The Final Theory

[johnfp]

Okay - just thought about this one, for all the die-hard McCutcheonites out there:

 

Take a pound of cheese, say, 1 foot across. Weigh it, make sure it weighs a pound.

 

Take it to a tall building. Ride the elevator to the highest floor. Weigh your cheese again. Take it to the beach, at sea leavel - weigh your cheese once more.

 

Contrary to what NASA might tell you with all their experience, the cheese should weigh more on top of the building than it does at the beach, because it now experiences the expansion of Earth plus the expansion of the building. On the beach it'll weigh less because the distance from the expansion center is less.

 

Reams and reams of data (free of charge, I might add) tells us that this is simply not the case. Make your peace with it. If McCutcheon contained any resemblance to a workable theory, you would have had a measurably heavier cheese.

 

This theory is such utter bollocks, I can't believe people are still taking it serious.

 

Go read another book, there are a lot of con artists, nutcases and fruitcakes in general battling for your $30.

 

Humm, let's see. If we look at classical theories, then the cheese on top of the building should weigh less due to the pull of gravity from the moon because it is closer to the moon. But due to the increase in mass of the building it should weight more (you make up the mass of the building). I am sure you can arrive at some number but it will be so small it cannot be measured. In fact in most of these examples in classical problems the mass of the building and the distance to the moon is thrown out because they are said to be negligible on an earth with uniform density. I doubt this can even be physically measured. What numbers do you arrive at? What negligible assumption have you made?

 

But we all agree if a factor is negligible (whatever that means) let's just throw it out to make our real life experiences work to our equations.

 

I personally love the book and will need to read it a second time (probably a third). To me it is well worth the $30 to hear a fresh logical unified theory.

 

The funny thing is, most scientists agree and accept that the universe (again what is that) is expanding but will not open their mind to the theory that the atom is expanding? Go figure.

[Boerseun]

Humm, let's see. If we look at classical theories, then the cheese on top of the building should weigh less due to the pull of gravity from the moon because it is closer to the moon.

Or, of course, heavier when the moon is on the other side of the Earth. Where's the moon in your example? And, yes, it happens. It's called tides.

But due to the increase in mass of the building it should weight more (you make up the mass of the building). I am sure you can arrive at some number but it will be so small it cannot be measured. In fact in most of these examples in classical problems the mass of the building and the distance to the moon is thrown out because they are said to be negligible on an earth with uniform density.

No, not quite. The gravitational pull of objects on the scale of buildings is quite readily measurable. Matter of fact, torsion bar experiments measure the gravitational pull of objects as mundane as, say, lead balls.

I doubt this can even be physically measured. What numbers do you arrive at? What negligible assumption have you made?

Give nthe above, I doubt you know enough of classical theory to debunk it, using McCutcheon as your guide. He seems to have suffered the same ailment. Luckily, it's easily solved by a quick trip to your local library. Go to the Science section.

But we all agree if a factor is negligible (whatever that means) let's just throw it out to make our real life experiences work to our equations.

Not quite. Factors being negligible to the scale of everyday occurences, might be "ignored" for the sake of the immediate calculation. Like, for instance, Newtonian solutions works beautifully when you work in everyday circumstances. But, when velocities increase to a certain point, Newton simply doesn't cut it anymore, and you have to employ Einsteinian relativity to get the solution.

Why the block of cheese on the skyscraper is important, is because it speaks to the very essence of McCutcheon's "Expansion". Simply because the cheese is further away from the center of the Earth, the "centre of expansion", and is experiencing the uniform "expansion" of the Earth plus the expansion of the skyscraper, it should "weigh" more on top of the skyscraper than what it would weigh in the lobby. Because the building is expanding. It must weigh more on top, otherwise McCutcheon would fall flat on his face. By whatever negligible amount, it has to. And it could be easily calculated, given the distance from the surface to the Earth's core, and the height of the building. This is simply not an amount which could be "ignored", it's the actual number that this experiment is looking for.

I personally love the book and will need to read it a second time (probably a third). To me it is well worth the $30 to hear a fresh logical unified theory.

