repeater

Hello I've got a question In the electron slit experiment: Electrons are fired one at a time through a double slit. An interference pattern appears after some time. Now if I fire an electron, point particle, I'd fire it straight at the centre of the double slit. None would get through that piece of cardboard! It seems to me that uncertainty to the electron's movement would perhaps be determined by the firing device? Oh well, I'm sure the scientists thought of that :hyper:

I have four things to say about the theory: two objections and two complements. Objections: a) Tides. We've previously discussed this and the fact that the tides and the Earth/Moon/Sun system is so intricately linked that it cannot seriously be explained by a sustained primordial "wobble". :angel: Erasmus' lunar range experiments. Even though I've tried, I'm afraid I don't understand this issue exactly. http://hypography.com/forums/75235-post379.html Complements: a) I've never liked the idea of an action over a distance Newtonesque "force" as found in gravity et al. With no further explanation attached. Messenger particles or space time curving as explanations just doesn't do it for me. Well now we still have a mysterious but unified "expansion" instead of the various "forces", but it just makes better intuitive sense to my brain, not that it may be worth much :rainbow: The theory is a good explainer, yet remains a bad predictor. :Guns: It's pretty. I want to see a science fiction series with Expansion Theory as the underlying universe physics. Then instead of worrying about stupid warp drives of TOS vs TNG, scifi geeks can ponder final theory all day long. And perhaps actually discover something useful at the end of the day! :rainbow: Regards

I do not understand why this gravity difference would result, but why don't we consider the Earth/Sun system and measure the gravity at the "dark side" of the Earth?

Good day Seun I've seen you ask questions along these lines a few times, and it seems you may not have gotten satisfactory answers before. If I interpret your main themes correctly: Q: If the Earth is expanding in an accelerating fashion why does it not promptly collide with the Sun (or Jupiter)? A: Well, the question can be asked about the theory of gravity as well. Why doesn't the Earth fall into the Sun? The reason it because it is in orbit, and its tangential movement is so that it continues to fall around the sun. The same principle applies. Q: If everything has accelerated expansion, would everything soon be expanding faster than the speed of light? A: Apparently so. The speed of light is a result of electron's expansion, which in turn influences atomic expansion. So really the measurement metrics like "speed of light" scales together with everything else. Expanding faster than the speed of light is therefore not really something we need to worry about :rainbow: Just one thing: The problems that TFT face is that is incredibly vague and deceptively paradigmatic, but the fact remains that it is still well thought out. The guy spent his entire life working on this thing, and by his words that I've read he seems quite lucid and intelligent. A good piece of fiction at least. So this may all be a just-so story that is entirely useless, but I do believe you will find it to be *coherent*. So instead of ending posts with something similar to "omg i've read the first chapter, this is so bunk" like many have done, why don't we ask questions and increase our understanding? It is a good mental exercise to discuss speculations that describe things in a completely different way. Look at the world in a new light for a day or two. Regards

Goodness, this is a lot of info. Thanks for your effort! 1.) I don't quite see the electron's expansion vs the atom's expansion. A few words more? For example when an electron flows down a cable, or when a photon flies from here to the moon. 2.) Do Maxwell's equations flow out of the expansion of the electron by first principles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations It is currently our best practical description of electromagnetics. 3.) How many constants of nature does THE theory suggest: Rate of electron expansion and acceleration of atomic expansion ? 4.) If atoms are composed of electrons, then I would assume an atom's mass would be a multiple of an electron's. If atoms are clusters of electrons, and photons as well...what is the difference between the two? 5.) Now that every major force is described...is there any equations? I would guess that the strength of the strong nuclear force would for example be predictable. Regards

Hi Steve and other participants Amazing that this thread is still going. Well THE theory has been out of my mind for a while, but here is a question for the burning fire: If all "forces" are the result of expansion, does that mean magnetic and electrostatic as well? A sentence or two much appreciated! Regards

