The Final Theory

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Palmer:

I admit it--we who uphold conventional physics have been thoroughly deluded and are mere pawns in a vast supergalactic conspiracy dedicated to crushing scientific truth and promoting a bogus physics whose only justification is the flimsy excuse that modern physics has given humankind incredible, unimaginable wonders and sent out probes to touch other worlds. Obviously, all of that counts for nothing.

come on Tom, isn't that just a shade too melodramatic? You assume that because an uninformed amateur like myself sees some truth in McCutcheon's ideas that I don't have any respect for what Sir Isaac and Albert and others have done and nothing could be further from the truth. Standard theory is NOT bogus physics. It's damn good physics.

I believe in virtue and ethics but I don't go to church and am not religious. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

McC is coming at the issue from a diametrically opposed point of view. Almost a mirror image. If everything I saw of the world was inverted, I could still deal with it. I could form models, theories and mathematics and build on those and fly to the moon. But that doesn't mean I'm in line with reality. It only means that I'm in line with it enough to command it. It remains to be seen which view is inverted.

 

And as far as 'the good fight' is concerned, lol, we have the case of very many to one. How does that constitute 'the good fight'? If I were Beagleworth, I'd walk away from this site and not return until someone started enforcing a code of conduct. Or are moderators 'protectors of the truth' by any means whatsoever?

[Beagleworth]

And as far as 'the good fight' is concerned, lol, we have the case of very many to one. How does that constitute 'the good fight'? If I were Beagleworth, I'd walk away from this site and not return until someone started enforcing a code of conduct. Or are moderators 'protectors of the truth' by any means whatsoever?

 

I have to say I am bit scared:). Well I am scared that the dicussion will devolve in personal attacks. But so far, I think the thread seems to have been walking a fine line and everything stayed mostly civilised which is why I decided to jump in even though the tone is mostly anti-McC.

[Buffy]

McC's assumptions are :

1. All matter expands

2. Absolute motion of matter is unknown. But the dynamic between the expansion and expanding matter causes orbit and "attraction".

 

If you want to discuss McC's you have to analyse it with its own assumptions to see if it matches obversvations.

Okay, can you possibly tell me how we can disprove any of his theory if "absolute motion of matter is unknown?" If that's the case, *no* useful predictions can be made and *none* of the theory can be falsified, thus it is not scientific!

 

Note that I'm making *no* assumptions based on Newton here. I'm simply asking for something that we can use to conduct an experiment of *any* kind, which cannot be possible if this second assumption is true!

 

Can you tell me how its possible to have any belief in a theory that says, "odd things happen that we can't explain, but the theory that does explain them can't possibly be right."

 

I must admit to being confused.

I am not here to discuss this subject because I believe McC is the all mighty oracle and that the ignorant masses should be educated. I want to discuss it because I want to find an observation it cannot explains.

...and unfortunately that's not possible if the theory is incomplete. Give us some equations that explain motion (the ones you give above of course do nothing but describe expansion and the second assumption says clearly that there *are none* that explain motion), and we might be able to do so. Please note that I'm *not* asking for an explanation of *what* the cause is for the force--Newton doesn't bother too either, although Einstein sure points it out--I'm just looking for an equation that would predict motion through space.

His theory does have iffy explanations. But so does the standard theory. The realy question is which gives a better interpretation of the other observations.

Can you point out what explanations in standard theory you find "iffy" are? We'd probably be happy to not only explain them but show you actual experimental data that prove them...unlike McC. You are absolutely correct that there is a theory that is a better interpretation, its just not likely that the theory that completely avoids trying to explain a major area like motion can be considered better!

 

In reference to your earlier post:

Pure expansion only apply if you are on the planet.

Note that if I keep going along these lines, but try as you have to "bring density into it" that the only logical conclusion within McC theory is that objects of different densities *expand at different rates* which is easily disprovable.

Agreed, it is easely disprovable. But it is not what I said. Density only comes into play to "feel" the gravity once you are ON the planet.

But at what point are you "not on the planet"? 1 foot up? 10000 miles? Its clear that the effects of the expansion have to be the same for all of these since the expansion is expanding toward you whether you've got your feet on the ground or you're in a balloon or airplane. Some how you pass some magic point where you're no longer affected? What you've said here does nothing to explain away the effect I've described, unless its something like density only affects very large masses, in which case the question is exactly the same: at some magic point it has an effect, but below it it doesn't? What is this size? Can you describe an experiment that we could use to find that point?

