[viscount aero]

Originally Posted by tarajee

The fired bullet expands towards target only. The theory does not explain why the other three sides of the bullet remain the same.

you must not completely understand the theory. the whole bullet expands. all sides expand. never is it stated in the theory otherwise.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by viscount aero

no such acknowledgment will come from on high such as this. why would the establishment church of science efface itself by even recognizing the book? that would draw too much attention to the theory, potentially revealing to many more of the masses the self-contradictory theories of standard cosmology. that is the last thing on earth the clergy wants.

We're happy to talk about it here! We've kept this thread open for ages! Obviously *this* clergy isn't afraid of it.

Its sad of course that if you read this thread to see that the primary "supporting arguments" presented here for The Final Theory comes down to little more than these same arguments attacking "the scientific clergy" and "closed-mindedness" and "its simply *obvious* to anyone that the current theories are self contradictory," and worst, "I can't explain it, you just have to buy the book."

C'mon, Rush! Join the fun! Give us your best shot! You're not a *fraidy cat* are you?

Dinking pseudo-scientific ditto-heads,
Buffy

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by sirbola

I last commented here in Jan 2005. Nothing seems to have changed. I am still waiting for a Scientific Organization or an Academic Organization to acknowledge the existence of the book and its contents. As a theory it is very hard to swallow but that does not mean it is wrong.

The lack of support from scientists is probably due to the theory not being so final after all, and that there are theories that better explain what we observe.

It doesn't have to be wrong - but that still doesn't mean it is correct.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by sirbola

A proposed experiment or experiments to test the theory would be nice. I have not found any in this thread, has anyone

Way back when, I actually emailed Mr. McCutcheon about his theory and we had a discussion on an experiment I could run. It was a simple cavendish experiment, slightly modified. The results where null. I report on it earlier in the thread.
-Will

[viscount aero]

Originally Posted by Buffy

We're happy to talk about it here! We've kept this thread open for ages! Obviously *this* clergy isn't afraid of it.

Its sad of course that if you read this thread to see that the primary "supporting arguments" presented here for The Final Theory comes down to little more than these same arguments attacking "the scientific clergy" and "closed-mindedness" and "its simply *obvious* to anyone that the current theories are self contradictory," and worst, "I can't explain it, you just have to buy the book."

C'mon, Rush! Join the fun! Give us your best shot! You're not a *fraidy cat* are you?

Dinking pseudo-scientific ditto-heads,
Buffy

who is Rush?

what is a major point(s) of discontent concerning the final theory that riles ardent pom-pom waivers of standard theory? i've posted in here ages ago, but am late to the party about this time. i'm not going to read the entire 500 pages of this thread to catch up.

so throw out something. we can debate it clergy-to-heretic. regardless if McCutcheon is on to something true, our standard models are highly flawed regardless.

for example, science wants so badly to find "gravitons" and "gravity waves." to me, this is looking for leprechauns and lucky charms.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by viscount aero

who is Rush?

A guy who uses the same argumentative techniques that you seem to enjoy!

Originally Posted by viscount aero

what is a major point(s) of discontent concerning the final theory that riles ardent pom-pom waivers of standard theory?

That all objects move in curved trajectories is a given of McCutcheonism: he's not under any obligation to say *why*--just as Newton was under no obligation to explain why gravity "sucks". But no one in this thread has been able to explain any scenario under which these trajectories take different curving paths purely based on expansion, nor have there been any equations proposed as to how you would predict such paths.

Its a place to start (again).

Originally Posted by viscount aero

i've posted in here ages ago, but am late to the party about this time. i'm not going to read the entire 500 pages of this thread to catch up.

Just a warning: if you're not going to put any more effort into this than calling people names and saying "the standard theory is obviously wrong" you might find the rest of us uninterested in engaging you.

They're magically delicious,
Buffy

[viscount aero]

after 9780 pages and you don't understand the theoretical why of how the "orbit effect" occurs? have you not read any of the posts? someone must have discussed that.

????

some of you appear to ask questions that should have already been clarified.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by viscount aero

after 9780 pages and you don't understand the theoretical why of how the "orbit effect" occurs? have you not read any of the posts? someone must have discussed that.

????

some of you appear to ask questions that should have already been clarified.

I've read every post in this thread and contributed a fair number. No, no one has been able to explain it. Most people who have studied the book point to this inability to rationally explain how not only orbits by fly-bys can be explained as being one of the biggest holes in McCutcheon's theory.

You're *absolutely* right that they "should have been clarified," and the fact that they have not is the 500-pound gorilla sitting in this thread that you're welcome to try to address....

Maybe instead of just acting all incredulous and dumbfounded you could actually contribute an explanation or two.

