The Final Theory

[Kuba]

Not related to topic. Just wanted to send personal msg to Boerseun.

 

Your msg box is full and i cannot send u a private msg....

[Boerseun]

Cleaned up. Try PM'ing it again.

[Kuba]

Hope I didn't lose you Boerseun. This wouldn't be a sign of concession would it? :confused:

[Boerseun]

Hope I didn't lose you Boerseun. This wouldn't be a sign of concession would it? :confused:

No - going through me archives. Found this along the way, which also kind of kicks McCutcheon in the teeth:

 

Let's take the idea that the sensation that we feel as gravity is really the Earth expanding up and accelerating against our feet at 9.8 meters per second per second. On the sun this acceleration would have to be 274 meters per second per second and on the Moon the acceleration would be 1.6 meters per second per second. Under Mr. McCutcheon's theory the sensation of gravity would be directly proportional to the radius of the body. This is a direct consequence of how the sensation of gravity is being produced under his theory. In other words if the ratio of the acceleration on the Moon to the acceleration on Earth is 1.6 to 9.8 then the radius of the Moon to the radius of the Earth must also be 1.6 to 9.8. As it turns out the ratio of the radius of the Moon to the radius of the Earth is actually 1.6 to 5.9. When we do the math for the Sun we are even further off. In Science this is called a contradiction and it means something is seriously wrong with the basic assumptions of the hypothesis. Since expansion is the basic premise of this theory all the other conclusions are on bad scientific footing.

Explain: #:P

[Kuba]

Well, hopefully you arent dodging my last request for evidence of experimental proof.....but ill take a crack at this one....

 

First of all, lets start with the false assumption that the moon's gravity is 1/6th that of the Earth's. It is not... the one side of the moon that we did measure was 1/6th, but the other side of the moon should be 1/2 that of the Earth, giving the overall 'gravity' of the moon as 1/4th, which I may add is what Newton predicted it should be!!! The reason for this, according to ET, is because the center of mass in the moon is not in the center but rather closer to earth.....causing the difference in gravity.

 

So if we take into consideration that the moon is about 1/4th the size of earth and the average gravity for the moon is about 1/4th, the ratio works beautifully and it supports ET. :confused:

 

The simplist test would be to actually land on the opposite side of the moon and measure the gravity there. In my opinion the results would show that there is a difference in gravity.

 

BTW, here is the ratios for earth and moon:

 

9.8/2.67=3.67

 

6,378/1,738=3.67

[Boerseun]

By the same token, gravity on the side of the Earth facing the moon should be considerably different from the side facing away from the moon.

 

You have to be consistent.

 

Then, too, you will weigh a heck of a lot more in the middle of the night than at noon, when the sun is above you.

 

Explain: #:confused:

[Kuba]

By the same token, gravity on the side of the Earth facing the moon should be considerably different from the side facing away from the moon.

 

You have to be consistent.

 

Then, too, you will weigh a heck of a lot more in the middle of the night than at noon, when the sun is above you.

 

Explain: #:confused:

 

I'm not sure where you are drawing that assumption. The earth's center of mass is fairly centered then that of the moon's, therefore your weight on earth would not change no matter where you go on the planet. And as to weighing less during the day and more during night time is a little out there and is not consistant with my explanation.

[Boerseun]

I'm not sure where you are drawing that assumption. The earth's center of mass is fairly centered then that of the moon's, therefore your weight on earth would not change no matter where you go on the planet. And as to weighing less during the day and more during night time is a little out there and is not consistant with my explanation.

'Course it is.

 

Consider:

 

The Earth's orbit around the sun is a circle. Well, not really, but for the same of this argument, a circle is close enough.

So, in any case, according to McCutcheon, the sun is expanding. And so is the Earth.

So, what is stopping the Earth and the Sun from expanding 'into' each other?

Simple - the circle, the orbit which the Earth is following, simply must expand at a rate sufficient to keep the relation between the distance and the physical size of the Sun and the Earth constant. This must be the case, otherwise we'll toast pretty soon when the Sun bumps into Earth.

 

With me?

 

Okay - so what happens now? When it is noon, the sun is above your head. You are now experiencing 'expansion' from the Earth as normal gravity. But, you are also experiencing the orbital expansion away from the sun. You can't experience on kind of expansion, and not another. And the orbital expansion away from the sun, must be at least the same as the sun's surface 'expansion', or the rate of the sun's gravitational attraction, i.e. 274 meters per second per second. Whilst that of the Earth is only 9.8. But keep in mind that the sun is above you. So, the nett 'expansion' that must be experienced at noon would be the Earth's minus the orbital.

