The Final Theory

[Erasmus00]

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

 

If not in a natural phenomenon, certainly man made objects we've launched out of the solar system. Anything that escapes the sun's gravity follows a hyperbola on its way out.

-Will

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus:

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.

I am sitting on top of this issue myself. I've got to think about it some more. Somehow the distance does enter into it or it can't work. I ran the formulas that you guys posted through a spreadsheet and everything worked as I thought it would. Distance, velocity, and acceleration. ....but.... that was the extreme special case of zero initial relative motion. Somehow the key to visualizing all of this is in those formulas. How do we supply motion to the bodies using them? They represent an orbit with 3 dimensional angular vectors of zero, i.e. the shortest duration orbit there is. :rolleyes:

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?

No because the structure is still the same and contains the same number of particles from one moment to the next. If the earth doubles in size and so does Jupiter, relative to each other there's been no change.

If the Earth expands faster then we expand, wouldn't we notice the Earth getting larger?

We do notice the earth getting bigger. :hihi:

[Beagleworth]

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

 

I am with you here. I am convinced his his wrong about orbits.

 

Like I said before, I like McC subatomic theory. I now believe it can actually explain orbits and Mass transfer using McC subatomic theory. for a few days now, I have been passing the idea around to a few of my friends to whom I lent the book. They also had problems with McC`s explanation of orbit. We tweaked it and in our minds, it passes the logical test.

 

It`s a bit long, so I am writing a document and I will link it here when I am done. It might not be as interesting for people who have not read what McC says about the subatomic world, but I can`t wait to see what idsoftwaresteve will think of it. I really just hope it won`t show my incapacity of saying anything logical :rolleyes:

 

I think it solves the problem in a very suprising way.

 

Though my enthusiasm for McC`s theory has waned, if my corrections are good, it will at the very least be a complete toy universe that ressembles our ours.

 

To make sure it actually does, more observed behavior will have to be interpreted by it and it will need to receive a mathematical model.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

Like I said before, I like McC subatomic theory. I now believe it can actually explain orbits and Mass transfer using McC subatomic theory. for a few days now, I have been passing the idea around to a few of my friends to whom I lent the book. They also had problems with McC`s explanation of orbit. We tweaked it and in our minds, it passes the logical test.

Ah, what friends you must have. :rolleyes:

Steve

[Tom Palmer]

Just a sad sidebar to the main “text” of our discussion.

 

We’ve all been shaken by the horrors of Hurricane Katrina, and now the looming menace that the people of Galveston, Texas, face as Hurricane Rita approaches. As news reports are currently recalling, this is a horrible déjà vu for that beleaguered city.

 

Back on September 8, 1900, Galveston was devastated, experiencing the worst loss of life the U.S. has ever suffered from any natural disaster—over 6,000 dead. While the fierce winds of that Category-4 hurricane (or “tropical cyclone,” as hurricanes were then known) were certainly a significant factor, the deadliest factors were the flood waters and storm surges. Galveston was particularly vulnerable to high water because it is an island, and on that night a 15½-foot-high storm surge rolled over the island, battering and essentially drowning it.

 

There have been more ferocious hurricanes since, but there was one unusual circumstance that made this one the most brutal of them all. It had occurred during a proxigean tide.

 

This may or may not prove anything one way or the other as far as our discussions go. But I find it ironic that we had just been discussing this exotic force of nature when media reports suddenly reminded us of its terrible potential for tragedy.

 

I guess it is a sobering reminder that there is a human dimension to the “technical” points we discuss.

 

Tom Palmer

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth:Ah, what friends you must have. :rolleyes:

Steve

 

I have 1 friend that very very likes discussing physics. He does find McC interesting has I did, but his much more skeptical than I am.

 

I have 2 other friends that are interested, but they are quite bright and by a quick read they can find some illogical statements.

 

So, I am not saying my theory will be correct, I am just saying I did one and some other people said it sorta works :hihi:

[Beagleworth]

 

There have been more ferocious hurricanes since, but there was one unusual circumstance that made this one the most brutal of them all. It had occurred during a proxigean tide.

 

This may or may not prove anything one way or the other as far as our discussions go. But I find it ironic that we had just been discussing this exotic force of nature when media reports suddenly reminded us of its terrible potential for tragedy.