 

And what does this have to do with two balls in space as I've described? Its exactly the experiment you ask for:

If you are in space and you take 2 balls of the same size, one of lead and one of styrofoam and you insert them at the same distance of the inside edge of a picture frame floating in space, you would see them move toward one another and they would touch in the middle of the frame, because their gravity would match their radius.

 

This is different from Newton who says that the contact point would be closer to side of the lead ball.

 

I am looking forward to NASA trying this out.

You know that link above? There are all kinds of experiments you can conduct with torsion bars mechanisms that show *exactly* this effect. Even with very small table-top size masses, we have instruments that can and do show the effect of attraction between masses of different sizes and densities. If the postulate that density of small radii doesn't matter is the case, we'd see it here, and we don't. Don't "wait for NASA" there are hundreds of papers with data out there, just Google "gravity experiments torsion"...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Well I am scared that the dicussion will devolve in personal attacks. But so far, I think the thread seems to have been walking a fine line and everything stayed mostly civilised which is why I decided to jump in even though the tone is mostly anti-McC.

That my friend is not a very good way to get out of an argument. If you feel that the questions posed here are personal, I'll do anything necessary to reassure you.

 

I will say that the problem does come down to Tom's last somewhat-facetious post: So many folks who support McC and similar theories have not done their homework, and unlike you and steve, aren't willing even look at data that refutes these, uh, "interesting" theories.

 

So much of the *defense* of unsupportable theories though does devolve into "you're just tied to your old-fashioned dogma" or "don't hate me because I'm beautiful". This gets really tiring, thus, the tone of exasperation that sometimes, uh, "slips out." :eek2:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

I have to say I am bit scared. Well I am scared that the dicussion will devolve in personal attacks. But so far, I think the thread seems to have been walking a fine line and everything stayed mostly civilised which is why I decided to jump in even though the tone is mostly anti-McC.

Yeah, and I don't think my last post helped it much. :eek2:

I wish I had the time and intelligence to actually discuss the contents of McC's book with you because from what I've seen you have a very gentle, unthreatened way of looking at things like this and the gain would be mostly mine. In my lifetime I have met just a handful of people with that ability but the experience has always been wonderful. For what it's worth, thanks for being the way you are.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy:

I will say that the problem does come down to Tom's last somewhat-facetious post: So many folks who support McC and similar theories have not done their homework, and unlike you and steve, aren't willing even look at data that refutes these, uh, "interesting" theories.

Thanks Buff, that means more to me than you might think.

[Beagleworth]

Okay, can you possibly tell me how we can disprove any of his theory if "absolute motion of matter is unknown?" If that's the case, *no* useful predictions can be made and *none* of the theory can be falsified, thus it is not scientific!

 

But doesn't relativity says just that? It says that you will see different things from looking from a different reference frame hence you don't know the real motion of things?

 

So, what we do see is the relative motion created by the absulte motion. If objects are orbiting, then you can easily imagine one component of the absolute motion going outward on a spiral.

 

One thing that allowed me to accept McC assumption that orbits can be just a natural relative motion of things is looking up in space. Straight lines do not exists, or only exists in relative manner. Everything that goes through space curves at some point or another when it passes by some bodies. You can say it is because matter attract matter, or because matter bend space. McC just says something else.

 

Can you tell me how its possible to have any belief in a theory that says, "odd things happen that we can't explain, but the theory that does explain them can't possibly be right."

 

Hmm. If you can't explain something, then the theory can't possibly explain it. Don't get excited because McC says that the is the final theory. It does not believe so even in his book. And anyway, it cannot be the final theory, because we still have 3 assumptions in it.

 

The real "final theory" should be left with 1 assumption and it is that the universe exists. It seems to trivialy exists because we are in it, but really we don't why, hence it is an assumption. Ok, that was probably strange logic, but I think you can see my point :eek2:

 

I must admit to being confused. ...and unfortunately that's not possible if the theory is incomplete. Give us some equations that explain motion.

 

But don't expect to much from me though. Math is simply a side domain for me and as such I do not have all the time I want to do it. But I don't mind taking the challenge and see where it can go. Just don't expect equations tomorrow.