Yeah exactly. Perhaps a few scientific qualified people can make their rounds now and then and point out weaknesses and give suggestions. The site should encourage people to create predictions and equations offering results. Basically pull people into the mold, channel their creativity to play a role in the scientific world, even be it small and insignificant. Advantages a) They can compare their theory with those of others. See what they need to do to make their theory special, perhaps learn a few things on the way. :) Give an exhaustive list of phenomena that mainstream science explains, and also a list that mainstream science fails to explain. As we've seen with the McC theory, it is hard to keep track.Perhaps mainstream science should have a page as well. A theory doesn't need to be all-explaining. c) Cranks are redirected away from science usergroups where they are not always wanted. Perhaps some groups will find this sufficiently appealing that they'll fund this site to be set up ;)

Hi Beagle __Addition theory__ Well done with that addition theory of yours. Very creative and I'm sure you enjoyed creating it. ;) I cannot say that it sits well with me though, and I see since then you've expressed misgivings as well. The thing that attracted me to McC theory (beyond the thousands he blasted on online advertising ;) ) is its simplicity. Your attempt tries to fix things that don't fit, and I'm afraid in a manner that just triggers my dubiosity detector. Grafting new constructs onto a theory is something that must be done very carefully. Take black matter/energy as an example of that in my opinion. I must also disclaim that I do not quite get your idea completely, so take this for what it is worth. __1000 Theories of Physics on the Wall__ For those not keeping count, we've already encountered 2 other wildly different expansion theories in this thread. And I'm sure there is a thousand more. Specifically, there was the vorticle one, and the expansion+electrical orbit effect thingy. All of these are based on rather extreme assumptions, questionable indeed, and rather taxing to examine. It took me ages to internalize what McC means with "no straight motion", and after all that I didn't really feel that much wiser (except for perhaps doubting my own impartiality ;) ). I think that if alternative amateur physicists want their theories be taken seriously, they should perhaps first discuss their theories with each other and explain what makes their theory so much better than others. Looking at the number of theories on the internet, it seems it is all too easy to create something new. So this is a serious suggestion: Since wikipedia does not accept "original research", I'd like to see a wiki where cranks and alternative creatives can come together to explain and discuss their theories in an orderly manner. Perhaps they can then see that their theory may be special or not so special after all, and perhaps we can all learn something about science and the nature of knowledge in the process. I'm optimistic. Einstein wasn't a physicist by training, yet he made a major contribution to science. It would be great if today an outsider could still offer some input into our understanding, but it seems that today that is almost impossible. I think it is sad and a bit dangerous that only those schooled in a field have a platform to say their say. There are so many physics cranks believing their Einstein, that they are widely ignored and used as punching bags. Those poor unappreciated (and sometimes slightly insane) cranks, but I do understand why scientists ignore them. Take McC's theory for example: It's strength lies in its simplicity, but to claim most of modern science is wrong it needs to explain many experimental phenomena. A central place where all the phenomena is listed would be nice. (e.g. double slit experiment, relativity, neutrinos, interacting galaxies, tides). So in essence, a system of peer review for cranks. ;) Just an idea Regards

Hey Beagle, thanks for replying! It is like Steve said: Expansion is just a reframing of our current view of gravity as a force. Even though McC declares mass somewhat irrelevant, the dynamics of the two are not that much different. Still a stretch...in general the theory requires one to adjust your common sense. Quantum asks you to do so, since it has experimental backing, but all this theory offers is well written prose. I'd be careful. Direct cause and effect in such a system just seems more obvious to me. I've never heard of a cosmic system that has such an extensive historical relationship, so that is why I'm a bit skeptical. There are various combinations of sun and moon alignment that causes tides of various specific heights. The wobble should therefore mathematically describe these phenomena rather exactly. Oh btw, I've just read your Additions document, and I see that you now have a different view on the matter. I'll see if I can reply to that topic later. It is just that orbits arise rather easily in such a view, almost by definition. Interesting. This only applies to circular orbits of course, and erratic orbits is another matter. I see that you also address it in your Additions. I didn't quite follow #4 completely...but thanks!