Yes, it's always interesting to read up on alternative exlanations for what we consider to be the "Truth" in Science. But Science doesn't ask an entrance fee - scientific theories belong in the public domain. Being charged a $30 fee to read up on why the world is the way it is, is ludicrous. Besides, this theory is not logical in the least. We have logically thrashed this theory in this thread - I recommend you take some time and rather read this entire thread than waste your time by reading the book again. The simple premise "Gravity is Expansion", is logically wrong, to begin with. Starting just with that sentence, the whole theory falls apart when you take it a bit further, by using the stuffing between your ears. How, for instance, does it cater for planetary orbits, if you take gravity out of the equation? Why, for instance, isn't the planets touching shoulder-to-shoulder in a universe where all atoms are permanently expanding? Also, big things will simply have to get bigger at a higher rate than smaller things. That's a mathematical LOGICAL conclusion to the base premise, which also debunks it, 'cause its clearly not happening. Then, using the proven expansion of space as the base reason why the planets aren't touching, as a few pro-McCutcheonites have tried in this thread, doesn't cut muster either - use a calculator and prove it to yourself. A thing consisting of two units will expand to eight units in a volumetric doubling (cubed), but a thing consisting of ten units, will expand to a thousand units in the same volumetric expansion. The difference is that the distance from their collective centers to their surfaces won't change in the same ratio. So, a big ball will grow bigger much faster than a small ball will "expand". This is obviously not happening.

The funny thing is, most scientists agree and accept that the universe (again what is that) is expanding but will not open their mind to the theory that the atom is expanding? Go figure.

No, not "go figure", but simply interpreting what the data tells us.

 

McCutcheon doesn't have the first idea how Science works. That is crystal clear in the first and free chapter in his snake-oil manual. Yet he tries to debunk it by appealling to the general public's scientific illiteracy. And he does this very charmingly: "The REAL Theory that SCIENTISTS don't want you to know about!"

Like it's some kind of conspiracy theory keeping the real stuff away from us mere mortals.

 

Poppycock.

 

He appeals to the general public's illiteracy in scientific matters in order to swindle good and kind people, like you, out of $30.

 

And that's the long, the tall, the width, the length, the breadth and the depth of "The Final Theory".

 

It's total crap and utter rubbish. Sorry, but you wasted your money.

[johnfp]

Well, I have to say, it sounds as if you have not read the book or each questions you pose would be have been answered already.

 

Furthermore, papers and journals are consistantly published by houses such as OSA. To obtain this material you need to purchase the publications which are $10 $30 a pop for a few pages. So it is normal in the scientific community to pay for knowledge. Believe me I know, I have a finding published with OSA and I cannot even post specifics about the publication's content or I will infringe upon their copywrite that I wrote. What a crock, I will never do that again.

 

Lastly, I assume McCutcheon tried to get support in the scientific community and could not. He wrote and published his theory in the method he did to insure it was documented somewhere that it was his theory. I doubt he became a millionaire because of his book.

 

It boggles my mind that if you read the book, you cannot find one single point that actually makes sense to you. Your mind is so closed that you dismiss the entire book based on misunderstandings on your part about a small explaination detailed in the book.

 

I seriously doubt you read the book.

 

And I must add, it surely was not a a waste of money and I would have paid $60 for it. Maybe I should buy you a copy! B)

[Boerseun]

Well, I have to say, it sounds as if you have not read the book or each questions you pose would be have been answered already.

Nope. I didn't read the book, and don't intend to. Life's too short to gargle with snake oil.

Furthermore, papers and journals are consistantly published by houses such as OSA. To obtain this material you need to purchase the publications which are $10 $30 a pop for a few pages. So it is normal in the scientific community to pay for knowledge. Believe me I know, I have a finding published with OSA and I cannot even post specifics about the publication's content or I will infringe upon their copywrite that I wrote. What a crock, I will never do that again.

Forgive me for jumping to conclusions, but I really doubt that you have published anything scientific. That implies that you are knowledgable as far as science goes. And if you hold any truth to McCutcheon, you're the one and only scientist in the world who does. McCutcheon have been ripped to pieces by the Scientific world, not because they're closed to new theories, but because McCutcheon is pseudo-science - or, in the vernacular, utter bullshit. So - please tell me more about your published findings. Nobody has any copyright on findings of any scientific nature, my friend - people building applications and inventions based on scientific findings and scientific principles, however, have copyright and patent rights on the inventions. So, tell me more of your "findings". Please.

Lastly, I assume McCutcheon tried to get support in the scientific community and could not.