 

But now come nighttime, what happens? You'll experience the Earth's expansion plus the orbital, simply because the sun is now beneath your feet. Whoah! Talk about pullin' g's!

 

Expansion cannot work without an expanding orbital component, else everything would have bumped into each other long ago. And this expanding orbital component must be experienced, seeing as it is driven by the same magical process thats supposedly expanding everything else.

And, you'll experience additional mind-blowing changes in gravity during the day as the Earth rotates, that could be attributable to our sun's orbit around the galactic center expanding at rates that'll definitely blow your socks off.

 

We're not seeing any of these effects, so how can 'expansion' be accountable for it?

 

I am by no means saying that Standard Theory is perfect - there are many problems and our knowledge is by no means complete. But we do know enough to say that McCutcheon cannot be right.

[Kuba]

The orbit itself does not have an expansion 'force'. The distance maintained between the earth and the sun is an effect of the speed at which the earth is moving in relation to the sun. So, as the Sun expands toward the earth, the earth is traveling away at sufficient speed to keep its distance and its orbit. So no matter wat side of the earth we are on, we maintain the same distance from the sun.

 

And as Einstein stated, everything is relative....so the speed at which we are moving is relative to what you are comparing it to.....

 

....Can't think anymore.....too tired...lol......need sleep......ill be back tomarrow :confused: gnight, or should i say gdmornin..lol

[Boerseun]

So... when moving around the sun, the Earth is merrily floating at a set speed.

But the Earth's orbit is circular - so this set speed travelling in a straight line is 'bent' somehow into a circle. How can this be, through 'expansion'?

How can the Earth's path be influenced in any way by the surface expansion of a nearby star?

 

But orbits is another matter, completely...

 

Besides - you say that "orbits don't have an expansion 'force'"

How is this possible? The sun's surface isn't 'expanding' at a constant rate, it has to be an accellerating expansion, to account for what we might perceive as gravity. And this being the case, the Earth isn't merely merrily cruising along in an orbit, the orbit itself must expand at an accellerating pace to keep the distance between the sun and the planet. And the same effects would be felt from an expanding orbit as would be felt from an expanding surface - otherwise you're introducing yet another force, this time an invisible force that cannot be experienced...

 

Expansion Theory states that there are no "invisible forces" acting between masses; that everything is accounted for by expansion. But in the orbital model, there surely must be some "invisible" communication between stars, planets and whatever mysterious force is driving orbits - otherwise the stars and planets will expand into each other. So, in assuming that expansion is indeed the case, a new "magical invisible force" must be introduced, simply to save McCutcheon's model from observational embarrasment.

 

And I don't think it's kosher to quote Einstein when the physics you're embracing contradicts his? :confused:

 

Back to the drawing board, mr. McCutcheon...

[Sajuuk]

Im not sure about his equations (didnt really bother to look :P) 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! :confused:

 

I used Sebastian's formula to calculate the rate of expansion on the earth surface and found a value of 2.81x10^10 m*s^-2, which is roughly 9 orders of magnitude too big (we all know the real value is 9.81 m*s^-2). Either I am incompetent at using these equations or the equations themselves are highly inconsistent.

 

Also, why don't we feel a different gravity depending on the time of the day? I mean, the center of gravity of the earth-sun system is located inside the sun itself (or quite near), so according to the argument you made for the moon we should feel much lighter during daytime.

 

Finally, please don't quote Einstein about relativity, because his theory of general relativity is in complete opposition to ET (McCutcheon clearly rejects it on his website anyway, see http://thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html).

[Kuba]

So... when moving around the sun, the Earth is merrily floating at a set speed.

But the Earth's orbit is circular - so this set speed travelling in a straight line is 'bent' somehow into a circle. How can this be, through 'expansion'?

How can the Earth's path be influenced in any way by the surface expansion of a nearby star?

 

But orbits is another matter, completely...

 

Besides - you say that "orbits don't have an expansion 'force'"

How is this possible? The sun's surface isn't 'expanding' at a constant rate, it has to be an accellerating expansion, to account for what we might perceive as gravity. And this being the case, the Earth isn't merely merrily cruising along in an orbit, the orbit itself must expand at an accellerating pace to keep the distance between the sun and the planet. And the same effects would be felt from an expanding orbit as would be felt from an expanding surface - otherwise you're introducing yet another force, this time an invisible force that cannot be experienced...

 

You're wrong about that, we would not "feel" the effects of the expanding orbit since the orbit is not a physical thing that pushes on our feet, or heads for that matter. An orbit is simply an effect of the two geometric shapes (the sun and earth) expanding and speeding away from each other.

