The Final Theory

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

The above experiment have been done plenty times in researching gravitational phenomena, and counts as a strike against 'expansion'.

Great. Can you give me a link to this experiment? I don't have the equipment to perform it so I'd need to see the results from someone who has done it.

[Boerseun]

Here you go, Steve.

Cavendish's Torsion Bar Experiment simply cannot and should not give the results it does in an 'expanding' universe. Not exactly the same setup I described in the previous post, the difference being where I had the cable with the weight he simply set up a torsion bar with a mirror to detect smaller variations. He also used considerably smaller weights. But the results are one and the same.

In essence, he used the distance the mirror's reflection moved to calculate the gravitational constant. If he used balls of lesser weight (non-lead), he got smaller movements. So, you could use a styrofoam ball of the same dimensions, but the gravitational attraction would be less. Because of smaller mass. Er... besides - if gravity was due to expansion, there should be NO MOVEMENT OF THE TORSION BAR AT ALL. But Cavendish's famed experiment have been repeated all over the world, with the same results blowing McCutcheon cleanly out of the water.

I think this should wrap it up, folks.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

…Cavendish's Torsion Bar Experiment…
I think this should wrap it up, folks.

I thought so, too, over a year ago back around post #35. “Search this Thread” shows 19 (now 20) finds for “Cavendish”.

“The Final Theory” seems hostile toward experiments that could falsify it.

[Erasmus00]

With the latex addition I can offer up a simple mathematical proof why McCutcheon can't be right.

First, under McCutcheon's theory gravity must be a constant force. It cannot vary with distance. This is because the apparent expansion doesn't change with distance.

So we have something like the negative being because the force is attractive, the r is the unit vector in the radial direction.

Now we can define a potential energy for this force Here r is the radial distance from the center.

Now we treat the total energy of one planet in orbit around the sun.


here v is the velocity as before, E is the energy, Cr is the potential derived before. m is the mass of the object.

Now, we can split up our velocity into components



Here vr is the velocity in the radial direction, vtheta the velocity in the tangential direction.

Now we use the fact that angular momentum is conserved in a central force

Here l is the angular momentum.

Hence,

Now, we can split the right terms off as the "effective potential"



This graph is shaped like a U blowing up to infinity at both the left and right of a single critical point. All objects are tightly bound.

Since our solar system has had objects escape it, this immediately rules out the final theory. As these effective potential graphs show, you can't have an "escape velocity" under McCutcheon.
-Will

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I thought so, too, over a year ago back around post #35. “Search this Thread” shows 19 (now 20) finds for “Cavendish”.

“The Final Theory” seems hostile toward experiments that could falsify it.

I can't see McCutcheon getting around Cavendish. Steve - care to spill the beans? You said in reply to post 35 that there's a chapter dealing with it. Can you maybe explain it to us?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

I can't see McCutcheon getting around Cavendish. Steve - care to spill the beans? You said in reply to post 35 that there's a chapter dealing with it. Can you maybe explain it to us?

I'll try. If the cavendish can be explained as the results of an attractive 'force', then it can be explained by the effect of a simple geometric effect. The problem comes in when we consider balls of the same diameter having different weights. At first glance it seems to be a problem with expansion because expansion says the effect should be the same, or does it, always? It's important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
The cavendish experiment has the flaw of having all elements in the experiment connected physically and that's the rub with using it as a final test. As was discussed in many previous posts, the center of mass will have an effect on the net effect of the direction of expansion, so a final test - a definitive test should not be clouded by center of mass issues. Since the cavendish experiment is connected - all pieces are physically linked - it puts a cloud on the experiment.

One more thing to consider is that we are used to thinking in terms of an 'attractive' force. IF McCutcheon is right, the way we look at this stuff will change and phenomena that we'd previously explained one way will be explained in another. But we've been here before.

If you look carefully at my previous posts, I have never said McCutcheon was right. I'm fascinated by what he proposes and am giving him the benefit of the doubt. And if any of you ever bother to read his entire book you'll see that he has done a hell of a lot of work on this. He hasn't just thrown it together to make a fast buck, Beorseun. If I had to bet though, I'd put my money on him as being closer than anyone else.

Will, I need to study your math in order to respond to it. As you should know by now, that is not my strong suit. I may need your help.

[CraigD]

Thanks, Steve, for the synopsis. You’re a rare person, I think – someone who’s read “The Final Theory”, but doesn’t so reject conventional physics that he can’t put it into conventional terms.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The cavendish experiment has the flaw of having all elements in the experiment connected physically and that's the rub with using it as a final test

It would seem, then, that a “mini solar system” experiment such as the one proposed by Sahni and Shtanov (see ”Mini solar system could reveal hidden dimensions”) would remove this flaw, and provide a sound test of McCutcheon’s expansion hypothesis.

Microgravity is such a wonderful place to run experiments!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Thanks, Steve, for the synopsis. You’re a rare person, I think – someone who’s read “The Final Theory”, but doesn’t so reject conventional physics that he can’t put it into conventional terms.It would seem, then, that a “mini solar system” experiment such as the one proposed by Sahni and Shtanov (see ”Mini solar system could reveal hidden dimensions”) would remove this flaw, and provide a sound test of McCutcheon’s expansion hypothesis.

Microgravity is such a wonderful place to run experiments!

You're welcome. Great link by the way. I really like that idea.

[viscount aero]

how are Lagrange points explained by expansion theory?

and a 3-body problem?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by viscount aero

how are Lagrange points explained by expansion theory?

and a 3-body problem?

The same way, I suspect. That is, the geometry of the situation.
If expansion is real, then it acts exactly like an attractive 'force' - my point being that if attraction can explain those scenarios, then so can expansion.

I spent a hell of a lot of time trying to visualize that and one day it just dawned on me that they really act exactly the same. I didn't comprehend what McCutcheon was saying at first and I'm embarassed to admit that it took me almost a year to see what he meant.