The Final Theory

[viscount aero]

don't give one damn if you buy the book, personally. who cares.

 

Anything stemming from a flawed premise won't fix the flawed premise, if you catch my drift.

 

so you must throw out big bang theory, too. as well as the stretching of the spacetime that is accelerating. you must catch my drift, too. these theories are actually widely considered viable.

[ughaibu]

Poincare posed the question, if everything doubled in size, during the night, would we be able to notice. In the 60s Schlesinger made various responses that are considered to answer this question with "yes". Most noticeably, mercury barometers would explode and pendulum clocks would show a different time from spring wound clocks. Presumably McCutcheon's ideas have already been discredited by Schlesinger.

[viscount aero]

Poincare posed the question, if everything doubled in size, during the night, would we be able to notice. In the 60s Schlesinger made various responses that are considered to answer this question with "yes". Most noticeably, mercury barometers would explode and pendulum clocks would show a different time from spring wound clocks. Presumably McCutcheon's ideas have already been discredited by Schlesinger.

 

you misunderstand the theory, then, if you equate the above with MMc's theory.

[Boerseun]

so you must throw out big bang theory, too. as well as the stretching of the spacetime that is accelerating. you must catch my drift, too. these theories are actually widely considered viable.

I don't give a damn which theory survives or not, or which are displaced by new theories or not. What I do give a damn about, though, is whether those new theories attempting to displace the old ones are qualified to do so by the Scientific Method. If it fails any of the requirements placed upon it by the Scientific Method, it is NOT science, but populist drivel, at best.

 

Big Bang might be wrong, Big Bang might be right. It does, however, have some evidence backing it. It is still a theory, however, and claims to be nothing more. Not even 'Almost Final'. Big Bang is more than willing to be discredited by any other theory. However, the evidence points towards BB.

 

Stretching of Spacetime is, also, simply a theory. But there's a mass of evidence behind it that needs to be adressed by any competing theory.

 

'The Final Theory' fails on both accounts, due to a flawed premise.

 

Fans of McCutcheon and similar 'They're wrong, we have the secret' kinda theories attempt to blame Standard Science as being elitist and being blind towards alternatives and horrified whenever Standard Theory is challenged. This is not the case. Scientists are amazed and awe-struck whenever something we have taken as Truth for hundreds of years are displaced by something else which is a bit closer to the Truth. Science isn't an attempt to educate the masses with simple or easy concepts simply because its intuitive and easy to understand. Simplicity and intuition does not guarantee the Truth, however resonant it might be to our human conceits.

 

Science demands a certain investment in time and effort to come to grips with it. Those unwilling to understand how Science works, will have a hard time debunking it. They are more than willing to try, but a word to the wise: In order to debunk Standard Theory, the Scientific Method must be followed. The Scientific Method has nothing to say about any specific theory or whether Expansion is true and gravity not; what the Scientific Method has to say is how we reached the conclusion about which of the two will take precedence. And this seems to be something which is very hard to understand for McCutcheon's followers.

 

Follow the Method and see where it leads you. Theories come and go, but the Method is cast in stone.

[ughaibu]

Viscount Aero: As I understand it, the basic idea behind this theory is that everything is expanding, what am I misunderstanding?

[viscount aero]

sure, i'm not going to refute that. the Method is good.

 

regardless of how gravity works, it doesn't preclude one iota that i have to rise early tomorrow; so as much fun as this is, i'm going to bed. i will lay down to sleep and gravity, somehow, will keep me there through the night.

 

--later.

[viscount aero]

Viscount Aero: As I understand it, the basic idea behind this theory is that everything is expanding, what am I misunderstanding?

 

right. it is according to theory. stuff doesn't explode and burst out of thermometers, etc. the incredible hulk doesn't burst out of everyone's shirt. it remains stable.

[ughaibu]

In that case you have not appreciated Schlesinger's objection. I have to go out now, I'll find some links for you later, or you could read earlier posts by Boerseun and Erasmus00.

[ughaibu]

I cant find any interesting pages (which is interesting), the idea with the barometers is that they're an interaction of pressure with gravity, and while gravity varies as the square of the factor of expansion, pressure varies as the cube.

[Erasmus00]

it's not his equation. it's an equation that subsequent ones are based upon. that is cited in the book very clearly.

 

Yes, but he is wrong, or simply begin dishonest. Nothing subsequent is based on that equation BECAUSE that equation does not work. Copernicus might have thought that equation worked, Kepler would have known otherwise. It does not fit the data for Mars. The farther the orbit gets from a circle, the less accurate that equation gets.

-Will

[CraigD]

what is a major point(s) of discontent concerning the final theory that riles ardent pom-pom waivers of standard theory?

…

so throw out something [about “The Final Theory”]. we can debate it clergy-to-heretic.

Though I wouldn’t describe my reaction to TFT as one of being riled, I’m unable to find any scientific value in it. For a scientific theory to have value to me (or any scientist or engineer, amateur or professional), it must be able to make predictions about objective phenomena that are at least slightly close to observed data. TFT, specifically, its “Expansion Theory”, does not.

 

Consider the following experiment:

• In an unaccelerated lab (eg: at a Lagrange point),
  
• from the surface of a sphere A of mass 3000 kg, radius 1 m, a sphere B of mass .001 kg, radius .006 m is launched directly upward with a speed of .0005 m/s;
  
• At the same instant, from the opposite side of A, a sphere C of the same mass and radius as B is launched directly upward at .0007 m/s.
  

