The Final Theory

[Tom Palmer]

In a previous posting, I quoted a proverb that still seems especially relevant in this discussion thread:

 

“Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight.”—Proverbs 18:17 (The Living Bible)

 

The Final Theory is an advocacy book—it frankly promotes one particular view at the expense of currently accepted views. Now, such a book is not necessarily wrong in its conclusions but, whether it is right or wrong, it does put the reader at a serious disadvantage: He or she is, so to speak, at the mercy of the author. Unless the reader is already well versed in the subject at hand (in this case, physics and cosmology), there is no way to put the ideas to the test. Completely immersed in the author’s worldview, the uninformed reader can all too easily be swept along by what appear to be irrefutable arguments favoring the author’s viewpoint, with no one to say otherwise. “Any story sounds true …”

 

Chapter 1 of Mark McCutcheon’s book presents his views on gravity, along with his spirited, not to say contemptuous, refutations of the prevailing models. One of the basic pillars on which McCutcheon erects his edifice is his assertion that Kepler’s three “geometric” laws of planetary motion, along with his own “Geometric Orbit Equation,” are all that are really needed, and that, as he puts it, “Newton’s gravitational force is a completely superfluous and redundant abstraction, both in theory and in practice.”

 

The “Geometric Orbit Equation” is given as “v^2 R = K,” where the “K” is constant within any one given orbital system. For the planets in our solar system the “K” is 1.325 x 10^20 [m^3/s^2]. McCutcheon assures us this equation was “previously unknown.”

 

Later, though, he alleges that the Newtonian Orbit Equation is actually a “disguised version” of the Geometric Orbit Equation, the difference being that the K turns out to be the product of M (the mass of the so-called “central” body in an orbital system, which varies from system to system) and G (the universal constant of gravitation, which doesn’t vary at all). Thus, although his K is clearly nothing more than a direct, linear function of Newton’s mass M, he nevertheless asserts that the Geometric Orbit Equation achieves its results “without any reference to masses or gravitational forces” (italics his).

 

In effect, Newton discovered that McCutcheon’s mysterious “K”—which varies by system—is actually the dominant body’s mass (which likewise varies by system) times a single, truly universal constant of proportionality that never varies. One might have thought that McCutcheon could find it in his heart to acknowledge what a monumental achievement this was. Instead, he grouses—incredibly—that the equation doesn’t really lead to the true masses of the other bodies. He claims that the computed masses are at best only approximations of the true masses. He offers no real evidence that this is actually true, nor does he explain why—if they aren’t right—they are such good approximations.

 

But for him, changing from a purely “geometrical” form to a “gravitational” form is utterly unnecessary, and even a step backward.

 

Here is just one reason why he is dead wrong.

 

With Newton’s Orbit Equation and—according to McCutcheon—the allegedly flawed “rock-and-string/spring” analogy, we end up with Newton’s gravitational-force equation “G m M / r^2." This, of course, is anathema to McCutcheon, who steadfastly maintains that the purely “geometric” equations of Kepler, along with the Geometric Orbit Equation, are more than adequate to handle any task normally assigned to Newton’s (or Einstein’s) equations.

 

But Newton’s equation revealed something genuinely new and hitherto unsuspected that immeasurably broadened and deepened our understanding of physical reality. It is something that, throughout the entire chapter, McCutcheon never once mentions—nor dares to, for there is nothing in his “Geometric Orbit Equation” that even hints at it, either explicitly or implicitly.

 

It is that gravitational attraction is mutual, that there is an exact symmetry existing between the so-called “orbited body” and the “orbiting body.” That, in the final analysis, neither body can be properly designated as “central orbited body” (p. 46) and the other as the “orbiting body,” as if this were a physically fundamental distinction between the two. And that, ultimately, every particle in the universe is affected by every other particle in the universe. It was an astonishing unification and simplification of formerly separate and distinct concepts.

 

Look at Newton’s equation again. There are two masses, and mathematically they are completely interchangeable. Scalar multiplication is commutative, so there is absolutely no distinction in their respective roles as gravitating bodies. In systems like the solar system, we think of the sun as the “central” body around which the planets seem to orbit, and it is easy to fall into the habit of imagining a basic distinction between “orbited” and “orbiting.” But there is no such distinction in the underlying physical reality.

