The Final Theory

[robmog]

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.

 

I've come to this discussion a bit late and feel like a gatecrasher at a slightly wacky but intriguing party. Although I've haven't read the 'Final Theory', I'm an advocate of Expansion Theory and there are several versions of it out there in cyberland that you can access without having to buy a book. One of them (Steadybang Theory) has a mathematical explanation for how a steady exponential expansion of matter creates the illusion of a small body accelerating towards a larger body when near its surface. I could reproduce it here if you like, but it's just as easy for you to go there - http://www.steadybang.com - and click on the 'Gravity - the Maths' page. It also points out that a test of the theory (not very practical at the moment) would be to drive a tunnel through a small celestial body say an asteroid (or maybe a shaft through a large space station, would do) and then drop something down it. Conventional physics would have the object oscilating across the centre of the shaft before coming to rest there, whereas in Expansion Theory it would come to rest at the centre without any occillation - this would be pretty conclusive I think.

Hope this explains the 'acceleration' problem. Another way of looking at it is that as two bodies expand they get closer together because of the expansion, but because the scale of everything is increasing, the measurement of this distance is also reducing giving the illusion of an acceration.

 

Robmog

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Robmog:

It also points out that a test of the theory (not very practical at the moment) would be to drive a tunnel through a small celestial body say an asteroid (or maybe a shaft through a large space station, would do) and then drop something down it.

Interesting. This scenario is already in the book we are discussing here. Another test already discussed here is to measure the surface gravity on the near and far side of the moon - a test that should be fairly easy to perform.

Incidentally, the mathematics behind the tunnel scenario are also on a previous post in this thread.

Welcome to the discussion. :rolleyes:

[robmog]

Thanks for the welcome ____Steve.

 

I should have done my homework and read all the previous posts, but I'm a lazy b_____r. However I'll make the time now and try not to duplicate ideas in the future. :rolleyes:

 

Cheers

 

Robmog

[Beagleworth]

Thanks for the welcome ____Steve.

 

I should have done my homework and read all the previous posts, but I'm a lazy b_____r. However I'll make the time now and try not to duplicate ideas in the future. :rolleyes:

 

Cheers

 

Robmog

 

This is not a big deal. Like idsoftwaresteve said, it is discussed in the book. But nobody brought up a simple way of testing objects centering themselves.

 

I like that asteroid idea. It is still not trivial to do, but it would be really cool.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

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.

I agree. But intuition is often the starting point for investigation, which really is what we're trying to do here, isn't it? The stronger the intuition, the more doggedly one hangs on and investigates. A strong subconscious conclusion that 'pops out' as an intuition, by definition should be investigated.

If you look at the world through a lens that is filtered by a strong belief , it can and does affect your intuition - now, that is a strong belief I have.

...seems to be an attempt at popular pseudo-science for the primary purpose of lining the pockets of the author

It remains to be seen how pseudo the science behind it is. You have very strong beliefs, Beorseun. I hope for the sake of your happiness that they are correct.

Steve

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Robmog:

I should have done my homework and read all the previous posts

That, sir, is an arduous task. I just wanted you to know that there has been some good discussion and we've only covered a small portion of the book. :)

[Beagleworth]

Last week I said I thought orbits could be explained better using McC's subatomic model.

 

Here's my essay on it. My mother tongue is not english, so you will have to excuse some grammar errors and a few strange sentences.

 

It will also make more sense to people who have read the book, because I am introducting a new principle based on its subatomic model which was not discussed very much in this thread.

 

http://www.magma.ca/~ericdsl/additionstofinaltheory.pdf

 

I am not completely statisfied with my explanations because I am not convinced it properly conveys the same image I have of the new principle I introduce, but I think the explanation of orbits using the new principle is quite cool! :doh:

 

Feel free to dissect it and point out any flaws. I will be more than happy to discuss them.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth, your understanding of McCutcheon's atomic model is much better than mine. You fly, I plod. :doh: I'm such a turtle. I'm working on it.

Steve

 

.

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth, your understanding of McCutcheon's atomic model is much better than mine. You fly, I plod. :doh: I'm such a turtle. I'm working on it.

Steve

 

.

 

You have to also think I might not be right.... :)

[questor]

things i don't understand:

if there was a big bang, there was a point at which it started. from this point all particles radiated out in straight lines, thus moving farther apart. if the particles were moving farther apart, how did they coalesce into gas clouds that eventually formed planets and suns? how do orbits occur? since they are not perfect circles, why are there not collisions, such as when the earth is nearest the sun? what force propels the earth in its orbit? the gravitational attraction of the sun should slow the earths progress as it enters its long side away from the sun?

is gravity an inherent property of atoms? or does it permeate empty space? does dark matter react to gravity?

[questor]

Beagleworth, in your theory what force causes the compression of electrons, or the orbit of electrons around the nucleus? if the nucleus is composed of compressed electrons giving the nucleus more density, how does an electron escape the mass to orbit the nucleus, or how does the nucleus pick the number of electrons it wants to orbit it?

