The Final Theory

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

the table is expanding too. the distance between them is expanding but so is the ruler that you'd measure it with. Can't make it more plain than that.

...except when its not! As I tried to make plain in my posts way back up above, in order for expansion ot explain the "pushing" effect *and* maintain distances between objects, its got to expand space when you're "not touching" and expand it when you are, and I've yet to see the explanation of why that happens or why it even makes any sense. That is indeed why I took the liberty of spoofing it in (this post - 5 and - 7). The response to that has simply been "that's interesting, I'll have to think about that" or more unrelated arguments.

What we're trying to get you to understand here is that its actually quite fine if you want to continue to promote the idea (there are those who wanted to close this thread long ago, but some of us have kept it open, and you'll notice its also been kept out of Strange Claims: if anything, its being given special treatment here), but in science, you really have to defend your ideas in the public arena: its been shown all too often that those who want to keep their ideas "in the club" are hiding the fact that those ideas do not withstand scrutiny.

Don't let us stop you ld! But do be aware that this is just the scientific method at work, and while we'd all like to believe its all polite and decorious, people who don't like to follow the rules get hit with a wet noodle sometimes. Its really a lot less vicious than what my kid has to deal with on the school yard or the wacko partisan stuff going on over in Social Sciences! You take it personally and you're sure to be unhappy, so don't: its really not directed at *you*...

Playing the dozens,
Buffy

[DataLabs]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

I put to you the following:

Expansion doesn't explain orbits. A circular orbit is simply impossible through the units in the system 'expanding'. Saying that the maths behind it explains it, doesn't mean anything unless you can put it forward and explain it. I can also say that the Sun is powered by a bunch of crazy rabid bunnies, their combined body-heat making the Sun shine, and explain it with complicated maths. Doesn't make it true, though.

Expansion doesn't explain why bodies don't expand into each other. Why isn't the Earth and the Moon touching? Simple. Because expansion is bunk.

Expansionists hold that all objects expand at the same rate. Imagine a cubic centimeter. Let's say that's the base unit. If expansion happens at the volume of the base unit doubling every minute (for the sake of the argument), then after a minute, the cube will be 2cc. But the sides won't double, right? If the outside dimensions doubled, then the volume would be 8cc after a minute. Now, imagine you have a cube of 1 cubic meter, consisting out of 1,000,000cc's. Put next to it a single cc cube. After a minute, you'll have a 2,000,000cc cube, and a 2cc cube. Because all elements are expanding at the rate of the base unit (double the volume per minute), it should be clear that visibly, big stuff will become bigger. This will be a testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable experiment: Look at Jupiter and its moons. See if Jupiter is growing, compared to its moons. It turns out its not. Why? Because expansion is bunk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Boerseun.THINGS DO EXPAND INTO EACHOTHER WHENEVER THERE IS A COLLISION AND IT APPEARS THAT SOMETHING FELL INTO SOMETHING ELSE. WHEN IT COMES TO ORBITS, THERE WAS AT SOME POINT IN TIME A 90 DEGREE COMPONENT OF MOTION OF THE MOON TO THE EARTH AT AN ESCAPE VELOCITY THAT MAINTAINS A STABLE ORBIT. SO, AS WE ENLARGE, WE CANNOT SEE THE RAISING OF SIZE ON anything since all of our measuring sticks are also enlarging proportionately and our yardsticks enlarge, our eyes enlarge, etc...Our eyes double in size each 19 minutes just as does the moon and sun and earth and all matter. We cannot see the size difference at all. Imagine a room and everythin in it doubles in size including you. You would not notice a single change -- your chair would still be the same size and so would your TV, etc...Nothing would appear to change at all. If you measured the chair, it would be the same -- maybe 6 feet long since the yardstick would have doubled in size too. i thought we would be through understanding this basic of expansion theory by now.

So even though the moon is moving away, it always appears in a stable orbit since the mutual expansion balances the motion.

The nature of the expansion is that the radius of any object big or small expands at an acceleration of .0000007 times the radius per second. All of our yardsticks do too so we cannot see that we are further from the moon as we both enlarge since our eyes double in size every time the earth doubles in size. Any yardstick follows suit. So, Yes, when we think of time passing, we can think of the current and future and past state of the expansion of all mass in the universe with no ability to see the expansion. Everything always remains in perfect scale. As the sun doubles, so does Jupitor and so does the earth and moon. It is simply or not so simply the property of matter to expand just as electromagnetic waves expand since matter is a type of electomagnetic wave, but is bound in a tight binding to make it matter form of electomagnetic fields.

