The Final Theory

[Beagleworth]

Here is something I wanted to post.

 

I is another guy who attempts to explain gravity using expanding matter and nothing else. It does not attempt to solve everything.

 

He has more and better arguments then McC as to why gravity as an attractive is probably not the best idea. His writing is also much more technical than McC.

 

http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/cm.html

 

That's the start of his paper.

http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/third.html

 

Just like McC he discusses the bending of starlight. What's cool is his first attempt used the same logic than McC, but a flaw his pointed and he corrects it. While correcting it, he provides a way to disprove/make stronger the argument for expanding matter.

 

http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/third5.htmll

[Tom Palmer]

I'd give it a try if I thought I could condense his argument [on tides] 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

Thanks, Steve, for the offer of the book loan. I appreciate it, but I wouldn’t want to put you to that effort or expense. And there’s no need to transcribe—perhaps illegally—the seven pages about tides.

 

All I’m really after is the bare-bones conceptual foundation of McC’s “non-gravitational” explanation of the tides. Specifically, I would like to know how, within the parameters of his model, he can explain all of these observationally-verified facts:

 

1. Although precise Tide Tables for particular locations are complicated by local factors (e.g., coastal variations), the tides basically “follow the moon.” Although occurring twice daily due to the rotation of the earth, this diurnal pattern is continually drifting in sync with the lunar cycles.

 

2. The stronger tides (“spring tides”) occur when the sun, moon and earth are in a line, and therefore when there is a new moon or a full moon.

 

3. The weaker tides (“neap tides”) occur when the sun and moon are closer to right angles with respect to the earth.

 

4. The strongest tides of all are the rarer “proxigean tides,” and these always occur when the moon is unusually close to the earth (at or near its closest perigee—the “proxigee”) and the moon is between the sun and the earth (i.e., new-moon phase).

 

All these facts are readily explained by basic gravitational theory—in fact, are required by it— and it is not surprising that, in the second volume of his Principia, Isaac Newton was the first to demonstrate this.

 

It is important to note that in gravitational theory all of these phenomena share the same basic, straightforward explanation. Newton didn’t have to find a different way to explain each one. Any competing theory will have to be able to do the same thing. Not separate, custom-made explanations, but one simple all-encompassing explanation, in the spirit of “Occam’s razor.”

 

And there is one other constraint on McC’s non-Newtonian alternative. If, as I understand it, McC explains the tides as arising from the wobble of the earth’s axis, then he has the burden of explaining why it is that the tidal cycles are many orders of magnitude out of sync with that slow wobble, while at the same time they are in such precise synchronization with the solar-lunar cycles.

 

The main component of the “wobble” is the precession of the equinoxes. I hope McC doesn’t attribute the tides to the torque from it, because it takes about 25,800 years to complete a single cycle.

 

Other, lesser effects add their own contribution; the largest of these “nutations” does arise from the moon’s gravitational effect on the earth’s bulges. However, that fact cannot reasonably be of much use to McC, for this oscillation has a period of about 18.6 years.

 

Another very slight component is the so-called “Chandler Wobble.” It has a period of 435 days. That is approximately 14.5 months, and so of little use, I would think, to McC. There are other, even smaller, corrections as well. All of the “world-wide wobblies” taken together have a minuscule effect on the length of the day (the variations adding up to only a few milliseconds). Some are so tiny that they have yet to be detected.

 

I hope McC states his conceptual bases in such a way that you won’t have to hunt through those seven pages trying to chase down each piece of the puzzle. If his theory really works, the same one answer should be sufficient to meet all of these challenges. And keep in mind that, under the doctrine of “fair use,” you are legally permitted to quote brief passages from the book.

 

Thanks again for the offer. I’ll look forward to your thoughts.

 

Tom Palmer

[Buffy]

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.

Just to be clear of course, this means that both the spheres and the atoms are expanding at the same rate and gravity on the styrofoam and lead balls will indeed be the same, since density does not matter. Unless of course atoms of different densities expand at different rates (see below), in which case you'd definitely see objects expanding at differential rates.... But then as you explain next, distribution is supposed to be important, but that would say that density *is* important:

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.

In this example then, the only difference is where the iron core is located. If the weight one has is only dependent upon the distance to the center of the iron core then that iron core, then there has to be some differential in the expansion rate on one side versus the other and *the sphere would deform over time*: its *got* to be expanding *faster* on that side, or you wouldn't feel any heavier!

