The Final Theory

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Buffy: Come on Buffy, don't do that. I'm fairly good at math. Stop with the insults.

Really not trying to insult you ld! I'm explaining how it works hopefully so that we can bring it to bear on the problem at hand, so I'm with you here:

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The problem I was trying to point out here is that we need to come up with an explanation of how expansion results in an underneath change in velocity.

I would like to get a model of that too. What I've been able to glean is that the expansion itself is at an accellerating rate, so that takes care of the fact that the measurements of the pressure show accelleration. But accellerated motion under the application of a force is a separate issue, I agree, but if I'm sounding "simplistic" its because we have to find some common ground on some basic observational issues on the basics of motion:

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I don't have a problem with a car maintaining a velocity but I do with a spacecraft not under thrust. In other words, what's the physical explanation for the change in velocity that has to occur because 19 minutes from now it's covering 'twice' the space in the same amount of time.

To be clear, are you talking about accelleration of a falling body near a mass? In intergallactic space where you are a long way from any mass, you should see objects moving with constant velocity (within your reference frame), and they should not appear to accellerate at all. I'm goint to assume that you'd agree with that, but let me know if you don't because we need to talk about why it wouldn't.

On the other hand, I'm completely clueless about how this increase in velocity occurs as you get closer to a mass under expansion: It sounds like it has something to do with the "motion is naturally curved" concept (which would be violated by the "object moving in intergallactic space" observation by the way), and that its just a perception of accelleration due to the curving (although why it would always curve *toward* the object is also unclear to me if the attraction of the mass has nothing to do with it), but having never seen any math associated with explaining this motion, its hard to know where to start.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

In the case of the car, everything in the car is getting bigger and its momentum will continue to apply its now larger wheels, etc. and its speed will remain the same. But the spacecraft is different.

Even under expansion, the basics of relative motion and speed should be *perceptually* the same, since *everything* is expanding including the space between objects, so its not that the car is accellerating in order to maintain "apparent" velocity. Of course this is one of those cases where the "expansion cancels out any perceivable change" comes up, so its hard to show what might be happening here on a level surface. I know that there's the notion that as you go up and down a hill you start to have to wonder what's going on. Why do cars roll down hill at an accellerated rate? According to expansion, as you go down hill, there's less atomic matter expanding between you and te center of mass, so the pressure should decrease and as you go uphill it should increase because there's more mass. Of course if you measure the pressure at sea level and at the top of Mount Everest, you'll see the opposite, and with the car, there would need to be something about the expansion that caused it to speed up as you moved toward the center of mass.

As I've mentioned before, I really don't understand why this contact with the surface thing works in the theory. The observations we have about spacecraft in motion show theres a strong correllation in motion between masses that are close, which due to the contact issue, should not be there. There's no reason for a spacecraft to curve one way or another if the only effect is expansion, but that's what we always observe.

There may be something I'm missing here, so please feel free to expound upon this.

Cheers,
Buffy

[Boerseun]

Okay - let's cool it down a bit...

Just as another case in point:

'Expansion', being a static increase in physical dimension, won't explain what we perceive as 'gravity'. What we'd need for that, is an accelerating form of 'expansion'. If the surface of planet Earth was 'expanding' at a static rate, we wouldn't feel gravity at all, seeing as we would be moving outwards at the same rate as the surface. The surface needs to accelerate for us to feel gravity. And that being the case, the surface would need to accelerate since the formation of the planet. In other words, planet Earth's surface would've broken the light-speed barrier very soon (af few days) after formation, accelerating at a constant 1g.

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Cheers.

[CrimsonWolf]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Okay - let's cool it down a bit...

Just as another case in point:

'Expansion', being a static increase in physical dimension, won't explain what we perceive as 'gravity'. What we'd need for that, is an accelerating form of 'expansion'. If the surface of planet Earth was 'expanding' at a static rate, we wouldn't feel gravity at all, seeing as we would be moving outwards at the same rate as the surface. The surface needs to accelerate for us to feel gravity. And that being the case, the surface would need to accelerate since the formation of the planet. In other words, planet Earth's surface would've broken the light-speed barrier very soon (af few days) after formation, accelerating at a constant 1g.

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Cheers.

But in Expansion Theory light is not a barrier at all, SR rules do not apply in Expansion Theory Model. The expansion as I have previously mentioned is accelerating motion. Not a coasting motion. I am not sure if the subatomic expansion is static or accelerating the book does not clearly say. Atomic expansion however is stated as accelerating.

