Atomic Expansion Theory & Gravitation: The Final Theory?
cinquirer
Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf
(the first chapter of the book... read it... it's fun)
Let me give brief description of what the new theory is all about.
The universe is infinite right? So it doesn't matter how big an object
is because since the universe is infinite, it can be any size and you
don't have frame or reference.
Imagine hyperspace is inside particles (see the post "Hyperspace
Inside each Particle? where I got the idea from him) affecting the
nucleus as a whole and this space outside we know are just creation of
the hyperspace inside particles and nucleus and hyperspace in the
universe infinity. So space is just relative and not primary
and the space inside atom is not what we understood it. Since
hyperspace is the core of reality and space just the side effect. Then
the atoms hyperspace particles are expanding. And it's pushing out
space (maybe the hyperspace inside particles is being attracted to
the hyperspace at the universe infinity? This is just my guess as I
haven't understood the principle so well. For those who read it and
have other thoughts. Pls share it).
Anyway. What the book basically says is that entire planet earth is
expanding as well as the rest of matter in the universe.
Since human is smaller and the earth bigger. The earth expands
faster compared to humans. So what we feel as gravity is
not us being attracted to the ground. But simply the ground
reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions. When we jump from
airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
is hitting our body. Also the protons don't fly apart in the nucleus
because the particles are expanding too so it's maintening the core
and the space in the nucleus is not linear or something like that.
He is basically saying that gravitation, strong force are not needed,
even the others. When I first read the book. I have to laught out
loud. But the book length of more than 400 pages explain every
scenerio from orbits to electromagnetic field. All your thoughts of
the contradiction and possible conflict of other scientific principles
is addressed in the book. For those who have read it. Let's find
any major flaw that can debunk everything. The following are the
comments of people in sci.physics who have read it. But unfortunately,
the discussions die down because they don't want to start debating
as it's gonna be very long as it involves the entire principles of
physics. Let note we can learn so much if we can debunk it.
The following are the comments of 3 people in sci.physics who read it.
1st person comments:
"I purchased and read The Final Theory a couple of months ago hoping
for a good challenge in finding the flaws of another theory and
finding the discrepancies that will prove it false and contradicting.
Instead, i found myself using an entirely different standard with
which to view the universe. Obvious but overlooked or ignored flaws in
today's Standard Theory are exposed and corrected. Fundamental
mysteries such as magnetism, electricity, and gravity are explained
and their causes made known. The theory p resented by the author is a
solid and extremely thought-provoking concept. There is nothing overly
complex. Everything is simple and makes perfect sense. This book is
well worth getting just for the way it will make you review all the
laws and theories we've grown up with and accepted, some for
centuries. Either you will find the Standard Theory reinforced as it
defends the laws at its core, or you will find a new way to view the
everyday fundamentals of the univers e. Either way its worth the
read."
2nd person comments:
"I have read the book. This not a book of fiction or crazy ideas. It
presents a theory that very well possibly could one day shatter
standard theory currently in use. It solves mysteries of outer space
and even a few mysteries with Pioneer spacecraft. It utterly brings
down Grand Unified Theoritical work of last several decades. I first
bought the book to read out of curiousity. However after reading it
and thinking over it and testing a few ideas I have been unable to
find any flaw with it. Sciences curren t description of the 4 forces
(gravity, electro-magnetism, Weak Nuclear Force, Strong Nuclear Force)
have been flawed for years. Final Theory shows how much these forces
are not understood by science today. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Super
String, GUTS, Big Bang, Antimatter, and more are exposed as the flawed
theories they have always been. The very nature of matter and atoms
have been overlooked for the last century, but this book shows why
this has happened. Implicati ons of this new theory are huge. Finally,
it brings new questions about origins of matter and energy in all of
the universe. This book is a must read for anyone who claims to love
science and seeks answers for physical laws function as they do."
3rd person comments:
" For everyone that always ask what "The Theory of Everything" should
be make an effort to get your hands on a book by Mark McCutcheon, The
final Theory. It is a masterful paradigm shift that deserves a closer
look. If you are man or woman enough to admit that there are serious
flaws in the existing Standard Model and all its subset of models from
General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics, then you will do everything
you can to get your hands on The Final Theory, your life will never be
the same again. No dou bt, there will be many questions that will
arise from his book but his proposed model goes a long way further in
explaining everyday existence than all the other models put together.
The model presented is logical and simple, just the way it should be
without elaborate and fancy postulates, mathematical models and
abstract thinking that cannot even be comprehended by the Einsteins'
and Hawkings' of this world. It may not be the final theory of
everything, but it presents a quantum lea p (of several magnitude s)
in thinking that is bound to change the physical representation of our
Universe forever. The question is, are you prepared to be left behind
or are you prepared to let go of your paradigms and be at the
forefront of the new science."
Rich
cinquirer replied:
> Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
> Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
>
> http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
>
> http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf
> (the first chapter of the book... read it... it's fun)
>
> Let me give brief description of what the new theory is all about.
>
> The universe is infinite right?
Is it? Upon what do you base this conjecture?
> So it doesn't matter how big an object
> is because since the universe is infinite, it can be any size and you
> don't have frame or reference.
Unless you compare to things *in* the universe, which you can do whether
the universe is finite or infinite.
[...]
Rich
Uncle Al
>
> Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
> Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
McCutcheon failed freshman physics and has been bitter ever since.
Not more educated, either. If empirical observation says you are an
ass, you are an empirical ass.
> Imagine hyperspace is inside particles
[snip]
Hey stooopid - leptons are point particles.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
John Sefton
Uncle Al wrote:
> cinquirer wrote:
>
>>Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
>>Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
>
> [snip]
>
> McCutcheon failed freshman physics and has been bitter ever since.
> Not more educated, either. If empirical observation says you are an
> ass, you are an empirical ass.
>
>
>>Imagine hyperspace is inside particles
>
> [snip]
>
> Hey stooopid - leptons are point particles.
So's your brain, at least from
far enough away that we can't smell you.
:-)
cinquirer
> cinquirer wrote:
> >
> > Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
> > Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
> [snip]
>
> McCutcheon failed freshman physics and has been bitter ever since.
> Not more educated, either. If empirical observation says you are an
> ass, you are an empirical ass.
I'd be very glad if he is wrong. He doesn't believe in the Aether
and Qi. His model is incomplete as it doesn't explain the other
riches of reality. The complete theory would may need some of his
theories such as our space size being not relative to anything sorta
like Einstein concept of special relativity where frame of reference
is important in measurement and where speed of light is the limit.
Why is speed of light the limit and why does measurement changes
when frame of reference is altered. Could Superspace or Hyperspace
conspire to limit the speed of light to the speed of light. But
then some people (EL?) believes Einstein stuff may hoax although
I'd be glad if it is real, at least we can produce theories around
Einstein that would explain Qi (such as Tiller).
Try to sleep now. Old one with brain as fix as a machintosh, are you
an android?
>
> > Imagine hyperspace is inside particles
> [snip]
>
> Hey stooopid - leptons are point particles.
But not quarks. This is the cornerstone of Superstring Theory.
c
Joe Fischer
>Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
>Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
>
>http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
>
>http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf
>(the first chapter of the book... read it... it's fun)
>
>Let me give brief description of what the new theory is all about.
>[snip
>Anyway. What the book basically says is that entire planet earth is
>expanding as well as the rest of matter in the universe.
Does the author give any credit or references to others
who have proposed this?
>Since human is smaller and the earth bigger. The earth expands
>faster compared to humans. So what we feel as gravity is
>not us being attracted to the ground. But simply the ground
>reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions.
Are you sure that is what the book says?
>When we jump from
>airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
>up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
>is hitting our body. Also the protons don't fly apart in the nucleus
>because the particles are expanding too so it's maintening the core
>and the space in the nucleus is not linear or something like that.
Surely to be worth publishing, the book has to say more than
that.
The Divergent Matter model has been discussed here and
in other newsgroups and on other networks for at least 15 years,
and has been in print in copyrighted publications in 1964 and
1970.
Also, I seem to remember another book with something
like Dreams of a Final Theory in the title.
JoKE Fischer
cinquirer
Greene's The Elegant Universe. So I was exposed to the idea that the
space in the very small can have more than 3 dimensions, or the
Calabi-Yau space. What strange space/time laws rule in such small
space? Since external space (the world as we know) is defined by atoms
(whose quark constitutions may be constructed by strings with higher
dimensions that may cause chances in local space continuum in the
nucleus vicinity). Then our space outside of atom may not have the
same space as inside. Mccutcheon didn't use the above analogy nor
mention anything about Superstrings. But use other principles where
he attempts to explain why atoms expand and how it gives rise to
our gravity as the larger size of the earth reach us. I was
contemplating what strange space/time laws may rule inside and
especially considering that particles may be vortexes in hyperspace
or even black holes or sorta(?). Anyway, the following reference to
it by Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe may give a good perspective.
http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/vision1/calabi_yau_space.JPG
"The Physical Implications of Extra Dimensions
Years of research, dating back to Kaluza's original paper, have shown
that even though any extra dimensions that physicists propose must be
smaller than we or our equipment can directly 'I see" (since we
haven't seen them), they do have important indirect effects on the
physics that we observe. In string theory, this connection between the
microscopic properties of space and the physics we observe is
particularly transparent.
To understand this, you need to recall that masses and charges of
particles in string theory are determined by the possible resonant
vibrational string patterns. Picture a tiny string as it moves and
oscillates, and you will realize that the resonant patterns are
influenced by its spatial surroundings. Think, for example, of ocean
waves. Out in the grand expanse of the Open, ocean, isolated wave
patterns are relatively free to form and travel this way or that. This
is much like the vibrational patterns of a string as it moves thru
large, extended spatial dimensions. As in Chapter 6, such a string
is equally free to oscillate in any of the extended directions at any
moment. But if an ocean wave passes through a more cramped spatial
environment, the detailed form of its wave motion will surely be
affected by, for example, the depth of the water, the placement and
shape of the rocks encountered, the canals through which the water is
channeled, and so on. Or, think of an organ pipe or a French horn. The
sounds that each of these instruments can produce are a direct
consequence of the resonant patterns of vibrating air streams in their
interior; these are determined by the precise size and shape of the
spatial surroundings within the instrument through which the air
streams are channeled. Curled-up spatial dimensions have a similar
impact on the possible vibrational patterns of a string. Since tiny
strings vibrate through all of the spatial dimensions, the precise way
in which the extra dimensions are twist ed up a nd curled back on each
other strongly influences and tightly constrains the possible resonant
vibrational patterns. These patterns, largely determined by the
extradimensional geometry, constitute the array of possible particle
properties observed in the familiar extended dimensions. This means
that extradimensional geometry determines fundamental Physical
attributes like particle masses and charges that we observe in the
usual three large space dimensions of c ommon experience.
This is such a deep and important point that we say it once again,
with feeling. According to string theory, the universe is made up of
tiny strings whose resonant patterns of vibration are the microscopic
origin of particle masses and force charges. String theory also
requires extra space dimensions that must be curled up to a very small
size to be consistent with our never having seen them. But a tiny
string can probe a tiny space. As a string moves about, oscillating as
it travels, the geometrical form o f the extra dimensions plays a
critical role in determining resonant patterns of vibration. Because
the patterns of string vibrations appear to us as the masses and
charges of the elementary particles, we conclude that these
fundamental properties of the universe are determined, in large
measure, by the geometrical size and shape of the extra dimensions.
That's one of the most far-reaching insights of string theory.
Since the extra dimensions so profoundly influence basic physical
properties of the universe, we should now seek-with unbridled vigor -
an understanding of what these curled-up dimensions look like.
Rich <som...@someplace.com> wrote in message news:<3FBE8E0...@someplace.com>...
AaronB
> Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
> Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
>
> http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
>
> http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf
> (the first chapter of the book... read it... it's fun)
>
> Let me give brief description of what the new theory is all about.
>
> The universe is infinite right? So it doesn't matter how big an object
> is because since the universe is infinite, it can be any size and you
> don't have frame or reference.
Many theories suggest that the universe is not infinite, but ok,
suppose it is. Then, yes, you don't have a frame of reference WRT to
the universe as a whole from inside the universe itself, but you can
have a frame of reference between any number of arbitrarty points
within the universe.
> Imagine hyperspace is inside particles (see the post "Hyperspace
> Inside each Particle? where I got the idea from him)
Define hyperspace please.
> affecting the
> nucleus as a whole and this space outside we know are just creation of
> the hyperspace inside particles and nucleus and hyperspace in the
> universe infinity.
I have no clue what you are trying to say here. The "space" inside
atoms creates the space outside?
> So space is just relative and not primary
> and the space inside atom is not what we understood it. Since
> hyperspace is the core of reality and space just the side effect.
How do we know hyperspace is the core of reality? Why would it be?
> Then
> the atoms hyperspace particles are expanding.
Why? Are hyperspace particles quarks?
> And it's pushing out
> space (maybe the hyperspace inside particles is being attracted to
> the hyperspace at the universe infinity? This is just my guess as I
> haven't understood the principle so well. For those who read it and
> have other thoughts. Pls share it).
>
> Anyway. What the book basically says is that entire planet earth is
> expanding as well as the rest of matter in the universe.
> Since human is smaller and the earth bigger. The earth expands
> faster compared to humans. So what we feel as gravity is
> not us being attracted to the ground. But simply the ground
> reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions. When we jump from
> airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
> up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
> is hitting our body.
This fails completely. The sun is bigger than the Earth. By the same
logic, the sun is expanding faster than the Earth, and thus the Earth
is being pulled into the sun. Therefore, if this is true, we should
see the sun approaching us at a rate relative to the expansion of the
sun. In other words, relative to the Earth, the sun should be getting
bigger; which it isn't.
Also, the force of gravity is not constant, it changes with distance.
Thus if a sky diver is falling from say, 20000 ft above the surface,
he might experience an acceleration of 8.7 m/s^2 (this is a guess, not
going to bother to do the full calculation), but as he approaches the
surface, his acceleration will increase. By your theory, this would
imply that the rate of expansion of the Earth changes relative to the
position of the person, which makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
> Also the protons don't fly apart in the nucleus
> because the particles are expanding too so it's maintening the core
> and the space in the nucleus is not linear or something like that.
>
> He is basically saying that gravitation, strong force are not needed,
> even the others. When I first read the book. I have to laught out
> loud. But the book length of more than 400 pages explain every
> scenerio from orbits to electromagnetic field. All your thoughts of
> the contradiction and possible conflict of other scientific principles
> is addressed in the book. For those who have read it. Let's find
> any major flaw that can debunk everything.
The above should start as a suitable beginning. If the theory intends
to replace standard model, it must be consistent with the data. That's
aside from other things dealt with in various other posts (the whole
work fiasco, for instance)
> The following are the
> comments of people in sci.physics who have read it. But unfortunately,
> the discussions die down because they don't want to start debating
> as it's gonna be very long as it involves the entire principles of
> physics. Let note we can learn so much if we can debunk it.
> The following are the comments of 3 people in sci.physics who read it.
[snip]
Their comments aren't relavent to the discussion. Also, I note that
you didn't post the two or three other reviews (which are at
amazon.com by the way) which scathed the book for being a logical
disaster with no physical sense.
A.
Double-A
If that were true, the Earth would overtake the Moon pretty fast, and
then the Sun the Earth!
Double-A
The Babynous Cult
> > Imagine hyperspace is inside particles
> [snip]
>
> Hey stooopid - leptons are point particles.
>
it wasn't so very long ago that 'the smart guys' thought
that ATOMS were point particles...
Now though... SOME of the 'smart' guys think that
_particles_ are the wrong way of thinking about 'stuff'...???
sproogles...
\ ( '_' ) /
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
.---. .-. .---..-..-..-..-..---..-..-. .--.
| | < / \ | | < > / | .` || O || '' |( -<
`---'`--^--'`---' `-' `-'`-'`---'`----'`---)
,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
The Babynous Cult
A SemiHedonistic Cult for The Whole Family!
We Offer A Low, Low, Low Priced New World Order That'll
Be More Fun
Than The Bilderbergs Lame Version
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
EL
> > cinquirer wrote:
> > >
> > > Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
> > > Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
> > [snip]
> >
> > McCutcheon failed freshman physics and has been bitter ever since.
> > Not more educated, either. If empirical observation says you are an
> > ass, you are an empirical ass.
>
> I'd be very glad if he is wrong. He doesn't believe in the Aether
> and Qi.
[EL]
Really! The bastard, how did he dare and not believe in Aether and Qi.
<snip>
> Why is speed of light the limit and why does measurement changes
> when frame of reference is altered.
[EL]
It's a mystery, don't you think so? :)
>Could Superspace or Hyperspace
> conspire to limit the speed of light to the speed of light.
[EL]
Yes, yes ... you are a genius ... it must be a conspiracy. <harharhar>
> But then some people (EL?) believes Einstein stuff
[EL]
Yes, this EL (some people) does freakingly believe in some of
Einstein's stuff if not almost all of "his" non-plagiarised work.
Unfortunately, some morons did him a very bad favour and screwed his
theories.
> my hoax although I'd be glad if it is real,
[EL]
Your hoax may never be real. :)
> at least we can produce theories around
> Einstein that would explain Qi (such as Tiller).
[EL]
Join Hammond, he is an expert in plagiarizing Einstein who was a great
plagiarizer of great plagiarizers.
What a fucking world! :)
> >
> > > Imagine hyperspace is inside particles
> > [snip]
> >
> > Hey stooopid - leptons are point particles.
>
> But not quarks. This is the cornerstone of Superstring Theory.
>
> c
[EL]
How about the dishes in your sink? :)
They could never tell you that they are point particles, right?
I could point you to some ads of Hyper-dishwashers.
At least they could demonstrate hyperspace inside the dishwasher for
you before you buy and if you were not satisfied with the chakras of
the dishwasher don't buy it.
You should really, really reconsider swapping hyper-spice for
hyper-space, British cockneys would not even know the difference. :)
LOL
This is very deadly serious because I am sure that garlic and
hot-pepper do activate the chakras.
Think about it.
EL
Jim Roberts
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.03112...@posting.google.com...
I'll sell him a pan-sexual, nuclear powered roto-plooker. The hyperspace
feature will cost extra though.
AaronB
> > cinquirer wrote:
> > >
> > > Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
> > > Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
> > [snip]
> >
> > McCutcheon failed freshman physics and has been bitter ever since.
> > Not more educated, either. If empirical observation says you are an
> > ass, you are an empirical ass.
>
> I'd be very glad if he is wrong. He doesn't believe in the Aether
> and Qi. His model is incomplete as it doesn't explain the other
> riches of reality. The complete theory would may need some of his
> theories such as our space size being not relative to anything sorta
> like Einstein concept of special relativity where frame of reference
> is important in measurement and where speed of light is the limit.
> Why is speed of light the limit and why does measurement changes
> when frame of reference is altered.
Strictly speaking, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant because
Einstein (and Lorentz, I believe) said it was. That was a postulate
that was clearly defined in his theory. So far, it works, so that
postulate, and hence that theory holds true. Why is the speed of light
3x10^8 m/s in vacuum specifically? I'm not sure, but it can be
measured to be this speed. I think there would be problems trying to
incorporate a theory where size (volume?) is constant in all frames of
reference and one which says that length is not.
> Could Superspace or Hyperspace
> conspire to limit the speed of light to the speed of light. But
> then some people (EL?) believes Einstein stuff may hoax although
People believe a lot of things. There are people who still believe
that the Earth is flat. Doesn't mean they're right.
> I'd be glad if it is real, at least we can produce theories around
> Einstein that would explain Qi (such as Tiller).
I'll leave the discussions on Qi to another thread.
A.
andrewvecsey
Double-A and Aaron congratulations. That was easy to debunk. Now, can
you do something similar to my theory?
UncleAl, although my model of electrons are 3D and not "point
particles" I would still like your comments on how I have
mechanistically modelled physical laws. If for nothing less than to
visualize them and get a better feel for what they actually do and how
they behave.
cinquirer
> > expanding as well as the rest of matter in the universe.
> > Since human is smaller and the earth bigger. The earth expands
> > faster compared to humans. So what we feel as gravity is
> > not us being attracted to the ground. But simply the ground
> > reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions. When we jump from
> > airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
> > up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
> > is hitting our body.
> [snip]
>
>
> If that were true, the Earth would overtake the Moon pretty fast, and
> then the Sun the Earth!
>
> Double-A
He has devote an entire chapter of his 400 page book about mechanics
of orbital observations, etc. I'll just quote a couple of page of it.
See http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/vision1/expansion_orbits.JPG
(text about it further below after the table of contents so you
would know what topics he has covered... which is most of physics)
(don't worry Mccucheon, i won't post those other figures, just
this sample)
Table of Contents of The Final Theory by Mark Mccutcheon
Introduction 1
Investigating Gravity 10
The Theory of Gravity 11
The Trouble with Gravity 14
The Origin of Newton’s Gravitational Force 27
Does the Evidence Support a Gravitational Force? 49
Encountering the New Principle 53
A New Property of the Atom 58
Can it Be? 60
Mysteries and Violations Resolved 65
New Revelations and Possibilities 93
Rethinking Our Heavenly Observations 108
Orbits 109
The Gravitational Lens Effect 138
The Nature and Origin of Tidal Forces 156
The Slingshot Effect 166
Galactic Implications 183
The Origin of a Natural Constant Revealed 190
Rethinking the Atom and its Forces 196
Flaws in Current Atomic Theory 198
A New Atomic Model 201
Chemical Bonding 216
Electricity 223
Radio Waves 242
Magnetism 249
Rethinking Energy 263
Light and Electromagnetic Radiation 264
Quantum Mechanics - is it all just a Misunderstanding? 290
Special Relativity - is it all just a Mistake? 314
The Big Questions 337
What are Subatomic Particles? 339
What is Antimatter? 346
What is an Atom Bomb? 352
E=mc2 : What is Energy-Matter Conversion? 355
What causes Inertia? 369
What are Black Holes? 379
Did It Really Begin with a Big Bang? 385
Is Our Universe Truly Expanding? 387
What is Time? 399
Is Time Travel Possible? 404
The Theory Of Everything - Has it Finally Arrived? 411
See http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/vision1/expansion_orbits.JPG
"Figure 3-9 shows a faster-moving object, whose movement past the
planet perfectly counteracts the planet's expansion toward the object
in any given time period. This results in a constant distance between
the object and the planet as the object continues coasting along - the
very definition of a circular orbit. Note that the rapidly increasing
acceleration of the planet's growth, shown earlier in Figure 3-8, is
not seen in Figure 3-9. Instead, it appears as if the planet grows by
the same amount each time p eriod - not the compounding amount
mentioned earlier. The reason for this is the fact that the object
moves fast enough to counteract the planet's expansion
moment-by-moment, as just mentioned. Therefore, after each second of
time passes, the geometry is indistinguishable from that of the
previous second; the object effectively continues coasting past at the
same altitude all the time.
This is somewhat like continually withdrawing the interest from a bank
account as soon as it is deposited. In that case, the bank account
would not grow at an ever-increasing rate since the compounding effect
is continually removed before it has a chance to accumulate. Likewise,
an orbiting object effectively resets the geometry of the situation
moment-by-moment, removing the compounding growth effect of the
expanding planet (for orbiting objects only - not for those that are
falling or sitting on the groun d) and producing an effective circular
path as shown in the right-hand frame. The object then behaves as if
it has a continual circular momentum about the planet, though this is
a purely geometric effect - not a true circular momentum possessed by
the object and forcefully maintained, as Newton claimed. Both the
parabolic and circular paths merely result from the pure geometry of
expansion, and are free to change to whatever is dictated by the
geometry of the Moment. An objec t traveling more slowly past an
expanding planet naturally exhibits an effective parabolic path toward
the ground, and a faster speed exhibits a circular orbit about the
planet.
Such a view of object trajectories would not be possible in Newtonian
physics, since horizontally fired objects are said to fall due to a
gravitational force, and thus possess a parabolic momentum. However,
Eypansion Theory shows that no such "gravitational force" and no such
absolute parabolic momentum exists. Just as objects that fall straight
down do not actually possess a failing momentum, as shown earlier, but
merely follow an effective falling geometry while it is the planet
that actually expands towa rd them, so horizontally fired objects do
not possess a plummeting parabolic momentum either. Everything is
merely relative geometry and can take whatever form may be dictated by
the dynamics of the moment. Thus, stable circular orbital trajectories
are impossible in Newtonian physics, where objects possess an absolute
momentum, as stated in Newton's First Law; but such orbits are quite
natural in Expansion Theory.
Finally, note that a small surface feature was provided on the ground
in Figure 3-9, which moves along with the orbiting object and
indicates that the planet is rotating in step with the object. In
other words, Figure 3-9 shows a geo-synchronous orbit, where the
object always remains over the same location as it orbits. There are
several important points to draw from this situation. First, it is
completely irrelevant whether the surface feature moves or not. It
could just as well have been drawn in the same unchanging location
throughout indicating a non-rotating planet - without changing the
geometry and dynamic of the orbit overhead in any way.