 

Doesn't that make sense to you?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

...You did miss one thing though. The formula only works for "falling" objects. Once they touch the ground, this equation does not apply.

We can clearly show that the "force" is the same for both objects that "touch the ground" as those that are hovering one inch above it as I mentioned before. It really makes no sense to differentiate, even *within* McC theory, because if you're hovering you still need to expend energy to "stay ahead" of the expanding sphere! On the other hand the orbital motions then don't work, so its better to have this highly artificial distinction that's observably incorrect. Falling and hovering have a demonstrable ratio based on the downard force being applied, even in McC world, so this is not different.

 

Again, still no explanation of why motion perpendicular to the radius of a sphere is somehow different either...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth: 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

 

That too. But you would only get it in the axis of the center of mass of the earth / moon system. From satellite photos, you can see that Earth is quite damaged. This means some part of it is are lower/higer than average radius and that would also cause less/more gravity at those locations.

 

Tom : For orbit, its longer than what I remember. We would have to scan the diagrams, it is much simpler than putting in words. I'll do it if I get the chance.

[Beagleworth]

We can clearly show that the "force" is the same for both objects that "touch the ground" as those that are hovering one inch above it as I mentioned before.

 

Again, still no explanation of why motion perpendicular to the radius of a sphere is somehow different either...

 

 

But the equation does not give you a force. It gives the new distance between the objects making it worthless when the new distance will always be 0. If the equation would be modified to include the motion of objects, then it could do it.

 

The explanation for motion was given. It is only a relative behavior cause by their expansion and the natural movement of objects(the natural orbit effect).Note that the natural movement does not have follow Newton's law of motion because those laws were created with gravity as an attractive force in mind and were missing the relativity.

 

McC is unfortunately missing the real absolute motion. Newton and Einstein and provided reasons and equations for gravity, but no real explanation for the orbits :

 

If you accept the creation of the solar system as a rotating disk, then since Orbits are created when there is a tangential movement at right speed at the right distance, you must also give a reason why the disk of particle were in motion iin the first place. You must also explain why a similar motion was passed to every disk in every solar system in every galaxies. That was never given. Also the rock on a string explanation is flawed because orbits are ellipses and as such act like a rubber band.

 

Warping of space-time : Removed the flawed rock on a string explanation but still requires the object to be in motion to create orbits, which means you must still explain how particles in the disk started moving. Einstein never provided that.

 

You can maybe extrapolate it from the big bang. Everything was pushed in every direction at different speeds, but then you would probably end up with lots of crashing, but you could still get orbits. But orbits and curved motion everywhere in this nice orderly fashion??? It is as unconvincing/convincing as McC's reason.

 

His reason can work for the simple fact that *all* motion we see is relative and as such we cannot make any assumptions about the real movement of matter.

[Erasmus00]

If you accept the creation of the solar system as a rotating disk, then since Orbits are created when there is a tangential movement at right speed at the right distance, you must also give a reason why the disk of particle were in motion iin the first place. You must also explain why a similar motion was passed to every disk in every solar system in every galaxies. That was never given.

 

The reason a disk would be spinning is known as the conservation of angular momentum. In a central force, such as gravity, angular, or "rotational" momentum is conserved. As a disk clumps together, it is nearly impossible for it to NOT be rotating, as even the slightest perturbation in the initial density will result in a rotating disk. Also, you don't need a rotating disk to form a solar system, consider capture.

 

Also the rock on a string explanation is flawed because orbits are ellipses and as such act like a rubber band

 

No, orbits do NOT act like a ball on a rubber band. You can't get a closed ellipse by swinging a ball on a rubber band, the major axis of the ellipse slowly rotates around. (see Goldstein. "Analytical Mechanics", for instance). Also, with a rubber band, you cannot get parabolic or hyperbolic orbits. In our solar system, things orbit our sun in conic sections (ellipse, parabola, hyperbola). The only force law that results in conic section orbits are inverse square laws. (for proofs, I again recommend Goldstein, "Analytical Mechanics"). Despite what McC would have you believe in his first chapter, Newton did not derive his gravity from a "geometric orbit equation" and a rock on a string analogy. Also, may I add McC "geometric orbit equation" is highly approximate and violates Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Kepler's laws being empircal, we should throw out McC. His first chapter misrepresents so much of accepted physics that it should be called a work of fiction, and not of science.