 

Can you point out what explanations in standard theory you find "iffy" are? We'd probably be happy to not only explain them but show you actual experimental data that prove them...unlike McC.

 

Experiments do not prove or validate models. They strenghten the belief in the assumptions of the model because they can be explained using them. You can logicaly derive predictions from a model, but building an experiment that "proves" the prediction really simply strenghten the model.

 

Because if 2 models make the same predictions, then the experiment showing the prediction will strenghten both, but cannot make you decide which is better.

 

As for the iffy part, well here's two( in a very short form, so don't think my understanding of it in the light of standard theory is that shallow).

 

1. The reasons for the pioneer anomaly are still iffy. Dark Matter, new planet, no proof either. I am open to somebody giving a better explanation of it using standard model, I actually would like that. But even so, even if you provide a good one in standard theory, McC theory cannot be rejected based on that because the observations is explained in both.

 

Note though that McC explanations of it could be rejected if a "big" body orbits the sun beyond pluto.

 

2. That you need one particle for mass and one particle and that we have not seen the Higgs Boson yet. If mass is everywhere, this thing should be all over the place. This is not very appealing yet, because it requires a new assumption to be inserted in the Standard Model until we see the Higgs Boson and see why we had difficulity finding it.

 

Again be careful, I am not rejecting the observations that led to the explanation, I can see why the model appeared from the observations and our previous science. It is good that people are trying to modify what we know and not throw everything away at every turn. But sometimes, a new perspective is what is required for a breakthrough.

 

 

...its just not likely that the theory that completely avoids trying to explain a major area like motion can be considered better!

 

It is not avoiding to do that, it uses relativity as its explanation for all the motion we see.

 

Some how you pass some magic point where you're no longer affected?at some magic point it has an effect, but below it it doesn't? What is this size? Can you describe an experiment that we could use to find that point?

 

Once you touch the ground, the expansion becomes from "attractive" to pushing you away, so the dynamic has changed.

 

But if you are in motion even slightly above the planet, the dynamic is different. I am not sure why we are discussing this, because Newton argues the same thing. The direction and speed of motion affects it orbit.

 

v*v*R = Gm

 

For this equation to work, you must be doing a tangent movent with planet at the distance R.

 

So if you we going at the speed of light, then you could orbit the earth at 4.4 milimeters if your motion was in tangent with the planet. If you were going slower than the speed of light and your motion was still in tangent with planet then you would crash on the earth because you are going to slow. If you are going at the speed of light but not going in a tangent, then you would either crash on the Earth with a relative speed that is much faster than just the gravity of the earth, or you would be moving away from it.

 

Which is exactly what McC argues, just with an explanation that does not involve gravity.

 

 

 

And what does this have to do with two balls in space as I've described? Its exactly the experiment you ask for:You know that link above? There are all kinds of experiments you can conduct with torsion bars mechanisms that show *exactly* this effect. Even with very small table-top size masses, we have instruments that can and do show the effect of attraction between masses of different sizes and densities.

 

The sizes are still too small. Plug some number in McC equation of gravity and you can see that small(and small for astromomical objects can also means kilometers) it will still worked as predicted by the Standard Theory. This highly unfortunate because we cannot kill McC using just our basic observations.

 

But McC's model is computable. Since everything are expanding electrons which some elasticity. Then once we have the forumlas for motion, then we can plug all that in a computer see if our universal observations emerges or not.

 

Unfortunaletly, we do not have the computing power to do that today. Because if you look at the number of avogadro : 6.022 × 1023 then you can see the problem, because this not even the number of electrons, it is the number of atoms.

 

So if we simulate with just atoms and we estimate a low 4 bytes for each atom. then we need 2.4x1024 bytes !!!!! Ouch. Also there is still the problem of computing the expansion and motion of everything and we estimate 1x106 updates of spheres per seconds, then you see we requires quite a bit of power for any interesting computation.

 

From what I know, the best simalution done with Standard Theory and a super computer was a few centimer cube of water molecules(we can do way more using higher level abstraction). The results were quite good, but not enough for anything interesting or new to show up at the atomic.

[Beagleworth]

That my friend is not a very good way to get out of an argument. If you feel that the questions posed here are personal, I'll do anything necessary to reassure you.