 

Expansion Theory states that there are no "invisible forces" acting between masses; that everything is accounted for by expansion. But in the orbital model, there surely must be some "invisible" communication between stars, planets and whatever mysterious force is driving orbits - otherwise the stars and planets will expand into each other. So, in assuming that expansion is indeed the case, a new "magical invisible force" must be introduced, simply to save McCutcheon's model from observational embarrasment.

 

It is not an invisible force. That is simply an illusion which is caused by expansion.

 

And I don't think it's kosher to quote Einstein when the physics you're embracing contradicts his? ;)

 

Back to the drawing board, mr. McCutcheon...

 

Einstein was on to something. Einstein did not believe in the Newtonian idea of gravity being a force. Although, he ended up giving credit to gravity as being caused by the warping of space-time, he had the right idea.

Einstein actually supports ET in some ways. And even Einstein rejected the theory of gravity being a force because of so many contradictions and unexplained phenomenon. Now how are you going to believe in gravity as being a force when it contradicts Einstein, the man that essentially created your precious Standard Theory?

 

So now hopefully we can agree that gravity is not caused by an attractive force but is an effect of something else; from our current knowledge, that would be either space-time warp or expansion.

 

It's really quite funny how after every false assumption or observation you dismiss McCutcheon and his theory without considering the fact that your assumptions might be wrong or skewed. The fact that you simply don't understand Expansion Theory does not make it an invalid one.

 

And by the way, RELATIVITY is not contradicted by ET!!!

[Kuba]

I used Sebastian's formula to calculate the rate of expansion on the earth surface and found a value of 2.81x10^10 m*s^-2, which is roughly 9 orders of magnitude too big (we all know the real value is 9.81 m*s^-2). Either I am incompetent at using these equations or the equations themselves are highly inconsistent.

 

Uh, well, I don't mean to be rude but you are simply incompetent at using those equations. Here is the equation for the expansion of earth:

 

d = 1/2(9.8)(1)^2 = 4.9 meters/sec

 

Note: 4.9 meters/sec is the acceleration that accures ever second. So it is thus 4.9m/s^2.

 

Dividing the one sec expansion amount with the radius gives the universal expansion rate:

 

x=4.9/6,371,000

x=0.00000077

 

Also, why don't we feel a different gravity depending on the time of the day? I mean, the center of gravity of the earth-sun system is located inside the sun itself (or quite near), so according to the argument you made for the moon we should feel much lighter during daytime.

 

That is not 'according to the argument' i made for the moon. The center of gravity for the moon itself is off-center, meaning the moon is more dense on one side and less dense on the other....this has nothing to do with the 'earth-moon' system and it does nothing to affect the gravity on the earth. The moon's difference in gravity is due, solely to the moon itself, not the earth-moon system.

 

Finally, please don't quote Einstein about relativity, because his theory of general relativity is in complete opposition to ET (McCutcheon clearly rejects it on his website anyway, see http://thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html).

 

Yes, he rejects Einstein's conclusion that the effect of gravity is due to space-time warp but he also agrees with Einstein that Newtonian Gravity is not the answer.

 

And my reference to Einstein and relativity was not a reference to his whole General Theory of Relativity but merely a section of it which he proposes that speed and motion is all relative to what you are comparing it to. I nor McCutcheon ever stated that EVERYTHING in his theory is incorrect. On the contrary, there are a lot of things in GTR that are very scientifically sound but it does not make the whole theory correct nor does it make his underlying explanations for his observed phenomenon correct.

[Sajuuk]

Uh, well, I don't mean to be rude but you are simply incompetent at using those equations. Here is the equation for the expansion of earth:

 

d = 1/2(9.8)(1)^2 = 4.9 meters/sec

 

Note: 4.9 meters/sec is the acceleration that accures ever second. So it is thus 4.9m/s^2.

 

Dividing the one sec expansion amount with the radius gives the universal expansion rate:

 

x=4.9/6,371,000

x=0.00000077

 

What's the use for the equation a=2c^3 * t/x^2 then? Your equation should yield a result in meters since 'a' is in m*s^-2 and 't^2' is in s^2. And 4.9 meters/sec is not the increase in speed of expansion each second since objects falls at 9.8 ms^-2 on earth's surface (4.9 has no physical meaning). The equation d=1/2*a*t^2 is usually used in classical mechanics to calculate the distance traveled by an object under constant acceleration, so I don't really think you use them correctly either. Remember that you can't just mess with units and dimensions as you wish, it has to be consistent throughout the equation.