 

You can maybe extrapolate it from the big bang. Everything was pushed in every direction at different speeds, but then you would probably end up with lots of crashing, but you could still get orbits. But orbits and curved motion everywhere in this nice orderly fashion??? It is as unconvincing/convincing as McC's reason.

 

Learn some of the theory of differential equations.(see Hirsch and Smale "Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems, and Linear Algebra). Overtime, all the crashing and whatnot works itself out and things gravitate to what are called stable equilibria. (consider a swing, hanging from a tree. You walk up and kick it. For awhile it goes all kinds of wild, but after awhile it settles down to a nice rhythm. Swinging gently back and forth). The stable equilibria for our solar system, if you postulate an inverse square law, are, as previously stated, ellipses.

-Will

[repeater]

Hi Beagleworth!

It is good to hear another voice trained in McC lore. And I thank you and ldsoftwaresteve for your time in this discussion (I know it isn't always fun to be the underdog :hihi: )

 

Here is something I wanted to post.

 

I is another guy who attempts to explain gravity using expanding matter and nothing else. It does not attempt to solve everything.

 

He has more and better arguments then McC as to why gravity as an attractive is probably not the best idea. His writing is also much more technical than McC.

 

http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/cm.html

 

That's the start of his paper.

http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/third.html

 

Just like McC he discusses the bending of starlight. What's cool is his first attempt used the same logic than McC, but a flaw his pointed and he corrects it. While correcting it, he provides a way to disprove/make stronger the argument for expanding matter.

 

http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/third5.htmll

 

Wow, down another rabbit hole, Alice! But careful, I don't think we have room for two possible cranks in one thread! :hihi:

 

Here we have a theory that is more inclusive to our existing science (the guy likes relativity), but with greater associated complexity. Both rely on expansionism but that is where the similarities seem to end. But I see a pattern: Both theories state that our current science has made a fundamental mistake. They create an alternative by reinterpreting basic theory in a radical new way, and then build their entire work on different foundations.

 

In some way this is sneaky, and I get the impression of a moving target at times (McC paraphrased: "no we don't know the mass of anything really"). And it is difficult to investigate since you've got to adopt a new view of mind, for example most of our discussion is still about understanding what he has actually said.

 

But then somewhere in that site you linked I also read an argument that science does not investigate its foundations well enough, and even though I don't believe that entirely accurate, it struck a chord gently.

 

Most of the cutting edge of physics is out of reach of your average amateur, therefore I think that honest discussion about alternate theories...even dead wrong...can only be a healthy contribution to our search of knowledge. Just my humble opinion.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Tom Palmer:

I hope McC states his conceptual bases in such a way that you won’t have to hunt through those seven pages trying to chase down each piece of the puzzle. If his theory really works, the same one answer should be sufficient to meet all of these challenges. And keep in mind that, under the doctrine of “fair use,” you are legally permitted to quote brief passages from the book.

:hihi: I'll try Tom, but honestly, I'm not capable of handling it correctly with any certainty.

The earth moon system was originally a rotating disk of material that coalesced into two objects, the earth and the moon. The two bodies rotated about the center of mass which lay within the earth's sphere. The time it took for one rotation would be the time it takes to wobble once, if I understand it correctly. Since the center of mass was within the earth's sphere, as the material condensed and the diameter of the earth got smaller it began to spin faster, much as a skater might speed up as her arms were drawn in.

McC:

However, although this description of the original disk merely separating into two non-rotating, circling masses is correct, it changes somewhat when we consider each forming body separately. Considering the Earth in particular, although it is technically a non-rotating body that merely circles the center-of-mass point of the original disk, the location of the point within the planet means that the early Earth was circling a point within itself. An object that circles a point within itself is also effectively rotating about an inner point.

The dynamic was different for the moon which has always circled a center of mass outside of itself.

McC:

The Earth's slow off-center wobble would cause objects and oceans to be flung outward over the axis of the wobble - a line that, if extended, would run through the Earth and intersect with the moon... This means that a tidal bulge (as well as reduced surface gravity measurements) would constantly exist in static alignment with the moon, while the central spin of the Earth rotates us past this line of tidal forces every day, giving us our daily high and low tides.