Therefore, while Newton's gravitational explanation of orbits required
that the object passes the curved surface of a spherical planet,
Expansion Theory shows that this is an unnecessary restriction or
special case. Orbiting objects do not necessarily need to be passing
surface features, but can also effectively hover over the same
location if the Planet happens to he rotating, since an orbit is not
based on escaping a gravitational pull" from below but on
counteracting the geometry of an expanding planet. Secondly, although
the classic spherical planet is shown in Figure 3-9, it could have
been an expanding planet of any arbitrary shape - as long as the
planet's rotation and expansion balance with the object's altitude and
speed to produce a stable geo-synchronous orbit. This follows from the
fact that if the object remains over the same surface feature as it
orbits a rotating planet the remaining overall shape of the planet
cannot matter. The object never p asses over the remaining terrain of
the planet, and never encounters the planet's overall shape; it simply
orbits because the planet has a circular rotation that rotates away
from the passing object at a rate that balances the planet's expansion
toward the object (as shown earlier in Figure 3-2).
To reiterate and clarify these concepts, an orbit results once the
object is traveling by fast enough to counteract the planet's
expansion, which does not necessarily involve the special case of
passing the planet's curvature, as in Newton's explanation. The
Natural Orbit Effect of passing expanding objects dictates that an
object speeding past a planet will naturally curve about the planet.
It does not matter what shape the planet is, as long as the object
continuously overcomes the planet's expansion. One way to achieve this
is by speeding past the surface of a spherical planet, whose shape
curves away from the passing object to counteract the planet's
expansion. Another way is by passing a planet of any shape that
rotates away from the object at the proper speed (a geo-synchronous
orbit). That is, the typically spherical shape of planets, though very
common in nature, is a special-case geometry whose roundness
essentially simulates the circular rotation of ail arbitrarily shaped
planet. In this case, the p lanet does not need a circular rotation
away from an orbiting object overhead if the planet's very shape
already curves away from the object in a uniformly circular manner.
This geometry allows objects to orbit spherical planets at a wide
variety of speeds and altitudes - not just specific geo-synchronous
orbital speeds and altitudes that match the planet's rotation and
expansion. This spherical special case, where a planet's rotation call
he ignored, is the example used by Newton to explain orbits in
general, with a "gravitational force" causing circular orbital
trajectories past the curved surface while simultaneously causing
parabolic plummets for other objects. Not only do es this show an
inherent contradiction in the gravitational explanation, but it also
shows that this explanation does not cover more generic orbital
scenarios such as geo-synchronous orbits, in which the object does not
pass any surface at all."
-------------------------------------
back to cinquirer
Joe, Aaron, etc.
His thick 400 page book address all sorts of things from magnetism to
atomic bomb. Try to get the book so we can find any possible fatal
flaw and debunk the whole thing and make him submit. Remember if
one can find a fatal flaw. All his theories fall down like a domino.
Also I'd rather that it is not true. It's all so mechanical. No Qi
there. I'm presently reading a book called "Aethro-Kinematics" and
it has an Aether explanation of gravity and it's 500 page and much
more complicated than Mccutcheon's book. Try to read this too. It
would be double the fun debunking both (if that's what they are).
c
cinquirer
> On 21 Nov 2003 14:07:23 -0800, cinq...@yahoo.com (cinquirer) wrote:
>
> >Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
> >Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
> >
> >http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
> >
> >http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf
> >(the first chapter of the book... read it... it's fun)
> >
> >Let me give brief description of what the new theory is all about.
> >[snip
> >Anyway. What the book basically says is that entire planet earth is
> >expanding as well as the rest of matter in the universe.
>
> Does the author give any credit or references to others
> who have proposed this?
No. It's like he discovers it all by himself like Einstein discovers
Relativity. All those who have read it couldn't debunk it by finding
the fatal flaw in his Expansion Theory that can dealt him a death
blow.
His stuff covers all topics and how it relates to them (see my reply
to Double-A for the table of contents and a text quote to his inquiry
about orbits). Let's find that fatal flaw (so he can be silenced for
good... if it's not a good model).
>
> >Since human is smaller and the earth bigger. The earth expands
> >faster compared to humans. So what we feel as gravity is
> >not us being attracted to the ground. But simply the ground
> >reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions.
>
> Are you sure that is what the book says?
Actually. In the thread "Flaws in Current Atomic Model". Someone
has summarized many points although he didn't say it's about that
book.
Rich Sobie wrote:
"If you consider the nucleus. And at the center of the nucleus
exists a bubble.
Inside this bubble is hyperspace.
Now as the universe expands, these tiny bubbles expand as well.
Picture a baloon, picture a ruler drawn on the balloon.
An inch is still an inch.
What makes the universe expand is a matter of debate, most
preferring to believe in the big bang. But the gas-like univere
would expand into hyperspace just as any gas expands.
Now because there is no space past the edge of the universe,
it just expands and the atoms expand and everything appears
to remain the same 'relative' size.
The ruler on the balloon, still reads an inch.
But then now you can see, if you follow the arrow of expansion,
that the result is gravity.
As, the bubble expands, it sends out waves. Electron shells,
are these spherical wave crests. In accordance with the
inverse square law.
Yet beyond the shells these waves carry on, to form a basic
background to existence. The fluid almost of our reality.
Within this, we also have transverse waves. Light, with a photon
being a wave crest of a transverse wave.
Now these waves react upon each other in such a way as to appear
to be particles under various conditions. Cancelling out or
adding to each other, to form other particles.
(a particle being a point in space-time)
Now then each atom, each bubble is expanding, but meets resistance,
as it sends out these EM waves. (and see black body radiation
to see that all matter emits EM radiation)
Now depending on the frequency of the nucleus, what fixed harmonic
vibrational pattern it is locked into, by the tremendous
pressure of the expanding universe, that determines which element
it is.
Try to stop the bubble from expanding, and you get the equivalent
of a sonic boom on the quantum level.
Superconductivity, is merely the arangement in a medium, whereby
the resistance to the EM waves being emitted, meet no resistance.
That is to say, that they are not fighting against each other but
flowing freely.
The same is true for permanent magnets.
The flow of EM waves due to the organized structure of the substance.
The geodesics of course are caused by the expansion of matter,
and the expansion of the universe as a whole.
A black hole is caused, when a star collapses, and is no longer
able to continue to expand along with other matter.
Like the sonic boom mentioned above only to a much greater degree.
So it creates a well. A gravity well.
It is not a singularity in my mind that resides there, but the
pressures would be enormous. But to have a singularity you need
solid matter and there is no such thing on our plane of existence
as solid matter. So you would have a hole to hyperspace.
A drain of sorts.
Planets are round, because matter expands.
Planets rotate, because the universe expands and they are round
and as such the pressure on the planet is not uniform,
so it will spin one way or the other.
Now you might ask, well what of this particle zoo?
If you freeze time, and examine a wave interaction, you can
call the interaction a particle.
Because all the elements are in a certain range of frequencies.
That is to say, that cesium here on earth, is cesium
a billion light years away and the frequency of the cesium atom
determines that it is cesium.
So these frequencies are precise, and these elements are
unique.
The universe is not a homogeneous mush, but rather made up of
elements that have individual and fixed characteristics.
If you bump an element with a very strong high energy wave,
you can bump it into another frequency.
As in a super collider.
The inverse is true.
Hypothetically you could neutralize radiation by dampening the
vibration, if you treated it with just enough energy to cancel
the wave to the degree that it would settle into a proper
bubble vibration, chugging along with the expansion of the
universe, rather than a feedback type of vibration in and out, which
sends odd waves out. Harmful waves of frequencies that tend to
not be in the norm of the background. These waves interupt things,
and cause other atoms to vibrate irrationally, and we know this as
harmful radiation.
So we use water to try to stabilize the element. To cool it.
We use lead to sheild us from it. Seeing as how lead has a certain
kind of frequency that chugs right along with the expanson of
the universe and can absorb, a lot of shock, without its vibration
being affected.
I could go on and on, but you should just by this, be able to
see how existence works.
We are not made of solid substance.
We are energy. E=Mc2
We detect things that are energy, with energy. That is to say,
we detect waves. Interactions of these waves. We call these
interactions particles, when we freeze the reference frame.
xyzt
The arrow of time, is the direction of expansion into hyperspace.
Hyperspace exists at the center of the nucleus, past the edge
of the universe of matter, and may even exist all around us.
We have no reason to doubt, that just a fraction of a Planck moment
before us, and behind us, are other universes.
We also have no reason to doubt that there are other elements in
those universes, very similar to ours, but their scale is slightly
different than ours.
If you examine this closely, you will see that what we have in fact,
is a multiverse. Each universe may be so similar, that to go from one
to the next, may not even be noticeable, as the entire universe
would change, but the obejects in it, the frequencies of the
elements would be relational to each other.
"
>
> >When we jump from
> >airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
> >up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
> >is hitting our body. Also the protons don't fly apart in the nucleus
> >because the particles are expanding too so it's maintening the core
> >and the space in the nucleus is not linear or something like that.
>
> Surely to be worth publishing, the book has to say more than
> that.
Of course, see the table of contents in Double reply or read this
first chapter which he offers for free.
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf
>
> The Divergent Matter model has been discussed here and
> in other newsgroups and on other networks for at least 15 years,
> and has been in print in copyrighted publications in 1964 and
> 1970.
What's the Divergent Matter model?? Can you pls summarize it?
>
> Also, I seem to remember another book with something
> like Dreams of a Final Theory in the title.
Yeah I read it too.
>
> JoKE Fischer
cinquirer
>
> Many theories suggest that the universe is not infinite, but ok,
> suppose it is. Then, yes, you don't have a frame of reference WRT to
> the universe as a whole from inside the universe itself, but you can
> have a frame of reference between any number of arbitrarty points
> within the universe.
>
> > Imagine hyperspace is inside particles (see the post "Hyperspace
> > Inside each Particle? where I got the idea from him)
>
> Define hyperspace please.
a space with more dimension than our physical word. Note Mark
Mccutcheon didn't use the word Hyperspace. I got it from Rick
Sobie. See his summary of Mccutcheon many points in the reply to
Joe.
>
> > affecting the
> > nucleus as a whole and this space outside we know are just creation of
> > the hyperspace inside particles and nucleus and hyperspace in the
> > universe infinity.
>
> I have no clue what you are trying to say here. The "space" inside
> atoms creates the space outside?
What he is trying to say is that the space inside atoms may not
be the same space outside it. We use measurement always bigger
than atoms. Something like that.
>
> > So space is just relative and not primary
> > and the space inside atom is not what we understood it. Since
> > hyperspace is the core of reality and space just the side effect.
>
> How do we know hyperspace is the core of reality? Why would it be?
Let's not be so tie up with the word "hyperspace". The east call
it "Ultimate Reality", "The Substance". Religious fanatics call
it "God". New Agers call it "Cosmic Consciousness". Conforto
called it Cyberspace or Superspace. Maybe let's not use the
word Hyperspace as it denotes space without anything. I wonder
what do you call a Hyperspace with Intelligence. Maybe
Hyper-Intel-Space? Hmm.... :)
>
> > Then
> > the atoms hyperspace particles are expanding.
>
> Why? Are hyperspace particles quarks?
Remember again Mccutcheon didn't use the word Hyperspace. It's Rick
Sobie. Maybe I should have used "Hyper-Intel-Space" instead.
>
> > And it's pushing out
> > space (maybe the hyperspace inside particles is being attracted to
> > the hyperspace at the universe infinity? This is just my guess as I
> > haven't understood the principle so well. For those who read it and
> > have other thoughts. Pls share it).
> >
> > Anyway. What the book basically says is that entire planet earth is
> > expanding as well as the rest of matter in the universe.
> > Since human is smaller and the earth bigger. The earth expands
> > faster compared to humans. So what we feel as gravity is
> > not us being attracted to the ground. But simply the ground
> > reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions. When we jump from
> > airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
> > up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
> > is hitting our body.
>
> This fails completely. The sun is bigger than the Earth. By the same
> logic, the sun is expanding faster than the Earth, and thus the Earth
> is being pulled into the sun. Therefore, if this is true, we should
> see the sun approaching us at a rate relative to the expansion of the
> sun. In other words, relative to the Earth, the sun should be getting
> bigger; which it isn't.
Well. You have the same question as Double-A. See my reply to him
in other part of this thread as I give an illustration of this as
well as sample text from his book that explains it in details.
> Also, the force of gravity is not constant, it changes with distance.
> Thus if a sky diver is falling from say, 20000 ft above the surface,
> he might experience an acceleration of 8.7 m/s^2 (this is a guess, not
> going to bother to do the full calculation), but as he approaches the
> surface, his acceleration will increase. By your theory, this would
> imply that the rate of expansion of the Earth changes relative to the
> position of the person, which makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
He has devote a portion of the chapter on it. I'll check it out
and return to you tomorrow. I'll go to bed in a short while.
>
> The above should start as a suitable beginning. If the theory intends
> to replace standard model, it must be consistent with the data. That's
> aside from other things dealt with in various other posts (the whole
> work fiasco, for instance)
See the table of contents in my reply to Double-D
>
> > The following are the
> > comments of people in sci.physics who have read it. But unfortunately,
> > the discussions die down because they don't want to start debating
> > as it's gonna be very long as it involves the entire principles of
> > physics. Let note we can learn so much if we can debunk it.
> > The following are the comments of 3 people in sci.physics who read it.
>
> [snip]
>
> Their comments aren't relavent to the discussion. Also, I note that
> you didn't post the two or three other reviews (which are at
> amazon.com by the way) which scathed the book for being a logical
> disaster with no physical sense.
>
> A.
I didn't get those comments from amazon but my past discussions
in sci.physics. They talked about it last month and it was the
only post after searching at google.
c
Steve Ralph
"cinquirer" <cinq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:69cb3a95.03112...@posting.google.com...
> Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
> Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
>
> http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
>
> http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf
> (the first chapter of the book... read it... it's fun)
>
> Let me give brief description of what the new theory is all about.
>
> The universe is infinite right?
Is it? I know of no evidence to either prove or refute this.
SR
Joe Fischer
>Double-A and Aaron congratulations. That was easy to debunk.
BS, it only shows they have fixated Newtonian views and
can only think of Euclidean space and constant interval time.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer <gravity...@ig1ou.com> wrote:
>> The Divergent Matter model has been discussed here and
>> in other newsgroups and on other networks for at least 15 years,
>> and has been in print in copyrighted publications in 1964 and
>> 1970.
>
>What's the Divergent Matter model?? Can you pls summarize it?
Do you know how to do a google groups search?
Go to
click on groups,
and enter a search for Divergent Matter, or expanding
matter, or gravity1 or gravity-central or Joe Fischer or kefischer
or kefischr.
The idea isn't new by any means, but it is a lot better than
the know-it-alls give it credit.
Joe Fischer The Electrodynamic Divergent Matter model of
gravity based on expanding matter.
Joe Fischer
>cinq...@yahoo.com (cinquirer) wrote:
>> airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
>> up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
>> is hitting our body.
>[snip]
>
>If that were true, the Earth would overtake the Moon pretty fast, and
>then the Sun the Earth!
>Double-A
Wrong dummy, you need to study the Divergent Matter model
and see that orbits are not closed, in this model all orbits are outward
spirals.
If you can think of something else besides Euclidean apace
and Newtonian concepts it should be easy enough.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>cinq...@yahoo.com (cinquirer) wrote:
>> reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions. When we jump from
>> airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
>> up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
>> is hitting our body.
>
>This fails completely. The sun is bigger than the Earth. By the same
>logic, the sun is expanding faster than the Earth, and thus the Earth
>is being pulled into the sun. Therefore, if this is true, we should
>see the sun approaching us at a rate relative to the expansion of the
>sun. In other words, relative to the Earth, the sun should be getting
>bigger; which it isn't.
In the Divergent Matter model larger objects would have
to expand faster than smaller objects, the critical restriction is
that each element must expand at a rate that results in all
objects retaining the same size relative to each other at the
same temperature, pressure and compression.
If the Earth is getting bigger, the sun is too. :-)
>Also, the force of gravity is not constant, it changes with distance.
>Thus if a sky diver is falling from say, 20000 ft above the surface,
>he might experience an acceleration of 8.7 m/s^2 (this is a guess, not
>going to bother to do the full calculation), but as he approaches the
>surface, his acceleration will increase. By your theory, this would
>imply that the rate of expansion of the Earth changes relative to the
>position of the person, which makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
Of course the rate of expansion changes in Newtonian terms,
each instant the Earth fills an ever increasing volume, but it always
measures the same diameter with a meter stick made of matter that
is also expanding.
But the time interval (the second) has to be increasing in
length at the same rate matter increases in length (all double
in the same time interval).
>The above should start as a suitable beginning. If the theory intends
>to replace standard model, it must be consistent with the data. That's
>aside from other things dealt with in various other posts (the whole
>work fiasco, for instance)
An expanding matter model will establish it's own parameters
and this is where most people have a problem, they are not able
to think in terms other than Newtonian.
Even the professional expert relativists who use the Einstein
terms of proper acceleration and inertial motion are not able to
accept matter expanding, even though they consider the ground
to have a proper upward acceleration, and they switch from the
Einstein Principle of Equivalence concepts to a bizarre combination
of the ground exerting electromagnetic forces upward that prevents
freefalling objects from falling past the surface.
It would be easier and more compatible to just accept that
matter is expanding.
>Their comments aren't relavent to the discussion. Also, I note that
>you didn't post the two or three other reviews (which are at
>amazon.com by the way) which scathed the book for being a logical
>disaster with no physical sense.
>A.
The little bit that I read seems to be a jumbled up rambling
presentation of many different and unrelated ideas, not very well
thought out, and not a single consistent model.
And the messenger that started this thread seems to add to
the rambling in his enthusiasm.
I became interested in understanding the physical
mechanism of gravitation in 1944, and the study of the expanding
matter model has been my favorite hobby ever since.
I published the first clumsy paper in 1964, and again
in 1970, and James Carter also published a booklet in 1970,
but went off on a tangent instead of being consistent.
All models have problems, but sometimes the problem
is in the minds of those who have not studied the problem
enough or studied it from the wrong perspective.
I am very satisfied and comfortable with the knowledge
of how the Divergent (expanding) Matter works, even though
it is contrary to the belief that gravity is attractive.
But "space" cannot play a part in the model, matter is
all that needs to be considered and how many matter sticks
will fit between objects.
Joe Fischer
AaronB
I'll have to look into the geometry of that a bit more, but here's
something that is a bit more problematic. Suppose I want to travel
around the circumference of the Earth, at constant speed of 1 m/s,
which I can do regardless of the expansion of the Earth (just get one
of those walking speed measurer things). The Earth, on the other hand,
is expanding at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, and, let's suppose, has an
initial velocity of 0 m/s, and an initial radius of 6.38x10^6 m.
Before starting, I predict that my journey should be 6.38x10^6m x 2pi
= approximately 4x10^7 m, because I believe the Earth isn't expanding.
Now here's where things get problematic: In my first second, the
radius of the Earth increases according to d=Vit + 1/2at^2. The
initial speed is zero, so d=1/2at^2. For t = 1, and a = 9.8 m/s^2, the
radius of the Earth expands a distance of 4.9 m, meaning that the
distance I travel is now 4.9 m x 2pi, greater than it was initially:
31.8 m. In 2s, it would be 123 m. I would never get there; I wouldn't
even get close, because the Earth is expanding at an exponenetial
rate, which is MUCH faster than I could ever travel. There is no way
around it; my speed isn't increasing, because I'm pacing myself
relative to a standard interval (even if I were using a metre stick,
the stick would be expanding at a rate much smaller than the Earth, as
you've said earlier, so that would not compensate for it).
To simplify, in case the math is a bit confusing:
1. The Earth must be expanding at a rate equal to 9.8m/s^2, otherwise
gravitational effects would not make sense.
2. For all seconds of the journey, I travel exactly 1 m relative to a
standard which is (virtually) unchanging.
3. The Earth's radius increases is greater than the distance I travel
for any second.
4. I never get there.
For that matter, if objects are all expanding at different rates,
suppose I have a ball that much smaller than I am. I am expanding at a
rate greater than the ball, because I am larger, so relative to me,
the ball should be shrinking.
You could come up with literally hundreds of different examples for
why this can't work.
A.
kenseto
"cinquirer" <cinq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:69cb3a95.03112...@posting.google.com...
cinquirer
> Cinquirer This expanding inside out theory has been kicked around for
> over 2 hundred years.It keeps coming back from time to time(like now) It
> creates more unanswered questions than answered. Bert
What unanswered questions for example? Let's see how Mccutcheon treat
it as he apply the Expansion Theory to almost all topics in modern
physics as well as offering possible solutions such as the pioneer
slowing down, etc (text shared below just as an example). What made
his book thick is because he address particle physics in half of it
and give many illustrations why the strong force and even
electromagnetic force is unnecessary (clue, instead of orbital clouds
swirling around the nucleus. The electrons are simply bouncing off the
nucleus like balls!). The particle physics portion has 200 page and
dozens of figures to accompany all situations. This stuff may be his
original idea that's why he has the guts to title his book as "The
Final Theory" and expecting a Nobel Prize if he is right and
challenging us to prove him wrong. For those interested. Just buy the
book from amazon.com. It would be long to share them here so just try
to get a copy and after we find the fatal flaw. Then we can challenge
him to submit and refund the book (he can agree to this if we find a
fatal flaw as he stated inside the book) as well as put to rest the
basis for the entire theory that as you said have started since 200
years ago..
"The Pioneer Anomaly
Mystery? An Unexplained "Gravitational Anomaly"
The discussions throughout this chapter have shown that the current
gravitational explanations of celestial events in our science today
may serve as useful models, but cannot be the literal description of
our observations. Therefore, since these models do not truly describe
the underlying physics, it might be expected that difficulties and
inconsistencies would arise that do not fit within such models. The
inability of science to provide a viable explanation for the slingshot
effect is one such example, tho ugh this has largely been hidden by
flawed logical justifications; however, one example that does remain a
clear mystery is the unexplained anomalies in the behavior of
spacecraft that cross our solar system.
The complexities of traveling among moons and planets have tended to
mask subtle deviations or anomalies that may exist in the behavior of
our spacecraft as compared to standard Newtonian gravitational
predictions; however, we have had a unique opportunity to see such
effects much more clearly in recent years. This is because it has been
over a decade since the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft have sped past
Pluto and continued out of the solar system. As such, there are no
longer any moons or planets to encoun ter as they progress, so any
anomalies that may exist in the motions of these spacecraft since
leaving the solar system would stand out very clearly and consistently
over time. Indeed, NASA scientists have noted and published
observations of an apparent unexplained gravitational pull on both
spacecraft back toward the sun, which exceeds the expected pull of
gravity at that distance. This additional effective pull has been
consistently recorded ever since the spacecraft left the solar system
over a decade ag o, having a constant unexplained decelerating effect
on the spacecraft as they coast off into deep space. Attempts to
explain this effect using all known or even proposed gravitational or
physical theories have so far been unsuccessful.
However, when we look at this mystery from the perspective of
Expansion Theory, the journeys of these spacecraft take on a very
different quality. The situation now changes from that of two
spacecraft being pulled back by an unexplained additional
"gravitational force," to that of an expanding solar system and the
effect it has on the signals sent back to us from the distant
spacecraft. That is, the Pioneer spacecraft are not actually feeling
the tug of the sun's "gravity" a all - and they never did all thr
oughout their journeys across the solar system since such 4,
gravitational forces" do not exist in Expansion Theory. Instead, the
solar system was expanding outward all around them while they coasted
through it, aided by the occasional slingshot effect as just
discussed. And now the entire solar system is expanding outward toward
them as they coast along billions of miles beyond its edge. Pioneers
10 and 11 are now somewhat like two stones th at have been tossed up
in the air on Earth and are still coasting upward as the Earth's
expansion slowly gains on them, eventually bringing them falling back
to the ground. Only, the "plane" is our enormous expanding solar
system, and the "toss" that sent them flying away from it into deep
space is the series of planetary slingshot effects they encountered
throughout the solar system (since their initial rocket fuel alone
would not have taken them much beyond Jupiter).