 

That is not 'according to the argument' i made for the moon. The center of gravity for the moon itself is off-center, meaning the moon is more dense on one side and less dense on the other....this has nothing to do with the 'earth-moon' system and it does nothing to affect the gravity on the earth. The moon's difference in gravity is due, solely to the moon itself, not the earth-moon system.

 

Do I have to remind you that ET states that gravity depends on radius and not on mass (or density)? We have pictures from probes that show that the moon is quite spherical, so according to ET it should expand at the same speed on both sides.

 

 

Yes, he rejects Einstein's conclusion that the effect of gravity is due to space-time warp but he also agrees with Einstein that Newtonian Gravity is not the answer.

 

And my reference to Einstein and relativity was not a reference to his whole General Theory of Relativity but merely a section of it which he proposes that speed and motion is all relative to what you are comparing it to. I nor McCutcheon ever stated that EVERYTHING in his theory is incorrect. On the contrary, there are a lot of things in GTR that are very scientifically sound but it does not make the whole theory correct nor does it make his underlying explanations for his observed phenomenom correct.

 

In the link I provided in my previous post, McCuthcheon actually rejects everything from standard theory (by not undertanding what he calls the 'work function'). He rejects electromagnetism (since he does not know "why magnets cling to fridges"), thus he has to reject special relativity whose basic postulates are derived from Maxwell's theory. The relativity you are talking about is galilean relativity (obviously introduced by Galileo), but it was showed in the late 19th century that it was not sufficient to explain all electromagnetic interactions (and there came Einstein).

 

Finally the opposition you make between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitationnal theory shows misunderstanding. General relativity CONTAINS Newtonian gravity as an approximation in weak fields. In fact, Einstein litterally built his equation system so it would reduce to Newtonian gravity in those cases. Einstein did not rejected Newton's theory, he just improved it (this is still a tremendous achievement). ET does not improve anything, it rejects and tries to rebuild everything from new (but false) premises. I still claim that it cannot produce a single measurable result and the challenge to calculate the orbital period of the moon is still up (see p.67 of this thread). http://hypography.com/forums/books-movies-games/797-final-theory-67.html

[Kuba]

What's the use for the equation a=2c^3 * t/x^2 then? Your equation should yield a result in meters since 'a' is in m*s^-2 and 't^2' is in s^2. And 4.9 meters/sec is not the increase in speed of expansion each second since objects falls at 9.8 ms^-2 on earth's surface (4.9 has no physical meaning). The equation d=1/2*a*t^2 is usually used in classical mechanics to calculate the distance traveled by an object under constant acceleration, so I don't really think you use them correctly either. Remember that you can't just mess with units and dimensions as you wish, it has to be consistent throughout the equation.

 

Well, it is well known that any object dropped from 4.9 meters will hit the ground in exactly one sec. So how can you say 4.9 has no physical meaning?????????

 

Do I have to remind you that ET states that gravity depends on radius and not on mass (or density)? We have pictures from probes that show that the moon is quite spherical, so according to ET it should expand at the same speed on both sides.

 

That is not according to ET. Not if the center of the moons gravity is offset. You obviously havent even read the book and you are trying to critisize it. The fact that it is spherical in shape has nothing to do with disproving ET. McCutcheon cleary explains the moon and it's gravity.

 

In the link I provided in my previous post, McCuthcheon actually rejects everything from standard theory (by not undertanding what he calls the 'work function'). He rejects electromagnetism (since he does not know "why magnets cling to fridges"), thus he has to reject special relativity whose basic postulates are derived from Maxwell's theory. The relativity you are talking about is galilean relativity (obviously introduced by Galileo), but it was showed in the late 19th century that it was not sufficient to explain all electromagnetic interactions (and there came Einstein).

 

Likewise, he explains electromagnetism and magnets in the book as well. I am not going to reiderate his entire book in this forum. You need to do your due diligence and read and analyze it yourself.

 

And you still don't understand the term 'relative' in terms of motion and speed. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTIONS!

[Sajuuk]

Well, it is well known that any object dropped from 4.9 meters will hit the ground in exactly one sec. So how can you say 4.9 has no physical meaning?????????

Yeah but I was using Sebastian's equation to calculate the gravitationnal acceleration on earth's surface. Up to date it still does not work. With Newton's theory it is quite easy. Just plug the earth radius and mass in the equation a = G*M/r^2 and you instantly get 9.8 ms^-2. Sebastian claimed that you could also derive an inverse square law in McCutcheon's theory but the result, as I tried to use it, is inconsistent with reality.