 

For simplicity, imagine a two-body system, perhaps just the earth and the sun—no other bodies to complicate the picture. We say that the earth is orbiting the sun, but that is not strictly the case. The truth of the matter is: Both bodies are orbiting the earth-sun system’s “center of mass” (barycenter). Because the sun is so much more massive, that center of mass is much, much closer to it than to the earth, so the sun’s “orbit” around that point is a very tight little circle (actually well inside the sun), whereas ours is quite broad and sweeping.

 

But we are not orbiting the sun per se; we are orbiting that center of mass, just as the sun is also doing, though much less obviously. In stellar binary systems in which both stars are of about equal mass, the system’s center of mass is correspondingly about equidistant from both stars, along the line connecting them. In such a case, there is no perceptual ambiguity as to who is orbiting whom—both are orbiting that same shared midpoint.

 

None of this is derivable by means of the purely “geometrical” approach espoused by McCutcheon, despite his claim that his approach is entirely sufficient. Of course, he can always graft the mass-symmetry revealed by Newton’s equation onto his own “geometrical” model, but then it would only be an ad hoc add-on, not something that arose naturally out of the defining principles.

 

While McCutcheon’s “K” might be made to serve as “poor-man’s surrogate” for the directly related but more comprehensive concept of “mass,” it wouldn’t be enough. In order to properly derive mass-symmetry and all its revolutionary implications from first principles, as Newton did, the concepts of gravitation and force—in some form—are demonstrably necessary.

 

And there is so much more: The alleged “misapplication” of the Work Function; the supposedly unaccountable “ongoing energy expenditure” of the “endless power source” of gravity (and permanent magnets); the off-base remarks about the speed of light and of gravity; the putative “mystery” of equal acceleration regardless of mass; the so-called “gravity shield mystery”; etc.

 

I’ll try to get to some of these as I have the time and inclination.

 

Tom Palmer

[Buffy]

Wow Tom! Incredibly well written! This is a wonderful basis for further discussion (assuming any is really necessary) on this topic! I have not had any desire to waste the time or the money on the book, and its been hard to argue with the statements of the McCutcheon supporters that "you can't understand it unless you read the book." But its becoming increasingly clear to me at least that yes, there's no there there (I can get away with saying that because I'm from Oakland!)...keep the posts coming though! You have a real knack for explaining both the background and the detail in incredibly lucid prose!

 

Thanks Tom!

Buffy

[repeater]

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

[Tom Palmer]

First, my thanks to Buffy from Oakland for her kind remarks—Buffy, I hope I can live up to your expectations! Thank you, too, friend Repeater, for your thoughts—I do understand your feelings on the matter. My last three postings, in quick succession, left me a bit drained, so right now, I’m recharging my batteries. And when you’re about to turn 73, the ol’ recharge takes a little longer than in those long-vanished “days of yore.” Ah, well.

 

That said, I can’t resist a few trenchant remarks on Mr. McCutcheon’s conclusion that, since the acceleration of falling bodies is not dependent on mass, this is somehow a further indication that the very concept of force is “fictitious” (pp. 27, 49 ff.). He says: “If a force were at work here, it would have to be quite a mysterious and unprecedented force indeed to achieve such a feat” (italics his).

 

In truth, gravitation would be more “mysterious” if the rate of acceleration did depend on mass. Rather than simply pontificate on the matter, I will try to illustrate just where he veers off the road and into the ditch (assuming he was ever actually on the road).

 

The gravitational field is generated by mass—or, more precisely, by energy in all forms, though matter (along with hard gamma radiation) is far and away the most concentrated form of energy, as shown by the ubiquitous E = mc^2.

 

Therefore, we can think of any body as an aggregate of tiny little “mass units,” all of equal mass-energy. To make things easier, let’s call them “massons” (not a new particle—I never invent new particles on Saturdays—just a formalism to help visualize the unseen).

 

Here’s the bottom line: When a body is falling, every masson in it accelerates at the same rate, because gravitation, unlike Mr. McCutcheon, doesn’t “see” the whole body as a single entity. Since gravitation deals exclusively with mass (energy), all it sees is a bunch of massons. In fact, it doesn’t even see the “bunch.” Just the individual massons. So it gives each masson the same exact tug.

 

It is utterly irrelevant to the acceleration just how many massons are being tugged, because each one is being independently tugged and given the same acceleration. The fact that they are also bound to one another by internal forces (Van der Waals, etc.) is irrelevant, because they are all falling at the same rate. Even the energy in all the forces—molecular, atomic, nuclear—acting within the body are having their energy massons tugged at that same rate. One rate fits all.