From this perspective we can begin to understand why the received
signals here on Earth may hold some surprises. First, we must keep in
mind how the speed and distance of the spacecraft are determined from
the received signal. In essence. this is done by noting how long it
takes for each signal blip to travel from the spacecraft to Earth. If
we have just received a blip from the spacecraft and we know when it
was transmitted, then we can easily calculate the distance to the
spacecraft. Since we know the signal travels at the speed of light,
simply calculating the time taken, multiplied by the speed of light,
gives us the distance traveled by the signal, and thus the distance of
the spacecraft when the blip was transmitted. Then, if we monitor a
succession of such regular blips sent by the spacecraft, we can
determine the spacecraft's speed as well. If the spacecraft is
stationary, then the amount of time between received blips will be the
same as the known time between the original transmitted blips at the
spacecraft since nothing would have altered this timing as the signal
traveled. But if the spacecraft is moving away, then each blip will be
sent from a slightly further distance and will take slightly longer to
reach us than the previous blip did. This means the time between
received blips will be slightly greater than the known timing in the
original transmission, telling us that the spacecraft is moving away
at a certain speed. This simple analysis allows us to continually
track the distance and speed of spacecraft in their travels.
Now, let's see what effect an expanding solar system might have on
these timing measurements between signal blips. First, imagine a
transmitter sitting on Pluto - the most distant planet in the solar
system. Even though Expansion Theory states that both Pluto and Earth
are moving rapidly outward on their expanding orbital rings, this
underlying xpansion does not alter the received signal blips on Earth.
The blips would indicate that the transmitter is located at the
expected fixed distance to Pluto. That is, the signal blips would take
the expected amount of time to travel to Earth, and they would have
the same tinling between them as known to exist at the transmitter on
Pluto. This IS because our system of measurements alread y takes into
account our universe of expanding matter - whether we realize it or
not.
When we measure the fixed distance between two points on Earth, we do
not consider the fact that the ground between these two points is
expanding and pushing them apart as the entire planet expands. it was
explained in Chapter 2 that this underlying expansion is hidden as
everything in the universe expands equally, and so we simply call our
measurement a constant distance. Also, when we measure the speed of
light - for example, by timing its travel between two points on Earth
the value we arrive at is actua lly based on its travel between two
points that are moving apart due to the planet's expansion. Therefore,
the distance between Pluto and Earth is effectively every bit as
"fixed" as it is between two points on Earth, and the travel time for
the signal also follows from the same dynamics as for a light beam
traveling between two points on Earth. As long as the dynamics of
expansion create a scenario where two points are effectively fixed in
space, they behave as fixed points regardless of the underlying exp
ansion dynamics. Therefore, the natural orbit effect throughout our
expanding solar system results in an arrangement of planets that are
effectively fixed orbital distances apart in space, just as objects on
our expanding planet are effectively fixed distances apart on the
ground.
However, if the transmitter is on a spaceship heading through the
solar system and off into deep space, the situation changes. This is
no longer a scenario where the spaceship is naturally maintained at an
effectively fixed distance from Earth by the underlying expansion
dynamics between planetary orbital rings. Instead, the spaceship has
broken this geometric balance, just as an object in a stable orbit
about the Earth is in a very different situation than one tossed at
the same speed straight up into the air. Both objects have the same
initial speed, but one will coast indefinitely around the planet,
while the other will soon crash into the ground. Similarly, the
difference in the resulting geometry between a transmitter sitting on
Pluto along its effectively fixed orbital ring and one in a moving
spaceship heading out of the solar system means the transmitted signal
experiences very different dynamics in each case. The signal from the
spaceship must now contend with the underlying expansion of the solar
sy stem, just as an object that is tossed upward on Earth must contend
with the expanding planet beneath it.
As the spaceship coasts away from the solar system each blip is no
longer transmitting from an effectively fixed distance; the effective
distance is now entirely dependent on how the underlying expansionary
dynamics play out as it travels. So, when a blip is transmitted from
beyond the solar system, Pluto's orbital ring expands outward toward
the blip as the blip speeds toward Pluto. Therefore, the signal
reaches Pluto sooner than would be expected due to the reduced
distance (Fig. 3-25).
Although the rest of the signal's journey continues normally between
the effectively fixed orbital rings of the intervening planets on its
way to Earth, the initial reduction in the expected travel time from
the spaceship to Pluto means the overall travel time to Earth is
slightly less that' expected. Since we currently do not recognize the
expanding orbital rings of our solar system, this reduced travel time
from the spacecraft to Pluto would be interpreted as a transmission
from closer than expected. Also , as successive blips continually
arrive sooner than expected, the implication would be that the
spaceship is traveling at a continually slower speed than expected -
apparently due to an unexplained additional force pulling back on the
spaceship. This underlying expansion-based effect is the likely answer
to the currently unexplained "Pioneer Anornaly" noted by NASA
scientists.
Sam Wormley
o there is cosmic expansion
o there is not local (atom, earth or solar system) expansion
o the is no local (atom, earth or solar system) gravitation anomaly
o the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft is most likely
thermal radiation from the craft obeying Newton's Mechanics
cinquirer
aar...@uvic.ca (AaronB) wrote in message news:<9f8a9f42.03112...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Also, the force of gravity is not constant, it changes with distance.
> Thus if a sky diver is falling from say, 20000 ft above the surface,
> he might experience an acceleration of 8.7 m/s^2 (this is a guess, not
> going to bother to do the full calculation), but as he approaches the
> surface, his acceleration will increase. By your theory, this would
> imply that the rate of expansion of the Earth changes relative to the
> position of the person, which makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
here's a brief text in Mccutcheon book that deals with answer
to your question (Joe may explain further since he is also an
expert in this):
"The description of falling objects provided by Expansion Theory also
solves a great mystery mentioned in the previous chapter - the fact
that all objects, from a tiny golf ball to a massive ocean liner, are
somehow accelerated by gravity at the same rate and fall at the same
speed. Such immense differences in mass and inertia are apparently
inconsequential to gravity, as it accelerates all objects with equal
ease while also causing no apparent stresses upon the accelerated
objects ~ feats that are otherwise unparalleled in physics. The
mystery vanishes, however, if we consider that objects don't actually
fall at all, but remain floating in space while the ground expands
upward to meet them. In that case the ground would approach all
floating objects equally of course, regardless of their mass (Fig.
2-2).
This shows why, in the previous chapter, falling objects were said to
undergo an acceleration effect instead of an actual acceleration due
to a gravitational force. The masses of the objects in the right-hand
frame of Figure 2-2 have nothing to do with how fast they "fall" in a
universe of expanding atoms, since objects only appear to fall in such
a universe they actually float in space while the ground approaches
them a equally. This provides a clear resolution for this mystery,
with no unexplained forces pulling across space, while Newtonian
gravitational theory states that even the most massive objects are
somehow immediately and rapidly accelerated from standstill by an
attracting force when they are dropped.
The weight effect can also now be seen simply as the inertia o
resistance of an object to being moved as it is pushed from below by
the expanding planet - an effect that increases with mass just as a
more massive person is harder to push on a swing. The difficulty in
pushing a more massive person on a swing is the same phenomenon behind
the effect we call weight in the parallel situation of the expanding
planet pushing massive objects upward. No appeal to a gravitational
force is required to explain the mas s-dependent weight effect felt
here on Earth.
Also, since objects are not actually accelerated toward the ground by
a force when they are dropped, there is no power source requirement to
explain this effect. Indeed, our observation that objects "fall"
downward is merely a geometric effect caused by the planet expanding
up toward them, and not an actual force-driven motion of the objects
at all. This does not mean failing objects are merely an illusion - of
course - dropped objects obviously do hit the ground experience a
contact force with the Earth - but their apparent accelerating
approach downward toward the ground is actually due to the pure
geometry of our Planet expanding up toward them. Although this
acceleration effect is as if the objects themselves were accelerated
downward by a gravitational force, the objects actually float in space
while the ground accelerates up toward them."
Joe Fischer
>[snip] Although this
>acceleration effect is as if the objects themselves were accelerated
>downward by a gravitational force, the objects actually float in space
>while the ground accelerates up toward them."
"Float in space" is not correct, to be moving as if "dropped",
an object must have been accelerated upward, and allowed to
assume an upward constant velocity.
This means that all objects that are apparently in freefall
are moving at constant velocity upward, not falling or "floating
in space".
And because of the space-time effect of lengthening units
of measure, the highest (fastest moving) object appears (and is
measured to be) accelerating away from lower (slower moving)
objects.
In General Relativity, this is known as geodesic deviation,
while in Newtonian gravitation it is a result of the gravitational
field gradient.
Joe Fischer
Double-A
> > >
> > > Anyway. What the book basically says is that entire planet earth is
> > > expanding as well as the rest of matter in the universe.
> > > Since human is smaller and the earth bigger. The earth expands
> > > faster compared to humans. So what we feel as gravity is
> > > not us being attracted to the ground. But simply the ground
> > > reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions. When we jump from
> > > airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
> > > up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
> > > is hitting our body.
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > If that were true, the Earth would overtake the Moon pretty fast, and
> > then the Sun the Earth!
> >
> > Double-A
>
>
> He has devote an entire chapter of his 400 page book about mechanics
> of orbital observations, etc. I'll just quote a couple of page of it.
>
> See http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/vision1/expansion_orbits.JPG
I'm sorry, but there's no way this illustration can show how the small
object passing by the larger expanding object can ever completely go
around the large object. It might look good when drawn for just three
iterations, but redraw the illustration as many times as you like with
an ever expanding large object, there is no reason the center of the
small object would ever drop below the center of the large object so
it could complete its orbit.
This would be true even if both objects are expanding, and even if the
space between them is expanding too.
Of course this illustration is drawn using Euclidean Geometry. If
someone thinks they can draw an illustration using non-Eucludean
Geometry to explain how the small object ends ups circumnavigating the
larger, please enlighten us.
Double-A
Cody R. Perkins
to a public posting I will note a few points as well.
Expansion Theory basicly implies that all matter and energy are
composed of one subatomic particle. The electron. The electron by it's
nature is rapidly expanding in size. Taking up more volume of space as
it does. Space itself has no limit or any properties as all space
really is just the distance between atomic objects. All other
particles are made of groups of electrons. The mutual expansion of the
electrons in a group binds them together. Unstable particles or
decaying particles eject electrons from the group because electrons
rapidly expand. Stable particles and atomic objects are stable due to
the arrangement of electrons clusters, the rapid expansion is balanced
when electron clusters are in certain configurations. In a atom
electrons not found in the nucleous will bounce off the atom itself.
The height of the bounce determines a atoms atomic boundary. Since
expansion is figured by expansion rate and radius of object, an atom's
boundary and expansion rate are determind by the electrons not bound
in the nucleus. These bouncing electrons also cause inertia, chemical
bonding, and static electricity.
Light is made of clusters of electrons according to Expansion Theory.
The number of electrons determines wavelength in the spectrum. Radio
waves however are bands of electrons. Only radio is truely waves.
Light is not a wave and can not be treated as such. Most quantum
obsevations of light are observing the electron clusters properties as
they move through space and interact with atomic objects, but not
noting the true nature of light.
Constants in nature like light speed, gravity, and many more are
results of interactions of these expanding particles. In fact the
expansion itself cannot be seen directly as all objects maintain
relative size. However the expansion causes more space to be taken
between objects, the origin of observed gravational attraction. In
fact most bodies in space will go into orbital paths around other
objects. As long as motion of bodies is greater than the radial
expansion of near by body they will continue in orbital path. When
motion is less than radial expansion then observed falling affect or
even object collision will results.
All matter is in motion. Since matter is expanding, then it also not
at rest ever. Also since objects expand, then they will move in curved
paths which is side effect when expanding objects pass each other.
Rarely does any object ever travel in a straight line. Even light
bends around stars and planets it passes due to expansion properties.
Since light is not a wave, the observed hubble-shift is not indication
of motion of galaxies or any other object in cosmos. Which means Big
Bang may in fact be totally untrue. The universe in retrospect most
likely has no center or boundary. The farther you look out into
universe the more objects you'll see. Whether there is a limited
amount of matter is unknown at this time. Sine no theory has explained
what or why the universe should exsist in the first place putting a
limit on space or matter is rather pointless without difintive
evidence. Of which there is none. Since gravity according to Expansion
Theory is not a field or energy then attracts, then Dark Matter and
especially Dark Energy are not likely to exist. Dark Matter and Dark
Energy are after all names to behavior not understood or even needed
in universe that never started in Big Bang. Singularities also do not
exist. Which implies Black Holes are likely leftover remains of
neutron stars. The observed gases around them very likely are in fact
the black hole itself stretched like a disk due it's inner compression
forces and possible rotation. A Black Hole would have a lot of inner
pressure due to it's matter being compressed together as tightly as
possible. Infact it's collapse from a regular star is do to it's
fuzion stopping and the sheer amount of matter in it. Expanding matter
inside any star would be under incredible force due to expanding
matter pushing against one another, as any expanding object expands
from center of mass. The greater the mass the harder it is for object
to expand. So large mass objects have great pressure and stress deep
inside them. The observed jets of radation from a Black Hole are very
likely compressed matter inside trying to get out inside of dead star.
So Black Hole would not be singlarity but just very tightly packed
remains of a neutron star. It's smaller size in fact would give it a
lower surface gravity, because in Expansion theory size is the main
determination for gravity.
It should be noted that particles have no charge in expansion theory.
The observation of charge is really just when electron clouds of
different density interact. Negative charge being actually high
density clouds electron and positive being low density clouds of
electrons. Creating observed magnetic or electrical attraction.
Magnetic Fields are actually clouds of electrons that wrap around a
magnet due to to density varation of electrons at the magnetic poles.
Electrical magnets create similar effect due the way the electricty
flows through it. These same magnetic fields also often in particle
accelerators can only get particles up to light speed being to the
fact lightspeed is the limit of the magnetic fields ability to push
particles. So light speed would be very possible to go past as no true
mass increase happens. Lightspeed is just a limit of a particle
accelerator. So light is not a constant.
In particle accelerators many collisions and even theortical opposite
charge particles have been observed. Which in truth according to
expansion theory are just different combinations of electron clusters
resulting from collision. Many being unstable. Even supposed
anti-particles would be just another result of collisions of expanding
electrons. In fact electrons from magnetic field or city power grid
very likely account for unexpected particles seen from collisions,
since they are taken into consideration from current theories.
Expansion theory on awhole explains more natural phenomena and the
relation of physical behavior and laws than any theory to date. Which
makes it hard to ignore. It does not use any of the multiple dimension
nonsense that is used as popular theory of how natural forces come to
be. The only question it rises is can the cause of expanding electrons
and why they do not pass through each other be determined by physical
beings? Laws of physcis start at the expanding electrons and the
atomic diameter of atoms. What lies beneath these expanding electrons
can not be anything like are familar universe. No in fact they are so
foreign from physical and 3-D dimensional thinking we may never
understand them comepletely if ever. Man as awhole most come to
realize no matter how much we want to, we'll never understand the
universe completely. The human mind is incredible, but also like
anything else of matter it contains a limit of what does.
cinquirer
> >
> > He has devote an entire chapter of his 400 page book about mechanics
> > of orbital observations, etc. I'll just quote a couple of page of it.
> >
> > See http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/vision1/expansion_orbits.JPG
> [snip]
>
>
> I'm sorry, but there's no way this illustration can show how the small
> object passing by the larger expanding object can ever completely go
> around the large object. It might look good when drawn for just three
> iterations, but redraw the illustration as many times as you like with
> an ever expanding large object, there is no reason the center of the
> small object would ever drop below the center of the large object so
> it could complete its orbit.
>
> This would be true even if both objects are expanding, and even if the
> space between them is expanding too.
>
> Of course this illustration is drawn using Euclidean Geometry. If
> someone thinks they can draw an illustration using non-Eucludean
> Geometry to explain how the small object ends ups circumnavigating the
> larger, please enlighten us.
>
> Double-A
Double-A
Imagine the earth and moon are travelling parallel in straight lines. And
imagine the moon is travelling faster than a rotating expanding earth. As
both expands. And the moon can maintain speed and distance to both the
expansion of earth and moon. Then what you would see is just like a moon
orbiting earth when they are both travelling in parallel in space with both
expanding and the moon travelling faster. This is how I understood it.
We both read the same text and illustration. Maybe Joe can help.
To Aaron
See above as the moon and earth is really travelling in straight lines
and it is the geometry that is giving the illusion of orbits.
About the ball and why it doesn't shrink. The following text and
formula may help (see the my comment after it):
"Determining the Universal Atomic Expansion Rate
Expansion Theory proposes that all atoms in the universe are expanding
- a principle in nature that underlies many of our observations and
experiences, and which has been overlooked or misunderstood for
millennia. Given this, it may seem that the universal atomic expansion
rate might be a deeply held secret of nature; yet it turns out to be
quite straightforward to calculate. Since all atoms, objects, planets,
and stars maintain a constant relative size, they must all be
expanding at the same atomic expansion rate (the same percentage each
second). If this weren't the case, some objects would soon grow
enormously relative to others, or shrink into oblivion. Therefore,
every atom and object must be exactly matched to a single universal
atomic expansion rate. So, if we determine this rate for any single
atom or object, we will have arrived at th e expa nsion rate of all
atoms and objects throughout the universe.
A convenient object to use for this purpose is our own planet. If
indeed a failing object is actually a free-floating object that is
approached by our expanding planet, then the equal distance that all
objects appear to.fall in one second on Earth is actually the amount
of expansion of our planet in one second toward these objects.
Therefore, we simply need to determine the height from which all
objects take one second to fall to the ground. This height would
actually reflect the amount of expansion of our planet in one second,
and since we know the size of our planet, we can figure out what
percentage or expansion rate this represents. Once we perform this
straightforward calculation, we will have arrived at the universal
expansion rate of all atoms and objects throughout the universe.
It is well known that all objects strike the ground in one second if
they are dropped from a height of 4.9 meters, regardless of their mass
(assuming there is negligible wind resistance). Also, all expanding
objects would expand outwardly in all directions from their centers -
a radial expansion. Since we also know that the radius of the Earth is
6,371 kilometers (6,371,000 meters), we simply need to calculate what
fraction 4.9 meters is out of 6,371,000 to arrive at the fractional
expansion of the Earth in any given second (Fig. 2-4). This fractional
expansion rate works out to slightly less than one-millionth each
second. Therefore, every atom, object, planet, and star in the
universe expands at the common rate of roughly one-millionth its size
every second.
The precise calculation of the universal atomic expansion rate is
shown below. Since precise calculation and use of the atomic expansion
rate requires that it be given a symbol to refer to, it will be given
the symbol XA. The 'X' is used to symbolize expansion, and the
subscripted letter W refers to atomic matter (i.e. atoms and objects
composed of atoms) since there are other forms of matter such as
subatomic particles, which are not part of the discussion at this
point. Further discussions of atomic vs. s ubatomic matter are dealt
with in Chapter 4.
Calculation of the Universal Atomic Expansion Rate
Once the standard acceleration due to gravity on Earth of 9.8 m/s^2 is
seen to result from the radial expansion of the planet, the amount of
expansion of the planet in one second can be calculated. The equation
for distance traveled due to constant acceleration was introduced in
the previous chapter as:
d = 1/2 a t^2
where a is the constant acceleration
t is the length of time the acceleration is applied
This gives the radial expansion amount of the Earth after 1 second to
be:
= 4.9 meters.
Dividing this one-second expansion amount of the Earth by its radius
gives the universal atomic expansion rate:
X(A)= 4.9/ Re
where
Re is the radius of the Earth (6,371,000 m)
XA is the universal atomic expansion rate to be calculated
XA = 0.00000077 (or 7.7 X 10^-7 in scientific notation)
NOTE
The value of the universal atomic expansion rate, X(A), for all atoms
and objects is 0.00000077 per second, each second, giving the units
/s^2 or per-second-squared.
This numeric result for the universal atomic expansion rate, X(A),
means that we can now calculate the amount of overall expansion each
second of any atom, object, or planet simply by multiplying their
radii by X(A). Multiplying the radius of the Earth by X(A) gives 4.9
meters, which is the distance an object "falls due to gravity" on
Earth in its first second. So, in essence, we can now calculate the
effective gravity of every atom, object, and planet simply by knowing
their size. This is radically differe nt from Newton's idea of
gravity, which states that a gravitational force emanates from all
objects in proportion to their mass. This point bears special note:
NOTE
In Expansion Theory the gravity of an object or planet is dependent on
its size. This is a significant departure from Newton's theory, in
which gravity is dependent on mass.
This "size vs. mass" difference between Expansion Theory and Newton's
theory of gravity explains why it was stated in the previous chapter
that the masses of the moons, planets, and sun that we accept today
are only approximations. They are based on the assumption that Our
observations in the heavens are a direct result of the mass of bodies
in space as a gravitational force emanates from them, while Expansion
Theory shows that these effects are actually a result of the size of
these bodies as they expand. Therefore, according to Expansion Theory,
a planet the same size as Earth would have the same gravity due to its
identical amount of expansion each second, even if it were made of a
material that caused it to weigh half as much as the Earth (half the
mass). That is, orbiting objects would behave identically about either
of these two equal-sized planets, and standard Newtonian calculations
using today's Newtonian Orbit Equation would incorrectly determine the
mass of the lighter planet to be the same as that of the Earth. So, if
the materials composing the other moons and planets in our solar
system are different in density to that of the Earth, then our mass
calculations for these bodies will be off by a corresponding amount.
This "size vs. mass" issue will be discussed in greater detail in the
next chapter, showing some important and surprising conclusions
regarding our current assumptions about the moons and planets of our
solar system.
This effort to provide a more concrete definition for the atomic
expansion rate leads not only to a precise value for the expansion
rate of atoms, X(A), but also to a precise equation for the effect
this constant expansion has on the distance between objects. That is,
while Newton overlooked atomic expansion, instead modeling it as if
there were an attracting force between objects that pulls them toward
each other, Expansion Theory shows that atomic expansion exists and is
the true cause of objects tending to approach one another. This
dynamic can be captured in an equation that calculates how the
distance between any two expanding objects would decrease over time -
i.e. the Atomic Expansion Equation."
-----------------
back to cinqurer
About why the expansion of objects depends on their radius. It has to
do with properties of his new atomic model. In fairness to
Mccutcheon. I won't post text of his atomic model as it covers
half the book and deals with every aspect of particle physics
from electricity to particle accelerator experiments.
I'd just discuss about gravitation and planets. If it fails
scrutiny. Then he is finished. If it survives scrutiny. Then
go get his book for the atomic model and the details.
As a sidenote. I bought the book because the "Rethinking the
Scientific Legacy" title stuff attracts me as I need to get a clue how
Qi can be inserted in particle physics. But the book didn't offer a
clue about Qi. I'll spend searching until December and when I still
don't find the answers. I'll just accept Qi as simply Qi energy. Have
to move on next year to other more practical field such as
Biotechnology. So bear with me for the rest of this year folks and
I'll be outta here.
c
Cody R. Perkins
explanation of orbits in Expansion Theory. See if I can help. I don't
claim the theory is right or wrong. Just different from any before it.
Ok first of all in expansion theory if all matter is expanding at a
constant rate (about 0.00000077 each second) then no matter is
passive. This would be true because the expanding electrons make up
larger particles. Groups of some kinds of these particles make up
atoms. The atoms is increasing in size by .00000077 each second. Which
means logically then as atoms push against each then the material
object would expand by the that ratio in all directions. Plus it would
expand outward from center of mass. Which means uniform gravity would
require even distribution of the matter that makes ups the object.
Otherwise the surface could vary depending on the matter distribution.
Now if all matter is expanding, then it is taking more space. Plus it
would be expanding in all directions. This expansion rate would also
have to be constant rate of increase. Like a gas petal that is floored
keeping a constant rate of acceleration. A simple coasting expansion
rate would not generate the gravity we observe. So if all matter is
expanding in all directions causing distance between objects in space
to decrease (more space taken up), then this expansion would basicly
mean no object is at rest. Every single object is moving in all
directions all the time. So no object ever truely rests or floats. So
why doesn't everything thing just expand into each other? Well if your
on a planet both you and the planet expand into each other which from
a human perspective seems like your resting on the surface. Plus the
surfaces expansion keeps objects from expanding into each other. So
only in outer space would expansion be really become noticable other
than when object is seen falling.
Now motion itself is relative to the observer. Think about it. Imagine
(using a crude illustration) if the universe had only 2 objects and
that were getting closer. How would you know which one was really
moving? Both of them could getting closer, one could be catching up to
other, one could be still as other approached, and so on. You need
background objects to able to determine motion. So obviously if have
background objects in motion, then motion itself is relative to where
you observe from.
So as long objects motion is great enough to overcome a nearby objects
motion, a orbit can result. Now they tricky part is the angle of
motion. Simply moving straight from expanding object will do know good
has the constant expansion of the objects will keep the moving toward
each other given time. You would have to be moving away at a constant
acceleration to keep the objects from colliding (like a rocket does
briefly). But what if the motion is rapid? The faster the motion the
straighter it's path. So rapid motion can often keep objects in space
from meeting as long as their not moving a direct straight line or
near straight motion toward each other. Now since very small objects
having less radial expansion due to their smaller size, them often can
end up colliding with larger objects. Craters on many planetoids show
that. Now what if a objects motion is moving in near 90 degree angle
(not counting the fact it is actually moving toward all objects all
the time) to other object. The trick to understanding this is objects
can have up to 3 seperate motions at any given moment:
1) They are expanding in all directions, which means motion toward any
and all objects.