 

It's good to know.

 

Like I said, I don't want to convince you, I am want to convince myself. So, I have no problem with people attacking my arguments. This is just how things should be discussed. I do have a problem though with being called ignorant because I read a book that I find compelling and logically sound even though it discusses things with a different slant than what we know.

 

Having say that, I am pretty happy with this discussion and I feel I can move forward in my understanding of the theories and be on better grounds to judge them. I really like it when people posts links, references, information about Standard theory because it allows me to strenghten my acceptation of its assumptions.

[Erasmus00]

How is this for an attempt at disproving McC. First, I will assume the Newtonian idea that forces cause acceleration, F=ma, holds true. McC seems to have no problem with this. What McC has is a problem with is the Newtonian deffinition of gravitational force F= -GM1M2/r^2. Now, we can't speak of absolute motion in McC's theory, but we can speak of relative motion. We know that the distance between two objects under McC's theory goes like:

 

D' = ( D - n*nXa(R1-R2) ) / (1 + n*nXa ). (From an earlier post) R1 and R2 are the radii of the objects, D is the initial distance and n is time Xa is a constant. I'll replace n with t.

D' = (D-t^2Xa(R1-R2))/(1+t^2Xa) .

Now, there apparent velocity v is given by dD/dt

v= -2tXa(R1-R2+D)/(1+t^2Xa)^2

And apparent acceleration is dv/dt

a=2Xa(-R1+3t^2XaR1+R2-3t^2XaR2+3t^2XaD-D)/(1+t^2Xa)^3.

 

Now, notice that the term on bottom grows like t^6, while the terms on top grow with t^2. This means our apparent acceleration is going to go quickly to 0. How quickly? It depends on Xa. Xa, we are given has an order of magnitude of 10^-7, which means after about an hour, the bottom begins to over take the top.

 

Now, if we define an apparent force from F=ma, we notice that the apparent force between two objects drops off with time very quickly. In other words our "apparent" gravitational effects would be weakening with time. So much so that after 50 years, the force would be essentially 0.

-Will

[Buffy]

But doesn't relativity says just that? It says that you will see different things from looking from a different reference frame hence you don't know the real motion of things?

No, you misunderstand the key point: Relativity provides equations that let you *exactly* correct for your distance. Moreover, the distances in the examples I'm giving have corrections that are small, although if you want to correct for them, you can given Einstein's equations. McC does not provide any equations its just supposed to be obvious, but because there are no equations, there are no predicitons whatsoever, and we just need to take this on faith.

 

I'll repeat it several times later: because McC does not provide the equations, it is not a "theory with the same results".

One thing that allowed me to accept McC assumption that orbits can be just a natural relative motion of things is looking up in space. Straight lines do not exists, or only exists in relative manner. Everything that goes through space curves at some point or another when it passes by some bodies. You can say it is because matter attract matter, or because matter bend space.

Sure curves are cool! I love em! So did Ptolemy, but his Epicycle theory of the motion of the planets turned out to be very wrong, and that revolution didn't require anything more than a non-theological view of the solar system. Kepler and Copernicus had no more sophisticated technology that Ptolemy did. Unfortunately, none of this provides any sort of an explanation or computational model for making predictions of these spirals. I don't have any problem with an assumption that all natural motion being curved, just tell me how I can predict it!

If you can't explain something, then the theory can't possibly explain it.

This is one of those "you're trapped in your old thinking arguments and is completely invalid. As I said several times in my posts above, I am *not* asking for cause, I am asking for an equation to use for prediction. Newton *never* discussed the *cause* of gravity, but he almost completely explained its *actions* with his equations, with the exception of relativistic effects (which were measurable, but barely above the allowance for error) that were corrected later by Einstein. Its not that McC's theory isn't *final*, its that its so incomplete as to be completely worthless, and indeed *unscientific.*

But don't expect to much from me though. Math is simply a side domain for me and as such I do not have all the time I want to do it. But I don't mind taking the challenge and see where it can go. Just don't expect equations tomorrow.

That's okay! We're patient! Just realize that none of us can help you without them! I'll keep saying this: there's nothing we can do unless you realize that motion has to be described in a measurable form under his theory, or its simply not a theory.