[CrimsonWolf]

Hey Buffy!

For the record I am neither Expansion Theory, Standard Theory, or any other theory supporter.

I am just stating what the Expansion theories logical consequences are. Following the model to it's conclusion. Then I will be ready to hammer the thing for all it's worth like some critics have. You have to look at the whole picture before you look at the art piece.

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/index.htm

There the SR link. I just saw it recently by accident. Found Final Theory in a similar way when I was not even looking for it!

The Relativity Challenge may or may not prove right. Einstein is known to have had basic problems with math. So it does not surprise me that perhaps he made some mistakes that only a sharp eye would spot. It's not like anyone has ever tested the twin paradox for real or anything. SR limits for particle accelerators may be do properties of matter we do not understand. Don't forget Quantum Theory claims we shape reality and our experiments by trying to observe nature! We may have gotten results because that is what we sought from the beginning.

I will get to your questions as soon as possible. Sayonara.

[repeater]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Okay - let's cool it down a bit...

Just as another case in point:

'Expansion', being a static increase in physical dimension, won't explain what we perceive as 'gravity'. What we'd need for that, is an accelerating form of 'expansion'. If the surface of planet Earth was 'expanding' at a static rate, we wouldn't feel gravity at all, seeing as we would be moving outwards at the same rate as the surface. The surface needs to accelerate for us to feel gravity. And that being the case, the surface would need to accelerate since the formation of the planet. In other words, planet Earth's surface would've broken the light-speed barrier very soon (af few days) after formation, accelerating at a constant 1g.

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Cheers.

Good day Seun

I've seen you ask questions along these lines a few times, and it seems you may not have gotten satisfactory answers before.

If I interpret your main themes correctly:

Q: If the Earth is expanding in an accelerating fashion why does it not promptly collide with the Sun (or Jupiter)?
A: Well, the question can be asked about the theory of gravity as well. Why doesn't the Earth fall into the Sun? The reason it because it is in orbit, and its tangential movement is so that it continues to fall around the sun. The same principle applies.

Q: If everything has accelerated expansion, would everything soon be expanding faster than the speed of light?
A: Apparently so. The speed of light is a result of electron's expansion, which in turn influences atomic expansion. So really the measurement metrics like "speed of light" scales together with everything else. Expanding faster than the speed of light is therefore not really something we need to worry about

Just one thing: The problems that TFT face is that is incredibly vague and deceptively paradigmatic, but the fact remains that it is still well thought out. The guy spent his entire life working on this thing, and by his words that I've read he seems quite lucid and intelligent. A good piece of fiction at least.

So this may all be a just-so story that is entirely useless, but I do believe you will find it to be *coherent*. So instead of ending posts with something similar to "omg i've read the first chapter, this is so bunk" like many have done, why don't we ask questions and increase our understanding? It is a good mental exercise to discuss speculations that describe things in a completely different way. Look at the world in a new light for a day or two.

Regards

[repeater]

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

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.

I do not understand why this gravity difference would result, but why don't we consider the Earth/Sun system and measure the gravity at the "dark side" of the Earth?

[repeater]

I have four things to say about the theory: two objections and two complements.

Objections:
a) Tides. We've previously discussed this and the fact that the tides and the Earth/Moon/Sun system is so intricately linked that it cannot seriously be explained by a sustained primordial "wobble".

b) Erasmus' lunar range experiments. Even though I've tried, I'm afraid I don't understand this issue exactly.
http://hypography.com/forums/75235-post379.html

Complements:
a) I've never liked the idea of an action over a distance Newtonesque "force" as found in gravity et al. With no further explanation attached. Messenger particles or space time curving as explanations just doesn't do it for me. Well now we still have a mysterious but unified "expansion" instead of the various "forces", but it just makes better intuitive sense to my brain, not that it may be worth much The theory is a good explainer, yet remains a bad predictor.

b) It's pretty. I want to see a science fiction series with Expansion Theory as the underlying universe physics. Then instead of worrying about stupid warp drives of TOS vs TNG, scifi geeks can ponder final theory all day long. And perhaps actually discover something useful at the end of the day!

Regards

[CrimsonWolf]

Originally Posted by repeater

I do not understand why this gravity difference would result, but why don't we consider the Earth/Sun system and measure the gravity at the "dark side" of the Earth?

Newton's laws would predict the Moon to be about 1/4th Earth's gravity. However it is measured at 1/6th. This explained as the moon being less dense than the Earth.

