The Final Theory

[CrimsonWolf]

Ok it is time to discuss Expansion Theory version of orbits.

In Expansion Theory orbits are pure geometric effect.

Some important points to keep in mind:

1)Our models of orbits only work in our Solar System. Galaxy motions contradict current orbit models.

2)The cause of gravity is still a mystery. General Relativity and Newton's Laws describe gravity effects rather nice, but not why it works. All attempts at quantifying gravity have failed as well. There is satellite data collected over a year that is being looked at right now testing GR. It's looking for verification of curved space. Look it up of curious.

3)Planet orbits in nearby star systems do not match the Solar System at all. They are far more chaotic. This information combined with new discovered objects beyond Pluto have shattered all models of planet formation. Something is very odd here. We do not understand how orbits in nature form. We can form them easily enough through artificial means but, nature's process is different and remains unconfirmed.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

Ok it is time to discuss Expansion Theory version of orbits.

In Expansion Theory orbits are pure geometric effect.

Some important points to keep in mind:

1)Our models of orbits only work in our Solar System. Galaxy motions contradict current orbit models.

2)The cause of gravity is still a mystery. General Relativity and Newton's Laws describe gravity effects rather nice, but not why it works. All attempts at quantifying gravity have failed as well. There is satellite data collected over a year that is being looked at right now testing GR. It's looking for verification of curved space. Look it up of curious.

3)Planet orbits in nearby star systems do not match the Solar System at all. They are far more chaotic. This information combined with new discovered objects beyond Pluto have shattered all models of planet formation. Something is very odd here. We do not understand how orbits in nature form. We can form them easily enough through artificial means but, nature's process is different and remains unconfirmed.

Hey Wolf, if you haven't noticed, we were discussing expansion. Maybe you can answer this quesion, since IDsoftware dissappeared temporarily, and McC seems to be boycotting his own subject (his bad experiences online have lead him to not discuss his ideas online anymore, at least not under his own name): What is the mechanism that causes expansion.

If you can answer this question, you will have solved the problem that Newton, Einstein, Feynmann and others had not accomplished.

I repeat: What causes expansion? i.e., What causes gravity? What is the mechanism?

If that question is too difficult, try to answer this one: Why should all things expand rather than shrink, or as observed, stay the same?

Until an answer follows I will consider the entire McC claim (it is not yet a theory) nothing more than a lame attempt to sell a book and make a buck.

cc

[vnbalakrishna]

Ages ago Lord Krishna said (see Bhagavad Gita 9.8):
The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under My will it is annihilated at the end.

The material nature (of the material world), which is one of My energies, is workding under My direction, O son of Kunti (refers to Arjuna), producing all moving and non-moving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again. (9.9)

So when we analyse logically logic itself fails. If the sun is only a ball of fire which logic tells us how does it direct everything. Even pluto is under its grip and obeys the hidden laws of the supreme sun. Could it not be that the sun is directed by a mysterious force, so mysterious that it would never be possible for us puny earthlings ever to understand with this material body gripping our senses? The realisation has to be transcendental beyond the grip of this material body!!!

[Boerseun]

I see no problem with gravity being the response of matter to curved space, being curved by matter itself...

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

Sorry, I fail to understand how 'expansion' can account for orbits. And I don't find it intuitive at all.

Don't be sorry. It isn't intuitive at all when it comes to orbits. It's painfully hard to visualize. What IS intuitive is the idea of the earth pushing up (as long as one accepts expansion as a possibility and cause).

Care to expound on the geometry you imply being accountable for it?
I know I sound like a broken record, but if the sun keeps expanding, and the earth and planets keep expanding, well then, why would the earth keep on going 'around' the sun if we take the sun's 'holding' power, i.e. gravity, out of the equation?
Expansion doesn't include anything that'll make things orbit each other. Or I'm missing something here.

Well, hey, I bought the principle but couldn't see it either for well over a year. When it finally made sense to me was when I realized that the spherical nature of the bodies makes the expansion along the line of centers behave exactly like an attracting force. Have you ever looked at something until you saw it differently? A good example is the movie, "Patch Adams" where the guy holds up 4 fingers and asks, 'how many do you see?'. You can see 4 or 8 depending on how your eyes are focused.

Expansion is saying that if an apple falls out of a tree, it's not actually falling: it's the Earth that's expanding towards the apple.

Yup.