With respect to the New and Full moons, he states,

The discussion of the original swirling Earth-moon disk assumed that it had a perfectly circular shape: however, this assumption was made only to simplify the discussion. Instead, since the early earth-moon disk would actually have been a swirl within the larger solar system disk, it would have experienced centripetal forces stretching it outward away from the forming sun as it was swung around while still physically part of the larger solar-system disk (Fig. 3-20). In fact, it is these same outward centripetal forces that would have caused the early solar system to flatten into a disk in the first place as it rotated. Therefore, our Earth-moon disk would likely have been an elliptical swirl with its elongated axis stretching away from the sun ....Therefore, the stationary center-of-mass point of the Earth-moon system shown earlier..would actually have had an elliptical wobble itself.

His explanation is accompanied by drawings and he mentions that the violent impact theory could also explain the elliptical nature of the earth moon disk.

Please allow for the possibility that I might have missed some crucial aspect of his explanation which, as I explained before, takes up some 7 pages with drawings.

 

Steve

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy,

In this example then, the only difference is where the iron core is located. If the weight one has is only dependent upon the distance to the center of the iron core then that iron core, then there has to be some differential in the expansion rate on one side versus the other and *the sphere would deform over time*: its *got* to be expanding *faster* on that side, or you wouldn't feel any heavier!

 

Doesn't that make sense to you?

Yes, of course it does. As much as anything ever makes sense to me. :hihi: Assuming of course that the structure is stable to begin with it should remain pretty much the same over time (and by that I mean a short geological time frame). I think the confusion is that relative to an outside perspective it's just a sphere moving relative to the observer. On the surface I'd be feeling the effects of inertia caused by the expansion of the whole structure and the less dense side losing the inertial battle with the more dense side.

 

If I had half a brain, I could create some computer simulations which would make this a heck of a lot easier to visualize.

 

Steve

[Beagleworth]

The reason a disk would be spinning is known as the conservation of angular momentum. In a central force, such as gravity, angular, or "rotational" momentum is conserved. As a disk clumps together, it is nearly impossible for it to NOT be rotating, as even the slightest perturbation in the initial density will result in a rotating disk. Also, you don't need a rotating disk to form a solar system, consider capture.

 

I know. But to have conservation, you need to have the motion in the first place and you need it properly aligned.

 

Capture is also "special". Again because you need a specific tangential speed for a specific distance, it means that for a planet to capture an object it needs proper speed. Well, objects floating in space cannot self-correct. That makes the whole process pretty random.

 

No, orbits do NOT act like a ball on a rubber band.

 

Fine. *More* like a rubber band. But actually, dicussing Newton is actually not worth the time, because Einstein's theory is currently the accepted one.

 

Learn some of the theory of differential equations.(see Hirsch and Smale "Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems, and Linear Algebra). Overtime, ...

 

I know those things, and they are convincing, but they require an attractive force. So if you remove the attractive force you require another explanation. The questions are being shifted.

 

Again, McC theory is not interesting because of gravity/orbit but because of its subatomic model. After the reading the first chunk of the book, I was not fully on board with McC. Is theory was merely cute. But reading the second part and the elegance of the solution made me come back and read the first part again and try to see what he was really up to.

 

You would have a much better chance at finding something illogical with his explanations of subatomic behaviors than his explanations for gravity/orbits because there a lot more observations to look at.

[Erasmus00]

I know. But to have conservation, you need to have the motion in the first place and you need it properly aligned.

 

No, the whole point of angular momentum is that any motion that isn't straight at the center of rotation adds to the spin. The special state isn't the spinning state, its the stationary one. You need a very special initial condition to not rotate, a general initial condition leads to rotations.

 

Capture is also "special". Again because you need a specific tangential speed for a specific distance, it means that for a planet to capture an object it needs proper speed. Well, objects floating in space cannot self-correct. That makes the whole process pretty random.

 

Not a special case at all. Any object coming in with an overall mechanical energy less then 0 will be captured. If an object passes by the sun with a tangent velocity too high for an orbit at that distance, then its momentum carries it out farther. The next time it passes by the sun it is at a farther radius, but going slower. This time gets pulled back in. After a few of these oscillations, it settles down to the stable orbit for its energy. In a sense, it does "self-correct."

 

*More* like a rubber band. But actually, dicussing Newton is actually not worth the time, because Einstein's theory is currently the accepted one.

