The Final Theory

[Buffy]

McCutcheon doesn't have to declare how expansion is taking place, he's identifying it as THE single fundamental phenomenon. All other phenomena are derived from that cause.

You're right that he doesn't have to explain the "why," (Newton never did, Einstein did partially, showing the mechanism but not why it exists) but "how" is quite relevant, principally because of Boerseun's objection here: it takes energy to "expand" without violating known and proven physical laws.

 

McCutcheon comes across as disingenuous because he just dismisses virtually *all* of what we know about physics because they violate his theory, but he doesn't try very hard to reconcile issues that are obviously wrong. In this thread I and others have pointed out a bunch of them, with the *only* response being "well, you just did read the book or understand what he was saying" or "you're just biased/stuck in old thinking." This is hardly arguing the issues in the open to try to validate McCutcheon's theories.

 

I personally do try to follow the arguments assumtions completely to "not be dragged down by the existing wrong physical theories", and I've shown that in many of my previous posts here. My favorites are things like "all things naturally move in curves" which completely fails because it doesn't explain why things move in different curvatures based on their distance from masses as observed from independent locations. McCutcheon is filled with stuff like this that *simply doesn't match observation*.

 

Your antipathy toward McCutcheon is amazing and I don't know if it's because you feel you can't grasp the concepts or what.

Labeling Boerseun as a "McCutcheon-hater" is pretty low: that's what the likes of Rush Limbaugh are reduced to when trying to refute evidence of global warming.

 

Is that really the best you can do?

 

Go back and peruse this thread. I and others have brought up lots of objections. Your responses have fallen either into the "denial" categories I just mentioned, or--to your credit--have caused you to say "I never thought about that, I'll have to absorb it," but ultimately, you've never gone any further to try to express your objections that you ultimately may have thought of.

 

I won't tell you not to continue to push the theory: this sort of discussion is exactly what keeps science alive, but you've got to understand that if your "side" represents itself with nothing but obfuscation and put-downs, its hard for people to take it seriously! As a result, if you detect hostility, its not inexplicable "hate," its annoyance at pretending to do science while avoiding its methods.

 

If McCutcheon really wants to be accepted, he should stop hiding behind his copyright....

 

Free exchange of ideas,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy, you make some good points.

 

But you're protecting Beorseun, who I don't think deserves it. He's never admitted to understanding that two objects of different size in the context of expansion will remain the same relative size.

I think he's never got past that point. So, should we let one person's inability to understand dictate the direction we're going?

 

And if anyone has realized that orbits can be explained by expansion, that it behaves exactly like an 'attractive force', nobody has admitted it on this thread. But I've seen it. I've realized it.

 

And others have understood that and argued on behalf of McC. But not a single one who has been against the threory has changed their mind. So some came looking for discussion. Where are they now?

 

The book needs to be broken into components and each component needs to be a separate thread. Or, we should take the book paragraph by paragraph and work through it.

 

I don't have that kind of time. I need help. I thought maybe I could come back into it and give it another try but I'm afraid that aint gonna work.

 

Perhaps I'm operating under a fallacy. I've been assuming that we're all the same. Beorseun and I are not the same people.

[Buffy]

But you're protecting Beorseun, who I don't think deserves it.

Not really, Boerseun can do that himself. I'm just saying that attacking him as a McCutcheon-hater rather than addressing his arguments doesn't help your case.

He's never admitted to understanding that two objects of different size in the context of expansion will remain the same relative size.

And I understand why, because its one of the critical chinks in McCutcheon's argument:

• In order to keep the sizes relative, you need to expand proportionately based on the radius.
  
• Because of the different densities of planetary bodies, in order to keep atoms from growing at different rates, you need to expand proportional to the mass
  
• But then the sizes would diverge, so it must be based on the radius,
  
• But then atoms would be different sizes on different planets, so it must be based on the mass
  

...ad nauseum. Again, this is not based on "old physics" this is just trying to keep McCutcheon's arguments internally consistent, which is seemingly impossible if one digs a bit.