And this expansion has been measured - 9.8m/s2 - an ever-increasing speed.
Which means that the Earth's surface would have broken the speed of light not long after the Earth's formation. In other words, C isn't a limit.

Not quite. you haven't been reading Beorseun. In his theory, light is a particle and expands too. And....there is no fixed frame of reference. Perhaps this is the hardest thing to accept. Then again, it's the reason this path has not been explored very well. A mile is relative to a standard that changes with each moment.

Expansion won't explain other, simpler things, either: Why does a skydiver reach terminal velocity? He's not going anywhere - the planet's coming closer at an accelerating pace!

Yes. the expansion is accelerating because it is relative to the particles size which changes every moment. But it does explain terminal velocity.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

duplicate post. how can I get rid of it?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

ColdCreation:

ldsoftwaresteve, please answer this question honestly. I've suspected this for quite some time now: Are you M. McC., the author of the book under study in this thread?

I can't understand why anyone else would defend the theory so ardently.

CC, you say the nicest things! LOL. No, I'm not. He's a hell of a lot younger than me and a lot busier not to mention a whole lot brighter.
I defend his theory because I think it's correct. Whatever the truth is, it's worth pursuing - and I have no life .
I knew McC was having problems with viruses being sent online but didn't realize he's stopped communicating altogether. That is truly sad. Imagine the gentleness of the mentality one needed to accomplish this and to have this be the response of the 'scientific community', well, to say it would be painful is an understatement. I hope the rewards will be worth it.
Incidentally, the 'warping' might just be the change in the frame of reference.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Beorseun: Don't be sorry. It isn't intuitive at all when it comes to orbits. It's painfully hard to visualize. What IS intuitive is the idea of the earth pushing up (as long as one accepts expansion as a possibility and cause).

Yes... It's all fine and dandy to explain the 'pushing' force of gravity. But I still need an explanation of how orbits work.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

But it does explain terminal velocity.

How, exactly?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseun:

But I still need an explanation of how orbits work.

Start with two spheres in motion and let it be given that one is in a perfectly circular orbit. If motion is only on their line of centers, they will collide. As A moves 'by' B it has a tangential component and a line of centers component. to visualize, fix the line of centers on one of the spheres but not on the center of the other. Let it move off the center. Over a time interval that's small it will intersect the surface of the other sphere some distance from the original surface intersect point. The distance between the surfaces of the two spheres on that original line of centers is bigger now because the second sphere's surface has dropped away (it's a circle). But the expansion will make up for that increase in distance. That's really it in a nutshell. After that small period of time, draw another line of centers and do the same thing. it behaves exactly the same. The expansion always appears as motion on the line of centers towards each other (identical to an attraction). The tangential component creates a little component away. It's wierd (probably an understatement) as hell but it works.

[CrimsonWolf]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Hey Wolf, if you haven't noticed, we were discussing expansion. Maybe you can answer this question, since IDsoftware disappeared temporarily, and McC seems to be boycotting his own subject (his bad experiences online have lead him to not discuss his ideas online anymore, at least not under his own name): What is the mechanism that causes expansion.

If you can answer this question, you will have solved the problem that Newton, Einstein, Feynman and others had not accomplished.

I repeat: What causes expansion? i.e., What causes gravity? What is the mechanism?

If that question is too difficult, try to answer this one: Why should all things expand rather than shrink, or as observed, stay the same?

Until an answer follows I will consider the entire McC claim (it is not yet a theory) nothing more than a lame attempt to sell a book and make a buck.

cc

I totally understand. The book dodges the explanation of why electron should expand by stating that a electron is expansion sort of like a ripple moving though (3-D space), stating that expansion is a electron. That is different than saying a electron expands. This ripple like or expanding structure to us seems like point like and has been labeled a particle by humans. The author states a couple possibilities which I posted earlier. Nothing concrete. Which of coarse I realize no scientist will take the theory seriously due to lack of more math descriptions of nature and no explanation to why fundamental particle expands in the first place. The author says it is basically mystery we may or may not ever solve. Hence a problem. The book is worth reading. Just don't read to much into it. Remember even Standard Theory took the work of many men. If Expansion Theory is correct more people or going to be needed to explore and perfect it. As is right now it still lacking somewhat.

I have started to form my one ideas as to why a particle should expand just for fun. I can discuss those with you or whoever if want to have a fun hypothetical conversation. I in no way claim my ideas are correct or wrong. Just creative.