In July of 2003 I stumbled across an Internet advertisement for a book by Mark McCutcheon titled “The Final Theory.” After reading through his website (http://www.thefinaltheory.com), I felt that the author had either formulated a very different physics, or had crafted some very fine snake oil. I was curious, but couldn’t find anything on the web telling me whether the book was really worth US$30.
Well, now I know. The book is another take on an expansion theory. In a nutshell, expansion theory says that the reason gravity is so indistinguishable from an acceleration is because it is acceleration, caused by matter expanding at an ever accelerating rate. Thereis no gravitational force in expansion theory; it’s Einstein’s equivalence priniciple taken literally. “The Final Theory” starts there, and doesn’t end until it tries to rethink much of modern physics.
I won’t attempt a full review of the book here. It wouldn’t be justified, because I haven’t read the thing in its entirety. I gave it up after chapter 3, which attempted to explain orbits in terms of geometric expansion alone (no gravitational force, no curved space, just objects getting bigger and moving past one another at some mystical velocity). I tried to get past chapter 3, and that prompted the lengthy email exchange reproduced below. The exchange was interesting, if not illuminating.
In my opinion, “The Final Theory” is broken at its foundation, and demonstrates some curious misunderstandings of standard theory. But Mark McCutcheon’s opinion is different, and the other two people on his mailing list seem to agree with him for the most part. So maybe it’s just me.
The great advantage of a wildly unconventional theory is that critics can be dismissed as being narrow minded or too infected by conventional thinking. I’m sure those traps do exist, to some extent. It’s important to remember, though, that the novelty of an idea does not in itself make it any more correct.
I hope you enjoy the conversation reproduced below, and that it’s the sort of information you’re looking for. I wish I’d have been able to read this before purchasing the book…
From: Dave Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon
Date: Thu July 3, 2003
Subject: Final Theory Website & Book
Mark, I came across your website on your “Final Theory” book, and I’d like to offer what I hope is a constructive outside opinion. As an engineer who’s always had an interest in physics, but lacks the in-depth mathmatical knowledge to follow it at more advanced levels, I’m attracted to the premise that the universe may be more intuitively explained by an alternative framework. It wouldn’t be the first time in history where we’ve been forced to re-examine long-held beliefs, so I entertain the possibility.
Unfortunately, your website falls a little short of convincing me to spend US$30 on the book, because although many interesting observations are made, there is no resolution for any one of them — just repeated assertions that the issues you bring up are indeed resolved. The problem here is that, for all a visitor to your site knows, the remainder of the book could be an appeal to faith in invisible little men who manipulate matter with ethereal tweezers. Or, alternatively, your theory may be dead-solid, testable, and ultimately correct.
I just thought I’d write and give you the perspective of a visitor to your website, one who’s intrigued, but not yet convinced there’s anything beyond the usual junk science between the covers.
I’ll be watching for the reviews to start showing up on Amazon.com and elsewhere, and make my buying decision at that point.
Best wishes, and for what it’s worth, I seriously hope you’ve hit the mother lode.
Dave Ruske
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003
Subject: Re: Final Theory Website & Book
Hi Dave .. thanks for your comments. I agree completely, of course. That is my dilemma precisely … how do I get the word out about this new book and theory in a convincing manner without basically rewriting the book on my website or in emails. I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives. However, I also realize that once I start discussing the new theory in any detail I open up a whole can of worms. As simple, rational, and commonsense as this new theory is, it is impossible to do justice to it on a website. If I mentioned what I believe gravity actually is (and I could easily state it in one sentence), I’d have to follow it up with exactly the further discussions that I already wrote out very clearly in the book. People would have all the same questions that I have already anticipated (and heard from close family and friends during development) and answered in the book. I would have endless email exchanges, or people immediately assuming it is a flawed theory because they superficially think it through and think they see a flaw and just dismiss it without any further thought or discussion.
That is my dilemma, at the moment. I don’t feel I can do justice to the theory in any less than the 400-page book — to just blurt out any part of it would be self-defeating out of context. In fact, now that radio station hosts are beginning to show an interest, I am facing the same dilemma about how much I should discuss the core theory on air soon as well (still haven’t worked that one out yet). But I certainly see your point — how do you know I’m not a nutter with another theory about aliens or gods or little green men? My answer to this problem was to put as much of my thought processes, insights, and even book content on my website as possible without actually discussing the new theory itself. Hopefully after reading all my website material — and even my entire first chapter (available upon request from the site) — people will see many new, solid, rational ideas about our science and its problems, and will see a solid first chapter that shows I don’t have a a little-green-man type of mentality.
So far, it is very early in the promotion process, so it is impossible for me to know if my current approach is enough. I appreciate and fully understand your perspective, and I welcome any suggestions you may have. What would it take to convince someone such as yourself to buy a copy, short of opening a whole can of worms by starting to discuss the new theory itself, which would probably be a nightmare of endless emails justifying one point or another or anwering one question after another, which is already fully expained in the book?
Thanks for your comment,
Mark
From: Dave Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon
Date: Fri July 04, 2003
Subject: Re: Final Theory Website & Book
Once there are some reviews to read, you get the credibility of referrals — no exposition of the theory itself is really needed once there are people with some knowledge of physics saying that your theory deserves consideration. Those first reviews will be key, I think.
Thanks for your response, and good luck with it!
Dave Ruske
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske
Date: Mon Jul 21, 2003
Subject: Reviews are in …
Hi Dave, just a FYI to inform you that several people have now read the book and offered to write reviews. You may want to check out the site again (see Reader Review page). I realize you have to take my word for it that I didn’t make them up and/or suppress horrible responses. All I can say is that these are real reviews from real people who do not know me, and are the first two responses so far.
Best,
Mark
From: David Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003 Subject: Theory Problems?
Ok, Mark, I’m an optimist, so I bought the book. Maybe it’s me, but I can’t make it through the first few chapters without seeing some real showstopper-type problems. I’ve outlined a few below, maybe you can point out where I went wrong.
Velocity is defined as distance over time. If we throw a ball in empty space, we know it keeps going at what we perceive at a constant velocity. If we accelerate it to 10km per hour, then in one hour’s time the ball will be 10km away after one hour, 20km at two hours, etc. We could determine this by looking at the ball and applying simple trigonometry, or by having a very long, physical ruler parallel to the ball’s path.
So far, so good. But according to expansion theory, the ruler along the ball’s path will be continuously expanding, as will the ball and everything else. By your math, in fact, after about 19 minutes the distances in the equations will have doubled in size. After an hour, the ruler will be roughly 8 times larger than it was originally, though it would seem we have no way of detecting this.
Wait a minute, though, that ball is still traveling parallel to the ruler. In order to cover the length of our expanding 10km ruler in one hour’s time, one of two things needs to be going on: either our ball in vacuum is accelerating to keep up with the growing ruler, or time isn’t the linear quantity we’ve been assuming.
Such acceleration would also be necessary to keep the moon in orbit. If the earth and moon were really passing each other at a constant relative velocity similar figure 3-5, they’d collide rather quickly, as both bodies would be increasing in size at an accelerating rate. If matter alone expands, and not the space between, this accelerating growth will overtake a simple velocity of any magnitude.
Moving on to figure 3-6, I fail to see how the objects would ever appear to completely encircle one another. The right-hand side of that diagram does show an effect similar to what would be seen, I believe, but continue the diagram a little bit further and you’d eventually end up with two objects almost stationary (along the Y axis) side-by-side, finally expanding in to one another. The relative motion along the Y axis (as you look at figure 3-6) would be little different from what you propose with the dropped object in figure 2-8.
Two more problems I see is that the non-gravity of expansion theory doesn’t drop off with distance (since two objects will expand towards each other at the same rate no matter where they are), and our orbital observations do not seem to be consistent solely with the radius of orbiting bodies. How does expansion theory account for these inconsistencies with the observed universe?
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I fear I have to wonder about the sincerity of this effort. Nowhere on your website is “expansion theory” mentioned, instead the basis of this “final theory” is kept vague. You’re not the first to try to take Einstein’s equivalence principle literally, as a quick search on Google will reveal. The only open question is whether or not you’re aware of the fact.
I agree with you that something seems amiss in our current understanding of the universe, and I wouldn’t be shocked if some portion of expansion theory might even provide valuable clues. But if I’ve reasoned incorrectly above, I’d appreciate knowing where I went wrong.
Thanks,
Dave
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: David Ruske
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Hi David,
Thanks for your email. I hope all my readers do email me, since questions like this are bound to arise in a book full of completely alternate views of everything in physics. I won’t always have the time for detailed individual responses, but at this early stage I try as much as possible. Soon I’ll set up a FAQ to help new readers who email me, so that I don’t have to keep retyping much the same emails, but so far you are only the third reader to respond, so I’ll give it a go personally. Oh, and at the request of the others who have responded, I have set up an informal email discussion group. At this point we have just exchanged email addresses which we include in our exchanges, with me as moderator. If you’re interested in joining, just say the word. But first, I’m sure you want some answers.
In answer first to your suspicions of my sincerity, I feel very strongly that it would be a mistake to discuss my core concepts on my website. There are many others who have tried their hand at alternate theories, as you know, and, frankly, their ideas are quite kooky and half-baked, either because they have the wrong inspiriation initially, or because they are unable to follow it through to any depth. But this doesn’t stop them. They go on and on making less and less sense, and ultimately end up just chatting quite irrationally in their own websites about all their ideas. I realize that some may still put me in that boat with my theory, but I see a clear difference with my book, and I will not diminish it in that manner. This truly is the answer to how our universe operates — not just in my opinion or pet theory .. examine the evidence as you read, even solid mathematical proof as on page 190, which it seems you may not have reached. Taken out of context, my ideas would probably be laughed off the stage, but in context, I hope you can see it is a serious, viable, scientific theory that puts standard theory to rest. Also, yes I am now aware that at least one other person has tried to pursue discussion of expanding matter on Google groups .. one of the other readers who responded (and who has volunteered a review on my site and is now part of the discussion group) informed me of that the other day. I assure you, I’m not that person and I have nothing to do with any such physics discussion groups. I have been well aware of the existence of these groups for well over a decade — perhaps two? — and have always been horrified by them, partly because they are so abusive, and partly because most people there claim to be scientifically educated and intelligent (and I’m sure they are), yet they banter on endlessly day after day and even year after year about who understands one aspect of our science better than another. In the end, no one really has any solid answers, which is why they’re all there, typing away endlessly, hoping to convince themselves or others of their current understanding, or hoping for answers from others, which never com. I hope you can see that that is all you’re left with, without my book. I have never joined these groups, and have had no desire to even scan them for over a decade, since I already know what they’re all about. This is the legacy that today’s science paradigm leaves for even our most intelligent, educated, scientifically enthusiastic people.
