Arronax and Nasrudin are HUMAN

Well, I still don't understand how your theory could account for the observations we make on planetary orbits and crap like that. Or something simpler like gravitational attraction pulling one object further away from another object.

And I don't think you quite got my remark about shape of an object. What I meant was this: in your model, the acceleration an object has, related to another object, is dependant on its size *in the direction of the other object*, not purely on its mass. Which is what we can measure. So you see, it's the proportions staying the same that *causes* problems between your theory and what we measure.

Also, I don't see how your ToEE explains *anything* at all. And electrical and magnetic forces is just something I brought up in your defense, saying that you don't actually need a fundamental explanation right away as long as the maths make sense compared to the observations (these conversions were later ratified by special relativity, but that's pretty much an unrelated matter).

Can I just ask you something? How much of a physics background do you have?

And what exactly are the observations your ToEE explains? That mass is both inert and attractive? I thought general relativity made a coherent attempt at that. Although the fundamental, metaphysical "why" has yet to be explained, it does provide a model that *exactly* conforms to observations and also has this double role of mass inherently in it. I still fail to see how that works with your theory. Maybe with a massive amount of maths, exceptions and stuff like that you could turn it into something that actually looks something like what we see in everyday life, but I don't see it happening.

 

Calis, if you would like me to clarify what you don't understand about the ToEE you need to provide me with a clear example of what your understanding of it shows to be in opposition with observed phenomena. A possible example: a satellite of magnitude X completes an orbit around a sun of magnitude Y every 365 days; if Y is much greater that X then why is it that the sun doesn't envelop the satellite?? Understanding simple systems like this leads to an understanding of the more complex.

You're right. I didn't get your question concerning proportions. Please rephrase it or work it into a physical example like the one above. Speaking in general terms leaves much leeway for interpretation.

The ToEE seeks to answer that "metaphysical 'why'" that you speak of. It may expand our concepts in special relativity if we use it as a guide just as the scientists who tested and proved the laws of electricity and magnetics.

My education in the sciences is mainly comprised of high school AP classes: one year biology, one year chemistry, one year physics. I was able to go right into AP science courses in high school because I'd taken biology and chemistry courses in middle school. I've also completed a year of university level AP physics with labs. All of my science classes have been fairly explorative and not solely by-the-book. I came through with mostly A's and a couple of B's. This probably tells against me seeing as the greatest minds have almost NEVER been near the top of their classes, but keep in mind that the AP classes at the schools I attended did not have the most rigid structures.

 

Right, then.

I understand perfectly why the sun wouldn't eat the satellite in your model. I just don't understand why it stays in a stable orbit, as that involves an apparent change in direction (which, if I read you correctly, isn't needed in your theory). Please explain that again. Maybe I should just reread the thread, but I don't have time for that right now due to being busy with the university introduction, showing all the new kids how drinking beer works...

Right, then. Take, for instance, a bar of mass x and a sphere of mass x. Now take another sphere of mass y. In your model, the perceived gravitational acceleration of the bar towards sphere y would differ from the acceleration of the sphere with mass x towards the sphere with mass y, correct? This simply can be observed to be untrue.
Furthermore, the motion of objects as observed from an outside reference point actually conforms to the theory of attraction. You'll need some serious maths to convince me otherwise, frankly, I don't think you could do it, but feel free to try. So far you've done nothing but provide a few qualitative possibilities, but I'd bet my left nut that the entire thing falls apart once you start putting it in numbers and comparing it to actual observations.

Electrodynamics, after special relativity, is pretty much a finished, accurate model that actually incorporates the metaphysical 'why'. How does this relate to your ToEE in any way?

Once again: show me the math. Show my poor BSc-in-applied-physics mind what it's all about, because I really don't see how this could come anywhere near to accurately describing the observations we make.

Also, please show me what fundamental questions are solved by the ToEE, because I don't get that either.

As for my reference to general relativity (to bring that up *yet again*, then again, you really can't hold a good discussion on gravity without bringing that up), my point there was that Newtonian mechanics *aren't* entirely accurate in describing trajectories caused by gravity. Once you use the Riemann space as described by Einstein in his theory of general relativity, it *does* conform to this as far as we can measure.

