Beagleworth

I re-read McCutcheon's orbits chapters in light of your comments. And that is what he says. He never talks about another motion. I am not sure why I thought of that. Maybe my mind was fighting his solution. It is actually possible to model using expansion and vectors : Because it is a relative motion, all you need to do is recompute the relative direction vector, but using the expansion for the inward pull! It may seem like a cheat, but our math models are biased toward absolutes. A vector is an absolute quantity. If we want to make all motion relative, we have to recompute the vector based on the new information of the frame after an update. This is equivalent to the Standard theory, but the difference is that McC's model is purely relative. Newton and Einstein's model are not. Newton because of its straight lines and Einstein because everything follows an absolute straight motion in space-time unless space-time is warped by matter. So, McC model has more purity. The key to it all is relativity. I am not ready to dump my additions yet, but the fact that a model can be built without any other information than the expansion and the relative direction and speed at a specific timestep makes that solution more likely. This tickles something in my mind, but no new thoughts or questions are coming out yet.

Strangely enough, that's is what my addition says too. Matter around an object causes the relative orbiting motion : The effect only happens in the atomic world, not the subatomic. Though your comments about two frames of reference is interesting. I need to think about that some more.

Yes, it is a stretch, but in my opinion, it is balanced by the strength of the rest of his theory. I would surely be interested in having some comments, or really more questions. I would like to dig deeper into it but from another perspective. That's why he calls it the natural orbit effect. Actually, non-circular orbit would be more common in his theory because you have to include expansion. So perfect spheres would give rise to circular orbits, but deformed objects would create erratic orbits. So in McC, an orbit would have 2 components : The expansion and "some other undefined behavior. My additions simply try to give that second component. Well, this is much easier to see with diagrams. Maybe some other time.

Thank you for your trust then. :Waldo: Not yet. It is on my list though.

Bad logic alert :Waldo: Please do not believe that. Go with strength of argument, not strength of tone. If you ever point a logical flaw in what I say, you will certainly notice a change in my tone. That is a good point. The thing that is really important is the word *relative*. A straight line is as much a relative motion as a curve. Having said that, I do not have a real problem with having an absolute motion that causes a relative orbiting motion. I would just like to be able to visualize one that when mixed with the expansion, can give large orbits(solar system) and smaller orbits(moons around planet). I have not been able so far, I simply decided to look for something else. If someone finally describe a motion, I will go back to that.

I agree it can be seen as redundant and it bothers me. But in my document, the final movement is caused by a mix of expansion and compression. You would not get an orbit without the expansion, simply a bend where an object crosses the compression zone. Compression simply defines how matter can move compared to other matter. Even though I call it a tug, I really meant it more like something following a track. (maybe I should update the document?) Other thing, I assert that there is a mechanism to create the compression built in McC's theory. So, if my additions are good, then it means all you are left to answer is why things expand. I read it and I found it very interesting. My first obvious concern with it is using electromagnetic raditions to make the theory works, because it is essentially building on something we do not fully understand : We can observe its effect, but we do not fully understand the mechanism. It is not enough to reject though, because it seems to logically work. The beauty of McCutcheon is that it explains even electromagnetics, using a new simple principle : Expansion of matter, more specifically, the expansion of the electron. Strangely enough, it does explain every fundamental forces using only kinetic terms as well : The expansion.

The nature of space is a big question. I make the assumption that there is no edge to our space(I call it atomic space) because it is simply defined by the subatomic world. Is there an edge to the subatomic world? I honestly don't know, but it would certainly have an effect on our atomic space. In my document, I think I have shown that objects can be flying away without having any sort of acceleration. So as long has they have a fast enough motion in atomic space, they will fly away without having to consider atomic space as expanding. But it unfortunately says nothing about what happens to subatomic space. But to answer your question, if there is an edge and we hit it, what happens? I don't have any insight sorry. I would hope the wall of the universe would be strong enough to hold the matter in!

Yes they must. I think they do it the way I explained. If you want something more, than I don't think it is in there. Once they were pushed in a certain direction from the big bang, there is no force to slow them down. So some objects will just keep flying, some will cross paths, some will crash. What oscillations are you talking about here?

