Science Forums 2

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

(1)You obviously have not read the book.

Yep, but then I haven't read Einstein's original paper either: others have provided much better expositions of his theory. Mr. McCutcheon wants to keep his secret. Is it cuz he's poor? Does he really need the money? does he not have the marketing chops to realize he could make *much* more money if he just distributed it freely? Well, that's for another discussion: lets just say I think he's his own worst enemy in this respect... At any rate, you guys have provided most of it for free and I spent my $35 at Macy's instead...

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

Expansion theory predicts the amount of matter from the center of mass, not the geometric center, produces the gravity felt.

I know, that's what I've been told. I understand that the expansion is supposed to be at an atomic level, and more densly packed matter will expand more than less densly packed matter. Now that's precicely the problem, because if the more dense sections of mass are expanding faster, then they will *grow* faster than the less dense parts. That's why you really need to explain why some how magically this does not happen:

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

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.

There since according to expansion, the *only* perception of gravity is the pressure due to expansion, if the growth of the entire sphere is the same on both sides then the pressure will be the same on both sides. However if the mass distribution is uneven and as expansion says, the more dense areas will expand faster than the less dense areas, then the two sides will grow at different rates and you will measure different surface pressures, BUT that also means that the sphere will grow into an egg shape! Here is the concept using Mr. McCutcheon's beam-in-space example:

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

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.

To extend this, mark the half way point on the beam. Wait a minute, now measure the distance from each end to that marked point. If the accelleration at both ends is different, then that distance should have changed at *different rates*, thus the same (now expanded!) ruler will measure the distance from one end to the center as being longer than the other end does! Take your beam and put a sphere around it and you'll see that one side of the planet now has to have a larger radius than the other, making it egg shaped! Note that I'm using the same expanding ruler, the difference is in the rates of accelleration: if the sphere stays a sphere, its going to have the same pressure measurement on each side of the sphere or beam or whatever, but if they are different then the sphere or beam has to grow unevenly. You cannot have both of these be true at the same time, even when I use the expansion theory only, and have no dependencies at all on Newton or Einstein. Please let me know why this is not a contradiction, because its certainly not obvious!

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

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.

Right, and that's why its so confusing to try to come up with how orbits of satellites work under expansion: their orbits are obviously affected by the distribution of mass and the expansion, but according to this, they should be following a curved path that is not dependent upon anything more than the distance to the surface of the object that is expanding toward them. Can you explain why we observe these perturbations when you say that for orbiting objects distribution of mass *does not* have an effect?

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

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!

Cool! Can ya tell us what they are? How is charge generated by "electron flow"? Can you create a positive charge by reversing the direction of the flow? What causes positive charge in protons? Do they flow too? Please explain further.

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

I am talking accelerating past light. According to Expansion Theory the only limit to acceleration or velocity is the method of propulsion and fuel needed to reach such high speed.

Cool. But how does expansion theory explain that particles accellerated in linear accellerators to very large fractions of the speed of light experience increases in mass exactly as predicted by Einstein? What Einstein predicts is that mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, and the experiments follow the curves his equations predict. To do what you say, expansion would have to have some kink in the curve at a point past what we've observed. Is there an expansion equation relevant to this?

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

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!

Would love to see the link to that! The irony of course is that of course there are further advances yet to come that will obsolete SR (you'd be an ignoramous to claim otherwise), but the fact of the matter is that that theory still has to explain what we observe, and SR's predictions have a perfect track record and it is "the most tested theory in the history of science" according to many.

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

(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!

And what is the reason for the fact that we don't observe this? These bits you're reading right now just travelled over some light beams! This is really well understood, production infrastructure. Is it invisible for some reason? Can you propose a test to make it appear?

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

You quote Standard Theory and old Classical ideas like I am not familiar with them. ... 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.

As I said to ld above: don't take it personally: the problem is that you're not really discussing how the theories interact, being just as dismissive of the "old" ones as you claim some of us are, and thus you come across as not really understanding them or their implications. No one is asking you to take them at face value, but you do seem to want to dismiss existing experiments *without* saying how the expansion theory both replicates observations *and* is demonstrable and superior to the existing theories.

I may be "old" but that does not mean that I'm "stuck on the old theories". I hope you can see that in virtually all of my posts I seek to avoid any argument of the form "that can't be true because it disagrees with Newton's/Einstein's *theories*." What I do insist on is that if you're going to be arguing a theory, it should *agree with experimentation*, and when the only response I get is either "its would require an experiment we can't do now" (which usually turns out to be false), or "we can't perceive it because our perceptions are altering along with the effect," then you're avoiding the contradiction rather than explaining it, thene you're really doing yourself a disservice in pursuit of the truth and look more like a "believer" than a "scientist."

Cheers,
Buffy