 

Not at all like a rubber band. And within the solar system (outside of Mercury and maybe Venus) Einstein's theory is Newton's theory. Discussing Newton is highly relevant.

 

I know those things, and they are convincing, but they require an attractive force. So if you remove the attractive force you require another explanation. The questions are being shifted.

 

You claimed that current theory couldn't really explain elliptical orbits (i.e. " It is as unconvincing/convincing as McC's reason") I was simply pointing out that in current theory, nice elliptical orbits are the stable trajectories, and fall right out of one simple postulate (inverse square force law).

 

You would have a much better chance at finding something illogical with his explanations of subatomic behaviors than his explanations for gravity/orbits because there a lot more observations to look at.

 

If I were a richer man, I'd perhaps buy the book and write a nice full review. However, right now I am limited to the first chapter which has been placed online. One glaring flaw is that McC's geometric orbit equation violates Kepler's laws of planetary motion. There are quite a few others.

-Will

[Beagleworth]

nd within the solar system (outside of Mercury and maybe Venus) Einstein's theory is

Newton's theory. Discussing Newton is highly relevant.

 

Can't argue that.

 

 

You claimed that current theory couldn't really explain elliptical orbits (i.e. " It is as unconvincing/convincing as McC's reason") I was simply pointing out that in current theory, nice elliptical orbits are the stable trajectories, and fall right out of one simple postulate (inverse square force law).

 

Fair enough, after reading myself again, I have to admit, I provided no evidence for my point.

 

Let's try something else and let's see how that is explained, because I do not know. Take v^2R = Gm.

 

This means that the orbit of the planet is not dependant on the mass of the object orbiting.

 

This means you could replace Jupiter with Earth and as long a you give the Earth the same v as Jupiter it will orbit in the same orbit.

 

But if we take F = Gm1m2/ R and plug in the values for Earth and Jupiter at Jupiter's maximum distance from the sun we get :

 

Fearth = 1.18E21

Fjupiter = 3.77E23

 

That's a hundred times bigger for Jupiter! How can a lesser force on an object caused the exact same orbits than a bigger object? Doesn't the equations contradict each other?

 

 

If I were a richer man, I'd perhaps buy the book and write a nice full review. However, right now I am limited to the first chapter which has been placed online.

 

That's too bad for future discussions, but looks like we have still have plenty of things to say about that first chapter.

 

One glaring flaw is that McC's geometric orbit equation violates Kepler's laws of planetary motion. There are quite a few others.

 

How? His equation his the same as Newton, simply with Gm replaced by K.

[Erasmus00]

That's a hundred times bigger for Jupiter! How can a lesser force on an object caused the exact same orbits than a bigger object? Doesn't the equations contradict each other?

 

No, they don't at all. F=-Gm1m2/r^2 =m1a. => a =-Gm2/r^2. All objects being pulled under gravity at the same point have the same acceleration. This is the basis of the equivalnce principle.

 

How? His equation his the same as Newton, simply with Gm replaced by K.

 

His geometric orbit equation v^2*R= K is ONLY true if the orbit is a circle. If the orbit is elliptical (as Kepler discovered our planetary orbits are), then we must assume this equation allows us to find the dependance on R for v (i.e. v^2=K/R). But such a velocity violates Kepler's laws of equal area in equal times.

 

As to the equation being the same as Newton, thats simply not true. McC's "derivation" of Newton's laws is an absurd straw man, set up for McC to knock down. Newton did not make a rock on a string analogy. In Newtonian theory, you could get a similar relation by noting:

 

1/2m1v^2 -Gm1m2/r=C (Conservation of Energy)

v^2R=2C*R/m1+2Gm (rearranged)

v^2R=A*R+K (where A and K are different constants).

 

Note, circular orbits have exactly 0 total energy, so in that case:

v^2*R=K. (only for circles)

 

Now, most of the planets in our solar system have nearly circular orbits, which is why it took Kepler many years of study to come up with the fact that the orbits are in fact elliptical. McC has ignored Kepler's improvements to the assumption that everything moves in perfect circles.

-Will

[repeater]

Four questions! For the masked Beagle-Steve banditos!

 

1.) A question asked before by a kind soul, but I don't believe answered: If you visualize the earth-moon-sun system, and with god-like prowess you suddenly remove the earth out of the picture...what would happen? Would the moon continue orbitting the position where the earth was, while orbitting around the sun? Since the earth is not suppose to influence the moon in expansion theory and they simply move past each other, it seems the moon's behaviour would most definitely change if the earth is removed.

