The Final Theory

[coldcreation]

By the way, coldcreation, there already is an explanation for why the temperature scale stops at absolute zero. Heat energy is created by atomic vibrations. At absolute zero, particles stop oscillating and no heat is generated. You can't have a temperature below absolute zero any more than you can have a negative mass.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I of course know that. What you write is classical. My mentioning it was only a setup for the spike that comes next. The fact, in passing, is that the absolute zero of temperature in not attainable (see third law of thermodynamics). In addition, your classical explanation forgets to take into consideration quantum mechanics, which forbids a particle from stopping, e.g., the electron of a hydrogen atom has a ground energy level below which it cannot dip. Going to zero would defy the uncertainty principle: it’s location could be determined and it’s velocity zero. The point for now is that the zero value still exists (as you highlight).

 

I’m sure you know this, as it is taught in high school physics class. I mention it only for the laymen reading your words. I agree with the rest of what you wrote though.

 

coldcreation

[ldsoftwaresteve]

coldc, with respect to the question of absolute zero, if McCutcheon is correct then all physical actions are the result of expansion - something he says is a fundamental property of existence. Since temperature is related to the actions of particles, one would have to stop the expansion to achieve absolute zero because then and only then would particles stop moving.

Of course, this is just from my lay perspective.

[coldcreation]

coldc, with respect to the question of absolute zero, if McCutcheon is correct then all physical actions are the result of expansion - something he says is a fundamental property of existence. Since temperature is related to the actions of particles, one would have to stop the expansion to achieve absolute zero because then and only then would particles stop moving.

Of course, this is just from my lay perspective.

 

ldsoftware, forgive me for not having responded to you prior post regarding redshift. You are correct. I will elaborate asap.

 

Expansion theory and zero absolute are not a priori connected in any way. In any case I fail to see how expansion make gravity less magical than gravity. My question would be: what causes expansion. But I will not ask it because I already know the answer: Nothing.

[polemotheos]

I'm not sure whether this equation came from Erasmus00 or McCutcheon, but the units don't work out. s(t) is a distance and should be measured in meters. This means that the right side of the equation should also reduce to meters. y0, R1, and R2 are all in meters, and in order to combine all of them, that 7.7 constant can't have any units. In the bottom of the equation you have t^2, which is measured in seconds-squared (and the 1 needs to have seconds-squared as well).

 

So if you reduce the units on the right hand side of the equation, you get meters per square-seconds. This is the unit for acceleration, and it can't be equal to the distance s(t).

 

Perhaps you accidentally wrote your parentheses wrong? Or maybe t doesn't stand for time like I thought it did. Otherwise, this equation is erroneous, as is everything you developed from it.

 

Thanks for your help. I forgot to add a "t^2" in that equation. I edited my post to fix it.

 

McCutcheon says 7.7X10^(-7) has "/s^2" units which seems to solve the issues you present.

 

He calls this constant the universal atomic expansion rate, Xa,.

 

Xa = 4.9/Re

 

Where Re is the radius of earth (6,371,000)

 

s(t) is the equation demonstrated in the book. I just did the further math to the a(t) function.

 

My question is if Xa*t^2 produces no units then how can the "1" have a unit?

 

peace,

Mars

[polemotheos]

I have no desire to clutter the forum with a a discussion of the cavendish experiment, so I will send you a private message on the subject, suffice to say that the gravitational force is so weak that it takes very accurate equipment to detect the deviation.

McCutcheon told me that the experiment should behave differently after I switched the weights, but it did not. He was unable to provide me with any math at all detailing what difference I should see, he just told me that I should notice some obvious change.

-Will

Well he told you it should show an effect but if he is unable to calculate what effect it was suppose to have how are you to verify if your equipment could even measure it?

 

a(t0) = -2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*7.7X10^(-7)

 

Your equipment has an accuracy of +or-1% of how many digits of g?lets see if you can even measure it;

 

can we discuss this?

[mojassty]

My question is if Xa*t^2 produces no units then how can the "1" have a unit?

 

I said the '1' needed a unit because I was assuming the constant Xa had no units. Now that you've corrected the equation, I see that it doesn't have a unit.

 

I'm very interested to know what sort of evidence McCutcheon provides to support his expansion theory of gravity. As of now, I'm not impressed with his ideas.

 

Don't forget that Newton's Law of Gravitation withstood centuries of testing before General Relativity came along. Although we have had trouble verifying the theory for certain, GR has never been disproven by experiments or observations (and Gravity Probe B should soon provide definite results for or against Einstein's theory). If McCutcheon's theory of gravity can't even pass the Cavendish experiment...