Ok, off my soap box and on to your core question:
I find that no one, so far, gets every point that I make in the book initially .. some are completely fine with points that others struggle with initially, and vice versa. The issue you struggle with in this email is a very common one for readers initially, and the reason is because you are open-minded enough to consider Expansion Theory, but you cannot help but still be ruled by Newton’s view of our universe. Even though you are willing to give Expansion Theory a good shot, your mind must latch onto *something* as its core “reality simulator” when you imagine and think about object motion, and yours is still half with Newton as you consider Expansion Theory. I struggled with this too, initially, and until I got over it I couldn’t move beyond *writing* the first few chapters, which you’re struggling to read. Let me explain …
Whether you realize it or not, you are still thinking of objects possessing absolute, straight-line momentum, as Newton stated. You have not yet reached the breakthrough that allows you to see that this is a fallacy that has corrupted our understanding of the universe we inhabit. As I show in the pages you refer to (p 119 -), all object motion is *relative*. Objects *never* travel in straight-lines with absolute speed and momentum — never. Even Newton realized this, but he invented a magical gravitational force to justify why his straight-line ideal never actually occurs — I mean this quite literally — never. Think about it. Objects *always* travel in curved trajectories past each other (even a ball rolling in a straight line rolls *around* the planet, as I state in the book). So, your struggle with orbits has one foot in with Expansion Theory and one foot in with Newton. You see the Natural Orbit Effect concept, but you force the orbiting object to still continue with Newton’s invented absolute straight-line momentum. In actuality, the object has a natural *orbital* momentum. That’s what objects *do* in our universe. Your mental machinery is currently *Newtonian*, and so you imagine this conflict of how an object could possibly turn corners all on its own. I hope you can see my point, upon deeper reflection. It is *very* difficult to make this breakthrough, but crucial.
Similarly, on the object coasting along by the ruler, you also have one foot in Expansion Theory and one foot out. You are willing to consider that atoms all expand within the *subatomic* realm, resulting in the effective constant sizes and other familiar physical laws that we all know and experience, but then you imagine objects expanding in *atomic* space, as if the subatomic expansion of Expansion Theory wasn’t there. Tough new concepts, I know, but crucial to grasp. The coasting object is not somehow accelerating in regular space here outside the atom. Objects, likewise, aren’t doubling every 19 minutes here on the outside. This is the underlying *subatomic* reality, which is not occuring on our atomic dimension but in the subatomic realm, *resulting* in effective *non* expanding objects that are drawn to each other by some apparent mysterious force. You are picturing the coasting object as if there is only *one* spatial reality — here on the outside of the atom — and forcing the *atomic* object, which is a product of the underlying subatomic realm, to behave as if it resided in the subatomic realm. It doesn’t. Again, as in the book, these are two sides of the same coin, where our reality is one side, supported by the unseen other.
Hope something here helps. I’m now getting quite motivated to write that FAQ I mentioned!
Best.
Mark
From: Dave Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Thanks for your detailed reply. Clearly, I don’t grok what’s going on here, particularly in figure 3-6. I’ll try to digest what you’ve said and see if I can view it differently… maybe it’s like those 3D images that are impossible to see until you know the trick of it. The left half of 3-6 shows the “reality” from an objective, non-expanding viewpoint. In *this* view, objects do travel in a straight line, correct? I just can’t mentally expand this diagram any further and get one object to get fully 360 degrees around the other.
Thanks again. Please do include me on your mailing list.
Dave
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I’ll include you in the discussion group following this email, Dave. As for figure 3-6, you have identified the crucial diagram. Yes, the objects are *trying* to coast past each other in straight lines, but this is never actually achieved even for a fraction of a second, since all objects continually expand, moment by moment. If objects weren’t expanding they would pass each other in straight lines, but that is all academic. If objects weren’t expanding, we wouldn’t be sitting here having this conversation, since that is how our universe operates, and this universe and its laws wouldn’t exist otherwise. Newton planted this straight-line, absolute momentum idea in our minds as if it truly described the objects in our world, then threw in his magical force as an exception. But, in actuality, there is no such magical force, and curved trajectories are the rule, not the exception. You are being introduced to the way your universe really operates, for the first time as an adult steeped in Newtonian views all your life, and it’s a difficult adjustment. If you stick with it, I believe you’ll find it a worthwhile one as well.
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Stephen, Nick, Dave Ruske
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003
Subject: New Member
Hey gang, please welcome Dave as our third discussion group member. I’m including the text of our recent conversations as some background to know where he’s coming from. If anyone would like to send him some of our past conversation threads, if you think they’d be helpful background, feel free. Sorry for the informal nature of this group, I hope to get something more formal together as time goes on.
/Mark
From: Dave Ruske
To: Stephen, Nick, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Sorry, but figure 3-6 still doesn’t work for me unless I spin the book.
My understanding of this figure is that the left half shows what *really* goes on, from the perspective of a non-expanding observer with some non-expanding ruler, i.e., someone outside our universe altogether. Call this assumption 1; is this correct or not?
Further, I understand the right half of figure 3-6 to be illustrating what observers in our universe will actually witness, by virtue of themselves and any physical ruler they have access to to be expanding along with the rest of the universe. This is assumption 2; correct or not?
Let’s give the two objects in 3-6 labels to further an explanation; let’s call the top object “moon” and the bottom object “earth”. Assumption 3 shall be that figure 3-6 may be applied to describing an orbit in which the “moon” object describes a complete course around the “earth” object, relative to an earth-based observer. Assumption 3: correct or not?
We do need to make some allowance in figure 3-6 for this, obviously, since the distance between the two objects in the right side of the figure is decreasing at an alarming rate, and a collision seems inevitable. Assumption 4 — and I’ll return to this one later myself — is that the velocity of the “moon” object, relative to the “earth” object, is just the right value to keep the moon and earth at a constant distance on the right side of the diagram. Observers on earth no longer need to worry about the moon taking the chimneys off their houses. Assumption 4: any problems here which invalidate figure 3-6 as an example?
Suppose an earthling takes a rocket up to a vantage point where she can see the view we see in the right half of figure 3-6. To make plotting the moon’s course simpler, she overlays her view of things with a sheet of graph paper with its origin on the earth’s center. North is straight up, along the positive Y axis; South is straight down, along the negative Y axis. She is stationary relative to the earth, so it’s the moon’s course she is plotting. Assumption 5 is that, by plotting the center of the moon on her graph paper, she’ll end up with a circle centered upon the origin of her graph paper. Assumption 5, though slightly idealized, is consistent with our observed universe, is it not?
Enough assumptions for a moment: let’s try a solid, irrefutable fact. As our astronaut plots her circle, the position of the moon will oscillate on both the X and Y axis in a sinusoidal fashion. Looking only at the Y axis, the moon’s position will go up and down, relative to the origin (earth). Looking only at the X axis, the moon’s position will go side-to-side, again relative to the origin (again, earth).
And here’s where 3-6 falls apart. Look at the left side of that figure. Relative to the bottom object, the one we’ve been calling earth, when does the top object EVER make any positive travel along the X axis? The only way this could even appear to happen on the right side was if the rate of expansion was overtaking the velocity of the object, but that’s a one-time crossing that will result in a collision.
More interesting is the Y axis. On the left side of figure 3-6, Y never changes. This expansion DOES account for: as the objects, the inhabitants of the universe, and all their rulers expand, the Y value we see on the left side of 3-6 shrinks to relative insignificance. The catch, however, is that it approaches zero, comes infinitely close to zero, but never, ever crosses into negative territory. This is precisely the same reasoning used to justify the Y axis “travel” in figure 2-8, and as far as I can tell is correct.
If expansion theory as illustrated by figure 3-6 was correct, what would our astronaut witness? A moon that seemed to curve around the left side of the earth, gradually slowing to a stop at 270 degrees. That’s quite clearly not our universe.
Now, I promised a return to assumption 4. Given that expansion theory requires gravity to be an acceleration (Einstein’s equivalence principle in the literal sense) rather than a velocity, and given that both the earth and the moon must be expanding at this acceleration, what is the nature of the velocity needed on the left half of figure 3-6 to keep the moon in orbit?
Ok, so that’s my dissertation on figure 3-6. Where is my reasoning incorrect, and how does expansion theory account for the moon’s observed orbit?
Dave
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske, Stephen, Nick
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I’ll field this one, unless anyone wants to jump in.
Assumptions 1 – 5 are fine, yes. After this is where you go astray. There are two basic oversights in the logic that follows in your email, both of which are very closely related:
1) You still assume that objects travel in unchanging straight lines unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force (Newton’s First Law)
2) You overlook the fact that different trajectories of passing, expanding objects can result in very different geometries.
Referring to point (1), objects coasting past one another do not continue in underlying straight line paths as they expand. In that respect, figure 3-6 may be a bit misleading. In that figure I show a Newtonian, unchanging straight-line path on the left, and the corresponding partial orbit on the right. This can leave the reader with the impression that objects travel completely disconnected straight-line paths from the outside observer’s perspective, while traveling only partial orbits in our world. That diagram was only intended to get the general idea across, but of course objects don’t continue on for entire stretches in this disjoint manner, then struggle to rectify them. Sorry, I didn’t mean to create a misconception here. Both perspectives, inside and outside our universe, are intimately connected, moment-by-moment — in a tight feedback, if you will. The moment the objects even begin to pass each other in what *would have been* as straight line in a universe of non-expanding matter, their expansion turns it into the tiniest arc of an orbit. It never materializes as a straight line path. Now, the objects are the same distance from each other as before, but arc-ed about each other slightly. If you just arrived on the scene at this point, you’d expect them to travel past each other in a straight line once again, but with the tangent now rotated slightly on a new trajectory. And, again, in the next moment of travel along this new tangent, expansion once again catches up, defining a slightly further arc of travel about each other, with the objects still at the same distance from each other. Moment by moment the situation essentially resets itself, but at a point further along the arc each time. This describes a natural orbital momentum. This is what objects *do* quite naturally in a universe of underlying expansion as they pass, and explains what we observe all around us in the heavens. This is the explanation behind the otherwise magical orbits we see, with an endless, unexplainable “gravitational force”, as Newton would say.
And, referring to point (2), you are overlooking the fact that different speeds and trajectories can literally result in different geometric scenarios entirely. An object fired straight up, even at great speed, will eventually return to Earth. What goes up, must come down; nice “energy balance”, end of story. Yet fire the same object horizontally from a mountaintop, and it will orbit endlessly. Completely different outcomes simply because the geometry was changed. Likewise with your comparison between Figure 2-8 and 3-6. Drop a stationary object into a tunnel and it merely seeks the center — travels down the y-azis to the origin of your grid overlay. Shoot it horizontally at a relatively *slow* speed and it travels a parabolic arc to the ground. Shoot it faster, and it orbits endlessly in a circle instead. See figures 3-8 and 3-9, which show that there isn’t even an absolute accelerating expansion of our planet for all objects — even *that* varies depending on relative speed and trajectory.
Does that help? Anyone else want to offer a different perspective?
From: Dave Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon, Stephen, Nick
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
So the left side of figure 3-6 is inaccurate? Certainly there’s no “feedback” from the right side illustrated, nor do I understand why there should be.
If, even to an outside-the-universe observer, things won’t move in a straight line at constant velocity, then it seems you need not only a replacement for figure 3-6, but a reasonable explanation as to WHY things don’t travel in a straight line for outside observers. Copple incorporated curved space into his expansion theory; perhaps the final theory needs to do the same?
Nope, the feedback idea won’t do; the outside observer wouldn’t see any such thing. The feedback explanation seems to be muddling the observations from inside the universe with those outside.
