The Final Theory

[ldsoftwaresteve]

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.

 

You're obfuscating again Beorseun. One thing at a time here. There isn't a single person on the planet that knows what the 'surface gravity' of Jupiter is or for that matter the density. We can't see the surface of jupiter much less measure either its surface gravity or its mass.

 

We back into those 'facts' through formulas and assumptions and pull a number out of our ***. If that's the facts you are talking about, find other ones because they don't work. But you can't jump to different 'reasons' here without facing the one you're running from: that different sized objects will stay the same relative size. You won't face that because that puts doubt on your other 'facts'.

Your arguments are broken Beorseun, not McCutcheon's theory. So leave the discussion or start being honest.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

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

But in the final analysis we bear the responsibility to choose one over the other if the two oppose. Or neither. But still, the responsibility is ours.

[CraigD]

I agree with infamous, Boerseun, and others in this thread that the theory of Expansion as an explanation of gravity has been compellingly discredited. IMHO, The most succinct contradiction of the theory is its failure to predict the outcome of the Cavendish experiment, as discussed in post #45 and may others.

 

To my knowledge, no experimental prediction of the theory that has been tested has not been shown to be incorrect.

[Buffy]

There isn't a single person on the planet that knows what the 'surface gravity' of Jupiter is or for that matter the density.

I know that McC hides behind the fact that his theory insists that we cannot know "surface gravity" until we touch the surface, so maybe Jupiter isn't a great example.

 

But you know what? We have been to Mars. Mars's density is about 3/4 that of Earth's. If you take its surface gravity and divide it by the mass, you get exactly the same ratio as you do for the similar computation of earth. If you ignore the mass and use only the radius, they don't match. Now you can try to argue that we "don't know the actual mass or density of the Earth or Mars" but you can't argue that we don't know their radii, and these numbers don't match the accellerometer data and experiments looking for gravitational anomalies that have been on various of the Mars landers.

 

The bottom line is that unless you just plain disbelieve the actual data we have from several planets, and our moon, density does indeed have an effect on perceived "gravity" and if you start including density in the ratio of how you expand objects to account for this difference, the radii are going to start differing. You can keep the size and the density proportional, but one or the other has to change by a different proportion if you're going to see the right "gravity."

We can't see the surface of jupiter much less measure either its surface gravity or its mass.

While we can't "land" on Jupiter in the traditional sense, we can make lots of measurements of specrum of light and we have both data from Galileo's probe that entered Jupiter's atmosphere in 1995 as well as visible observational data from Shoemaker-Levy 9 entering its atmosphere in 1994, which give us lots of data (again not using Newton) about its constituent elements. Since we know these elements well from direct observation on earth, all we need to do is measure their weights and multiply times the size of Jupiter using the formula for volume (again, not relying on Newton), and the numbers all match up.

 

It does have a core of some kind, but this "surface" is somewhat pointless to consider, and most astrophysicists use the "sea level" being the point at which the density of the atmosphere becomes liquid. I believe even McC grants that his mechanism works for boats floating on water, and again the afformentioned direct experimentation and observation do bear out predicted "sea level" there. The Galileo probe did not get that far, so you can still hide behind this argument I guess, but it still doesn't explain data from landers on the Moon, Venus, and Mars taken by direct observation. Is there a justification for denying the validity of this data that you can provide?

 

We all sound skeptical because there seem to be these endless excuses that the data is wrong, or its built on invalid assumptions or its not "obtainable," when clearly the data is available, and it can be cross-checked *without* the assumptions. So again, unless you can show why these conclusions are really "wrong" its hard to even try to engage you in this discussion. Calling people names and saying "you're just wrong" doesn't really cut it in science.

 

Computing for the truth,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

You're obfuscating again Beorseun. One thing at a time here. There isn't a single person on the planet that knows what the 'surface gravity' of Jupiter is or for that matter the density. We can't see the surface of jupiter much less measure either its surface gravity or its mass.

Okay - surface as in Buffy's 'sea level'? Fine - let's stick to that, then.

