid lead ball and on the other side at an equal distance you park a polystyrene ball of the same size as the lead ball, and the suspended weight allways moves towards the heavier ball, what does that tell you? Or am I being to vague, using non-understandable logic?

Both balls, lead and polsterene, are, according to expansion, 'expanding' at the same rate, because they have similar dimensions. So, what is causing the suspended weight to always move towards the lead ball? Is it the 'expansion' of the Earth causing this? Once again, no - everything in this experiment is tied to the 'expanding' surface, so it can be cancelled out for all objects in the system. The only thing that does pass muster is the physical mass of the leaden weight causing gravitational attraction.

 

I really hope you understand my logic this time.

This test does not disprove ET.... actually it supports it.

Au contraire. This experiment blows 'expansion' out of the water, lock, stock, and barrel.

BTW, this test has been done all over the world and the results always vary because people believe that the mass of the object is more important to its size.

This is news to me. The Cavendish experiment have been used to calculate the gravitational constant. This would not have been the case if the experiment yielded different results. It always gives the same result. Sorry.

And I don't believe that we should stop funding or researching ST. I just believe that we should also look at alternatives...ET being, in my opinion, a very good alternative.

I agree - we have to stay open-minded, and we have to take any new theory as a likely candidate to be a closer approximation of the Truth than what we currently have. This built-in self-correcting mechanism one of the key elements of science. However, once we take a theory such as the grossly (and rather arrogantly) misnamed "The Final Theory", and we submit it to a few experiments (as above), the first experiment to fail it will blow the concept out of the water.

 

Look at String Theory, for instance. There hasn't been a single experiment done to prove the existence of "strings", therefore, there is no reason to believe it as truth. But there are platoons of scientists currently designing experiments to validate and/or disprove String Theory. Once the data starts coming in, real scientists will see where it leads them. If an experiment blows up String Theory, the scientists will just shake their heads and say "damn". And then move to the next theory. End of story. But McCutcheon seems to cling to his theory because its a money-making racket. This isn't science. I have been to quite a few forums now regarding this issue, and everytime the theory is disproved using elementary physics and relatively simple experiments, the 'expansion' proponents tend to either disappear from those forums, become abusive, or simply show their ignorance of basic science.

 

McCutcheon doesn't seem to understand even basic science. A high-school student will see reams of errors in his theory (and this is only in his first free chapter).

[Sajuuk]

Hi, this seems to be the longest running science discussion ever in Hypography, so I decided to join in the discussion.

I came across the book recently and, from what I see, many people think he is trying to make a quick buck from the ignorant public. Although I am not a supporter of expansion theory, I don’t think he is a fraud or a crackpot. Expansion theory is a very good attempt at a TOE but falls apart in orbital mechanics. If a theory cannot resolve a simple issue like how orbits of planetary bodies occur, people tend to take the whole theory as rubbish. I think the rest of the theory is solid but needs mathematical descriptions of the events it describes in his book. His theory on Orbits needs serious revision.

 

TFT's attempt at explaining quantum mechanics is laughable at best, the only thing it could have hoped to explain is gravity (but it doesn't...).

 

If TFT was even remotely right, it's equations would reduce to the ones of standard theory (since it works). For example, even Einstein's general relativity can be approximated by Newton's grativity law. Feynman's quantum electrodynamics can be approximated by Maxwell's electromagnetic equations in certain cases. But as we showed in earlier pages of this thread, TFT rarely (if ever) makes any real predictions, so we systematically have to discard it.

[Sebastian]

The big advantage expansion theory has is its ability to predict the Pioneer Anomaly and The inverse square law using the basic postulates of Relativity.

 

Even the fact that Standard Theory has been unable to account for the Pioneer anomaly and lack of theoretical(not mathematical) descriptions of elliptical orbits sould tell us that a rethink might be required.

 

We all know that one man cannot build a totally sound theory of everything; he needs the help of the scientific community to repair his mistakes and to see whether in the end it needs to be chucked out. Mind you, I think that his theory is repairable and his title to overambitious.

[Sajuuk]

The big advantage expansion theory has is its ability to predict the Pioneer Anomaly and The inverse square law using the basic postulates of Relativity.

 

Even the fact that Standard Theory has been unable to account for the Pioneer anomaly and lack of theoretical(not mathematical) descriptions of elliptical orbits sould tell us that a rethink might be required.

 

Would you be kind enough to explain us how expansion theory can explain the inverse square law and the Pioneer anomaly? I thought McCutcheon rejected relativity in his book...