Dave
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske, Stephen, Nick
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I feel that this whole issue centers on the fact that we’re talking about two separate realms, one that is quite foreign to us (the subatomic or outside obeserver realm upon which our entire existence rests), and one that we live “trapped” within as a result. This doesn’t have to be mysterious or confusing, but it *can* be a bit at the start, because it requires that we think about object motion in a way that we’ve never had to before. Couple that with our collective *misunderstanding* of absolute straight-line momentum literally possessed by objects in our realm (compliments of Newton), and a roadmap out of this quagmire can be a bit difficult to follow.
I don’t mean to sound smug, Dave, you’re certainly within your rights to decide that I don’t know what I’m talking about and to dismiss my explanations as flawed, but for what it’s worth I also feel the need to state that I believe you just need to let my explanations sink in a bit more. Others, including myself, were at the same point as you initially, but eventually made the paradigm shift — like the 3D visual puzzle you referred to earlier.
I’d say that even your requirement that objects in the left pane of figure 3-6 must continue in endless straight-line paths is an oversight. Why must this be the case? Because Newton said it must be so in *our* realm? Let’s make sure that’s not the reason you’re holding to this requirement. If objects move forward a fraction of a measure, then effectively curve about each other in that same moment due to expansion, then that’s what they do. I have no right to require that some completely foreign realm do what Newton said they do in *our* realm, which *itself* was a misunderstanding on Newton’s part even as he stated it.
Unless someone else can find a way to express things better, I’ll leave with one final thought. Maybe rather than using the word “feedback”, it would be more helpful to say that after the first fraction of a moment — after the first effective tiny arc in our realm — what is the corresponding situation from the outside observer’s perspective? The answer, if you work back logically from what has occured in our world, has to be that the objects are now passing each other in straight lines on different tangents past each other. This follows from the fact that you can jump into the picture and start your analysis at any arbitrary point in an orbit. So, it is a complete invention of your mind to require that the particular arbitrary point at which you happen to jump into the picture then defines an absolute straight-line reference frame that the subatomic realm must adhere to for all time. What about the person who starts their analysis a second after you? And another person still a second later? Every moment is new and just the same starting point as the previous one, repeating the dynamic over and over again in an endless orbit. Momentum in our universe is a continuous natural orbital momentum, and objects continually and naturally readjust their geometry to give this result, provided they have just the right combination of speed, trajectory, and size-based expansion. There are no absolute straight-line paths, nor even any absolute geometries at all (again, witness the difference between fig 3-8 and 3-9). It is this absolute, fixed-frame thinking that is causing problems for you.
/Mark
From: David Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon, Stephen, Nick
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I feel that this whole issue centers on the fact that we’re talking about two separate realms, one that is quite foreign to us (the subatomic or outside obeserver realm upon which our entire existence rests), and one that we live “trapped” within as a result. This doesn’t have to be mysterious or confusing, but it *can* be a bit at the start, because it requires that we think about object motion in a way that we’ve never had to before. Couple that with our collective *misunderstanding* of absolute straight-line momentum literally possessed by objects in our realm (compliments of Newton), and a roadmap out of this quagmire can be a bit difficult to follow.
Agreed; we’re very much steeped in Newton’s ideas, and I’m prepared to be talked out of them if I can make sense of alternative explanations.
I don’t mean to sound smug, Dave, you’re certainly within your rights to decide that I don’t know what I’m talking about and to dismiss my explanations as flawed, but for what it’s worth I also feel the need to state that I believe you just need to let my explanations sink in a bit more. Others, including myself, were at the same point as you initially, but eventually made the paradigm shift — like the 3D visual puzzle you referred to earlier.
I’m not giving up yet, I’ll keep squinting. My first reaction to relativity theory was much the same, confusion-wise, although every mental attempt I made to punch a hole in it never met with any success. Radical new ideas do indeed take time to sink in.
I’d say that even your requirement that objects in the left pane of figure 3-6 must continue in endless straight-line paths is an oversight. Why must this be the case? Because Newton said it must be so in *our* realm? Let’s make sure that’s not the reason you’re holding to this requirement. If objects move forward a fraction of a measure, then effectively curve about each other in that same moment due to expansion, then that’s what they do. I have no right to require that some completely foreign realm do what Newton said they do in *our* realm, which *itself* was a misunderstanding on Newton’s part even as he stated it.
Now this is interesting. This proposes that the left pane of 3-6 does not need to follow Newton’s ideas of motion. I’d like to ask WHY they’d curve to our hypothetical outside observer, and, if indeed the paths would curve, then what precisely would they be curving AROUND? Newton put forth the idea that an object would continue along a straight line unless acted upon by some force; I’m sure you wouldn’t entertain that as the reason for curvature, as that simply reintroduces gravitational force and puts us back at the starting line. Einstein said fine and good, but space itself could be curved, and THAT’s the trajectory an object would follow; if that’s the reason for curvature, we’re back to spatial distortion and its root causes.
Now to our outside observer, a single object traveling at some velocity relative to the observer would, I believe, move in a straight line, would it not? If not, where and why would it curve? The outside observer would note that the object was expanding as it traveled, of course, but that doesn’t change its vector of travel. Correct?
If we assume that expansion theory is correct, there is no gravitational interaction between two bodies, merely their expansion towards each other. Barring such interaction, or curved space, I see no reason our outside observer wouldn’t see both objects making progress along straight-line trajectories. Should he start his observation at some later time, he’ll see both objects still continuing along these trajectories. Assuming the relative velocity is just right, the distance between the objects will have increased by exactly the same ratio as the dimensions of both objects. If the objects are arranged per the left side of figure 3-6, the Y axis difference between them will become more insignificant over time, as this fixed distance becomes dwarfed by the size of the objects and distance along the X axis.
Unless someone else can find a way to express things better, I’ll leave with one final thought. Maybe rather than using the word “feedback”, it would be more helpful to say that after the first fraction of a moment — after the first effective tiny arc in our realm — what is the corresponding situation from the outside observer’s perspective? The answer, if you work back logically from what has occured in our world, has to be that the objects are now passing each other in straight lines on different tangents past each other.
I respectfully disagree, and do not see any cause for interaction between inside and outside observations. I don’t see that we can take an observation from inside the universe and use it to “correct” the course of objects viewed from outside. They are both views, albeit very different views, of the same physical reality; no correction is needed, or even physically sensible. Yes, if we magically rotate the frame of reference of the outside observer we can achieve something that looks like an orbit, but doing so is once again an appeal to gravitational force, curved space, or, in the case of figure 3-6, a rotating book.
This follows from the fact that you can jump into the picture and start your analysis at any arbitrary point in an orbit. So, it is a complete invention of your mind to require that the particular arbitrary point at which you happen to jump into the picture then defines an absolute straight-line reference frame that the subatomic realm must adhere to for all time.
I admit that I am absolutely assuming something like Newtonian motion for an outside observer’s view. Again, however, if objects on their own don’t follow straight-line trajectories when left to themselves, what trajectories do they follow and why? Remember, I’m talking strictly about an outside observer’s point of view, which is the viewpoint we must take to understand what’s really going on as opposed to what we observe as expanding entities ourselves.
What about the person who starts their analysis a second after you? And another person still a second later? Every moment is new and just the same starting point as the previous one, repeating the dynamic over and over again in an endless orbit.
I don’t think so. The outside observer, the left view in figure 3-6, will see only one moment in time when the centers of both objects align on the X axis. Assuming a frame of reference centered on the bottom object, all instants before that moment will have a positive X value for the top object’s position, and all instants subsequent will have a negative X value. Earlier or later outside observers will therefore not see an identical setup; the time of observation matters. Regardless of relative velocity or object size, at no point in the future will the top object ever pass over the southern hemisphere of the bottom object, to observers outside OR inside the universe.
Momentum in our universe is a continuous natural orbital momentum, and objects continually and naturally readjust their geometry to give this result, provided they have just the right combination of speed, trajectory, and size-based expansion. There are no absolute straight-line paths, nor even any absolute geometries at all (again, witness the difference between fig 3-8 and 3-9). It is this absolute, fixed-frame thinking that is causing problems for you.
Yes, please DO look at figure 3-9. Now try to draw it so that the object above the planet makes it all the way around. This is yet another example of a theoretical “orbit” that will never pass over the planet’s southern hemisphere; as time goes on, it’ll appear to slow and then freeze over the equator on the left side of the diagram (assuming the diagram was large enough to contain the full image of the planet, and assuming the equator is parallel to the object’s path of travel). Extend either figure 3-6 or 3-9 and eventually you’ll run into the problem I’m talking about here; orbits simply won’t work.
Please do not take my comments as any sort of personal attack. I greatly respect anyone bold enough to engage in the sort of out-of-the-box thinking you’ve done here, and it’s apparent that a lot of work went into it. The publication alone must have taken a great deal of courage and resolve. I may well be wrong in my current thinking, and I appreciate efforts to show me where I may be wrong in my analysis.
At the end of the day, this expansion theory will stand, or not. It’d be really cool if it did kick the legs out from under most of modern physics. At the moment, however, I remain skeptical.
Thank you again for this interesting discussion.
Dave
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: David Ruske, Stephen, Nick
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I’ll try to re-explain more concisely.
Ok, picture this. You’re looking at an orbit of apparently non-expanding objects in our world, and imagining a corresponding situation of straight-line travel of expanding objects past one another from an outside perspective. If you consider this a valid translation to perform initially, then it should be valid to do so at any time. So, do it again after the first fraction of a second of the orbit. What do you get? You get the same two expanding objects, now back to the original sizes that they were the first time you did this mapping, but now on slightly rotated straight tangent lines past each other. Moment by moment, this is the dynamic that explains the very next fraction of motion. And motion is made up of fraction after fraction of whatever dynamic underlies our existence. You are understandably expecting to be able to stand there and watch things from a godlike perspective, and further, demand that events unfold in the unchanging Newtonian straight line dynamic that you have grown accustomed to as part of a flawed science in our mortal atomic realm. My perspective is that we have a perfectly viable, comprehensible explanation for what occurs in the next moment. Once that occurs, we have a completely new geometry that then moves forward via the very same processes that brought us forward from the previous moment. If you wish you can try to string these moments together from a godlike perspective and further demand that they adhere to Newtonian dynamics, but I question how valid that requirement is.
Regarding the two diagrams, 3-8 and 3-9, from your response it appears you may have missed the point I was trying to show. If you have a look and *compare* these two diagrams you’ll see that the Earth itself doesn’t even have an *absolute* accelerating expansion. Even this seemingly absolute dynamic depends on the geometry of the moment. If an object coasts very slowly by, the Earth clearly accelerates toward the object, causing a parabolic drop. But shoot it fast enough, and the Earth now effectively *coasts* toward the object at a constant speed as it passes, changing the earlier parabola into an entirely different mathematical beast — a circle — and a continuously orbiting trajectory at that.
/Mark
From: Nick
To: Stephen, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I think figure 3-6 serves to demonstrate a natural attraction by two approaching objects rather than two objects locked into orbital paths. It certainly aids the visualisation of how expansion could give the impression of a gravitational force attraction but figure 3-9 makes more sense from an orbital point of view.
I think the confusion occurs because the astronaut with the tracing paper is looking at one single moment and attempting to trace a future path from the original perspective where-as in a universe where there is only relative speed and motion the perspective is constantly changing moment to moment. You don’t really have to worry about the geometry of a complete orbit and in fact to trace it through from the initial start point ends up with incorrect positions. The reality is that the Astronaut can dip into the picture over and over at different points and see the same initial apparent curvature/attraction again and again constantly resetting.
