The Final Theory

[questor]

Buffy, i like the way you talk. just explain to me a little more about things ''receeding'', but not moving, and how massive bodies like the earth can approach the speed of light with

nothing pushing them and how expansion is a 4dimensional ''movement'' with no driving force and how we have actually proved these things. thanks, my head is spinning.

[questor]

Buffy, i forgot to ask some other things about gravity. if it was here before the big bang and the universe has expanded since then, has the gravity thinned out from its original thickness to fill the larger space?

will we run out of sufficient gravity as the universe becomes larger or is more gravity created to keep the same thickness? also, if there is dark matter, what prevents gravity from clumping it? and if there are gravitons, do they travel or are they stationary? if

massive bodies are traveling, such as the earth, do they carry their gravitational attraction with them or just move through a field?

[Buffy]

explain to me a little more about things ''receeding'', but not moving...how expansion is a 4dimensional ''movement'' with no driving force

The canonical explanation of this is to try to imagine that you live in a TWO-dimensional universe on the surface of a balloon. You're not moving, no one else on the balloon is moving, yet if you look across the surface of the balloon, everything is moving away from you. In fact no matter where you are on the surface, as the balloon expands you see the same thing: everything is moving away from you. Moreover the further anything is away from you, the faster it *appears* to be moving. BUT this "movement" is only the exansion of the balloon: NO force has been applied to cause this *apparent* movement, because in fact in the local reference frame, it has not been moving since the beginning of the universe, its just sitting in the same place it always was and it was *never* "pushed" or "pulled" *ever*. There's no force, just expansion. Now this is a little bit easier to picture on a balloon, but its really hard to visualize what it means to "blow up the balloon" in a 3 dimensional space (4 with time), but the concept is exactly the same.

how massive bodies like the earth can approach the speed of light with nothing pushing them...how expansion is a 4dimensional ''movement'' with no driving force

Again, this *apparent* movement is not caused by a force, only by the expansion of the universe, so no pushing is involved. A galaxy 10 billion light years away will *look* like it starting approach "light speed" but from its point of view, its just sitting there and again has *never* been "pushed." The only thing that is happening is that because the distance between the two objects are very far away from each other, there is a lot of expansion going on (again think of the balloon), so it *appears* that they are moving away at great speed.

how we have actually proved these things.

Expansion of the universe is easy to observe from redshifts of distant galaxies, whose distances we can verify through a wide range of means (known brightnesses of certain star types, etc.). A great deal of the proof of the model involves a deeper understanding of the mathematical models and there are numerous predictions that have been verified with experiments but the details go beyond what I can cover in a single post. There are *lots* of good books on the subject, and a couple of my favorites are "The Whole Shebang" by Tim Ferris and "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene.

thanks, my head is spinning.

You're welcome. As Feynmann has said about quantum mechanics--and its similarly wacky--if you think you understand this stuff, you obviously don't.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Buffy, i forgot to ask some other things about gravity. if it was here before the big bang and the universe has expanded since then, has the gravity thinned out from its original thickness to fill the larger space?...

This is starting to go beyond this thread. You might try reading the books I mentioned in the previous post and also browse Wikipedia on some of these topics. Try a bit of that and open a new thread.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Frank]

Newton’s first law of motion is a prerequisite for the expansion theory. The first law of motion being “every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force” Otherwise known as the law of inertia.

 

Without the first law of motion you cannot explain gravity by the earth (or any other heavenly body) expanding to accelerate objects on its surface (equivalence principle).

 

Let us for the sake of the argument assume that uniform motion is not a straight line but curved in a spiral as expansion theory claim. In order for an orbit velocity to appear to be stable in relation to expanding bodies, the orbiting body need to accelerate in order to appear to be orbiting with a fixed velocity to cover the ever-increasing distance in space. In fact an object does not need to be orbiting another body at all in order to behave as if it does bearing in mind that expansion theory reject the notion of “force at a distance”.

