Quote:
Boerseon: McCutcheon's theory is based on expansion causing gravity, or what we experience as gravity. Some of the issues I have with this view, is the following:
1) If expansion is fact, then why don't larger planets (with higher 'gravity', they should be expanding at a greater rate, according to McCutcheon) swallow smaller planets? We should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Jupiter and the Sun, for that matter, 'cause they've been *expanding* at a much greater rate than planet Earth.
|
Well,
if McCutcheon is right, for the same reason Jupiter hasn't swallowed up the earth if gravity sucks. The implication, which is anything but obvious, is that our ability to perceive - to be directly aware of the expansion - doesn't exist.
In order to comprehend anything we need a fixed frame of reference. We've evolved with a built in blindness to it because it would serve absolutely no purpose but to confuse us if we were perceptually aware of it. It can only be inferred.
Quote:
|
Boerseon: 2) How does Expansion Theory cater for orbits? I can understand the rationale for trying to use 'expansion' as the cause of the gravity-effect, but that should only be observable when on the surface of the mass (planet or star) where the 'expansion' is causing an upward acceleration. Why would Expansion drive the planets circling the Sun?
|
Well put. I had problems with this part too. I could get orbits to work through 180 degrees but couldn't figure out how the hell a moon went all the way around a planet or a planet went all the way around a sun. So after about a year I decided to come at it (again, ASSUMING McCutcheon is correct) from a different direction. In correspondence with McCutcheon on this very issue, he pointed out that he had exactly the same problem. If I understand it correctly, straight line motion doesn't exist and what we perceive is actually the first derivative (my term) of what is actually happening underneath.
Quote:
|
Boerseon: 3) Black Holes (according to McCutcheon) should be physically the largest items in the Universe, seeing as they are the most massive. According to classical theory, they've just punched a hell of a big dent in space/time, from expansion theory, they're just expanding at more than c (seeing as even light can't escape). This being the case, every Black Hole is expanding faster than the visible edge of the Universe. Therefore, if there is any primordial Black Holes, they should have swallowed the whole observable Universe by now. Which is either not the case, or we're already inside one of the suckers. Which seems rather unlikely.
|
lol. Very well put. You are assuming that McCutcheon thinks black holes are expanding at the speed of light. He doesn't. If I understand him correctly, he likens a black hole to a burnt out and smashed light bulb. Not as glamorous as what is commonly thought, eh? His explanation is much more elegant than mine.
One final comment and then I'm going to bail. The hardest problems to solve are the ones where the initial observations are incorrect. But the symptoms are similar. Every time you end up on the end of a branch, it breaks. The genius of the human species is that we are aware of awareness and that strikes at the heart of the issue.