The problem is that we are used to straight line paths and absolute momentum in the same way that we are used to the concept of a gravitational force as these are our apparent observational experiences. Its only when we look closer we find that they are basically optical illusions due to our view-point.
Its easy to fall into a visual trap caused by our current perspective. Take the fact that you may feel that you are sitting still at a desk while you read this but you are in fact travelling on a rotating planet at upto 1000 miles per hour and in turn travelling at 18.5 miles per second around the Sun which in turn is rotating in the galaxy at 135 miles per second and who knows what speed the galaxy is travelling in the universe – thats a particularly speedy desk you are sitting at.
Did that help at all….I think it helps to throw away the graph paper which interrupts the flow of the information. There are a few sections which are difficult to visualise but the theory solves far more problems than it generates. See if Standard Theory stands up to the scrutiny you have applied to this one.
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Nick, Stephen, Dave Ruske
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Yes, I think that’s basically my point, but another wording can’t hurt.
BTW, your description of all this motion of our planet prompts me to point out yet another point that Expansion Theory helps to expose. Yes all of that *relative* motion is *effectively* occuring, but unlike today’s science, Expansion Theory doesn’t say that all of this motion is literally being flung about in a real inertial sense. It is all mere force-free geometry. If you picture the Earth sitting stationary in space for a moment, that *entirely* defines our inertial situation. Put it in the midst of our solar system and you now have an *effective* orbit, but this is a purely geometric situation that introduces absolutely no further forces or stresses. The same is true of all the other levels of motion you mention.
The only exception is the planet’s *rotation*. Rotational inertia *is* real and forceful, and not a mere geometric effect. That is because, as I show in the gyroscope discussion, real physical connected forces are at work as the molecules of spinning objects tend to fly off tangentially, but are pulled or held back by atomic bonds. This is an actual, absolute situation of forces. All the other motion you mention is pure relative geometry, and is no different inertially than if the Earth were literally sitting stationary in space.
/Mark
From: Nick
To: Stephen, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
This is interesting as I can actually see this from both an Expansion Theory view point and Dave’s traditional Standard Theory viewpoint. Its not just a case of handing over the facts as with other Theories but actually changing the way people view things – Mark you really have a tremendous battle on your hands.
From: David Ruske
To: Nick, Stephen, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, Nick wrote:
I think figure 3-6 serves to demonstrate a natural attraction by two approaching objects rather than two objects locked into orbital paths. It certainly aids the visualisation of how expansion could give the impression of a gravitational force attraction but figure 3-9 makes more sense from an orbital point of view.
3-9 is easier to visualize, primarily because the object is so small relative to the planet that it allows us to effectively focus on the expansion of the larger object alone. So let’s move the discussion to 3-9. Now get a big piece of paper and draw both halves of 3-9 out another dozen steps or so. Draw it until the object passes over the southern pole of the planet, or better yet, passes over its original starting position. Scan in the diagram, email it, and I’ll be much closer to being a believer.
But if you introduce curved trajectory into the “God-view” on the left half of the diagram, I believe it demands explanation. “Resetting the coordinate system” to accomodate curvature isn’t an explanation, it’s a visual cheat. You might as well draw two circles on a piece of paper, rotate it, and claim that’s the explanation for gravitational effects; they just spin ’round, see? Curvature is natural on the right half of 3-9, that I’ll grant, but a few steps down the line the nice circular progression imagined will come to a virtual standstill.
Don’t take my word for it; draw it. If it works out, email it and show that I’m wrong.
Dave
From: Nick
To: Stephen, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
“Curvature is natural on the right half of 3-9, that I’ll grant, but a few steps down the line the nice circular progression imagined will come to a virtual standstill.”
A few steps down the line from the original perspective – yes the orbit will come to a standstill but in the expansion universe all geometries are constantly changing moment to moment due to their relative motion. The initial curvature is followed by another initial curvature adinfinitum because the geometry between the two objects has changed. This cannot be drawn without appearing to be cheating because it would be a case of resetting the graph for each fraction of an orbit.
From: David Ruske
To: Nick, Stephen, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
You can’t arbitrarily reset the graph of the God-view, I fear. Oh, you could make that APPEAR to work if you were plotting one simple orbit on the page, I suppose. If you try two such systems on the same page, though, with different periods to the orbits, now on one single page you’ll need to be twisting two coordinate systems (never mind the interaction between the two systems!) at different rates. Or suppose you had a system with two objects orbiting in opposite directions. The contortions required to extend a diagram such as 3-9 would become very, very strange, and still without any logical justification.
I believe there is a more obvious answer as to why this simple geometry problem cannot be drawn without appearing to cheat.
Dave
From: Nick
To: Stephen, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
“But if you introduce curved trajectory into the “God-view” on the left half of the diagram, I believe it demands explanation. “Resetting the coordinate system” to accomodate curvature isn’t an explanation, it’s a visual cheat.”
The “God view” is impossible just like the “God view” of 11 dimensional space-time. The diagram aids the initial concept but is not intended to be diagrammatical of the whole process.
“Don’t take my word for it; draw it. If it works out, email it and show that I’m wrong”
Can you also draw the 11 dimensions of space-time especially the folded ones. I can’t. Can you demonstrate how the existence of the higgs-boson particle could possible facilitate mass. I can’t. Can you actually demonstrate the existence of the higgs-boson particle. I can’t.
The list is endless. The problems you have with Expansion Theory just seems to be one of perspective. The problems I have with Standard theory are that it uses strange mythical particles and inexplicable forces to explain stuff. It makes far less sense than one that uses a single physical process to REALLY explain all observable “forces”.
I realise that to convince the scientists in the world a new theory would have to be bullet proof but from my point of view it doesn’t need to be. Cracks appear in Standard Theory the moment you look too closely. Therefore it is only the inertia of physicists minds that cause us to be stuck in the rut we find ourselves in. It is not that they are not open to the concept of Expansion Theory but that they are not open to any new theory whatsoever.
I want someone to fully explain all of the forces and energies (and magic) of Standard Theory…until that day I don’t see any need to fight the corner for Expansion Theory as there is no real viable alternative. Standard Theory is already dead in the water.
From: David Ruske
To: Nick, Stephen, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
So now the view “God view” of 3-6 and 3-9 is impossible to diagram, despite expansion theory orbit being a relatively simple, force-free geometric process? That’s really interesting.
Can I diagram 11-dimensional space-time? Nope, but I understand WHY I can’t.
Here we’re supposed to take some diagrams designed by the author to explain a concept, toss ’em out as impossible, and buy the theory anyway?
This isn’t some small crack. If my interpretation of these simple orbital mechanics is correct, it disproves pure expansion theory at its very foundation. That’s not saying that some elements of expansion theory aren’t correct, but it does say that something more is needed to account for observed gravitational effects.
Being open minded isn’t the rejection of conventional wisdom, it’s the willingness to view the flaws as well as the merits in any idea without prejudice, whether the ideas are conventional or radical in nature.
I’m an engineer, and I purchased the book because I’m dissatisfied with standard theory as well. That does not mean I’m willing to swallow any other idea that comes along without critical examination. But if you can’t convince ME, you’re going to have a real tough time with the people who aren’t even looking for alternatives to standard theory.
I’m still quite willing to be shown that I am wrong, but not on appeals to faith.
Dave
From: Nick
To: Stephen, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I think I’ve gone as far as I can to explain my understanding and I can’t see the point in re-iterating points that I thought were described quite effectively in the book. Basically the “God view” depends on straight-line mechanics and absolute momentum and I don’t see that the graph points of relative motion can be fully drawn…I could be wrong….it may well be possible….but I’ve not studied the geometry of the process as Mark has obviously done extensively. The trouble is I feel I may be making matters worse with my explanations.
I don’t wish to convince or force my opinion on anyone. I encouraged Mark to create this forum to help myself and others understand and discuss some of the concepts. I’m quite happy with the theory but it dosn’t mean it is the correct one, just that in my opinion is the most satisfying I have come across. You may disagree. You may feel that there is more that can be added to the theory to make it work better or you may feel that is is utterly wrong. Thats up to you. At the moment science is a closed shop and what Mark has done is empowered his readers – You can be involved in its development. After reading his book I suddenly felt that it was perfectly possible for someone such as myself to understand the processes that form the universe without a phd in astro-physics, a white coat and no social life…..and REAL understanding not just observations. If you are not happy with it – help make it work.
From: Stephen
To: Nick, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Nothing in the observed universe ever travels in a straight line. “Straight line” travel is entirely relative to the position of the observer. And in order to retain that (relative) straight line travel, one must constantly apply energy to keep it so.
A rolled ball arcs along the surface of the Earth. Spin a ball and roll it and it will arc along the surface of the Earth AND, if it is not a perfect sphere, start to describe an arc one way or another due to its off-center rotation. To keep that ball going in a STRAIGHT line, one would have to apply energy continuously to have it elevate off the surface of the Earth.
And even then, seen from the Sun (or any other celestial body or reference point) the ball would STILL be describing a curved arc, rotatating about the sun, with the sun rotating about the center of the universe.
There simply does not exist ANY straight line motion in the observed or observable universe. AT BEST there is motion that APPEARS to be straight, such as the rolling of a ball on the Earth, or the movement of stars on the edge of a distant galaxy seen edge on. But that perception of straight-line motion is itself an illusion brought on by the inability to have depth perception over very long distances or on the surface gradient of massive objects.
Since straight line motion itself is an optical illusion (like the impression that the sun and planets and stars all revolve around the Earth), if one builds one’s theory of the motion of objects based on straight-line motion, one must then add in all sorts of constants and functions to account for the curvaceous motion of all observed objects. The same was true with earth-centered observations of the heavens. It IS possible to describe the motion of all of the planets, stars, everything, as series of functions of things orbiting about the earth. But the description is not smooth. You have orbits doing epicycles, and you have to use several equations to describe different parts of orbits, just as in the physics, where unobserved straight-line motion is postulated as the NORM around which the universe “must” be bent, we end up having to multiply entities and forces in order to make the observed universe fit the conception.
Since straight line motion has never been empirically observed anywhere, it doesn’t seem like the place where we should start in order to define everything else. Curved and orbital motion are the observed reality. That is what all things actually DO. Starting there, one can calulate their geometries out rather nicely, with clearly functioning constants. McCutcheon seems to have done this geometric work for us.
Now, what CAUSES that geometry is the question he tries to solve with Expansion Theory, and whether he does it or not is worth noodling.
But I don’t think we gain anything in perspective if we found our physics on UNOBSERVED straight-line motion. Nobody has ever seen THAT, so it seems rather surprising to START with an assertion that straight line motion at constant velocity is the NORM (Newton’s First Law), and then warp all observed motion around that. If you do that, you need a force – like gravity – which is pretty magical really – to account for motion DEVIATING from the postulated straight line.
But since the straight line motion has never been observed, it seems as though the magical assumption is that straight line, and one must start by ditching that.
Objects in the real universe move in natural curves. They only move in straight lines, relative to an observer, if accelerated by a force, and they only REMAIN in straight line motion, relative to that observer, for as long as a force is applied. After that, they resume the curvilinear motion that it naturally observed everywhere.
That is a “law of motion” based on empirical observation.
