[CrimsonWolf]

To Buffy:

(1)I have not discussed the whole book. Barely even 50%. I have made simple as possible approach to my posts. With assumption the that someone has read the book. If the information here is to vague for you then read the book or just move on to something else. I am not going to endlessly keep repeating myself or describe something from 500+ page books that someone has not read. Imagine explaining Standard theory to someone unfamiliar with it, it take a hundreds of posts or hours of conversation to cover all bases!

Hence the problem here. Do not take of us on our word. Read the information for yourself then make your decision. You actually made your choice when you decided the price of admission was not worth your time. Which is fine. So many books who can decide which one to read and not. Not to mention lot of are not available to checkout. Right or wrong Final Theory is staying in my library. Need a good test to current theory right now.

(2)OK picture two equal sized (10,000km diameter) planets with equal mass. The first one has center of highest mass concentration in it's geometric center. Now expand at 0.00000077% acceleration m/s. The atoms each expand by the same amount, and expand into each other at center of mass. The sum total of all the atoms expand and bear down on a central point were highest concentration of atoms are. From this point all the atoms will push off from as they expand. To determine the amount of expansion you simply measure from this point all the way to the edge of the planet.

Radius: 5,000km
Diameter: 10,000km
Distance from center of mass: 5,000km
Expansion of Radius: 3.85m
Expansion of Diameter: 7.7m
Radial Total: 5,000,003.85m
Diameter Total: 10,000,007.7m
Surface Gravity: 3.85 m/s
Time: 1 second

Radius: 5,000km
Diameter: 10,000km
Distance from center of mass: 5,000km
Expansion of Radius: 1,386,000m
Expansion of Diameter: 2,772,000m
Radial Total: 6,386,000m
Diameter Total: 12,772,000m
Surface Gravity: 3.85 m/s
Time: 600 seconds

Following me so far?

[detriech69]

Crimson,
While I respect your obvious devotion to Expansion Theory, you can silence my doubts with simple charts and graphs explaining complete orbits in simple terms we can all grasp. Not partial orbits, mind you, as in the book. That glaring omission in The Final Theory did it in for me. I enjoy looking at the Universe from a different perspective and the book certainly gave me food for thought, but if this theory falls apart with something as simple as orbital geometry between two similarly sized bodies in open space, the rest needs some revision, at least. Your math skills and the time you must put into your posts are admirable, as well, but dumb it down for the rest of us, so we can all see it clearly. Pictures are worth a thousand words and more convincing than math calculations any day of the week.
If you want another theory to help explain the Cosmos, try checking out www.everythingforever.com. I found that gentleman very open and his ideas extremely interesting. Plus, he builds on Einsein's work and the work of other great thinkers, instead of finding ways to refute them to suit his own pet theories. Mistakes can be made by anyone, including Einstein, but to say one law of physics is wrong and then quote another to support your own new idea seems like customizing physics to fit desired results to me.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be insulting, but just telling it the way I see it. Just give a complete explanation of orbits a shot for us. Saying it is too complex to easily show us is copping out. Or ask the Author to explain it to you and pass it on to us. Thanks for any renewed effort on your part.

[CrimsonWolf]

To Buffy and the curious . . .

If you are following me so far then let's continue. Planet number 2 does not have the same matter distribution. It's center of mass lies 1,000km from the surface on the dense side. Watch this carefully as the radius to center of mass is not uniform in this example:

Radius: 5,000km
Diameter: 10,000km
Shortest Distance from center of mass: 1,000km
Longest Distance from center of mass: 9,000km
Average of Distance from center of mass: 5,000km
Expansion of Short Radius: .77m
Expansion of Long Radius: 6.93m
Average of Expansion of Radius: 3.85m
Shortest Radial Total: 1,000,000.77m
Longest Radial Total: 9,000,006.93m
Average of Radial Total: 5,000,003.85m
Diameter Total: 10,000,007.7m
Smallest Radial Gravity: .77m/s
Highest Radial Gravity: 6.93m/s
Average Radial Gravity: 3.85m/s
Time: 1 second

Radius: 5,000km
Diameter: 10,000km
Shortest Distance from center of mass: 1,000km
Longest Distance from center of mass: 9,000km
Average Distance from center of mass: 5,000km
Expansion of Shortest Radius: 277,200m
Expansion of Longest Radius: 2,494,800m
Average of Expansion Radius: 1,386,000m
Shortest Radial Total: 1,277,200m
Longest Radial Total: 11,494,800m
Average of Radial Total: 6,386,000m
Diameter Total: 12,772,000m
Smallest Radial Gravity: .77m/s
Highest Radial Gravity: 6.93m/s
Average Radial Gravity: 3.85m/s
Time: 600 seconds

Did that example help at all?