My other point was that your theory needs a *lot* of nasty corrections to both time and the speed of light, with no real fundamental explanation for either. Frankly, I can't imagine this *not* breaking all the fundamentally sound theories we have.

And please explain how this is related to quantum mechanics in any way, because I don't get that either.

You see, my problems with your theory are of a fairly basic level. I don't even need observations on Bohr shifts or energy required for expansion (while both look fairly valid), I can poke apparent holes just by taking some fairly basic stuff. Get past that, and then we'll talk.

 

Ok, I will state my question again. Under ToEE, the APPEAR distance between objects don't change, but the actual one does. And that there is a longer distance for light to travel from one object to the other.

So I think thing will APPEAR move slower as light require more time than normal to reach eyes. And as object expands very very fast the time of travel for light increase fast, even to speed of light.

Then you say that light will also expand with the rest of the world. But...... my doubt is, even light expand (Which I don't think so), they still have the same speed of light (It NEVER change). A large ball and a small ball with the same moving speed will travel same distance in a given time. An "expanded" light will still need more time to travel to the eyes, which make things APPEAR moving slower.

Sound wave may get more "diffused" as time goes on, but it has the same speed, so it still takes that much time to arrive at the destination.

For this question I reread all your post here and I find all your "answers", but still this is not "sloved", as your answers are flawed. Please explain the question above.

Right, then we need DEDUCTION to make sure that INDUCTIVE thought is correct.

I asked three times, Canlis asked twice, and there are still no example. Out with it, man! (or woman, as I heard that you will have a marriage with Ferret )

 

These are basely accusations and rumours of the most heinous sort. Further propagation will lead to prosecution under the harrassment act. :razz:

 

Deker, the speed of light is relativistic. This means that mass and energy are equal and mass, dimension, and time increase with velocity. I've stated that the speed of light is scaled to the environment and this is synonymous with what I'm saying now. Although absolute distances are increasing relative distances are not and therefore the speed of light is maintained with relation to the speeds of everything else.

Canis, here are the explanations that you asked for. The orbit of the earth around the sun taken statically is the composite of two things under the ToEE. First, there is the linear velocity (placed tangentially to the radius of orbit) that the Big Bang's energy has imparted to our celestial mass. Second, there is the "force" of attraction that the ToEE provides and so the masses of the earth and sun appear to be attracted to each other. Dynamically, the earth is trying to whiz right by the sun on a parallel course but the "force" of attraction keeps the distance between the two at about the same amount and so the linear velocity appears to maintain its tangentiality (is that even a WORD??). The reason the orbit is a stable one is that if it weren't the earth would have long since crashed into the sun or left the solar system; the earth has established a golden mean. Really, everything is expanding outward from the universal core and so perceived circular orbits are nothing as such.

Your example is an interesting one and I think I can tackle it in a way that you can understand. You say that the bar (I will refer to it as a cylinder from now on) and sphere have equivalent masses and different shapes. Attraction under Newtonian mechanics takes the center of each mass coupled with the entire mass of the object to determine how quickly the objects close distance. The ToEE states that the objects don't change position, they merely expand towards each other (that is, if the objects are stationary, which they will be for this example and simplicity's sake); the object with greater mass will undergo expansion on a higher magnitude but this expansion is diverted along six vectors (namely, the three dimensions) and so its relative magnitude in relation to objects of lesser magnitude remains constant; hence, more massive objects exert a greater "force" of attraction without altering their relative size. Whether the cylinder is end on or not would not affect its center of mass.

I never said that the "motion of objects" was skewed when viewed "from an outside reference point". I made the statement that we are unable to establish a valid "outside reference point". If your viewpoint were absolutely stationary regarding the centers of expanding mass then it would appear that the objects were growing in your vision along lines of perspective, as if two distant objects were increasingly approaching yourself and each other. As it is, any viewpoint that we set up will expand towards the expanding objects such that the two objects will maintain their relative size and APPEAR to approach each other in a frame of vision that changes to suit the objects.