Newton’s First Law is a “law” of motion based on a geometric postulate: ASSUME straight line motion is the norm, and explain everything as a deviation. Since experiment and observation reveals that straight-line motion is a rarity, is only relative to an observer in certain vantage points, and is only sustained by the continuous expenditure of accelerating force to maintain it, straight-line motion seems to be a singularly odd first postulate to begin with in order to describe the behavior of objects in the observable universe.
The geometries of what actually is observed seems a more reasonable place to start.
Now, that may mean that we end up without an explanation. But that is where we are right now. We don’t have an explanation for orbits, other than a magical force labelled “gravity”, which is defined to be the cause of whatever we see. Now, certainly that WORKS, but it does not mean that the entity really exists. Things fall to Earth, we call that gravity. Great. The planets orbit the sun: we call that gravity. Fine. Just because we label a mysterious pair of phenomena by the same name, and come to think of them as the same thing, does not mean that the phenomena are in fact related by a real force. It doesn’t mean that they’re not, of course. But that gravity always works and expends no energy, and cannot account for the motion of the observable universe (hence the creation of new, mysterious, invisible sources of gravity in order to make the equation balance…and the belief that these balancing factors “MUST” be out there to be found), is pure magic. Now, maybe there IS such magic, but we have to at least acknowledge that it behaves very, very badly when compared with other observable things.
From: David Ruske
To: Stephen, Nick, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, Stephen wrote:
Nothing in the observed universe ever travels in a straight line. “Straight line” travel is entirely relative to the position of the observer. And in order to retain that (relative) straight line travel, one must constantly apply energy to keep it so.
There are several problems in asserting that curvature “just happens”, particularly if you try to apply the idea in the “outside perspective” supplied in the left half of 3-6 and 3-9. Outside perspective is nothing new, neither here nor in standard theory: it is a useful tool for considering the universe beyond the constraints of our powers of direct observation. The fact that one cannot physically exit the universe to take such a snapshot does not diminish the logical utility of this tool.
The whole idea of expansion theory is describing these gravitational effects in terms of the geometry of expanding matter, rather than Newton’s mysterious force or Einstein’s curved space. We get only two choices for the trajectory of an object from the perspective of an outside observer: either objects not acted on by external force travel in straight lines in this frame of reference, or they don’t.
Mark’s examples portray objects traveling in straight line trajectories when seen from outside our universe. This is a reasonable way both to explain and formulate an expansion theory. Yet, as I’ve attempted to point out, this theory comes with price of things such as orbits not actually working, unless one does some serious and unfounded mucking around with the coordinate system used by the observer.
So, let’s suppose that the figures are not really accurate, and that curvature is noted even by an observer outside our universe. What does that fix? Well, the magical self-correcting coordinate system, for one thing. If curvature happens even for an outside observer, we just might formulate a way for orbits to work as we observe from inside the universe.
What does such curvature break? Expansion theory as a sole cause of gravitational effects. Now, from an outside observer’s point of view, it appears that something unseen is altering the course of objects. This reintroduces gravitational force or curved space or both. I suppose if the universe truly does have a sense of humor, expansion theory, gravitational force, and curved space could all be true, but this certainly doesn’t seem to be the clean reformulation of physics we’re all hoping for. The curvature, if present to the outside observer, must correlate somehow with the presence of matter to be consistent with our observations; willy-nilly curvature of object trajectories without reason would strand us in an unworkable Brownian motion universe.
Accepting straight line mechanics for outside observers will break the proposed expansion theory through the orbital problems I’ve been attempting to point out; accepting that objects curve from the view of an outside observer breaks expansion theory by reintroducing the very problems it attempted to solve.
Should we really be satisfied with answers like “real objects just travel in curves”? Isn’t that the very sort of magic that Newton set out to explain away? Really, if I’m missing something here, I’d just like to know what it is. I don’t really care to go through this just to wind up back in the 1700s.
Dave
From: Nick
To: Stephen, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Your assumption is absolute motion again – remember that everything is already in motion relative to something else. Eveyrthing everywhere is already in a natural orbit scenario. The curvature has always been and always will be. This view by the Outside Observer is based on two objects with straight line paths in absolute motion with an initial start point. A viewpoint that can never exist even within Standard Theory.
Its late here…I’m off to bed guys…..geez this has given me a headache!!!
From: Stephen
To: David Ruske, Nick, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
You cannot be shown to be wrong if your first postulate is linear motion unless perturbation occurs. Because then something has to tug the planet off course to make it close the circle.
If Newton’s First Law of Motion is True, Expansion Theory is false.
To be True (capital “T”), Newton’s First Law of Motion would have to be empirically demonstrable: non-curvilinear motion that did not require a continuous input of energy to continue would have to be demonstrated. But that cannot be done. Absolutely straight line motion on the surface of the earth requires the expenditure of energy to cause an object to rise into the air (and even then, it is only straight line motion relative to a single reference point).
Absolutely straight line motion in space (relative to a point) also requires the continuous expenditure of energy.
Otherwise, the motion comes to curve, about the planet, about the sun.
These two things are saying the same thing:
(1) Curvilinear motion about objects is the natural motion of things unless disturbed by force to cause a straight line motion (only for as long as the force is applied).
(2) Linear motion is the norm, and curves require a perturbation.
If the latter, what causes that perturbation? Must be a force.
We’ll call that force gravity, and make it a property of mass. That’s fine. But we have to then make gravity break all sorts of other observed physical laws in order to describe a force that behaves the way it does.
Looking at it geometrically does not require the introduction of a force which itself defies logic. Expansion theory may not be right, but it does provide an alternative way of looking at things. If it provides a flawed way, then we now have TWO flawed models. We certainly are not trading a model that works for one that does not.
From: Stephen
To: David Ruske, Nick, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I agree, no appeals to faith.
Expansion theory bothers me, because I find it really impossible to really believe that everything is getting BIGGER all the time. But it is a very interesting model…for surface gravity, possibly for the behavior of energy particles.
Standard theory bothers me as well, because it doesn’t work either. It does a good job modeling different pieces, but cannot link them without jamming in constants that don’t end up working either (hence the spawning of new particles, dimensions, etc.).
And of course NO cause and effect theory explains randomness very well, or explains the obvious existence of the mind at all.
They’re models.
Even without expansion theory, a model that allows things to curve as their natural flight path seems more in tune with empirical observation than a straight-line momentum argument.
And it could well be that the REAL answer is that the “ether” exists after all.
Particle physics are demonstrating (as does Expansion theory) that all energy is particulate. Every square micron of space is full of energy. There is no spot from which one cannot see uncountable stars. There isn’t much mass there, but there is an energy atomsphere in space that is not rarefied at all. Which means that there is, in fact, a physical connection, a thread of particles, connecting every star, rock, planet, and all points in between. We float in a SEA of particles. The vacuum of space is, in fact, full to the brim with passing energy particles anywhere you can see a star (which is everywhere). And that is true under Standard Theory, Expansion Theory, or any other theory that seeks to use the empirically observed universe.
A curve ball thrown on earth will curve because of the wind resistance. A curve ball thrown in space (or a straight fastball) will not go straight out of the solar system even if there is no gravity at all. It will arc outward, and one face of it will be pushed by a flow of particles that is strong enough to burn you to a crisp at the Equator in the sun for a couple of hours. Over a long distance, and imperceptibly, because EVERYTHING is being impinged on by particles blasted off of stars and, if close to planets, reflected off of their surface, the surface of ANY OBJECT in space will act as a solar sail, and will act as a force on one side of that trajectory, and will cause it to curve, just like a curveball does.
A curveball works because it is tossed with a spin into a slipstream of air, and the air pushing on the spinning surface causes it to deflect.
An object spinning is space, especially near a great source of particulate wind like the sun, is a spinning curveball. A curveball’s curve is tighter if the wind is stronger. And a planet curves a whole lot more when in the heavier wind close to the sun.
Space is not a vacuum, and for that very reason, even if it is not a “space-time grid”, and even if Newton’s First Law is right, and objects have a momentum, everything spinning around out there in space is getting bombarded, generally on one side, by a strong wind, all the time, a wind that uses the whole side of a planet as a solar sail. This is not negligible. Whether there really is gravity as a separate force, or some sort of linkage or even surface tension (as at the surface of a glass of water) in the continuous sea of particles that fills every micron of space between us and the sun, is an open question. Perhaps they are the same thing.
From: David Ruske
To: Stephen, Nick, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, Stephen wrote:
You cannot be shown to be wrong if your first postulate is linear motion unless perturbation occurs. Because then something has to tug the planet off course to make it close the circle.
Really? Even from the perspective of an outside observer? Then I ask you this: what causes the curvature? My assumption of linear motion (as viewed from the outside) originated with the examples in the book, but if this assumption is incorrect, then we need to explain curvature outside the framework that expansion theory addresses.
We’re back to a mysterious attractive force or curved space once again to explain this outside observation.
Orbits may or may not work in expansion theory, but they sure seem to in discussions about it! 🙂
Dave
From: Stephen
To: David Ruske, Nick, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
David Ruske wrote:
Really? Even from the perspective of an outside observer? Then I ask you this: what causes the curvature? My assumption of linear motion (as viewed from the outside) originated with the examples in the book, but if this assumption is incorrect, then we need to explain curvature outside the framework that expansion theory addresses.
I think that you read me backwards. What I said, in plainer language, is that if you assume that motion is linear, and with inertial momentum, then you cannot explain orbits without a force causing the deflection. In other words, Newtonian gravity, or something like it, is necessary in a universe where things move in a straight line with constant velocity unless impinged upon.
Of course, you are quite correct in pointing out that from the perspective of an outside observer, standing at a different reference point, the line is not straight at all. None ever are. But simple geometry explains that. If I am an outside observer moving past something that is moving, it will seem to arc from its position down to 90 degrees, and then to 180 degrees. It will move in a curve, as far as I can tell.
There isn’t a line that can be drawn that will look like a line from another moving point in every direction, and everything in space is moving all the time. There being no absolute motion, linear motion is perspectival. It certainly can be caused to happen…but you have to expend energy to do it relative to you.
Of course there is SOME perspective from which curving motion appears to be linear. Example: look edge on at the stars moving along the Milky Way. Now, certainly they are swirling about the galactic center. But we see, what? A line.
We’re back to a mysterious attractive force or curved space once again to explain this outside observation.
We’ve never left that problem. Gravity is mysterious. Curved space is mysterious. There is an explanation, but not yet.
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Stephen, David Ruske, Nick
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I sympathise with Dave in his statement:
“Should we really be satisfied with answers like “real objects just travel in curves”? Isn’t that the very sort of magic that Newton set out to explain away? Really, if I’m missing something here, I’d just like to know what it is. I don’t really care to go through this just to wind up back in the 1700s.”
I think this really speaks to his objections. I’m sure he sees the Expansion Theory concepts that have been amply presented, but he feels that to just accept these new ideas is to base a whole new view of the universe upon medieval, naiive concepts that science was supposed to free us from.