[CrimsonWolf]

Originally Posted by detriech69

Crimson,
While I respect your obvious devotion to Expansion Theory, you can silence my doubts with simple charts and graphs explaining complete orbits in simple terms we can all grasp. Not partial orbits, mind you, as in the book. That glaring omission in The Final Theory did it in for me. I enjoy looking at the Universe from a different perspective and the book certainly gave me food for thought, but if this theory falls apart with something as simple as orbital geometry between two similarly sized bodies in open space, the rest needs some revision, at least. Your math skills and the time you must put into your posts are admirable, as well, but dumb it down for the rest of us, so we can all see it clearly. Pictures are worth a thousand words and more convincing than math calculations any day of the week.
If you want another theory to help explain the Cosmos, try checking out www.everythingforever.com. I found that gentleman very open and his ideas extremely interesting. Plus, he builds on Einstein's work and the work of other great thinkers, instead of finding ways to refute them to suit his own pet theories. Mistakes can be made by anyone, including Einstein, but to say one law of physics is wrong and then quote another to support your own new idea seems like customizing physics to fit desired results to me.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be insulting, but just telling it the way I see it. Just give a complete explanation of orbits a shot for us. Saying it is too complex to easily show us is copping out. Or ask the Author to explain it to you and pass it on to us. Thanks for any renewed effort on your part.

LOL. Indeed. Expansion Theory is among the wildest ideas I have ever heard. Newton however he admitted he had no idea how gravity worked. Just that he seems to follow certain rules.

Well we have really weird problem. According to Quantum predictions you cannot get all the actual particle data precisely, but precise averages of what the values could be. Standard theory has 3 repeated particle families and more than a dozen constants that have fudged in, but never measured. Yet they seem to make the calculations work and no one understands why. The quantum corrections at our scale are so small that they can be ignored for the most part.

Ask and ye shall receive. I would love to post a picture on here for a complete orbit. I understand why the book does not (pages are to small). The theory needs some bloody good tests. I don't have any art software though. Any suggestions on what i can post here for a illustration. Paint shop maybe?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

The theory needs some bloody good tests. I don't have any art software though.

Why do new experiments when the theory can't explain old ones? Any theory of gravity should deal with the idea that all objects fall at the same rate. This equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses has been verified to extraordinary precision over many experiments.

Another obvious problem is that the theory implies a constant gravitational force, and not a force that falls off like 1/r^2. In a constant force field, you don't get conic section orbits, which is what we observe in our solar system. Also, the (weak field) inverse square law can be measured with torsion balances. See, for instance, the Eot-Wash group out of University of Washington.
-Will

[CrimsonWolf]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Why do new experiments when the theory can't explain old ones? Any theory of gravity should deal with the idea that all objects fall at the same rate. This equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses has been verified to extraordinary precision over many experiments.

Another obvious problem is that the theory implies a constant gravitational force, and not a force that falls off like 1/r^2. In a constant force field, you don't get conic section orbits, which is what we observe in our solar system. Also, the (weak field) inverse square law can be measured with torsion balances. See, for instance, the Eot-Wash group out of University of Washington.
-Will

Does galaxy rotation and formation fit any accepted gravity models? No.

The pioneer anomaly is so far from any gravity model that a probe is being planned to investigate it.

The Dark Energy problem is so baffling to physics it is embarrassing.

Now for the record I do not reject data from experiments. But I do not blindly believe them either. I have neutral stance. Some scientists are quite honest. Some however will fudge data and experiments to keep their jobs. Therefore caution should be used for any and all data or media reports. Just a simple fact. I believe what is logical and sound to reason and moderated with data to back it up.

Now I am sorry if my rants seemed out of place on the experiment mentioned in previous posts. However Quantum theory clearly challenges the old view that we are separate from the experiment. We can measure inertia for example. But where does it come from? What's it's origin? Expansion Theory suggests it comes from the bouncing electrons of a atom. The measurement of expanding objects of say a marble that is 1cm in diameter would be 0.00000077cm. That is so small that is extremely difficult to measure in under a second. Heck we don't even know how big atoms or most particles are! We know a estimated guess, but no actual measurement. Remember that no person has actually even seen a particle. We have models and more recent some nice looking computer imaging. But no actual direct observation. Just indirect. Even particle accelerators are not a exact science. They observe particle fragments and traced paths of some particles. Then assumed virtual particles not observed but assumed to be there to make the picture complete.