Waiting for McGodot,
Buffy

[viscount aero]

alright. but before i contribute anything --to preface, i don't want to get into a hostile crossfire anymore. i will withdraw my prior statements about the clergy if that makes others more at ease. i've gotten deep into this topic on other forums and they have escalated to attacking and then in some cases into banning. so i'm not going to go there. it's just a theory as any of it is. cosmology today is just as much of a belief system as it is scientific. little of it is factual or provable.

if you want to actually talk it out, then we can. if we're going to throw rocks and get all sarcastic and caustic beyond this point, then forget it. the theory is not that hard to grasp, neither is the orbit effect.

i'm going to assume that a good many skeptics of the theory haven't read the material, which has diagrams that can help convey the ideas. were you to see these it would greatly aid in explaining things. but, alas, it appears many of you have not read any of it. so it makes re-creating the material here that much more tedious even though the whole thing is very simple. there's plenty of math in it, too.

i'm not able to perform calculus in front of everyone, i'm not a mathematician. i can understand algebraic concepts and some trig. but the math in the book is within grasp of most alg/trig students, with some of it more advanced. therefore, if you go into the trite "well, you're not an engineer with a degree so you have no idea of anything, do you?" then we can just forget it. that is not a criteria for understanding the universe. our cosmos is not the product of mathematical models, nor does it necessarily actually exist as a model suggests.

the book is replete with equations and such, so don't suggest that it doesn't. as well, most all of the equations currently used to predict orbits are exactly usable in the final theory, as such equations derive from others, modified albeit to include the "g" constant which is not necessary. therefore you can predict orbits with or without "g." doesn't matter.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by viscount aero

alright. but before i contribute anything --to preface, i don't want to get into a hostile crossfire anymore. i will withdraw my prior statements about the clergy if that makes others more at ease.

Be aware that you came in here with a 'tude, and you were responded to in kind. We're happy to discuss the topic rationally, but as this thread attests, frustration is created by this kind of hostile attitude of "you just *won't* understand it because you're all out to get us seekers of the truth": it comes across as paranoid rantings whose only purpose ends up being to hide behind a lack of evidence for the theory.

Originally Posted by viscount aero

cosmology today is just as much of a belief system as it is scientific. little of it is factual or provable.

This would appear to be an unwillingness to recognize well understood and well-proven evidence that existing theories do in fact work. We'll be the first to grant that there is much in cosmology that is conjecture and seeking further evidence, but saying that "little of it is factual or provable" is exactly the sort of specious argument that Creationists use to "teach the controversy" and imply that *any* open issue proves that *all* of the theory is baseless. You would be wise to reconsider this statement if you really want to debate this issue or it will indeed devolve in to arguments based on denial of existing data.

Originally Posted by viscount aero

the theory is not that hard to grasp, neither is the orbit effect.

i'm going to assume that a good many skeptics of the theory haven't read the material, which has diagrams that can help convey the ideas. were you to see these it would greatly aid in explaining things. but, alas, it appears many of you have not read any of it. so it makes re-creating the material here that much more tedious even though the whole thing is very simple. there's plenty of math in it, too.

To sum up many of the preceding posts: this has been an ongoing "claim" that its "simple" but "too hard to explain here" which needless to say creates considerable cognitive dissonance. If its easy, then it shouldn't be hard to explain, should it?

Many of us have rather heavy duty math backgrounds. I'm an amateur, but I have gone through differential equations and have considerable applied math experience in abstract algebra and group theory. That's really not going to be a problem here. Unless...

Originally Posted by viscount aero

i'm not able to perform calculus in front of everyone, i'm not a mathematician. i can understand algebraic concepts and some trig. but the math in the book is within grasp of most alg/trig students, with some of it more advanced. therefore, if you go into the trite "well, you're not an engineer with a degree so you have no idea of anything, do you?" then we can just forget it.

This *shouldn't* be a problem, and so far nothing along the lines of the statement you have given as an indelicate straw man has been posted in this thread. We have had a problem with proponents saying "I haven't had enough math to explain it or defend it" which we don't mind except for the fact that the discussion never even gets to the table. I'm kind of hoping to actually see it explained by you, and even if you can't we can even try to help out. In fact if anything our response would be to try to help you understand where it goes wrong, something that you may not have the background to understand. Conversely, you may convince us!

We try to be as open minded as possible. We've got an attitude that we like to promote here--that we like to think is different from some forums--that defending existing theories is essential to finding the new theories that supplant them, and its only through this active debate that we ever get anywhere.

Originally Posted by viscount aero

that is not a criteria for understanding the universe. our cosmos is not the product of mathematical models, nor does it necessarily actually exist as a model suggests.

Models are exactly that: "models." They are abstractions that either work or are discarded. Again I remind you that if you try to attack existing cosmology with such straw man arguments you won't get very far.

Now after all that introductory chatter, lets get down to business:

Originally Posted by viscount aero

as well, most all of the equations currently used to predict orbits are exactly usable in the final theory, as such equations derive from others, modified albeit to include the "g" constant which is not necessary. therefore you can predict orbits with or without "g." doesn't matter.

If G is not necessary, then there are equivalent equations that will predict orbital motion and spacecraft trajectories, for which we have amazing amounts of data that exactly confirm Newton and Kepler, both of which require G in a non-expansionary model. We're all waiting for the equivalent equations that work with an expansionary model that do not use G. From what we've seen so far, that requires at least an assumption that contrary to Newton, all objects travel in curves unless acted upon by a force, although the equations for those curves have never been posted here. Would you care to explain this orbital effect, recognizing that the same equations have to explain trajectories in N-body systems as well as simple orbits?

Pardon the use of the royal "we" here: I am not trying to be pretentious, but there are a bunch of us of a single mind who have contributed to this thread and what I've written here is a polite attemt to summarize all those posts so that you don't *have* to read them all, although I'd still suggest that you do, because quite frankly not doing so is in effect wasting the time of those of us who have taken the time to read it.

Curvature changing with the inverse square of the distance,
Buffy