Yeah that wouldn't seem right now would it. But this is speed is outside our reference frame, and since we therefore have no non-expanding distance to compare it to it is pretty useless. If expansion theory is true, the fact that our solar system does not collapse can probably be extended to why the universe is still so vast and non-claustrophobic. In current theory the Earth has experienced a sunward acceleration for billions of years as well, and we know why it hasn't approached the sun at lightspeed yet. The kind of these two accelerations are not the same I know, but the idea is the similar. Beagleworth: Sorry if I impose by asking, but could you give a go at the answers to my 4 questions I asked? Steve and I tried to get on them, but it seems we didn't get anywhere! Cheers!

Hello Will Just a quick aside: Has a hyperbolic orbit ever been observed? I remember reading somewhere that until now it has not been, but searching the web I find contrary reports. Regards

Yep that seems right, it would make a little spirally motion all around the sun. Now that seems a little bit silly and undignified, we'd expect the moon to move and occupy a new orbit or meet its doom in the depths of the sun. Now as I understand it (note I haven't read the book), in McC's fabled ;) description he introduces us to orbits by depicting two expanding objects moving past one another. Now once we see "yes indeed it curves", and once we drop all our absolute motion baggage, understanding orbits should follow from that. So you extend that to other situations and voila. I'm not sold, but I see where you are coming from. But now we've got this case where you consider 3 objects. If we consider 2 groups/objects at a time his theory still makes sense doesn't it? Earth vs Moon, (Earth,Moon) vs Sun. Yet it still seems to me that from the perspective of the sun, the earth has a undeniable influence on the moon. When the earth is removed from the scenario, the movement of the moon relative to the sun will change. Definitely, I'm no great fan of other gravity theories either. But the evidence of the influence of the moon/sun on the tides seem very strong. What Tom wrote about the proxigean tide and bulges is excellent examples. The moon's velocity relative to the earth. So in short: Will the expansion influence the moon's initial velocity relative to the earth at all? If not, it seems orbits will happen very easily. And it doesn't seem right if you ask me. Thanks for your reply! And if you know anything about equations describing Pioneer Anomaly I'd like to hear about it as well. ;) Regards

A wise point to make, but... "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -- Shakespeare Pause and smell the flower my friend...smell it! Is it a rose? Hmm is it indeed?

Four questions! For the masked Beagle-Steve banditos! 1.) A question asked before by a kind soul, but I don't believe answered: If you visualize the earth-moon-sun system, and with god-like prowess you suddenly remove the earth out of the picture...what would happen? Would the moon continue orbitting the position where the earth was, while orbitting around the sun? Since the earth is not suppose to influence the moon in expansion theory and they simply move past each other, it seems the moon's behaviour would most definitely change if the earth is removed. 2.) If the wobble of the earth that causes the tides indeed originates from the day of moon creation...any reason why it is still in sync with the moon? Seems to be a bit of a tall tale...the moon simply influencing the tides seems like a much simpler explanation. So simple that I'd think I'd like evidence against it. Any existent? 3.) Does the direction of velocity change with expansion? If the moon has a tangential velocity as illustrated in the following: Moon: o--> Earth: O After the next instant the moon curves in (Ah ignore that line, stupid html ascii art): Moon: --------------o Earth: O Is the velocity still tangential? Ain't that cheatin'? 4.) Does a theory that states: "All motion goes curvy" offer any scientific contribution? Where is the simulations that NASA can use? Is the Pioneer anomaly explained accompanied with a nice table comparing the predictions of Expansion theory, normal science and the measurements? Beagleworth: I think the expansionistic explanation of gravity is a big enough challenge for this thread, and his new take on the subatomic realm may just be a bit overwhelming. I wouldn't mind if you write a few words about it though ;) Regards!