I think that the ToEE has possible applications in quantum mechanics, special relativity, and the father of all science, chemistry. Perhaps our understanding of electrodynamics is fairly complete yet I think that the ToEE could enrich that understanding. With quantum mechanics, we are constantly trying to find new properties at the subatomic level. I think that if the theoreticians in this field adopted the ToEE they would see how futile it is to investigate smaller and ever smaller levels of matter and perhaps turn their attentions to the way that matter at or near our levels can affect things; perhaps they could form new equations or theorems incorporating the infinite disintegration of matter and cast some more light on the field. Special relativity is a field that I feel has some holes in it and that the ToEE might be able to fill these gaps in our knowledge. Not one of the specialists has a very good explanation for frame-dragging or geodetic effect. I think the ToEE might come to show that the expansion of matter is a possible cause for these space-time anomalies; perhaps exponential expansion possesses or exerts some sort of field effect that we haven't even looked into because we haven't considered that all matter is undergoing some sort of universal change. Chemistry is just another level of matter that we don't fully understand. What REALLY causes molecular ionization?? How is it that atoms interact with each other on the subatomic level when combining to form new molecules or separating from each other to release energy?? These are questions that I feel haven't been answered in any full or comprehensive manner. If scientists were to adopt the ToEE as a guide I can see only good coming from it.

 

I'm not going to argue with you, but I thought I'd better point out what I read Calis' post to say:

If everything is expanding equally and relatively, then two objects of equal mass and different shape will show unequal expansion, which doesn't happen through observation. This is because if all atoms are expanding and dividing equally, then the bar will expand exponentially more rapidly lengthwise than it will widthwise because the expanding effects on each atom stack. As such, a sphere of equal mass to a bar will expand more slowly towards an object than a lengthwise bar will. This does not happen, so this is what I read Calis' position to bring doubt to your subject in.

How can chemistry be the father of all science? Physics came before chemistry when we started shaping rocks with harder rocks. In addition, chemistry cannot be explained without physics. Physics is the study of the underlying nature of the universe and so it is physics that is the father of all science.

Just thought I'd let you know.

So you basically just want to narrow down our field of knowledge with a theory that can't even be shown to exist? It's all well and good to say that they can just 'come up' with a new equation to explain it, but it has to be backed up with observation and experiementation anyway, so infact your ToEE would increase the amount of sub-atomic exploration, not decrease it.

The transfer of electrons to or from the molecule. Simple. I also see absolutely no relevance to your ToEE. Or do you wish to explain simple electron migration with your theory too? Perhaps it's the cause of electricity? Or evolution? Maybe it's what makes old grannies cross the road without looking. :roll:

Except that it would require the entire scientific community to undergo a complete reversal of everything it has observed and experienced, since the dawn of science as a field of study. That sort of change would set us back to the dark ages in understanding and set the human race back my thousands of years. Lots of good. yes. :lol:

 

You should probably start with the fundamentals of special relativity here, which is basically:
Person A is moving with a constant speed v, while person B is standing still (yeah, it's all relative, but let's call person A the mover)
Person A is shining a flashlight in the direction he's moving. Now, by some magical reason both person A and B can see the photons flying and can measure their exact speeds. What happens now? Person A can 'see' the photons moving forward with the speed of light, 'c'.
That's all pretty logical, since person A is the one shining the flashlight.
HOWEVER. Person B ALSO sees the photons moving with velocity c, while you would expect him to observe a velocity of c+v.
The conclusion we can draw from this is that both space and time are affected by the relative velocity of the system you're measuring it from (or in).
And no, I still don't see how this makes your ToEE any more valid. Instead of using stuff you've read in articles, you should probably look at the fundamentals.

First of all, I'm Calis, not Canis. Canis came here long after I did (which is pretty logical since I founded the damn thing. )
Also, while this could potentially make sense in a one-satellite system, it does not in any way explain the various, different orbits of, say, planets in the solar system around the sun. Face it, you simply can't explain the altered trajectories of planets due to each others' attraction with your ToEE. And if you can, you need to once again: do the math and show it. Your theory is worthless without it.

Well, Ferret explained my problem already. I'm not talking about moving the center of mass. I'm talking about the acceleration with which the distance between the two objects is closed. And in your model, that's dependent on shape.

Once again, qualitative nonsense that you should be able to back up with a sound mathematical model for it to be of any use. As of now, it's nothing more than a 'maybe, could be'.

Quantum mechanics is basically a thrown-together statistical theory based on observations. I agree with you if you say that it needs fundamental backing, but I still fail to see how the ToEE would eliminate the need for this.
Besides, this splitting of particles the ToEE depends on is entirely unobservable.