For some reason I will not be surprised in the least, if this was the case. If he took it to serious scientists in the peer-review mechanism, they would laugh him out of the building. I think that might just be what happened. That's prolly why McCutcheon supporters take so harshly to criticism. Read the entire thread, and you'll see what I mean.

He wrote and published his theory in the method he did to insure it was documented somewhere that it was his theory. I doubt he became a millionaire because of his book.

That would have been noble of him, if that was indeed the case. Yet, his entire approach reeks of commercial pursuit. Enticing a people to buy the book by dangling a free first chapter in the faces, a first chapter which, by the way, includes no science, but a completely unscientific debunking of principles which he himself doesn't even understand (as is crystal clear in the first chapter which I have, indeed, read). This, my friend, is classic snake oil.

It boggles my mind that if you read the book, you cannot find one single point that actually makes sense to you.

I have not, and indeed, will not, read this book. His entire premise consist of every atom "Expanding", which is supposed to account for gravity. Yet, as we've tried the pro-McCutcheonites to explain to us in this thread, he simply cannot cater for orbits, not my "cheese-on-a-tower" experiment. Reality doesn't mesh with what should logically happen under a McCutcheonite universe. And whenever we point these utterly obvious faults in the premise (which would invalidate everything else based on this flawed premise, i.e. the entire book), we get this classic reply from pro-McCutcheonites:

Your mind is so closed that you dismiss the entire book based on misunderstandings on your part about a small explaination detailed in the book.

My mind is not closed. I have simply concluded logically that expansion in the McCutcheon sense is impossible, because our daily experience is at odds with predictions made by McCutcheon's theory. Therefore, scratch McCutcheon, let's take at look at the next interesting theory that might shed some light on our universe.

I seriously doubt you read the book.

I seriously doubt that you have read this thread. I think I have said it around 3,116 times in this thread, but just for the record, and just because of the above, let me repeat it:

 

I have not read "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon, and don't intend doing so, because everything based on a faulty premise is wrong. Every conclusion, reasoning, explanation, etc. based on the concept that atoms are physically expanding, is simply wrong, because we've conclusively proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that this expansion is not taking place. It's a geometrical impossibility, the proof and evidence of which Mark McCutcheon seems to be oblivious and dismissive of. Therefore, McCutcheon's only resemblance to a serious scientists is the fact that they both have left legs.

And I must add, it surely was not a a waste of money and I would have paid $60 for it. Maybe I should buy you a copy! B)

No worries, you don't have to. But thanks for the thought. I think you've wasted enough money on this guy as it is.

[johnfp]

Well, I took your advice and read the first 6 pages of this thread.

 

Enough on specifics of this subject until I re-read the book and digest it once again.

 

Let's put the book on hold for now and I wish to add...

 

I guess what has always bothered me is the dual nature of light. I can't cognitively see what that means. It has bothered me since I first read of it many years ago.

 

I make holograms. I take coherent light and split it and recombine it to form a standing wave pattern. I then place a light sensitive material in a volume of this standing wave pattern and record it. But the material needs a particle to react to it, not a wave. In the destructive interference zones the light is acting as a wave and not reacting to the material. In the constructive interference zones the light is acting as a particle and is reacting with the material. In the gray areas in between it is acting as both a wave and a particle and is somewhat reacting with the material.

 

Now back to the book. If I can cognitively picture what is happening in the above paragraph, the book will have surely served its purpose for me. Photons are expanding groups of electrons? Can’t fully see that yet either but I am trying.

 

I have accepted the laws of physics as we know them now because they work so far. I surely am not trying to convince anyone other then myself, that cognitively I wish to see things, I could not before. If this provides me with a better cognitive picture, even if it is a metaphor, of the things I wish to understand, then it works for me.

 

Peace!

[johnfp]

Have you seen this. Look and listen to the animation on the right.

 

http://www.avantgravity.com/3d_gravity.html

[CraigD]

Have you seen this. Look and listen to the animation on the right.

 

Cruz deWilde: Career Portfolio

Though a very nice animation from a clearly experienced 3-D computer graphics producer, the physics of it are, in my judgment, very wanting.