And if anyone has realized that orbits can be explained by expansion, that it behaves exactly like an 'attractive force', nobody has admitted it on this thread. But I've seen it. I've realized it.

Would still love to understand what you've realized. I've seen how it could work for circular orbits, but almost no orbits are circular, and I haven't seen a reconciliation between Kepler's laws (which are observational and predictive, not explanatory) and McCutcheon's, let alone get into parabolic/hyperbolic fly-by effects.

And others have understood that and argued on behalf of McC. But not a single one who has been against the threory has changed their mind.

I can't explain that without knowing them, but as I said in my previous posts, the defenses all seem to be absent of any formal logical arguments, and I can only assume that these defenders believe in McCutcheon uncritically: such an attitude is unlikely to be changed by evidence.

 

I've been encouraged by your seeming willingness to be open minded, but as I said above, it would be nice to see the results of your consideration of the counter-arguments.

The book needs to be broken into components and each component needs to be a separate thread. Or, we should take the book paragraph by paragraph and work through it.

If you'd like to do that, that would be fine. There will be some that consider it a strange claim, but if the discussion is indeed scientifically based, then it can stay in an appropriate forum.

 

You should note several of us have kept this thread from migrating to Strange Claims *specifically* because there's hope for a real discussion on the topic, but most of us are still waiting for serious discussion to actually develop here.

I don't have that kind of time. I need help. I thought maybe I could come back into it and give it another try but I'm afraid that aint gonna work.

Its up to you. Its obviously an intense piece of work for those of us who respond, because it seems that many people who support McCutcheon do not have a strong familiarity with the observational data that McCutcheon's theories don't agree with, so we end up having to do a lot of remedial review of this data, and at the same time somehow prove in clear and concise terms why this real data it isn't just "old thinking."

 

Its quite a challenge and quite time consuming for us old sticks in the mud too.

 

Advocate for the Conventional Idiocy,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I've already explained the two objects and how they'll remain the same relative size and I guess I just have to sit and stare at you if you can't see it. It's bonehead simple. The only way that one stable configuration of particles will grow faster than another is if particles are added to one or taken away from the other.

 

By definition, if the number of particles remains the same and the configuration remains the same (which it DOES NOT going from water to ice) then the relative sizes will remain the same.

 

If you fail to see that, then I'm finished. I can't explain it to you.

 

With respect to elliptical orbits, I'm sorry, I don't want to get into the math. It bores the crap out of me. However, allow me to quote McCutcheon from page 133. This is meant to convey that he deals with the math in the book. I'll let you mathematicians deal with it. Here's the quote:

"Although orbits are commonly represented as circular, in actuality perfectly circular orbits are very rare; most orbits are elliptical (i.e. oval-shaped). The degree to which an orbit is elliptical is known as its eccentricity, with an eccentricity of zero indicating a perfect circle. As can be seen in any standard astronomical table, none of the planets in our solar system have a zero eccentricity of orbit; nearly all orbits in nature are elliptical to some degree."

In the following four pages, which I absolutely refuse to manually enter here, he goes on to show that current theory doesn't have any way of explaining elliptical orbits. Expansion does.

 

Now as far as mathematics goes I'd like to make a simple and probably wrong observation: we do not have a foundation for mathematics in the 'real' world, the world outside of our consciousness. Well, not until McCutcheon came along. A constantly expanding universe (and here I mean in the sense of each particle in the universe expanding at a constant rate) gives rise to the consistency necessary to provide a foundation for mathematics. So, in a very real sense, mathematics could be described as a derivative function of consciousness which deals with the consistency of nature. Can anyone else claim their theory provides such a foundation? Don't get me wrong here, McCutcheon makes no such claim. I do. Me. Not him. But I think it's a claim he could make.

 

I've had numerous eureka moments contemplating McC's work. And so, apparently have others. I honestly think I understand what 'now' means, that time doesn't actually exist as something we can physically move back and forth in, that how we create models of the world shows our absolutely incredible inventiveness in comprehending it.