 

Yes, Mark, gravitation is an “unprecedented force indeed,” because no other known force is “driven” by mass/energy alone. So, your attempting to discredit gravitation by contrasting its “mysterious and unprecedented” behavior with that of other forces is pointless—not to mention misleading. :)

 

Tom Palmer

[Tom Palmer]

Today’s topic will be energy, with particular attention paid to Mr. McCutcheon’s oddly unphysical understanding of it. As he sees it, energy is endlessly pouring out from any source of gravitation or magnetism. We know this, he says, because you will expend your energy to the point of exhaustion trying to separate two strong magnets, but they will win in the end. You’ll run out of energy, but they never will.

 

Here, he is confusing physiological energy with physical energy. To illustrate the importance of this distinction, imagine you have an extra little bone in your hand or arm. Now, this little hook-like bone is so designed that, if you choose, you can position your arm in a way that the hook will “catch” on another little specialized loop of bone. In other words, you could lock your arm and hand in a particular position.

 

So, once you have tensed your muscles to their maximum extent, the “lock” will permit your muscles to relax again, but your arm to retain that tension without any further expenditure of energy. Without the lock, you were in effect having to continually replenish lost energy. That loss was due largely to the body’s restoring forces actively working against the muscle tension, thus requiring a continuing supply of energy to maintain the tension. The lost energy itself ended up in forms such as increased body heat due to a heightened metabolic rate.

 

Now let’s eliminate the physiological factor by substituting a coiled spring for the human muscle. Again—two strong magnets, but this time held apart by the tension of that coiled spring positioned between them. Unlike the human muscle, the spring will prove equal to the task of everlastingly counterbalancing the force of attraction of the two magnets.

 

Mr. McCutcheon’s basic problem seems to be a failure to understand the concept of potential energy, along with the related concept of field energy—he never even once mentions either of them in the fifty-odd pages of that first chapter, where they would be most relevant. (In fact, I get the distinct impression he doesn’t really want to understand them, perhaps sensing that they would throw a very large monkey wrench into his scheme.)

 

Without getting into the quantum-mechanical aspects of the matter, we’ll just look at the simple dynamics of it. First, picture the two magnets as they long to be: devotedly clasped tightly together. Now you, the interloper, seek to disrupt this blissful union. By whatever means, you apply sufficient energy to each magnet to pull them apart, and then you interpose that coiled spring to keep them that way. The spring’s tension is the result of the energy expended to extend or compress it, and that energy still exists in the spring as potential energy.

 

As for the two magnets, the energy you expended to pull them apart is now in the form of potential energy in the electromagnetic field between the magnets. Just as kinetic energy can be called “energy of motion,” potential energy can be called “energy of position.”

 

It works out beautifully for planetary orbits. For example, Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, of which Mr. McCutcheon speaks so approvingly, are readily explained in terms of gravitational field energy. In an elliptical orbit such as the planets have, the body’s kinetic energy will vary, but its gravitational potential energy always offsets it, so that the sum of a planet’s kinetic and potential energies is constant over time, hence conserved.

 

But back to the magnets. You had to expend energy in order to counteract the force of attraction. You don’t need additional energy to maintain that separation, but you do have to supply energy to bring about the separation in the first place.

 

Here’s an interesting—and very relevant—fact. Excluding the weight of the spring, that pair of magnets now weighs more than it did when the two were tightly together. (Of course, the difference is tiny, and utterly negligible in everyday life.) And that extra weight is, believe it or not, the energy you had to “spend” in order to force them apart. So potential energy is not just a conjuror’s trick to get equations to balance, but a bona fide detectable and measurable quantity.

 

This effect is more pronounced in the atomic nucleus. There, protons and neutrons—collectively, nucleons—are bound via the “strong force,” one of the four fundamental forces (more properly termed “interactions”). But the mass of that nucleus is very slightly less than the combined masses of the bound nucleons as they would weigh in isolation, i.e., unbound.

 

This so-called “mass defect” represents the amount of energy it would take to completely “pull apart” the nucleons until they were no longer within the (very short) range of the strong force. (I’m ignoring the effects of the nuclear electromagnetic and weak interactions here—they don’t materially affect the facts we are discussing.)

 

The basic principle is the same as with the two magnets. Analogously, the magnets could be thought of as the “nucleons” electromagnetically bound together in a “nucleus” until sufficient energy is applied to overcome their mass deficit, which can be thought of as “negative” (or “missing”) energy being restored by an input of “positive energy.”

 

The concepts of potential energy and field energy are very specific. The laws governing them are clear-cut and precise, and these are backed up by two centuries of observational and experimental evidence.

