Quote:
|
Originally Posted by leeroy
I'm about half way through the book and honestly I really like the concept. Even before reading this book, I've often thought of Einstein's space-elevator and gravity and wondered... What if gravity was just inertia?
I never really thought of atomic expansion, but it seems plausible. Although the way the author explains it, he doesn't seem to be very objective on the idea. It seems he backs up scientific models that he can explain with expansion and tries to debunk models and theory's that he can't make fit. That makes me feel like he's a salesman and not a scientist.
There a couple of issues I have with atomic expansion as he explains it. One is that orbits are a matter of perspective. It takes some mind bending to ignore the sidereal period, but okay. Also, elliptical orbits seem to present their own issues with objects passing each other because of expansion but not colliding. Above and beyond that, is motion and how it relates to the expansion process. In other words, it doesn't seem that he explained how objects in space maintain a constant relative velocity to their own growth. If everything is expanding and moving at a constant speed, wouldn't objects appear to slow down over time? And if you add the compounding effect of accelerating expansion, how would anything be able to maintain any type of orbit? It seems that if he added Hubble's Constant to his theory, he might of been able to counter balance this slowing effect, but I guess he dismisses Hubble's Constant all together, by saying that red-shift effect is caused by space debris.
Like a previously said I like the idea and I definitely like ideas that make you change your perspective on things. it just seems this theory, the way the author explains it, has got some holes.
Lee
|
Friend Lee,
I appreciated your reply - it seems that, even though you're attracted to some of his ideas, you are striving to remain objective. Objectivity and a healthy skepticism - hang onto them! As I mentioned in a previous reply, I haven't read the book, so I don't have any business addressing specific points.
But having so said, I can't resist remarking on one of his claims you happened to mention: that the Hubble red-shift is due merely to "space debris." If McCutcheon is claiming that this debris (which does exist in places) is simply filtering out the shorter wavelengths of light and letting through only the longer (i.e., redder) wavelengths, then he is way off base.
Here's why. The redshift cannot simply be the result of selective transmission of light - that wouldn't be a true "shifting" of wavelengths, but only a screening of already-existing wavelengths.
We know that wavelengths across the entire stellar spectrum are being truly shifted, because we see the presence of characteristic, telltale spectral lines (like the solar "Fraunhofer lines") that uniquely identify the different chemical elements. (In practice, it is the absorption lines resulting from the stars' cooler surface layers that form the basis of spectroscopic stellar classifications today.)
The distinctive patterns of these lines are unmistakably all shifted toward the red end of the spectrum - I can't even begin to imagine any way that "space debris" could accomplish that remarkable feat.
Only two possible mechanisms for this phenomenon are known. One is gravitational, requiring an enormous mass for the star that emits the light. In this case, stars of differing mass would exhibit differing degrees of redshift.
The other mechanism is the Doppler effect. We know this is the true cause of the Hubble red shift because the shift is proportional to the distance (from us) of the galaxies emitting the light. The effect is far too general and all-embracing (too "global," in the parlance of physics) to allow for "local" effects such as space debris - which couldn't really explain it anyway.
(I'm editing in this additional paragraph later.)
IF I haven't misunderstood McCutcheon's "explanation" of the Hubble redshift, then I have to say that he has fallen into the same trap as others of his ilk: airily dismissing with a glib evasion anything that might contradict his views. Such dismissiveness should be a red flag for the perceptive reader. If, on the other hand, he honestly confronts these contradictions without any such sleight-of-hand to make them disappear, and honestly acknowledges the gaps and inconsistencies in his theory (and ALL new theories have gaps and arguable inconsistencies), then - and only then - I would conclude that he is credible and trustworthy.
I'll end my rant here.
Please let me know if I misunderstand what McCutcheon is claiming about the redshift. It's good that you're putting his ideas to the test by posting here. Again - hang on to your objectivity! It will serve you well.
Tom Palmer