 

I guess it is a sobering reminder that there is a human dimension to the “technical” points we discuss.

 

Tom Palmer

 

That's a very true and passionate statement Tom.

[Erasmus00]

If the earth doubles in size and so does Jupiter, relative to each other there's been no change.

We do notice the earth getting bigger. :rolleyes:

 

Not true. Consider the difference in radius diffR= RJupiter-REarth. Now, the radii double. The new difference in radius = 2RJupiter-2REarth= 2(Rjupiter-Rearth)=2diffR. Every time we double the size, the difference in the radius grows. Relative to Earth, big planets get bigger, small planets get smaller.

-Will

[Tom Palmer]

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

:rolleyes: I can only agree with you, Beagleworth.

 

I can't say I was totally thrilled with that ridiculously large margin of error, either. But one thing about cutting-edge experiments: other laboratories always try to see if they can duplicate—and then improve on—any published results. Or discredit them—physics can be a competitive, even cutthroat, business sometimes.

 

So perhaps some day soon we'll have better numbers. But in the meantime, you're certainly entitled to any doubts you might have.

 

By the way, thank you for your kind thoughts on my "Galveston" post.

 

Tom Palmer

[Beagleworth]

Not true. Consider the difference in radius diffR= RJupiter-REarth. Now, the radii double. The new difference in radius = 2RJupiter-2REarth= 2(Rjupiter-Rearth)=2diffR. Every time we double the size, the difference in the radius grows. Relative to Earth, big planets get bigger, small planets get smaller.

-Will

 

Idsoftwaresteve is right : the ratio stays the same.

 

Take a planet of radius equal to R.

Another one equal to 3R.

The radius difference is 2R

 

After doubling, we get 6R and 2R. The new radius difference would be 4R.

 

Since we also expanded by 2, they relative size is still 3R and R. and the difference is still 2R. But they will have moved toward one another because there will be less space between them.

[Beagleworth]

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

 

First we have Case 1: As per McCutcheon, all atoms expand, so both spheres expand in proportion and everything

Ok. I have read the part about that in McC's book again. I had forget the details and your #1 made me doubt. Here's how you can have a non-centered center of mass without deformation.

 

Sorry, it is a bit long and my english could be better.

 

This is what McC says :

 

1. Mass does not matter for gravity(the attractive force). It only requires expansion.

2. Mass matters when the two objects are touching because at that point it becomes all about inertia and pushing.

 

But there is an implicit #3 if you mix both 1 and 2. Let me explain.

 

From McCutcheon theory, to replicate the gravity on Earth you would simply need to build an object that has the diameter of Earth.

 

For example a long metal rod 12000 km long. If you put a platform on one end and stand on it, you would feel the same push than if you were on the Earth because its expansion would happen from the center and so your would feel the expansion of 6000km and get a push of 4.9 m every second. If you were a certain distance from the platform, you would see it comming at you at the same speed as if you were a certain distance from the Earth. Which is EarthExpansion + YourExpansion.

 

Now, if that rod was made of very little mass(or was much lighter if you wish) compared to Earth and you stand on the platform, you would feel less push than on Earth. The reason for the effect is that the sum of the pushing of your matter would be able to overcome at chunk of the sum of the pushing of all the matter in rod. But if you are a distance away from the platform, you would still see it coming at the same speed as the Earth because nothing is offsetting the expansion of the rod.

 

This shows how 1 and 2 act with object of different masses. Now to the implicit #3.

 

Let's say you can only build a rod 6000km long because of cost. This means you would get half the push of the Earth because the expansion would be split 3000 - 3000. Well, not all is lost. Say you find a cheap material from which you build a ball of the same weight has the rod. If you put that ball at the one end of your rod, then since the sum of the push of the matter in ball is equal to the push of the rod(because they have the same mass) what you have done is cancelled the expansion at that end. This the same as having two huge planets of the same mass beside each other. The point where they touch will be the center of mass, and so if you look straight at that point and if you could see the expansion, you would see two planets expanding their full size from that point.

 

So, this means that when you stand on the platform, you will feel the full of effect of the pushing of 6000km rod. If you were a certain distance away from the platform, you woud see it coming to you as the same speed as the Earth.

