the expanding matter hypothesis

All non-Go discussions should go here.
phillip1882
Lives in gote
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:31 am
Rank: 6k
GD Posts: 25
OGS: phillip1882
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 39 times

the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by phillip1882 »

"if you put a balloon in a vacuum environment, it will get bigger and bigger until *bam* it pops. I suspect matter expands in a similar fashion and for the same reason."
-Mark McCutcheon, The Final Theory

so I really enjoyed this book and thought I would post some of the highlights.

re-examining gravity:
geometric orbits
prior to Isaac Newton's theoretical discovery of gravity, there was already a framework of equations that perfectly describe the motion of orbiting bodies without any appeal to force, written by Johannes Kepler.
1. the orbiting body moves about in an elliptical fashion, with the orbited body at a focal point.
2. the area swept out by the distance between the orbited body and the orbited body over an equal amount of time is equal.
3. the average distance between the two bodies, cubed, divided by the time taken to orbit, squared, is constant.
note there's no mention of mass or force, yet any orbit can be described by these principles.
even for falling objects force is an unnecessary construct. the simple equation, distance = 1/2 acceleration*time^2 is well more than enough to describe this. nevertheless, something must be behind all this motion...
introducing a new concept:
the expanding matter hypothesis
imagine a two dimensional world. imagine a flatland person in it. now imagine we introduce a single expanding particle to it. to the person it would look like he is falling into the particle as it got bigger. then when he hit it he would feel forcefully pushed against as it got bigger and bigger yet. but in such a universe, things aren't staying the same relative size. so now imagine that we introduce a limitless amount of particles, each expanding at the same universal rate...
new possibilities:
the artificial gravity generator
under Isaac Newton, in order to have artificial gravity equivalent to that of the earth, you would need something as massive as the earth in order to do it.
but under the expanding matter hypothesis you only need something as long as the earth's radius, with a counter weight at the base.

Code: Select all


3000m          3000m
<------------.--------------->
______________________________


a strong pipe, expanding both directions from the center.

Code: Select all


     6000m
   ------------------------>
|||________________________
|||

a strong pipe, expanding mostly in one direction.

....

the first principle equation:
if everything is expanding, then there are two things we need to consider, absolute distance decrease and relative distance decrease. imagine two equal sized objects that start off 6 radii apart, and then double in size over a period of time. in and absolute sense, they are now 4 radii part. in a relative sense, they are 2 radii apart.

Code: Select all

                            /
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
   /                         
                         /
                       /
       |               |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
       |               |
      /                   
    /                     

                         /
                       /
       |               |
|------|-------|-------|------|
       |               |
      /                   
    /                     

both needs to be considered in the principle equation [...]
D' = (D -n^2 *A *(R1 +R2))/(1 +n^2 *A) where A is 0.00000077/s^2
[...]
plugging the values we can calculate that everything must double in size roughly every 19 minutes.
[...]
:shock:
the book is pretty weird, he goes on to describe magnetism, electricity, and light under the expanding matter hypothesis. part of me wants to believe it but it's just such a radical idea I don't see how I can.
amnal
Lives in gote
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:42 am
Rank: 2 dan
GD Posts: 0
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by amnal »

Well, it sounds like nonsense to me :)

Edit: I looked it up. It really is nonsense. His 'theory' is full of massive flaws. I can explain why if you care.
hyperpape
Tengen
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:24 pm
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Has thanked: 499 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by hyperpape »

Is the book/article/theory really called "The Final Theory"? Because that's not the kind of title that a real non-crank scientist tends to use.
robinz
Lives in gote
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:40 am
Rank: KGS 9k
GD Posts: 0
KGS: robinz
Location: Durham, UK
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by robinz »

hyperpape wrote:Is the book/article/theory really called "The Final Theory"? Because that's not the kind of title that a real non-crank scientist tends to use.


Not for a scientific paper, no - but real scientists sometimes write popular books explaining their ideas, and a title such as this one wouldn't strike me as ridiculous.

However, from the summary given in the OP, it would appear that this guy is indeed a total crank. (In my opinion life is far too short for me to bother searching for more information to confirm this.)
hyperpape
Tengen
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:24 pm
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Has thanked: 499 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by hyperpape »

robinz wrote:Not for a scientific paper, no - but real scientists sometimes write popular books explaining their ideas, and a title such as this one wouldn't strike me as ridiculous.
Yeah, maybe that's the difference. I still can't think of any examples, though.
User avatar
HermanHiddema
Gosei
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:08 am
Rank: Dutch 4D
GD Posts: 645
Universal go server handle: herminator
Location: Groningen, NL
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by HermanHiddema »

hyperpape wrote:
robinz wrote:Not for a scientific paper, no - but real scientists sometimes write popular books explaining their ideas, and a title such as this one wouldn't strike me as ridiculous.
Yeah, maybe that's the difference. I still can't think of any examples, though.


"A Brief History of Time" or "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking?
hyperpape
Tengen
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:24 pm
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Has thanked: 499 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by hyperpape »

"Why Newton was a dimwit: how the revolutionary new theory personally developed by Dr. Crank explains everything once and for all" is the model of what I'm thinking of with crank titles.