 

Though its maker, Cruz deWilde, states

This [explaining gravity as the expansion of bodies] is not a concept well-suited to written or verbal expression, nor can the story be effectively told with simple diagrams. Richly conveying true multi-dimensional interaction calls for full visual immersion, leaving only one suitable presentation format: stereoscopic animation.

his preliminary video is essentially a spoken monologue with graphics accompaniment. It’s critical error appears about 1/4th of the way in, with the claim

In his famous theory of General Relativity, Einstein claim that gravity results from the fabric of spacetime warping inward in the presence of mass. That's one way of looking at it. Another is that mass expands outward. There's fundamentally no difference, save the choice of perspective.

This is, in essence, the claim McCutcheon makes in his book, “The Final Theory”. The problem is that no contributor to this thread or any other document of which I’m aware has been able to demonstrate, using any sort of math, that it’s true, or even give a sensible narrative description of, say, the orbit of a satellite around its primary. The claim is appealing because it claims to be mathematically simple, yet this math is not provided, and every attempt to do so, such as my own, quickly encounter serious problems.

 

Appealing as the idea of replacing gravitational and other forces with a simple geometric system, it suffers from the serious problem of nobody having managed to actually do it. It appears to me, therefore, that most people who have actually done practical orbital mechanics find the idea worthless, as they can’t figure out how to use it to do practical orbital mechanics, while many people who have not are untroubled by this deficiency, as they feel no need to attempt to use it for any practical application.

[johnfp]

Craig, I hear what you are saying. But did we throw away the theory that light is a particle when we saw it behave as a wave or vise versa? Do we not accept the fact that no matter how hard it is to cognitively visualize something can be a particle and a wave, we do indeed accept it? Do we have to think about the concept of the expanding universe down to the subatomic level while disregarding the formulas and previous theories that work mathematically? Can we not accept both and apply each where it fits best to understand out universe more completely?

 

Why not simply explore the idea with the reservation that while all things are expanding, because our measurement devises expand also, we are not able to apply expanding calculation to our physical world. We have to accept that we are stuck in the "same frame of reference" and thus the formulas we have devised so far can/have to still be used. We cannot step outside this expanding universe to see how physics would apply to the expanding universe based on a non expanding frame of reference.

 

Now, if the current formulas and theories still work even with the concept of the expanding universe, then why adopt an expanding universe theory? I am sure this is what many scholars and professions feel. But it could be that if some, which I am finding out that McCutcheon has supporters that do in fact back his claims, were open minded in this thought process that other new and exciting and revolutionary and unbelievable scientific breakthroughs could be unveiled.

[johnfp]

Actually, I just thought of something. If we studied something that was shrinking at the rate of 9.8m/s^2, wouldn't that be a non expanding entity in an expanding universe and could be used as an "outside" frame of reference to test the theory in more detail?

[freeztar]

Actually, I just thought of something. If we studied something that was shrinking at the rate of 9.8m/s^2, wouldn't that be a non expanding entity in an expanding universe and could be used as an "outside" frame of reference to test the theory in more detail?

 

The key word is "if".

AFAIK, there is no evidence available to support your conjecture.

[CraigD]

Craig, I hear what you are saying. But did we throw away the theory that light is a particle when we saw it behave as a wave or vise versa?

Well, actually, yes. Both purely ballistic theories of light and purely wave (eg: ether) theories were discarded in favor of theories in which all particles (not just photons, but massive particles with relative velocities less than the speed of light) are wave-like and particle-like, theories including the concept of wave–particle duality.

Do we not accept the fact that no matter how hard it is to cognitively visualize something can be a particle and a wave, we do indeed accept it?

Yes – but only because it is possible to make predictions using the formalism of these theories, test them experimentally, and find good agreement. Were modern physics – quantum mechanics – unable to make predictions as testable as the classical mechanics they replace, or if their predictions in no way differed from those of classical mechanics, or if they differed, but were incorrect, these new theories would not have been accepted.

Do we have to think about the concept of the expanding universe down to the subatomic level while disregarding the formulas and previous theories that work mathematically? Can we not accept both and apply each where it fits best to understand out universe more completely?

We can’t accept The Final Theory because the few vague predictions that its proponents (specifically, Mark McCucheon) have made, have failed experimental tests.

Why not simply explore the idea with the reservation that while all things are expanding, because our measurement devises expand also, we are not able to apply expanding calculation to our physical world. We have to accept that we are stuck in the "same frame of reference" and thus the formulas we have devised so far can/have to still be used. We cannot step outside this expanding universe to see how physics would apply to the expanding universe based on a non expanding frame of reference.