2)They can have a motion directed toward a specific direction or point
in space greater than expansion of the object itself. (Think rocket
blast, rebound, and other sources that can cause a object to
accelerate a specific dirction)
3)They can be rotating on their axis.
Now expansion would be the only motion that is always present. The
other 2 are caused by surroundings typically. So if a object is
orbiting another object it must have 2 motions. One is it motion
toward all other objects, in all directions caused by unending
expansion rate. The other being a motion that is a 90 angle from the
suface of object it orbits. The second motion is crucial. Now since
the orbiting object is moving both away and toward the other object
and the reverse is true then you already have a curved motion that
results from expansion. At close distance this often is what observe
as parabolic arc from falling object. However get a object far enough
above another object and away from any material that can cause drag
then you have a different situation. If a orbitting object's (like the
moon) motion that is 90 degrees of the other object's (like a planet)
surface is greater than than the expansion coming toward it from
object (planet) surface, then it will never fall. Instead it will
naturally follow orbital path (elliptical most likely) around the
other object.
This means a lot orbits in space are there probably because how they
formed. Orbits would be very stable as long as nothing strayed in and
changed their motion. So orbits in expansion theory are pure geometric
results and can be easily disrupted if a objects motion is changed.
Hopefully that helped illustrate the matter. Remember in Expansion
Theory matter is not passive. Matter is in constant motion toward all
objects in every direction at all times. Which is very different idea
than Newton's proposed laws of motion.
Joe Fischer
>Since you have already have mentioned the basics of Expansion Theory
>to a public posting I will note a few points as well.
>
>Expansion Theory basicly implies that all matter and energy are
>composed of one subatomic particle. The electron. The electron by it's
>nature is rapidly expanding in size. Taking up more volume of space as
>it does. Space itself has no limit or any properties as all space
>really is just the distance between atomic objects. All other
>particles are made of groups of electrons. The mutual expansion of the
>electrons in a group binds them together [BIG snip]
Baloney, nothing that bizarre is needed, other particles
could be expanding just as well as electrons.
The model builds itself, it does not need bizarre assumptions
or specification such as this.
Joe Fischer
AaronB
You still haven't answered two of my queries:
1. Why do objects fall at a slower rate when they are farther away
from the Earth? (straight down, mind, not necessarily in circular
motion)
2. The radius of the Earth is increasing at an exponential rate
(0.00000077%/s^2); if one is travelling at constant speed, how would
you ever be able to circumnavigate the globe?
And here's something you might find interesting:
3. Suppose at this precise moment, the Earth has a radius of 6.38x10^6
m, and has an initial velocity of 0, expanding at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2
(technically this value should also be increasing as the radius
increases, but that would be a fairly complex integration problem
which I don't really want to do; it won't matter anyway.) Now, let us
consider what happens one year from now, 31,536,000 seconds later. Vf
= Vi + at (this is basic kinematics, which McCutcheon seems to accept)
Vf = (9.8m/s^2)(31536000s) = 309,052,800. Wow. Some point on the
radius of the Earth is now travelling at 300 MILLION m/s, and the
Earth now has a radius of d = 1/2at^2 = 1/2(9.8m/s^2)(31536000)^2
of--get this--4,873,144,550,400,000 m. That's almost 5 SEXTILLION m.
In one year. And, since the radius of the Earth is bigger now, it's
rate of expansion is actually much greater: 37,523,213 m/s^2, so if I
did that integral, you would probably find the Earth's radius several
orders of magnitude larger. Assuming the Earth stopped after this
point, it would take a particle of light travelling in vacuum(0
volume=>no expansion, by the way) 5.2 years to circumnavigate the
globe! And remember, the Earth is billions of years old; all of these
calculations are for one year, assuming the Earth just started
expanding at this moment.
Joe Fischer
>cinq...@yahoo.com (cinquirer) wrote:
>> Biotechnology. So bear with me for the rest of this year folks and
>> I'll be outta here.
>> c
>
>You still haven't answered two of my queries:
>
>1. Why do objects fall at a slower rate when they are farther away
>from the Earth? (straight down, mind, not necessarily in circular
>motion)
I answered that, it is called Geodesic Deviation in General
Relativity, and is given that special name because an accelerometer
on any falling object in vacuum reads zero.
Why do you insist on using the word "falling"? Any problem
in gravity is best worked as if the experiment were in Einstein's
elevator in deep space far from any ponderable matter.
So to work a problem where objects are some considerable
distance apart, the elevator must be very tall, and the objects put
in their position by catapult.
This means, in the expanding matter model, where there
is no attractive gravitational field or force acting, the objects
do not fall, and they are moving apart as if they were accelerating
apart, but neither are accelerating, they are undergoing geodesic
deviation.
Without the confusion of Newtonian gravitation, each
object has been given a different upward velocity, else one
would not have reached a greater altitude (distance from the
surface).
If all matter and the Earth is expanding, the surface of
the Earth must have an upward velocity, and this results from
all the upward acceleration of the surface.
But it is not an infinitely large velocity, regardless of
how long the expansion has been going on, because the length
of the meter has also been increasing as matter expands, and
the length of the second has been increasing.
So the upward velocity at any instant is a _constant_,
and that velocity must be in a certain range which can be
estimated, because the surface has only moved upward a
maximum of 4000 miles in all eternity!
So each object catapulted upward has a velocity
greater than the surface, and the higher object has the
greatest upward velocity.
And since the meter stick and second are lengthening,
the velocity of each relative to the surface changes in a
way that is different from Newtonian mechanics.
And it will appear to a Newtonian observer that
both objects are being accelerated at slightly different
rates.
This produces the illusion that a "gravitational field"
exists with a varying "gravitational potential or gradient",
and the measured velocities and apparent accelerations
will suggest that a "gravitational force" is acting.
>2. The radius of the Earth is increasing at an exponential rate
>(0.00000077%/s^2); if one is travelling at constant speed, how would
>you ever be able to circumnavigate the globe?
Since each second is longer than the last, a moving
object has more time to move each second, even though
the velocity in free space without gravity would appear
to be constant.
>And here's something you might find interesting:
>
>3. Suppose at this precise moment, the Earth has a radius of 6.38x10^6
>m, and has an initial velocity of 0, expanding at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2
>(technically this value should also be increasing as the radius
>increases, but that would be a fairly complex integration problem
>which I don't really want to do; it won't matter anyway.) Now, let us
>consider what happens one year from now, 31,536,000 seconds later. Vf
>= Vi + at (this is basic kinematics, which McCutcheon seems to accept)
>Vf = (9.8m/s^2)(31536000s) = 309,052,800. Wow. Some point on the
>radius of the Earth is now travelling at 300 MILLION m/s, and the
>Earth now has a radius of d = 1/2at^2 = 1/2(9.8m/s^2)(31536000)^2
>of--get this--4,873,144,550,400,000 m. That's almost 5 SEXTILLION m.
>In one year. And, since the radius of the Earth is bigger now, it's
>rate of expansion is actually much greater: 37,523,213 m/s^2, so if I
>did that integral, you would probably find the Earth's radius several
>orders of magnitude larger. Assuming the Earth stopped after this
>point, it would take a particle of light travelling in vacuum(0
>volume=>no expansion, by the way) 5.2 years to circumnavigate the
>globe! And remember, the Earth is billions of years old; all of these
>calculations are for one year, assuming the Earth just started
>expanding at this moment.
You just aren't getting into the model, obviously the meter
stick is lengthening some way in unison with all other matter, as
is the radius of the Earth, so the numbers do not change.
So the surface of the Earth cannot have moved more than
4000 miles in all past eternity.
It will take more appropriate questions than this to
be an effective argument against the possibility that expanding
matter is equivalent to Newtonian attraction.
Joe Fischer
cinquirer
Joe. That's why his book is titled The Final Theory and
not Expansion Theory. What made his Final Theory unique
is that he implies that the 4 fundemantal forces don't even
exist. That the expansion nature of the particles are just
not understood giving rise to many theories and forces
such as gravity, strong force, weak force, electromagnetic
force to fit the data. And he spent each page 2/3 of the
book giving details of why it is not so. The difference between
his final theory and others is that others made the Final Theory
by unifying the 4 forces. While he made the Final Theory by
removing the 4 forces. It's a challenge reading them. Cody
has summarize what Mccutcheon stated in the particle physics
portion of his book which I tried to avoid mentioning lest
sudden explosion of new concepts may drown some. At
any rate. I'm interested in the book to debunk it.
c
cinquirer
Now that Cody has summarised the main points of
particle physics portion of Mccutcheon's The Final
Theory. Let us make a parallel scrutiny with both the
gravitational and orbitals as discussed earlier and the
subatomic part of Expansion Theory. With Aaron
incredible knowledge and discernment. We can determine
its state not long, whether the book has merit and a
Nobel Prize candidate or just the ultimate crackpot book.
Let's start with Mccutcheon statement that "neither
charged particles nor electric charge actually exists
anywhere in nature". I'll not quote any text from his
book. But use my own words and the way I understand
it (others who have read the book who saw where I
err in my understanding, just point out to me, thanks).
When Franklin rubs two suspended glass rods with
silk, he noticed they repel. Same with two plastic
rods with fur. However he noticed plastic and glass
rods attract. So he concluded there must be two
charge, positive and negative. As a result, all
experiments and theories related to atoms and
subatomic particles today are unquestioningly framed
within the interpretation made by Benjamin Franklin.
So if there is no charge, how did the object attract.
Mccutcheon said the following is what occured.
First, he stated the protons and neutrons are
really groupings of electrons. And since all the
electrons expand. The cluster called the nucleus
stick to each other closely because the expanding
produces the stability. Here there is no need for
the Strong Nuclear Force. About muons, he said
those particles seen in particle accelerator experiments
are really part of the electron nucleus clusters that
has break off. Now let's go back to charge. Since
the nucleus has no positive charge, and electrons don't
have charge either, then the electrons simply bounce
off the nucleus. And the rise of falls of the many
bouncing electrons produce the effects made by
"quantum probability clouds". Now what made two
object get attracted or repelled to each other if
there is no charge. Well. The distribution of the
bouncing electrons are not the same in all substance.
Where two objects have bouncing electrons with
unequal density. There is a density to bind each other
much like two opposite crowd of the football teams
going after each other and merging. Imagine each
person as electron although in reality there are fewer
of course. So the merging produces the attraction,
not the charge. Now in repulsion, the opposite
crowd has all big men on the front (concentrated
electron densities on the front), so the crowd
can't mix very easily because they have to wait for
the big men or wrestlers to fight off (which you see
on TV takes very long).
I don't know if the above is a good analogy.
Now, Aaron, your detailed comment. Let's debunk it
with penetrating counterarguments.
c
Joe Fischer <gravity...@ig1ou.com> wrote in message news:<eh31svc6o956t6nkn...@4ax.com>...
cinquirer
>
> 1. Why do objects fall at a slower rate when they are farther away
> from the Earth? (straight down, mind, not necessarily in circular
> motion)
Mccutcheon has touched it here:
"It is actually a well-established biological fact that the alarming
feeling of failing is a survival response, triggered by a combination
of visual cues and bodily sensors that register the altered physical
situation of free-fall. The visual cues involve seeing buildings and
cars and the ground below all rushing toward or past us as we fall,
yet this is precisely what we would expect to see if the ground were
accelerating toward us as we merely floated in space. A major bodily
sensation is the rush of wind as we fall, yet this too would be
expected if the planet and its atmosphere were speeding toward us -
just as we feel a rush of wind as a subway train races into a station
pushing a cushion of air ahead of it.
Another major bodily sensation is the alarming falling feeling
generated when acceleration sensors in our body detect that we are no
longer on solid ground, but are falling. Yet this too would be
expected if these sensors register the constant expansion of the Earth
against us as normal, and the removal of this expansion as abnormal
and alarming. We have evolved as beings that are constantly in contact
with the expanding Earth, and these sensors register that everything
is fine as long as that situation con tinues. Stepping off a cliff
removes this expansion force from beneath us as we are then floating
in space, triggering the alarm mechanism, while the ground also rushes
toward us. Astronauts in space feel this same falling sensation,
despite the fact that they are floating in space and not failing at
all. This psychological alarm mechanism exists so that we will rapidly
reach for something solid to hang on to before it is too late. No
objectively verifiable pulling forc e can be shown to exist during the
fre e-fall of either objects or people.
Incidentally, according to today's gravitational theory, astronauts in
orbit about the Earth - on the space shuttle for example are
considered to be in constant free-fall toward the planet while their
orbital velocity compensates, rather than merely floating, as
Expansion Theory states. However, if this were truly the case then it
might be expected that astronauts on the Apollo missions to the moon
would have immediately lost this failing feeling as they left the
freefall of orbit and truly floated in deep space on the way to the
moon. Yet this is not the experience reported back from such missions.
Some astronauts do report eventually adjusting to this falling
feeling, and some never do, but this is the case whether they are in a
"free-fall" orbit about the Earth or floating on the way to the moon.
While, from the perspective of Standard Theory, this fact - that
orbital free-fall is essentially the same experience as floating -
might be a bit surprising, this is ex pected in Expansion Theory since
there is no such thing as falling (i.e. being Pulled downward by a
"gravitational force") - there is only floating. Falling on Earth,
orbiting the Earth, and floating in deep space all feel the same
because they are the same - they are all floating experiences
according to Expansion Theory."
> 2. The radius of the Earth is increasing at an exponential rate
> (0.00000077%/s^2); if one is travelling at constant speed, how would
> you ever be able to circumnavigate the globe?
The earth is rotating, so your speed is only to make sure you won't
fall down. Remember in Mccutcheon theory. Both the earth and moon are
going straight in parallel with the moon faster. Anyway. There is
something i've been thinking a lot. This means the moon is travelling
faster and faster as it is accelerating with respect to the earth. So
it's speed is increasing. Can it be possible earth and moon is
travelling in space at let's say 1/8 the speed of light and
increasing? But our solar system is travelling in space at a very fast
rate too. Anyway. To those Mcutcheon supports. Pls. expand on this.
>
> And here's something you might find interesting:
>
> 3. Suppose at this precise moment, the Earth has a radius of 6.38x10^6
> m, and has an initial velocity of 0, expanding at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2
> (technically this value should also be increasing as the radius
> increases, but that would be a fairly complex integration problem
> which I don't really want to do; it won't matter anyway.) Now, let us
> consider what happens one year from now, 31,536,000 seconds later. Vf
> = Vi + at (this is basic kinematics, which McCutcheon seems to accept)
> Vf = (9.8m/s^2)(31536000s) = 309,052,800. Wow. Some point on the
> radius of the Earth is now travelling at 300 MILLION m/s, and the
> Earth now has a radius of d = 1/2at^2 = 1/2(9.8m/s^2)(31536000)^2
> of--get this--4,873,144,550,400,000 m. That's almost 5 SEXTILLION m.
> In one year. And, since the radius of the Earth is bigger now, it's
> rate of expansion is actually much greater: 37,523,213 m/s^2, so if I
> did that integral, you would probably find the Earth's radius several
> orders of magnitude larger. Assuming the Earth stopped after this
> point, it would take a particle of light travelling in vacuum(0
> volume=>no expansion, by the way) 5.2 years to circumnavigate the
> globe! And remember, the Earth is billions of years old; all of these
> calculations are for one year, assuming the Earth just started
> expanding at this moment.
Mccutcheon believed "photons" are electron clusters that have been
ejected from vibrating atoms. Since the electrons also expand as the
earth expand then from his formula where the radii is used to
calculate total expansion, the size of them is proportional. See the
message by Cody where she summarized the particle physics part of
Mccutcheon Final Theory. Let's engage Mccutcheon in that message and
thread. I know there is something wrong with his theories as its so
bizarre and I want to get over it asap so I can focus and continue my
search for the detailed physic of Qi.
c
Cody R. Perkins
realize in expansion theory all matter and energy expand. Even light.
This means that all matter would effectively be moving in all
directions all the time, by a percentage of .00000077% each second.
The expansion it self is in a state of constant acceleration. The
measurements we use are based on what seems to be passive matter from
human perspective. In expansion theory no matter is truely passive.
The matter is expanding and therefore constantly in motion. The irony
would be that measurements are really not constant but ever changing
as all matter and energy expand (increasing size).
Now for elliptical orbit lets use our moon as example. As the moon
goes to it's farthest distance in its orbit, Earth and Moon mutual
expansion causes distance shorten. This happens because expansion
means constant acceleration and a motion that moves away from another
body allows for the expansion to decrease the distance. Which also
would be measured as the Moon slowing down as moving away from Earth
in far orbit. As the moon moves from far orbit to close orbit
approachs closer to Earth, the mutual expansion decreases the distance
of the objects and will make them move faster toward each other. This
speed increase causes Moon to have fast enough motion to overtake
Earth expansion and it zips around for another orbit. As long the
Moon's motion passing by Earth is greater than Earth's expansion, the
moon will continue to orbit.
The trick is understanding that expansion means no matter is passive.
Matter would expand in all directions, toward all objects, and do so
all the time. Constant never ending motion. This holds true to energy
as well. As energy in expansion theory is just one form of matter.
AaronB
That still doesn't explain my question. While a person may be
deceived, dropping an object that measures acceleration will not.
> > 2. The radius of the Earth is increasing at an exponential rate
> > (0.00000077%/s^2); if one is travelling at constant speed, how would
> > you ever be able to circumnavigate the globe?
>
> The earth is rotating, so your speed is only to make sure you won't
> fall down.
No, I'm walking/driving at constant speed (on the ground). The
rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with it. Think of it this way:
when you jump, you only move horizontally, even though you are leaving
the Earth which is rotating at 300 km/h (or something like that, don't
know the exact number). This is because you are actually in projectile
motion; you have an initial velocity which is exactly equal in
magnitude and direction to the direction of planetary motion, so you
don't move at all.
> Remember in Mccutcheon theory. Both the earth and moon are
> going straight in parallel with the moon faster. Anyway. There is
> something i've been thinking a lot. This means the moon is travelling
> faster and faster as it is accelerating with respect to the earth. So
> it's speed is increasing. Can it be possible earth and moon is
> travelling in space at let's say 1/8 the speed of light and
> increasing? But our solar system is travelling in space at a very fast
> rate too. Anyway. To those Mcutcheon supports. Pls. expand on this.
I've alluded to this as well below. Also, if the moon is accelerating
to keep up with the rotation of the Earth, what force is causing it to
accelerate?
If light were a cluster of electrons it would be charged, and would
have mass. It don't suppose that would make a difference though, since
the speed (aside from expansion speed) shouldn't increase with
expansion anyway, so you still have the same problem.
A.
> c
AaronB
I'm fairly new to both general relativity and expansion theory, so let
me just see that I understand you correctly:
Say you have two stars 10 light years apart, which, relative to an
observer 10 light years away from both, appear to be stationary
relative to both him and each other.
If the observer were a Newtonian physicist, he would say that the
stars are stationary because the gravitational attraction between them
is depleting proportional to 1/r^2, and because other objects' mass
may also be interacting with them (planets in their respective systems
or whatever) the net force on either planet is zero, so they remain
stationary.
If the observer were an expansionist, he would say that both stars are
expanding at a rate proportional to their respective radii, but that
also, the distance between them, is expanding because the standard
metre used to measure 10 light years is expanding as well, and the
duration of a second is also increasing so that light can still travel
that same distance in the same amount of time. Since everything is
expanding at the same rate, the result is that the distance between
the stars appears to remain constant, to both the stars, and the
observer.
Given the same situation, except now the stars are moving towards each
other:
Newtonian observer sees both stars accelerating, and their respective
accelerations increase as they approach one another because of the
1/r^2 relationship; he predicts that each will experience an identical
net force in opposite directions.
Expansionist observer sees that the two masses are expanding at the
same rate, but because the distance between him and the stars is
increasing at the same rate as the expansion of the stars, it appears
that the stars are not getting any larger, but are getting closer
together.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Now that I have mentioned Mark Mccutcheon's The
> Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
>
> http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
>
> http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf
> (the first chapter of the book... read it... it's fun)
>
> Let me give brief description of what the new theory is all about.
[snip lots of nonsense]
> When I first read the book. I have to laught out
> loud. But the book length of more than 400 pages explain every
> scenerio from orbits to electromagnetic field.
Does it explain
1) atomic physics: atomic spectra? Measured electron densities in
molecules?
Spins?
2) nuclear physics: Weizsaecker's mass formula? The "magical numbers"?
Scattering cross sections, including Mott's and Rosenbluth's formula?
3) particle physics: anomalous magnetic moments? The fact that the cross
section for meson production is three times the cross section for
muon-antimuon-production (if one divides out the fractional charges of
the quarks)? The peak in electron-positron scattering at 90 GeV?
4) gravitation: the rotation of Mercury's perihelion? The change in the
orbit of the famous double pulsar? The time dilation effects in the GPS
satellites?
I bet it explains nothing of these things; am I right?
> All your thoughts of
> the contradiction and possible conflict of other scientific principles
> is addressed in the book.
Err, it was already pointed out that the author doesn't even understand
work and energy.
> For those who have read it. Let's find
> any major flaw that can debunk everything.
Already done: his stuff about forces requiring an energy source is just
plain nonsense.
> The following are the
> comments of people in sci.physics who have read it.
Could you please give the names of these people?
> But unfortunately,
> the discussions die down because they don't want to start debating
> as it's gonna be very long as it involves the entire principles of
> physics. Let note we can learn so much if we can debunk it.
> The following are the comments of 3 people in sci.physics who read it.
>
> 1st person comments:
>
> "I purchased and read The Final Theory a couple of months ago hoping
> for a good challenge in finding the flaws of another theory and
> finding the discrepancies that will prove it false and contradicting.
> Instead, i found myself using an entirely different standard with
> which to view the universe. Obvious but overlooked or ignored flaws in
> today's Standard Theory are exposed and corrected.
Such as?
> Fundamental
> mysteries such as magnetism, electricity, and gravity are explained
What's so mysterious about those?
> and their causes made known. The theory p resented by the author is a
> solid and extremely thought-provoking concept.
Nonsense.
> There is nothing overly
> complex. Everything is simple and makes perfect sense. This book is
> well worth getting just for the way it will make you review all the
> laws and theories we've grown up with and accepted, some for
> centuries. Either you will find the Standard Theory reinforced as it
> defends the laws at its core, or you will find a new way to view the
> everyday fundamentals of the univers e. Either way its worth the
> read."
From what you have posted so far, the opposite is true: the book is a
complete waste of time.
[snip other comments]
What are these supposed to show? That there are gullible people out
there who don't understand enough basic physics to see the flaws in
this book?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
No. Why on earth do you think so??? If they are travelling in parallel
lines, it can't look like one is orbiting the other, no matter what
expansions are going on.
> when they are both travelling in parallel in space with both
> expanding and the moon travelling faster. This is how I understood it.
Please explain how two objects moving on parallel lines can look like
one orbiting the other.
> We both read the same text and illustration.
Do some more iterations, please.
> Maybe Joe can help.
>
> To Aaron
>
> See above as the moon and earth is really travelling in straight lines
> and it is the geometry that is giving the illusion of orbits.
Look at the picture again and do some more iterations. This *can't*
result
in an orbit, not even in the illusion of an orbit!
[snip rest]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> aar...@uvic.ca (AaronB) wrote in message news:<9f8a9f42.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > You still haven't answered two of my queries:
> >
> > 1. Why do objects fall at a slower rate when they are farther away
> > from the Earth? (straight down, mind, not necessarily in circular
> > motion)
>
> Mccutcheon has touched it here:
Nothing of what you quote below answers the question above.
> "It is actually a well-established biological fact that the alarming
> feeling of failing is a survival response, triggered by a combination
> of visual cues and bodily sensors that register the altered physical
> situation of free-fall. The visual cues involve seeing buildings and
> cars and the ground below all rushing toward or past us as we fall,
> yet this is precisely what we would expect to see if the ground were
> accelerating toward us as we merely floated in space.
Why should the acceleration of the ground towards us depend on our
height above the ground?
> A major bodily
> sensation is the rush of wind as we fall, yet this too would be
> expected if the planet and its atmosphere were speeding toward us -
> just as we feel a rush of wind as a subway train races into a station
> pushing a cushion of air ahead of it.