[polemotheos]

I said the '1' needed a unit because I was assuming the constant Xa had no units. Now that you've corrected the equation, I see that it doesn't have a unit.

 

I'm very interested to know what sort of evidence McCutcheon provides to support his expansion theory of gravity. As of now, I'm not impressed with his ideas.

 

Don't forget that Newton's Law of Gravitation withstood centuries of testing before General Relativity came along. Although we have had trouble verifying the theory for certain, GR has never been disproven by experiments or observations (and Gravity Probe B should soon provide definite results for or against Einstein's theory). If McCutcheon's theory of gravity can't even pass the Cavendish experiment...

Thanks for helping me fix my math.

 

I personally would like to see the numbers on the Cavendish experiment and plug them into the equation to verify whether our friend could actually measure a difference with the equipment used.

 

I think GR is disproved by it's own illogic;

 

The Final Theory page 326:

 

The Twin Paradox thought experiment states that, if one of a pair of identical twins embarks on an extended space mission at near light-speeds for many years according to our Earthbound timeframe, the mission would only seem to have lasted perhaps a few hours for the astronaut twin. This is because Special Relativity Theory states that time slows down dramatically for anyone traveling at near light-speed relative to a stationary observer, yet runs at the same unchanging rate for the observer; so, upon returning to Earth, the astronaut would be much younger than the twin who stayed home.

 

This thought experiment is considered to show a concrete example of the "time dilation" effect that follows from the equations of Special Relativity. However, on closer examination, the very paradox introduced by Special Relativity Theory is also undone by the same theory. Since "everything is relative" in Special Relativity Theory, it is just as valid to consider the astronaut to be stationary while the Earth speeds away at near-light-speed. There would be an initial difference between these two views since the astronaut would feel an absolute initial acceleration as the spaceship fired it's rockets to gain speed, but thereafter this completely relative view of who is traveling and who is stationary is not only supported but also demanded by Special Relativity Theory. Therefore, as the Earth now coasts away at near-light-speed it would be the astronaut who ages while sitting in a stationary spaceship, while only a few hours pass on the speeding Earth. But how can two completely different physical outcomes result from the same space mission simply because of how we think about it? Clearly this is not a true physical paradox, but merely a logical oversight in an attempt to lend validity to the fanciful claim of "time dilation."

[polemotheos]

I wonder if this equation is true;

 

a(t0) = -2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*7.7X10^(-7)

 

Would it not demonstrate that all the energy and matter shooting out of stars will remain in the Universe instead of spreading out infinitly? Otherwise would not much of the energy and matter then become so spread out you could no longer form stars?

 

peace,

Mars

[polemotheos]

I wonder if this equation is true;

 

a(t0) = -2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*7.7X10^(-7)

 

Would it not demonstrate that all the energy and matter shooting out of stars will remain in the Universe instead of spreading out infinitly? Otherwise would not much of the energy and matter then become so spread out you could no longer form stars?

 

peace,

Mars

Also one more thought on this;

 

If it is true that energy and matter rebound back into the universe it would be possible to see light from a star that actually comes from a totally different trajectory. We can call it universe expanisional lensing. :rant: It would rebound just like a ball on earth.

[mojassty]

I think GR is disproved by it's own illogic;

 

The Final Theory page 326:

 

The Twin Paradox thought experiment states that, if one of a pair of identical twins embarks on an extended space mission at near light-speeds for many years according to our Earthbound timeframe, the mission would only seem to have lasted perhaps a few hours for the astronaut twin. This is because Special Relativity Theory states that time slows down dramatically for anyone traveling at near light-speed relative to a stationary observer, yet runs at the same unchanging rate for the observer; so, upon returning to Earth, the astronaut would be much younger than the twin who stayed home.

 

This thought experiment is considered to show a concrete example of the "time dilation" effect that follows from the equations of Special Relativity. However, on closer examination, the very paradox introduced by Special Relativity Theory is also undone by the same theory. Since "everything is relative" in Special Relativity Theory, it is just as valid to consider the astronaut to be stationary while the Earth speeds away at near-light-speed. There would be an initial difference between these two views since the astronaut would feel an absolute initial acceleration as the spaceship fired it's rockets to gain speed, but thereafter this completely relative view of who is traveling and who is stationary is not only supported but also demanded by Special Relativity Theory. Therefore, as the Earth now coasts away at near-light-speed it would be the astronaut who ages while sitting in a stationary spaceship, while only a few hours pass on the speeding Earth. But how can two completely different physical outcomes result from the same space mission simply because of how we think about it? Clearly this is not a true physical paradox, but merely a logical oversight in an attempt to lend validity to the fanciful claim of "time dilation."