TFT predict that all bodies expand in such a way that their relative size remains constant. Were this not the case, the expansion would be very noticeable.

 

It’s mathematically trivial to use this to translate to and from an absolute coordinate system fixed on an observation at an arbitrary time. When you do, however, the following equation for the height [math]h[/math] of a small body falling toward a large one can be derived:

[math]h = \frac{h_0 + r}{b^t} –r[/math] [1]

where [math]h_0[/math] is the body’s height at time [math]t=0[/math], [math]r[/math] the radius of the large body, and [math]b[/math] the expansion factor, (sometimes given as [math]\frac{r_{Earth}+g}{r_{Earth}} \dot= 1.00000153822[/math]).

 

When [math]h_0[/math] is a small fraction of [math]r[/math], we can experimentally observe that [math]h[/math] is nearly given by the uniform acceleration equation for distance,

[math]h = h_0 -\frac{a}{2}t^2[/math] [2]

where [math]a[/math] is the constant acceleration (about 9.8 m/s/s for small values of [math]h_0[/math])

 

The problem is, you can’t get equation [1] to agree with [2], which agrees well with experimental data.

 

This is not advanced math. Select a practical value for [math]h_0[/math], and try to select a value for [math]b[/math] that fits the data. Find one that works for a particular value of [math]t[/math], and the TFT-derived equation gives incorrect predictions for [math]h[/math] for other values of [math]t[/math].

 

You can easily get predictions from the admirably simple idea of the expansion of mass. You just can’t get the theory to correctly predict the observed behavior of the universe. Either bodies change dramatically in relative size, which we don’t observe, (and would regardless of what we use to measure them), or their observed motion follows equations such as [1], which we don’t observe.

 

Expansion is a perfectly good hypothetical model, if one cares to derive it in detail. It just doesn’t agree with observed reality. This is a major drawback for a physics theory.

Now, if the current formulas and theories still work even with the concept of the expanding universe, then why adopt an expanding universe theory?

because they don’t work!

I am sure this is what many scholars and professions feel.

I can only conclude that such scholars have not attempted to reconcile the expanding universe theory given in The Final Theory with scientific observations

But it could be that if some, which I am finding out that McCutcheon has supporters that do in fact back his claims, were open minded in this thought process that other new and exciting and revolutionary and unbelievable scientific breakthroughs could be unveiled.

Where, then, are these backing-ups of McCutcheon’s claims? A very simple example such as the one I give above could be backed up in about as few words and numbers as I used to refute them.

 

Until I’ve seen just one simple example of the support you believe exists, John, I can only conclude it’s a myth. As a lover of mathematical novelty, I’d love to see this theory made to work, but can’t accept it until I have.

[uFollow]

Welcome to hypography, theumpossible :)You ask a difficult question, as people who have read the book but are not of the sort commonly termed “true believer” are, I think, rare.

 

theumpossible: The book presents a cogent, internally consistent "new physics" that in no way relies on religious explanations. The theory, like Standard Theory, may be right or wrong, but it's not religious. Anyone representing otherwise is more than pseudofullofit.

 

The overwhelming consensus at hypography and similar science forums, and among professional scientists, appears to be that “The Final Theory” is pseudoscience.

 

That one may disagree with an idea, find it less than compelling, or fail to understand it no more makes it pseudoscientific than, say, Standard Theory (with which one may disagree, find less than compelling, or fail to understand).

 

Worse, I believe McCutcheon’s interest in writing this book is not scientific, but commercial – that he is promoting and capitalizing on public dissatisfaction with the difficulty of learning conventional science, offering an alternative based on the premise that “if it’s difficult to learn, it must be wrong”.

 

theumpossible: The laws of the universe may remain a mystery, but the economic laws of publishing have been revealed. Yet, the idea that the publication of this book was a commercial enterprise has been a common theme in this thread. It would be hard to dream up a worse way to make money than to write and self-publish a book like "The Final Theory." Such a title might net the author roughly minimum wage (given the time devoted to it) if published by a mainstream house; self-publication turns even that sad math on its head. Financially, this type of book is always a "labor of love"; the supposed financial benefits exist only in the popular imagination.

 

I’d personally recommend against buying the book. This thread, on the other hand, is available free of charge...

 

Eww. Just... eww.