"A brief history of time" doesn't fit at all. If I write a history, you can write another one that improves on it.

"The universe in a nutshell" maybe fits ever so slightly.

"The final theory" is a title that fits wonderfully because of the suggestion that it's the one true theory that will endure forever.
phillip1882
Lives in gote
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:31 am
Rank: 6k
GD Posts: 25
OGS: phillip1882
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by phillip1882 »

hey anmal, i would be very interested in your disproof of the theory.
i've taken physics classes, so it's not like i'm totally ignorant, but i fear i am being naive.
i don't see any easy way to diprove the thoery.
here's some examples taken straight out of the book.
put a rock on a spring, and hold the tip of the spring letting gravity stretch it out.
then let go. note that the spring collapses during freefall. under newton, this should not happen, as gravity should pull downward with the same force whether i'm holding onto the spring or not. even under einstien, the spacial warping should be constant. it shouldn't let up when i let go.

take a plastic balloon and a two glass test tubes. rub the balloon on each test tube vigorously.
try to bring the two test tubes together. note they repel. slowy try to bring the balloon into contact with one of the test tubes. note they attract. you have attaction and repusion, with only one pole, hence a monopole magnet. the fact you get static electric discarge doesn't disprove it as magnetism, it only solidifies the relationship between magnetism and electricity. magnetism IS electricity. it is electricity that has yet to be discharged.

he gives other simple experiments as well you can try.
User avatar
emeraldemon
Gosei
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:33 pm
GD Posts: 0
KGS: greendemon
Tygem: greendemon
DGS: smaragdaemon
OGS: emeraldemon
Has thanked: 697 times
Been thanked: 287 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by emeraldemon »

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/a-little-bit-of-knowledge

This has a great story about a guy how thinks he's found a way to disprove relativity. It's actually surprisingly respectful, and very interesting.
amnal
Lives in gote
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:42 am
Rank: 2 dan
GD Posts: 0
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by amnal »

phillip1882 wrote:hey anmal, i would be very interested in your disproof of the theory.
i've taken physics classes, so it's not like i'm totally ignorant, but i fear i am being naive.
i don't see any easy way to diprove the thoery.


I don't have a 'disproof', because I don't know much about the specifics of the theory. There are several massive problems that seem obvious, on reading your summary, though.

Here are the first three I thought of:

1) This doesn't explain orbits. If things getting bigger explains gravity, why are they also going around one another?
2) It doesn't explain tides. Why would things getting bigger cause tides which follow the moon?
3) It doesn't explain why we stay a constant distance from the sun. If the earth and sun are getting bigger exponentially, and the earth is moving away at any given speed, they will appear to be getting closer to one another. I haven't really thought about this one much, but the scaling problem seems pretty big.

here's some examples taken straight out of the book.
put a rock on a spring, and hold the tip of the spring letting gravity stretch it out.
then let go. note that the spring collapses during freefall. under newton, this should not happen, as gravity should pull downward with the same force whether i'm holding onto the spring or not. even under einstien, the spacial warping should be constant. it shouldn't let up when i let go.


As a general rule, if someone gives you a trivial experiment which goes against general relativity, they or you have misunderstood the experiment. Though frankly I don't understand why you say 'under einstein' (presumably referring to relativity) when talking about a completely non-relativistic effect. If the author is dressing things up this way, he's trying to hide something ;) .

In any case, I don't see why the spring shouldn't collapse during freefall. Gravity exerts a more or less equal force upon every part of the system, but there is still a separate force from the spring seeking to return to its equilibrium position. It isn't obvious to me that anything unusual has occurred.


take a plastic balloon and a two glass test tubes. rub the balloon on each test tube vigorously.
try to bring the two test tubes together. note they repel. slowy try to bring the balloon into contact with one of the test tubes. note they attract. you have attaction and repusion, with only one pole, hence a monopole magnet. the fact you get static electric discarge doesn't disprove it as magnetism, it only solidifies the relationship between magnetism and electricity. magnetism IS electricity. it is electricity that has yet to be discharged.


Magnetic monopoles have never been discovered. It isn't even obvious that they exist, though it's reasonably probable. Recently we have been able to create quasiparticles which behave in some ways like magnetic monopoles. This is cutting edge science. Again, if someone gives you a trivial experiment that creates a magnetic monopole...either you or they have probably misunderstood it ;)

Personally I don't understand this experiment at all. You have transferred some electrons around, and so are observing well known and understood electric field effects. Where is the problem with this? Magnetism doesn't need to be invoked at all.

It is true and electricity and magnetism are aspects of the same force. It is not true that this experiment has done anything impressive, especially anything to do with magnetic monopoles.
User avatar
Mnemonic
Lives in gote
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:41 pm
Rank: KGS 7 kyu
GD Posts: 0
KGS: Mnemonic, dude13
Location: Dresden
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by Mnemonic »

phillip1882 wrote:
here's some examples taken straight out of the book.
put a rock on a spring, and hold the tip of the spring letting gravity stretch it out.
then let go. note that the spring collapses during freefall. under newton, this should not happen, as gravity should pull downward with the same force whether i'm holding onto the spring or not. even under einstien, the spacial warping should be constant. it shouldn't let up when i let go.