Classical mechanics predicts, and data (from the observation of less simplified conditions) confirms that we will observe the following:

• At about time 9575 s from launch, B will reach its greatest distance from the surface of A, about 1.6617 m;
  
• At 9575 s, C is about 4.5440 from the surface of A;
  
• At about 19149 s, B is distance 0 from the surface of A – it has fallen back to its launch point;
  
• At 19149 s, C is 8.1863 m from the surface of A;
  
• At any later time, the distance between the surfaces of A and C continues to increase (for example, at 530000 s, C is about 166.91 m from A).
  

The following postulates of ET are necessary to predict the outcome of this experiment:

1. The velocity of bodies (such as B and C) do not change due to gravitational force
   
2. All bodies expand at a uniform rate. Measured against an arbitrary unexpanding reference frame (such as the constant velocity of an body guaranteed by postulate 1), the radius of a sphere of radius [math]r_0[/math] at time will at time t+1 s be [math]r_0k[/math], where [math]k[/math] is a unit-dependent constant.
   

From these postulates, we can describe the distance [math]d[/math] between the spheres in the experiment in terms of time from launch [math]t[/math], and calculate [math]k[/math]:

[math]d = d_0 +v_0 t –(r_A+r_B)k^t[/math],

where [math]d_0[/math] is the initial distance between 2 spheres (A and B or A and C),

[math]v_0[/math] is their relative velocity at [math]t=0[/math],

and [math]r_A+r_B[/math] is the sum of the spheres radii.

 

Solving for [math]k[/math] using the observed values for A and B at [math]t=19149[/math]

[math]0 = 0 +.0005 m/s \cdot 19149 s –1 m \cdot k^{19149}[/math],

[math]k \dot= 1.00011798196[/math]

 

Using the distance equation to solve for distance [math]d[/math] between A and C at [math]t=19149[/math],

[math]d = 0 +.0007 m/s \cdot 19149 s – 1 m \cdot k^19149 \dot= 3.8298 m[/math]

 

However, the observed distance [math]d[/math] between A and C at [math]t=19149[/math] is 9.1863 m.

 

Also, the distance equation predicts that C will eventually fall back to its launch point on A, contradicting classical mechanics, Relativity, and huge amounts of observed data, which predict and confirm that it will never do so, leading critics of ET to complain “escape velocity is impossible in ET”.

 

Expansion Theory makes perfectly legitimate, but perfectly incorrect, scientifically predictions. It is falsifiable, and has been falsified.

 

Although a theory that proposes to replace all of the difficult and complicated principles and formalism of previous theories with a few easy-to-visualize principles is very attractive, the failure of such a theory to accurately describe reality is a cause for ultimate discontentment. Supporting a theory that has been experimentally falsified is not an act of scientific inquiry, but of either unreasoning faith, or fraudulent commercial self interest.

[viscount aero]

The velocity of bodies (such as B and C) do not change due to gravitational force

 

could you explain this in another way...

[CraigD]

The velocity of bodies (such as B and C) do not change due to gravitational force

could you explain this in another way...

Yes.

 

To the best of my understanding, according to Expansion Theory, bodies at rest or in motion are not effected by gravitational force – classical fields, curved space-time, exchanges of “gravitons”, etc. - as predicted by most theories of physics. Instead, the apparent acceleration and force due to gravity is the result of the bodies uniformly increasing their size (an effect that can’t be directly measured, because all “measuring sticks” are expanding at an identical rate), thus reducing the apparent distance between them. If no other force acts upon a body, it will remain at rest or in uniform motion – its velocity will be unchanged, when measured by a clock and an absolute, unexpanding measuring stick (which cannot physically exist, only be calculated) – even though it appears to be experiencing a gravitational force and acceleration toward another body.

[viscount aero]

sure. and any gravitational effects, ie, apparent "pulling into" another object [as seen in gravity assist manoeuvres, for example] is due to the smaller expanding object approaching the near vicinity of the larger expanding one, creating a partial orbit. this exact effect is seen here by throwing a rock up to the sky, it slows, peaks, turns back, then continues to accelerate more and more and more until hitting the ground. this is the underpinning of the "natural orbit effect."

 

all of the "at a distance" type of "gravitational effects" remain, but for reasons not due to pulling in to a body due to an inherent gravity force directly related to mass.

[Boerseun]

all of the "at a distance" type of "gravitational effects" remain, but for reasons not due to pulling in to a body due to an inherent gravity force directly related to mass.

Poppycock. Not a single coherent internally consistent explanation of 'Expansion Theory' have come to the fore in the last couple 'o hundred posts, so far. It's crap. End of story.

[pgrmdave]

[Buffy]

sure. and any gravitational effects, ie, apparent "pulling into" another object [as seen in gravity assist manoeuvres, for example] is due to the smaller expanding object approaching the near vicinity of the larger expanding one, creating a partial orbit.

But if its solely based on expansion, then we would not see different curves based solely on the proximity of one object to the other. What we observe in reality is that the closer an object is as it goes by, the more it curves.

 

Still looking for an equation that does not include G that models this effect.

all of the "at a distance" type of "gravitational effects" remain, but for reasons not due to pulling in to a body due to an inherent gravity force directly related to mass.

You have to support this statement. Just saying this results in the derision you see in the previous two posts.

 

Still waiting,

Buffy