Am I saying all experiments are wrong? Of coarse not! The smaller the scale the greater the caution needed. That's all. The search for knowledge is very fine line.

In expansion theory, expansion can be less effective at a distance if other expanding objects are in the area. All the orbits in the solar system for example effect each other. Especially if the object is moving enough to go into partial orbits depending it's direction. It's not like anybody as dropped anything on Earth or moon from a great enough distance to see how consistent the drop rate is. You can't. It would be effected by expanding dynamics of other solar system objects to much.

[CrimsonWolf]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Why do new experiments when the theory can't explain old ones? Any theory of gravity should deal with the idea that all objects fall at the same rate. This equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses has been verified to extraordinary precision over many experiments.

Another obvious problem is that the theory implies a constant gravitational force, and not a force that falls off like 1/r^2. In a constant force field, you don't get conic section orbits, which is what we observe in our solar system. Also, the (weak field) inverse square law can be measured with torsion balances. See, for instance, the Eot-Wash group out of University of Washington.
-Will

By the way, are you refering to the properties of rest mass and relative mass in equivalence when under the influence of gravitational field (or curved space)?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

Does galaxy rotation and formation fit any accepted gravity models? No.

According to who? Rotation of galaxies is just an expression of angular momentum. If none of the galaxies rotated, that would be crazy. Formation is a more subtle problem, but certainly not something that doesn't fit into any gravity model.

The pioneer anomaly is so far from any gravity model that a probe is being planned to investigate it.

Yes, the pioneer anomaly hasn't been explained. For all we know, it might not even be a gravitational effect.

The Dark Energy problem is so baffling to physics it is embarrassing.

I don't think anyone would be embarrassed that we don't know everything.

Now for the record I do not reject data from experiments. But I do not blindly believe them either. I have neutral stance. Some scientists are quite honest. Some however will fudge data and experiments to keep their jobs. Therefore caution should be used for any and all data or media reports. Just a simple fact. I believe what is logical and sound to reason and moderated with data to back it up.

If you can't look at well documented, repeated experiments and take a scientists word for it, you can't do science. It is experimental fact that gravity follows an inverse square law. It is another experimental fact that gravitational and inertial mass is equal. Any good theory of gravity should embrace both.

Now I am sorry if my rants seemed out of place on the experiment mentioned in previous posts. However Quantum theory clearly challenges the old view that we are separate from the experiment.

Quantum theory only applies on very small scales. In most of the experiments/length scales in question, quantum mechanics is irrelevant. It seems like your standard response to experiments you don't want to believe is "well, quantum theory..."

We can measure inertia for example. But where does it come from? What's it's origin? Expansion Theory suggests it comes from the bouncing electrons of a atom.

And in the standard model it comes from the higgs field. Regardless, it doesn't matter where it comes from if you aren't doing experiments to determine the origin of inertia.

The measurement of expanding objects of say a marble that is 1cm in diameter would be 0.00000077cm. That is so small that is extremely difficult to measure in under a second.

Thats why you don't do the experiment with a marble. You do the experiment with the moon and the earth and use the sun as your orbitting body.

Heck we don't even know how big atoms or most particles are! We know a estimated guess, but no actual measurement.

There have been all sorts of scattering experiments, etc done to measure the cross sections of various atoms,molecules etc. Tons of "actual" measurements.

Am I saying all experiments are wrong? Of coarse not! The smaller the scale the greater the caution needed. That's all. The search for knowledge is very fine line.

And scientists have been doing quantum scale experiments for years. Nowadays, they can produce all sorts of quantum entangled photons and other such systems, they can manipulate things on incredibly small scales (building crystals one atomic layer at a time). The people doing these experiments are quite familiar with quantum theory and the requisite caution needed. And I point out that most of the experiments that shoot down McCutcheon's brand of expansion theory were done years ago and aren't at all on a quantum scale. Eotvos and Cavendish experiments.

In expansion theory, expansion can be less effective at a distance if other expanding objects are in the area.

How? If I have a two body system, and I place down a third body, the fact that the third body is expanding in no way effects the expansion rate (And hence the apparent force) between the other two.