 

This "paradox" is brought up almost every time Special Relativity is discussed. The thought experiment shouldn't be used to explain Special Relativity because General Relativity is also involved.

 

Special Relativity is "special" because it only applies to inertial reference frames (i.e. frames of reference that aren't accelerating). As long as the two twins are moving away from each other at a constant rate, there is complete amiguity as to which one has aged more than the other. However, neither the Earth nor the spaceship is an inertial reference frame, so Special Relativity doesn't apply. Since the twin in the spaceship underwent more severe acceleration, he/she was affected more by the time dilation.

 

The mathematics behind Special Relativity is actually very easy to understand. It comes very logically from the postulate that all inertial reference frames will measure the same value for 'c' (a fact that was proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment).

 

GR, on the other hand, has some extremely difficult mathematics, and I'm afraid I'm not familiar with them. GR seems illogical when you don't know the in-depth theory behind it, but it never would have been accepted by the scientific community if it weren't grounded in sound logic and mathematics. And, as I briefly mentioned in my last post, most of the predicted effects of GR have been verified to some degree, with plenty more supporting evidence on the way.

 

I've found far more logical flaws in what I've read of McCutcheon than I've ever found in my studies of relativity.

[mojassty]

I wonder if this equation is true;

 

a(t0) = -2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*7.7X10^(-7)

 

Would it not demonstrate that all the energy and matter shooting out of stars will remain in the Universe instead of spreading out infinitly? Otherwise would not much of the energy and matter then become so spread out you could no longer form stars?

 

peace,

Mars

 

Only the Universe as a whole is expanding. Gravity still keeps stars and inter-stellar material grouped together in galaxies, and it keeps galaxies grouped together in clusters. The expansion is really only noticeable between clusters of galaxies, which seem to be moving apart at an increasing velocity. And the expansion isn't caused by matter and energy moving 'out of the Universe.' (I suppose if stuff did move out of the Universe, whatever it moved into would become part of the Universe) The way I was taught it, the actual spacetime fabric of the Universe is stretching, carrying the clusters away from each other. No matter what theory you go by, the whole business is mind-boggling :rant:

 

Incidentally, as stars deplete the Universe of hydrogen and helium, eventually there will be no more stellar fuel. After the stars die out, everything else will eventually fall apart (literally) and we'll just have single particles of matter and energy spreading apart forever with the expanding Universe. Kind of a depressing way for things to end, if you ask me.

[polemotheos]

This "paradox" is brought up almost every time Special Relativity is discussed. The thought experiment shouldn't be used to explain Special Relativity because General Relativity is also involved.

Should I tell you Einstein was the one that used this "thought experiment" to prove Special Relativity?

 

Special Relativity is "special" because it only applies to inertial reference frames (i.e. frames of reference that aren't accelerating).

Don't you think it is intresting that there is always an acceleration or deceleration in this thought experiment?

 

As long as the two twins are moving away from each other at a constant rate, there is complete amiguity as to which one has aged more than the other.

This is what Einstein seemed to forget.

 

However, neither the Earth nor the spaceship is an inertial reference frame, so Special Relativity doesn't apply.

Tell that to Einstein.

 

Since the twin in the spaceship underwent more severe acceleration, he/she was affected more by the time dilation.

This is an unfounded assumption I am sure your willing to retract.

 

Could you show me the acceleration time dilation equation which supports your comments. I am sure there is no such equation so your welcome to retract.

[mojassty]

Like I said before, I haven't studied GR analytically, so I can't supply you with a mathematical equation regarding the effects of time dilation on an accelerating body. However, that doesn't change the fact that Special Relativity only applies to non-accelerating bodies. Einstein knew that special relativity wasn't applicable to non-inertial reference frames, which is why he went on to develop General Relativity and the equivalence principle.

[Erasmus00]

Should I tell you Einstein was the one that used this "thought experiment" to prove Special Relativity?

 

 

Don't you think it is intresting that there is always an acceleration or deceleration in this thought experiment?

 

This is an unfounded assumption I am sure your willing to retract.

 

Could you show me the acceleration time dilation equation which supports your comments. I am sure there is no such equation so your welcome to retract.