 

Using the Earth and the moon as an example you can therefore remove the earth from the equation and the moon would still orbit in the same way around that region of perceived space since the earth can obviously not affect the moons trajectory (no “force at a distance”). The continuous acceleration of the moon as it spirals outward can also not be explained unless you apply a force to continuously accelerate it. This would again require the need for an unknown force that cannot be explained by expansion theory.

 

Re defining the first law of motion to say that an object naturally is both moving in a spiral and accelerating would remove the basis of expansion theory as you do not get the inertia of mass required to explain gravity with the expansion of the planet surface.

 

The conclusion must therefore stand that orbits cannot be explained within the confines of expansion theory as it is formulated in the book “The final theory”.

[questor]

Frank, very interesting. how would you explain orbits? in Newton's first law it states that

bodies shall remain AT REST. in order for them to assume movement in a straight line, some force has to initiate that movement. what is that initial force? if the planets in our solar system are clumps of matter thrown off by the Sun, what gave them the initial push to begin their orbits?

[Frank]

Frank, very interesting. how would you explain orbits? in Newton's first law it states that

bodies shall remain AT REST. in order for them to assume movement in a straight line, some force has to initiate that movement. what is that initial force? if the planets in our solar system are clumps of matter thrown off by the Sun, what gave them the initial push to begin their orbits?

 

Well I did not initially intend to explain orbits, but simply argue that universally expanding matter is not capable of explaining them.

 

However according to what has previously been theorized and indeed observed regarding the formation of planetary systems, the planets are formed in the disk of dust and gas surrounding new stars. The proto planetary disk is already spinning and therefore has rotary motion. So the initial "push" is the rotation already inherent in the collapsing cloud of interstellar dust and gas that formed the star and planets at the outset.

 

I must confess that I do not think that we have reached the final understanding of gravity and that there are inconsistencies in the current standard model.

[questor]

Frank, if there was a big bang, it would have to occur at a point. from this point, debris would have moved out in all directions in a straight line. where would the rotational forces

come from, and where would the forces come from that altered straight-line paths into orbits? if there was not a big bang, where did the force come from that started the expansion of the universe that we now observe?

[Frank]

Frank, if there was a big bang, it would have to occur at a point. from this point, debris would have moved out in all directions in a straight line. where would the rotational forces

come from, and where would the forces come from that altered straight-line paths into orbits? if there was not a big bang, where did the force come from that started the expansion of the universe that we now observe?

 

That is an interesting question. The man who first put forward the big bang theory was a catholic monk called Georges Lemaître that worked on the behalf of the vatican.

 

I have come to regard the big bang theory as a religious construct of creationism.

I do not want to have to defend the big bang theory.

[questor]

Frank, i would hate to defend any of the current theories. my reason tells me that the easiest path is to believe is intelligent design. this is not to say that the designer answers to religious perceptions of it/him/her.

[Frank]

Questor, there is obviously a lot of rotation and spin existing in the universe from galaxies to sub atomic particles. It may be that this contradict the concept of big bang but I do not have a problem with that.

[Tom Palmer]

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, Repeater,

 

Thanks very much for your posting.

 

First, Roger and the cheese. A splendid illustration of potential energy! I wish I could carry out this same experiment so as to speak with some assurance on the matter—but I can’t. You see, our little pet is Rosie the guinea pig. (Actually, I should say “was”—sadly.) So there are at least two factors preventing me from duplicating your success.

 

Factor One: Guinea pigs, as far as I know, aren’t into cheese—just lettuce, carrots, pumpkin seeds, etc.

Factor Two: Guinea pigs have no tails.

 

Many years ago, wife Fay and I had two white mice, Dynamo and Geronimo. Unfortunately, it never occurred to me that our little “Mo”s held the secrets of the universe in their little rodent tails. (I’m sure that, by this point, everyone else on this thread is thoroughly grossed out.)