Experiments do not prove or validate models. They strenghten the belief in the assumptions of the model because they can be explained using them. You can logicaly derive predictions from a model, but building an experiment that "proves" the prediction really simply strenghten the model.

This is disingenous. Experiments can be designed to test the assumption or the theory or both! The torsion bar experiments that I've described but you've ignored, *do* test the assumptions and use the very experiment you've described yourself! They prove it very well, and I encourage you to investigate that area further.

Because if 2 models make the same predictions, then the experiment showing the prediction will strenghten both, but cannot make you decide which is better.

That just means your experiment is inadequate! Now the *real* issue is that the second theory here *makes no predictions* and as a consequence, it is *completely* fallacious to say that it "makes the same predictions."

 

I'll repeat this: McC makes no useful predictions, and therefore it is not a valid theory.

As for the iffy part, well here's two( in a very short form, so don't think my understanding of it in the light of standard theory is that shallow).

 

1. The reasons for the pioneer anomaly are still iffy. Dark Matter, new planet, no proof either.

This is not a model issue, its one where we actually have a very reasonable idea of why the numbers aren't exact, and if anything the anomaly simply shows that the theory is correct: its pointing to a prediction of a mass that is influencing the object. Again, unless there's an equation from McC to explain motion, you can't say "McC explains this anomaly"

2. That you need one particle for mass and one particle and that we have not seen the Higgs Boson yet.

First of all, this is getting into the "cause" part of the issue which is fine, but I just want to clarify that this does not really help the fundamental problems with McC's proposal. Now at the same time, the *existing* Standard Model of matter predicts the existence of the Higgs *and* its predicted behavior includes data that says that it will be just about impossible to see it with existing technology. This is *not* an "inconsistency" that needs to be corrected! We *know* they're hard to see both from the theory and experiment! We're building gizmos that will get us closer, and its fine to say that we haven't *proved* it yet, but you can't say its a "problem" for the theory.

...its just not likely that the theory that completely avoids trying to explain a major area like motion can be considered better!

It is not avoiding to do that, it uses relativity as its explanation for all the motion we see.

Again, the "explanation" is not an explanation because there are no equations to describe motion. It is a missing piece of the theory that a priori invalidates it.

Once you touch the ground, the expansion becomes from "attractive" to pushing you away, so the dynamic has changed.

 

But if you are in motion even slightly above the planet, the dynamic is different. I am not sure why we are discussing this, because Newton argues the same thing. The direction and speed of motion affects it orbit.

We're not talking about orbiting here! I step into a helicopter or a balloon. I'm no longer "in contact" and all of a sudden "the entire dynamic" changes? If that were true, we'd see the effects right in front of our eyes!

 

I really couldn't follow your speed of light argument, and its a distraction since we're still trying to pin down "slow", non-relativistic motion here. Its simpler, and honest, if McC doesn't work for "normal" motion, its not going to work at near-light speed either.

The sizes are still too small. Plug some number in McC equation of gravity and you can see that small(and small for astromomical objects can also means kilometers) it will still worked as predicted by the Standard Theory. This highly unfortunate because we cannot kill McC using just our basic observations.

You're not checking the gravity experiments described above. Just because McC says they're not measurable doesn't mean they aren't! We got some pretty amazingly sensitive instruments, and again, these experiments are testing the assumptions: they do not *assume* mass, they're measuring its effects directly. Your point also does not refute my argument: I have not said how big those balls are: If you need them to be planet sized, fine: we got a bunch of these balls sitting around in our solar system that we can measure the diameter of to *centimeters*. If density *does* matter we'd see very clearly that one or the other of these balls was growing faster than another, and we can correct for "relativistic effects" if you want to, although Einstein would tell you that the rate of change predicted by McC would be *far* larger than that error correction.

But McC's model is computable. Since everything are expanding electrons which some elasticity. Then once we have the forumlas for motion, then we can plug all that in a computer see if our universal observations emerges or not.

Again, not until there are equations for the motion component. The only thing I've seen is expansion.

Unfortunaletly, we do not have the computing power to do that today. Because if you look at the number of avogadro : 6.022 × 1023 then you can see the problem, because this not even the number of electrons, it is the number of atoms.

...

From what I know, the best simalution done with Standard Theory and a super computer was a few centimer cube of water molecules(we can do way more using higher level abstraction). The results were quite good, but not enough for anything interesting or new to show up at the atomic.