So while the electromagnetic fields expand at the speed of light, matter type fields expand at a rate of double their radius -- not volume each 19 minutes in a slow gradual expansion. So since we cannot perveive that, we see the results of it in different ways. You are thinking Newtonian and need to open your mind to see this. So I think your debunking is way off the mark.

Also, I would like to discuss that the smallest expanding particles, probably electrons are actually boucing at the speed of light off the nucleas of atoms and being caught time and again by the protons and boucing again to slowly enlarge the atoms. Who knows? Maybe we even age because of the continuous expansion of our bodies from the time we are born and maybe there are quantum fluctuations that cause the aging condition over time..

Another interesting thing about TFT is that when we say the speed of light is x amount/sec, the yardstick is constantly changing as the speed of light is only perceived to be constant while always expanding to keep up with the expanding universe. So, 1000 years ago, the universe was like a postage stamp compared to today and the speed of light was soooooo slow, but since it is all relative and we never perceive it, there is no consequence to the change in scale as time rolls on.

And for orbits, if the moon didn't have the required 90 degree escape velocity component from the beginning, it would not be in orbit now to talk about. it would have left its orbit to go out into the solar system or toward the sun or collided with earth. When you throw a ball up in the air, the distance between the ball and the surface of the earth does indeed collide as you said in the beginning of your very close minded debunking.

[DataLabs]

Originally Posted by Buffy

They say that things "naturally" move in curved paths. The curves seem change when they are near expanding objects, but since this is an optical illusion, there are no equations that could actually predict the movements that include the expansion, but just by coincidence, you can use Newtonian equations because they work, although they hide the "real" effect of expansion. So the real equations are irrelevant. Stop asking for them.
Of course there are bunnies behind the sun! See, there's this massive conspiracy by the entrenched anti-bunny establishment that prevents the Rabid Solar Bunny theory from being taken seriously by the mass media. They just hate me because I'm beautiful.Because there's something that happens the instant that you are no longer in physical contact with the other body (I think I got that right). So expansion does not affect the moon because it isn't touching the earth and the space between them is expanding because they're not touching, but when I'm touching the earth, THEN its expanding into me and me into it so I feel gravity, but this can only occur along the vector extending between you and the center of the earth and not say, drive you into the lamp post you're standing next to because the expansion is selective based on the angle due to the fact that everything moves in a curve, and that's why Galileo's balls-on-ramp experiment works the way it does. Also the expansion theory is the *only* way to explain why if you jump up and touch the ceiling that you end up staying glued to the ceiling. At least that's how Peter Parker explained it to me: but I think he's hiding something from me (not that I care because he's such a good kisser!).

Who needs math when the effects can't be percieved?

Tomfoolery,
The Amazing Buffy

I think we need formulas that work using different underlying priciples instead of just geometry. Sure, well get the same formulas, but we'll get them in a different way that would help prove the underlying expansion theory. For example, each circumference of an object would be expanding, but that would have to be transformed into the relative motion of the 2 objects since the expansion could not be seen in the 3d view. But working the equations for the 4 d view and transforming them into the 3 d view should yield the same results as the original formulas which are not really based on physics but just pure math. Even Newton didn't believe of a force of gravity at a distance. it just seemed to work.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by DataLabs

I think we need formulas that work using different underlying priciples instead of just geometry.

Excuse me, uh...sir? Are you listening? What are those formulas please? We'd like to discuss them here!

Your response to Boersun above is the exact situation we're talking about: You are simply repeating what the book says, not responding to the issue that I and others have raised: you can say that the space between objects is expanding but you need to explain why it doesn't in different vectors than the 90-degree one you mention (which would require some of these equations that explain how objects "naturally" move in curved trajectories), nor why the pressure is only felt along this vector and only when in contact (search for my post on the helicopter somewhere way back in this thread).

What we're saying is that we're more than open to dealing with completely different paradigms of thinking, but none of the objections we raise has been met with anything more than vague allusions to different approaches and accusations of closed-minded thinking.

Originally Posted by DataLabs

Sure, well get the same formulas, but we'll get them in a different way that would help prove the underlying expansion theory. For example, each circumference of an object would be expanding, but that would have to be transformed into the relative motion of the 2 objects since the expansion could not be seen in the 3d view. But working the equations for the 4 d view and transforming them into the 3 d view should yield the same results as the original formulas which are not really based on physics but just pure math.