Ok, now you just convinced me that you have no idea what the theory is about. Quit talking in terms you picked up in articles and try to understand the fundamentals behind these theories instead.

Once again, completely logical in the context of general relativity. You can argue that on a metaphysical level we don't understand enough of the 'why', but it's an accurate description of what happens, contrary to your ToEE.

I'm quickly being convinced that the reason you feel they haven't been explained properly is that you lack the theoretical background to understand the theories so far. Try again in a few years, after you've really dug into these theories, and once again, have done the math.

 

Okay, let's go back to the cylinder and sphere example again. Ferret's interpretation of Calis's system goes to show that Ferret believes that Calis thinks that there is non-uniform expansion taking place. Under the ToEE all objects are undergoing uniform, exponential expansion. If the length of the cylinder has expanded by some given scale then the cylinder's diameter has undergone an equivalent change in scale. The total shape has not been altered in any observable way and yet the cylinder is larger in the absolute sense. If the cylinder is end on to the sphere then it will be observed that the cylinder is expanding towards the sphere faster as a result of its shape; this meshes with the Newtonian mechanic that depicts the relation of mass and distance: objects (or integral slices of objects) which are nearer to one another exert a greater "force" of attraction except with the ToEE it is the outer boundaries of objects expand towards nearby objects with a perceived acceleration which is greater than towards objects which are farther away. Shape DOES affect the "force" of attraction in both instances; a torus in the Newtonian model and a torus affected by the ToEE behave in the same perceptible ways. Once again, the math is the same and it is the interpretation of g which has been augmented.

The same goes for complex orbital systems; your implied example shows that you are still trying to reconcile that gravity is something which has an actual affect on distant objects. Under the ToEE gravity is defined solely by an object's mass; any perceived attraction is really a change in relative viewpoint and an inaccurate gauge of the absolute. I was showing you an example in a single satellite system for simplicity's sake. Just as teaching is done with simple examples that move to the more complex I am using a simple foundation which is applicable to higher and higher mental constructions: matter, at its base, is disintegrating and expanding. It IS something of a mental Moebius strip to one who is thoroughly familiar with the "force" of gravity; you must change your understanding of this "force" from a cause to an effect.

Calis, I do not understand how your initial example is detrimental to the ToEE. Please, when you provide me with an example, point out to me just how you think your example clashes with the ToEE; do not leave me to figure this out on my own because many conclusions can be drawn from a simple allusion. I understand your skepticism on this topic but you must use clear language and refrain from rhetoric in order for this argument to be a productive one.

Scientific thought often makes theoretical and mathematical advances without having the proof of observation until much later. Sometimes you can't see something without knowing what to look for. The ToEE may NEVER be proven in the absolute sense but if it does not conflict with what we already know and it can possibly add to that knowledge, why should we shun its theoretical existence?? Examining the possibilities has YET to set us back a thousand years.

 

I don't think so, sparky. The effect of acceleration is entirely dependant on shape in your example, while it isn't in Newtonian mechanics. It's that simple. The math is in no way the same. The acceleration effect with which the perceived distance between objects is closed, depends on shape and orientation in your model, as the speed with which the outer boundaries move towards each other is dependant on shape & orientation. I still don't see how the math would be the same. In fact, all my physics instincts scream "No, they aren't".

And MY point is that the perceived effects of gravity, of objects actually influencing each other's paths, is once again impossible to reconcile with the ToEE, mathematically. Excuse me for placing the burden of proof on you, but that's exactly what I'm doing. Instead of just saying "It's the classic Newtonian mechanics maths, only with a different explanation" you should probably work out a complete set of new maths for your system and try to reconcile them with our observations. Now I can certainly understand if this isn't something you're gonna manage with a simple forum post, so I guess we'll have to wait for your first publication.

I'm not having any trouble with that, I'm having trouble reconciling it with what we can observe.

Excuse me? All you do is make vague allusions to theories you claim lack fundamental backing. You need to come up with something more concrete as well.