 

Since he declined to even mention them, let alone give them entree into his model, I don’t know how Mr. McCutcheon feels about these forms of energy or the evidence supporting them. But if, as I suspect, he is less than enthusiastic about their validity, there are two cities in Japan where he may find the atmosphere singularly fitting for contemplation of potential energy, binding energy, and nuclear mass defect—and of their more questionable uses.

 

Sixty years this month.

 

Tom Palmer

[Buffy]

Happy B-day Tom! Great post! I like your use of the "extra bone" mechanism as an explanation. I've often been challenged in coming up with concrete and understandable explanations of what potential energy is, as it is so counter intuitive to people. This one is nice because its a single mechanism that combines both kinetic and potential.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[questor]

In the discussion of energy, a couple of questions arise,

1. what is the energy source that has propelled the earth around the sun for billions

of years at a constant speed?

2. since the orbit is elliptical and the earth is closer to the sun at times, why does the greater mass of the sun not pull the earth into it?

3. since Pluto has such a small mass and is in an orbit, why does it not escape the pull of the sun's gravity?

4. what is the source of the energy that produces gravitational pull? why does it not dissapate?

[Tom Palmer]

It is good to hear from you again, Buffy from Oakland (or is it Sunnydale?). Thanks for the vote of confidence. :)

 

Thank you, too, Questor, for your questions. I’ll try to hit them all (though not in order). I’ll just go a little crazy here, let the juices flow, and hope that the results will be at least marginally coherent. :)

 

You asked, “What is the energy source that has propelled the earth around the sun for billions of years at a constant speed?”

 

I’d like to clear up, if I can, a glaring misconception Mr. McCutcheon has attempted to plant in the minds of his readers. He portrays a source of gravity (such as the sun) as if it were continuously pouring out energy from some mysterious “bottomless well” of the stuff (and magnets, ditto). Then, as this emitted energy supposedly flies off into the unknown, a new wave of emitted energy takes its place, and so on, ad infinitum. He implies (quite correctly) that this is ridiculous, but that his model (quite incorrectly) sets thing right again.

 

What he has done here is to set up a straw man, which he then proceeds to knock down. In no way, however, does his “straw man” actually represent what is believed about the gravitational field today or in the last 300 years. Energy is not continuously generated by a gravitational source. Rather, the gravitational field itself contains potential energy, and that energy stays put in the gravitational field until another body “converts” it to kinetic energy. (It’s a little tough to explain without the math.)

 

Consider a two-body system such as the sun and the earth. Both are orbiting their common center of mass (about which I wrote previously) . This is a stable, self-sustaining system. Over the eons, it has achieved equilibrium. The gravitational energy which “drives” the motions of the bodies never leaves the system, nor does any “new” energy come in. It is a fallacy to think that new energy must constantly be supplied as old energy purportedly leaves.

 

If the average radius of the earth’s orbit were to become progressively longer, then that would indicate “new” energy being added to the system. That it remains the same means that no “new” energy is coming in, but also that it is not losing its present energy, either.

 

Remember the law of inertia: “A body will preserve its velocity (i.e., speed and direction) so long as no force in that same direction acts upon it.” This is a modern restatement of Newton’s first law of motion (though Galileo and his pupils, and later Decartes, also did their part). Up to Galileo’s time, Aristotle’s notion had been dominant. Aristotle had taught that it takes force to keep a body in motion. He really blew that one, and it wasn’t his only blunder.

 

But you can see why this misconception lasted so long. Down here on the earth, any moving body gradually slows down and eventually comes to a halt. Of course, we now realize that friction and air resistance are the energy thieves who drain the body’s kinetic energy, gradually converting it to mostly heat energy (which still involves motion, but at the molecular level).

 

As long as nothing is “stealing” that body’s energy (or adding to it), it will continue in motion at a constant velocity. And there is no friction or air resistance to slow the earth’s passage through empty space. So it is able to hang onto its energy for orbit after orbit after orbit.

 

In physics, “velocity” indicates both speed and direction. This inertial velocity of the earth is therefore a vector quantity. However, the earth is in the sun’s powerful gravitational field, so there is another vector to consider: the pull of the sun. In a circular orbit, this second vector is always at right angles to the inertial velocity vector.

 

Try to picture this: The earth’s orbital velocity can only keep it moving in a straight line at any given instant. But the sun’s gravitational field simultaneously pulls it directly toward the sun. The vector sum of these two forces in that instant is a diagonal “compromise” vector. In that instant, the earth doesn’t go straight ahead, as its velocity would like, nor does it head directly for the sun, as the sun’s field vector would like. Rather, it goes in an in-between direction.