The problem is we are inventing the straight path. If cannot happen for celestial object in any theory you can think of to explain it. Things in space just move in a curved path. That's it, that's all. Newton added a straight line for the force to pull on, but if he is not right and attractive force is not what causes gravity, then is no such straight line as presented by Newton. In McC, if you imagine things going in straight path, they will pass each other and never orbit. That's not right. The straight line is a bias view of the world. I am not sure I see how a full orbit arise from that. Wouldn't they need to move oscilllate in different directions depending on where they are relative to one another? How can this happen? Can you clarify?

This is still unclear. Last week there was measure done with 25% errors!!! (A link was posted earlier. Also, the famous gravity particle is still unseen. Gravity waves are also unseen. In any theory, motion is required. The original propulsion force could have come from the big bang. In pure McC, the phenomenae is called the "natural orbit effect", but it does not have a convincing explanation. You are speaking of life as if it is some magical attribute of the universe. I will no argue with you whether or not this is really the case, because I do not have an answer. Suffice to say that neither Standard Theory or McC provides anything to explain it the way you want, because the explanation they give us is that all living thing are made up of a form of DNA and the mechanic inside their body is all about chemical interaction(which subatomic, but is not secret) . Adding more of those mechanism creates more complex organism. Which means all those things can be explained with simple physics. So, if we try to dicuss the meaning of life with "The final theory", we'll end up in a dead end.

I will assume you want to include compression of space in the discussion. If the two spheres are not compressed : As they closer to each other, you will see their path curving toward one another because of the expansion. If they are going to slow compared to their expansion, their path will cross at the point where they collide. If they are going faster, then their path will curve again toward one another, but they will not collide and pass each other. After that, the points created from their path would align into one line because the expansion would align the centers of both sphere. If at least one of the sphere is compressed, then the same thing as above will happen. No differences. But, if the speed of the objects relative to the distance between them gives a radial speed equal to their expansion during the curving, they will orbit each other in a perfect circle because their mass is uniform. The compression will force the object to stay in a curving path around the other sphere. Is that a satisfying answer, or you had something more in mind?

Well, just like Gravity as an attractive force is a built-in universal force, so his expanding matter in his theory. There is some discussion on how it may arise, but it just brings more questions. Yes, they all expand at the same rate. Subatomic orbits are not created by the same phenomon has celestial orbits and so density does not matter. Actually, if you exclude my additions to the theory, density is not important at all for gravity in McC. At what level does life lie? Same level as with the standard model : An emerging mechanic from atoms.

It's the expansion of the other atom around them that caused the "bouncing" electrons to get pushed and stucked to the nucleas. In McC's theory, electrons expands and have elasticity, so what I call a bounce is simply the nucleas expanding and punting the electron(s) around it. It is not clear, wheter they orbit or the structure of the nucleus itself(imagine a spiky ball) causes the atoms to be thrown in different directions, but it is a possibilty. Because of that, when we sample, trying to find the location of the electrons, we see that can pretty much be everywhere because of the kicking around. If my theory is right, then electrons could also orbit around with a similar phenoma as the compressing of atomic space, because if you think of electrons has the atom of the subatomic space, then whatever the underlying structure of that electron could create a similar effect. But there is already enough to think about with atomic and subatomic space. It does not need to excape, because there is no attraction. It just needs to be kicked out of place. But that is still very hard to do because of the sizes in the subatomic world. (This requires a longer discussion). If you image a world full of expanding electrons, you can see blocks of them grouping in big blobs. If another electron happens to pass with a certain speed, it will be kicked away. But if is not going fast enough, the expansion will catch up to it and the bouncing dynamic will begin.

I will assume from your message that you have not read McC's book. If you have a explosion, matter will not be ejected uniformly. Things will hit each other, bounce, change direction. What causes matter to form planet is the expansion, chunks of matter moving at similar speed will eventually touch because they are expanding toward one another. There is no gravitational attraction. Things expands toward each other. Orbits, well, it is still not clear what explains them just from the book. I attempted to correct that. We'll see if I am on to something or not. Dark matter is not necessary in McC's theory.

