[ldsoftwaresteve]

I guess I have seriously begun to question the wisdom of spending time presenting an argument when the outcome, even if I were successful in getting another person to consider my point, is questionable.

I mean, what is to be gained? Am I doing this because I want someone else to take it from here? Hmmmm. Very interesting question. Perhaps one foot in front of the other is the way to go.

We come into and leave this world totally alone. Many of you have given me the pleasure of your company and your beautiful thoughts and for that I thank you. I have business to attend to.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I guess I have seriously begun to question the wisdom of spending time presenting an argument when the outcome, even if I were successful in getting another person to consider my point, is questionable. .

ldsoftwaresteve, I'm considering your words carefully. Especially when you say "The only direct clue of this expansion is our ability to perceive the effect of gravity." which comes from the book in question. That argument is a vicious circle.

The search for an ultimate theory does depend heavily on the mechanism of the gravitational interaction. And it is a good thing that a few (unfortunately very few) people are trying to figure it out.

Richard P. Feynman wrote with due reason that “All we have done is to describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go. Newton made no hypotheses about this: he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery.”

We use mathematics to describe nature without knowing what mechanism is operating, though many have been suggested. Feynman continues, “No machinery has ever been invented that “explains” gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist.”(1994 pp. 107-109)

I'm afraid that expansion will not agree with emperical evidence. On the otherhand, Einstein's general postulate of relativity does. The key is the mechanism. First we need to find out what makes spacetime distort and how it works.

From there will follow a host of changes in physics. Everything will fall into place: unification, history or evolution of the universe, material creation, the cause of feeling alive, i.e., consciousness, etc.

Whatever the ultimate theory turn out to be, you will see, it will be simple, elegant, beautiful, and obvious.


Incidentally, thermodynamics plays a key role in the ultimate theory.

1st law: You can’t win, you can only break even.

2nd law: You can break even only at the absolute zero.

3rd law: You cannot reach absolute zero.

(from The American Scientist 1964, p. 40A)


A.M. aka coldcreation

Conclusion: You can neither win nor break even.

[jonorr]

Originally Posted by Idsoftwaresteve

I suspect your point is that the string keeps the bodies from flying apart and counteracts the centrifugal force of the relative motion?

You did miss my point. It is not just that the string counteracts centrifugal force, it is that it does this without doing work. The string does not need a power source to keep the rock revolving, and neither does gravity. This experiment verifies the "Standard" formula for determining work.

McCutcheon spends nearly the entire first chapter trying to justify his statement that the "Standard" formula for work is wrong because it depends on the angle between the force and direction of motion. This experiment shows that the formula is not wrong.

Because this formula is right, _gravity does not do work to keep planets in orbit,_ just as the string does not do work keeping the rock revolving around the axis. That is my point.

I suspect that McCutcheon is well aware of this. He tries to fool you by appealing to your experience of fatigue when twirling a rock on the surface of the earth. In case the revolving rock is too abstract, a rolling ball serves the same purpose.

Originally Posted by Idsoftwaresteve

What McCutcheon is pointing out is that “Standard Theory” requires the string.
Show me the string between the earth and the moon or the sun and the earth.

I do not have to show you a string between the earth and moon in order to show that the force of gravity does not need a power source to keep planets in orbit. While this does not appeal to your desire to have a tactile understanding of gravity, the fact that gravity in the "Standard Theory" is a conservative force is undisputed.

Originally Posted by Idsoftwaresteve

Pages 186-190 covers the Cavendish experiment in detail and he shows a completely different explanation for the observations, which he says are correct, just misinterpreted.

After the first chapter, I would doubt the way that he presents historical experiments. As an example, take his presentation of the history for calculating work. He implied that many men had calculated work by using his traditional formula. Somehow, Newton or someone else must have come along and changed it so they could create their mystical force of gravity.

But let's get this straight, the work formula is a direct consequence of conservation of energy. There is no history to argue with, it is a logical consequence of postulates that he stated as facts.

If this is the case, why did McCutcheon try to argue that it was some kind of cover up? Why didn't he give the correct history, that it is simply an unassumed consequence? If he presents the men who discovered work formula(which is all physicists) this way, what can I expect of his presentation of Cavendish?

[Vishesh]

I have been trying to get that book for months now. unfortunately I could not find it anywhere!
Could someone tell me exactly what it is about ?

Forgive me, but I think I have joined this discussion a bit late.

