Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf
1)Land a probe on the darkside of the moon. According to the theory you cannot tell surface gravity from orbit, but have to measure directly either by surface measurements or by measuring falling object acceleration. If the predicted moon surface gravity of darkside of moon is not the predicted 1/3G then Expansion Theory cannot explain moon graviy and hence is basicly useless. If prediction is correct then it would be the first theory in history to predict a gravitational effect that no other theory predicts.
|
You might want to try to be clearer here, but given I've seen this example before, I'll respond (and actually I have a longer response earlier in this thread): Newton predicts that bodies that have uneven distributions of mass will have a stronger gravitation on the side that has the greater mass. In order to create greater "pressure" under expansion, that side of the object would have to be expanding faster than the other side, producing a more and more oblong shape over time, however we do not observe that. I have had expansion proponents object with "oh but mass does matter", which of course violates the basic precept of expansion.
Also, under expansion, you can only measure the pressure by direct contact, thus the requirement of this experiment being getting a pressure gauge to both sides of the moon (thus trying to make the experiment "hard" to do). We can measure the unevenness of the moon's mass distribution (which everyone can see because the same side of the moon always faces the earth), but also it has been very completely measured through perturbations in the orbits of spacecraft like the Apollo command module and other lunar orbiting craft. The gravity is uneven, and orbits have to be corrected for it, but since the Moon is almost perfectly spherical, this should not be the case under expansion.
All shapes of planet etc are maintained under expansion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf
2)If they ever manage to split a Quark into smaller units then Standard Theory is incomplete and Expansion theory would have evidence that even Quarks are groups of electrons.
|
I'm not sure what this means, but Quarks have charges, and the Up, Strange, and Top Quarks all have a *positive* charge. If they were made with electrons--no matter how many there were--they'd still have a negative charge because all electrons have a negative charge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf
3)Accelerate a particle past light. According to Expansion Theory you could do it possibly.
|
Maybe this would provide a weakness in Einstein's Special Relativity, but I don't see why this would be relevant to disproving General Relativity. I don't see how this would "prove" expansion, as there are other theories as to why you could accellerate a particle "past" light speed, and in fact SR really only says you can't go *at* the speed of light! Past might be a possibility, although one interpretations of SR's equations on this topic says the particle might move *backward* in time!
Now at the same time, you don't have to go *at* the speed of light to show the increase in mass as speed increases as predicted by SR, and in fact it is measurable and has been measured, and Expansion can't explain these observed effects.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf
4)You should be theoritically be able to send vibrations through light or any other particle beam.
|
Uh, you can: light is a wave phenomena and it can carry waves: the optical transmission lines we've been using for phones and the Internet for *decades* is built on this concept! What are you really referring to here?
Conversely,
Buffy