 

Re your request for references on the increased weight attributable to potential energy. First, I should clarify in what sense this is true. When the two magnets (the “system”) are pulled apart, energy has been added to that system—obviously. Energy is conserved, so where is that energy that I just put into the system?

 

One of the counterintuitive things about potential energy is that, strictly speaking, you can’t really assign it a particular point location in space, because it is “energy of position.” It exists by virtue of the relative positions of—in this case—the two magnets after they’ve been pulled apart. Sprinkle some iron filings on the table in the space separating them, and the filings will immediately arrange themselves in a neat, unmistakable pattern displaying what Faraday called “lines of force,” showing that something is definitely going on in that separation.

 

A study of these patterns, and the behavior of the magnets themselves when finally released to snap back together, both confirm that the farther apart the magnets are pulled, the greater the total potential energy that has been added to the system. And that makes sense, because we have been progressively adding energy to the system, and it has to be somewhere.

 

However, that energy should manifest itself as a very slight increase in the weight of the system. We have empirical evidence of this in the atomic nucleus, which I had discussed right after my remarks on magnets. Here, the “weight” of the potential energy is, in effect, determined by measuring the mass of the nucleus as a whole, then measuring the mass of the individual components after they have been separated.

 

I had alluded to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and there is no better (or, in another sense, worse) example of the power of unleashed potential energy becoming all too kinetic and radiative. And it had all been successfully figured out in advance because the theory behind it was evidently right.

 

A uranium-235 nucleus absorbs a slow neutron and becomes the highly unstable isotope U-236 as a result. The instability means that the nucleons are not as tightly bound anymore. The U-236 nucleus achieves greater stability by splitting into two smaller nuclei— barium-141 and krypton-92. Three (sometimes two) more slow neutrons are also released, which continue the chain reaction.

 

The barium and krypton nuclei are more stable, hence more tightly bound. That is, their nuclear potential energies are less than the potential energy that had existed in the more loosely bound U-236 nucleus. The forces inside a nucleus are enormous, far exceeding anything else in the world, so we’re talking a heap of energy here.

 

So if you add up the masses of the barium nucleus, krypton nucleus, and the two or three slow neutrons, it comes out a little less that the mass of the original U-236 nucleus. And the whole world trembles at that “little less.”

 

It is, in effect, a potential-energy difference that expresses itself in the release of powerful gamma radiation, and also in the enormously high kinetic energy of the resulting nuclei.

 

However, you were interested in experimental evidence of a weight gain in the two magnets when pulled apart, and on that I can’t deliver. The above example assures scientists that it is there, as do the evidences of the energy spent to create potential energy (e.g., pulling the magnets apart) . Here’s why I can’t give you direct evidence for potential energy from magnetism or gravitation. It’s a quote I’m copying in here from a science website:

 

<<Everyday matter is given its stability by chemical bonds between its atoms and/or molecules. However, such chemical bonds are much too weak, the associated binding energies much too small to result in measurable mass defects - typical values are in the range of a hundredth of thousandth or even of a millionth of the mass of an electron.

 

The forces binding protons and neutrons together to form atomic nuclei are considerably stronger, with binding energies that are a few million or even billion times larger than those of chemical bonds. In consequence, mass defects correspond to the masses of a few dozen or even a few hundred electrons. That is well within the range of precision mass measurements.>>

 

So the numbers themselves tell us that the quantities of potential energy in non-nuclear situations are simply too small to be measured currently. Even though the indirect evidence tells us the magnets would weigh more when separated, I’m sorry I confused the issue—I should have saved my remark about “detectable and measurable” for the paragraphs following.

 

My best regards to Roger. Give him an extra piece of cheese for me.

 

Tom Palmer

[ldsoftwaresteve]

repeater:

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!

lol. No kidding. As McCutcheon's default advocate I guess I'm standing pretty much alone here. I glanced at Tom Palmer's equations and blanched. That was nice work though.