 

theumpossible: If you are open to entertaining a different perspective, and are secure enough to question received wisdom (even if calls into question your own viewpoint-til-now) you'll probably find "The Final Theory" an engaging read, even exciting. And it provides the best example of no-nonsense, straightforward explanations of certain physical phenomena -- including material descriptions of Standard Theory -- that I've ever seen. That it then goes one step further, debunking certain of those phenomena, is what makes some people uncomfortable.

 

That discomfort, more than anything else, recommends the consideration of these ideas.

[Boerseun]

Sadly, uFollow, that's not the case.

 

Every single day I sign on to Hypo, I see a google ad for "The Final Theory: What Scientists Don't Want You To Know!"

 

Google ads cost money.

 

Self-publishers are also self promotors.

 

That all costs money.

 

And no, as you write in your post, he doesn't "debunk" any aspect of Standard Theory. Scientists aren't little evil lechers clutching on to their knowledge with tooth and claw, never letting the common man into their secrets. Scientists live for progress - and progress is only made when proposed theories are falsified. If anything written in "The Final Theory" was credible in the least, the Scientific World would have embraced it, kicked Standard Theory into the dustbin, and boosted McCutcheon to the levels he would deserve.

 

Sadly, that is not the case.

 

Our objection towards McCutcheon's fairy tale isn't the commercial part. That is human, and understandable. It's not very scientific, though. Our main gripe with the guy is that what he proposes, is simply not happening. If you take his "expansion" as your point of departure, the world around you, the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy, everything, simply wouldn't look like they currently do.

 

"Expansion" fails to explain relatively trivial things like orbits. In a world where "Expansion" caters for gravity, moons won't orbit planets, and planets won't orbit stars. A pound of cheese on top of a tower would be heavier than at the base of the tower. Clearly, that is not the case.

 

So - Mark McCutcheon sells snake oil. Pure and simple. And he simply has to self-publish, because none of the peer-reviewed journals will touch this kind of tripe.

 

...and that's about it.

 

If "Expansion" was indeed true, it won't "debunk" Standard Theory - if it was true, it would become Standard Theory, and each and every Scientist on planet Earth would have a massive simultaneous orgasm that the nature of gravity has finally been described.

 

McCutcheon makes a strawman about the average garden variety scientist not wanting to give up his secrets, and not willing to challenge existing knowledge. That is, once again, not how science works, which makes me even more skeptical about the author of "The Final Theory"s understanding of basic science.

 

Scientists live for what Mark McCutcheon is attempting. Nobody would suppress it, as he's claiming.

[phillip1882]

i've decided to try to play devil's avocate here. i don't particurally subscribe to TFT, i consider it possible but unlikely. as for my qualifications, i have a degree in comp. sci., so as you can see this isn't exactly my field of study. never the less, i will do my best to support the thoery of expanding matter, and if you see a flaw, or would like a clarification, i'll try my best to clarify matters.

i would also like to state that i haven't read all the posts, just from page 77 onward. so i apoligize if i'm repeating arguments and the like.

 

firstly lets talk about ocean tides. if ocean tides are entirely caused by the moon's gravity, then why is high tide on the oppisite side of the earth as well? though the moons shoul pull on water on that side as well, it should pull it at a much weaker strength, meaning high tide should be signifcantly less.

TFT claims that the earth wobbles in a 24 hour period, producing two ocean tides, one on each side. if true, his would be more in line with the fact that ocean tides are fairly equal in strength at both times of the day. further, TFT explains that, during the formation of the earth and moon, this earth wobble would be in line with the moon because the inner structure of the earth would be "pulled" tward the moon, giving it an off-center center of mass.

 

secondly lets talk about falling objects. all object fall at a fairly equal rate of speed, this is an undeniable fact. from what i understand, neuton claims that heavier objects are pulled with more force, but they dont fall faster than lighter objects because it takes more force to move them. this seems very odd logic to me. i mean gravity shouldn't be able to pull two objects right next to eacthother with two different amounts of force. with TFT the answer is simple and straightforward, all objects fall equally becuase the suface of the earth is literally rising up to meet them. we can even derive the equation for falling objects directly from this principle of expanding matter. first, let's consider absolute expantion. when two objects double in size, the distance between the two objects is cut by 2. for exapmle consider two circles radius 1, and a discance of 8 radiuses from eachother. after doubling in size each radius will now be two, and the distance between them will be 6 radiuses. however you also have to consider realtive expantion. when two obects double in size, theiie radius increases by that much as well, therefore the disance is futher reduced by half. that is though its 6 smaller radiuses from eachother, its 3 larger radiuses from eachother. form these two obsevations, we can get the equation for falling objects as...

d' = (d0 - 1/2 *ex *n^2 *(R1 +R2))/(1+ex*n^2)

where ex is the expansion rate, n is the amout of time, and R1 and R2 are the two radiuses of the objects. for the earth and a small falling object, this equation essentially becomes...