However, I would hasten to add that the explanation of orbits in Expansion Theory only *appears* to be a magical explanation to someone whose mind has already been steeped in Newtonian magic as their prime reality simulator. As Steve points out, even a “simple and obvious” straight-line path, which is the easiest thing in the world for the human mind to accept unquestioningly today, is actually a very odd, unexplained event, if it *ever* even occurs at all! It seem to me that Dave’s objections come from a mindset that hasn’t yet digested this, and which still believes that straight lines are perfectly natural, simple, unremarkable events. Someone with this mindset will obviously have problems with orbits according to Expansion Theory, because they believe, quite unjustifiably frankly, that straight line paths are the natural state of things in our universe, and that deviations from them need explanations. Newton would have loved this viewpoint, but he himself ultimately appealed to God when pressed to explain his deviating gravitational force. Dave’s perspective, and indeed the perspective of anyone first encountering Expansion Theory, is actually one of God mysteriously driving everything. I wonder if this has been seriously considered.
/Mark
From: Mark McCutcheon
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
To: Stephen, David Ruske, Nick
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Let me be my own critic here, before someone else jumps on this statement I just made:
“Someone with this mindset will obviously have problems with orbits according to Expansion Theory, because they believe, quite unjustifiably frankly, that straight line paths are the natural state of things in our universe, and that deviations from them need explanations.”
I did not mean to say that orbits just happen because that’s what we see, and so no explanation is required. I believe I provide a quite viable, physical, and useful explanation of orbits in our realm. What I meant by this is that if, from a godlike perspective of forcefully stringing moment after moment together from an “outside the universe” perspective, we have trouble rectifying straight vs. curved natural dynamics, that’s not necessarily a make-or-break for Expansion Theory. Who’s to say how the universe’s dynamics must appear from a theoretical god perspective? I’m simply presenting what I believe to be the underlying source of our experiences here, which *does* explain them quite well, quite logically, quite scientifically, and quite usefully — far better than any other theory today, I believe. We can further try to figure out what “God” must be seeing, but if we have difficulty doing so according to today’s Newtonian science, must that really be such a problem?
From: Dave Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon, Nick, Stephen
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, Mark McCutcheon wrote:
We can further try to figure out what “God” must be seeing, but if we have difficulty doing so according to today’s Newtonian science, must that really be such a problem?
Unfortunately, yeah, it sort of is a pretty big problem. The diagrams you use to explain why we see what we see in an expansion universe don’t seem to work as advertised, and the rest of your theories pretty much depend upon geometric expansion being the explanation for gravity. If the foundation fails, the whole thing comes down.
The explanations put forth to explain figures 3-6 and 3-9 seem vague at best. When asked to draw a correct version of 3-9, the response I received was that such was impossible without appearing to cheat. That, to me, suggests that either the explanation and figures provided in the book are faulty, or the theory they attempt to illustrate cannot withstand even casual scrutiny.
So I give up this line of discussion for the moment; it seems we have reached an impasse.
Along another line, my first message also made mention of the idea that with expansion theory, the effects of gravity do not diminish with distance. If I drop a wrench on earth, the earth expands to meet it at an acceleration of… oh, what the heck is it, 9.8 m/second^2? So in that first second the wrench drops 9.8 meters.
Newton’s gravity diminishes according to an inverse square law. It can and has been experimentally demonstrated that the same wrench, dropped from a healthy altitude, will in fact cover slightly less distance in its first second of descent. This effect shouldn’t be observed if I understand expansion theory correctly, because the earth will expand toward the wrench (and, to a far smaller amount, the wrench towards the earth) at a fixed acceleration, no how far apart the earth and the wrench are.
Gravity does NOT diminish with distance in expansion theory; it can’t, because expansion theory says it doesn’t exist. There’s only expansion, giving the effects of gravity… sort of. This is another observation apparently at odds with expansion theory.
How does expansion theory account for the experimental data indicating that objects at a distance do not have the same acceleration toward one another?
Dave
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske, Stephen, Nick
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Ok, we can move on if you like, but permit me one final response on this issue:
Let’s try a slightly different angle. Dave, you are essentially putting *yourself* in the position of God, looking at things from a godlike perspective. But, of course, you’re not God (presumably, and I hope you’ll forgive me if you are 🙂 and so you can’t even say what God’s view would be like or how God’s mind may function. Your mind and your mental abilities (and limitations) evolved here on the “inside”, with mechanisms that allow you to understand, represent, and imagine things that occur, and have always occurred, here on the “inside”. What kind of mind would a god have? Who knows? How would that mind have evolved, or otherwise come into being? Who knows? How would it function, both similarly and differently to ours? Who knows? What would such a being see from their perspective on the universe, if they even existed at all? Again, who knows? We don’t live in that godlike realm, our minds haven’t evolved in that realm and don’t function in it. Our experience and our minds and their function and interaction exist completely here on the “inside”. To use our minds to try to imagine what it must *theoretically* be like for a god on the outside is an interesting exercise, but shouldn’t be a show-stopper no matter how well we are able or unable to achieve this feat.
Yes, this means there remains a godlike unknown at the lowest underlying level of our existence and reality (the “outside” or subatomic realm), but this is *very* different from today’s state of affairs (and also, I provide a viewpoint that doesn’t require God at all later in the book, if that’s your personal preference). Today, “God” is with us throughout our science. Our science wouldn’t function without God sprinkled liberally all throughout it. Ask Newton. His is a “science” based on God actively pulling objects around the universe. That’s ultimately what his explanation for gravity was, in his own words according to what I’ve read and heard, and many other aspects of our “science” are similarly unexplained or mysterious. However, Expansion Theory doesn’t do this. It completely abolishes “God” and mystery from our science *here on the inside*, whereas current science sprinkles “God” and mystery all throughout our experiences on the “inside”. Expansion Theory, for the first time ever, gives us an entire unified science that remains pure science and simple, comprehensible mechanics *all throughout*, here on the “inside”, and pushes questions of God to the “outside”. Your objections have to do with the “outside”, which may always be debatable no matter how correctly we understand our universe here on the inside. For the first time, however, we have a completely scientific science here on the inside, and we can choose to contemplate the nature of God if we wish to further turn to questions of the “outside”. This is a first for science, philosophy, and religion, and this and other concepts in Expansion Theory provides powerful new ways to think about each of these areas.
/Mark
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske, Stephen, Nick
Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003
Subject: Drop times
First, a correction. The wrench would drop 4.9 meters — not 9.8 meters — in the first second due to the 9.8 m/s2 effective acceleration of gravity. [Mark is absolutely right, of course; I screwed up the drop distance in my message, but the point remains valid. – Dave]
Secondly, let me state that there is no particular reason why the dynamics according to Expansion Theory must conform to Newton’s invention of an inverse-square force, as I explain on pages 78 – 79. However, it must, of course, conform to observation and hard data.
Thirdly, I’d rather not speculate based on heresay. Could you point me to the data that you refer to? Specifically, what object was dropped, where was it dropped, when was it dropped, from what height, how was the drop-distance measured and timed, what was the margin of error, who did the experiment, was it repeated by others and independently confirmed and to within what degree of agreement, etc. I’m not trying to be difficult, but if you’re asking for an expert, definitive analysis, you must first supply expert, definitive data if you’re seriously after the truth, rather than a quick, off-the-cuff dismissal of Expansion Theory.
From: Dave Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon, Nick, Stephen
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, Mark McCutcheon wrote:
Let’s try a slightly different angle. Dave, you are essentially putting *yourself* in the position of God, looking at things from a godlike perspective. But, of course, you’re not God (presumably, and I hope you’ll forgive me if you are 🙂 and so you can’t even say what God’s view would be like or how God’s mind may function.
The point isn’t what God sees; the point is that your diagrams are the only theoretical support you have for orbital mechanics, and they don’t work. Orbits have not been explained AT ALL by expansion theory, other than to say “that’s what objects do.”
I’m sure you’ll forgive if that induces a little skepticism.
Dave
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske, Nick, Stephen
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Au contraire. If all I have done is to say “that’s simply what objects do”, then what are chapters 1-3 there for? Honestly, Dave, you really need to rethink your position here. I have given very specific, detailed, physical, and diagrammatic evidence of a very real physical phenomenon that is very likely underpinning our reality and experience. I didn’t write those chapters for nothing. Nitpicking on a particular diagram that was only intended to give you the concept, not to literally embody the “outside” realm on a piece of paper here in our realm does no one any service.
From: Stephen
To: Mark McCutcheon, David Ruske, Nick
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Of course it has been considered by all truly thinking people. And quite obviously it is true. Mind is an element of the observable dimension. And frankly, so is direct intervention and presence of the divine mind, practically all the time, inside of the human head. We carry on an inner dialogue with someone – all of us – and this someone very frequently has a voice of conscience quite hostile to our immediate desires, and even our own ultimate self-interest. People follow conscience into the guns and fire, for no rational material reason, but because they know they are under the impress of something that sees them and is greater than them.
Anyone who is honest with himself admits to the inner voice, admits to conscience. And any one who is an honest scientist admits that the mind is neither a simple meat machine nor a system in chaos. Self-directed will is both more mysterious, and more obvious, than gravity, at least if one attempts to explain self-directed will in terms of the behavior of physical particles.
On the other hand, once one accepts what is empirically obvious: will exists, mind exists, as much of a force in nature as electricity, and perhaps moreso than gravity (which might not exist), one ends up having to account for will in the natural order of things. One cannot reduce something that obviously makes choices to cause and effect, or cause and effect plus randomness. Efforts have been done to do this of course, by people absolutely desperate to explain everything as a chain of matter interactions. But the explanations are patently ridiculous and quite unscientific, in that they force, or simply ignore, data. The near death experience of human beings cannot be explained as an evolutionary response to anything, because evolution is driven by survival and reproduction of the fittest. Before about 1970, nothing that had a near death experience ever lived to reproduce. This complex experience is completely inexplicable by evolutionary theory. And since evolutionary theory is absolutely crucial to any sort of attempt to reduce mind to cause and effect in a meat machine, once evolution is set aside as a source of an important and widely observed mental phenomenon, the counterexample simply destroys the theory.
Mind, will, exist as obviously as lightning, and more continuously too.
That ought to lead us to suspect that it reflects a primary force of nature. Certainly since WE have self-directed will, and it is silly (and unscientific, and anti-empirical to say otherwise), self-directed will is a phenomenon that not only CAN exist in the universe, but DOES exist, openly, in at least 6 billion verifiable cases (and more if one considers intelligent animals as well). It not explainable by particle physics or mechanics. It may reflect an underlying force that causes everything else. Tellingly, it has always been believed to do just that by all peoples, everywhere, on the face of the earth. Equally tellingly, every single great scientific discovery ever made was made by a theist of some stripe. There is a revelatory aspect to important discoveries which cannot be ignored if one is an empiricist. One can trace a line from Copernicus and Acquinas through Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Mendeleev, to Einstein and observe a constant: all great discoverers themselves are absolutely certain they have peered into, or been given a glimpse of, the mind of God. This has to be taken seriously. If there were a great atheist who had ever discovered anything important, it would be a counterexample, but there are none. Every man who ever discovered everything of importance himself in science was sure that there was God, and sure that he would find an ultimate order in things because he was investigating the mind of God. An empirical observation can be made: only those men who believe in a mind of God ever discover anything important in science. You cannot name one single counterexample in four hundred years of scientific history, because there are not any.
And that ITSELF is a crucial data point.
If you do not believe in an overmind, or an organizing God, you will not have the requisite mental capacity to stick with the frustrating search for order and law in the universe necessary to finally find something. Only men who already knew that there was a legislator that made the natural law rationally has ever had a glimpse of what that law is.