 

And I owe it to him. I mean, here, for the last 4 days I've been running a temperature of 100-102.5 and I still get up in the middle of the night to try and put together reasoned arguments of explanation. McC requires you look at things differently. And once you start, it's tough to stop.

 

But that's the last I'll give you. This is not science, what has gone on in this thread. Yes, there is time for criticism. But any moron can pick up a bow and arrow. And the glee with which some of you have picked up arms is frightening. I mean, really, really scary. And I want no part of it.

 

When a new way of looking at existence comes along, one that is based upon a single physical phenomenon, it is the responsibility of reasonable people to nurture that way to see if it has merit and to take the hands of those of us who are walking in that direction and HELP US.

 

But perhaps that is asking too much. We are not the same. And I like who I am.

[InfiniteNow]

The only truth is that we cannot be certain, so the openness of minds must be shared on both sides of a discussion.

 

The idea of now itself being this ever expanding something appeals to me, but I also sense that McCutch is replacing angels with ghosts (i.e. still doesn't solve the riddles, just speaks to them with new terms).

 

A valid idea will survive the onslaught of nay sayers and critics, although those standing in the idea's corner may not. Don't let your passion consume you, let it drive you. :beer:

[CraigD]

It’s been many days since I posted in this long and storied thread, largely because almost everything objective issue I can imagine has already been posted in it. So this is to be a personal, subjective post.

 

Like many who’s lives have been focused on algorithms, the formalism of their symbolic logic, and the philosophic interpretation of what such a life is all about, I love and crave novelty in an almost addict-like way. “But is it real?” is a question I rarely contemplate – if a formal system, implemented as a procedural algorithm works – provides the output I need to X scalar amount of vector quality Q at coordinate P, etc. – I like it. If it works for many different problems, I love it.

 

The constant expansion of the spatial extent of regions of matter as an explanation of gravity intrigued me. As I would with any idea, I tried formalizing it – getting the numbers to work. In fairly short order, I encountered problems I couldn’t overcome. As I do whenever I get stuck on the application of an idea, I appealed to people who claimed to have “gotten it” for help.

 

The response I received, though friendly and encouraging, was that they couldn’t get it [expansion] to work either, but that that was because they lacked the skills to formalize it. Because of its compelling simplicity, however, they felt intuitively that the theory must be right, and, given enough effort, yield a useful formal system that worked better than previous ones. I was encouraged to “buy the book”, not because it had solved the formal challenges thwarting me – the author himself is a self-described “idea person”, not a “detail person” - but because it could provide greater inspiration for me to overcome them.

 

It was soon after this point that my emotional attraction to expansion turned to repulsion.

 

I’m a utilitarian materialist, with a dash of Platonic idealism – I value physical things that work, and can be understood in terms of a few emotionally satisfying “ideal forms”. Expansion theory appears strong on the material part, and the emotionally satisfying ideal form part, but fails utterly to have utility. Unlike the Newtonian mechanics it claims to supersede, I can’t use it to do anything useful, such as plot a thrust vector program to move a ship between a pair of airless worlds orbiting a star. This failure occurs with much simpler problems than finding such a program – it fails with the following:

 

My universe consists of 3 objects:

1. a sphere of mass 6*10^24 kg and radius 6360000 m centered at coordinates (0,0,0)
   
2. a sphere of mass 100 kg and radius 0.15 m centered at coordinates (0,0,30000000 m)
   
3. a sphere of mass 100 kg and radius 0.15 m centered at coordinates (0,0,60000000 m)
   

All objects are motionless relative to one another at time 0.

 

I would like to know the relative positions of these 3 objects at time 1000 s

 

Approximating using Newton’s law of gravity and motion, I find:

1. a sphere of mass 6*10^24 kg and radius 6360000 m centered at coordinates (0,0,0)
   
2. a sphere of mass 100 kg and radius 0.15 m centered at coordinates (0,0,29776973.71 m)
   
3. a sphere of mass 100 kg and radius 0.15 m centered at coordinates (0,0,59944364.46 m)
   

I used a simple program of mine (source code at thread 6972), in which Newton’s laws are coded in a few hundred characters.