>
> Another major bodily sensation is the alarming falling feeling
> generated when acceleration sensors in our body detect that we are no
> longer on solid ground, but are falling. Yet this too would be
> expected if these sensors register the constant expansion of the Earth
> against us as normal, and the removal of this expansion as abnormal
> and alarming. We have evolved as beings that are constantly in contact
> with the expanding Earth, and these sensors register that everything
> is fine as long as that situation con tinues. Stepping off a cliff
> removes this expansion force from beneath us as we are then floating
> in space, triggering the alarm mechanism, while the ground also rushes
> toward us. Astronauts in space feel this same falling sensation,
> despite the fact that they are floating in space and not failing at
> all.
Wrong. Astronauts aboard the ISS, for example, are constantly falling
(around the earth).
> This psychological alarm mechanism exists so that we will rapidly
> reach for something solid to hang on to before it is too late. No
> objectively verifiable pulling forc e can be shown to exist during the
> fre e-fall of either objects or people.
>
> Incidentally, according to today's gravitational theory, astronauts in
> orbit about the Earth - on the space shuttle for example are
> considered to be in constant free-fall toward the planet
Right, see above.
> while their
> orbital velocity compensates, rather than merely floating, as
> Expansion Theory states. However, if this were truly the case then it
> might be expected that astronauts on the Apollo missions to the moon
> would have immediately lost this failing feeling as they left the
> freefall of orbit and truly floated in deep space on the way to the
> moon.
Err, they were falling (attracted to) first back to the earth, and later
towards the moon, essentially.
Additionally, the General Theory of Relativity explains nicely why
being in no gravitational field at all gives the same sensations
and measurements as free falling in an approx. unifrom gravitational
field.
> Yet this is not the experience reported back from such missions.
Err, we wouldn't expect such reports, based on our understanding of
gravity. This guy doesn't understand anything at all about gravity!
> Some astronauts do report eventually adjusting to this falling
> feeling, and some never do, but this is the case whether they are in a
> "free-fall" orbit about the Earth or floating on the way to the moon.
They are never just "floating". They are always falling.
> While, from the perspective of Standard Theory, this fact - that
> orbital free-fall is essentially the same experience as floating -
> might be a bit surprising, this is ex pected in Expansion Theory since
> there is no such thing as falling (i.e. being Pulled downward by a
> "gravitational force") - there is only floating. Falling on Earth,
> orbiting the Earth, and floating in deep space all feel the same
> because they are the same - they are all floating experiences
> according to Expansion Theory."
And still nothing of this explains why (measured) acceleration towards
the earth depends on the distance to the earth.
> > 2. The radius of the Earth is increasing at an exponential rate
> > (0.00000077%/s^2); if one is travelling at constant speed, how would
> > you ever be able to circumnavigate the globe?
>
> The earth is rotating, so your speed is only to make sure you won't
> fall down.
This has nothing to do with answering the question.
> Remember in Mccutcheon theory. Both the earth and moon are
> going straight in parallel with the moon faster.
Then you wouldn't see any orbit. This makes no sense.
> Anyway. There is
> something i've been thinking a lot. This means the moon is travelling
> faster and faster as it is accelerating with respect to the earth. So
> it's speed is increasing. Can it be possible earth and moon is
> travelling in space at let's say 1/8 the speed of light and
> increasing?
The speed of earth can measured by looking at the Doppler shifts of
distant
stars.
[snip]
> Mccutcheon believed "photons" are electron clusters that have been
> ejected from vibrating atoms.
Makes no sense - photons have no electric charge.
[snip rest]
Bye,
Bjoern
John Sefton
I agree with Sam.
In order for a volume to expand equally,
the edges must constantly be increasing
speed with respect to the center.
But there is no single center.
John
Cody R. Perkins
points. Current theories of all physics are models. They are helpful
tools, but should not be mistaken for the truth. If Relativity and
many other theories perfectly described nature, then why are
physicists looking for Unified Field Theory to explain all physical
laws in the universe? Simple. They don't know why the physical laws
work. They know through experiment and observation what many physics
of nature do. But not what makes them work. It's not like you can look
at most particles directly. They had to look for signs to prove they
were there in the first place.
Now I have mentioned a few basics from this theory, but by all means
have not mentioned all of the depth or material it covers. If you want
know more read the book. If it doesn't interest you then go do
something else. I will go into in depth talk of the book only with
someone who has read it. Otherwise I will only mention basics to
someone else. Is the theory right? Wrong? Who knows. Like any theory
it requires experimental evidence to back it up. A few experiments
come to mind that would prove it right or wrong.
As theory it is interesting. Other theores are cropping up that
elementary particle makes all other particles of matter and energy. I
have had a similar hunch myself that all particles are made of
extremely small particle not reconized today by science yet. So if
Expansion Theory is true that would be interesting. If not then it
least it probes new ways of thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if all
current theories are wrong or over look how nature of physical really
works in every area.
The point is mankind does not know. Even if we did the average person
wouldn't care to much. Only the small percentage of scientificly
curious would care. So we can debate all we want but the truth is we
just don't know why the universe works or why it formed in the first
place. If break throughs are made, it would most likely be used for
military application. Why? Because science has always had close ties
with military in some form or fashion. As our chaotic world stands now
we not ready for a Final Theory anyway. There will be time when
mankind can handle it. But certainly not right now.
So Expansion Theory, GUTS, Superstring, and many more are interesting.
However every development mankind has done as been flawed or abused in
some way. Something to think about. Do we even to deserve to know how
the universe works?
Joe Fischer
>I'm fairly new to both general relativity and expansion theory, so let
>me just see that I understand you correctly:
>
>Say you have two stars 10 light years apart, which, relative to an
>observer 10 light years away from both, appear to be stationary
>relative to both him and each other.
What would that mean, "stationary" is not meaningful,
what an observer sees doesn't affect physics, and even in
standard theory the stars are moving, it is just they are so
far away, they don't appear to move far in a mere human's
lifetime.
There are stars within 3 or 4 light years of our solar
system, and they move, but estimates of the motion is only
done by spectral analysis.
General Relativity should have predicted the expansion
of the universe, maybe that would be a good thing to study,
a search for the De Sitter universe might turn something up.
>If the observer were a Newtonian physicist, he would say that the
>stars are stationary because the gravitational attraction between them
>is depleting proportional to 1/r^2, and because other objects' mass
>may also be interacting with them (planets in their respective systems
>or whatever) the net force on either planet is zero, so they remain
>stationary.
"Appear to remain stationary".
>If the observer were an expansionist, he would say that both stars are
>expanding at a rate proportional to their respective radii, but that
>also, the distance between them, is expanding because the standard
>metre used to measure 10 light years is expanding as well,
If the distance between them is increasing it is because they
are moving apart, not because of any change in unit lenght.
> and the
>duration of a second is also increasing so that light can still travel
>that same distance in the same amount of time. Since everything is
>expanding at the same rate, the result is that the distance between
>the stars appears to remain constant, to both the stars, and the
>observer.
Everything cannot be expanding at the same rate, I don't
know if the referenced new book says that, but if it does, it is
wrong.
The change in unit interval and length due to matter
expanding would compensate for the non-linear rate of
motion.
>Given the same situation, except now the stars are moving towards each
>other:
>
>Newtonian observer sees both stars accelerating, and their respective
>accelerations increase as they approach one another because of the
>1/r^2 relationship; he predicts that each will experience an identical
>net force in opposite directions.
Stars do not accelerate, but they can move towards each
other, and do all the time, and when they get close enough,
they would appear to be accelerating toward each other,
and at twice the rate of a pebble at the same distance.
This is a Newtonian prediction.
>Expansionist observer sees that the two masses are expanding at the
>same rate, but because the distance between him and the stars is
>increasing at the same rate as the expansion of the stars, it appears
>that the stars are not getting any larger, but are getting closer
>together.
If stars are not moving apart, the proposed expansion
would cause them to eventually collide regardless of what
observers think they see.
I find it odd that you even consider what observers
see or think they see.
I probably have written 10 million words on the subject
on Usenet, I can only assume that the readership is changing
quite often.
While I think the Divergent Matter model should be
studied by a number of professionals and graduate students,
I don't think any snake oil theory that tries to say that all
of physics and chemistry can be explained by expansion.
There are charged particles, and there is a particle zoo,
a theory based on expanding matter is pretty much confined
to gravity and a few other side effects.
Joe Fischer
AaronB
>
> Now that Cody has summarised the main points of
> particle physics portion of Mccutcheon's The Final
> Theory. Let us make a parallel scrutiny with both the
> gravitational and orbitals as discussed earlier and the
> subatomic part of Expansion Theory. With Aaron
> incredible knowledge and discernment.
Most of my "incredible knowledge and discernment" is from a freshman
physics text.
> We can determine
> its state not long, whether the book has merit and a
> Nobel Prize candidate or just the ultimate crackpot book.
Don't worry too much about a Nobel Prize for this "masterpiece" just
yet.
> Let's start with Mccutcheon statement that "neither
> charged particles nor electric charge actually exists
> anywhere in nature". I'll not quote any text from his
> book. But use my own words and the way I understand
> it (others who have read the book who saw where I
> err in my understanding, just point out to me, thanks).
>
> When Franklin rubs two suspended glass rods with
> silk, he noticed they repel. Same with two plastic
> rods with fur. However he noticed plastic and glass
> rods attract. So he concluded there must be two
> charge, positive and negative. As a result, all
> experiments and theories related to atoms and
> subatomic particles today are unquestioningly framed
> within the interpretation made by Benjamin Franklin.
Which is wrong, at least partially; Franklin guessed that positive
charges flowed in current toward negative. We know the opposite is
true (though Franklin did literally just guess in the matter, that's
why you'll hear of both "conventional current" and "electron flow" for
the same thing)
> So if there is no charge, how did the object attract.
> Mccutcheon said the following is what occured.
> First, he stated the protons and neutrons are
> really groupings of electrons.
Even assuming that electrons have no charge, you would need thousands
of electrons in the nucleus, but anyhow...
> And since all the
> electrons expand. The cluster called the nucleus
> stick to each other closely because the expanding
> produces the stability. Here there is no need for
> the Strong Nuclear Force.
I don't know if this would necessarily produce stability. Think of
having a whole bunch of balloons in a cluster. Now start inflating
them. The balloons will naturally try to separate as much as possible.
Furthermore, it would seem to me, that if you were to have a second
atom (or any particle) approach the nucleus with some speed, it could
very easily cause the nucleus to fragment itself. Now, this process is
possible (nuclear fission) but it obviously requires a considerable
amount of energy.
> About muons, he said
> those particles seen in particle accelerator experiments
> are really part of the electron nucleus clusters that
> has break off. Now let's go back to charge. Since
> the nucleus has no positive charge, and electrons don't
> have charge either, then the electrons simply bounce
> off the nucleus.
How would atoms bond chemically without charged particles?
> And the rise of falls of the many
> bouncing electrons produce the effects made by
> "quantum probability clouds". Now what made two
> object get attracted or repelled to each other if
> there is no charge. Well. The distribution of the
> bouncing electrons are not the same in all substance.
> Where two objects have bouncing electrons with
> unequal density.
Hydrogen atoms have one electron each, and readily form H2 gas. That's
only two electrons with atoms that have the same electron density. And
even still, while the electrons may stick together as you suggest,
there is no reason why they should stick to the nucleus.
> There is a density to bind each other
> much like two opposite crowd of the football teams
> going after each other and merging. Imagine each
> person as electron although in reality there are fewer
> of course. So the merging produces the attraction,
> not the charge. Now in repulsion, the opposite
> crowd has all big men on the front (concentrated
> electron densities on the front), so the crowd
> can't mix very easily because they have to wait for
> the big men or wrestlers to fight off (which you see
> on TV takes very long).
>
> I don't know if the above is a good analogy.
>
> Now, Aaron, your detailed comment. Let's debunk it
> with penetrating counterarguments.
>
> c
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Mark McCutcheon is a
crackpot.
A.
Paul R. Mays
"AaronB" <aar...@uvic.ca> wrote in message
news:9f8a9f42.03112...@posting.google.com...
If the above is a even close view of what McCutcheon wrote
then I must agree with AaronB.. McCutcheon has no
idea of the present knowledge base in physics ....
Double-A
> When Franklin rubs two suspended glass rods with
> silk, he noticed they repel. Same with two plastic
> rods with fur. However he noticed plastic and glass
> rods attract. So he concluded there must be two
> charge, positive and negative. As a result, all
> experiments and theories related to atoms and
> subatomic particles today are unquestioningly framed
> within the interpretation made by Benjamin Franklin.
What I want to know is where Benjamin Franklin found those "plastic"
rods in the 1700's???
Double-A
cinquirer
Maybe let's wait for someone to open up a yahoogroup
to discuss it. Although his theories seem to be absurb. What
is good in it is to make you think what other possibilities
there are. To discuss it here. We can't mention every single
thought he has. For example. His explanations about capacitors
and cathode ray tubes that don't use charged electrons are long
and with many illustrations. To convey it, we have to draw
the illustrations ourselves. And this would make us spend our
time discussing his ideas (and not to mention possibly twisting it
and the third person twisting it turning it upside down). The book
is not 400+ pages for nothing. His theories may be all wrong
but he has great creativity. It's like if someone told you to
rewrite all rules in physics by simply using the law of expanding
matter and only using electrons. In fact, I remember a book
mentioned written in 1910 or so which state a single electron
may create the entire universe by duplicating itself thru time, etc.
and making up all particles, etc. twisting it creating the effect of
charges, and so on and on. Maybe he got the idea from it
with the difference that there is not one electron but an infinite
number of it. Anyway. It's funny. Well reading the book can sure
make you appreciate physics and understand how scientists work
so hard to advance science and how many principles and models
are made to match up the data and experiment.
c
ZeroNeg
> Final Theory: Rethinking the Scientific Legacy. See
>
> http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
>
> http://www.brownwalker.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf
> (the first chapter of the book... read it... it's fun)
>
> Let me give brief description of what the new theory is all about.
>
> is because since the universe is infinite, it can be any size and you
> don't have frame or reference.
>
> Imagine hyperspace is inside particles (see the post "Hyperspace
> Inside each Particle? where I got the idea from him) affecting the
> nucleus as a whole and this space outside we know are just creation of
> the hyperspace inside particles and nucleus and hyperspace in the
> universe infinity. So space is just relative and not primary
> and the space inside atom is not what we understood it. Since
> hyperspace is the core of reality and space just the side effect. Then
> the atoms hyperspace particles are expanding. And it's pushing out
> space (maybe the hyperspace inside particles is being attracted to
> the hyperspace at the universe infinity? This is just my guess as I
> haven't understood the principle so well. For those who read it and
> have other thoughts. Pls share it).
This basicly states, in your words, that the theory of infinity is
true. While we use infinity as a basis of mathematical calculations,
the idea of infinity is not a relative concept. Think of is as a
theoretical concept. IF it existed then such and such would be
true...etc etc. Electric flux across a flat plane is an example of an
infinite surface for the sake of calculating the flux semetricly
through the n. So, in regards to this statement, you are also stating
that EVERY SINGLE PEACE OF HYPERSPACE IS EQUALLY RESPONDING TO THE
INFINITE UNIVERSE VIA EXPANSION AT AN EQUAL AND RELATIVE RATE.
Problem with this is, you have 3 other forces to contend with. 1
being the electro-magnetic force. By adjusting any single one of
these forces, such as gravity, you thereby cause a relational
breakdown between mass and electromagnetic forces. So this force MUST
be relationally growing as well as the weak and strong forces. Don't
forget, space time is literally warped by large masses. Therefore all
larger bodied masses would have to respond to each other with great
magnitude.
> Anyway. What the book basically says is that entire planet earth is
> expanding as well as the rest of matter in the universe.
> Since human is smaller and the earth bigger. The earth expands
> faster compared to humans. So what we feel as gravity is
> not us being attracted to the ground. But simply the ground
> reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions. When we jump from
This is known as graviton particles, they flow as a massless particle.
> airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
> up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
> is hitting our body. Also the protons don't fly apart in the nucleus
OK, basic theory, if the entire earth reaches up to grab us, what
happens to everyone relationally to that plane that is reaching for
us. The whole world would feel the effects of this folding of earths
mass. And with such a concept as this, how can we be considered as
SEPERATE from the earth. We are a part of the overall mass of the
earth once we are in contact with it. Therefore, each particle that
makes up the entire mass of the earth, equally create the
gravitational force that excerpts upon all of us. Remember, newtonian
physics took men to the moon and back, all mathematically. Don't just
up and put that aside.
> because the particles are expanding too so it's maintening the core
> and the space in the nucleus is not linear or something like that.
> He is basically saying that gravitation, strong force are not needed,
> even the others. When I first read the book. I have to laught out
I will remind you that breaking hte strong force is what causes
nuclear explosions like the atom bomb. if it were a breaching of
gravity, we would cause a chain reaction everytime we jump on the
trampoline in our back yards.
> loud. But the book length of more than 400 pages explain every
> scenerio from orbits to electromagnetic field. All your thoughts of
> the contradiction and possible conflict of other scientific principles
> is addressed in the book. For those who have read it. Let's find
> any major flaw that can debunk everything. The following are the
> comments of people in sci.physics who have read it. But unfortunately,
> the discussions die down because they don't want to start debating
> as it's gonna be very long as it involves the entire principles of
> physics. Let note we can learn so much if we can debunk it.
> The following are the comments of 3 people in sci.physics who read it.
>
> 1st person comments:
>
> "I purchased and read The Final Theory a couple of months ago hoping
> for a good challenge in finding the flaws of another theory and
> finding the discrepancies that will prove it false and contradicting.
> Instead, i found myself using an entirely different standard with
> which to view the universe. Obvious but overlooked or ignored flaws in
> today's Standard Theory are exposed and corrected. Fundamental
> mysteries such as magnetism, electricity, and gravity are explained
> and their causes made known. The theory p resented by the author is a
> solid and extremely thought-provoking concept. There is nothing overly
> complex. Everything is simple and makes perfect sense. This book is
> well worth getting just for the way it will make you review all the
> laws and theories we've grown up with and accepted, some for
> centuries. Either you will find the Standard Theory reinforced as it
> defends the laws at its core, or you will find a new way to view the
> everyday fundamentals of the univers e. Either way its worth the
> read."
>
> 2nd person comments:
>
> "I have read the book. This not a book of fiction or crazy ideas. It
> presents a theory that very well possibly could one day shatter
> standard theory currently in use. It solves mysteries of outer space
> and even a few mysteries with Pioneer spacecraft. It utterly brings
> down Grand Unified Theoritical work of last several decades. I first
> bought the book to read out of curiousity. However after reading it
> and thinking over it and testing a few ideas I have been unable to
> find any flaw with it. Sciences curren t description of the 4 forces
> (gravity, electro-magnetism, Weak Nuclear Force, Strong Nuclear Force)
> have been flawed for years. Final Theory shows how much these forces
> are not understood by science today. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Super
> String, GUTS, Big Bang, Antimatter, and more are exposed as the flawed
> theories they have always been. The very nature of matter and atoms
> have been overlooked for the last century, but this book shows why
> this has happened. Implicati ons of this new theory are huge. Finally,
> it brings new questions about origins of matter and energy in all of
> the universe. This book is a must read for anyone who claims to love
> science and seeks answers for physical laws function as they do."
>
> 3rd person comments:
>
> " For everyone that always ask what "The Theory of Everything" should
> be make an effort to get your hands on a book by Mark McCutcheon, The
> final Theory. It is a masterful paradigm shift that deserves a closer
> look. If you are man or woman enough to admit that there are serious
> flaws in the existing Standard Model and all its subset of models from
> General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics, then you will do everything
> you can to get your hands on The Final Theory, your life will never be
> the same again. No dou bt, there will be many questions that will
> arise from his book but his proposed model goes a long way further in
> explaining everyday existence than all the other models put together.
> The model presented is logical and simple, just the way it should be
> without elaborate and fancy postulates, mathematical models and
> abstract thinking that cannot even be comprehended by the Einsteins'
> and Hawkings' of this world. It may not be the final theory of
> everything, but it presents a quantum lea p (of several magnitude s)
> in thinking that is bound to change the physical representation of our
> Universe forever. The question is, are you prepared to be left behind
> or are you prepared to let go of your paradigms and be at the
> forefront of the new science."
Bjoern Feuerbacher
snipped,
without marking this!) *all* of my comments and questions. That's
*very* telling!
"Cody R. Perkins" wrote:
>
> As a final thought to this current board
This is a newsgroup, not a message board.
> I will mention the following
> points. Current theories of all physics are models.
Vaguely right.
> They are helpful
> tools, but should not be mistaken for the truth.
Hey, finally something I can agree with!
> If Relativity and
> many other theories perfectly described nature, then why are
> physicists looking for Unified Field Theory to explain all physical
> laws in the universe? Simple. They don't know why the physical laws
> work.
Wrong. The main reasons to look for a Unified Field Theory are
1) The fact that it was already shown that the electromagnetic and
the weak force can be unified suggests that the electroweak and
the strong force can be unified, too.
2) Another piece of evidence for this is that all of the coupling
constants
become equal at a very high energy (around 10^16 GeV, IIRC), if
one calculates their changes according to their known running at
low energies.
3) There are several things in the SM which aren't nice from a
theoretical point of view - it's not very elegant.
> They know through experiment and observation what many physics
> of nature do. But not what makes them work.
I beg to differ. For example, attraction and repulsion is caused by the
exchange of virtual particles. If this is not an explanation how
something works, what is it?
> It's not like you can look
> at most particles directly. They had to look for signs to prove they
> were there in the first place.
>
> Now I have mentioned a few basics from this theory, but by all means
> have not mentioned all of the depth or material it covers. If you want
> know more read the book. If it doesn't interest you then go do
> something else. I will go into in depth talk of the book only with
> someone who has read it.
Could you please give us a reason why we should read it?
> Otherwise I will only mention basics to
> someone else. Is the theory right? Wrong? Who knows. Like any theory
> it requires experimental evidence to back it up. A few experiments
> come to mind that would prove it right or wrong.
I've already asked some questions about observations which it has to
explain.
Am I right that it explains none of these observations?
> As theory it is interesting. Other theores are cropping up that
> elementary particle makes all other particles of matter and energy. I
> have had a similar hunch myself that all particles are made of
> extremely small particle not reconized today by science yet.
People have looked for stuff like this for decades now and haven't
found anything so far.
> So if
> Expansion Theory is true that would be interesting. If not then it
> least it probes new ways of thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if all
> current theories are wrong or over look how nature of physical really
> works in every area.
*I* would be surprised if they were sooo wrong - they describe the
experimental results with amazing accuracy!
> The point is mankind does not know. Even if we did the average person
> wouldn't care to much. Only the small percentage of scientificly
> curious would care. So we can debate all we want but the truth is we
> just don't know why the universe works or why it formed in the first
> place. If break throughs are made, it would most likely be used for
> military application. Why? Because science has always had close ties
> with military in some form or fashion.
Well, quarks were postulated around 40 years ago. So far, the military
hasn't found any use for them. ;-)
> As our chaotic world stands now
> we not ready for a Final Theory anyway. There will be time when
> mankind can handle it. But certainly not right now.
>
> So Expansion Theory, GUTS, Superstring, and many more are interesting.
I strongly object to you putting these three "theories" together, as if
they
were somehow equally possible.
> However every development mankind has done as been flawed or abused in
> some way. Something to think about. Do we even to deserve to know how
> the universe works?
You can't blame whole mankind on the misdeeds of only a small part of
it.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
They *are* absurd. How many times do we need to demonstrate
to you that he doesn't understand basic physics, and that his
ideas don't work, until you get it?
> What is good in it is to make you think what other possibilities
> there are.
Err, thank you, scientists already can do this without crackpots
"helping" them.
> To discuss it here. We can't mention every single
> thought he has.
Right, but the parts you quoted so far were already shown to be nonsense
- so why bother to go on?
> For example. His explanations about capacitors
> and cathode ray tubes that don't use charged electrons are long
> and with many illustrations. To convey it, we have to draw
> the illustrations ourselves. And this would make us spend our
> time discussing his ideas (and not to mention possibly twisting it
> and the third person twisting it turning it upside down). The book
> is not 400+ pages for nothing.
The length of his book shows only that he has a vivid imagination.
This doesn't make it true!
> His theories may be all wrong but he has great creativity.
Right. So what?
> It's like if someone told you to
> rewrite all rules in physics by simply using the law of expanding
> matter and only using electrons.
And he utterly fails in doing that.
> In fact, I remember a book
> mentioned written in 1910 or so which state a single electron
> may create the entire universe by duplicating itself thru time, etc.
This sounds a bit like Feynman's idea of electrons going forwards
and backwards in time.
> and making up all particles, etc. twisting it creating the effect of
> charges, and so on and on. Maybe he got the idea from it
> with the difference that there is not one electron but an infinite
> number of it. Anyway. It's funny.
Well, that's right.
> Well reading the book can sure
> make you appreciate physics and understand how scientists work
> so hard to advance science and how many principles and models
> are made to match up the data and experiment.