An interesting fact.
t does not mean that one ought to run out to Mass if one wishes to be a scientist. It means that if one is a committed atheist, one lacks the mental openness to ever discover anything of importance in science. The mind that refuses to admit the likelihood of a legislator can never find a natural law.
Any REAL unified theory must account not only for the four forces, but also randomness, which obviously exists, and will, which more obviously exists than any of the other forces. Strong force and weak force, electromagnetism and gravity are all things discovered or described in the past few centuries. Mind has been self-evident for millennia. Trying to reduce mind to particles is silly. It doesn’t work, and ends up being a quite ridiculous exercise in ignoring obvious data and experience. Science is nothing but observed experience. Once something ceases to be experimentally demonstrable, it drops out of the realm of science into the realm of storytelling. The story may be good, it may even be true (like superstrings, for example), but until you can test it, it ain’t science but story. If you believe the story passionately, without empirical proof, that is theology. If you deny empirical evidence to stand up for a belief you WANT to hold, that is anti-scientific theology.
The best proof of the independence of mind yet provided appeared in a 2001 article in The Lancet, the Journal of the British Medical Association. This article was based on a 10-year study in critical care wards of Dutch hospitals, specifically focusing on the experiences reported by the clinically dead or those who otherwise nearly died but were saved. The data reported from these people is not surprising: it is more of the same information provided in the other 20,000 or so cases of documented near-death or death experiences. But the Lancet’s analysis of the data was very interesting. It went systematically through the proposed medical explanations for the experienced, and provided clear counterexamples from the data that rendered each explanation impossible. The near-death experience cannot be explained by the shut-down procedure of the brain, it cannot be explained by the change in brain chemistry. It simply cannot be explained with our present state of knowledge. And that was the final conclusion of the article: the human near death experience, documented in a ten year scientifically controlled study by medical professionals, with full peer review, IS NOT MEDICALLY EXPLICABLE.
This is not a case of “what about”…something obvious.
It is a case where the phenomenon clearly indicates the existence of mind and will in the absence of a physical support structure. Rather than deny the data, the Lancet authors were real scientists who bowed to the reality of the data: not medically explicable.
The Final Theory attempts to unify the physical forces, and … perhaps … does so. But it does not include the force of mind, and it cannot explain mind. Mind is something else, a reverse function of disorder in a sense. Mind works to overcome entropy…at least at our level. The existence of our mind, and the peculiar nature of insights that have led to the discovery of new principles of nature (the great physicists themselves all become highly mystical and religious as a result of their great insight. Universally they report two things: (1) I did not discover this, it came to me as a flash of insight, and (2) it came to me from God.
One can reject that, but on emotional grounds, not empirical ones.
The answer is pretty obvious. Natural law is really LAW, in the sense that it is the will of a legislator, and not haphazard. Because we have that will within ourselves, we are able to see this intuitively, and confirm it by the study of nature. Every great scientific discoverer has averred to this rather self-evident truth. Those who are rather small minded, not great discoverers, and who will never make any significant contribution to scientific knowledge deny the intuitively obvious. They do so largely for emotional reasons reflecting disturbances in their development. This is not the same thing, of course, as saying “join your local church”. Organized religion is only very tangentially related to the phenomenon being discussed here. The frank admission of the empirically obvious: mind and will exist as an observable force of their own, and we all talk to something that is a distinct “other” within ourselves, is all that is required to see the world as it clearly is. This requires a whole lot less mental gymnastics than seeing orbits, since this bit about mind is really self-evident, while orbits are a mathematical construct (nobody has ever SEEN the Earth revolve around the sun, except in a model…but everyone engages in the inner dialogue all the time).
All that said, perhaps paradoxically, it does not do us much good in the physics to try and probe the mind and the will. The mind is not material, and physics studies the behavior of material things. The LAWS that physics uncovers are the product of an act of will by the creating mind, as revealed in a glimpse of insight to a scientific quester of the proper mental attitude. (Denying that the overmind exists or can exist certainly means one will never accomplish anything of importance in scientific discovery. Atheists never discover anything, because their mind is closed to the only avenue by which any great discovery has ever been made: flashes of insight that come as revelations. It has never happened any other way, and there is no reason to believe that it ever will either.) One cannot explain the mind by gravity any more than one can explain the rules of grammar in reference to the laws of Newtonian (or Expansion) mechanics. Ideas aren’t particles, particles aren’t ideas, they have nothing in common in their behavior, and if they must be studied as a function of the other, it is more reasonable to study the simple mechanics of particles as the expression of a will that set the rules that way, than to peer through the telescope backwards, deny the evidence of one’s own will, and attempt to make particle mechanics explain the mind.
From: Nick
To: Stephen, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I’m not sure experiments have proved the inverse square law which would be a big problem for Newtons laws of gravitation. It seems that any experiments that don’t seem to fit the rules are then put down to anomolous high density regions under the experimental areas, while some have suggested modifications to the inverse square law or worse – considered a fifth force.
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf062/sf062p13.htm
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/node5.html
Its quite depressing really. It seems the data is always manipulated to fit one way or the other.
From: Stephen
To: Nick, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
It is depressing that people manipulate
From: David Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon, Stephen, Nick
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
If chapters 1-3 had provided any rational explanation for orbits in terms of expansion, I’m afraid I missed it. Hence the basis for this discussion, which likewise has failed to enlighten. Perhaps I’m a bad student. Certainly, I’m not inclined to accept something merely because it was printed in a book. Writing a book does not make one an authority on a subject, nor a good teacher; it makes one a writer. (I thought your writing was quite good, by the way.)
I was open enough to new ideas to buy your book. Having encountered logical problems with the theory, I wrote and asked how they might be resolved, rather than dismissing the work outright. I then accepted your invitation to this little mailing list, still seeking logical answers to my questions. Do you suppose I would have went to this trouble if I didn’t want to give your theory a fair shake?
“Rethink my position?” Yeah, it’s time to do that. I’ve wasted way too much time on this. I gave you your moment on the stage to make your case; you have failed to convince your pupil.
Please remove me from any further mailings.
Peace,
Dave
From: Nick
To: Stephen, Mark McCutcheon, Dave Ruske
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Science becomes more like politics everyday….politicitians with completely different mindsets clash, arguments are formed, everyone goes away more adamant of their original mindset than ever before, no-one gets anywhere, nothing ever gets done. Google groups all over again. Sigh.
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Nick, Stephen, Dave Ruske
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
So, should we just say that human nautre is what it is, and end this little experiment, or is there a viable way forward without repeating the errors of Google groups all over again?
From: Nick
To: David Ruske, Stephen, Mark McCutcheon
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I’m sorry to see you go and I’m also sorry that our explanations were not adequate. I orginally had difficulty visualising certain issues but I do now think I understand Marks perspective. Having said that I’m not trained in any of the sciences (computer science maybe – but that dosn’t count) and it probably shows in my responses to you. Ultimately it is for Mark to defend the theory and as you said it is going to be an uphill struggle convincing anyone educated in standard physics – either due to their newtonion perspective or due to a flawed concept. I think you would agree that Standard Theory is already flawed from the outset so as Mark said in the book…if expansion theory is flawed that leaves us with two flawed theories. Where do we go from here.
If one thing it has allowed me to become free of the chains of standard science. Right or wrong, I’m happy to have been given the opportunity to think differently.
Regards,
Nick.
From: David Ruske
To: Nick
Sent: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Nick, please accept my apologies for bringing discord to this informal mailing list. I really did try to understand the explanations offered here and in The Final Theory; I accept and admit that the failure may have been mine. But I’ve tried every mental technique I know to try and crack this nut, and if orbits truly can be attributed solely to geometric expansion, it’s beyond me.
It’s true that I’m going away believing that Mark’s expansion theory is flawed at its very foundation, but what I believe is of no great consequence. By exiting the list, perhaps discussion can turn to further implications of the theory rather than its defense.
“The nice thing about banging your head against a brick wall is that it feels good when you stop.”
Best wishes,
Dave
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Nick, David Ruske, Stephen
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
I echo Nick’s comments. This is a very new experiment for all of us, and I’m sure we all have the best of intentions. I’m also sorry to lose a member like this. Perhaps groups like this just don’t work, as evidenced in the largely dysfunctional Google groups, or perhaps this group just needs the proper moderator (I’ve opened that for discussion at the moment). I considered taking a more hands-off role initially, but felt that any conceptual misunderstandings might then propagate wildly. But certainly it’s an effort for the originator of the ideas in the group to also remain completely objective and unaffected by all discussion threads, so maybe that’s the answer. Though this still doesn’t keep things from running a bit off the rails between group members, again, as we see in Google groups. Regardless, I hope you realize that you added some very valuable comments and perspective to the group, and perhaps brought out a weakness in our little experiment that can be addressed, whether you decide to rejoin the group at a later date or not.
Thank you for your participation, Dave, and I know that you had only the best of intentions, as do we all.
/Mark
Random Access Muttering 
I’m not sure if this blog / discussion is still alive. It is 7th May 2012. I would really like to join discussion.
This blog is on life support, but I’m still alive, apparently with little to say to the world lately. It’s been a busy decade.
The above discussion took place almost 9 years ago and I haven’t been in contact with any of the parties since. One place you might try for discussion of McCutcheon’s book or expansion theories in general is the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum. You’re welcome to post here, of course, but I think that forum would draw in more interested parties.
:))) I see. Regarding current states-of-the-art in the field of life support technologies I hope this blog would last forever. Otherwise we’d be no doubt making a new billionaire who would be probably beating even Mark Zuckerberg’s network considering earning rates of the second edition… However, I neither want to sound disrespectfull here nor to be envious.
The idea is actually good. I’d say very good. However unfortunate, “The Final Theory” certainly lacks THE theory itself.
I don’t know if you are still interested to bring up a near decade old stuff again. Who knows, It might be still worthwhile to try to “rethink our scientific legacy” ones again 🙂
Seriously. The very reason I decided to post my comments here and not elsewhere is because a few years ago I stumbled at exactly the same place you did.
Frankly, I failed to acknowledge the fact that the McCutcheon’s picture of expanded objects may indeed lead to stable orbital motion with the non-zero eccentricity to be somewhat obscured factor of a constant volumetric expansion.
The major drawback of Mr. McCutcheon’s ideas is the lack of mathematical formulation of his “postulates”. I wish it wouldn’t be just another hunt for a quick buck, but that just me.
Fact is. It is indeed possible to derive meaningfull equations of motions from the picture we were given in his book, BUT… with the addition of some bizarre assumption… Namely that the space itself (or the metric) expands the same way the matter does. Which is in fact sounds even more absurdly than the expanding atom itself.
What he was actually trying to depict in his attempt to answer your question about the appearance of circular motion is the need to look at the orbiting object from the perspective of s.c. local reference frame (at a certain time snapshot). However, in order to do that, there is NO need to dismiss the old testament of Newton’s postulates. Frankly, I have no idea why he’s doing that and what exactly he is up to with that. It is actually enough to point (just like Einstein did) that the famos Equivalence principle is only applicable in the context of a local reference frame. It is this frame where the ordinary Newton’s mechanics can be used.
Speeking in terms of GR there’s always at least one local frame where the metric is essentially flat. (!)
Considering the picture from the local object’s frame (MOON) at a given timestamp there is always non-zero object velocity, which represents a straight line motion when no external forces are applied. However if we consider this motion from the context of another object’s frame (EARTH), it is essentially curved.