By that logic: if you have a spring and pull on it, it is obviously stretched out. If you let go it collapses again AGAINST GRAVITY What have you proved now?

An experiment that would work is having a cup filled with water and drill a hole in it water would start flowing out. If you now release the cut the water stops running out. Why? Because gravity, AND ONLY GRAVITY, is exerting force on the cup and the water whereas in your example the spring itself is exerting a force.
While I was teaching the game to a friend of mine, my mother from the other room:
"Cutting? Killing? Poking out eyes? What the hell are you playing?"
pwaldron
Lives in gote
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 8:40 am
GD Posts: 1072
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by pwaldron »

phillip1882 wrote:put a rock on a spring, and hold the tip of the spring letting gravity stretch it out.
then let go. note that the spring collapses during freefall. under newton, this should not happen, as gravity should pull downward with the same force whether i'm holding onto the spring or not. even under einstien, the spacial warping should be constant. it shouldn't let up when i let go.


If this is the best example the guy can find, he's a quack. Newtonian mechanics predicts the spring will collapse because the spring is subject to internal forces due to its extension. The gravitation force only predicts that the spring will fall.

phillip1882 wrote:take a plastic balloon and a two glass test tubes. rub the balloon on each test tube vigorously.
try to bring the two test tubes together. note they repel. slowy try to bring the balloon into contact with one of the test tubes. note they attract. you have attaction and repusion, with only one pole, hence a monopole magnet.


The experiment demonstrates static electricity, no magnets. You will find, for example, that neither the balloon nor the test tube will deflect a compass needle.
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by Bill Spight »

hyperpape wrote:Is the book/article/theory really called "The Final Theory"? Because that's not the kind of title that a real non-crank scientist tends to use.


Please read my unwritten monograph, The Penultimate Theory of Something.

;)
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
phillip1882
Lives in gote
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:31 am
Rank: 6k
GD Posts: 25
OGS: phillip1882
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by phillip1882 »

1) This doesn't explain orbits. If things getting bigger explains gravity, why are they also going around one another?


the explaintion is kinda lengthy and a diagram really helps here, but i'm unable to upload a picture as i'm at work (on my lunch break). i'll address this when i get home
2) It doesn't explain tides. Why would things getting bigger cause tides which follow the moon?

he proposes several possibilies.
1) solar winds 2) the thermal under water jets 3) the wobbling earth. he suspects the wobbling earth to be the primary culprit, but these other two obviously would have a factor as well.
3) It doesn't explain why we stay a constant distance from the sun. If the earth and sun are getting bigger exponentially, and the earth is moving away at any given speed, they will appear to be getting closer to one another. I haven't really thought about this one much, but the scaling problem seems pretty big.

i agree competely here. apparently he doesn't seem to think this as a big problem.
the earth rotates around the sun at a phenominal speed, and he proposes that the perpendicular motion is sufficent to counter act this.
amnal
Lives in gote
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:42 am
Rank: 2 dan
GD Posts: 0
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: the expanding matter hypothesis

Post by amnal »

phillip1882 wrote:
1) This doesn't explain orbits. If things getting bigger explains gravity, why are they also going around one another?


the explaintion is kinda lengthy and a diagram really helps here, but i'm unable to upload a picture as i'm at work (on my lunch break). i'll address this when i get home


There is no explanation, given the theory so far. Given the author's significant misunderstandings in the experiments you outlined, I remain sceptical ;)

2) It doesn't explain tides. Why would things getting bigger cause tides which follow the moon?

he proposes several possibilies.
1) solar winds 2) the thermal under water jets 3) the wobbling earth. he suspects the wobbling earth to be the primary culprit, but these other two obviously would have a factor as well.


:scratch:

His 'possibilities' are pathetic. It is in no way obvious that they 'would have a factor' as well. There's simply no way for solar winds to cause tidal phenomena as we observe them. There also are no thermal underwater jets causing mass water movement. Especially not at precisely the rate that the moon orbits :lol:

'The wobbling earth' is an equally terrible explanation. There is nothing in physics whereby precession would cause these effects.

Conveniently, even a simple theory of gravity quickly and easily explains tides.

3) It doesn't explain why we stay a constant distance from the sun. If the earth and sun are getting bigger exponentially, and the earth is moving away at any given speed, they will appear to be getting closer to one another. I haven't really thought about this one much, but the scaling problem seems pretty big.

i agree competely here. apparently he doesn't seem to think this as a big problem.
the earth rotates around the sun at a phenominal speed, and he proposes that the perpendicular motion is sufficent to counter act this.


Don't suppose that, it's plain wrong - especially since there still is no reason for the Earth to orbit at all under his 'theory'. You can't brush this under the rug; unless there is a reason that it isn't a problem, the whole theory is phenomenally broken on a very simple level. His 'proposal' there is simply 'the Earth magically moves in such a way that everything appears fine', but the movement necessary would be (at a guess) an exponentially increasing orbit size. There is absolutely no justification for this kind of movement.

(Personally, I think 'it's broken and wrong' is the correct explanation anyway)
Post Reply