Hi Beagleworth! It is good to hear another voice trained in McC lore. And I thank you and ldsoftwaresteve for your time in this discussion (I know it isn't always fun to be the underdog :hihi: ) Wow, down another rabbit hole, Alice! But careful, I don't think we have room for two possible cranks in one thread! :hihi: Here we have a theory that is more inclusive to our existing science (the guy likes relativity), but with greater associated complexity. Both rely on expansionism but that is where the similarities seem to end. But I see a pattern: Both theories state that our current science has made a fundamental mistake. They create an alternative by reinterpreting basic theory in a radical new way, and then build their entire work on different foundations. In some way this is sneaky, and I get the impression of a moving target at times (McC paraphrased: "no we don't know the mass of anything really"). And it is difficult to investigate since you've got to adopt a new view of mind, for example most of our discussion is still about understanding what he has actually said. But then somewhere in that site you linked I also read an argument that science does not investigate its foundations well enough, and even though I don't believe that entirely accurate, it struck a chord gently. Most of the cutting edge of physics is out of reach of your average amateur, therefore I think that honest discussion about alternate theories...even dead wrong...can only be a healthy contribution to our search of knowledge. Just my humble opinion.

Hi Tom, you are an old fellow you. Congrats on that decimal. I have a pet mouse called Roger. An energetic bundle of energy. Now if I grasp Roger by his tail and point him at a large piece of cheese (the sun), can you say that he has potential energy? I suppose you can, betting on the fact that he likes cheese so very very much. Potential energy has always seemed to me to be a specific interpretation of the world, and I'm sure McC can give us an alternative opinion. I find it interesting that you say that the mass defect is detectable in magnets. I couldn't find it info about it on google, so could you give a few sources? Is it visible in gravitational systems as well?

Hi Tom Very nice write up of those equations. I'm impressed by your words on a daily basis! One thing that is strange as I think about it now, is that McC professes that Newton's Gravitation Law is incorrect (as you've mentioned). We therefore wouldn't know the mass of the earth accurately as measured by Mr Cavendish, and I suppose McC would find issue with your introduction of it in the equation! And then this leave me baffled why in the first place he would make such a deal out of deriving a constant G for a Newton equation he believes faulty? :) What is the point? Except for that, I agree with you that the uncertainty of a hydrogen's radius and the accuracy of this derivation are all factors that do not count in favour. I'm still interested to see the inner workings behind McC's thinking of this equation, but I expect to ask poor ldsoftwaresteve to field all of our questions over a 16 page thread is too much to ask! --- Science is about predictions. It is as simple as that. If one dreams up a wonderful theory with nothing to back it up, it remains philosophy and not science. That first chapter is filled with rhetoric that one can find issue with, and you had a good time at it. I enjoyed your discussion of orbits, by the way. But you know, I can actually forgive and let some of his philosophy slide. All of our scientific world is filled with interpretations, from Newton's systematic view to the quantum world where even our intuition collapses. This theory is from a very different paradigm than our world view, and I'd expect that such a theory would conflict with my basic sensibilities. I can take a deep breath, and continue provisionally. However, it does not escape that requirement of science: It needs to offer the hard evidence, the numbers not the words. Something like our contested G equation, or the modified Cavendish experiment that Erasmus00 performed. That is the language one needs to be talking, while being careful with the numeric deceptions. Enjoy your weekend! Regards

Hi Will If I got it right, the expansion is accelerating. That is why an object falls to the earth at an accelerated pace. (If you are looking for an inverse square law of force...according to the theory there is no gravitational force it seems. Simply objects moving closer to each other due to expansion). If everything is accelerating though, I still get the feeling that everything will soon be smashed into another. The issue of orbits is for me a problematic matter.