I've been away for a while and haven't visited the discussion so don't take my lack of a response as meaning abdication.

Mr. Palmer, would it make a difference if McCutcheon's view is that size, not mass, determines the gravitational effect? In McCutcheon's view the distribution of mass affects the subsequent direction of expansion (an inertial effect), but not the amount. Do your formulas (formulae) imply that mass causes the gravitational effect? If so, isn't that like using loaded dice?

Although I feel sore and bloody, I still cannot get away from his basic observation: that the gravitational effect is based upon expansion. To me that makes intuitive sense although it's counter to everything I've been taught. It also explains why we haven't been able to detect a gravitational field and why so much frantic effort is being put into doing just that.

I'll take a look at your math with the purpose of identifying where the assumption of mass is. That will take time. I admire your energy.

Best regards, Steve

[Boerseun]

Steve - I agree that the idea of gravity being the result of expansion is intuitive.

 

However, seeing as McCutcheon states gravity being the result of expansion of planets, starts, space, etc., how does he get past the fact that gravity warps space? This has been proven and observed, initially to prove Einstein right.

 

Soooo... if gravity can have an effect on space, why is it that it only effects space around massive objects?

 

If we have two planets of identical size, but the one is made of lead and the other of blue cheese, they must have the same gravitional influence on an observer, if McCutcheon is right. If they don't, then it can only mean that the one is expanding at a quicker pace than the other. Which means they won't stay the same size for long.

 

Experiments on gravity is done with huge lead balls, not polystyrene. And the gravity of a specific object isn't determined by whether it's a planet or not. Which means if expansion is the way to go, a leaden weight will soon outgrow your tackle box, ruining your fishing weekend with a loud bang. Lead bullets will soon not fit in gunbarrels anymore. Within a few seconds of coming off the production line, a car's pistons won't fit in the cylinders anymore, having been constructed of different metals.

 

All of the above, however, is not the case. Which leads me to one, and only one conclusion:

 

McCutcheon is very, very wrong. The observations doesn't fit his predictions.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseun:

However, seeing as McCutcheon states gravity being the result of expansion of planets, starts, space, etc., how does he get past the fact that gravity warps space? This has been proven and observed, initially to prove Einstein right.

Why? because we see light bend as it passes a star? Are you totally certain that this effect cannot be explained by expansion?

If we have two planets of identical size, but the one is made of lead and the other of blue cheese, they must have the same gravitional influence on an observer, if McCutcheon is right. If they don't, then it can only mean that the one is expanding at a quicker pace than the other. Which means they won't stay the same size for long.

Obviously, if the structure of something is stable and is 1/2 the size of a bowling ball, the structure will still be the size of 1/2 bowling ball 2 years from now. And the observer, who is also expanding, will still be the same relative size although he may have gotten bored from this conversation by then and walked away.

[Boerseun]

Obviously, if the structure of something is stable and is 1/2 the size of a bowling ball, the structure will still be the size of 1/2 bowling ball 2 years from now. And the observer, who is also expanding, will still be the same relative size although he may have gotten bored from this conversation by then and walked away.

I think you've missed my point here:

 

I'm talking about two objects of exact dimensions, but made of different matter.

 

Say, a lead ball and a plastic ball.

 

The lead ball can be proven to exert a higher gravitational influence than the plastic ball.

 

Therefore, if McCuthceon is right, the lead ball MUST be expanding at a higher rate than the plastic ball. Which would make them not being the same size very quickly.

 

And this doesn't happen in real life. My inflatable plastic ball is still exactly the same size as my bowling ball.

 

If you're getting bored with this conversation, don't bother to reply.

[Dinesh_college]

If the Theory of relativity is wrong,Whether every thing we know about the Universe is

wrong.

 

We are using the E=mc^2 in nuclear reactions.

 

:eek2: If it is wrong then how the calculated energy became correct .