 

Since the sun’s gravity did succeed in getting it a little closer to the sun than it had been, you might think that we’re all going to be getting very warm very soon. But not so. Because while the earth was getting a little closer to the sun, that other, “straight-ahead” vector was going at right angles to the direction of the sun, and therefore the earth actually ended up a little farther from the sun than it was the instant before.

 

In a circular orbit, these two effects—the sun’s field pulling us toward the sun, the earth’s inertia simultaneously pulling us at right angles away from the sun—mutually cancel out, exactly. So we didn’t really get a little closer to the sun in that instant, but stayed at the exact same distance, but in a slightly different orbital position. So I lied—so sue me.

 

It’s a little more complicated for an elliptical orbit, but the same thing basically happens there, too. It’s hard to put into words, but the mathematics of it is beautiful—though one needs a background in differential and integral calculus to perceive that beauty. (Incidentally, Newton invented calculus—as Leibniz did also, independently—and he did it in order to do the math for his Principia.)

 

Questor, you also asked: “What is the source of the energy that produces gravitational pull? Why does it not dissipate?” As you might see now, the question should be “Why would it be expected to dissipate?”

 

Potential energy is not like radiation energy, which cannot be held in one place. It’s just that a body which is a certain distance from, say, the earth has an implied potential energy available to it by virtue of its position. In other words, a certain amount of energy had to have been expended to counteract the earth’s pull and get that body out to that particular distance away from the earth in the first place. The body will now reclaim that energy (unless some countering force prevents it) by accelerating toward the earth, converting that potential energy into kinetic energy.

 

As for the question: “Since the orbit is elliptical and the earth is closer to the sun at times, why does the greater mass of the sun not pull the earth into it?”—I haven’t discussed elliptical orbits because they are more complex, even though the same basic principles we have considered apply to them, too. It might be helpful, though, for me to mention that the earth’s orbital velocity becomes greater, the closer it gets to the sun (and again slows as its distance increases).

 

You are right—it takes a greater orbital velocity to counteract the greater pull near the sun. The beauty of this is that the energy of the sun’s gravitational field is naturally greater closer to the sun (just as its brightness is greater). So the earth has more potential energy available to convert to kinetic energy at those close encounters, and so speeds up. Then, as it heads back out to the far end of the orbit, the earth slows again, in effect returning the excess kinetic energy to the potential-energy field. The process is repeated on the next orbit, and on and on. No new energy, just the same old energy endlessly recycled. And why not?

 

The remaining question: “Since Pluto has such a small mass and is in an orbit, why does it not escape the pull of the sun's gravity?”

 

Remember, a gravitational field will give all bodies at any particular distance the same acceleration regardless of their masses. If Pluto were to suddenly lose most of its mass (also losing the kinetic energy of the vanished mass), it would still continue to move in its same exact orbit.

 

Remember, too, that gravitation obeys an inverse-square law, which means that it never dies out completely, no matter how far out a body is. And since the nearest star is over four light-years away, there is no other “sun” in our neck of the woods to woo Pluto away from old Sol, even though the sun’s pull is exceedingly feeble that far out.

 

In fact, there are substantial bodies in the remote Kuiper Belt (where shorter-period comets originate), and in the Oort Cloud. One such body recently discovered is believed to be more massive than Pluto, and it may currently be three times farther out than Pluto.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Tom Palmer

[questor]

Tom, thanks for your very reasoned explanation of the questions i asked. even though you may be correct on all counts, some questions still remain. if the big bang started all this activity, where was all the matter and energy stored before the explosion ocurred? if there was a bang, where was its point of ocurrence? this would be the center of the universe. at the moment of the bang, particles would be thrown from the center outward with infinite

dispersion from the center. how then, did the sun capture the planets in our solar system

since their tendency was not to gather, but to disperse? that initial explosion had to be immense and the energy imparted to all particles was immense, and as you said, their tendency would be to move further from each other rather than to gather in galaxies. after the bang, at some point, something had to set the earth in orbit around the sun. since the earth at its formation presumably was being hurled from the center of the explosion outward in a straight line, what force caused it to change its direction to an orbit around the sun? this of co urse applies to all celestial bodies. also, space is now considered to contain dark matter or some type of sub-atomic particles. if they have any mass at all, would this not cause a gradual slowing of the earths orbit over the milleniae?