That, I doubt. Reading a real scientific text book helps you
much more appreciating physics and understanding how scientists
work hard.
Bye,
Bjoern
Jeff Relf
" In order for a volume to expand equally ,
the edges must constantly be increasing speed
with respect to the center .
But there is no single center "
I'm not saying :
" The Atomic Expansion Theory is correct "
But what if everything at every point
was expanding into another dimension ?
Further , you must factor in the human mind here .
Maybe our minds have adapted to this .
cinquirer
>
>
> > when they are both travelling in parallel in space with both
> > expanding and the moon travelling faster. This is how I understood it.
>
> Please explain how two objects moving on parallel lines can look like
> one orbiting the other.
Let say the parallel lines are diverging (not so much a
parallel line as an inverted triangular) while one object
rotates. What causes it to diverge. Beats me. Joe has
the geometry.
c
cinquirer
> I don't know if this would necessarily produce stability. Think of
> having a whole bunch of balloons in a cluster. Now start inflating
> them. The balloons will naturally try to separate as much as possible.
> Furthermore, it would seem to me, that if you were to have a second
> atom (or any particle) approach the nucleus with some speed, it could
> very easily cause the nucleus to fragment itself. Now, this process is
> possible (nuclear fission) but it obviously requires a considerable
> amount of energy.
But the expansion is very great so it can't escape and bind with
each other. About particle hitting it. That's what Mccutcheon
explains are what produces the particles in particle accelerator
experiments when the nucleus is only made of clusters of
electrons. About causing the nucleus to fragment itself. Mccutcheon
said they recombine immediately after being hit.. which explains
why the "quarks" in the proton, neutron can't be separated or why
the gluons are stronger when further apart. About fission. Well.
This is when atomic space relativity is applied. The space outside
is not the same space inside. Let me illustration. It's like your
living room expand. Yet when seen from outside. It is same size
and when people throw object at you from outside. You would get
hit. However, inside the room. You can expand so big as to include
an entire aircraft carrier. It's because the space inside atoms
are some sort of hyperspace (my term) and the space outside
is defined by inside. Now the thousands of electrons in the
nucleus expand so fast (to maintain stability), yet no atomic
expansion is seen from the outside except that one half of the
diameter of the expanding electron in the edge of the atomic realm
which cause gravity. Back to fission. He said fission is when you
transfer the expanding electrons to the "space" outside the atomic
realm (where space is not relative to ours). When that occurs.
The expanding electrons get translated to our space continuum
releasing vast amount of energy in terms of atomic bomb. Crazy
idea, isn't it.
>
> > About muons, he said
> > those particles seen in particle accelerator experiments
> > are really part of the electron nucleus clusters that
> > has break off. Now let's go back to charge. Since
> > the nucleus has no positive charge, and electrons don't
> > have charge either, then the electrons simply bounce
> > off the nucleus.
>
> How would atoms bond chemically without charged particles?
The bouncing electrons (relatively speaking) are shared between
two atoms. The bond is formed when the bouncing distance gets
smaller as they "handshake" each other as each nucleus expand
and the bouncing electrons are intermingled between the 2
atomic realm. He explained this in 10 pages.
>
> > And the rise of falls of the many
> > bouncing electrons produce the effects made by
> > "quantum probability clouds". Now what made two
> > object get attracted or repelled to each other if
> > there is no charge. Well. The distribution of the
> > bouncing electrons are not the same in all substance.
> > Where two objects have bouncing electrons with
> > unequal density.
>
> Hydrogen atoms have one electron each, and readily form H2 gas. That's
> only two electrons with atoms that have the same electron density. And
> even still, while the electrons may stick together as you suggest,
> there is no reason why they should stick to the nucleus.
As the nucleus expand. It tries to expand into another nucleus.
And the bouncing electrons and shorter distances make the binding
and intermingling stronger.
c
Jeff Relf
" What I want to know is where Benjamin Franklin found
those ' plastic ' rods in the 1700's ??? "
Did Benjamin Franklin use natural rubber rods ?
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<3FC1F449...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >
> > > when they are both travelling in parallel in space with both
> > > expanding and the moon travelling faster. This is how I understood it.
> >
> > Please explain how two objects moving on parallel lines can look like
> > one orbiting the other.
>
> Let say the parallel lines are diverging (not so much a
> parallel line as an inverted triangular)
Well, as you yourself see here, diverging lines are not parallel,
hence this is contradictory.
Nevertheless, diverging lines makes this even worse - this can't look
like an orbit, no matter which expansions you take into account.
> while one object rotates.
How should this change the observed position of one to the other?
> What causes it to diverge. Beats me. Joe has the geometry.
"Joe has no clue" would be a better phrase, judging from what you
have quoted from him so far.
[snip rest]
Bye,
Bjoern
ZZBunker
> cinquirer wrote:
> >
> > cove...@hotmail.com (Cody R. Perkins) wrote in message news:<ac3598.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > As a final thought to this current board I will mention the following
> > > points. Current theories of all physics are models. They are helpful
> > > tools, but should not be mistaken for the truth. If Relativity and
> > > many other theories perfectly described nature, then why are
> > > physicists looking for Unified Field Theory to explain all physical
> > > laws in the universe? Simple. They don't know why the physical laws
> > > work. They know through experiment and observation what many physics
> > > of nature do. But not what makes them work. It's not like you can look
> > > at most particles directly. They had to look for signs to prove they
> > > were there in the first place.
We have known since the days of the Pharohs that particles exist.
So we didn't any help from science pseudo-philosophers for
signs of them. "Scientists" had to look for atoms, with
their over-priced accelerators.
No they can't. Since the only thing more stupid,
more fumbling and bumbling, more of a waste of time
than Einstein, is Einstein wannabees with no coordinates.
Many of us call them informally those with zero IQ and
soon to be robotized.
>
> > To discuss it here. We can't mention every single
> > thought he has.
>
> Right, but the parts you quoted so far were already shown to be nonsense
> - so why bother to go on?
>
>
> > For example. His explanations about capacitors
> > and cathode ray tubes that don't use charged electrons are long
> > and with many illustrations. To convey it, we have to draw
> > the illustrations ourselves. And this would make us spend our
> > time discussing his ideas (and not to mention possibly twisting it
> > and the third person twisting it turning it upside down). The book
> > is not 400+ pages for nothing.
>
> The length of his book shows only that he has a vivid imagination.
> This doesn't make it true!
But, since nobody with brains ever claimed
that capacitors, resistors, or inductors
have anything to do with true. We still
just claim that science philosophers
are probably better off opening New York
branch ghettos, and letting people with
brains do the thinking.
>
> > His theories may be all wrong but he has great creativity.
>
> Right. So what?
>
>
> > It's like if someone told you to
> > rewrite all rules in physics by simply using the law of expanding
> > matter and only using electrons.
>
> And he utterly fails in doing that.
>
>
> > In fact, I remember a book
> > mentioned written in 1910 or so which state a single electron
> > may create the entire universe by duplicating itself thru time, etc.
>
> This sounds a bit like Feynman's idea of electrons going forwards
> and backwards in time.
But, as one of the few things to his Philosophic credit,
Feynmann never said that.
He said that anti-electrons would go back in time.
>
>
> > and making up all particles, etc. twisting it creating the effect of
> > charges, and so on and on. Maybe he got the idea from it
> > with the difference that there is not one electron but an infinite
> > number of it. Anyway. It's funny.
>
> Well, that's right.
>
>
> > Well reading the book can sure
> > make you appreciate physics and understand how scientists work
> > so hard to advance science and how many principles and models
> > are made to match up the data and experiment.
>
> That, I doubt. Reading a real scientific text book helps you
> much more appreciating physics and understanding how scientists
> work hard.
But noone ever said that scientists don't work hard,
being that one of Hilter's motto's was: "Vorken Uber Alles".
And Rommel's counter claim was that the only
stupider scientist in all of Germany than
Hilter was Himmler.
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
Double-A
Hi Jeff,
Yes, Ben used rubber rods, since plastic wasn't invented until the 19th century.
Double-A
AaronB
>
> > I don't know if this would necessarily produce stability. Think of
> > having a whole bunch of balloons in a cluster. Now start inflating
> > them. The balloons will naturally try to separate as much as possible.
> > Furthermore, it would seem to me, that if you were to have a second
> > atom (or any particle) approach the nucleus with some speed, it could
> > very easily cause the nucleus to fragment itself. Now, this process is
> > possible (nuclear fission) but it obviously requires a considerable
> > amount of energy.
>
> But the expansion is very great so it can't escape and bind with
> each other.
The expansion isn't very great though. We've already established that
the rate of expansion for any particle is 0.000077% of its
radius/second (might be off by a zero or two, not sure). Given that an
atomic nucleus is very small to begin with, if another particle was to
strike, the expansion rate would not be able to overcome the change in
momentum of the rest of the system. In fact, the rate of expansion
would be on the order of 10^-17 m/s^2. In order to escape the nucleus,
the object which collided with it would only need to transfer enough
momentum to escape that expansion rate, which wouldn't be too tough.
Even a speed as measly as 1 m/s would be more than enough.
> About particle hitting it. That's what Mccutcheon
> explains are what produces the particles in particle accelerator
> experiments when the nucleus is only made of clusters of
> electrons.
Electric theory would suggest otherwise. Why do protons attract
electrons, but free electrons repel electrons, when both are made of
the same thing?
> About causing the nucleus to fragment itself. Mccutcheon
> said they recombine immediately after being hit..
Why would it? There's nothing keeping the nucleus together; for that
matter, why would the nucleus even be together in the first place?
> which explains
> why the "quarks" in the proton, neutron can't be separated or why
> the gluons are stronger when further apart.
No it doesn't.
> About fission. Well.
> This is when atomic space relativity is applied. The space outside
> is not the same space inside. Let me illustration. It's like your
> living room expand. Yet when seen from outside. It is same size
> and when people throw object at you from outside. You would get
> hit. However, inside the room. You can expand so big as to include
> an entire aircraft carrier. It's because the space inside atoms
> are some sort of hyperspace (my term) and the space outside
> is defined by inside. Now the thousands of electrons in the
> nucleus expand so fast (to maintain stability), yet no atomic
> expansion is seen from the outside except that one half of the
> diameter of the expanding electron in the edge of the atomic realm
> which cause gravity. Back to fission. He said fission is when you
> transfer the expanding electrons to the "space" outside the atomic
> realm (where space is not relative to ours). When that occurs.
> The expanding electrons get translated to our space continuum
> releasing vast amount of energy in terms of atomic bomb. Crazy
> idea, isn't it.
But he still hasn't established why the nucleus should stay together
under any circumstance!
> >
> > > About muons, he said
> > > those particles seen in particle accelerator experiments
> > > are really part of the electron nucleus clusters that
> > > has break off. Now let's go back to charge.
Why wouldn't this be a nuclear fission reaction as stated above?
> Since
> > > the nucleus has no positive charge, and electrons don't
> > > have charge either, then the electrons simply bounce
> > > off the nucleus.
> >
> > How would atoms bond chemically without charged particles?
>
> The bouncing electrons (relatively speaking) are shared between
> two atoms. The bond is formed when the bouncing distance gets
> smaller as they "handshake" each other as each nucleus expand
> and the bouncing electrons are intermingled between the 2
> atomic realm. He explained this in 10 pages.
This makes no sense whatsoever. If the electrons were close between
the atoms, they would be FORCING THEM APART. An electron colliding
with a nucleus would cause the nucleus to move away from it.
Furthermore, this explanation still does not consider periodic
properties of the elements. For instance, why is fluorine (9
electrons) the most reactive element, while neon (10 electrons) is one
of the least? Shouldn't any element be able to bond with any other
element by this logic? Why should a reaction between sodium and
chlorine release heat? etc. etc. He's not only trying to rewrite all
of Physics; he's trying to rewrite chemistry too!
> >
> > > And the rise of falls of the many
> > > bouncing electrons produce the effects made by
> > > "quantum probability clouds".
Helium gas has two valence electrons and never bonds with anything.
Why don't those two electrons just fly away, given that they have
nothing to bounce on?
> Now what made two
> > > object get attracted or repelled to each other if
> > > there is no charge. Well. The distribution of the
> > > bouncing electrons are not the same in all substance.
> > > Where two objects have bouncing electrons with
> > > unequal density.
> >
> > Hydrogen atoms have one electron each, and readily form H2 gas. That's
> > only two electrons with atoms that have the same electron density. And
> > even still, while the electrons may stick together as you suggest,
> > there is no reason why they should stick to the nucleus.
>
> As the nucleus expand. It tries to expand into another nucleus.
> And the bouncing electrons and shorter distances make the binding
> and intermingling stronger.
What if the electrons are on the wrong side of the nuclei when they
bond? Eg.
e = electron, H = hydrogen nucleus (proton), <- = direction of travel
eH--> <--He
eH-> <-He
eH-><-He
eHHe
In this situation, shouldn't the two electrons just fly away?
I think I'm going to go with Joe Fischer on this one. Expansion theory
is a workable solution for problems that deal with gravitation. It is
not a workable solution for problems that deal with electric charge,
internuclear forces, etc.
A.
cinquirer
> cinquirer wrote:
> >
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<3FC1F449...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> > >
> > >
> > > > when they are both travelling in parallel in space with both
> > > > expanding and the moon travelling faster. This is how I understood it.
> > >
> > > Please explain how two objects moving on parallel lines can look like
> > > one orbiting the other.
> >
> > Let say the parallel lines are diverging (not so much a
> > parallel line as an inverted triangular)
>
> Well, as you yourself see here, diverging lines are not parallel,
> hence this is contradictory.
>
> Nevertheless, diverging lines makes this even worse - this can't look
> like an orbit, no matter which expansions you take into account.
>
> [snip rest]
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
I have been visualizing figures the past 30 minutes. I said
to myself this Mccutcheon thing may be a time wasting
task. And maybe I should just believe in the particle physicists
gravitons. However. In Einstein General Relativity. Equally deep
mental gymnastics have to be executed. His theory alleged that
the surrounding "space-time-fabric" in the vicinity of the
planet somehow warp into a four-dimensional curvature
around the planet, And objects that follows the curvature
appear to us as gravity. Is there experimental proof of
this latter. Many people ignore Einstein and just focuses
on gravitons. I wonder how many percentage are gravitoners
and Einstein Generalists here. Anyway. To understand qi. We
must unravel first the secret of gravity. For qi may be
related to the space-time-fabric. And understanding the true
mechanics of gravity may enable us to understand the true
mechanics of qi too.
c
cinquirer
>
> This basicly states, in your words, that the theory of infinity is
> true. While we use infinity as a basis of mathematical calculations,
> the idea of infinity is not a relative concept. Think of is as a
> theoretical concept. IF it existed then such and such would be
> true...etc etc. Electric flux across a flat plane is an example of an
> infinite surface for the sake of calculating the flux semetricly
> through the n. So, in regards to this statement, you are also stating
> that EVERY SINGLE PEACE OF HYPERSPACE IS EQUALLY RESPONDING TO THE
> INFINITE UNIVERSE VIA EXPANSION AT AN EQUAL AND RELATIVE RATE.
> Problem with this is, you have 3 other forces to contend with. 1
> being the electro-magnetic force. By adjusting any single one of
> these forces, such as gravity, you thereby cause a relational
> breakdown between mass and electromagnetic forces. So this force MUST
> be relationally growing as well as the weak and strong forces. Don't
> forget, space time is literally warped by large masses. Therefore all
> larger bodied masses would have to respond to each other with great
> magnitude.
That's why he spent one half of the book on Expansion Theory particle
physics trying to explain the electromagnetic forces don't exist, nor
the strong force nor weak force. So the 4 fundamental forces are just
illusion and only the expanding electrons are real and how they
can all function as the 4 forces. See all my messages to Cody for
the details including how atomic bomb can occur according to
Mccutcheon. He has dozens of new ideas. Debunking each would be
fun.
c
cinquirer
> I notice that, although you replied to my post, you ignored (and
> snipped,
> without marking this!) *all* of my comments and questions. That's
> *very* telling!
>
>
> "Cody R. Perkins" wrote:
> >
> > As a final thought to this current board
Let me reply to this Bjoern message to Cory's final words.
>
> This is a newsgroup, not a message board.
>
>
> > I will mention the following
> > points. Current theories of all physics are models.
>
> Vaguely right.
>
>
> > They are helpful
> > tools, but should not be mistaken for the truth.
>
> Hey, finally something I can agree with!
>
>
> > If Relativity and
> > many other theories perfectly described nature, then why are
> > physicists looking for Unified Field Theory to explain all physical
> > laws in the universe? Simple. They don't know why the physical laws
> > work.
>
> Wrong. The main reasons to look for a Unified Field Theory are
> 1) The fact that it was already shown that the electromagnetic and
> the weak force can be unified suggests that the electroweak and
> the strong force can be unified, too.
In the Big Bang Theory. Everything in the universe comes from a
point smaller than a pinhead. Has anyone notice this is as
bizarre as anything?? Currently, some scientists are studying
the brane theory, etc. which state collision between two
5-dimensional universe create our universe. The unification of
the weak and electromagnetic may be coincident. I mean. We
can say for example. Tom and Richard are now 40 years old and
they don't know each other. One can conclude that 40 years prior,
they are still fetuses inside the womb. And since a woman called
Mary is pregnant by that time. Tom and Richard are children of
Mary. So when super high temperature makes symmetry happens at
weak and em force. Then it is children of big bang.
> 2) Another piece of evidence for this is that all of the coupling
> constants
> become equal at a very high energy (around 10^16 GeV, IIRC), if
> one calculates their changes according to their known running at
> low energies.
> 3) There are several things in the SM which aren't nice from a
> theoretical point of view - it's not very elegant.
>
>
> > They know through experiment and observation what many physics
> > of nature do. But not what makes them work.
>
> I beg to differ. For example, attraction and repulsion is caused by the
> exchange of virtual particles. If this is not an explanation how
> something works, what is it?
What if the concept of virtual particles are not discovered and
instead the bouncing electrons probably clouds are used and
mathematics are built and adjusted to the model with Mccutcheon
Uncertainty Principle, etc.?
>
>
> > It's not like you can look
> > at most particles directly. They had to look for signs to prove they
> > were there in the first place.
> >
> > Now I have mentioned a few basics from this theory, but by all means
> > have not mentioned all of the depth or material it covers. If you want
> > know more read the book. If it doesn't interest you then go do
> > something else. I will go into in depth talk of the book only with
> > someone who has read it.
>
> Could you please give us a reason why we should read it?
We have only shared a few of his ideas which he has expanded into
400 pages with dozens of illustrations. So our message with just
a few paragraphs can't illustrate everything he is saying. He
touches every aspect from magnetism to radio waves and how his
expanding electron theory can explain it as well as the data.
It's a good book. If a student can read it and debunk every page.
That student would be expert in physics.
>
>
> > Otherwise I will only mention basics to
> > someone else. Is the theory right? Wrong? Who knows. Like any theory
> > it requires experimental evidence to back it up. A few experiments
> > come to mind that would prove it right or wrong.
>
> I've already asked some questions about observations which it has to
> explain.
> Am I right that it explains none of these observations?
We haven't mentioned all the points in his book which include
a lot of particle physics stuff. I think the portion we can
focus is the two-slit experiment which can either support or
debunk his observation.
>
>
> > As theory it is interesting. Other theores are cropping up that
> > elementary particle makes all other particles of matter and energy. I
> > have had a similar hunch myself that all particles are made of
> > extremely small particle not reconized today by science yet.
>
> People have looked for stuff like this for decades now and haven't
> found anything so far.
To look at let's say particle as smaller as string of the super
string. I read in The Elegant Universe that you needs giant size
particle accelerator maybe the diameter of the moon or bigger.
>
>
> > So if
> > Expansion Theory is true that would be interesting. If not then it
> > least it probes new ways of thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if all
> > current theories are wrong or over look how nature of physical really
> > works in every area.
>
> *I* would be surprised if they were sooo wrong - they describe the
> experimental results with amazing accuracy!
I'd be happy if the Standard Model is accurate, of course. That means
we can unravel the secret of qi by looking at the model. But if it is
wrong. Then no amount of unravelling can produce the mechanics of
qi since the model may not be right in the first place.
Double-A
Later, Einstein used the same rubber rods in his theory! :-)
Double-A
Jeff Relf
" used rubber rods "
yea , I can picture Ben now ... Rubbing his rubber .
ZZBunker
He didn't guess since he was working lightning.
That can be surmised from the very simple
principle that he was very fond of telling
European scientists:
Hey Frankenstein, we got keys in this country, so you better
be careful what castles you set on fire.
cinquirer
> the rate of expansion for any particle is 0.000077% of its
> radius/second (might be off by a zero or two, not sure). Given that an
> atomic nucleus is very small to begin with, if another particle was to
> strike, the expansion rate would not be able to overcome the change in
> momentum of the rest of the system. In fact, the rate of expansion
> would be on the order of 10^-17 m/s^2. In order to escape the nucleus,
> the object which collided with it would only need to transfer enough
> momentum to escape that expansion rate, which wouldn't be too tough.
> Even a speed as measly as 1 m/s would be more than enough.
As much as Mccutcheon stuff is improbable. Let me present his view
even though I don't agree with him. It is his creativity of
explanations that is interesting. In that same message. I explained
about inner and outer atomic realm. Since he said electron are
chargeless and expansive hyperspace and protons, neutrons are
composed of thousands of electrons, the vicinity of the space
in between the outermost electron jump and nucleus itself is
not the same space as ours. So its expansion rate is not the same
as the one outside. The 0.000077% or so you mentioned is the
expansion from one half of the electron in the outermost part
while the nucleus itself expand much faster than it. However,
due to the fact space is not similar outside and inside atom.
Then even though it expands so fast inside to keep stability.
It is not reflected outside. However. There is a paradox in
that when you hit a particle from outside to the inside of the
atom. You would hit the nucleus like from outside perspective
although the inside space is of different nature than the space
we know it.
>
> > About particle hitting it. That's what Mccutcheon
> > explains are what produces the particles in particle accelerator
> > experiments when the nucleus is only made of clusters of
> > electrons.
>
> Electric theory would suggest otherwise. Why do protons attract
> electrons, but free electrons repel electrons, when both are made of
> the same thing?
Can you specify an example? If you are talking about electrical
flow. Well. Mccutcheon has spent a chapter on this. Let me point
this out when you give details of particular case or experimental
setup.
>
> > About causing the nucleus to fragment itself. Mccutcheon
> > said they recombine immediately after being hit..
>
> Why would it? There's nothing keeping the nucleus together; for that
> matter, why would the nucleus even be together in the first place?
The extreme fast expansion inside the atomic realm can keep them
together (note the explanation again above about difference in
spaces inside and outside atoms).
>
> > which explains
> > why the "quarks" in the proton, neutron can't be separated or why
> > the gluons are stronger when further apart.
>
> No it doesn't.
Due to the extremely fast expansion of the thousands of electrons
in the nucleus (noting again the space atomic relativity). Each
electron is also touching another. So they stick together. When
a particle is shot into the nucleus. The hit portion recombine
immediately because of the pressure from the fast expansion.
>
> > >
> > > > About muons, he said
> > > > those particles seen in particle accelerator experiments
> > > > are really part of the electron nucleus clusters that
> > > > has break off. Now let's go back to charge.
>
> Why wouldn't this be a nuclear fission reaction as stated above?
Note again about differences in "spaces" between inner and outer
realm of atoms. In atomic explosion. He said "when stable atomic
structure or organization disintegrates, the expanding protons
and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom suddenly redefined or
bared as freely expanding electron clusters in the external atomic
realm. This essentially transforms them from expanding matter
particles contained within the subatomic realm, to freely expanding
electron clusters...".
>
> > Since
> > > > the nucleus has no positive charge, and electrons don't
> > > > have charge either, then the electrons simply bounce
> > > > off the nucleus.
> > >
> > > How would atoms bond chemically without charged particles?
> >
> > The bouncing electrons (relatively speaking) are shared between
> > two atoms. The bond is formed when the bouncing distance gets
> > smaller as they "handshake" each other as each nucleus expand
> > and the bouncing electrons are intermingled between the 2
> > atomic realm. He explained this in 10 pages.
>
> This makes no sense whatsoever. If the electrons were close between
> the atoms, they would be FORCING THEM APART. An electron colliding
> with a nucleus would cause the nucleus to move away from it.
Exactly. Without the bouncing electron. The two nucleus would
touch. So the bouncing electron is to keep them from touching.
When the two nucleus gets closer. The bouncing is stronger. So
chemical bond and matter stability he said is formed from the
pressure of the two nucleus to touch each other and the electrons
that keep their distance and pressure.