 

For me to find Expansion theory useful, I must be able to use it in a similar manner. Until it’s possible to use it to predict the observable behavior of the universe – even if the resulting program is very complicated, requiring continuous rescaling to account for the expansion of measuring sticks, etc. – the theory is, for me, completely without utility.

Please So, as a challenge to supporters of Expansion theory: please show me how to get useful, measurable data using it. Until I can get that, Expansion theory remains for me in the category of theories, to borrow a phrase from Pauli, “not even good enough to be wrong.”

[Buffy]

I've already explained the two objects and how they'll remain the same relative size and I guess I just have to sit and stare at you if you can't see it. It's bonehead simple. The only way that one stable configuration of particles will grow faster than another is if particles are added to one or taken away from the other.

 

By definition, if the number of particles remains the same and the configuration remains the same (which it DOES NOT going from water to ice) then the relative sizes will remain the same.

 

If you fail to see that, then I'm finished. I can't explain it to you.

I get what you're saying! Honest! What you're not getting from my argument is that there's two ways to have stuff expand, and no matter which one you pick you will run into a contradiction: not based on "currently accepted physical laws" but based on simply working through what you would end up seeing in the measurements.

 

What you're describing here is expansion based on the mass of an object: I know they're all expanding at the same rate that's cool! But Jupiter has a different density that Earth, which is another way of saying that they're made up of different sized atoms. Now if you expand on that basis, the Earth will expand its *radius* faster than Jupiter will, meaning that you'll see--from Earth's point of view, Jupiter *getting smaller* because its not growing fast enough.

 

To keep the relative sizes the same, you need to view expansion as being solely based on being a function of the radius of the sphere at hand. If this is the way expansion works, then McCutcheon's theory matches reality as we perceive it for the relative measurement of sizes of the spheres and the "pressure" perceived currently as "gravity." But then you start looking at the atoms themselves and they are now *not* growing at the same rate on Earth and Jupiter due to the different densities of their constituent materials. So Hydrogen would be growing *faster* on Jupiter than it does on Earth! (This would be easily observable simply from changes in refraction and spectral emission analysis from our space probes whizzing by).

 

Thus a contradiction.

 

It doesn't appear that you've looked at this issue, and it is a step beyond the analysis you've presented. Maybe you've come up with a way of looking at the universe that makes this irrelevant, but it would be nice if you could be a little clearer about what you think we should do to reconcile this and other issues. Seriously, I'd even accept an argument that since ruler's grow at different rates in the proximity of these other bodies they wouldn't measure any differences in the size of particles (although that might bring up issues of effects of proximity which McC seems to disclaim, because it would be proof of gravity!)...

In the following four pages, which I absolutely refuse to manually enter here, he goes on to show that current theory doesn't have any way of explaining elliptical orbits. Expansion does.

Rats. You left out the one thing we could talk about! I apologize for misrepresenting McC on this point, but its what had been represented to me, but nonetheless, I'll mention a bit about planetary motion because its relevant to one of your later points...

 

Kepler was a smart dude, but actually his math is outrageously simple:

• His first law is that planets orbit in an ellipse. An ellipse has a very simple mathematical equation, and sure enough, the orbits we perceive follow these shapes exactly, adjusting for gravitational effects and observational relativity. I'll leave the details out here, but its simple geometry and trigonometry.
  
• His second law is that when you look at the area swept in an orbit, the area is exactly the same for equal times. This simply says its slower when its far away and faster when its closer. This turns out to really be an implication of his third law and can be really skipped over.
  
• His third law is cool because it basically ties together his other ideas with Newton's law of gravity. Greatly oversimplifying it says that the time it takes to orbit is proportional to the shape and size of the ellipse, and is specified as:
  [math](\frac {P} { 2\pi } )^2 = \frac {a^3} { G(M + m)}[/math]
  
  
  P = Period of orbit
  
  
  a = length of semimajor axis (a fancy version of the radius of the ellipse that incorporates the distance between the two foci of the ellipse)
  
  
  G = Newton's Gravitational Constant
  
  
  M = Mass of the orbited body
  
  
  m = Mass of the orbiting body
  
  

  
  Again, works really well, in the real world only requiring well-understood adjustment going from 2 bodies to n-bodies (not easy to compute, just easily described).