 

In Standard Theory, elliptical orbits are simply geodesics in curved spacetime. You can see it as an ant walking straight forward on a basketball and always coming back to its starting point. This is the physical meaning of an orbit.

[Sebastian]

Would you be kind enough to explain us how expansion theory can explain the inverse square law and the Pioneer anomaly?In Standard Theory, elliptical orbits are simply geodesics in curved spacetime. You can see it as an ant walking straight forward on a basketball and always coming back to its starting point. This is the physical meaning of an orbit.

 

O.k., it seems I have to address two key issues (the inverse square law and elliptical orbits) but I think I will leave elliptical orbits for a later post.

According to expansion theory, the acceleration is given to the body causing the gravitational effect contrary to ST that gives it to the body feeling the effect. For simplicity I will assume that McC has worked out orbital mechanics and proceed to use the sun as an example. According to relativity, all bodies have a time difference between them. Let us use Mercury and Pluto as our objects that are meant to have different accelerations towards the sun. Suppose that the distance between Mercury and the sun is x and between Pluto and the sun is 5x. The time difference between Mercury and the sun t1 = x / c, and the time difference between Pluto and the sun is t2= 5x / c (where c = speed of light). Because of this time difference you cannot do a straight comparison of their accelerations due to the fact that the times the orbits exist are not the same. In ET, the sun is accelerating and so the acceleration becomes our event that the two bodies cannot experience at the same time. Sajuuk, can you see where I’m going? If we take our time interval to be the time, Δt, the expansion was witnessed on Mercury, it would be discovered that Pluto would be experiencing an expansion before Δt and in essence be viewing a earlier sun expanding into a smaller Δx. So all in all Pluto is experiencing a smaller Δx over the same Δt if all measurements are taken from the same place and time (in this case Mercury), in essence a smaller acceleration. We can now prove mathematically that acceleration varies inversely to the square of distance.

 

x = (1/2) aΔt2

a = 2x/Δt2

If,

Δt = x/c

And

x = cΔt

Then

a = 2cΔt/(x/c) 2

a = 2c3Δt/x2

 

Since c3 and Δt are constant in the example, acceleration will vary inversely to the square of distance. This is proof of the inverse square law using expansion and relativity. As for the Pioneer anomaly he cliams that expansion is catching up with it.;)

 

 

I thought that his orbital mechanics was based on relativity.

[Kuba]

Yes, indeed. If you have a leaden weight in suspension, and on the one side you park a solid lead ball and on the other side at an equal distance you park a polystyrene ball of the same size as the lead ball, and the suspended weight allways moves towards the heavier ball, what does that tell you? Or am I being to vague, using non-understandable logic?

Both balls, lead and polsterene, are, according to expansion, 'expanding' at the same rate, because they have similar dimensions. So, what is causing the suspended weight to always move towards the lead ball? Is it the 'expansion' of the Earth causing this? Once again, no - everything in this experiment is tied to the 'expanding' surface, so it can be cancelled out for all objects in the system. The only thing that does pass muster is the physical mass of the leaden weight causing gravitational attraction.

 

I really hope you understand my logic this time.

 

Honestly, I don't think you understand the experiment. You can't just put differing balls on opposite ends and say one side is attracting and the other is not.....the balls are on the same axis, if one moves, the other moves equally. How can you come to the conclusion that the lead ball is causing the 'attraction' as opposed to the styrofoam ball causing it or both causing it equally?:hihi: You need to recheck you logic buddy.:doh:

 

The experiment simply shows the constant in which objects 'attract'. Basic geometry proves that ET is supported by this experiment....

 

....if you take the two larger balls on the outer end and you make one the size of a marble and the other the size of a bowling ball (with their mass being equal), the inner balls (being equal in mass and size) will hit the bowling ball first, and therefore faster than the ball hitting the marble. The obviouse discrepency here would be that because the bowling ball is larger in size it is also unfairly closer to the inner ball, therefore making this experiment irrelevant in trying to prove or disprove ET or Newtonian Gravity.:doh:

 

A more accurate experiment would be to build a tall structure with a complete vacuum in it and drop the marble and the bowling ball (of equal mass), at the exact same distance(measured from the outer end of the balls) from the earth and measure whether or not the bowling ball hits first.

 

Done.;)

[Sajuuk]

O.k., it seems I have to address two key issues (the inverse square law and elliptical orbits) but I think I will leave elliptical orbits for a later post.