This argument makes no sense at all. Why would you need to model an entire Mole of gas? You've given no explanation as to why it would be necessary to model at much larger scales, since McC seems to say this is all explained at the sub-atomic level. Moreover, you're completely underestimating our computing power these days.

 

Let me clue you in on a theme that's run through all of your arguments so far that I touched upon a few paragraphs ago: A key modus operandi of McC is to simply say "that's not measurable" or "there's not enough size to be relevant" when it clearly is possible to measure or have an "interesting" data set. In most of the cases I've seen so far, there *is* data, and there is no justification for these statements, but they're tossed out as obvious, and its easy to take them uncritically given the way they're stated.

 

We all encourage you to question everything *including* what McC says is "obvious"...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Tom Palmer]

I will say that the problem does come down to Tom's last somewhat-facetious post: So many folks who support McC and similar theories have not done their homework, and unlike you and steve, aren't willing even look at data that refutes these, uh, "interesting" theories.

 

So much of the *defense* of unsupportable theories though does devolve into "you're just tied to your old-fashioned dogma" or "don't hate me because I'm beautiful". This gets really tiring, thus, the tone of exasperation that sometimes, uh, "slips out."

Thanks, Buffy, for cutting me more slack than I probably deserve. That last sentence of yours really hit the nail on the head. With no discernible progress, despite some powerful refutations you and others have posted, exasperation can indeed "slip out"---and did.

 

But I do need to apologize to other posters who are just trying to figure out where the truth lies. Honest, I wasn't mad at you folks---I'm mad at Mr. McCutcheon, but you're the ones who got dumped on. As other recent postings acknowledged, you are mostly gentle, noncombative individuals who have been impressed with "The Final Theory" and are simply trying to see that it gets a fair hearing.

 

Mr. McC, on the other hand, is anything but "gentle and noncombative," and my characterization of his animus to Newton et al. as "scornfully dismissive" is something I firmly stand by. Believe me, you're nicer than he is.

 

Beagleworth, I especially want to apologize to you. You came on board, you said, in part because there was a tone of civility in our discussions. I hope you will stay. Boerseun, I notice that I misspelled your name, and am sorry about that. I think I got it right this time. Afrikaans isn't exactly my strong suit.

 

There was one paragraph in my diatribe that nobody quoted (though Buffy touched on it), and it is really the heart of what I was saying:

 

<<As I said, I sometimes despair. I despair because, despite the fact that some pretty powerful and decisive disproofs of McC have been posted, it didn't seem to make any difference. Is anyone really listening? A few, at least, have sought clarification on some of our points, and I respect them for that.>>

 

"It didn't seem to make any difference. Is anyone really listening?" Buffy has put some potent arguments out there, but they're just lying there, unanswered. And back on my posting #154, I put out what I thought was a pretty fundamental failing of McC's "mass-is-irrelevant" claim, along with some heavy supporting evidence. I thought it might get some strong reactions, but---apart from a much-appreciated thumbs-up from Buffy---I can't say that it did.

 

But then, no one is under any obligation to answer any particular point; after all, I've passed on answering some questions that my postings did manage to elicit, and I'm grateful to Buffy for fielding some of these.

 

But here is a point I hope one or more of you will comment on.

 

I understand that McC attributes the lunar tides to the known wobble of the earth's axis---and not at all related to the moon's gravity. Is this what he actually says? If not, what does he say? If it is what he says, do any of you out there want to undertake the unenviable task of trying to justify it?

 

Some of the questions that have been raised in this thread are imponderables that, without a rigorous mathematical treatment, cannot really be decided one way or the other. But the question of the origin of tides is clear-cut and specific, and should at least be basically resolvable without recourse to the math. In a spirit of mutual respect---let's have at it!

 

Any takers?

 

Tom Palmer

[Beagleworth]

 

Now, notice that the term on bottom grows like t^6, while the terms on top grow with t^2. This means our apparent acceleration is going to go quickly to 0. How quickly? It depends on Xa. Xa, we are given has an order of magnitude of 10^-7, which means after about an hour, the bottom begins to over take the top.

 

Now, if we define an apparent force from F=ma, we notice that the apparent force between two objects drops off with time very quickly. In other words our "apparent" gravitational effects would be weakening with time. So much so that after 50 years, the force would be essentially 0.