[Erasmus00]

Hi, by way of introduction I'm a physics graduate student at U of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I did my undergrad in physics at Cornell University.
Anyway, as a poor student I haven't read the book, but I did contact the author, as I was intrigued by what this new final theory could be. He suggested a simple experiment that could verify his theory. He asked if I could perform a modification of the cavendish experiment.
As I have access to a lab, I put together a simple cavendish balance, and I was able to measure G to 10% of the accepted value, so I was pretty happy with it. McCutcheon wanted me to replace one of the two movable weights (not the ones on the barbell) with a ball of the same weight but a different material. I replaced one of the iron weights I'd been using with a lead weight (weighing the same, but smaller in size due to the larger density). According to his theory, this should effect the experiment(he was never clear on how, just that one of the two weights should be expanding differently becasue of the difference in size/density). I imagine he expected the barbell to pull slightly to one side, or something. As it stands, nothing out of the ordinary happened, the experiment worked the same as before. While I have no way to comment on his theory, the only experiment likely to be performed as a verification has come up short.

Edit: for many months the 10% I inserted read 1%, which would have been quite incredible.
-Will

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I've decided to not give up quite yet.
Erasmus, you said

According to his theory, this should effect the experiment(he was never clear on how, just that one of the two weights should be expanding differently becasue of the difference in size/density). I imagine he expected the barbell to pull slightly to one side, or something. As it stands, nothing out of the ordinary happened, the experiment worked the same as before. While I have no way to comment on his theory, the only experiment likely to be performed as a verification has come up short.

I'm just curious, if you never understood how it was supposed to affect the experiment, how do you know it came up short?

I know that the density of the material should affect the dynamics of the expansion, but I think that the scale being used might have been too small. In this case, I suspect that the expansion would be more on the end which was iron, that being less dense than the lead. But you might not be able to detect it without very sensitive devices and not knowing what you had to work with, I can't say much more than that.

To be fair to his ideas, you really should understand them well enough to know what to look for just to make sure you've covered yourself adequately and looked for the results in the right place and over the correct time frame. That would seem to be the 'scientific' thing to do.

It could very well be that he is wrong, but if you're going to 'prove' that, be more careful. If possible, show the math according to McCutcheon and what the predicted results should be then show the empiricals. If there is a difference between actual and predicted, and if you can repeat with the same results, then I'll believe you have 'proven' him wrong.

And, quite frankly, I'd be happy to see the proof. I'm tired of getting beat up over this subject but until I see the proof of him being wrong I'll have to be the f'n martyr.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I've decided to not give up quite yet.
Erasmus, you said I'm just curious, if you never understood how it was supposed to affect the experiment, how do you know it came up short?

I know that the density of the material should affect the dynamics of the expansion, but I think that the scale being used might have been too small. In this case, I suspect that the expansion would be more on the end which was iron, that being less dense than the lead. But you might not be able to detect it without very sensitive devices and not knowing what you had to work with, I can't say much more than that.

To be fair to his ideas, you really should understand them well enough to know what to look for just to make sure you've covered yourself adequately and looked for the results in the right place and over the correct time frame. That would seem to be the 'scientific' thing to do.

It could very well be that he is wrong, but if you're going to 'prove' that, be more careful. If possible, show the math according to McCutcheon and what the predicted results should be then show the empiricals. If there is a difference between actual and predicted, and if you can repeat with the same results, then I'll believe you have 'proven' him wrong.

And, quite frankly, I'd be happy to see the proof. I'm tired of getting beat up over this subject but until I see the proof of him being wrong I'll have to be the f'n martyr.

I have no desire to clutter the forum with a a discussion of the cavendish experiment, so I will send you a private message on the subject, suffice to say that the gravitational force is so weak that it takes very accurate equipment to detect the deviation.
McCutcheon told me that the experiment should behave differently after I switched the weights, but it did not. He was unable to provide me with any math at all detailing what difference I should see, he just told me that I should notice some obvious change.
-Will

[orbsycli]

"the final theory" isn't that name flawed? if the final theory is the final knowledge and explaination of everything, wouldn't it not be a theory?

[infamous]

Originally Posted by orbsycli

"the final theory" isn't that name flawed? if the final theory is the final knowledge and explaination of everything, wouldn't it not be a theory?

Absolutely Orby, Read my lips Hypography members: There will be NO final theory.

[Boerseun]

...if expansion is supposed to be the source of gravity, then it should be a constant expansion, relative to the size of the particular mass?

Then how come, if I climb up a tree and jump off, I accelerate towards terra firma? I should approach the Earth at the speed at which the Earth is expanding, no?

And, if expansion is the case, lesser rocks like the Earth should have been swallowed long ago by planets like Jupiter, which would, in turn, have been swallowed by the sun - seeing as they all *expand* at different rates?

With all due respects, Steve, I'm as open to new ideas as the next guy, but to defend a new point of view by attacking all oposing views like McCutcheon does in the first chapter which is the only chapter he'll give us for free, smacks of a $$$-making racket. The curvature of spacetime describes the gravitational phenomena much better. Why it curves is as valid a question as to ask what is causing the expansion.

Besides - science is an open endeavor that feeds on peer review. Denying this inherent mechanism that's driving science is not scientific.