It's not like anybody as dropped anything on Earth or moon from a great enough distance to see how consistent the drop rate is. You can't. It would be effected by expanding dynamics of other solar system objects to much.

While no one has dropped things and watched, they have done cavendish type experiments with torsion balances and measured the relative effective forces(I say effective, because in expansion theory its not a real force). Always an inverse square. Also, celestial bodies orbit in conic sections (ellipses, hyperbola, parabola) this is, as far as I can tell, impossible under expansion theory.

By the way, are you refering to the properties of rest mass and relative mass in equivalence when under the influence of gravitational field (or curved space)?

No, what I'm saying is that inertial mass (the mass in F=ma) is the same as gravitational mass (the mass in F=-GmM/r^2). This implies all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field.
-Will

[CrimsonWolf]

We are going in circles here. Erasmuss00

The star orbits of the galaxy or any galaxy do not fit the rules of orbits, this is a fact. That is why Dark Matter idea popped up. You see the entire galaxy core is rotating as if one object (theorized to due to super massive black hole). Then further stars orbit faster! Then slow down further out. Then speed up again at the galaxy edge. Neither GR nor Newton's laws predict that. If dark matter is never found then there is no known explanation. Pretty big deal. The Dark Energy problem is even worse still.

Quantum corrections can be ignored on the macro scale mostly. However it reigns in micro scales. Since Expansion Theory is theory of all scales then describing Expansion at scale of particles is quite valid. Standard theory is the most successful theory around. Yet it is also a very incomplete theory ironically as it explains forces that govern matter but is unable to explain where they come from. For example mass is assumed be due to a never detected particle called Higgs Boson.

Which brings us to this book in the first place. Looking for a possible origin of forces.

It amazes me that few seem to get the fact Expansion Theory would not get different results on most experiments. The numbers should come up the same. The difference from Standard theory is the interpretation of what those numbers both mean and stand for.

Now the Cavendish is a mixed bag. Especially since not everyone who has done it gets the same value. It's a difficult experiment to reproduce. But enough have done it to arrive at a accepted value. Expansion theory also has given value for it as well.

The reason expanding objects can effect each other even at a distance is the fact it proposes every object has decreasing space between them. They will collide unless:

(1)Are in a orbital system

(2)They move so fast relative to other objects that they pass by, as long they do not have direct path motion.

Even in a orbital system Expansion theory states that each orbit can effect the surrounding orbits constantly, the book discusses this and more. I imagine once again you have not read the book? If so, read it. Then complain or debunk it. I have not posted all the book on this thread. Only a few general areas. Several subjects I skipped over assuming the other book readers already familiar with them. I would be breaking copyright if I posted the whole thing in exact wording on a public forum. So what I can post here is somewhat limited. I have been riding the edge as it is.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

Quantum corrections can be ignored on the macro scale mostly. However it reigns in micro scales. Since Expansion Theory is theory of all scales then describing Expansion at scale of particles is quite valid.

Thats fine, but the experiments that show the gaping holes in expansion theory aren't microscopic, they are very macroscopic. You don't need a "quantum expansion theory" to check expansion versus these results.

Standard theory is the most successful theory around. Yet it is also a very incomplete theory ironically as it explains forces that govern matter but is unable to explain where they come from.

That isn't true at all. The electromagnetic force in the standard model "comes from" photons, just as the weak force is mediated by W and Z bosons and the strong force by gluons. Just because something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it doesn't exist (especially if it is supposed to exist at energy scales we haven't started probing yet).

It amazes me that few seem to get the fact Expansion Theory would not get different results on most experiments. The numbers should come up the same. The difference from Standard theory is the interpretation of what those numbers both mean and stand for.

Not true. In expansion theory, the gravitational force would be a constant force, not an inverse square law. Also, inertial and gravitational mass would not be equal.

Now the Cavendish is a mixed bag. Especially since not everyone who has done it gets the same value. It's a difficult experiment to reproduce. But enough have done it to arrive at a accepted value. Expansion theory also has given value for it as well.

In expansion theory, gravity is constant, not an inverse square law. The cavendish experiment wouldn't show a drop off with distance if McCutcheon were right.

I imagine once again you have not read the book? If so, read it. Then complain or debunk it.

I've read the first chapter, which so badly distorts mechanics and Newtonian gravity that I either have to assume McCutcheon doesn't understand it, or else is being dishonest. If the book ever shows up in a library, I'll pick it up and read it, but I'm not going to shell out money for more "science" in the same mold as the first chapter.
-Will