0 = d0 -a*n^2.

which is precicely the standard equation. however, it has an added bonus of being able to determine what happens when you drop a object into a tunnel through the earth, as n goes to infinity, the object will travel less and less further untill it reaches the center, and stays there, no endless occilation as predicted by newton and einstein.

i also find it interesting that the standard equation doesn't have any sort of force variable in it, i mean if gravity is a force, then it should be a factor in the equation wouldn't you think?

 

i'll stop here for now, give people a chance to reply, and add more later.

[Tom Palmer]

For phillip1882--

 

I am a "retiree" from this thread, but I have to reply to your recent posting. Back in 2005 I had submitted a number of postings, a few of which happen to address concerns you mentioned. You might want to go back and read them.

 

Posting #157 is entitled "The Final Theory - NOT (Part 2)" and deals with the fact that in a vacuum bodies fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

 

Posting #223 is entitled "Origin of the tides," and my follow-up Posting #241 ("Re: The origin of tides") included an explanation of the tidal twin-bulge phenomenon.

 

I would also like to suggest that you read posting #154 ("The Final Theory - NOT"). I hope you find these postings helpful.

 

Best regards.

 

Tom Palmer

[phillip1882]

i greatly apreciate these posts you pointed me to. they were very helpful. i've always had trouble with the "potential energy" aspect of gravity. particually with orbits, as a planets are always in motion, so it seemed to me at least that there really is no potential energy, or at least not enough to constantly keep such a large body in motion. as MC pointed out, gravity is not really thought of as a rechargeable battery, where the further out you go, to more its powered up so it can pull objects in. it seems to me by newtonian physics, in order for an object to change movement, a force must be applied, and in order for force to be applied, either some power source must be expended, or it must be hit with some sort of object. since there hasn't been a discovery of the gravity particle, this leaves the power source option. you seem to claim that potienal enegy, that is how far the object is from the other, is that power source. am i correct in this assumption?

[CraigD]

it seems to me by newtonian physics, in order for an object to change movement, a force must be applied, and in order for force to be applied, either some power source must be expended, or it must be hit with some sort of object. since there hasn't been a discovery of the gravity particle, this leaves the power source option. you seem to claim that potienal enegy, that is how far the object is from the other, is that power source. am i correct in this assumption?

Although a common misunderstanding, this assumption is a simply and profoundly incorrect interpretation of classical physics.

 

The easiest way to see this, I think, is to write and consider the first few fundamental definitions of classical physics:

• Velocity = change in Position divided by change in Time
  
• Acceleration = change in Velocity divided by change in Time
  
• Force = Acceleration times Mass
  
• Work (or Energy) = Force times change in Position
  
• Power = Work divided by change in Time
  

A body in orbit (for the sake of simplicity, let’s for now say a perfectly circular orbit, where the distance between the orbiting body and its barycenter (the center of the circle) is constant, would, at a glance, appear to be under a constant centripetal (“toward the center”) Force, while changing Position, require a constant Power. However, Velocity and Force are both vector quantities. The centripetal component of the Velocity of a circular orbiting body, because the distance between the body and its barycenter does not change, is zero, while all of the force is toward the center, so Work and Power are both zero.

 

However, orbits are not circular, but elliptical, so the centripetal component of their Velocity is not zero, and their power is nonzero and varying. The Work of half of each orbit, however, is exactly equal to the negative of the Work of the other half. Thus, an elliptical orbit is like a rechargeable battery, reaching “100% charge” at apogee, and “0% charge” at perigee. That

gravity is not really thought of as a rechargeable battery

is not an accurate description of classical physics.

 

The chapter of the Final Theory that was at one time available for reading without purchasing the book addresses this by denying that classical physics is correct.