Except for Newton's Constant, Kepler's laws are all just plain math with no dependency on physics at all. Its completely abstract. So, if he's saying that this doesn't work, then he's either ignoring the data, or--as you seem to imply yourself--there's not a problem with Physics, there's a problem with *Mathematics*!

Now as far as mathematics goes I'd like to make a simple and probably wrong observation: we do not have a foundation for mathematics in the 'real' world, the world outside of our consciousness. Well, not until McCutcheon came along. A constantly expanding universe (and here I mean in the sense of each particle in the universe expanding at a constant rate) gives rise to the consistency necessary to provide a foundation for mathematics. So, in a very real sense, mathematics could be described as a derivative function of consciousness which deals with the consistency of nature.

Most mathematicians would be apoplectic at this point. Mathematics has nothing to do with the physics of the universe: its completely abstract and transcendent. It in fact gives us the tools (see especially Number Theory and Abstract Algebra) to model any conceivable system, universe, reality, whatever. I would love to find out why you think there is some sort of instrinsic link between Math and our current Physical Reality.

Can anyone else claim their theory provides such a foundation? Don't get me wrong here, McCutcheon makes no such claim. I do. Me. Not him. But I think it's a claim he could make.

It did take Whitehead and Russell most of volume one of the Principia Mathematica to get to 1+1=2, but they did it in a way that quite formally lays out the validity of that statement for all possible worlds: I don't recommend reading it if you hate math, but it is all there.

And the glee with which some of you have picked up arms is frightening. I mean, really, really scary. And I want no part of it.

Its not glee, honest. Its horror. Yep, as you say "anyone can pick up a bow and arrow," and the next revolutionary idea must struggle against the conventional wisdom. Oddly enough, I know from personal experience that the most vocal in this thread are actually people who *like* to seek out and promote unconventional ideas.

 

The whole point of exercises like this is to work through the strengths and weaknesses of "alternate theories" to see whether they turn out to accurately model our reality. Unfortunately for some of these theories, at some point they run up against reality and become unsupportable: at that point, do you honestly think its reasonable to continue to support them as "equally valid?" To use an extreme example, do you think we should continue to teach "the earth is flat" as an alternate theory of cosmology in schools? If you take a particular closed set of data, its "supported," and if "all of our mathematics could be built on a false foundation," the earth actually *could* be flat!

 

The horror here is that this theory is "not even wrong" based on what little its supporters have been willing to publish, but it gets promulgated as "proof that Einstein was wrong." There is something to be said for not allowing false theories to go unanswered. We could just ignore this stuff, but I personally don't want my kid to see this thread and say "well, no one has argued against it, so it must be true!"

When a new way of looking at existence comes along, one that is based upon a single physical phenomenon, it is the responsibility of reasonable people to nurture that way to see if it has merit and to take the hands of those of us who are walking in that direction and HELP US.

As I said, the folks who are complaining (and Craig said so himself in his previous post), *do* like to do this, but if the proponents of such theories just call us names and tell us we just have to "accept that everything we know is wrong" without *any* justification for doing so, *you're* not helping *us* try to help you!

But perhaps that is asking too much. We are not the same. And I like who I am.

I really promise not to hate you because you're beautiful. I think you are beautiful and its a good thing. I'm just suggesting that you shouldn't let it hold you back!

 

Controversially seeking the truth,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy, I don't consider the 'beautiful' comment to be a compliment.

 

you're not listening to the structure part of the argument. I'm going to use ... math... argh...

 

If I can show you mathematically that two stable configurations made up of particles that are all expanding at the same rate will maintain the same relative size no matter how big their size differences, you have to agree to read McCutcheon's book and from here on out take his side in every argument. :hihi: And that goes for Beorseun too!