 

 

Look, one of the twin's HAS to turn around, or the two can never get back together to compare their ages. The only way to turn around is to accelerate. Its not an unfounded assumption, he HAS to turn around, or they can't possibly meet up again. This breaks the symmetry of the situation. If you wish to see mathematical handling of hte twin paradox, private message me.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

If this is true you have experimentally disproved his theory. Can you try the inverse of your last experiment. Provide a larger sphere which is the same weight. Can we get someone else to check Erasmus00's work?

 

I may disprove his theory mathematically (feel free to check my work);

 

Here is his equations which he does not provide;

 

s(t) = (y0 - 7.7X10^(-7)*t^2*(R1 + R2))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)

 

Where y0 is the initial distance between the surface of two bodies, R1 is the radius of one body and R2 is the radius of the other.

 

 

d/dt [s(t)] = v(t)

 

= v0 - (2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*t*7.7X10^(-7))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)^2

 

Where v0 is an initial velocity.

 

 

d^2/dt^2 [s(t)] = d/dt [v(t)] = a(t)

 

= (2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*(3*7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 - 1)*7.7X10^(-7))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)^3

 

To evaluate his function lets look at t0 the initial time.

 

a(t0) = -2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*7.7X10^(-7)

 

Notice that in Newton's theory as the distance increases (/R^2) the acceleration do to gravity decreases.

 

However in the Final Theory as the distance increases, y0, so does the acceleration do to expansion. At infinite distance there is infinite acceleration. :rant:

 

I think now I understand why he says in his latter chapters why he thinks some satellites are slowing down as they leave the solar system. Infact he suggests the satellites will return.

 

 

Just incase anyone wants to know the "authority" appeal. I am an inventor and study on my own and have never finished a degree in college because of finding college inefficient and often a waste of time.

 

peace,

Mars

 

I measured G to within about 10% of the accepted value, after I switched the one ball weight, I was within 12% of G, and close to my original measurement. My uncertainity was about 3% of G, so the two values are well within each other. I cannot do the inverse, as I've disassembled the balance I built, and I don't see a need to build it again.

-Will

[polemotheos]

Look, one of the twin's HAS to turn around, or the two can never get back together to compare their ages. The only way to turn around is to accelerate. Its not an unfounded assumption, he HAS to turn around, or they can't possibly meet up again. This breaks the symmetry of the situation. If you wish to see mathematical handling of hte twin paradox, private message me.

-Will

When you quote me you pull my words out of context. So your comments are not a response to what I said. Consider what I said in context;

 

Originally Posted by mojassty

Since the twin in the spaceship underwent more severe acceleration, he/she was affected more by the time dilation.

 

This is an unfounded assumption I am sure your willing to retract.

 

Please notice that the claim that 'acceleration causes time dilation' is what I am questioning.

[Erasmus00]

I think GR is disproved by it's own illogic;

 

The Final Theory page 326:

 

The Twin Paradox thought experiment states that, if one of a pair of identical twins embarks on an extended space mission at near light-speeds for many years according to our Earthbound timeframe, the mission would only seem to have lasted perhaps a few hours for the astronaut twin. This is because Special Relativity Theory states that time slows down dramatically for anyone traveling at near light-speed relative to a stationary observer, yet runs at the same unchanging rate for the observer; so, upon returning to Earth, the astronaut would be much younger than the twin who stayed home.

 

This thought experiment is considered to show a concrete example of the "time dilation" effect that follows from the equations of Special Relativity. However, on closer examination, the very paradox introduced by Special Relativity Theory is also undone by the same theory. Since "everything is relative" in Special Relativity Theory, it is just as valid to consider the astronaut to be stationary while the Earth speeds away at near-light-speed. There would be an initial difference between these two views since the astronaut would feel an absolute initial acceleration as the spaceship fired it's rockets to gain speed, but thereafter this completely relative view of who is traveling and who is stationary is not only supported but also demanded by Special Relativity Theory. Therefore, as the Earth now coasts away at near-light-speed it would be the astronaut who ages while sitting in a stationary spaceship, while only a few hours pass on the speeding Earth. But how can two completely different physical outcomes result from the same space mission simply because of how we think about it? Clearly this is not a true physical paradox, but merely a logical oversight in an attempt to lend validity to the fanciful claim of "time dilation."

 

Special relativity never gives rise to a contradiction, it is in fact mathematically consistent, or else no one would use it And there is a difference between the astronaut and the guy on Earth. The astronaut accelerates, which he can measure and feel. That breaks the symmetry.

-Will