Kuba

lol. Since...um...i dunno...ALWAYS? lol If you pick up an object and drop it from 4.9 meters from the ground, it will hit the ground in exactly 1 second. go ahead and try it (make sure it is heavy so that the air and wind factor is kept at a minimum). d = 1/2at^2 <--------Constant Acceleration Equation 9.8m/s^2 The reason is because you have to remember that it was at zero when you where holding it and it had to accelerate up to 9.8m/s^2. Effectivly this gives you 4.9 meters in one second. There you go again, with your false assumptions. That is not according to my reason...that is according to your misinterpretation of my reason. They aren't changing course. It is simply the geometry of speed, acceleration, expansion, and spin. It is simply how we see and interpret what is happening but in the real world of relativity you can see the same thing from a whole different view. The standard view that it will oscillate infinitly is not even supported by ST. If gravity is due to mass then the person 'falling' through the earth would increasingly be slowed down by the ever increasing mass behind him/her. Eventaully coming to a stop in the center. And your assumption that this is a 'driving' force that is the same force that is responsible for the moon's orbit is once again because your mindset has not changed to interpret McCutcheon's theory. Have you even read the entire book? Cause if you haven't, you have no right to accuse the man of being an illiterate dimwit. Your the type of person that would have burned Galileo at the stake for his discoveries and ideas. Your very closed minded and wont even concede to ANY points anyone has made on this subject. Mind you, that I am playing the devils advocate or backing the underdog, so to speak. So, I have to be strong in my position but you on the other hand are now trying to defend the status quo and the popular view. Conceding to points well made would benefit your argument in my opinion but instead you choose the route of anger, hate and denial.

McCutcheon uses the same equation except the arbitrary GM you use is the same as the constant K; which was derived from the original geometric orbit equation. This equation is purely geometrical and works with ET. The center of gravity is determined by mass but mass is not the reason for the effect of gravity; the size of the object is. Mass plays a role in weight but not in the acceleration of objects towards the earth. We have observed this to be true. Take, for example, a feather and a piano and drop them in a vacuum. The acceleration and the time in which they hit the ground is the same but the weight measured, according to their mass, gives an enormouse difference. This is a known phenomenon, hardly explained by ST. I don't understand how you can judge the theory from the first chapter when the theory wasn't even introduced until chapter 2? And just because YOU don't understand it and interpret it as the mistakes of the author, does not make the theory invalid.....How do you know I never studied general relativity? Oh, and maybe you are right, i shouldn't question the status quo, after all thinking different usually scares people. I'll just let other people do the thinking for me. Im sure these 'experts' always know what they are talking about. (sarcasm, in case u didnt catch it) The relativity of Einstein stated that if you are standing in a spaceship and travel away at near the speed of light. To the observer on the spaceship the planet traveled away at near the speed of light, while an observer on the planet would see the exact opposite, whilst still another person from from outside the planet and ship might see the two speeding away from each other; each going at nearly half of the speed of light.....see where im going with this......this was Eistein's idea of relativity....everything is relative to the eye of the observer. And the SAME THING can be observed in MULTIPLE ways. Now, whether he drew his ideas from Galileo is another subject. No. It is too much to explain. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time trying to explain ET to a person that hasn't even read the book. If you really want to build a sound argument against ET you first need to play devil's advocate. Read the book. Try and understand it. Try to answer people's questions about the theory....I gaurantee it will open your eyes, and if not it would at least make it easier for you to argue your point of view. What is your exact question anyway? How ET explains the moon's orbit? I'll try to simplify it for you, mind you it probably wont be the most accurate way of describing it but it will give you a general idea. Imagine, you went to the moon. you are standing on the side facing the earth. As an observer from the moon. The earth is stationary. The earth has NO ORBIT! It is simply spinning around in place. (that's where the relativity comes in play) All of a sudden there is no 'orbit' to explain. there are simply two stationary planets, one of which is spinning. The moon "orbiting" or "spinning" around us, is simply an illusion because we ourselves are spining with the earth. following me? Now that was not taking into account the sun, meteors or other planets. I kept them out of the loop for simplicities sake but if you do the math and geometry correct you will realize that orbits are simply illusions.

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????????? 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. 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!

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 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. 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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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....

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

Okay, I can now see why there might be some confusion. You aren't talking about the Cavendish Experiment! Here is a link that can clarify it for you: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/NewtonianMechanics/CavendishExperiment/CavendishExperiment.html You cannot configure the two big balls on the outside of the appuratise in this manner, at least not if we are talking about the Cavendish Experiment! Here is a pic of wat it should look like: Now according to YOUR experiment one can also observe that the ball at the back end would always "gravitate" toward the styrafoam ball, albeit it is at a distance but that is irrelevant. You cannot conclude that because the inner ball moves toward the lead ball, that the lead ball has a stronger gravitational force because on the opposite end the ball would be moving toward the styrafoam ball at the same rate. BTW, I would like to see a reference to an experiment that you claim has been done in the manner that you describe, because i could not find anything to that effect. Your idea of the experiment is flawed. Cavendish himself never claimed anything; all he did was to create an experiment in which he could measure the gravitational constant which attracts two objects. The experiment itself has nothing to do with proving or disproving that mass is responsible for the force.

Im not sure about his equations (didnt really bother to look :naughty:) but you can calculate the rate at which the moon is "falling" to earth, although you have to take into consideration that the moon is also 'flying' away at a certain speed. Hence, keeping it's orbit. And you're right about being able to calculate the acceleration of an object on the earth's surface.....BTW, have you read "The Final Theory"? It would probably answer some of these questions that you have here.... Anyways, HAPPY WEDNESDAY EVERYONE! :fly:

Honestly, I don't think you understand the experiment. You can't just put differing balls on opposite ends and say one side is attracting and the other is not.....the balls are on the same axis, if one moves, the other moves equally. How can you come to the conclusion that the lead ball is causing the 'attraction' as opposed to the styrofoam ball causing it or both causing it equally?:hihi: You need to recheck you logic buddy.:doh: The experiment simply shows the constant in which objects 'attract'. Basic geometry proves that ET is supported by this experiment.... ....if you take the two larger balls on the outer end and you make one the size of a marble and the other the size of a bowling ball (with their mass being equal), the inner balls (being equal in mass and size) will hit the bowling ball first, and therefore faster than the ball hitting the marble. The obviouse discrepency here would be that because the bowling ball is larger in size it is also unfairly closer to the inner ball, therefore making this experiment irrelevant in trying to prove or disprove ET or Newtonian Gravity.:doh: A more accurate experiment would be to build a tall structure with a complete vacuum in it and drop the marble and the bowling ball (of equal mass), at the exact same distance(measured from the outer end of the balls) from the earth and measure whether or not the bowling ball hits first. Done.;)

Did you look at what the study found? Because all they say is that there is evidence that earth's magnetic field was different in the past. They hypothesis that the earth was tilted in relation to this altered magnetic field but that is not necessarily the case. The magnetic field COULD have changed without the earth tilting.