 

let p be the fundamental particle.

 

let p(1) be structure 1. For the sake of argument p(1) is 100 times the size of p.

 

let p(2) be structure 2. p(2) is 1000 times the size of p.

 

each structure is stable, i.e. it maintains its shape through the process of expansion.

 

at 'time slice' 1, the ratio of p(1) to p(2) is 100/1000.

 

since size is relative, 2 million 'doublings' in particle sizes later,

p(1) is still 100 times p.

p(2) is still 1000 times p.

 

the ratio of p(1) to p(2) is still 100/1000

 

As I said, these are stable configurations. there is no reason for the structures to change size relative to p. Indeed, by definition, it is the expansion that gives rise to their being structures in the first place.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Just to make sure we're clear about what a structure is, I consider Jupiter to be a structure. Earth is a structure. A marble is a structure. My keyboard is a structure. At any time slice, the ratio of any stable structure to the smallest particle remains constant. That, by definition, is a structure.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CraigD:

So, as a challenge to supporters of Expansion theory: please show me how to get useful, measurable data using it. Until I can get that, Expansion theory remains for me in the category of theories, to borrow a phrase from Pauli, “not even good enough to be wrong.”

That's easy. don't use it now. When the need for a new map becomes necessary, perhaps others will have formulated a new one.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

The only truth is that we cannot be certain, so the openness of minds must be shared on both sides of a discussion.

 

The idea of now itself being this ever expanding something appeals to me, but I also sense that McCutch is replacing angels with ghosts (i.e. still doesn't solve the riddles, just speaks to them with new terms).

Then you should consider re-evaluating.

[Boerseun]

Just to make sure we're clear about what a structure is, I consider Jupiter to be a structure. Earth is a structure. A marble is a structure. My keyboard is a structure. At any time slice, the ratio of any stable structure to the smallest particle remains constant. That, by definition, is a structure.

Steve, I understand the image you're trying to convey in the above posts. But you're ignoring a few elementary flaws, which Buffy mentioned.

 

Consider:

 

Take structure 1. Let's say, the Earth.

Take structure 2, say, Jupiter.

Now I'm not going to look up the actual sizes, but let's got with your analogy and say Earth's diameter is 100 and Jupiter's 1000.

A hydrogen atom on Earth is the same size as a hydrogen atom on Jupiter. Or any other atom for that matter.

All atoms on Earth is expanding at the same rate as all atoms on Jupiter. In other words, if you're presented with two atoms of the same element, you won't be able to discern from which of the two planets the atom originated.

The only thing determining the graviational experience at the planetary surface, is only the physical dimension of the planet in question.

 

Agreed, so far?

 

Then how do you account for the big density difference between Earth and Jupiter? Jupiter might be much larger than Earth, but if expansion is the case, it's expanding like a much smaller planet than what we measure it to be. Which means pretty soon the difference between the two will be 100/1000, 100/990, 100/980, etc.

 

I admire your tenacity regarding McCutcheon's theory. But you haven't said anything except "buy the book and read the book and you'll forever swear allegiance to McCutcheon". I have read reams and reams of interviews and discussions McCutcheon had all over the internet, and every single one of them held on neutral ground ends up with mathematically literate and physical science literate people agreeing to the fact that the universe around us doesn't support what McCutcheon proposes. As far as McCutcheon is concerned, you're a shining light to his hypothesis. But a shining light is useless when you're pointing it in the wrong direction.

 

I still say, this theory is dead. There's so many holes poked in it that it can't possibly breathe any more. We can stand around the carcass and have a moment of silence. But at some stage, we should call the undertaker, and move on.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Steve, I understand the image you're trying to convey in the above posts. But you're ignoring a few elementary flaws, which Buffy mentioned.

 

Consider:

 

Take structure 1. Let's say, the Earth.

Take structure 2, say, Jupiter.

Now I'm not going to look up the actual sizes, but let's got with your analogy and say Earth's diameter is 100 and Jupiter's 1000.

A hydrogen atom on Earth is the same size as a hydrogen atom on Jupiter. Or any other atom for that matter.