[Buffy]

I'd love to hear Tom on some of this, but I thought I'd jump in on a few things:

if the big bang started all this activity, where was all the matter and energy stored before the explosion ocurred?

As I understand it, McCutcheon does not deal with these issues, and this goes a bit beyond the scope of this thread. There are many other threads here that are covering this topic (which is of course somewhat metaphysical since it is hard to present testable hypotheses concerning what happened "before" the big bang. I understand why you start here, but I recommend joining in on some of the other threads to discuss this.

if there was a bang, where was its point of ocurrence? this would be the center of the universe. at the moment of the bang, particles would be thrown from the center outward with infinite dispersion from the center.

This also is covered in other threads, but briefly, its important to understand that thinking of the big bang as an "explosion" is a common misconception: "explosions" happen "into" their surrounding space. The big bang was not an explosion but rather a rapid expansion *of* space! Locally each mass that formed was not moving relative to "nearby" masses, so thinking of it as moving outward can lead to incorrect conclusions about how the matter behaves:

how then, did the sun capture the planets in our solar system since their tendency was not to gather, but to disperse?

The conventional wisdom on the data collected of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (the "echo of the big bang") shows that clumping of matter occurred very early on in the formation of the universe, causing masses for galactic clusters, galaxies and ultimately stars and planets to form from these clumps. This is actually *excellent* evidence that gravity is not an "expansion" of matter per McCutcheon, since the way this clumping progresses from difuse clouds of hydrogen, helium and lithium formed from the initial expansion of the universe into smaller and smaller clumps is via mutual gravitational attraction. Even individual atoms have mass and therefore have gravitational attraction toward one another which forms into these clumps. Note here that since all these clumps are *not* moving relative to one another, they naturally grow closer due to the gravity fields created by their masses and do not require any energy input inorder to cause the clumping to occur. Now if I understand McCutcheon's argument correctly, there would actually be no way for galaxies or stars or planets to *ever* form, since it presupposes that all these diffuse atoms would simply increase in size and would only create homogenous gasses in the expanding universe, and if the rate of expansion of the universe was greater than the expansion of the matter, these gaseous clouds would disperse: there would be nothing to drive them together into concentrated masses that would separate into stars and planets. they would just be expanding blobs. Gravity solves this problem because it is a mechanism that drives even the smallest elements together into denser and denser masses that ultimately form such concentrations that they can ignite from the gaseous pressure and cause fusion to occur.

that initial explosion had to be immense and the energy imparted to all particles was immense, and as you said, their tendency would be to move further from each other rather than to gather in galaxies.

This again uses the misconception of the big bang as an "explosion" which would imply the "release" of kinetic energy. Because the "bang" was instead an expansion, no energy was released: it was all potential energy as Tom describes above. There was certainly a lot of energy there as the temperature of the Universe--which was not very big!--was very high, but it was not transformed into kinetic energy in the bang. Again, particles that were close to one another would not be moving rapidly *relative* to one another, and their mutual attraction due to gravitational force between their masses would cause them to clump at a greater rate than the expansion rate of the universe (note that with gravity, this would be true *even if the expansion rate was very high*, there would just be *less* clumping, and fewer galaxies).

after the bang, at some point, something had to set the earth in orbit around the sun. since the earth at its formation presumably was being hurled from the center of the explosion outward in a straight line, what force caused it to change its direction to an orbit around the sun?

As noted by many posters on this topic, a key missing piece of McCutheon is a failure to adequately explain orbital motion within his theory. With gravity, orbital motion is easily explainable:

• First, its important to remember the above explanation that clumping occurs through gravitational attraction, so the elements are not "all moving away from each other"
  
• Second, when two masses *pass by* each other, they affect the *direction that they are moving* at the right speed and distance, they will trace a *curved* path past each other, and based on their relative sizes, a smaller mass will be "captured" by a larger mass and go into orbit around it. As these elements begin to collide, this same orbital motion ends up creating an overall rotational momentum for the accreting mass (which is the sum of all the masses that are being combined). Now if you watch a figure skater spinning, you'll notice that when they draw their arms in, they spin faster, and that's *exactly* what gets galaxies and solar systems both rotating fast enough to create enough angular momentum to keep the systems and planets orbiting about them for billions of years: gravity draws more and more mass in and as the mass is drawn in, a small amount of rotational momentum becomes a fast spinning ball that flattens out into a disk.
  