And my point is that it *does* conflict with pretty much everything we can observe. While examining a possibility never hurts, from my point of view, this theory is pretty damn near impossible to reconcile with observations. And don't worry about me being closed-minded, I haven't studied anything for about a year. (I'm resuming my MSc applied physics classes in december)

I think we just need to leave it at this. You're not gonna be able to come up with a coherent set of models that are fundamentally based in your ToEE, at least not on a short term basis, and until a die-hard physicist works out the math it's impossible to carry any meaningful discussion on it.

And I'll be damned if I'm gonna do it, because, once again, my instincts scream against this being possible to reconcile with observation. So get on with it, and get it published or something.

 

To my perception, this is EXACTLY what you are having trouble with. In the simplified Newtonian model taught in high schools, it is simply the centers of mass that are taken into consideration. University-level physics teaches that one must actually take integral slices of objects and compare each one's effect to the effects of all the integral slices of the interacting object. The torus I alluded to still has a center of gravity which is the geometric center of the object and yet objects which have irregular shapes have displaced centers of gravity. Shape DOES matter in the Newtonian model of gravity, as does orientation, and both have their applications in the ToEE. If you accept my deductions on how expansion provides the "force" of gravity in a simple example of two bodies, then I fail to see how you accept that example as applied to a more complex system. You go so far as to say, ". . . MY point is that the perceived effects of gravity, of objects actually INFLUENCING each other's paths, is once again impossible to reconcile with the ToEE, mathematically." I have stated that objects don't directly INFLUENCE one another, and this is where I believe you have failed to separate cause and effect (Newtonian gravity being a cause, ToEE gravity being an effect).

If you do NOT agree with my simple example, then I ask you to provide its counter and explain why you think the ToEE fails in contrast to Newtonian laws. To say that you don't "feel" that my theory is correct, that your "instincts" tell you it isn't so is entirely ludicrous. The advance of scientific thought is rarely, if ever, an instinctual process. If my theory is fundamentally flawed then you should have no difficulty in pointing out that flaw with an example that is as simple as you believe my understanding of physics to be. I should not have to provide you with a complex mathematical formula when my ToEE so "obviously" disagrees with modern thought.

 

I am well aware of the fact that an object's shape does matter in Newtonian gravitation. Let me once again try to make my problem clear:
In a simplified model of newtonian gravitation (with the dimensions of both bodies of mass being much smaller than the distance between their centers of gravity), the total mass is all that matters. I know you have to take mass distribution into consideration and integrate over the total volume of both bodies, but let me describe why this is still vastly different from your model:

If you say the bodies don't actually move but expand proportionally, the rate of expansion in any one direction is going to depend on the size of the body in that direction. A cylinder will expand faster in the direction of its axis than in the direction of its radius, resulting in a faster perceived gravitation of the cylinder towards another body than along its radius. I don't see how you can reconcile this with a simplified model of Newtonian gravitation, or even the more accurate method of integration over infinitesimal pieces of mass of both volumes. I don't know how I can explain my problem any more clearly than that.

 

Assume that the cylinder's length exceeds its diameter by several times and that the cylinder is end on to the spherical mass for the purposes of this example (and the sake of simplicity). In the Newtonian model the cylindrical mass will accelerate towards the spherical mass faster than a sphere of the same mass. This is because the integral slices of the cylinder that are nearest to the sphere experience a greater pull than those which are further away and in the Newtonian model distance is everything (hence, the integral slices which are furthest from the spherical mass exert a negligible effect when compared to those slices which are nearest; mass has an inverse relationship to the SQUARE of the distance). The cylinder will close distance faster than a sphere of the same mass because a greater proportion of the cylinder's mass has been extruded towards the spherical mass. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

When this example is examined in light of the ToEE, the same perceived accelerations occur. The cylinder expands faster lengthwise than it does diametrically and so its expansion would sooner collide with the spherical mass than two spheres of equivalent mass. The time it takes to close distances under Newtonian law and the ToEE is exactly the same. Take this example to more complex systems and you will note that orbital bodies don't influence each other, they merely appear to do so because of their proximities.

 

My problem is that in newtonian gravitation, this will not be very significant if the starting distance between the two is much larger than the cylinder's length. In your model, it is.

 

Specifically??

 

Well.. so far, Calis' points seem fairly specific to me. He has continuously pointed out exactly where your theory fails compared to Newtonian theory, as well as pointing out some examples. Which is more than you have done yourself.