Yep. Its called analytic geometry. And we can also throw in multi-variate calculus and differential equations to deal with complex multi-dimensional curves. Honest, some of us know a bit of math and can use that rather than innacurate visualizations to verify and understand things, that does not throw us at all. What we need is the equations to work with. The only ones I've ever seen are basically Newtons with some additions that don't have any effect of any kind on the results and aren't testable. To give a simple example, Newton says "1=1" and McCutcheon says "1=1+1-1": it doesn't tell us much of anything and its hardly "revolutionary."

Don't let us stop you, but really you need to move the discussion way past the basics of expansion theory's concepts and into the proof for us to be convinced. Saying we're closed minded is both false and disingenouous and makes even the most open-minded suspicious that there's no there there (I'm from Oakland so I can say that)....

Where's the beef?
Buffy

[CrimsonWolf]

I understand why people struggle with this. Expansion is not really the best word to describe this effect. Most people think of expansion think of giant stars or blowing air into a balloon. In other words people think of expansion in terms of a objects stretched over greater amount of space. Sort like blowing chewing gum.

However this not what happens in the theory described in the book when refering to atomic or subatomic expansion. The matter is not stretched at all. The matter exists in the first place because it's getting bigger all the time. This is refering to a property that the fundemental particle is basicly moving equally in all directions! The moving is called expansion because it desribes to some extent the overall size increase of a electron. Although it's more like wave ripple going in all directions. Each ripple being a individual electron. The individual electrons that makes up all other forms of matter are increasing size at the same rate. Since all other objects are made of these smaller particles, the size increase of the object in question differs by two factors. The density of the objects internal structure (it's mass basicly) and distance from objects edge to it's center of mass (aka size). Size is just refering to how many atoms or particles are lined up end to end in a object. Mass is just refering to the number of atoms or particles are present inside a object.

To put this so called expansion another way, electrons are increasing in mass! The electron mass is increasing at precise rate that we observe as 1c, the speed of light! Einstein was partially right, each electron has effectively infinite mass at the speed of light if it continues forever. But the electrons mass is increasing at speed of light into the surrounding space. Radially it would be only .5c. Objects keep the same relative size due to the fact that number of particles that make of the object and therefore mass is unchanged. The individual particles however are increasing mass (size) constantly.

[CrimsonWolf]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Excuse me, uh...sir? Are you listening? What are those formulas please? We'd like to discuss them here!

Your response to Boersun above is the exact situation we're talking about: You are simply repeating what the book says, not responding to the issue that I and others have raised: you can say that the space between objects is expanding but you need to explain why it doesn't in different vectors than the 90-degree one you mention (which would require some of these equations that explain how objects "naturally" move in curved trajectories), nor why the pressure is only felt along this vector and only when in contact (search for my post on the helicopter somewhere way back in this thread).

What we're saying is that we're more than open to dealing with completely different paradigms of thinking, but none of the objections we raise has been met with anything more than vague allusions to different approaches and accusations of closed-minded thinking.
Yep. Its called analytic geometry. And we can also throw in multi-variate calculus and differential equations to deal with complex multi-dimensional curves. Honest, some of us know a bit of math and can use that rather than innacurate visualizations to verify and understand things, that does not throw us at all. What we need is the equations to work with. The only ones I've ever seen are basically Newtons with some additions that don't have any effect of any kind on the results and aren't testable. To give a simple example, Newton says "1=1" and McCutcheon says "1=1+1-1": it doesn't tell us much of anything and its hardly "revolutionary."

Don't let us stop you, but really you need to move the discussion way past the basics of expansion theory's concepts and into the proof for us to be convinced. Saying we're closed minded is both false and disingenouous and makes even the most open-minded suspicious that there's no there there (I'm from Oakland so I can say that)....

Where's the beef?
Buffy

I agree. More math is needed than the one equation that describes falling objects. No scientist will take the idea seriously without a mathmatical language that descibes it's effects. However String theory and M theory have very complex math that look good on paper but are meaningless in every day language or everyday sense.

We need a common ground here. Expansion math models that are accurate, but easy to use or describe or build more complex theorums. Since the author did not provide these, that leaves us the science minded readers to build it ourselves. I am ready for it. Are any of you?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Crimsonwolf:

To put this so called expansion another way, electrons are increasing in mass!