 

 

You are right in your analyse. The relative acceleration should diminish as time goes by. You did miss one thing though. The formula only works for "falling" objects. Once they touch the ground, this equation does not apply.

 

So, the equation can only be applied for 0 > n >= sqrt( D / ( Xa * (R1 + R2)))

 

But it is also true that even with that constraint, for a large distance, the acceleration will change sides! This is pretty disturbing, but note that the original equation does not suffer from that. I do not why the acceleration cannot be computed properly with the derivative.

 

Since you bother to do the derivations, I felt it was necessary for me to do some math as well : Using a plotting software, I tried to find a distance/size that would give me a g of 9.78 once the object hits the ground.

 

You should already know that g already varies quite a bit( 9.78 at sea level and 9.83 at the equator wikipedia says) McC would say they vary because the radius at that location is different. Anyway, I thought you would find a value of 9.78 to be a significant deviation from the standard value of 9.8 for this discussion.

 

I also used 6.378e6 for the radius of the Earth for the following discussion.

 

So I found that for an object of 1m, making it fall in vaccum 5km long would give a g of 9.78 with McC's equation.

 

The crash time was : 31.9078358097186.

 

From Newton, a = Gm / R^2,

 

the acceleration at 5 km would be 9.785 m/s^2 and at the ground would be 9.8 m/s^2.

The average would be 9.7925 so from d = 1/2gt^2 then, t = 31.94

 

You get a difference of 0.04 seconds, But you need the object to fall 5 km!! Was there an experiment that did that in a vacuum before?

 

So I kept going, but I used 1/2gt^2 with g = 9.8m/s to compute the all Newton's crash times instead.

 

at 1 km crash time becomes 14.2696 seconds.

Newton : 14.2857

 

500m :

McC : 10.01

Newton : 10.10

 

100m :

McC : 4.51 s

Newton : 4.51 s

 

50m :

McC 3.19 s

Newton 3.19s

 

10m :

McC 1.427 s

Newton 1.428

 

5m :

McC 1.009s

Newton 1.01s

 

So really, interesting variations start to show up only above 100m. Those are only mathematics equation with imprecise values. I have not been able to find the actual values from a quick search on the internet, but if someone can find a precise value of g and (this is very important) the distance from the center of the Earth at the location of the experiment, then a precise Xa can be computed and then we would be able to find at which distance we can measure McC's deviation from Newton.

 

Buffy : I unfortunately don't have the time to go over what you said tonight and probably won't be able to reply to the forums for a few days, so don't think I am ignoring what you said.

 

Tom : If the discussion stays like this, I will definitely stay.

About the tides. This is essentially what he says, but he justifies it by discussing different moon creation scenario . This is something short enough that I can go into details without getting my fingers tired :hihi: So I will do it when I come back on the forums. You will the be able to check for logical loop holes that I might have missed.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseun:

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.

Actually, no that's not correct. But let's use a styrofoam sphere and a lead sphere of identical size. Two years from now the number of particles that make up each of these spheres will be the same as it is today. Each is a solid that is structurally sound. McC's theory just says that each of the particles that make up these spheres is expanding. There are more particles in the lead sphere but the structure is still the same and that determines the size. If the structure doesn't change over time, neither will the relative size.

But the mass distribution within a sphere is important to consider with respect to the effect that one would would feel standing on the surface of the sphere. Now let's go back to a planetary sphere.

For the purpose of explaining McC's theory as it relates to how distribution affects the gravity effect, let's first assume a sphere of ice with a central spherical core of iron. No matter where you stood on the surface of that sphere, the gravitational effect would be the same. You'd weigh exactly the same amount no matter where you stood. If we shifted the iron core to one side of the sphere, that would make me weigh a different amount depending on where I stood on the surface. Let's also assume that the resulting structure with the core offset was stable. The effective expansion would take place in a direction away from the iron spheres center of mass on a line through the center of mass of the whole sphere. So, standing on the surface as far away from the iron mass as I could get, I'd weigh the most. Standing on the surface as close to the iron spheres center of mass, I'd weigh the least. (and that's where I'd live because I could eat more cheesy poofs).