 

Note that the size of the ball does not matter if the mass are equal or less. All that is required is that it has the mass cancels the push of the rod. If the ball was heavier than the rod though, then the push felt on the platform would be stronger because some of expansion of the ball would push away the rod increasing its push on you. If the ball was heavier AND larger, you would feel an even stronger push because the radius of expansion of the ball would be larger and push away the rod away even more.

 

So the mass does not matter for attraction, but if you have a mass properly weighted and properly placed, you can increase the power of gravity of another.

 

Now say you did not want anybody to know how you build your gravity device. What you would do is wrap it inside a hollow sphere. So from the outside this looks like a normal sphere. After expansion, it would still look like a sphere because the whole thing expanded, but there would be greater gravity on one side. The side we are talking about is not half and half, the portion expanding faster would be greater than 180 degrees because the radius of the sphere has to stay the same everywhere. The real value of the faster expanding arc would depend on the length of the tower. So this how you can get no deformation with sides with a different expansion.

 

If you want a better image, think of blowing a perfectly circular balloon from one of its side. The push will stronger in one direction, but if the material making the envelope of the balloon is strong enough to stay has a sphere, then you will not see any distortion.

 

I hope you can see what I mean. I am not very agile with graphics tool.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

erasmus:

Not true. Consider the difference in radius diffR= RJupiter-REarth. Now, the radii double. The new difference in radius = 2RJupiter-2REarth= 2(Rjupiter-Rearth)=2diffR. Every time we double the size, the difference in the radius grows. Relative to Earth, big planets get bigger, small planets get smaller.

I'm speaking of the volume. If Va=2Vb, doubling those I get 2Va=4Vb. Its the same relationship.

Steve

[Boerseun]

Don't know if this topic was treated earlier in this thread, but what about acceleration?

 

If I jump off a building, the Earth seems to come nearer, at an accelerating rate of 10m per second per second. Now, this could be one of two things:

 

1) I'm falling towards Earth due to the combined gravitational pull of all the atoms constituting the planet, said gravitational pull being a constant force satisfactorily explaining why I accelerate. If not, I would fall equally hard from a ten story building, as well as a dining room table.

2) I'm not falling. The Earth is actually expanding towards me. But, to compensate for the observed acceleration, the Earth is expanding at an accelerating pace. The acceleration rate for McCutcheon's expansion must therefore be 10m/s^2.

 

From the above, 1 is plausable over the long run. 2 is impossible, because not long after the Big Bang, all the atoms making up the Universe would have been expanding faster the speed of light due to this continuous acceleration. 1 explains why we find stellar clusters, galactic clusters, 'whirlpool' galaxies, orbits, rings around Saturn, gas clouds collapsing to form stars, etc. 2 explains zilch, and seems to be an attempt at popular pseudo-science for the primary purpose of lining the pockets of the author. The mere fact that something is intuitive doesn't constitute evidence for anything. And that seems to be the only pillar McCutcheon's argument is resting on.

[repeater]

Don't know if this topic was treated earlier in this thread, but what about acceleration?

 

If I jump off a building, the Earth seems to come nearer, at an accelerating rate of 10m per second per second. Now, this could be one of two things:

 

1) I'm falling towards Earth due to the combined gravitational pull of all the atoms constituting the planet, said gravitational pull being a constant force satisfactorily explaining why I accelerate. If not, I would fall equally hard from a ten story building, as well as a dining room table.

2) I'm not falling. The Earth is actually expanding towards me. But, to compensate for the observed acceleration, the Earth is expanding at an accelerating pace. The acceleration rate for McCutcheon's expansion must therefore be 10m/s^2.

 

From the above, 1 is plausable over the long run. 2 is impossible, because not long after the Big Bang, all the atoms making up the Universe would have been expanding faster the speed of light due to this continuous acceleration.

Yeah that wouldn't seem right now would it.

 

But this is speed is outside our reference frame, and since we therefore have no non-expanding distance to compare it to it is pretty useless. If expansion theory is true, the fact that our solar system does not collapse can probably be extended to why the universe is still so vast and non-claustrophobic.

 

In current theory the Earth has experienced a sunward acceleration for billions of years as well, and we know why it hasn't approached the sun at lightspeed yet. The kind of these two accelerations are not the same I know, but the idea is the similar.