Only if you equate mass to size, but I don't think you should. I'd say changing the number of particles in an object constitutes a change in mass.
I can't supply the mathematics to calculate any orbital mechanics because I don't know how. How do you do it when the frame of reference changes from moment to moment? When we use a fixed frame of reference, which we do now, we must account for the 'attractive' nature of the bodies by inventing a force that pulls them together.
To do what you ask, the attractive force must be removed from the equations and replaced with the effects of expansion. We aren't built to see it. That's the first problem. We don't understand all of the ramifications of what that means. That's the second problem.
Let's take the concept of velocity. It's distance per unit of time. Since it's described in terms of a fixed unit, that unit must change along with everything else over the time frame. So an object traveling in space without thrust has a velocity expressed in terms of distance per time. In 19 minutes that velocity has to cover 2 times the original distance in space to keep the same velocity. Do we say that its velocity actually increased? No. But how is it that it covers twice the original distance? How do we explain this simple problem first?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

However String theory and M theory have very complex math that look good on paper but are meaningless in every day language or everyday sense.

Actually no, they don't look good on paper: they have *huge* holes. Even the proponents describe the theory as "mostly incomplete." If you are using this to support Expansion theory, I hold both in the same regard: interesting ideas that don't have a whit of proof. Comparing yourself to m/string-theory does nothing to make Expansion legitimate, and given that there's a *lot* more math to go on, I'd still argue that m/string-theory is much further advanced and has a chance of going some place. Expansion is a groovy concept with seemingly *no* mathematical underpinning, so:

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I can't supply the mathematics to calculate any orbital mechanics because I don't know how. How do you do it when the frame of reference changes from moment to moment?

You haven't played with Newton yet! Newton has all the same issues in "seeming complexity" due to things "changing moment-to-moment". This is called the 3-body problem, and in English, it basically is a problem associated with figuring out where three (or more for the "N-body" problem) masses are going to go given their gravitational effect on one another. The math for this is well understood, and while complex (and prone to giving "chaotic" although computable and verifiable results), we know how to do this. The forms of math I mentioned above are useful in figuring out what is happening in dynamical systems, and quite frankly, doing something along the lines of describing trajectories in expansion theory *should* be far easier than anything happening in m/string-theory!

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

To do what you ask, the attractive force must be removed from the equations and replaced with the effects of expansion. We aren't built to see it.

There ya go! That's it! That's what we're looking for! But ya know what? If you use math, you don't *need* to visualize it! m/string-theory folks are off working in ELEVEN dimensions, and they don't even try to visualize it: the number of dimensions is not even why the math in *that* theory is complicated. So lets be clear: if you do have the math, you don't need to be able to "see it in your mind" or "draw a picture", although quite frankly, its not going to be too hard to do so, and I'd offered some graphics earlier in the thread that show some of the basic internal inconsistencies in expansion theory earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

We don't understand all of the ramifications of what that means. That's the second problem.

That's pretty much tantamount to saying there is no theory. I've posed some ramifications that I believe lead to contradictions in the theory as I've understood it, the most recent posts by me--while seemingly in jest--were very clear indications of some of them. You need to think about these....

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Let's take the concept of velocity. It's distance per unit of time. Since it's described in terms of a fixed unit, that unit must change along with everything else over the time frame. So an object traveling in space without thrust has a velocity expressed in terms of distance per time. In 19 minutes that velocity has to cover 2 times the original distance in space to keep the same velocity. Do we say that its velocity actually increased? No. But how is it that it covers twice the original distance? How do we explain this simple problem first?

Its called accelleration! Confusingly for the layman, accelleration is stated as "distance per seconds squared." Using calculus, the equation for accelleration is the integral of the equation for velocity, and conversly the differential of in the opposite direction. You can have accelleration of accelleration too! Calculus and differential equations handle this stuff quite well! A little education can take you a long way!

Leibnizian,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Expansion... sounds neat. Sure... Why not?

Got two words for you though:

Testable Predictions

Make some. Test 'em. If observation matches the predictions based on the theory, then we'll hold on to the theory until a better (more accurate and encompassing) one comes along.

If you cannot make a testable prediction, then that's just a little too convenient for my taste.

[CrimsonWolf]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Expansion... sounds neat. Sure... Why not?

Got two words for you though:

Testable Predictions

Make some. Test 'em. If observation matches the predictions based on the theory, then we'll hold on to the theory until a better (more accurate and encompassing) one comes along.

If you cannot make a testable prediction, then that's just a little too convenient for my taste.

The most testable observations that come to mind are:

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.

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.

3)Accelerate a particle past light. According to Expansion Theory you could do it possibly. However it would require a force other than a magnetic field! That does not sound to feasible right now.

4)You should be theoritically be able to send vibrations through light or any other particle beam.