The distribution of mass within a planetary object has a profound effect for an object on its surface and the one experiment that McC proposes is that the gravity measurements on the far side of the moon will be different than those on this side of the moon. If I understand it correctly, the near side would weigh less.

Steve

[Erasmus00]

You are right in your analyse. The relative acceleration should diminish as time goes by. You did miss one thing though. The formula only works for "falling" objects. Once they touch the ground, this equation does not apply.

 

So, the equation can only be applied for 0 > n >= sqrt( D / ( Xa * (R1 + R2)))

 

But it is also true that even with that constraint, for a large distance, the acceleration will change sides! This is pretty disturbing, but note that the original equation does not suffer from that. I do not why the acceleration cannot be computed properly with the derivative.

 

But, according to McC's formula, "apparent" gravity should weaken with time! That's absurd! Take the Earth, or any planet, orbiting around the sun. If gravity weakened with time, their orbits would be radically different then they are today. The stability of the solar system depends on gravitational effects remaining constant.

 

And also, the acceleration changing sign is just the rate of expansion slowing down. The velocity never goes negative, so the objects never shrink. For a smooth function, acceleration is always calculated with the second derivative of position with respect to time. McC's theory is broken.

-Will

-Will

[Beagleworth]

But, according to McC's formula, "apparent" gravity should weaken with time! That's absurd! Take the Earth, or any planet, orbiting around the sun. If gravity weakened with time, their orbits would be radically different then they are today. The stability of the solar system depends on gravitational effects remaining constant.

 

And also, the acceleration changing sign is just the rate of expansion slowing down. The velocity never goes negative, so the objects never shrink. For a smooth function, acceleration is always calculated with the second derivative of position with respect to time. McC's theory is broken.

-Will

 

I have stuff to do, so I shouldn't be replying, but this is more interesting :hihi:

 

I admit this bothers me. You have to remember that is does not weaken with time.It weakens with relative distance/time. Because if you take to object far aparts. And use the equation for n = 1..10. Then, you can use that final relative distance and replace the original D in the equation with it and restart from n = 0.

 

Let me explain the equation to you and let see if you can find a flaw. The equation is purely logic and mathematic..

 

d = n^2Xa*R will give the increase of the radius at a specific time. (I'll skip the derivation because I think you could do it yourself. I can do it later if you find it necessary)

 

So, if you want to find the absolute new distance between 2 expanding objects with D distance between them in the beginning, you get :

 

D -( n^2Xa*R1 + n^2XaR2) <==> D - n^2Xa(R1 + R2)

 

This give the absolute distance. This will not be the final relative distance, because since we do not see the radius decrease, then it also means that the relative distance between the planets must be adjusted accordingly.

 

Ex. if the radius of both planet is R0 and the distance between them is 6R0. You expand the size of the planet to R1 = 2R0, this means that the distance between them is now 4R0 or 2R1. But, we don't see the expansion, so we still see R1 = R0. Hence, if we say the new distance between the object is 2R1, we will really see 2R0 distance between them.

 

In a more formal maner, if thake the overall size of an object R and add its expansion to it, we get

R + n^2XaR <==> (1 + n^2Xa)R

 

This means that all object are effectively scaled up by 1 + n^2Xa and so this mean that the distance between the object are scaled down by that factor as well do the get the relative distance between the objects. This gives

 

( D - n^2Xa(R1+R2) ) / (1 + n^2Xa)

 

Do you see something wrong with that?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Tom Palmer:

But the question of the origin of tides is clear-cut and specific, and should at least be basically resolvable without recourse to the math. In a spirit of mutual respect---let's have at it!

I'd give it a try if I thought I could condense his argument down to less than the 7 pages it took him to do it in his book. The best I could do is to copy it verbatim and post it and I don't know if that's ethical, is it? Plus he's got drawings to support his concept. I could send you my book if you promise to send it back.

Steve

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

You should already know that g already varies quite a bit( 9.78 at sea level and 9.83 at the equator wikipedia says) McC would say they vary because the radius at that location is different. Anyway, I thought you would find a value of 9.78 to be a significant deviation from the standard value of 9.8 for this discussion.

I believe that McC thinks that the center of mass and the physical center of the earth do not coincide. Two different gravity values at the same distance from the center of the earth would be caused by an offset in the center of mass. This, incidentally, is what he believes to be the cause of tidal activity.

Steve