You seem to like to criticise people for their use of language, yet you yourself seem imcapable of reading meanings into other people's posts, despite being repeatedly stated quite blatantly. :???:

 

Exactly. I may not have shown a direct qualitative difference, but I think I have shown that in various cases the quantitative differences are too large to just sweep under the rug and/or fix with some fine-tuning. And since our working model of gravitation is pretty gosh darn accurate (jeepers), I'm tempted to give the ToEE the "nice try, but sorry" treatment.

And another point is - once again - general relativity. This theory does, in fact, correctly predict the exact trajectory of all kinds of planets, especially Mercury (a specific case where Newtonian gravitation fails). Why am I bringing this up again? Well, mainly because the fundaments of the theory. One of the things that brought Einstein to this theory (after a LONG time - special relativity was something he shook out of his sleeve in no time, but general relativity cost him a fair amount of brain-crunching) was the observation that a physical disturbance cannot travel faster than the speed of light (yes, yes, simplification. Sue me, this is game site forum physics). This holds true for electromagnetic effects, and Einstein suspected this held true for gravitation as well.

Guess what, using this premise, he came up with a theory that worked *exactly* according to observations. The problem here is that general relativity is a theory that hinges - among other things - on gravity being a real effect, a real force, that propagates with the speed of light. This is once again impossible to rhyme with bodies that expand independently, giving the perceived effect of attraction.

I don't see how you could come up with any other fundamentally sound explanation for what I've just stated than that the perceived gravitation is, in fact, a real force and not just a perceived effect of expansion.

EDIT:
Ok, STILL more clarification needed for my cylinder example?
Cylinder and sphere. Far apart. (distance r >> cylinder length).
In Newtonian gravitation, the difference between taking mass centers and the distance between them would be negligible, as the difference in distance between various integral slices would be negligible. In your example, the expansion speed and hence the perceived acceleration of the objects towards one another would depend significantly on shape, *no matter the distance to the other object*.
This is just one simple example that shows the two theories are impossible to reconcile mathematically, and since the theories we have are dead-on as far as we can measure, it's a big red warning sign that says "this ToEE theory just doesn't hold".

 

You say you can take this to more complex systems. Let's take a baby step. How can, for instance, the moon be between the earth and the sun at one time, and behind the earth at another? How are you going to explain this with linear motion and expansion? And no vague qualitative allusions please, convince me that your theory makes mathematical sense in this particular case.

 

For some troubles I am busy for servel days. Glad to see Calis here and point out some examples, or I afraid with no one but Cobra here he will again say he "won by defealt".

And again, I must do some grave digging, to get my dying body back.

Woo! Can speed of light change with the mass and dimension? I haven't read anything about it. And can you tell me from where we observe and deduce that light speed does so? I want to hear the story.

And from reading Calis's post give me some ideas. So according to ToEE, attraction is bought by expanding matter pushing each other. So, as I read nothing about "Dark matter", or anything about matter in space, I wonder what is between the Earth and the Sun, to give them attaction? Should the matter in Earth expand toward the sun and via verse until the two group of matter push each other?

And Calis, nice counter on the theroy, and very clear example. And I still wonder what Cobra is saying on reacting your points.

 

Calis, I'm not sure what they teach at your school but I learned it that every bit of matter exerts its "force" of gravity on every other bit of matter in the universe. Although "forces" may counteract each other or become negligible with great distance shape is ALWAYS a factor in the Newtonian model. If you were to find yourself floating in intergalactic space at the exact center of the hole of a gargantuan lead doughnut then the pull of its "forces" would cancel each other out and you would experience zero-G so long as you did not stray from the exact center. Shapes are important in the Newtonian model just as they are important to the ToEE. I've said it before and I think it bears repeating at this juncture: the ToEE adds definition to the constant g; nothing more, nothing less. That definition fits into the Newtonian model as far as I can see.

Also, your "baby step" is a mutilation of the ToEE's foundation. I have stated before that tangential velocity is taken directly from the Big Bang. The ToEE merely explains the "force" of gravity. That the Earth-Moon mass happens to spin at a different rate than the Sun-Earth mass has almost NOTHING to do with the ToEE.

Lord Deker, you seem to be stumbling over the definition of relativistic which I happened to have stated in the last quote you made of me. That, or I am mistaking your question. I'm not really sure which so please state your case more clearly.