The Final Theory

[Beagleworth]

All, I have to share something that just hit me today. McC's theory, especially with respect to gravity, describes an 'attractive' force pure and simple or what we could call an attractive force.

Steve

 

There is some subtility added when you consider expansion(like the relative reduction of space between the matter), but you are right that's his whole premise from Einstein's principle of equivalence.

 

Something hit me too about his book, orbits is the only behavior of matter that he does not explain with a subatomic effect. Expansion is not enough, so he added an unexplained relative motion, which I thought could be logically acceptable, but from the whole of his book it is not.

 

Over the last week, I have also been reading a lot of physics recently and especially Eisntein General and special relativy and it is a lot less bizarre than I remember from what they told us in class and what McC says. I actually find it quite elegant.

 

So at this point, I feel like McC's orbits are wholly incomplete(sorry for the oxymoron) compared to other theories. But not all is lost for McC yet...

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

Something hit me too about his book, orbits is the only behavior of matter that he does not explain with a subatomic effect. Expansion is not enough, so he added an unexplained relative motion, which I thought could be logically acceptable, but from the whole of his book it is not....

I guess you've lost me now. If the motion can't be explained using expansion, then it can't be explained using newton's work either. As I said, viewed from any object, whether or not it's moving tangentially, at or away from any other object, the effect of the expansion is exactly the same: it appears as an attraction. It's not, but it can be viewed that way. The problem I've had up till now is that I wasn't able to visualize it.

Can you explain what you mean by 'an unexplained relative motion'?

Steve

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth:I guess you've lost me now. If the motion can't be explained using expansion, then it can't be explained using newton's work either. As I said, viewed from any object, whether or not it's moving tangentially, at or away from any other object, the effect of the expansion is exactly the same: it appears as an attraction. It's not, but it can be viewed that way. The problem I've had up till now is that I wasn't able to visualize it.

Can you explain what you mean by 'an unexplained relative motion'?

Steve

 

The expansion alone is not enough to give an orbit. It still requires the object to have a very specific motion :

 

Newton says the object goes in straight line and gets pulled in by the force of gravity.

 

With expansion, if an object passes by a planet fast enough to beat their mutual expansion and not collide, the expansion of the two will simply center the two objects after a period of time, but there will not be a full circular motion around the planet.

 

Now, McC says that this interpretation is incorrect because what we see is purely relative and that Newton's law of motions do not apply to the real motion of matter.

 

So, this means that from McCs point of view, an orbit will always happen if an object happens to be doing a tangential like motion at certain distance from another object at the proper speed. Hence the natural orbit effect. So the expansion is in there, but there is also another undefined motion. There is no explanation on what that actual motion really is and there is also no subatomic explanation about how the motion can be created even though everything else in his book has one. So that's why I called it unexplained.

 

Does that make more sense?

[Buffy]

Okay, I like pictures too, so I thought I'd post a couple to cover some of the points here.

 

Picture 1 concerns the point made above that somehow the iron core of the earth or the moon being off center affects the perceived weight on each side of a sphere. Because density does *not* matter--only the distribution--it is obvious that this different perception must come from expansion.

 

First we have Case 1: As per McCutcheon, all atoms expand, so both spheres expand in proportion and everything looks like it should: sphere's stay round. Unfortunately, they've expanded the *same* distance on both sides so there's no difference in weight on each side, which does not agree with what we can measure, and thus would have no effect on things such as tides. (Note, its not true that we have not measured the effect of gravity on either side of the moon, we just haven't measured it from the *surface* of the far side, which according to statements above would be *completely* different ;) ).

 

So in Case 2, in order to show a difference in weight/gravity, the two opposite sides expand at *different* rates. Unfortunately this means that over time, the earth will enlongate rather measurably, which isn't the case, so this doesn't work either.

 

Unless of course density *does* matter, but that would contravene McC...Hmmmm....

 

Lets look at Picture 2. This is supposed to deal with the discussion concerning whether or not matter only or both matter and space expands.

 

Case 1 shows the situation where both are expanding. If everything expands in proportion, we will not be able to perceive any change in the difference between D and D' and everything is hunky dory. Unfortunately, this violates the notion stated above that *only* matter expands.

 

Case 2 shows the situation where only matter expands. Do you see the problem? Given how fast we feel that expansion going--whether you want to argue that its steady motion or accellerated motion--it won't take long for the earth to crash into the moon. Unfortunately, we can measure the distance to the moon down to *less than a centimeter*, and it sure isn't getting any closer. Hmmmm....

 

Does this help any?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Erasmus00]

If the motion can't be explained using expansion, then it can't be explained using newton's work either.