In this terms the world of McCutcheon’s expansion represents a certain case of GR where the metric tensor is a just a scale function of time. g^ik( t ) = g^ik( 0 ) * S * t;
Unfortunately this assumption alone brings even more problems then it solves. If it indeed solves anything.
Valery.
! bought the book with a completely open and receptive mindset. Unfortunately I quickly found example after example of flawed math, logic, and scientific “analysis”, far too numerous and outlandish to warrant complete detailed response. Just one clear but very basic example which casts complete doubt on the authors credibility is his apparent ignorance of the difference between force and energy . A force field is simply that it exists and contains no energy and thus needs no energy to maintain it. It only has significance when a material body moves in it which requires said body to employ energy transform from one form to another, In this case transfer from some aspect of energy inherent in or available to the moving body. His casual dismissal of Force x distance as a manifest form of energy can really only be described as a monumental ignorance.
In the rest of the book even more fundamentally flawed and specious. arguments are used in attempts to discredit Newton and Einstein. The lack of acceptance by any reputable scientific body over the last nine years speaks for itself.
Go back to school Mr McCutcheon and how to conduct scientifically sound analyses.
Good learning———-Colin
It appers someone has managed to awake the blog again…
Dear Colin, I guess I wouldn’t be wrong if I say that nearly everyone who gets somehow acquainted with “The Final Theory” would mostly agree with you.
However… If you consider to disqualify McCutcheon’s ideas alone from this statement:
>A force field is simply that it exists and contains no energy and thus needs no energy to maintain it.
then I’d say, it is a definitely wrong way to go…
A term “force field” used in modern physics is never considered as a stand-alone entity or something that exists by itself. This term is always applied in a matter of object’s interactions.
Its appearance in physics is owed by the work of O.Heaviside and J.Gibbs as a fundamental introduction of a vector analysis in the third (and currently final) addition of Eletromagnetic theory, originally written by J.C.Maxwell.
It was, still is and hopefully will be used in pure matematical formulations only. From the very beging its introduction in physics was considered to be somehow misleading. Unfortunately it still is.
In the context of what has been said above: Whatever force fields we describe, it is always a matter of exchange interactions that lead to state changes of all the participant particles.
In that matter there is always change/transform in the energy depending on the scope of the open system.
It is by our accepted definition that the term “force” is the change of a total momentum in time. Nothing more.
What I want to say is: Acceptance of a certain statement is always a matter of your own interpretation as long as it doesn’t contradict to what you have learned before.
However if does, then it is a question of what is really flawed – the statement or your interpretation… or perhaps your fundaments.
Besides, right or wrong is a matter of how many vote for one or another…
Regards,
Valery.
Dear Mark,
I remain in awe of Your excellent Theory, and I keep spreading the best word about it.
Looking forward to hear more from You.
Best,
Stan
Hi Stan. FYI, this isn’t Mark’s blog, and I’m not sure he’ll ever see your comment here. The text above is just a conversation I had with him and a few others concerning his expansion theory book.
Dave
Wow. I just read this 9 year old discussion. I had this crazy idea myself back in my high school physics class when they introduced Universal Expansion and shortly after discussed Einsteins equivalency theorem. It has been banging around in my head like a stuck song for over 25 years. From time to time I’ve scribbled some diagrams, considered creating some 3d models in 3DSM, written a few pages of implications I could imagine but every time I tried to apply it to orbits I got the same results you describe, a flat approaching the X axis. I understand why and it always made me shrug and think either the whole idea was crazy or there’s two separate things going on here. I have no physics degree or engineering degree so I knew I had no chance of writing proofs or equations to support (or even test) my idea. My biggest fear for years was that I had a brilliant, new idea that might be really important, and I was going to take it to my grave. Three days ago I did a whimsical google search for expansion theory and ran in to Mark’s book. I seriously couldn’t believe it. I have read the first chapter and it’s really intrigued me as he is actually a pretty good writer (albeit a little redundant at times). I’ve ordered the book and plan to attempt to read it front to back to see how far he takes this idea (which judging from the index is going to be a lot further than I ever planned). More importantly (and especially after reading the above discussion) I want to see how he attempts to explain orbits, because I never could. It worked great anytime I diagrammed light passing a large expanding object, or falling bodies, non orbital interactions between 2 or more objects, etc. but not orbits.
I had absolutely no idea other people had ever thought of this (and from reading people talking about this book apparently this isn’t the first time the idea has been presented publicly). I have little hope that my idea (or Mark’s) is going to pan out, but I think I’m as much intrigued by the questions the first chapter rises about Newtonian gravity as I am about the idea of expansion theory. One thing is sure, one way or another by this time next week I’ll have what I’m sure is a way more concisely written version of an idea that’s haunted me for decades and when I finish the book I’ll at least know if there’s anything to it or not. My advanced geometry may not be great but my bullshit detector works extremely good and since I’ve thought through a lot the points I’m sure it will cover, I’m going to know exactly where to watch for anything fishy.
Even if it’s complete nonsense, it will still be a fun thought experiment and I hope will bring closure to a topic that always made my friends roll their eyes back whenever I tried to explain it to them.
I don’t mind the money. It looks like he put an incredible amount of time and effort in a subject he undoubtedly was as haunted by as myself. He can have 30$ if it clears my mind on the subject.
Well, Steve, it’s been over a year. Your thoughts?
As far as empirical testing of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation vs. Expansion Theory, I submit the Moon Landing and deep space probes. The act of launching a rocket to put a spaceship on the Moon is dependent on energy calculations based on Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Simply put, were Expansion Theory correct, the Apollo spacecraft would have crashed due to insufficient launch speed, since NLUG predicts that the attraction of the Earth diminishes per the inverse-square law. Were this not in fact the case, (neglecting relativistic effects that are negligible at these speeds and potential energies), objects launched into space at 11 km/s would fall back to Earth rather than escaping Earth’s gravity.
Likewise, trajectories for deep space probes were based on obtaining a gravity assist from the other planets as they passed by. Gravity assist does not exist in Expansion Theory, but it does in a Newtonian three-body problem. Likewise, the ability of the space probes to fly off into parts unknown rather than falling back to Earth or into the Sun is dependent on the inverse-square law. McCutcheon’s claim about the space probes being slower than predicted disproving Newtonian mechanics is wrong on two counts: 1. Expansion Theory cannot account for the existence of escape velocity at all. Under Expansion Theory, an object launched into space with a single impulse will always fall back to Earth no matter how fast it is launched, because nothing can ever overcome expansion; faster objects will take longer to achieve maximum altitude and fall back, but fall back they will. 2. The slowing of the space probes beyond the prediction of Newtonian gravity can be easily explained by drag. Space is not a perfect vacuum, especially in close proximity to a star. The thin mixture of hydrogen and helium that fills space creates a very small amount of drag, which while negligible over short intervals, accumulates over time. In the course of thirty years, drag can cause substantial deviations from the no-drag calculations, even when the gas density is measured in atoms per cubic meter.
This leads into the third piece of evidence: deep-space astronomy. The fact that it’s even possible to detect astronomical phenomena from distant galaxies or even distant stars within our own galaxy refutes Expansion Theory, for Expansion Theory dictates that the expanding stars would overtake their own light, and besides, any light that could reach us from distant stars should be drowned out by terrestrial light falling back to Earth after two years’ time. Expansion Theory does not permit the night sky to be black, even way out in the wilderness or in low-earth orbit. Instead, Expansion Theory predicts that light emitted from terrestrial sources out into space should fall back to Earth about two years after its emission, as though the Earth (and every other celestial body) were a Newtonian dark star, whose existence was ultimately refuted by general relativity and replaced with black holes.
Speaking of black holes, McCutcheon also fundamentally misunderstands the nature of black holes. The evidence for the existence of black holes lies not in the fact that we can’t see them, but rather in the fact that we can see what’s behind them, refracted on every side. The Einstein Cross and the Einstein Ring are phenomena that occur because black holes distort the space around them, allowing us to see things that are behind them that Expansion Theory and Newtonian mechanics alike dictate should be impossible to see. This was first demonstrated during a solar eclipse in 1918: a star that was known to be behind the Sun was visible during the eclipse, just off to the side of the Sun and Moon, rather than being obscured by both being in the way of its light.
Excellent points. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone can actually come up with rational explanations for these using McCutcheon’s ideas.
Hey there “Myth Buster”! Before you run any further with your flawed thinking, think of changing your nickname to ‘Myth Creator’. You can’t even imagine what the definition of ‘expansion’ describes. Sorry to be this explicit, but you were first.
I thought Myth Buster put forth some pretty good challenges to expansion theory. I’m curious why you believe the thinking is flawed, and how you’d explain these observations in terms of McCutcheon’s framework.
In the first place – Mark McCutcheon makes all the necessary reservations that His Theory is just a beginning of a process to discover the end shape of our Reality, attempted to be described by a host of “Final Theories” that mankind aspires to create. But the brilliance of Mark’s mind is so far unsurpassed, especially when He clearly proves Newton and Einstein wrong, which is already an acknowledged fact.
Tesla used to call Einstein ‘a clown’, and I think that was for a reason, as Tesla’s Genius was sensitive for flaws in LOGIC, just as my Genius is. Unfortunate circumstance is, that you cannot transpire flaws in thinking to a person operating on a flawed logic. This is logical. If you can’t understand me by now, you never will. Still, I appreciate your blog. Best Regards.
I haven’t seen widespread acknowledgement that Newton and Einstein were wrong, though naturally new discoveries were made after their times, as one would expect. Tesla certainly was a pioneering genius, but so were Newton and Einstein and many others. Their theories have all held up well to experimental observation and practical use.
I’m tickled with the idea of some non-physicist tinkering at a theory in their spare time and eventually coming up with a theory that turns our current thinking on its head, but not so much that I’ll accept it without good reason. Such a revolutionary theory demands rigorous proof, explanation, and must (MUST!) fit with observed reality. To my mind, McCutcheon’s ideas miss these marks spectacularly on a foundational level.
Thanks for dropping by, and if you’d care to explain your views further, please feel free. I would ask, however, that you treat other commenters with respect. You’ll have more luck winning people to your point of view through careful explanation of your ideas than in denigrating their choice of nickname and simply declaring their thinking flawed.
My dear Respondent. It is not about numbers, it is about LOGIC.
For the True Science that is one seeking PRAVDA in Sanskrit literally The Heavenly Knowledge, or the TRUTH, it takes alignment with the LOGIC, and not anybody’s opinion. http://www.tiitinstitute.com/conceptiit.html#PRAWDA
In the first place – an open debate of physicists is needed to achieve a consensus in the basics of physics, and we don’t have any. Physics today is a business run behind the closed doors, for the sake of a business of a few, and not for the benefit of many, the mankind, us. Since it is a business, it is NOT A SCIENCE, not by standard of Merton’s Norm, CUDOS, and it means a total breach of definition of science. http://www.tiitinstitute.com/revtiit.html#cu
We do not have science of physics at all. We have a trade nicknamed “physics”. This is where we are as a civilisation today, and until this is changed, all our knowledge of the world is good for nothing, because of this heavy industrial bias. Please, check this up: http://www.tiitinstitute.com/revtiit.html and I appreciate your texts, as this is the only way to have it straight – through disinterested communication.