Hi Tom, thanks for your post This equation paragraph kept my eyes glued to the theory for a while longer, beyond the theory's aesthetic strangeness. It is unforunate that this is not mentioned at any other discussion of this book that I've witnessed. If an alternative theory is to survive, it will have to make strong statements like these, and challenge the scientific status quo further by analysing experimental data. Otherwise the only impression is of a downloadable chapter one rhetoric that reprimands science's heroes and gives no mention of the theory at all. That is not a good indication yes. But I'm afraid there is some bad news: It is McC's opinion that Newton's Law of Gravitation does not hold. ;) The motions of the planetary bodies are related to their expansion, not their mass per se. So while the current calculated values of their masses fit Newton's model, and it is a good approximation, it does not necessarily have that value. So in short, we don't know the masses of planetary bodies at all! My opinion: It is terribly difficult to argue with a person if he discounts half of our physics. I think it would really be great if ldsoftwaresteve could be so gracious to confirm if this is so. A good point. I erronously assumed he meant "proton radius", which would be accurately measurable. By the way, McC rethinks the entire subatomic world in expansive terms, but I think I'll restrict my interest to his view of simple gravity. The dangers of numerology. As that review stated, "Unfortunately he only gives us one example", and I concur. An impressive trick to pull out of your hat, I'll give you that. But the fact that this number follows from what I assume is a detailed reasoning process makes him very lucky indeed. And I must confess still leaves me wondering a bit. A pleasure. It seems it may be something approaching horse meat then? ;) I like the theory because of its way of visualizing gravity, and it is a completely different way of viewing the universe. Unfortunately, in scientific terms that isn't enough. This equation is something that seems substantial and I'm glad we could talk about it. Salutations!

Hello guys, this is a great thread, and I would like to make a contribution as well. I haven't read the book, and tried to understand the theory from bits and pieces gathered from here and there. Frankly I am not willing to pay for it yet, but right from the start I found the ideas intriguing while remaining downright sceptical. The guy is overly-confident and I am sure he made some mistakes, but I don't believe one can call him a fullblown crank. His work is controversial for sure, and is perhaps not of serious scientific worth, but at least is a creative way to view the world. Made my head bend. Here are a few links I found, if anyone is interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_theory An explanation of the basic concepts. http://homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html A conversation between an engineer and the author. The one is not convinced, since the way orbits work in this new theory eludes him. The result: A dealbreaker. Yes, eluding me as well. Tom Palmer: Is this beef? In this pretty cranky review of the book at http://www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf, one finds the following paragraph: "In his whole book he only calculates one original number -- his atomic expansion constant of Xa = 7.7x10^-7 s^-2. He uses Galileo's constant acceleration equation d = a t^2 / 2, where d is the distance an object falls. For 1 second he gets a / 2 = (9.8 / 2) m/s^2 = 4.9 m/s^2. He uses an earth radius of 6.37x10^6 m. The ratio (4.9 m/s^2) / (6.37x10^6 m) comes pretty close to his Xa value. Then he devises a formula for taking into account the various relative changes involved in expanding bodies. Unfortunately he only gives us one example applying that constant: his calculation of atomic hydrogen's expansion (pp. 192-193). (We can not use his argument about the tunnel through the earth, p. 105.) To find G in terms of a hydrogen atom's radius and mass McC uses the formula R^3 / Xa = G M, where M is a proton's mass (1.67x10^-27 kg) and R is the hydrogen radius (5.29x10^-11 m). He gets G = 6.8x10^-11 m^3/s^2 kg. McC's constant Xa seems to function rather like G in Newtonian calculations. It is a universal constant applied to local variables." I don't quite know any more that what is stated here, but I assume there is a coherent argument for the equations. Perhaps he is just playing with numbers, and perhaps the above comes down to A = A, but relating the hydrogen's mass and radius to G is striking. If I understand it correctly, current science cannot give an account for the value of the G constant. Well victory is short lived, because it seems here he simply introduced another! Interesting nonetheless.