 

Not true. If we think about expansion, a planet expands toward you at the same rate no matter how far away you are. This "appears" to be a constant force with respect to distance. In such a constant force, you cannot have elliptical orbits.

-Will

[repeater]

What Newton said is basically this. It's empirically established that all objects in our solar system move in conic sections (ellipses, parabola, hyperbola).

 

Hello Will

 

Just a quick aside: Has a hyperbolic orbit ever been observed? I remember reading somewhere that until now it has not been, but searching the web I find contrary reports.

 

Regards

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy, absolutely beautiful pictures. I need time to digest them. Thank you. This is SO interesting. lol. I didn't realize we could do that. Hmmmm. I'm an idiot.

Steve

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus:

Not true. If we think about expansion, a planet expands toward you at the same rate no matter how far away you are. This "appears" to be a constant force with respect to distance. In such a constant force, you cannot have elliptical orbits.

In the immortal words of inspector Jacque Clouseau, "now we're getting somewhere". VERY good point will. I think we're talking now about the perception of this phenomenon and I think it all orbits around that. All of our experience rebels against the idea of an expanding balloon, because they eventually pop. That is pushing against the visualization of this way of looking at things. Once we separate the wasps from the butterflys we'll be ok.

In such a constant force, you cannot have elliptical orbits.

Ah, but it's not constant, it's cumulative. The effect is acceleration. The objects are changing size relative to the moment before and the change in size is relative to the size it was. Compounding over time in other words, exactly the effect we'd have with a constant, compounding attractive force. Also, it's on a line drawn between the centers of the two objects in question - again, exactly the same as an attractive force. The change in the distance between the two objects? The larger object has a bigger effect on the distance between two objects (more attractive force) the smaller, less - again, exactly the same as an attractive force. If attraction can explain elliptical orbits, so can expansion.

Another observation about orbiting bodies: they remain separate because they had the exact speed required to maintain an orbit. Any thing that doesn't have the right velocity will eventually become part of something else. So, by definition, we'll only see what's left when we look up at the sky.

Steve

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

There is no explanation on what that actual motion really is and there is also no subatomic explanation about how the motion can be created even though everything else in his book has one. So that's why I called it unexplained.

Does that make more sense?

I think so. But just to make sure I'm on the same page, do you mean that motion itself is not explained? In other words, why is there any motion at all? Where did all the particles come from, etc. what's the sequence of events? Is that closer?

[Buffy]

Beagleworth: I think so. But just to make sure I'm on the same page, do you mean that motion itself is not explained? In other words, why is there any motion at all? Where did all the particles come from, etc. what's the sequence of events? Is that closer?

Motion *is*. Why is interesting but unnecessary, and in fact Newton was always happy to ignore the "why" issue. What *is* missing from McC is a set of equations to let you *predict* motions. So far, all I've seen is hand waving about the "natural" motion of objects is curved not straight (for some reason that's not even explained logically, its only curved in the direction of the center of mass, even though mass does not matter...), and "it would look different if everthing is expanding". We'll take those statements as givens for now (although you should really think about my pictures above and other inconsistencies that keep showing up when you draw pictures of some of this stuff), we just need a coherent mechanism for predicting motion under the McC worldview. As long as these don't exist, its not really an "equally valid" theory, let alone being the correct one over Newton/Einstein.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy:

What *is* missing from McC is a set of equations to let you *predict* motions. So far, all I've seen is hand waving about the "natural" motion of objects is curved not straight (for some reason that's not even explained logically, its only curved in the direction of the center of mass, even though mass does not matter...), and "it would look different if everthing is expanding". We'll take those statements as givens for now (although you should really think about my pictures above and other inconsistencies that keep showing up when you draw pictures of some of this stuff), we just need a coherent mechanism for predicting motion under the McC worldview. As long as these don't exist, its not really an "equally valid" theory, let alone being the correct one over Newton/Einstein.

I agree with you on this. I'm going to look at your pictures now.

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth: I think so. But just to make sure I'm on the same page, do you mean that motion itself is not explained? In other words, why is there any motion at all? Where did all the particles come from, etc. what's the sequence of events? Is that closer?

 

Buffy said what I meant.

 

Also, one thing that he does not mention is mass transfer. I learned about that while reading on Einstein's theory. There are some nice pictures from telescope where you see matter leaking between galaxies. That's not taken into account by McC.

[Beagleworth]

Okay, I like pictures too, so I thought I'd post a couple to cover some of the points here.

Lets look at Picture 2. This is supposed to deal with the discussion concerning whether or not matter only or both matter and space expands.