>
> Furthermore, this explanation still does not consider periodic
> properties of the elements. For instance, why is fluorine (9
> electrons) the most reactive element, while neon (10 electrons) is one
> of the least? Shouldn't any element be able to bond with any other
> element by this logic? Why should a reaction between sodium and
> chlorine release heat? etc. etc. He's not only trying to rewrite all
> of Physics; he's trying to rewrite chemistry too!
>
> > >
> > > > And the rise of falls of the many
> > > > bouncing electrons produce the effects made by
> > > > "quantum probability clouds".
>
> Helium gas has two valence electrons and never bonds with anything.
> Why don't those two electrons just fly away, given that they have
> nothing to bounce on?
Mccutcheon call it crossover effect, where the electron crosses
to the space outside making it grow. This cause the bouncing
effect as the nucleus reach it to reclaim it in subatomic realm and
then boucing it back to outer realm.
>
> > Now what made two
> > > > object get attracted or repelled to each other if
> > > > there is no charge. Well. The distribution of the
> > > > bouncing electrons are not the same in all substance.
> > > > Where two objects have bouncing electrons with
> > > > unequal density.
> > >
> > > Hydrogen atoms have one electron each, and readily form H2 gas. That's
> > > only two electrons with atoms that have the same electron density. And
> > > even still, while the electrons may stick together as you suggest,
> > > there is no reason why they should stick to the nucleus.
> >
> > As the nucleus expand. It tries to expand into another nucleus.
> > And the bouncing electrons and shorter distances make the binding
> > and intermingling stronger.
>
> What if the electrons are on the wrong side of the nuclei when they
> bond? Eg.
> e = electron, H = hydrogen nucleus (proton), <- = direction of travel
> eH--> <--He
> eH-> <-He
> eH-><-He
> eHHe
>
> In this situation, shouldn't the two electrons just fly away?
Since Mccutcheon theory doesn't require charges. It's not only
single electron inside. There is no requirement to balance to that
of the nucleus. I'll check his book again for the explanation.
Other who read it kindly assist me on this. Let us challenge
Mccutcheon's theories and collect all the fatal flaw for his
comments or submission. Gee. This can get us to become familiar with
many part of sciences. So even if his book is improbable. It's
the thought of what is the true mechanism of the "why" (and
not just "how") that makes it interesting
>
> I think I'm going to go with Joe Fischer on this one. Expansion theory
> is a workable solution for problems that deal with gravitation. It is
> not a workable solution for problems that deal with electric charge,
> internuclear forces, etc.
Hey. If Expansion Theory is workable solution for gravitation. There
must be a mechanism inside the atoms to make it work. One that
have to take into consideration how it will affect the 3 other forces.
Mccutcheon may have thought for years how to create the atomic
model that can expand and yet not be in conflict with expression
of other forces. His model may be all wrong. But he has great
creativity.
c
Joe Fischer
>cinq...@yahoo.com (cinquirer) wrote:
>> aar...@uvic.ca (AaronB) wrote:
>> > I don't know if this would necessarily produce stability. Think of
>> > having a whole bunch of balloons in a cluster. Now start inflating
>> > them. The balloons will naturally try to separate as much as possible.
>> > Furthermore, it would seem to me, that if you were to have a second
>> > atom (or any particle) approach the nucleus with some speed, it could
>> > very easily cause the nucleus to fragment itself. Now, this process is
>> > possible (nuclear fission) but it obviously requires a considerable
>> > amount of energy.
I don't know if the attribution of this paragraph is correct,
but whoever wrote it apparently didn't think it through.
Bodies having a greater density (mass to volume ratio)
would resist being accelerated more and tend to stay closer
to the center, and "balloons" having less density would be
nudged toward the periphery.
In a gas, two atoms would (and do) repulse each other,
and resistance to acceleration may tend to hold them together
to some extent, but a third atom would be more strongly
repulsed by both, causing H2 to be the most common.
Also worth mentioning is the fact, if all matter
was in the gaseous state, the Divergent Matter model
would be the preferred model, as the surface gravity
of any body of consistent density would be directly
proportional to radius. Also, the surface gravity
of spheres of the same radius but a different density
gas, would be directly proportional to density.
This is a good approximation of nature.
A simple molecule like water, would have the
heavier atom at the center and two lighter atoms at
NOT exactly 180 degrees, as the most common
configuration, if only repulsion and resistance
to acceleration was considered.
>> But the expansion is very great so it can't escape and bind with
>> each other.
>
>The expansion isn't very great though. We've already established that
>the rate of expansion for any particle is 0.000077% of its
>radius/second (might be off by a zero or two, not sure).
Nobody has "established" that the expansion would be
only dependent on radius.
In fact, the expansion would have to be a function of
both radius and density, else Newtonian gravitation would
not be such an excellent approximation of nature.
Not only that, the expansion would have to consist
of a mixture of velocity and acceleration, dense elements
would have more outward acceleration of the surface and
less velocity, and less dense elements would have to have
a greater outward _velocity_ of the surface.
This would agree very closely with the Newtonian
approximation except in the case of hypothetical massive
bodies made up of shells of differing density elements
with the outer shells being the most dense.
Newtonian gravitation would not differentiate where
the shells are, a given mass with a given radius would have
the same surface gravity with dense shells in the center or
in the outer shells, but in massive bodies the more dense
elements move toward the center. The Earth's moon
has an anomaly though, with an off center dense core.
> Given that an
>atomic nucleus is very small to begin with, if another particle was to
>strike, the expansion rate would not be able to overcome the change in
>momentum of the rest of the system. In fact, the rate of expansion
>would be on the order of 10^-17 m/s^2. In order to escape the nucleus,
>the object which collided with it would only need to transfer enough
>momentum to escape that expansion rate, which wouldn't be too tough.
>Even a speed as measly as 1 m/s would be more than enough.
The standard model, with two possible charges,
is a much better fit of nature, but there is an interesting
aspect involving expansion and resistance to acceleration,
A force that appears to get stronger with greater
distance of separation might be observed, when it does
not exist. This would not be "gravity", it would just
be an observation effect, and might possibly allow a
model to be constructed with only repulsion of like
charges and resistance to acceleration (inertia).
Gravity would be a resulting phenomenon,
and not be a "force" at all, it would be simply a
result.
That would reduce the number of elementary
"forces" to two or even possibly one, that remaining
elementary force being just the electromagnetic.
As I understand the strong force, it could be
just the observation effect of a repulsion at close
distance, and less of a repulsion at greater distance.
The observers being made of matter may be
at a severe disadvantage, and must try to remove
observer bias from any observation interpretation.
Newton did not do that with gravity, Einstein
did!
Joe Fischer
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<3FC382CA...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> > cinquirer wrote:
> > >
> > > Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<3FC1F449...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > when they are both travelling in parallel in space with both
> > > > > expanding and the moon travelling faster. This is how I understood it.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain how two objects moving on parallel lines can look like
> > > > one orbiting the other.
> > >
> > > Let say the parallel lines are diverging (not so much a
> > > parallel line as an inverted triangular)
> >
> > Well, as you yourself see here, diverging lines are not parallel,
> > hence this is contradictory.
> >
> > Nevertheless, diverging lines makes this even worse - this can't look
> > like an orbit, no matter which expansions you take into account.
>
> >
> > [snip rest]
> >
> > Bye,
> > Bjoern
>
> I have been visualizing figures the past 30 minutes. I said
> to myself this Mccutcheon thing may be a time wasting
> task. And maybe I should just believe in the particle physicists
> gravitons.
Gravitons are still speculative; better "believe" in ordinary
Newtonian gravity or Einstein's curved spacetime.
> However. In Einstein General Relativity. Equally deep
> mental gymnastics have to be executed.
With the difference that the predictions of GR agree with experiment.
And the models proposed by it *work*, instead of McCutcheon's
stuff about parallel lines, which simply doesn't work.
> His theory alleged that
> the surrounding "space-time-fabric" in the vicinity of the
> planet somehow warp into a four-dimensional curvature
> around the planet,
Well, something like that, right. (although "fourdimensional
curvature" doesn't make so much sense)
> And objects that follows the curvature
> appear to us as gravity.
Again, vaguely right. Not the objects appear to use as gravity,
but their *accelerations*.
> Is there experimental proof of this latter.
Well, if you use the equations of GR to calculate the motions
of the planets around the sun, the results agree perfectly
with the observations (including the movement of Mercury's
perihelion, which couldn't be explained by theories before GR).
I would call this an experimental verification of GR, won't you?
> Many people ignore Einstein and just focuses
> on gravitons.
You can't "focus on gravitons" without using Einstein's equations.
> I wonder how many percentage are gravitoners
> and Einstein Generalists here.
Well, I'm not. I formerly worked in particle physics, especially
QCD, and now I have changed to atomic physics.
> Anyway. To understand qi. We
> must unravel first the secret of gravity. For qi may be
> related to the space-time-fabric.
It *may* be related to it? Shouldn't we first find out if
this is really the case before looking for a solution for Qi
in theories about gravity?
> And understanding the true
> mechanics of gravity may enable us to understand the true
> mechanics of qi too.
"may", right. Don't you think we should first study the
properties of Qi before we try to explain it?
Bye,
Bjoern
AaronB
Then why is nuclear fusion (combination of two atoms) MUCH more
difficult to accomplish than fission (splitting of one large atom).
And for that matter, why are larger atoms easier to split than smaller
ones?
> >
> > > About particle hitting it. That's what Mccutcheon
> > > explains are what produces the particles in particle accelerator
> > > experiments when the nucleus is only made of clusters of
> > > electrons.
> >
> > Electric theory would suggest otherwise. Why do protons attract
> > electrons, but free electrons repel electrons, when both are made of
> > the same thing?
>
> Can you specify an example? If you are talking about electrical
> flow. Well. Mccutcheon has spent a chapter on this. Let me point
> this out when you give details of particular case or experimental
> setup.
Here's a simple example: I have two protons. They move away from each
other at a predictable rate. I have a proton and an electron; they
attract each other at a predictable rate. I see no need to get more
complicated than that.
> >
> > > About causing the nucleus to fragment itself. Mccutcheon
> > > said they recombine immediately after being hit..
> >
> > Why would it? There's nothing keeping the nucleus together; for that
> > matter, why would the nucleus even be together in the first place?
>
> The extreme fast expansion inside the atomic realm can keep them
> together (note the explanation again above about difference in
> spaces inside and outside atoms).
Again, why does fusion require much more energy than fission? (ie: a
hydrogen bomb is a nuclear fusion reaction; if I'm not mistaken, it
requires you to first use a fission bomb to generate the required
energy to cause the fusion reaction.
> >
> > > which explains
> > > why the "quarks" in the proton, neutron can't be separated or why
> > > the gluons are stronger when further apart.
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> Due to the extremely fast expansion of the thousands of electrons
> in the nucleus (noting again the space atomic relativity). Each
> electron is also touching another. So they stick together. When
> a particle is shot into the nucleus. The hit portion recombine
> immediately because of the pressure from the fast expansion.
Wouldn't that mean that slower particles are more likely to fuse than
faster ones, since they are unable to escape the expansion rate?
> >
> > > >
> > > > > About muons, he said
> > > > > those particles seen in particle accelerator experiments
> > > > > are really part of the electron nucleus clusters that
> > > > > has break off. Now let's go back to charge.
> >
> > Why wouldn't this be a nuclear fission reaction as stated above?
>
> Note again about differences in "spaces" between inner and outer
> realm of atoms. In atomic explosion. He said "when stable atomic
> structure or organization disintegrates, the expanding protons
> and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom suddenly redefined or
> bared as freely expanding electron clusters in the external atomic
> realm. This essentially transforms them from expanding matter
> particles contained within the subatomic realm, to freely expanding
> electron clusters...".
If he says so.
This was probably the most important question in my entire text; it's
a shame you didn't bother to reply.
> > > >
> > > > > And the rise of falls of the many
> > > > > bouncing electrons produce the effects made by
> > > > > "quantum probability clouds".
> >
> > Helium gas has two valence electrons and never bonds with anything.
> > Why don't those two electrons just fly away, given that they have
> > nothing to bounce on?
>
> Mccutcheon call it crossover effect, where the electron crosses
> to the space outside making it grow. This cause the bouncing
> effect as the nucleus reach it to reclaim it in subatomic realm and
> then boucing it back to outer realm.
Why should helium have two electrons instead of 4? Or 18? Or 70987?
You claim that the nucleus is filled with thousands of electrons, so
why are there a specific number of electrons for each atom? Also note,
that the above statement seems to violate thermodynamics to me, though
I could be wrong on this one: you stated above that an electron going
from inside the nucleus to outside releases energy (eg nuclear
fission); however, this energy is lost to the universe (2nd law of
thermodynamics) if it is converted to heat, which most of it is. Thus
the atom would be INCAPABLE of reclaiming the electron without energy
being added from another reaction. I guess you could have some kind of
a dynamic equilibrium going on; but I suspect entropy would ultimately
take charge here.
So why can't a hydrogen atom have 4 valence (outside) electrons? Or
14? Why is fluorine reactive but neon isn't? Why can gold conduct
electricity better than carbon? Why can gold conduct better than
silver? Copper?
> >
> > I think I'm going to go with Joe Fischer on this one. Expansion theory
> > is a workable solution for problems that deal with gravitation. It is
> > not a workable solution for problems that deal with electric charge,
> > internuclear forces, etc.
>
> Hey. If Expansion Theory is workable solution for gravitation. There
> must be a mechanism inside the atoms to make it work.
The model postulates that matter must expand. A postulate does not
necessarily require a reason, any more than Einstein postulating that
the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. Why is it
constant? Because he said it is.
> One that
> have to take into consideration how it will affect the 3 other forces.
Not necessarily. Expansion might not have any effect on the other
forces. No reason why it has to.
> Mccutcheon may have thought for years how to create the atomic
> model that can expand and yet not be in conflict with expression
> of other forces. His model may be all wrong. But he has great
> creativity.
Whether or not it is in conflict with the other forces in
insignificant to whether or not it is in conflict with the
observations.
A.
AaronB
That number is straight out of the book in question (except I was off
by a few orders of magnitude, but anyway). According to the model in
question (McCutcheon's) that is the number, and density is not
relavent.
Here's the snippit of the text in question:
=========================================
cinq...@yahoo.com (cinquirer) wrote:
Once the standard acceleration due to gravity on Earth of 9.8 m/s^2 is
seen to result from the radial expansion of the planet, the amount of
expansion of the planet in one second can be calculated. The equation
for distance traveled due to constant acceleration was introduced in
the previous chapter as:
d = 1/2 a t^2
where a is the constant acceleration
t is the length of time the acceleration is applied
This gives the radial expansion amount of the Earth after 1 second to
be:
= 4.9 meters.
Dividing this one-second expansion amount of the Earth by its radius
gives the universal atomic expansion rate:
X(A)= 4.9/ Re
where
Re is the radius of the Earth (6,371,000 m)
XA is the universal atomic expansion rate to be calculated
XA = 0.00000077 (or 7.7 X 10^-7 in scientific notation)
NOTE
The value of the universal atomic expansion rate, X(A), for all atoms
and objects is 0.00000077 per second, each second, giving the units
/s^2 or per-second-squared.
=======================================================
End snippit.
I just noticed this, but it's cute how he claims that X(A) = 4.9/ Re.
where both numbers are in meters. That should produce a dimensionless
ratio, but instead he claims it products s^(-2).
Obviously, the real expansion number would not only have the right
units, but it would be a continuous growth function, so I would be
very surprised not to find an e or two in it.
A.
cinquirer
> Gravitons are still speculative; better "believe" in ordinary
> Newtonian gravity or Einstein's curved spacetime.
Mccutcheon didn't actually say "parallel line". His
explanation is much like Joe Fisher and I still can't
visualize the model of the entire solar sytem when
looked from the point of view of expanding matter.
Mccutcheon may have gotten the idea from Joe. So
it's Joe that must illustrate and trying to prove his
Divergent Matter Theory. Maybe Joe should make
some illustrations in a web site about this.
About General Relativity. Mccutcheon said Einstein
accelerating elevator experiment lead him to the GR.
Had Einstein thought the accelerating elevator may be
from an expanding earth causing the acceleration
and gravity effect. It could be an Einstein Expansion
Theory that may be formulated. That's just his
comment. His book has illustration of the Elevator
Experiments and he has theory of the gravitation lensing
effect and how it occured with his Expansion Theory.
c
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer <gravity...@ig1ou.com> wrote:
>> Nobody has "established" that the expansion would be
>> only dependent on radius.
>> In fact, the expansion would have to be a function of
>> both radius and density, else Newtonian gravitation would
>> not be such an excellent approximation of nature.
>
>That number is straight out of the book in question (except I was off
>by a few orders of magnitude, but anyway). According to the model in
>question (McCutcheon's) that is the number, and density is not
>relavent.
Unless he originated an expansion model at least
40 years ago, it isn't "his".
>Here's the snippit of the text in question:
Is this a direct quote from the book or is it
in the words of cinquirer?
I see no reason for me to read the book,
I have written millions of words on the subject,
and this thread has suggested the book tries to
extend expansion theory to anything and everything.
After one second that would be first order, but after
many seconds it would be jibberish because if matter is
expanding, the meter must be lengthening and the second
must be lengthening.
So such trivial math is not even close.
James Carter made the same kind of mistake in his 1970
booklet "Gravity Does Not Exist", trying to establish the
period for all objects to double in size.
>Obviously, the real expansion number would not only have the right
>units, but it would be a continuous growth function, so I would be
>very surprised not to find an e or two in it.
>A.
It is obvious that a ball of aluminum and a ball of
gold having the same radius would have different surface
gravity.
And the Newtonian gravitational field is a function
of object radius and surface gravity.
The interesting thing is that for homogeneous
spheres, the greatest acceleration must be at the surface,
which is what matter expanding would require.
But one book trying to explain everything under
the sun by matter expanding doesn't make the concept
wrong, but it doesn't help formalize the model either.
Joe Fischer
AaronB
> On 26 Nov 2003 16:36:23 -0800, aar...@uvic.ca (AaronB) wrote:
>
> >Joe Fischer <gravity...@ig1ou.com> wrote:
> >> Nobody has "established" that the expansion would be
> >> only dependent on radius.
> >> In fact, the expansion would have to be a function of
> >> both radius and density, else Newtonian gravitation would
> >> not be such an excellent approximation of nature.
> >
> >That number is straight out of the book in question (except I was off
> >by a few orders of magnitude, but anyway). According to the model in
> >question (McCutcheon's) that is the number, and density is not
> >relavent.
>
> Unless he originated an expansion model at least
> 40 years ago, it isn't "his".
I know nothing about how long he has been working on it, or to whom he
acknowledges in the text (I don't have the book, and have no intention
of buying it... if I see it in the library I'll probably take a look),
but I would doubt he started at least 40 years ago. I stress the
distinction between the models not to belittle you, others who have
worked on expansion, but rather because the model you propose is very
different from the one that he proposes.
> >Here's the snippit of the text in question:
>
> Is this a direct quote from the book or is it
> in the words of cinquirer?
> I see no reason for me to read the book,
> I have written millions of words on the subject,
> and this thread has suggested the book tries to
> extend expansion theory to anything and everything.
You'll have to check with cinquirer to be sure, but from what is
indicated in the thread (as of right now it is #23, in response to
Double-A), this appears to be a direct quote from the text.
That's something we can agree on.
> James Carter made the same kind of mistake in his 1970
> booklet "Gravity Does Not Exist", trying to establish the
> period for all objects to double in size.
>
> >Obviously, the real expansion number would not only have the right
> >units, but it would be a continuous growth function, so I would be
> >very surprised not to find an e or two in it.
> >A.
>
> It is obvious that a ball of aluminum and a ball of
> gold having the same radius would have different surface
> gravity.
>
> And the Newtonian gravitational field is a function
> of object radius and surface gravity.
>
> The interesting thing is that for homogeneous
> spheres, the greatest acceleration must be at the surface,
> which is what matter expanding would require.
>
> But one book trying to explain everything under
> the sun by matter expanding doesn't make the concept
> wrong, but it doesn't help formalize the model either.
>
> Joe Fischer
Certainly Mark McCutcheon's work does little to hinder the credibility
of the model you're presenting here. From what I've read, he hasn't
demonstrated a solid enough knowledge of physics or mathematics to be
claiming that he has uncovered a solution that single-handedly
rewrites the last 300 years of physics.
A.
cinquirer
Before I answer the quiries below (which I will in this same
message). Let me share first what is Mccutcheon view on
electricity, magnetism, light bulb, energy, light, solar cell,
electromagnetism, etc. so it can be put in perspective.
First battery. He said a positive terminal has material that has
a deficit of electrons, while a negative terminal has an excess
of electrons (which is trapped between subatomic and atomic
realm). So when you put a wire, the pressure is removed
from the negative side and flows to the positive. This occurs
when expansion of the electrons push them. When the electrons
return to their subatomic definition at the far side, the pressure
slowly returns to normal. When it equalizes the high and low
expansion pressures within the two sides of the battery. Current
flow is gradually reduced until it halted. The battery then is not
drained of "charge" but has simply reached a state of equalized
expansion pressure on both sides.
(Note: the key to understand his theories depend on fully
understanding what he meant by "crossover effect" or space
between different inside subatomic realm and outside and how
the electron can change state producing the many phenomena)
Now let's go to light bulb. He said as electrons flow into the
filament. What made it produce light. He doesn't believe photons
exist. So what he said is that the electrons from the wire is transmitted
into space and these clusters of electrons are what we call photons.
Similarly, radio waves are not "electromagnetic energy" but waves
of electrons expanding into space. He spent some 20 pages and
illustrations on all these so I don't know if I have conveyed them
well in 2 short paragraph. No wonder others don't want to talk
about them because it's difficult to convey his ideas (It may be
wrong, but his creativity of showing it is what counts and this
may be good material for teachers as assignments for students).
Back to current in a wire. He said some electrons can escape
out in the wire as they expand and this produces magnetic
field.
Now solar cell. He said it's absurd how "photons" can convert
into electrons. So what occurs he said is that the solar cell
simply collects the electrons at the sky and the wire becomes
fill with electrons producing electricity.
About electromagnetic field. It is divided into a lower-frequency
section of electron compression bands and a higher-frequency
section of electron clusters. When we see lights and colors.
They are just illusions he said. They are just different arrangement
of electrons imprinting on our retina.
Now since light are just electron clusters. When they are redefined
from the subatomic space to outside space. "A rapid chain reaction
of countless disintegrating atoms would release tremendous numbers
of such freely expanding electron clusters, smashing them apart into
all manner of cluster sizes corresponding to all frequencies of
radiation."
Now I'll treat each of your queries below:
aar...@uvic.ca (AaronB) wrote in message news:<9f8a9f42.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> cinq...@yahoo.com (cinquirer) wrote in message news:<69cb3a95.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > aar...@uvic.ca (AaronB) wrote in message news:<9f8a9f42.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
>
> Then why is nuclear fusion (combination of two atoms) MUCH more
> difficult to accomplish than fission (splitting of one large atom).
> And for that matter, why are larger atoms easier to split than smaller
> ones?
Hmm.... maybe the bouncing electrons have to be push so hard
and when they are overcomed, the nucleus can't maintain the
stability of the two atoms and get translate to outside space?
Dunno. He doesn't mention about fusion bombs.
>
> Here's a simple example: I have two protons. They move away from each
> other at a predictable rate. I have a proton and an electron; they
> attract each other at a predictable rate. I see no need to get more
> complicated than that.
How do you put two protons and make them go away at a
predictable rate? An actual example so I can know what particular
case you are describing. Remember the electrons can push
them away. Also I forget my chemistry lessons in college
so I have to review them. And I will in order to know how to
debunk each page of his book which would be fun.
> Again, why does fusion require much more energy than fission? (ie: a
> hydrogen bomb is a nuclear fusion reaction; if I'm not mistaken, it
> requires you to first use a fission bomb to generate the required
> energy to cause the fusion reaction.
As described in the second to the last paragraph of answer.
>
> Wouldn't that mean that slower particles are more likely to fuse than
> faster ones, since they are unable to escape the expansion rate?
You don't get what I mean. I didn't mean that the particle being
targetted at the nucleus is stuck at the nucleus. But just that when
you hit it, some electron or group of them may disengage producing
the many "particles" in accelerator experiments, and the nucleus
would return to normal after the expansion pressure cause them
to recombine (or get close again).
> > > Furthermore, this explanation still does not consider periodic
> > > properties of the elements. For instance, why is fluorine (9
> > > electrons) the most reactive element, while neon (10 electrons) is one
> > > of the least? Shouldn't any element be able to bond with any other
> > > element by this logic? Why should a reaction between sodium and
> > > chlorine release heat? etc. etc. He's not only trying to rewrite all
> > > of Physics; he's trying to rewrite chemistry too!
>
> This was probably the most important question in my entire text; it's
> a shame you didn't bother to reply.