To your follow-on question which Tom addressed as well: yes the orbits of the planets do degrade over time, but there is little to slow them down (there's no "wind" pushing or much in the way of collisions to slow them down, but they do slow down, it just takes a really long time to happen. The planets inertia (Newtons law: bodies in motion tend to stay in motion) is simply directed by gravitational attraction so that they keep "falling" in a circle. The comparison to satellites around earth gives some people the idea that orbits should decay rapidly, but in fact even in orbits at a thousand miles or more (much further out than the space station) there's still enough atmosphere to really slow them down so they do come down in a matter of decades (although the stuff out in geosynchronous orbit at tens of thousands of miles will take thousands of years to come down at the very least. These satellites also have very little mass and thus very little inertia to overcome relative to the Earth: the Earth is only a few hundred times less massive than the Sun while satellites are billions of times less massive than the Earth.

 

Tom didn't mention it in his response, but explains it well: Kepler's laws explain how elliptical orbits can be just as "perpetual" as circular orbits (circular orbits are really just a special case: almost *all* orbits are elliptical). The masses speed up when they are closer and slower when they are further (in more technical terms, Kepler said that orbits "sweep out equal areas of the ellipse in equal times", but the result is the same). Elliptical orbits result in no faster degradation of the orbit unless (like satellites) at the low point they are passing through the atmosphere of the mass that they are orbiting, and *then* they will slow down faster. This really has no effect on very large masses like planets with no significant solar atmosphere to deal with.

space is now considered to contain dark matter or some type of sub-atomic particles. if they have any mass at all, would this not cause a gradual slowing of the earths orbit over the milleniae?

It certainly could, however dark matter's effect on collecting matter is only measurable on glalactic scales. If it were affecting the motions of bodies in the solar system--where we have a really accurate idea of the masses in play--we would be able to measure a discrepancy, and we don't. So its there, it just doesn't have any measurable affect: everything is accounted for by the normal matter we can observe.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Tom Palmer]

Buffy—now it’s my turn to say “Wow!” Your response to Questor’s concerns was absolutely masterful, and everything you said was right on target. To tell the truth, I was getting a little weary, and was not particularly looking forward to making the effort. Thanks to you, the job has been taken care of. It was outstanding, and better than anything I would have come up with.

 

You really nailed the fallacies in McCutcheon’s objections to the Big Bang, and especially the all-important point that the BB shouldn’t be thought of as an “explosion.” That misconception trips up a lot of people—though most of them aren’t as anxious to trip over it as Mr. McCutcheon was.

 

I’m especially glad you addressed the matter of elliptical orbits—I had hated to leave that part out but just wasn’t motivated enough to get into it. And another good point you made: That orbits do degrade in time due to occasional encounters with other matter. In fact, I seem to recall reading once that the moon is gradually losing orbital energy through the interactions that produce the tides.

 

I’m also glad you mentioned angular momentum. One thing that has been consistently missing from the discussions is momentum—linear and angular—and their conservation laws. Everybody has been hung up over energy (which McCutcheon seems to confuse with “power,” even using the terms interchangeably), as if it were the sole dynamic quantity.

 

I’m sure you know this already, but I’ll mention it for the other readers: In relativistic physics, time and the three dimensions of space are wed in four-vector union, and it is only the so-called “invariant space-time interval” that is independent of coordinate system. Among its analogues are energy and the three components of momentum (and their corresponding invariant). So in relativistic physics, treating energy alone—à la McCutcheon—and leaving out momentum (or vice versa) will guarantee failure. But, considering what McCutcheon has done with energy, I shudder to think what he would do with momentum.

 

You made many other equally commendable points, Buffy, but I’ll hold it here. Again—a superb job. You really know your physics and cosmology.

 

Tom Palmer

[questor]

Thanks to Tom and Buffy. your explanations seem quite plausible and may even be quite correct. the bothersome points to me that persist are Gravity.. did gravity precede or succeed the ''Big Expansion" ? gravity seems to be faster than light so its mass must be infinite. we know that as objects approach the speeed of light, their mass becomes infinite

or is it that their energy becomes infinite? light has mass, does it not, since rays can be bent? if i imagine a large expansion, i must imagine that it originates at a point and energy is used to propel particles away from the point, else why would they move outward? if they were propelled into an inceasingly large space, it seems they would tend to separate rather than cluster. at the moment of the beginning of expansion, all particles in the universe must have been close together. if the force of expansion was sufficient to propel particles with enough force to escape whatever was at the center of the expansion, how did the clustering into

galaxies occur? did some of the particles change direction so they could collide with other particles, or did gravity choose to pick certain particles out of the crowd to make galaxies? is the "Big Expansion " still underway at the same speed with an ever expanding universe, or have we reached "warp speed"? with a controlled rate of expansion? thanks for your comments.