Expansion Theory's alternate explanation is the matter in the Moon is not less dense but unevenly dense. In other words the near side is more dense than the far side. Since the center of mass in not at the Moon's geometric center the matter pushing off from center of mass results in uneven expansion accelerations experience. Simply put the radius from the center of mass is short on the near side and longer on the far side. The far side would have 1/3rd Earth's gravity. They average to the expected overall 1/4 Earth's gravity. I realize this is odd, but it is testable. Quantum theory makes even weirder predictions yet is backed by experiments. So just something seems odd does make it right or wrong. It has to be tested.

[CrimsonWolf]

Originally Posted by repeater

I have four things to say about the theory: two objections and two complements.

Objections:
a) Tides. We've previously discussed this and the fact that the tides and the Earth/Moon/Sun system is so intricately linked that it cannot seriously be explained by a sustained primordial "wobble".

b) Erasmus' lunar range experiments. Even though I've tried, I'm afraid I don't understand this issue exactly.
http://hypography.com/forums/75235-post379.html

Complements:
a) I've never liked the idea of an action over a distance Newtonesque "force" as found in gravity et al. With no further explanation attached. Messenger particles or space time curving as explanations just doesn't do it for me. Well now we still have a mysterious but unified "expansion" instead of the various "forces", but it just makes better intuitive sense to my brain, not that it may be worth much The theory is a good ex-plainer, yet remains a bad predictor.

b) It's pretty. I want to see a science fiction series with Expansion Theory as the underlying universe physics. Then instead of worrying about stupid warp drives of TOS vs TNG, scifi geeks can ponder final theory all day long. And perhaps actually discover something useful at the end of the day!

Regards

The tides I understand are merely the author's opinion. It is possible tides are connected to Moon and Earth formation though. The whole planet formation models have proven completely useless for all the newly discovered planets around stars. So we don't really understand how planets form exactly. We know they form from material in space around new stars most likely but the exact process alludes us.

The link you posted he's trying to say that the experiment supposedly shows objects fall at the same rate despite mass or size. Quite frankly that is open interpretation. Gravity measured with quantum corrections and at micro scales has proved utterly useless thus far. Gravity does not seem to follow quanta rule. Plus do not forget the quantum rule you can not know more than one quantity of a particle at a time, but never both. Look into the experiment details. Has it been duplicated more than once? Can quantum corrections of other forces create the same observed measurements, if so then the data is meaningless.

Oddly enough I am working on a fiction story with Expansion Dynamics for fun.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

The whole planet formation models have proven completely useless for all the newly discovered planets around stars. So we don't really understand how planets form exactly. We know they form from material in space around new stars most likely but the exact process alludes us.

This would be news to many astrophysicists. While we don't know all the details, we have a fairly solid view of the sort of big picture.

The link you posted he's trying to say that the experiment supposedly shows objects fall at the same rate despite mass or size. Quite frankly that is open interpretation.

The equivalence principle has been tested to extremely high precision. There are lots of different tests including Eotvos type experiments and the lunar ranging experiment I cited. If you are willing to ignore experimental evidence, any theory seems right. As it stands, the burden of proof is on McCutcheon's believers to show how so many precision experiments can be false.

Gravity measured with quantum corrections and at micro scales has proved utterly useless thus far.

What do you mean by gravity measured with quantum corrections? Anyway, Eric Adelberger at the University of Washington has done a remarkable job of measuring very small scale gravity effects with torsion balances. The results are far from utterly useless.

Also, the experiment you are referring to (lunar laser ranging) has nothing to do with the microscale but rather how the Earth and the Moon move around the sun.

Gravity does not seem to follow quanta rule. Plus do not forget the quantum rule you can not know more than one quantity of a particle at a time, but never both.

You are talking of Heisenburg's uncertainty (thats the name of your quantum rule) and it only applies to certain quantity pairs (position and momentum, energy and time,etc). You can know both the position and the energy of a particle.

Regardless, this doesn't apply here. hbar is so small comapared to the scales involved in the experiment being discussed that quantum effects are totally negligible.

Look into the experiment details. Has it been duplicated more than once?

Yes, many times. And many different experiments all confirm the equivalence principle. The lunar ranging tests are just the most precise meaurements I'm aware of.

Can quantum corrections of other forces create the same observed measurements, if so then the data is meaningless.

What do you mean by quantum corrections of other forces? It seems to me that you are rejecting out of hand the experiments that prove McCutcheon wrong.
-Will