[Beagleworth]

things i don't understand:

if there was a big bang, there was a point at which it started. from this point all particles radiated out in straight lines, thus moving farther apart. if the particles were moving farther apart, how did they coalesce into gas clouds that eventually formed planets and suns? how do orbits occur? since they are not perfect circles, why are there not collisions, such as when the earth is nearest the sun? what force propels the earth in its orbit? the gravitational attraction of the sun should slow the earths progress as it enters its long side away from the sun?

is gravity an inherent property of atoms? or does it permeate empty space? does dark matter react to gravity?

 

I will assume from your message that you have not read McC's book.

 

If you have a explosion, matter will not be ejected uniformly. Things will hit each other, bounce, change direction.

 

What causes matter to form planet is the expansion, chunks of matter moving at similar speed will eventually touch because they are expanding toward one another.

 

There is no gravitational attraction. Things expands toward each other.

 

Orbits, well, it is still not clear what explains them just from the book. I attempted to correct that. We'll see if I am on to something or not.

 

Dark matter is not necessary in McC's theory.

[Beagleworth]

Beagleworth, in your theory what force causes the compression of electrons, or the orbit of electrons around the nucleus?

 

It's the expansion of the other atom around them that caused the "bouncing" electrons to get pushed and stucked to the nucleas.

 

In McC's theory, electrons expands and have elasticity, so what I call a bounce is simply the nucleas expanding and punting the electron(s) around it. It is not clear, wheter they orbit or the structure of the nucleus itself(imagine a spiky ball) causes the atoms to be thrown in different directions, but it is a possibilty.

 

Because of that, when we sample, trying to find the location of the electrons, we see that can pretty much be everywhere because of the kicking around.

 

If my theory is right, then electrons could also orbit around with a similar phenoma as the compressing of atomic space, because if you think of electrons has the atom of the subatomic space, then whatever the underlying structure of that electron could create a similar effect. But there is already enough to think about with atomic and subatomic space.

 

if the nucleus is composed of compressed electrons giving the nucleus more density, how does an electron escape the mass to orbit the nucleus, or how does the nucleus pick the number of electrons it wants to orbit it?

 

It does not need to excape, because there is no attraction. It just needs to be kicked out of place. But that is still very hard to do because of the sizes in the subatomic world. (This requires a longer discussion).

 

If you image a world full of expanding electrons, you can see blocks of them grouping in big blobs. If another electron happens to pass with a certain speed, it will be kicked away. But if is not going fast enough, the expansion will catch up to it and the bouncing dynamic will begin.

[questor]

if expansion is taking place in matter, what gives it impetus? things do not usually expand without an outside element such as heat. if they are expanding from within, how does a dense nucleus maintain the same orbital relationship with a lighter particle, such as an electron? do all things expand at the same rate? if so they must all have the same elemental properties. if all things have the same elemental properties, at what level does life lie?

[Beagleworth]

if expansion is taking place in matter, what gives it impetus? things do not usually expand without an outside element such as heat. if they are expanding from within, how does a dense nucleus maintain the same orbital relationship with a lighter particle, such as an electron? do all things expand at the same rate? if so they must all have the same elemental properties. if all things have the same elemental properties, at what level does life lie?

 

Well, just like Gravity as an attractive force is a built-in universal force, so his expanding matter in his theory. There is some discussion on how it may arise, but it just brings more questions.

 

Yes, they all expand at the same rate. Subatomic orbits are not created by the same phenomon has celestial orbits and so density does not matter. Actually, if you exclude my additions to the theory, density is not important at all for gravity in McC.

 

At what level does life lie? Same level as with the standard model : An emerging mechanic from atoms.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

You have to also think I might not be right....

:eek: I honestly don't know if you are right so I guess it's fair to say I think you might be wrong ... but, you also might be right! :doh:

I admire how fast you are and how far you've gone. :doh: Some things I do understand but there's a lot more that I don't.

 

Here's a question for you. Let's take two spheres that both have a perfect mass distribution. No offset. they are in motion relative to each other. Now we say that straight lines do not exist, but, if one were to imagine a fixed 3-d grid and plot the centerpoints of each of the spheres over a fair amount of time, and then connect all of the dots for each of the centers....what would we see? Could those two spheres be in an orbital relationship? If so, how?

 

By the way, I liked your response to Questor. Very thoughtful.

[Beagleworth]

Here's a question for you. Let's take two spheres that both have a perfect mass distribution. No offset. they are in motion relative to each other. Now we say that straight lines do not exist, but, if one were to imagine a fixed 3-d grid and plot the centerpoints of each of the spheres over a fair amount of time, and then connect all of the dots for each of the centers....what would we see? Could those two spheres be in an orbital relationship? If so, how?

 

I will assume you want to include compression of space in the discussion.

 

If the two spheres are not compressed : As they closer to each other, you will see their path curving toward one another because of the expansion. If they are going to slow compared to their expansion, their path will cross at the point where they collide.

 

If they are going faster, then their path will curve again toward one another, but they will not collide and pass each other. After that, the points created from their path would align into one line because the expansion would align the centers of both sphere.

 

If at least one of the sphere is compressed, then the same thing as above will happen. No differences. But, if the speed of the objects relative to the distance between them gives a radial speed equal to their expansion during the curving, they will orbit each other in a perfect circle because their mass is uniform. The compression will force the object to stay in a curving path around the other sphere.

 

Is that a satisfying answer, or you had something more in mind?