We shot Voyagers 1&2 past Jupiter (and a few others, but let's stick to the Voyagers). We knew exactly what they weigh. Their flight paths out of the galaxy are changed by a quite few degrees after passing Jupiter. This was predicted by using centuries old formulas and calculations given to us by brain-boxes like Newton and Kepler. The extent to which their paths have changed, fits in exactly with calculations made before launch which factored in Jupiter's mass. If there isn't a single person who knows what Jupiter's mass/gravity/density conditions were, Voyager's 'grand tour' of the Solar System would have been simply impossible. NASA don't launch based on hunches or guesses.

 

Jupiter's mass is such that it's barycenter actually lies outside the surface of the sun. This can be seen through fine measurements of its orbit. Jupiter's dimensions can be (and have been) measured. So, we know its mass and we know its physical dimensions. Hence, we know its density. All of this plugs into exactly calculating spacecraft paths changing after flyby.

 

Don't tell me that we don't know any of the above. We do. And McCutcheon doesn't cater for any single one of these discrepancies.

We back into those 'facts' through formulas and assumptions and pull a number out of our ***.

Come on, Steve, do you seriously believe that NASA stands in front of congress every year, asking for money based on numbers pulled out of their collective ***? If that's the case, they've been extremely lucky, because they've been pulling the correct number out, year after year, for quite a few decades, now.

If that's the facts you are talking about, find other ones because they don't work. But you can't jump to different 'reasons' here without facing the one you're running from: that different sized objects will stay the same relative size. You won't face that because that puts doubt on your other 'facts'.

I honestly can't discuss this further with you. My problem is this: If different-sized object will stay the same relative size, then their measured densities must be the same. What of the last sentence don't you understand? I'm not running away from anything here, all I'm saying is that you don't seem to be able to refute these inconsistencies to McCutcheon's theory. So I'm not sure whether you're not running away, or whether you're simply not understanding what we're trying to say here.

Your arguments are broken Beorseun, not McCutcheon's theory. So leave the discussion or start being honest.

Sheesh...

 

You have not come up with a single refutation of any of my arguments since I started participating in this thread almost two years ago. I fail to see how any of my objections in this thread (and there have been quite a few) are defective, without proper refutation. I make some sort of comment that maybe slice a little too close to the bone, and the thread dies for months on end - no reply. Then, months down the line, some newbie stumbles over the thread, and the whole cycle starts again.

 

Steve - you seem to be defending this topic quite strongly. And you said that you've been in contact with McCutcheon. What's the chances of getting him here for a chat?

 

...and it's BOERseun, by the way...

[infamous]

Your arguments are broken Beorseun, not McCutcheon's theory. So leave the discussion or start being honest.

Actually Steve, you should reconsider making demands upon our staff members. Beorseun has been given the responsibility of moderator and telling him to leave is not acceptable. I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, it's only an attempt on my part to settle things down a bit. It might be healthy for you to give this thread a rest for a while. Understand, I'm not requiring you take this action but I do think it may help to clear the air. You are free to make that choice yourself, but think about it for a while. If you allow the heat of discussion to coax yourself into poor behavior, it will only end up causing you more grief. You can always return when things have settled down a tad.

 

......................................Infy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Infy, I'm taking your suggestion.

And, incidentally, McC has never said that the calculations used to guide spacecraft don't work. They do work. He has never said that Kepler, Newton and Einstein were fools, he has in fact never denegrated them at all. To suggest that he has, is damn near slanderous.

What McC points out is that we can make models that work. They do. But the underlying physics might not be understood at all.

I'll come back when we have valid rules of engagement. Until then, it's just gang warfare. It might help to split the subject up but not if we don't have other rules governing behavior coming along with it.

[tarajee]

The starting point is “An apple falls from the branch of apple tree and it comes down towards earth” WHY the only possible answers to be fitted correctly here are simply two. One is that the earth attracts the matter, while the second possibility is that the apple was pushed towards earth. The third possibility narrated in the book “The final theory” is expansion theory. According to the writer every atom is expanding and this makes the things to come near to or collide with each other. You can apply here a common sense how it is possible that an apple gets expansion only towards earth side, while it remains the same from other three sides. The branch of the tree also remains constant WHY. A fired bullet reaches the target within no time. The fired bullet expands towards target only. The theory does not explain why the other three sides of the bullet remain the same. There are so many other fair objections which need proper answer. The discussion does not come to an end as yet. Tarajee.

[InfiniteNow]

Two words: Testable Predictions.

 

 

<-- Open minded, but tired of nonsense.