You have to also think I might not be right.... :)

Last week I said I thought orbits could be explained better using McC's subatomic model. Here's my essay on it. My mother tongue is not english, so you will have to excuse some grammar errors and a few strange sentences. It will also make more sense to people who have read the book, because I am introducting a new principle based on its subatomic model which was not discussed very much in this thread. http://www.magma.ca/~ericdsl/additionstofinaltheory.pdf I am not completely statisfied with my explanations because I am not convinced it properly conveys the same image I have of the new principle I introduce, but I think the explanation of orbits using the new principle is quite cool! :doh: Feel free to dissect it and point out any flaws. I will be more than happy to discuss them.

This is not a big deal. Like idsoftwaresteve said, it is discussed in the book. But nobody brought up a simple way of testing objects centering themselves. I like that asteroid idea. It is still not trivial to do, but it would be really cool.

Sorry repeater. I miss that in a flurry of posts. Let me put a warning on the answers : I do not feel his explanation of orbits is satisfying anymore. But still let see how I think these would be answered from the book. #1 McC says the orbit is only a relative geometric behavior created by the natural movement of things and their expansion. This means that if you removed the Earth, then the dynamic has changed. Note that the whole dynamic of the expansion of the solar system is caused by interaction of *all* the objects in the solar system because they are all expanding toward each other. Kepler's 3rd law points to that(that they are involved, not that they expand). So I think the relative motion of the moon would go from an orbit to... well I cannot tell you what would happen because there is currently no way to describe the natural motion under McC at this point. #2 the peek of the wobble is aligned with the Moon from its creation. So because there is no drag in space or any other force to slow or change that motion, there is not reason to believe that alignment has changed. But, if a massive object would strike the Earth or the Moon, then it would seem possible that motion changed. But I do not how to compute the size of such an object and if such collision happened. #3 Could you clarify your question. I am not sure why you say it would be cheating because a velocity vector can only be computed with a reference frame. So if an object is circling around another, and you look at short time step, you would always find a tangential velocity. #4 It does not have a lot of value, but it can offers a compelling theoritical or logical answer that can push our minds in different direction to find the solution. From McC, the answer is computable though, it would actually require the measurement of the expansion and motion of the solar system. But because the whole theory is currently short on Math, deriving the equation is ... difficult. I don't know if his explanation of the pionneer anomaly was presented anywhere this thread, but I will go over it anyway(for people who did not read the book). What I meant ealier by the expansion of the solar system is since all objects expands, but because of their orbits keep a similar distance between them, we can say the solar system is expanping. Actually, we can say that each orbital ring is expanding. It does not mean that space is expanding, it is only the natural orbit effect that is causing the motion of planet that causes them to fight the expansion. When we launch a probe in the solar system, what we actually do is make it go from obirtal rings to orbital rings. By doing so, without even noticing it, we make it participate in the dynamic and so it will always keep going away from the Sun. But once the probe has exited the solar system, it is not part of the dynamic anymore and so he is not in a space that is "expanding". It is now a free floating object trying to get away from the expanding solar system. This means if it is not going fast enough, it will look it is being dragged back toward the solar system One quirk of the explanation is that it requires the solar system to be properly defined : If we ever find another large body orbiting the sun, it would affect how the dynamic of the solar system works and so could affect how the probe acts. Note that I mentionned Large bodies. Since a big part of the dynamic is caused by the expansion, small objects will have little effect on the orbits. ----------------- So #1 and #2 leave a chalky taste in my mouth. I don't see any problem with number 3(unless your question was deeper than that). 4 is intellectually appealing, but will require Math and number for a real acceptation.