 

2.) If the wobble of the earth that causes the tides indeed originates from the day of moon creation...any reason why it is still in sync with the moon? Seems to be a bit of a tall tale...the moon simply influencing the tides seems like a much simpler explanation. So simple that I'd think I'd like evidence against it. Any existent?

 

3.) Does the direction of velocity change with expansion? If the moon has a tangential velocity as illustrated in the following:

Moon: o-->

 

Earth: O

 

After the next instant the moon curves in (Ah ignore that line, stupid html ascii art):

Moon:

--------------o

Earth: O

 

Is the velocity still tangential? Ain't that cheatin'?

 

4.) Does a theory that states: "All motion goes curvy" offer any scientific contribution?

Where is the simulations that NASA can use? Is the Pioneer anomaly explained accompanied with a nice table comparing the predictions of Expansion theory, normal science and the measurements?

 

Beagleworth: I think the expansionistic explanation of gravity is a big enough challenge for this thread, and his new take on the subatomic realm may just be a bit overwhelming. I wouldn't mind if you write a few words about it though ;)

 

Regards!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus:

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.

I went ahead and set this up on a spreadsheet and ran the numbers for the scenario that McC has in his book. Instead of having the object just stop when it impacts the ground, I supposed an imaginary tunnel drilled through the earth and just let the ball keep dropping. I assumed the Earth's radius at 4000 miles and the ball as 1 foot in diameter. I dropped it from 16 feet. McC predicts that the ball would approach the center but never go past it. That's pretty much what the numbers of the spreadsheet show.

662 seconds after dropping the ball the acceleration is effectively zero the velocity is maximum, and the distance the ball has traveled is 998 miles. Thereafter the acceleration goes negative and 17 hours later the ball is 2 feet from the center of the earth. Both velocity and acceleration at that point are negligible and getting more so with each passing second. So the formula makes sense and agrees with McC's prediction.

 

Steve

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Repeater:

1.) A question asked before by a kind soul, but I don't believe answered: If you visualize the earth-moon-sun system, and with god-like prowess you suddenly remove the earth out of the picture...what would happen? Would the moon continue orbitting the position where the earth was, while orbitting around the sun? Since the earth is not suppose to influence the moon in expansion theory and they simply move past each other, it seems the moon's behaviour would most definitely change if the earth is removed.

;) I'm sure they do have a kind soul. must have missed it or I didn't have a clue how to answer. Assuming McCutcheon is correct, it should, from the perspective of the sun, behave exactly as it behaves today.

This is a great question though. Just for drill, help me out in visualizing what the end result would be, ok? I'll take a stab at it and if I'm wrong, help me out. Since there has been discussion about the moon being between the earth and the sun (new moon?) as well as the earth being between the moon and the sun (full moon?), that would mean from the perspective of the sun the moon rotates once from new moon to new moon. I don't know if the moon's orbit is on the same plane as the earth-sun orbital plane but I'm guessing that if it isn't, its not off by much. The moon would then appear to orbit the sun almost in a sign-wave sort of motion where the 'new' moon position puts it closest to the sun and the 'full' moon position puts it the farthest from the sun. It would do that roughly what, 12 times per full orbit?

 

2.) If the wobble of the earth that causes the tides indeed originates from the day of moon creation...any reason why it is still in sync with the moon? Seems to be a bit of a tall tale...the moon simply influencing the tides seems like a much simpler explanation. So simple that I'd think I'd like evidence against it. Any existent?

Far be it for me to argue for a non-violent solar system history but I can say that gravity waves haven't been all that easy to prove (a tall tale too?) so I don't know how you can say its easier. ;) McCutcheon does say that there is one experiment that would prove him right or wrong. Take gravity measurements on the near and far side of the moon. They should be different and not make sense using Standard theory.

 

Does the direction of velocity change with expansion?

Relative to what? I think you'd say that the velocity of a planet orbiting the sun changes direction every instant. Straight line velocity anyway. Angular velocity probably doesn't assuming its a perfect circle. Maybe I missed the point of the question. However, to visualize this is by far the hardest thing I've ever tried to do for an extended period of time well, second only to walking and chewing gum that is.

 

Steve