The Final Theory

[CrimsonWolf]

Make that 300,000,000 m/s or 300,000 km/s. Same with 150,000,000 m/s or 150,000 km/s. on C and .5C stuff. My bad.

Excuse my grammer errors as well. I need to proof read better.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

… Even with earlier space probes the masses of other planets was not known and remained speculation until probe data came in. …

This is not technically or historically accurate.

A planet’s mass may be calculated from the orbital data of its satellite(s) using a simple formula derived from Kepler’s 3rd law:
M = (Msun * R^3) / P^2,
Where R is the satellite’s maximum orbital radius (in AUs), P is its orbital period (in years). This had actually been done by the mid 18th century for Jupiter, giving a pretty precise value of its mass in terms of the mass of the Sun or the Earth. It wasn’t until the late 18th century that sufficiently accurate measurements of the gravitational constant has been made, allowing planetary masses to be estimated in standard units of mass (kilograms, etc.).

It’s also possible to obtain less precise estimates of the mass of planets from their perturbations (wobbling) of their central stellar mass. I believe this is about the only way currently available to estimate the mass of extrasolar planets (where we can’t send probes).

[ldsoftwaresteve]

We know the mass of a bowling ball because we can measure it directly. We don't know the mass of the earth. We back into it using other measurable data and some assumptions in formulas but we don't have a way to measure the mass directly. And that goes for all heavenly bodies that aren't pro football cheerleaders.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

We know the mass of a bowling ball because we can measure it directly. We don't know the mass of the earth. We back into it using other measurable data and some assumptions in formulas but we don't have a way to measure the mass directly. …

The measurement of the mass of a bowling ball also depends on assumptions in formulas. Although they’re more fundamental formulas (eg: Force = Mass * Acceleration), in a strict, phenomenalogical sense, we know the mass of a bowling ball no more directly than we know the mass of the Earth.

Although a precise measurement of the Earth’s mass relative to the Sun’s was known early in the 18th century, an absolute measurement (relative to bowling balls, etc.) couldn’t be made for another century. Since measuring the absolute mass of the Earth depends on the formula
F = G * M1 * M2 / R^2,
it requires a precise value of the gravitational constant (G). Since it’s first measured ca. 1798, the technique for measuring it hasn’t changed much (big lead globes on a rod, hung by a wire next to other big lead globes and some precise way to measure the wire’s twist), and the precision of the measurement increased only a little – from 2 significant digits to 4, for a modern value of 6.6742 +-0.001 *10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2). So while we certainly have a good idea of the mass of the Earth, it’s not as precise as many physical measurements – for example, the distance to the moon is known to over 10 significant digits due to laser rangefinding taking advantage of special reflectors placed there for just that purpose, while even an esoteric constant such as the mass/charge ratio of an electron is known to 7.

All this assumes that gravity is actually a force, not an effect due to unorthodox geometry involving dramatic expansion of various objects, such as McCutcheon proposes in “Final Theory”. To date, though, the old theories seem adequate for practical tasks like navigating the solar system, and speculative ones like explaining the composition of planets and moons, while the newer ones, specifically general relativity, seem adequate for such vexing problems as predicting the orbit of Mercury as precisely as observation allows us to test.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I guess my point is that we know a lot more about the makeup of a bowling ball than we do the earth. This thread assumes we are talking expansion, that is what the book is about. One of the consequences of expansion theory is that the gravitational effect is not related to the mass but to the expansion and if true, the way 'standard theory' backs into some stuff using a mass/gravity relationship wouldn't be correct then.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

\One of the consequences of expansion theory is that the gravitational effect is not related to the mass but to the expansion

This is exactly why it is untenable. The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is one of the most highly tested principles in physics. So far, it is accurate to an amazing precision (as I have noted from Lunar ranging experiments mentioned above).

McCutcheon's theory is empirically wrong right out of the gate. Regardless of how easy to understand something is, if it doesn't stand up to experiment, it is worthless.
-Will

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus00:

Regardless of how easy to understand something is, if it doesn't stand up to experiment, it is worthless.

True, and if the experimental results cannot be explained using expansion theory, then I agree. Perhaps you would share with us what the lunar ranging experiment shows.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Erasmus00:True, and if the experimental results cannot be explained using expansion theory, then I agree. Perhaps you would share with us what the lunar ranging experiment shows.

OK, I thought about this gravity-expansion problem to day as I was contracting my sphincter (what better place to ponder expansion). Here is the idea: To test the expansion idea it will suffice to examine an expanding object, say a star as it expands to form a red giant. If the gravitational redshift is known before it expands, the zgrav should be compaired with the zgrav as it reaches maximum size.

Why? If expansion hypothesis is real then the two expansions will combine to form a greater gravitational redshift which should be visible.

If expansion hypothesis in untenable, which is my point view, the zgrav will be less than the original value at the surface of the expanding star.

I do regret though that McC in order to explain a simple mechanism, that of gravity, has to introduce expansion: something that too requires an explanation that describes another mechansim. I would really love to hear what causes things like atoms, people and planets to expand. At least for a good laugh.

ldsoftwaresteve, it is hard to believe you're still so actively involved in this thread. I've been thinking for a while now that if someone wanted to keep the thread alive you would be the perfect cantidate for the job.

cc

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Erasmus00:True, and if the experimental results cannot be explained using expansion theory, then I agree. Perhaps you would share with us what the lunar ranging experiment shows.

In 2001 Williams and Anderson tested the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass down to 1.5*10^-13. In McCutcheon's theory, gravitational and inertial mass are not equivalent at all (different objects fall at different rates depending on their size). The two objects used to test in this case are the Earth and the Moon (vastly different sizes) so McCutcheon would predict effects that don't actually exist.
-Will

[Boerseun]

If McCutcheon is right, then:

The Earth expands at a speed we experience as 1g.
The moon expands at a speed we experience as 1/6g.

Thus, the Earth is clearly expanding faster than the moon.

This being the case, then:

What mechanism is constantly enlarging the moon's orbit so that the Earth doesn't expand all the way to the moon's surface?
Why (compared to the Earth) does the moon stay the same size? If the Earth is expanding faster than the moon, it should look to an observer on Earth as if the moon is actually shrinking, relative to Earth, of course.
By the same token, we humans should also shrink relative to Earth, because we're not expanding nearly as fast.

Thus, Expansion Theory is:

Absolute bollocks, poppycock, and hogwash. All rolled into one big expanding expletive.