I missed the above quiries. No Shame. Mccutcheon said heat may be
some electrons trapped inside subatomic realm that suddenly go out
into outside space. I'll check his book. Also I'll check chemistry for
this sodium and chlorine thing as I didn't open such book for years. Are
you a freshman student?
>
> Why should helium have two electrons instead of 4? Or 18? Or 70987?
> You claim that the nucleus is filled with thousands of electrons, so
> why are there a specific number of electrons for each atom? Also note,
> that the above statement seems to violate thermodynamics to me, though
> I could be wrong on this one: you stated above that an electron going
> from inside the nucleus to outside releases energy (eg nuclear
> fission); however, this energy is lost to the universe (2nd law of
> thermodynamics) if it is converted to heat, which most of it is. Thus
> the atom would be INCAPABLE of reclaiming the electron without energy
> being added from another reaction. I guess you could have some kind of
> a dynamic equilibrium going on; but I suspect entropy would ultimately
> take charge here.
I'll check what Mccutcheon said about this as well as attend
a crash course in Chemistry. With our impending collection
of counter-arguments. Let's make sure Mccutcheon wouldn't
decieve learning students (if that's his motivation... whether
intentionally or non_intentionally we don't know). I have
to get to the bottom of it because I want to make sure the
Standard Model is real and one can work it out from there
or if it is wrong and the Aether Physics theory is right, then
some adjustments have to be made. I think Qi can affect
the electron probability cloud at a distance. And I wonder
if "virtual particles or force" are exchanged between our mind
in our brain towards the target half a world away or an Aether
is there to transmit such effect. Not just a classical Aether but one
functioning at the very core of space/time. Mccutcheon is just one
way for me to see all concepts in physics and science at its core
and understand how many principles are derived by knowing the
real thing and how they can be altered or adjusted and at
the same time making scientific sense and compatible with
all data.
c
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<3FC49AE3...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
> > Gravitons are still speculative; better "believe" in ordinary
> > Newtonian gravity or Einstein's curved spacetime.
>
> Mccutcheon didn't actually say "parallel line".
Well, the picture which was provided surely looked like parallel lines!
> His explanation is much like Joe Fisher and I still can't
> visualize the model of the entire solar sytem when
> looked from the point of view of expanding matter.
> Mccutcheon may have gotten the idea from Joe. So
> it's Joe that must illustrate and trying to prove his
> Divergent Matter Theory. Maybe Joe should make
> some illustrations in a web site about this.
Good luck for him.
> About General Relativity. Mccutcheon said Einstein
> accelerating elevator experiment lead him to the GR.
Among other things, right.
> Had Einstein thought the accelerating elevator may be
> from an expanding earth causing the acceleration
> and gravity effect.
That explanation makes no sense at all.
> It could be an Einstein Expansion
> Theory that may be formulated. That's just his
> comment.
And he is completely wrong there. His expansion theory simply
doesn't work, as amply demonstrated in this thread.
> His book has illustration of the Elevator
> Experiments and he has theory of the gravitation lensing
> effect and how it occured with his Expansion Theory.
If hes says so.
[snip rest]
Bye,
Bjoern
AaronB
>
> Before I answer the quiries below (which I will in this same
> message). Let me share first what is Mccutcheon view on
> electricity, magnetism, light bulb, energy, light, solar cell,
> electromagnetism, etc. so it can be put in perspective.
>
> First battery. He said a positive terminal has material that has
> a deficit of electrons, while a negative terminal has an excess
> of electrons (which is trapped between subatomic and atomic
> realm).
You mean it doesn't have enough electrons inside the atomic realm or
outside?
> So when you put a wire, the pressure is removed
> from the negative side and flows to the positive.
Why is the wire necessary? Why couldn't it just borrow electrons from
matter in the air? And why does the wire have to be a specific metal,
instead of say, carbon? Why does it even care how many electrons it
has (valence or otherwise)?
But he said that electrons weren't charged, so why would they produce
magnetic field? And presumably the electrons should be escaping
radially from the wire, but magnetic fields act in concentric circle
patterns. Why would some objects be attracted to the field and others
wouldn't be?
> Now solar cell. He said it's absurd how "photons" can convert
> into electrons. So what occurs he said is that the solar cell
> simply collects the electrons at the sky and the wire becomes
> fill with electrons producing electricity.
>
> About electromagnetic field. It is divided into a lower-frequency
> section of electron compression bands and a higher-frequency
> section of electron clusters. When we see lights and colors.
> They are just illusions he said. They are just different arrangement
> of electrons imprinting on our retina.
I think you mean electromagnetic radiation.
I have two horseshoe magnets. I label one magnet A, and one magnet B,
and label each leg of the magnets 1 and 2. I have A and B facing each
other, in the following manner:
1 1
A B
2 2
And find that the magnets repel each other. I reverse A:
2 1
A B
1 2
And find they attract.
I can't wait.
A.
Double-A
>
> Before I answer the quiries below (which I will in this same
> message). Let me share first what is Mccutcheon view on
> electricity, magnetism, light bulb, energy, light, solar cell,
> electromagnetism, etc. so it can be put in perspective.
>
> First battery. He said a positive terminal has material that has
> a deficit of electrons, while a negative terminal has an excess
> of electrons (which is trapped between subatomic and atomic
> realm). So when you put a wire, the pressure is removed
> from the negative side and flows to the positive. This occurs
> when expansion of the electrons push them. When the electrons
> return to their subatomic definition at the far side, the pressure
> slowly returns to normal. When it equalizes the high and low
> expansion pressures within the two sides of the battery. Current
> flow is gradually reduced until it halted. The battery then is not
> drained of "charge" but has simply reached a state of equalized
> expansion pressure on both sides.
The standard model of chemistry explains so well and in such detail
the way a battery works that anyone who has taken Chemistry 201 can
understand it perfectly. If someone wants to invent new theory, why
don't they do it in areas that are not yet well understood, or in
which standard theory has not yet been well verified. Don't try to
explain in simplistic terms things that are already quite well
understood and explained in great detail.
Double-A
cinquirer
Electricity, Magnets and the last part explains about the doublet
slit experiment (here there appears to be a flaw as he didn't
apply the single slit or sorta). To the Mccutcheon folks. Sorry
for the excerpt but this will be the last. To those who have
read Mccutcheon book, just form a forum to discuss and see where
his creativity can be expanded (pun intended). I didn't master
his book very well because it is thick (400+) and I have others
to read and besides, it should be the wrong model since it can't
explain consciousness. Thanks Aaron for pointing out about fusion,
reactivity in elements, etc. I'll look into them. Also I'll let you
know when a forum is created so others can give their own input
and share the ideas because I just can't type them all.
Quoting Mccutcheon in The Final Theory
(in the book he explains dozens of others such as polarization,
photoelectric effect, black hole, gravitational lens, etc. so just
get the book or visit his website at
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
for the full length of them as I can't just quote or type a lot
explaining each of them. I need concentration in qi research.
The following starts in the part after Mccutcheon describe the
current theory of electricity and how his differs):
"Expansion Theory, on the other hand, describes this as a surplus of
electrons in the "negative" half of the battery, which are essentially
trapped between subatomic and atomic realms. That is, they are free
enough to attempt to grow out into the atomic realm, as in the earlier
static electricity discussion, yet are also confined by a loose
association with the atoms within the battery as well as by the walls
of the battery casing. This situation presents a large expansion
pressure within the battery that se eks a way out. Connecting wires to
the battery provides a conductive path for the electrons to expand out
along the wire and through the circuit. The "positive" battery
terminal at the other end of the circuit is not actually "positively
charged," but rather, it contains a material that has a deficit of
electrons, essentially creating a region of very low expansion
pressure that readily accepts the expanding electrons from the
circuit.
Therefore, once the circuit is completed, the surplus electrons from
the high-pressure ("negative") battery terminal are able to expand
freely along the wire, through the circuit, and into the low-pressure
("positive") terminal in a continuous flow. Also, similar to the
spark in the earlier static electricity discussion, once a continuous
span of electrons extends to the other battery terminal the whole
river of electrons tends to rapidly return to their subatomic
definition within the far terminal - somewhat like one long,
controlled spark through the circuit. As this proc ess continues, it
equalizes the high and low expansion pressures wi thin the two sides
of the battery, gradually reducing the current flow and eventually
bringing it to a halt entirely, leaving a drained battery. The battery
is not actually drained of "charge," however, but has simply reached a
state of equalized expansion pressure on both sides.
This explanation of electric current solves the mystery of how, for
example, the resistor continually heats up simply because "charged"
electrons flow through it, while the electrons lose neither charge nor
even kinetic energy (speed) in the process. That is, although not
generally recognized today, there is no identifiable energy transfer
from the flowing electrons to the circuit components, leading to the
logical conclusion that the battery only powers the movement of the
electrons through the circuit - b ut not the circuit components
themselves. Since the circuit components do, nevertheless, consume
power in order to operate, this is a deep "energy-for-free" mystery
that is only solved by realizing that this whole process is not driven
by "energy" a all, but by the ongoing subatomic expansion of all
electrons.
Once again, the term "energy" is merely an abstraction that was
invented in an attempt to explain observations in the absence of an
Understanding of expanding matter. With this understanding, we can see
that it is not actually the battery that powers the circuit, but
subatomic expansion that drives this whole process (as it drives all
things), in this case using the battery to enable a temporary
crossover effect into the atomic realm known as current flow. The
details of precisely how subatomic expansion po wers circuit
components will be addressed further as the discussions continue,
leading up to an analysis of a very special type of resistor - the
light bulb.
As might be expected, as the electrons expand and push each other
along the wire, they would experience far less difficulty expanding
along the outside of the wire than through its dense center, which
should result in electricity tending to flow along the outside of the
wire. And, in fact, there is a well-known but little understood effect
called the "Skin Effect that describes precisely this behavior of
electric current. This effect is so-named because electricity is known
to flow as a thin coating or "skin" along the outside of the wire
rather than flowing equally through the whole volume of the wire
itself (Fig. 4-13).
This tendency to expand along the outside of the wire creates a very
important side effect, which can be clearly seen in the diagram. As
the expanding electrons push one another along the outside of the wire
they would also freely expand out into space, creating a surrounding
cloud of electrons that radiates outward as it moves along with the
current. This is actually a very well known and measurable effect,
known as a magnetic field. Although today the Skin Effect is thought
to occur mostly in circuits having rapid back-and-forth current
oscillations rather than continual one-way current flow, Expansion
Theory suggests this is an oversight due to a failure to recognize
that the magnetic fields surrounding all wires carrying current are
actually such externalized electrons. This defines a new concept for
magnetic fields:
NEW IDEA
The magnetic fields surrounding all wires that carry
electric current are actually the electrons themselves
expanding outward into space as they move along the
wire.
Rethinking Magnetism
Permanent Magnets
A permanent magnet is typically created by repeatedly passing an
existing magnet in the same direction across an iron bar until the bar
becomes magnetized as well. As mentioned earlier, Standard Theory
states that there are thousands of tiny magnetic regions throughout
the iron bar, but which are all initially oriented randomly. These
tiny magnetic dipole regions, as they are called, are thought to align
when an external magnet is repeatedly passed over an iron bar, turning
the whole bar into one overall ma gnet. The resulting magnet is now
said to have 41 north pole magnetic energy" emanating from one end and
"south pole magnetic energy" emanating from the other - phenomena
whose nature and behavior have just been shown to be completely
unexplained.
From the perspective of Expansion Theory, however, the process of
repeatedly passing a magnet over the iron bar causes the electrons
within the iron bar to migrate toward one end, and then further out
onto the outside of the bar. These externalized electrons naturally
expand out as a cloud radiating in all directions. This is similar to
the objects in the earlier static electricity discussion, except that
such objects are typically non-conductors whose surface becomes coated
with electrons from an external source. In the case of the iron bar,
however, the conductive metal of the bar allows the electrons within
the volume of the bar to be pulled toward one end of the bar during
creation of the magnet. This end becomes saturated with electrons that
have been dragged from the other end, which is now depleted of
electrons. The changes in the molecular alignment of tiny regions
throughout the iron bar mentioned in Standard Theory would most likely
function as a barrier preventing th e electrons from diffus ing back
to the depleted end, rather than these regions acting like tiny
unexplained magnets themselves, as currently believed. The end of the
iron bar that is now saturated with electrons is the north pole, and
has an electron cloud radiating from it due to the surplus electrons.
This process would leave the south-pole end with a deficit of
electrons, resulting in a low-pressure region much as in the earlier
"positive" battery terminal discussion, and also likely an external
electron cloud of lesser density as in the static electricity
discussion. Depending on which of these two effects is dominant, as
the dense electron cloud at the north pole fans out into space it
either encounters the less dense south-pole electron cloud or the low
pressure of the south pole directly. In either case, the dense
electron cloud would be rapidly drawn into the subatomic realm within
the south pole, aided by the conductive nature of the iron bar. This
return to the microscopic subatomic realm at the south pole would
cause a size equality readjustment to immediately ripple back through
the dense electron cloud, causing it to tighten around the iron bar in
the characteristic field lines of all bar magnets (Fig. 4-19). Since a
sizable number of electrons are still stretched between the poles
outside this newly created magnet in the form of a magnetic field, the
south pole still remains significantly depleted. This description
shows that, once expanding matter is considered, magnetism can be seen
as an emergent group behavior of many electrons, and not the result of
an unexplained magnetic property Of individual electrons and atoms
within the magnet, as thought today.
Whether two north poles or two south poles of separate magnets meet,
they encounter tightened clouds of expanding electrons under tension,
which push on each other and cause the repelling force between like
poles. When a north and south pole meet, however, the north pole is
closer to the depleted south pole of the other magnet than it is to
its own, and the cloud begins to unwrap from around its magnet and
extend across the gap to the other magnet's south pole. As the cloud
tightens across the gap in the sa me manner that it ordinarily
tightens around its own magnet, the two magnets are drawn toward each
other (Fig. 4-20). This is the attracting force between north and
south poles. When the magnets touch each other, the electron cloud
shrinks to a microscopic cloud of subatomic particles sandwiched
between the two magnets, which can be forcefully stretched back out
like an elastic fabric of subatomic particles if the magnets are
pulled apart.
Unlike "electrically charged objects, the north-pole electron cloud
does not discharge into the other magnet and neutralize, or in this
case, demagnetize both magnets when they touch. The "charged" objects
discussed earlier do this because of a surface coating of excess
electrons isolated outside of non-conducting material, which will
readily leap to another object capable of accepting these isolated
surplus electrons if it is close enough. However, the surplus
electrons at the north pole of a magnet are pa rt of a continuum of
surplus electrons that extends throughout the north half of the
conductive iron bar. Therefore, the north-pole electron cloud is
actually an extension of a densely packed electron cloud within the
magnet, and does not readily separate and discharge from the surface
the way the electron cloud of a "charged" object does.
Also, "charged" objects are not strongly attracted to a magnet's
depleted south pole because the large and rapidly growing electrons in
the freely expanding electron clouds of "charged" objects are largely
isolated from the magnet's depleted south pole by the tightly wrapped
elections of the magnetic field. In a sense, the tight magnetic field
acts as a 'force field" that deflects the cloud of larger, freely
expanding electrons. There is also no strong repelling force between a
"charged" object and either p ole of a magnet for essentially the same
reason. That is, the tight magnetic field of the magnet does not
expand outward freely to cause a repelling push, but acts more like a
'force field" that mechanically deflects or brushes aside the object's
electric field when it nears. It is also worth noting that:
Note:
The preceding explanation for the repelling and attracting forces
between magnets is the only known explanation for this effect; today's
science offers neither a clear physical mechanism nor a scientifically
viable explanation for how or magnets repel or attract each other.
Rethinking the Classic Double-Slit Experiment
The double-slit experiment, first performed by Thomas Young in 1801,
has become a classic experiment in our science because it is thought
to show both the wave nature of light as well as the paradox of its
dual wave-particle nature. This experiment simply involves a barrier
with two vertical slits, through which light is able to pass. The idea
is that light passing through these slits will emerge on the other
side and radiate outward as two separate cones of light that will
interfere with each other in patt erns of constructive and destructive
interference. And indeed, with the proper selection of slit width and
separation distance between the slits, the emerging light does
interfere and cause light and dark bands on a far screen (Fig. 5-9).
This experiment is thought to be analogous to the interference pattern
that can be observed between water waves radiating from two nearby
disturbances in a pond. Likewise, since light is thought to be a wave
of pure energy - and, in theory, idealized waves that meet out of
phase cancel each other out - the light and dark bands have
traditionally been interpreted as constructiveldestructive
interference bands, validating the wave theory of light. However, a
simple experiment with overlapping lasers, as discu ssed earlier,
shows that light cannot be made to cancel itself out of existence in
the manner idealized in abstract wave theory. In fact, it is a
violation of the laws of physics to even expect energy to vanish in
the physical world in this manner. So, although light and dark
interference bands do occur within the two overlapping cones of light,
the dark bands cannot be regions where waves of disembodied "light
energy" cancel each other out of existence an y more than waves of
disembodied "water energy" canc el each other out in a pond. The
analogous interference pattern with water waves results from the
interaction of wavelike oscillations of matter particles (water
Molecules), and so, the logical conclusion is that the interference
pattern in light is a similar manifestation of matter particle
interaction. This would be expected if light were actually a sea of
electron clusters radiating out into space, as shown in Expansion
Theory.
Note: The double-slit experiment has been misinterpreted as
evidence for the "wave theory" of light, but is actually
evidence of an interaction between groups of particles.
A further reason the double-slit experiment is a classic is because it
is also thought to show a deeply mysterious wave-particle paradox. The
paradox supposedly arises when the intensity of the light beam is
reduced to the point where only single photons of light are
transmitted one-at-a-time from the light source. This means there
should no longer be two cones of light interfering with each other,
but rather, separate light photons traveling one at a time through one
slit or the other. If these photons then proceed on and strike a
photographic plate, the cumulative effect over time should develop
into two bright spots on the plate - one for each slit that a photon
might pass through. However, the actual result is an interference
pattern much like the original experiment with the full light beam.
This is thought to show that, even when light is sent toward the slits
as individual particles one-at-a-time, it can still produce a wavelike
interference pattern. It is completely unexplained how these
individual particles seem to "know" how to land in a wavelike
interference pattern on the photographic pl ate, doing so even though
the scenario is no longe r one of interference between two waves. This
is the famous wave-particle duality paradox of the double-slit
experiment, showing that even single particles of light mysteriously
act as if they were waves passing through both slits simultaneously.
Taking a fresh look at this apparent paradox, we can now see that it
is not actually a wave-particle paradox at all. It was just shown that
even the original interference pattern in Figure 5-9 is not a proven
"energy wave" phenomenon, but merely resembles known interference
patterns between waves of particles. So, the actual mystery of the
double-slit experiment is not that these particles of light somehow
individually produce the interference pattern of "pure waves," but
only that individual particles seem to still produce the original
group particle interference pattern. With this clarification, the
experiment simply leaves us with the questi on of whether this is
truly a situation of separate particles fired one-at-a-time through
the slits. As shown in the earlier discussion of light passing through
a glass block, the current Quantum Mechanical theory of "energy
photons" behaving like projectiles shot individually through space is
unsupported by experiment. Despite the evidence against such an idea,
this is precisely the claim that is made in the double-slit
experiment; therefore, there is good reason to question ,veil this
facet of the experiment. Evidence is mount ing for the possibility
that the entire classi c double-slit experiment may simply be a series
of logical and experimental oversights regarding the nature and
behavior of light. So then, what are we to make of the interference
pattern when it is thought that individual photons are passing
one-at-a-time through the slits?
Expansion Theory shows that light proceeds through space as a sea of
expanding electron clusters pushing each other away from the light
source. It is such an expanding beam of particles that arrives at the
double slits to cause the original interference pattern on the other
side much as a wall of water molecules would behave after passing
through *WO such openings. When the light intensity is reduced to the
point where Standard Theory claims it produces single photons,
Expansion Theory would maintain that c ontinuous beams of electron
clusters are still produced, but are very short-lived and sporadic
since the light source is just on the verge of being turned off. We
can picture the earlier description of agitated pools of electrons on
the surface of a light-bulb filament, but rather than a continuous
supply of electrons pooling and expanding off as a sea of clusters,
the supply is only barely enough to produce sporadic bursts of
clusters. Each burst would only extend a s hort distance through space
before its supply of electron clusters suddenly cuts off at the
source, in favor of producing another such burst a short while later.
Since a regular-intensity light beam would normally expand across the
entire distance from the source to the detector, our detectors are
designed to trigger based on this forceful stream of electron clusters
Continually arriving under their combined expansion pressure. If such
a beam has its source cut off before arriving, it becomes an orphaned
Partial stream of electron clusters in mid-air that is free to
dissipate Much of its expansion pressure before reaching the detector.
This is rather like a spring c oiled against a wall, which shoots away
from the wall and strikes a nearby target when it is allowed to
uncoil. If the wall is removed part-way through the uncoiling process,
the spring is unable to launch itself forward with its normal full
strength and strikes the target with much less force. In fact,
depending on when the wall is removed, the spring may not even make it
all the way to the target. Similarly, the space between the source and
the detector in the doubleslit exp eriment may be filled with burs ts
of unseen partial light beams that are unable to trigger the detector
but nonetheless pass through the slits and interfere with each other
much as before. The occasional beam that is supplied by the source
long enough to be detected (currently thought of as a single photon
fired across the distance) would still be affected by interference
between these unseen light beams; it would simply take longer to build
up the interference pattern at the detector.
Implications of the Double-Slit Reinterpretation
This reinterpretation of the double-slit experiment carries with it
some very deep implications, not only for the nature of light and
energy, but also for Quantum Theory itself. First, it explains a
long-standing experimental mystery in our science, showing that light
need not be considered to have a mysterious inherent wave-particle
dual nature that is fundamentally unresolved until detection.
Secondly, this reinterpretation shakes the very core of Quantum
Mechanics since the wave-particle duality paradox of light is thought
to exemplify and validate the concepts of quantum uncertainty and
probability in nature that have become deeply woven into Quantum
Theory. In fact, this wave-particle-duality concept has become so
widespread in our science today that it has even been extended frorn a
description of energy to a description of matter as well. In 1924,
Louis de Broglie postulated that electrons, atoms, and even regular
objects possess a mysterious wavelike nature as well. Via a simple
mathematical equation one can calculate the theoretical wavelength of
any such object, as if it truly had a wavelike nature. Even the
wavelength of a truck can be calculated, and although the result is of
no practical use, science today does consider such calculations to be
valid applications of the wave-particle-duality principle of Quantum
Theory - a principle whose core experimental support has just been
shown to be erroneous.
Yet, as apparent proof of this apparently mysterious wavelike behavior
of matter, beams of electrons have been made to interfere with each
other in a similar manner to the double-slit experiment, resulting in
a similar "wavelike" interference pattern. Although this has been
taken as proof of de Broglie's concept of matter having a paradoxical
dual nature as a quantum "probability wave," it was just shown that
such an interference pattern does not actually indicate a dual
wave-particle nature at all, but merely interference between
particles. Therefore, there is no particular reason to conclude that
individual electrons have mysterious "quantum wave" natures, but
merely that groups of electrons interfere in a manner much like many
other known examples of interference between large groups of particles
- just as we might expect.
Further, this supposed wave-particle dual nature of both energy and
matter is embodied in perhaps the most central equation in Quantum
Mechanics - the Schroedinger Wave Equation, named after Erwin
Schroedinger (1887-1961), one of the founders of Quantum Theory. The
Schroedinger Wave Equation is considered the cornerstone equation of
Quantum Theory, and claims to capture the mysterious probabilisticic
quantum wave" nature that supposedly underlies all energy and matter
in the universe. Therefore, it is a s izable problem for Quantum
Theory that the apparent experimental support for the "quantum wave"
nature described by this central equation now appears to simply be a
Misinterpretation of straightforward particle interaction.
It appears that neither the double-slit experiment, de Broglie's
Matter wave concept, Planck's "quantum energy jump" concept, nor even
the central Schroedinger Wave Equation stand any longer as the literal
description of our universe. Yet, these concepts are the key support
pillars for the theory of Quantum Mechanics, which now increasingly
appears merely to be an abstract model built partly on Unchecked
logical oversights in experimental interpretation and partly on
misunderstandings of expanding matter. This is the likely reason for
repeated descriptions of Quantum Theory as being mysterious and
bizarre rather than it being our universe that is bizarre and
"incomprehensible. Once the principle of expanding matter is
recognized, all of today's quantum mechanical mysteries vanish. This
can be further seen in yet another classic experiment that has been
taken as support for Quantum Mechanics - the Photoelectric Effect."
aar...@uvic.ca (AaronB) wrote in message news:<9f8a9f42.0311...@posting.google.com>...