[infamous]

gravity seems to be faster than light so its mass must be infinite. we know that as objects approach the speeed of light, their mass becomes infinite

.

I believe the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that gravity propogates at the speed of light, and is by no means, faster than light.

[questor]

since it takes light years for light to reach us from distant galaxies, are you saying that gravity from these bodies will be also arriving soon?

[repeater]

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?

[infamous]

since it takes light years for light to reach us from distant galaxies, are you saying that gravity from these bodies will be also arriving soon?

You must remember that all the objects we can see, weather by optic telescopes or by any other electromagnetic radiation, have also brought with them the influence of their gravity. If the objects are old enough for the light to get here, their gravational effects will also be evident to us.

[Buffy]

did gravity precede or succeed the ''Big Expansion" ?

Its a fundamental force of nature. It existed at the instant that the big bang occurred. Again, we don't have any way to perceive what "preceded" the big bang, although one can conjecture, but its really irrelevant. That it existed at the initial instant of the bang is significant though because it means that it immediately had an effect on all of the matter in the universe.

gravity seems to be faster than light so its mass must be infinite. we know that as objects approach the speeed of light, their mass becomes infinite

or is it that their energy becomes infinite? light has mass, does it not, since rays can be bent?

Gravity propagates at the speed of light and there are a number of experiments that show this.

 

Einstein's equations say that mass becomes infinite as it is pushed to the speed of light, but this again is a confusing simplification. We've got an interesting thread on 2363 but its uh, heavy reading. Gravity may, like light behave both as a wave and as a particle (so called "gravitons") but no such particles or waves have been detected with current technology, although the proof of propagation at light speed pretty much verifies that it is at least a wave phenomenon, and may prove to have the same quantum particle effects that produce wierd results with light.

if i imagine a large expansion, i must imagine that it originates at a point and energy is used to propel particles away from the point, else why would they move outward?

This is also one of those hard to grasp elements of the big bang: There is no "center point" from which everything expands. An *explosion* expands from a single point because it is a 3-dimensional phenomena. The Universe's expansion is 4-dimensional, and we have trouble visualizing how it can expand with no center point, but it does. If there was a center point, unless we *just happened* to be *exactly* at that center point, we would see large differences in the rates that objects are moving away from us in different directions, but we don't. This is very hard to understand, but its been verified in a variety of different ways.

if they were propelled into an inceasingly large space, it seems they would tend to separate rather than cluster. at the moment of the beginning of expansion, all particles in the universe must have been close together. if the force of expansion was sufficient to propel particles with enough force to escape whatever was at the center of the expansion, how did the clustering into galaxies occur? did some of the particles change direction so they could collide with other particles, or did gravity choose to pick certain particles out of the crowd to make galaxies?

First of all you have to understand that its not (at least in the conventional sense) a "force" that is driving the expansion: all space everywhere is expanding. This *does* make it appear that every thing is "moving away" from everything else, but its not "movement" in the sense that you are used to, and thus does not require "force" to be applied in order to cause it and thus does not require the release of kinetic energy.

 

Now to address the specific question you have here, gravity immediately began to draw together particles from the first instant of the big bang, and we see this in the CMB (mentioned in my earlier post). This caused initial clumping via gravity that was larger in its effect than the expansion of the universe, and clumping has continued, based purely on the gravitational attraction of particles to form the various structures we see in the universe. Gravity is a very effective force, and since it got an early start, we see lots of very concentrated structures. Note that the enormous voids between the galaxies is evidence that just the initial clumping to rapidly clear out spaces where we "see" most of the expansion now going on. Also in support of this notion of the influence of gravitation, local groups of galaxies move in various directions relative to one another, caused prinipally by their gravitational attraction, just like planets! There are galaxies that orbit each other and lots of pretty pictures of galaxies actually colliding.

is the "Big Expansion " still underway at the same speed with an ever expanding universe, or have we reached "warp speed"? with a controlled rate of expansion?

Yes, its still underway, and the rate of expansion appears to be increasing, and thats what the many discussions of "dark energy" are about.

 

A warning again that "speed" is not the proper term since its again "expansion" not "movement" and "movement" is necessary for "speed" in the normal sense. There is a distance known as the "Hubble Limit" which is the distance away from us, beyond which we cannot see because objects beyond this limit are "receding" (not "moving") away from us at "greater than the speed of light", and we've got an interesting thread about it here.

 

Cheers,

Buffy