To Buffy:
(1)You obviously have not read the book. Expansion theory predicts the amount of matter from the center of mass, not the geometric center, produces the gravity felt. The greater the amount of matter from the center of mass the greater the gravity felt. The lesser the amount of matter from the center of mass the weaker the gravity felt. However the overall volume increase of all of the objects expanding matter would be the same as another object of equal size and mass, but with even matter distribution. The only difference between the two objects would be the different surface gravities. Easy to illustrate. Take 6,375 km long by 600 km wide tower in space. Expanding you would feel only about 2.454375 m/s acceleration on either of it's long ends. Stand at the geometric center and you would experience only 0.231 m/s expansion. Now put an amount of matter in dense form at 1/3rd of the tower that equals the mass of the other 2/3rds of the tower. Thus putting the center of mass at right between the 1/3rd and 2/3 sections. At Dense long end you would experience 1.63625 m/s acceleration. At less dense long end you would experience 3.2725 m/s acceleration. Yet the individual atomic expansion has not changed from 0.00000077 m/s acceleration. Just by changing the matter distribution a little in Expansion Theory and the surface gravity can start to vary greatly. Yet a orbit is concerned with overall shape and size of object and not it's mass. So this theory predicts any orbital measurements will detect only surface variations (non smooth surface) but not the expansion. Either you drop a object or measure surface force (weight of objects) to find the actual surface gravity/expansion. There is absolutely no other way to measure the expansion of the surface. Period.
(2)If you can split a Quark into lesser fragments with greater energies than have been previously used then it cannot be a fundamental particle. Higher energies will test this.
You obviously skipped my posts. There are no charges in Expansion Theory, it clearly states charges do not exist. They are misconception of the crossover effect of electron flow and electron clouds surrounding atoms. There are only about 3 properties for the fundamental particle (electron), none of which are like any Standard Theory particle property. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
(3)I am talking accelerating past light. Not hypothetical tachyons that already speed past light or light moving past c in some instances. According to Expansion Theory the only limit to acceleration or velocity is the method of propulsion and fuel needed to reach such high speed. Not to mention getting a object to survive long enough by slamming into stray particles at speeds high enough to cause nuclear fission!
By the way as of 2005 a serious mathematical paper was submitted that proposes large mathematical errors of the original prints of Special Relativity. If proven correct then SR has been wrong and miss used for the last century! This is not from the author of the book either. Someone brave enough to come forward and state SR's original print from Einstein broke several math laws and is incorrect. Look it up. Be interesting to see what happens.
(4)Physically hitting electron clusters (photons), to cause a deliberate vibrational kinetic motion down the entire light beam. Like knocking steal balls sort of. Theoretically then you could have FTL communication through light beams, because the vibration conducts through the particles in the beam faster than the beams motion! Well beyond light speed!
You quote Standard Theory and old Classical ideas like I am not familiar with them. Guess what? I do know them silly! I am familiar with: Thermo-Dynamics, General Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Classical Mechanics, Cosmology, and more. In no way do I claim to be the absolute master of them. But I am all to aware of their strong points and weak points. I didn't come here to discuss what I already know. I am here to simply to discuss a book I happen to enjoy, whether it is true or not. I maybe young, but I am not ignorant person. Far from it.
You discussing a book you have not read, is like going to book club discussion without reading the book in conversation!