[sirbola]

I last commented here in Jan 2005. Nothing seems to have changed. I am still waiting for a Scientific Organization or an Academic Organization to acknowledge the existence of the book and its contents. As a theory it is very hard to swallow but that does not mean it is wrong. A proposed experiment or experiments to test the theory would be nice. I have not found any in this thread, has anyone ? Until then I am going back to reading Wolframs " A NEW SCIENCE" for the "latest" Final Theory". Only up to Page 110 so far.

[Buffy]

A proposed experiment or experiments to test the theory would be nice. I have not found any in this thread, has anyone ?

Sure, but its up to Mr. McCutcheon or one of his followers to propose one. My understanding is that we're not allowed to know if there is one unless we buy the book.

Until then I am going back to reading Wolframs " A NEW SCIENCE" for the "latest" Final Theory". Only up to Page 110 so far.

This thread is collapsing under its own weight. If you want to discuss Wolfram, open a new thread please!

 

The weight of dreck is astounding,

Buffy

[viscount aero]

I last commented here in Jan 2005. Nothing seems to have changed. I am still waiting for a Scientific Organization or an Academic Organization to acknowledge the existence of the book and its contents.

 

no such acknowledgment will come from on high such as this. why would the establishment church of science efface itself by even recognizing the book? that would draw too much attention to the theory, potentially revealing to many more of the masses the self-contradictory theories of standard cosmology. that is the last thing on earth the clergy wants.

[viscount aero]

The fired bullet expands towards target only. The theory does not explain why the other three sides of the bullet remain the same.

 

you must not completely understand the theory. the whole bullet expands. all sides expand. never is it stated in the theory otherwise.

[Buffy]

no such acknowledgment will come from on high such as this. why would the establishment church of science efface itself by even recognizing the book? that would draw too much attention to the theory, potentially revealing to many more of the masses the self-contradictory theories of standard cosmology. that is the last thing on earth the clergy wants.

We're happy to talk about it here! We've kept this thread open for ages! Obviously *this* clergy isn't afraid of it.

 

Its sad of course that if you read this thread to see that the primary "supporting arguments" presented here for The Final Theory comes down to little more than these same arguments attacking "the scientific clergy" and "closed-mindedness" and "its simply *obvious* to anyone that the current theories are self contradictory," and worst, "I can't explain it, you just have to buy the book."

 

C'mon, Rush! Join the fun! Give us your best shot! You're not a *fraidy cat* are you?

 

Dinking pseudo-scientific ditto-heads,

Buffy

[Tormod]

I last commented here in Jan 2005. Nothing seems to have changed. I am still waiting for a Scientific Organization or an Academic Organization to acknowledge the existence of the book and its contents. As a theory it is very hard to swallow but that does not mean it is wrong.

 

The lack of support from scientists is probably due to the theory not being so final after all, and that there are theories that better explain what we observe.

 

It doesn't have to be wrong - but that still doesn't mean it is correct.

[Erasmus00]

A proposed experiment or experiments to test the theory would be nice. I have not found any in this thread, has anyone

 

Way back when, I actually emailed Mr. McCutcheon about his theory and we had a discussion on an experiment I could run. It was a simple cavendish experiment, slightly modified. The results where null. I report on it earlier in the thread.

-Will

[viscount aero]

We're happy to talk about it here! We've kept this thread open for ages! Obviously *this* clergy isn't afraid of it.

 

Its sad of course that if you read this thread to see that the primary "supporting arguments" presented here for The Final Theory comes down to little more than these same arguments attacking "the scientific clergy" and "closed-mindedness" and "its simply *obvious* to anyone that the current theories are self contradictory," and worst, "I can't explain it, you just have to buy the book."

 

C'mon, Rush! Join the fun! Give us your best shot! You're not a *fraidy cat* are you?

 

Dinking pseudo-scientific ditto-heads,

Buffy

 

who is Rush?

 

what is a major point(s) of discontent concerning the final theory that riles ardent pom-pom waivers of standard theory? i've posted in here ages ago, but am late to the party about this time. i'm not going to read the entire 500 pages of this thread to catch up.

 

so throw out something. we can debate it clergy-to-heretic. regardless if McCutcheon is on to something true, our standard models are highly flawed regardless.

 

for example, science wants so badly to find "gravitons" and "gravity waves." to me, this is looking for leprechauns and lucky charms.