According to expansion theory, the acceleration is given to the body causing the gravitational effect contrary to ST that gives it to the body feeling the effect. For simplicity I will assume that McC has worked out orbital mechanics and proceed to use the sun as an example. According to relativity, all bodies have a time difference between them. Let us use Mercury and Pluto as our objects that are meant to have different accelerations towards the sun. Suppose that the distance between Mercury and the sun is x and between Pluto and the sun is 5x. The time difference between Mercury and the sun t1 = x / c, and the time difference between Pluto and the sun is t2= 5x / c (where c = speed of light). Because of this time difference you cannot do a straight comparison of their accelerations due to the fact that the times the orbits exist are not the same. In ET, the sun is accelerating and so the acceleration becomes our event that the two bodies cannot experience at the same time. Sajuuk, can you see where I’m going? If we take our time interval to be the time, Δt, the expansion was witnessed on Mercury, it would be discovered that Pluto would be experiencing an expansion before Δt and in essence be viewing a earlier sun expanding into a smaller Δx. So all in all Pluto is experiencing a smaller Δx over the same Δt if all measurements are taken from the same place and time (in this case Mercury), in essence a smaller acceleration. We can now prove mathematically that acceleration varies inversely to the square of distance.

 

x = (1/2) aΔt2

a = 2x/Δt2

If,

Δt = x/c

And

x = cΔt

Then

a = 2cΔt/(x/c) 2

a = 2c3Δt/x2

 

Since c3 and Δt are constant in the example, acceleration will vary inversely to the square of distance. This is proof of the inverse square law using expansion and relativity. As for the Pioneer anomaly he cliams that expansion is catching up with it.:hihi:

 

 

I thought that his orbital mechanics was based on relativity.

 

Could you use your equations to calculate the acceleration of the moon please? (Hint: it's about 384400 km away). You could also calcultate the acceleration of an object on the earth's surface (we are about 6400 km away from the center). I expect the results to be interesting.

[Kuba]

Could you use your equations to calculate the acceleration of the moon please? (Hint: it's about 384400 km away). You could also calcultate the acceleration of an object on the earth's surface (we are about 6400 km away from the center). I expect the results to be interesting.

 

Im not sure about his equations (didnt really bother to look :naughty:) but you can calculate the rate at which the moon is "falling" to earth, although you have to take into consideration that the moon is also 'flying' away at a certain speed. Hence, keeping it's orbit.

 

And you're right about being able to calculate the acceleration of an object on the earth's surface.....BTW, have you read "The Final Theory"? It would probably answer some of these questions that you have here....

 

Anyways, HAPPY WEDNESDAY EVERYONE! :fly:

[Boerseun]

Honestly, I don't think you understand the experiment. You can't just put differing balls on opposite ends and say one side is attracting and the other is not.....the balls are on the same axis, if one moves, the other moves equally. How can you come to the conclusion that the lead ball is causing the 'attraction' as opposed to the styrofoam ball causing it or both causing it equally?:fly: You need to recheck you logic buddy.:naughty:

Kuba, dude... budddddddyyyyyyy...

 

Checkit:

 

In the pic I've attached, the big black ball is made of lead. The yellow one is made of styrofoam. The tiny black ball between the two is suspended on a bar with an equal weight on the other side. The bar is suspended from a vertical bar, in the same direction as the expansion of the platform, in this case Planet Earth, would be felt. The big black and big yellow balls are lying flat on a static platform, let's say a table. This table is standing on the surface of Planet Earth, in other words both the big and small balls are "expanding" with the Earth, at the same rate and speed as the suspended weight between them. But we're not interested in what's happening in the vertical plane, and because they are both fitted to the same platform, Earth, we can cancel out any effects of Earth's 'expansion', what we might experience as gravity in the vertical axis.

 

With me, so far?

 

So, what we are looking at is what would happen to the tiny ball suspended between the two balls in the horizontal plane. And, to be consistent, we can verify the results by changing the positions of the two big balls. The tiny ball will always torque the suspension bar in the direction of the lead ball. Is the suspension bar biased towards one direction? Hell no! Change the position of the lead and polystyrene balls, and it will torque in the other direction!

 

How is this possible, I ask of you, in an "expanding" universe? According to McCutcheon, the only, and only explanation for this is that the lead ball is "expanding" faster than the polystyrene ball. And careful measurements with verniers and calipers of all kinds will clearly show that this is not the case.

 

This is a cheap and easy experiment to perform, and gives Mark McCutcheon (and his bank manager) sleepless nights. He and his proponents have tried to blow the results of this simple experiment away with arguments of ever-increasing complexity and absurdity, but have failed so far to convince anybody with a good grasp of entry-level physics.