All atoms on Earth is expanding at the same rate as all atoms on Jupiter. In other words, if you're presented with two atoms of the same element, you won't be able to discern from which of the two planets the atom originated.

The only thing determining the graviational experience at the planetary surface, is only the physical dimension of the planet in question.

 

Agreed, so far?

 

Then how do you account for the big density difference between Earth and Jupiter? Jupiter might be much larger than Earth, but if expansion is the case, it's expanding like a much smaller planet than what we measure it to be. Which means pretty soon the difference between the two will be 100/1000, 100/990, 100/980, etc.

Theres a density difference between a whiffle ball and a baseball. What's that got to do with anything? The density of Jupiter, which you seem to know so much about, how is it germane to this discussion? It is a stable structure. At the end of 1 million doublings in size of p, it will still have the same relative size to p, thus the same relative size to any other object that has remained stable over the 1 million doublings.

Perhaps it's hard for you to see that jupiter, with its constant storms, violent atmosphere, radioactivity, etc. is stable. But it is. So is the sun. You mentioned a few flaws. Would you care to point them out?

One of us has a blindspot Beorseun.

[infamous]

One of us has a blindspot Beorseun.

Blind spots are one thing that's not in short supply these days. I must admit, I've had to deal with a few myself lately............................Infy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Blind spots are one thing that's not in short supply these days.............................Infy

lol. No kidding. I know you include me in that Infy (I do). A rational person always worries about that. Especially when intelligent people disagree with you.

[infamous]

lol. No kidding. I know you include me in that Infy (I do).

Actually steve, I was referring to the blind spots in my own eyes, and not in the eyes of others. I find myself in the position way too often of turning a deaf ear because of personal prejudice to a preconceived idea. I think we all struggle with it on occasion. It's very difficult sometimes to see through the eyes of another but I believe it's absolutely neccessary if we are to ever learn and appreciate new ideas.....................Infy

[Boerseun]

Theres a density difference between a whiffle ball and a baseball. What's that got to do with anything? The density of Jupiter, which you seem to know so much about, how is it germane to this discussion?

The density difference between Earth and Jupiter boils down to this:

 

Jupiter doesn't seem to exert as much gravitational pull as it should have, were it made from the same stuff Earth is. McCutcheon states that only size matters - not what the planet under discussion consist of. If that were the case, our density measurements for both Earth and Jupiter would have been identical. The density difference between Earth and Jupiter, or, for that matter, between a whiffle ball and a baseball, can be expanded to black holes as well, where a very small sphere exerts massive gravitational pull, due to incredibly high density - which is, after all, simply a function of mass and volume. But McCutcheon discounts mass as having anything to do with gravity, so you probably won't understand my point regarding Jupiter's density.

 

According to McCutcheon, if Jupiter's radius is 10 times that of Earth, it's surface gravity would be 10 times that of Earth. It's not. There is no reconciling that difference with 'Expansion Theory'. Another flaw is that 'Expansion Theory' must discount black holes as flights of fancy, seeing as there's no warping of space under 'Expansion'. Yet, the influence of massive concentrations of matter on the neighbouring space and stellar constructs are being observed. Stuff like gravitational lensing which have been confirmed, observed and photographed, also destroys Expansion. I can for the life of me not understand why you so rabidly support a demonstrable failure of logic and thought.

 

I'm sorry, Steve - I'm not going to try to convince you, but the density difference between Earth and Jupiter is a fundamental flaw in Expansion Theory, whether you see it as 'germane' or not.

 

Talking of blind spots, all of the above cannot simply be glossed over by vague references. They are clearly defined obstacles to Expansion, and I would love to see Expansion cater for it. If it can't, we must simply understand the fact that Expansion is a dead duck.

 

If I tell you that ALL bedlinen is white, and I show you millions of white satin sheets, all you have to do is show me ONE SINGLE GREEN SHEET in order to blow my theory out of the water. And, if I'm an honest scientist, I will scrap my pet theory of white bedlinen, and move on with my life.