 

 

Beagleworth: Sorry if I impose by asking, but could you give a go at the answers to my 4 questions I asked? Steve and I tried to get on them, but it seems we didn't get anywhere!

 

Cheers!

[Beagleworth]

Four questions! For the masked Beagle-Steve banditos!

!

 

Sorry repeater. I miss that in a flurry of posts. Let me put a warning on the answers : I do not feel his explanation of orbits is satisfying anymore. But still let see how I think these would be answered from the book.

 

#1

McC says the orbit is only a relative geometric behavior created by the natural movement of things and their expansion. This means that if you removed the Earth, then the dynamic has changed. Note that the whole dynamic of the expansion of the solar system is caused by interaction of *all* the objects in the solar system because they are all expanding toward each other. Kepler's 3rd law points to that(that they are involved, not that they expand).

 

So I think the relative motion of the moon would go from an orbit to... well I cannot tell you what would happen because there is currently no way to describe the natural motion under McC at this point.

 

 

#2 the peek of the wobble is aligned with the Moon from its creation. So because there is no drag in space or any other force to slow or change that motion, there is not reason to believe that alignment has changed. But, if a massive object would strike the Earth or the Moon, then it would seem possible that motion changed. But I do not how to compute the size of such an object and if such collision happened.

 

#3 Could you clarify your question. I am not sure why you say it would be cheating because a velocity vector can only be computed with a reference frame. So if an object is circling around another, and you look at short time step, you would always find a tangential velocity.

 

#4 It does not have a lot of value, but it can offers a compelling theoritical or logical answer that can push our minds in different direction to find the solution. From McC, the answer is computable though, it would actually require the measurement of the expansion and motion of the solar system. But because the whole theory is currently short on Math, deriving the equation is ... difficult.

 

I don't know if his explanation of the pionneer anomaly was presented anywhere this thread, but I will go over it anyway(for people who did not read the book).

 

What I meant ealier by the expansion of the solar system is since all objects expands, but because of their orbits keep a similar distance between them, we can say the solar system is expanping. Actually, we can say that each orbital ring is expanding. It does not mean that space is expanding, it is only the natural orbit effect that is causing the motion of planet that causes them to fight the expansion.

 

 

When we launch a probe in the solar system, what we actually do is make it go from obirtal rings to orbital rings. By doing so, without even noticing it, we make it participate in the dynamic and so it will always keep going away from the Sun.

 

But once the probe has exited the solar system, it is not part of the dynamic anymore and so he is not in a space that is "expanding". It is now a free floating object trying to get away from the expanding solar system. This means if it is not going fast enough, it will look it is being dragged back toward the solar system

 

One quirk of the explanation is that it requires the solar system to be properly defined : If we ever find another large body orbiting the sun, it would affect how the dynamic of the solar system works and so could affect how the probe acts.

 

Note that I mentionned Large bodies. Since a big part of the dynamic is caused by the expansion, small objects will have little effect on the orbits.

 

-----------------

 

So #1 and #2 leave a chalky taste in my mouth. I don't see any problem with number 3(unless your question was deeper than that). 4 is intellectually appealing, but will require Math and number for a real acceptation.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Tom Palmer:

There have been more ferocious hurricanes since, but there was one unusual circumstance that made this one the most brutal of them all. It had occurred during a proxigean tide.

Thank you for pointing out the connection between survival and theory. Beautiful and appropriate. Thanks.

Steve

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

McC says the orbit is only a relative geometric behavior created by the natural movement of things and their expansion. This means that if you removed the Earth, then the dynamic has changed. Note that the whole dynamic of the expansion of the solar system is caused by interaction of *all* the objects in the solar system because they are all expanding toward each other.

I agree with the first part but I don't think I can agree with the second "interaction of *all*" part. Unless we are talking about some other 'forces' at work here (say, electrical/magnetic?), there isn't any interaction between the bodies.

I am, however, struggling with why tangential motion is so profoundly different than motion on the line of centers. On the one hand, tangential motion can result in a perpetual separation between expanding bodies while on the other hand, motion without a tangential component always results in the two objects colliding.

Therefore, if McC is correct, tangential motion has an acceleration component to it or something that looks exactly like it and to date we've been blind to it.

There is also the very real possibility that I'm confused. :rolleyes:

Steve