Ok. I have read the part about that in McC's book again. I had forget the details and your #1 made me doubt. Here's how you can have a non-centered center of mass without deformation. Sorry, it is a bit long and my english could be better. This is what McC says : 1. Mass does not matter for gravity(the attractive force). It only requires expansion. 2. Mass matters when the two objects are touching because at that point it becomes all about inertia and pushing. But there is an implicit #3 if you mix both 1 and 2. Let me explain. From McCutcheon theory, to replicate the gravity on Earth you would simply need to build an object that has the diameter of Earth. For example a long metal rod 12000 km long. If you put a platform on one end and stand on it, you would feel the same push than if you were on the Earth because its expansion would happen from the center and so your would feel the expansion of 6000km and get a push of 4.9 m every second. If you were a certain distance from the platform, you would see it comming at you at the same speed as if you were a certain distance from the Earth. Which is EarthExpansion + YourExpansion. Now, if that rod was made of very little mass(or was much lighter if you wish) compared to Earth and you stand on the platform, you would feel less push than on Earth. The reason for the effect is that the sum of the pushing of your matter would be able to overcome at chunk of the sum of the pushing of all the matter in rod. But if you are a distance away from the platform, you would still see it coming at the same speed as the Earth because nothing is offsetting the expansion of the rod. This shows how 1 and 2 act with object of different masses. Now to the implicit #3. Let's say you can only build a rod 6000km long because of cost. This means you would get half the push of the Earth because the expansion would be split 3000 - 3000. Well, not all is lost. Say you find a cheap material from which you build a ball of the same weight has the rod. If you put that ball at the one end of your rod, then since the sum of the push of the matter in ball is equal to the push of the rod(because they have the same mass) what you have done is cancelled the expansion at that end. This the same as having two huge planets of the same mass beside each other. The point where they touch will be the center of mass, and so if you look straight at that point and if you could see the expansion, you would see two planets expanding their full size from that point. So, this means that when you stand on the platform, you will feel the full of effect of the pushing of 6000km rod. If you were a certain distance away from the platform, you woud see it coming to you as the same speed as the Earth. Note that the size of the ball does not matter if the mass are equal or less. All that is required is that it has the mass cancels the push of the rod. If the ball was heavier than the rod though, then the push felt on the platform would be stronger because some of expansion of the ball would push away the rod increasing its push on you. If the ball was heavier AND larger, you would feel an even stronger push because the radius of expansion of the ball would be larger and push away the rod away even more. So the mass does not matter for attraction, but if you have a mass properly weighted and properly placed, you can increase the power of gravity of another. Now say you did not want anybody to know how you build your gravity device. What you would do is wrap it inside a hollow sphere. So from the outside this looks like a normal sphere. After expansion, it would still look like a sphere because the whole thing expanded, but there would be greater gravity on one side. The side we are talking about is not half and half, the portion expanding faster would be greater than 180 degrees because the radius of the sphere has to stay the same everywhere. The real value of the faster expanding arc would depend on the length of the tower. So this how you can get no deformation with sides with a different expansion. If you want a better image, think of blowing a perfectly circular balloon from one of its side. The push will stronger in one direction, but if the material making the envelope of the balloon is strong enough to stay has a sphere, then you will not see any distortion. I hope you can see what I mean. I am not very agile with graphics tool.

Idsoftwaresteve is right : the ratio stays the same. Take a planet of radius equal to R. Another one equal to 3R. The radius difference is 2R After doubling, we get 6R and 2R. The new radius difference would be 4R. Since we also expanded by 2, they relative size is still 3R and R. and the difference is still 2R. But they will have moved toward one another because there will be less space between them.

That's a very true and passionate statement Tom.

I have 1 friend that very very likes discussing physics. He does find McC interesting has I did, but his much more skeptical than I am. I have 2 other friends that are interested, but they are quite bright and by a quick read they can find some illogical statements. So, I am not saying my theory will be correct, I am just saying I did one and some other people said it sorta works :hihi:

I am with you here. I am convinced his his wrong about orbits. Like I said before, I like McC subatomic theory. I now believe it can actually explain orbits and Mass transfer using McC subatomic theory. for a few days now, I have been passing the idea around to a few of my friends to whom I lent the book. They also had problems with McC`s explanation of orbit. We tweaked it and in our minds, it passes the logical test. It`s a bit long, so I am writing a document and I will link it here when I am done. It might not be as interesting for people who have not read what McC says about the subatomic world, but I can`t wait to see what idsoftwaresteve will think of it. I really just hope it won`t show my incapacity of saying anything logical :rolleyes: I think it solves the problem in a very suprising way. Though my enthusiasm for McC`s theory has waned, if my corrections are good, it will at the very least be a complete toy universe that ressembles our ours. To make sure it actually does, more observed behavior will have to be interpreted by it and it will need to receive a mathematical model.

Eesh. 25% error... I hope they make the measure more precise in the future.

I like your pictures Buffy. #1 is a problem, I am not sure what to make of it yet. #2, well, McC argue that they are staying away because of the unexplained relative motion. So space do not need to expand.