 

Also, the result 4.9 ms^-2 had no physical meaning in your previous post when you arbitrarily changed the units from m/s to m/s^2. But now you just totally changed its meaning again (which is now correct since the equation d=1/2a*t^2 is used in the context of measuring a displacement under constant acceleration). But now it has nothing to do with the inverse square law anymore.

 

That is not according to ET. Not if the center of the moons gravity is offset. You obviously havent even read the book and you are trying to critisize it. The fact that it is spherical in shape has nothing to do with disproving ET. McCutcheon cleary explains the moon and it's gravity.

 

Then what exactly determines the center of gravity of an object? Why would we suddently need mass to explain ET? Then what causes mass to expand? How does the dark side of the moon "knows" that the center of gravity is offset and that it should expand faster? In this case, if the dark side expands faster, why doesn't the moon have a "big butt"?

 

I read the first chapter of McCutcheon's book (the free one) but it was so overwhelmed by his mistakes and false premises that I judged I should spend my time educating people about real physics rather than reading the rest of his book. I could make the same argument against you, you have never studied general relativity and you are trying to critisize it. You'll probably say that you've got a life and don't have the time to study all the maths to understand the real theory and I'll say that it is perfectly fair and honest. But if I was in your place I would not hold my breath over proving wrong people who have been studying physics every fricking day of the week for years.

 

Likewise, he explains electromagnetism and magnets in the book as well. I am not going to reiderate his entire book in this forum. You need to do your due diligence and read and analyze it yourself.

 

And you still don't understand the term 'relative' in terms of motion and speed. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTIONS!

 

Then why is Einstein's paper on relativity cleverly named "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"? Special relativity is strongly connected to electromagnetism (this is why the constant 'c' is so important in SR, this is the speed at which EM waves propagate in void). The relativity you are really talking about is galilean relativity. Check Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_relativity. Yes I perfectly understand the galilean principle of relativity but to clarify your arguments, don't invoke Einstein when there is no Einstein to be invoked.

 

Also, out of curiosity, could you quickly summarize McCutcheon's point of view on magnets, electricity and electromagnetic waves, please?

 

***** THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART WHICH MUSTN'T BE AVOIDED *****

Finally, I would honestly consider ET as interesting if you could solve the problem of the moon revolution period. I love this problem since measuring it is easy (and the result have been known for millenia) and it is also quite easy to predict it using Newtonian mechanics. If you could come up with a good result it would show that ET is at least equivalent to standard theory in some cases.

 

P.S. If you only answer to one thing in this post it has to be the moon orbit problem, I don't care about the rest since answering this one will satisfy all the others.

[Boerseun]

Kuba - your explanations are getting more and more bizarre.

 

I suggest you read through this thread, once more.

 

Since when does things fall 4.9 meters in one second?

Why, according to your reasoning, doesn't the moon expand skew? The moon clearly shouldn't be round by your reasoning.

Of course we should feel the expanding effects of the Earth's orbit expanding. You can't simply dismiss it because it's not physically 'connected' to our feet. Space vehicles change course when they pass big bodies like Jupiter. How is this possible? They shouldn't be 'feeling' the expansion of Jupiter? Why is this? Why are they changin course?

 

Do yourself another favour, and read McCutcheon's dismissal of current science, that he calls "Science Flaws" on his website. If you have even a rudimentary knowledge of science and physics, you will immediately see that McCutcheon is completely incompetent in the sciences that he so easily dismisses. He doesn't understand the difference between kinetic and potential energy. The classic mind-experiment of a hole being drilled through the Earth with a rock dropped into the hole, that will forever oscillate between the two sides of the Eart (bar air friction), he dismisses as a perpetual motion machine. He does not see that the same principle driving this mechanism, is the same thing that drives the moon around the Earth. It is not a perpetual motion setup, it is gravity. And gravity simply converts potential energy to kinetic energy. And McCutcheon does not see this.

 

Mark McCutcheon is a scientifically illiterate dimwit suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking. I have had it with idiots such as these keeping on bullshitting the population with trash like this. And it sells very well, because people are naturally suspicious of the scientific establishment, because few understand it. But "The Final Theory" is scientific snake oil, and Mark McCutcheon is coining it on the general public's bad understanding of science.

 

Mark McCutcheon actually makes it a deciding factor for scientific principles to be able to "pass the laws of common sense". Keep in mind, common sense gave us a flat Earth, the Sun orbiting the Earth, the Earth being the center of the Universe, etc. No serious scientist worth his saline solution would ever trust "common sense". But they're probably wrong, again.