 

 

I like your pictures Buffy. #1 is a problem, I am not sure what to make of it yet.

 

#2, well, McC argue that they are staying away because of the unexplained relative motion. So space do not need to expand.

[Tom Palmer]

I'm having a heck of a hard time trying to visualize the darn thing. Steve

Steve,

 

I was working on a reply to your request for help in visualizing the “speed-of-light-equals-speed-of-gravity” example I had posted. I was getting pretty deeply into vector increments and the like, and I doubt it would have been very “visualizable” by the time I would have finished it.

 

Last night, just before dropping off to sleep, a nice visualizable example popped into my head. :rolleyes: Have you ever heard a jet plane going overhead, only to discover that the plane itself seemed to be well ahead of where the sound seemed to be coming from? Of course, this is easily understood once we realize that sound travels far more slowly than light.

 

At any given moment, we are seeing the plane where it was just microseconds ago, thanks to the incredible speed of light. But at that same moment, we are hearing the plane via the sound produced several long seconds ago. (This is the same reason we see the lightning before we hear the thunder.) The sound being heard at the present moment “points” to that part of the sky where the plane was when the sound was produced.

 

You could say that the planes’s optical image is always ahead of the plane’s “sonic image,” which lags behind due to the slower speed of sound. The farther away the plane is, the greater the disparity between the two “images.” (“Optical” will here be understood to include all forms of electromagnetic radiation.)

 

Similarly, a planet should have a “gravitational image” as well as an optical image. At any given moment, our hypothetical spacecraft is receiving an additional “tug” from the planet’s gravity. This tug is toward the direction of where the planet was when those particular gravitons or gravitational waves or whatever were emitted by the planet’s mass, and with a strength inversely proportional to the square of our present distance from where the planet was at that earlier time.

 

In other words, at this present moment the astronaut and his instruments optically see the planet in a particular direction and at a particular distance. At that same moment, however, his instruments “see” the planet at some particular direction and distance based on the direction and strength (hence distance) of its gravitational pull on the spacecraft at that moment.

 

If this “gravitational image” lags behind the optical image, then gravity must be slower than light. If it stays ahead of the optical image, then gravity must be faster than light. However, if the optical and gravitational “images” always coincide, then light and gravitation must both share the same speed. And that is what appears to be the case.

 

By the way, the hyperlink I included in my previous post (#252) didn’t work, as you may have already discovered. However, my flash of enlightenment last night also told me why, so now the link is fixed and should work fine if you still want to read the article “Gravity and light move at the same speed.”

 

Again—hope this helps.

 

Tom Palmer

[Buffy]

#2, well, McC argue that they are staying away because of the unexplained relative motion. So space do not need to expand.

I thought about this last night after I'd posted it. It could be explained by an outward spiral motion, *but* recognize that it would have to be synchronized *exactly* to the same ratio as the sphere expansion (I have another diagram I'm working on to describe some other anomalies of atomic/sphere expansion with different densities, so I won't go there yet!) which would be an *amazing* quinky dink...expanding space would be much easier to reconcile, but then the motion stuff would start breaking down...

 

Again, of course, we're trying to imagine here with no formulas to guide us on any of this...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Beagleworth]

Steve,

 

By the way, the hyperlink I included in my previous post (#252) didn’t work, as you may have already discovered. However, my flash of enlightenment last night also told me why, so now the link is fixed and should work fine if you still want to read the article “Gravity and light move at the same speed.”

 

Tom Palmer

 

Eesh. 25% error... I hope they make the measure more precise in the future.

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus:

Ah, but it's not constant, it's cumulative. The effect is acceleration. The objects are changing size relative to the moment before and the change in size is relative to the size it was. Compounding over time in other words, exactly the effect we'd have with a constant, compounding attractive force. Also, it's on a line drawn between the centers of the two objects in question - again, exactly the same as an attractive force. The change in the distance between the two objects? The larger object has a bigger effect on the distance between two objects (more attractive force) the smaller, less - again, exactly the same as an attractive force. If attraction can explain elliptical orbits, so can expansion.

 

Perhaps I need to rephrase. The "apparent" force due to expansion is constant with respect to distance. (it looks the same if I'm 2 meters from an object, or 50m from an object). If a force doesn't depend on distance, and is the same value everywhere in space, you cannot get elliptical orbits.

 

Also, if bigger objects grow faster then small objects, shouldn't Jupiter be growing much faster then Mercury? Wouldn't we notice that big planets get bigger and small planets get smaller with time? If the Earth expands faster then we expand, wouldn't we notice the Earth getting larger?

-Will