 

If you don't understand me this time, let me know, and I'll see if I can spice up the picture some.

[Kuba]

Kuba, dude... budddddddyyyyyyy...

 

Checkit:

 

In the pic I've attached, the big black ball is made of lead. The yellow one is made of styrofoam. The tiny black ball between the two is suspended on a bar with an equal weight on the other side. The bar is suspended from a vertical bar, in the same direction as the expansion of the platform, in this case Planet Earth, would be felt. The big black and big yellow balls are lying flat on a static platform, let's say a table. This table is standing on the surface of Planet Earth, in other words both the big and small balls are "expanding" with the Earth, at the same rate and speed as the suspended weight between them. But we're not interested in what's happening in the vertical plane, and because they are both fitted to the same platform, Earth, we can cancel out any effects of Earth's 'expansion', what we might experience as gravity in the vertical axis.

 

With me, so far?

 

So, what we are looking at is what would happen to the tiny ball suspended between the two balls in the horizontal plane. And, to be consistent, we can verify the results by changing the positions of the two big balls. The tiny ball will always torque the suspension bar in the direction of the lead ball. Is the suspension bar biased towards one direction? Hell no! Change the position of the lead and polystyrene balls, and it will torque in the other direction!

 

How is this possible, I ask of you, in an "expanding" universe? According to McCutcheon, the only, and only explanation for this is that the lead ball is "expanding" faster than the polystyrene ball. And careful measurements with verniers and calipers of all kinds will clearly show that this is not the case.

 

This is a cheap and easy experiment to perform, and gives Mark McCutcheon (and his bank manager) sleepless nights. He and his proponents have tried to blow the results of this simple experiment away with arguments of ever-increasing complexity and absurdity, but have failed so far to convince anybody with a good grasp of entry-level physics.

 

If you don't understand me this time, let me know, and I'll see if I can spice up the picture some.

 

Okay, I can now see why there might be some confusion. You aren't talking about the Cavendish Experiment! Here is a link that can clarify it for you:

 

 

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/NewtonianMechanics/CavendishExperiment/CavendishExperiment.html

 

You cannot configure the two big balls on the outside of the appuratise in this manner, at least not if we are talking about the Cavendish Experiment! Here is a pic of wat it should look like:

 

 

Now according to YOUR experiment one can also observe that the ball at the back end would always "gravitate" toward the styrafoam ball, albeit it is at a distance but that is irrelevant. You cannot conclude that because the inner ball moves toward the lead ball, that the lead ball has a stronger gravitational force because on the opposite end the ball would be moving toward the styrafoam ball at the same rate. BTW, I would like to see a reference to an experiment that you claim has been done in the manner that you describe, because i could not find anything to that effect.

 

Your idea of the experiment is flawed. Cavendish himself never claimed anything; all he did was to create an experiment in which he could measure the gravitational constant which attracts two objects. The experiment itself has nothing to do with proving or disproving that mass is responsible for the force.

[Boerseun]

No. I have made the .jpg as simple as possible to clear any confusion out the way. I haven't even included the mirror, nor the light source. I have assumed that the graphic would convey the idea across quite clearly. I apologise if I was mistaken.

 

I have, when I first introduced this experiment in the thread, referred to the Cavendish experiment being modified in order to show the difference between different masses. I have explained this quite a few times.

 

If you reckon that the experiment would indicate that the ball on the far end is attracted to the styrofoam ball, you're wrong. The inverse square law of gravitational attraction clearly shows this. And you could say that I'm referring to gravitational laws in order to disprove a theory attacking gravitiation as we understand it, but the inverse square law have been demonstrated to be in fact the truth, to such an extent that McCutcheon have even conceded that if expansion is indeed the case, then expansion should be accellerating.

 

Besides - if the ball on the far side is attracted to the styrofoam ball, keep in mind - the two tiny balls are on a solid bar. Because of the inverse square law, the closer small ball would preferentially move to the styrofoam ball as well. Matter of fact - because of the inverse square law, we can ignore the effects on the far ball - it would be many times smaller than what the closer ball experiences. And it always swings towards the lead ball. Explain that, please.

[Kuba]

And it always swings towards the lead ball. Explain that, please.

 

Like I said, I haven't seen ANY experiments that give such a result. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places but since you know so much about the results as to conclude that it is always attracted to the lead ball, I thought maybe you could direct me to such experiments.....?

[Boerseun]

Shall do. Let me just rummage through my linkage here...