|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
The Final
Theory of Everything
by Roland Michel Tremblay
On 4 March 2010, New Scientist magazine published an article entitled “Knowing the mind of God: Seven theories of everything”, where Michael Marshall reviewed the most promising candidates for the Theory of Everything, the Holy Grail of theoretical physics. In the end, there was no solid conclusion as to which, if any, may lead to this final theory. Each is quite different from the others, demonstrating that there is still no fundamental physical or theoretical agreement on the operation of our universe, and all still fall under the general umbrella of our known scientific paradigm, or Standard Theory.
Yet, this grand final theory is expected to provide a clarifying simplicity and understanding that is unknown today, implying that it may even lie outside our Standard-Theory umbrella. What if the answer is much simpler and more straightforward than any of the current proposals, perhaps even lying right underfoot?
This final theory should unite all four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and both strong and weak nuclear forces); identify a fundamental principle or particle that does this and you are well on your way. According to Mark McCutcheon, a Canadian-born electrical engineer and science author, the stable and ubiquitous electron is just such a particle - provided that it operates on a fundamental principle of constant subatomic expansion rather than today’s endless, unchanging “charge”.
This switch from “charge” to “expansion”, termed Expansion Theory, has surprisingly far-reaching implications, not only for electric charge itself, but also for the nature of the atom and subatomic particles, atomic bonds, magnetism, electromagnetic radiation and gravity. As such, this singular new concept offers potential scientific explanations for all known forms of matter and energy, offering further solutions to the puzzling mysteries and paradoxes in our science. But is it science? To sincerely answer this question we must equally apply it to today’s theories as well; there must be no free passes on such important issues.
Consider gravity, widely considered a force even by our space agencies despite its official status as “warped space-time”, the subject of speculative searches for graviton particles on one hand and gravity waves on the other, and requiring unseen exotic “dark matter” to account for tenfold discrepancies between theory and observations. The expanding-electron concept, which in turn leads to equally expanding atoms, presents a new gravitational theory that actually mirrors Einstein’s famous elevator-in-space thought experiment where standing on Earth is equivalent to being accelerated upward in space. The force we feel underfoot is then due to our resulting expanding planet, with dropped objects all equally approached by the ground rather than the other way around, while the underlying expansion is unseen as everything expands equally, maintaining constant (relative) sizes. This would create the appearance of a force somehow holding us to the ground and pulling all objects equally downward regardless of mass, just as Newton proposed. And while Einstein opted for “warped space-time”, atomic expansion suggests this far simpler and more literal possibility.
An intriguing idea perhaps, but can it be tested? Consider this drop test: Start with two objects of equal mass floating in space, connected by an elastic band. If one object is continually pulled along so that it accelerates at the same rate as it would fall on Earth, the elastic would stretch, and remain stretched, due to the inertial resistance of the second, equally massive object - an ongoing force equivalent to its weight on Earth. And it would make no difference if the second object were initially held while the elastic was stretched by the pulling force, then remained in constant tension, awaiting release. Once released, the first object would be allowed to accelerate through space, maintaining the same stretch in the elastic, for the same reason as earlier when the second object was not initially held. It also would make no difference if the accelerating force on the first object were also applied to the second object once it was released - this force would merely match the existing accelerating scenario, with the constant distance between the objects and the stretched elastic between them. It could not provide any additional acceleration or effect to close the distance between the objects and allow the elastic to relax.
Crucially, this is precisely the situation if the two objects are on Earth, with one held and the other suspended by a stretched elastic band. Once released, the gravitational force on the lower object now accelerates it through space, toward the ground, maintaining the stretch in the elastic due to the inertial resistance of the equally massive upper object that is being accelerated along with it. And, as before, the fact that the same gravitational force is on the upper object is of no consequence, only matching but not exceeding this existing accelerating scenario, leaving the objects to fall with a constant distance and a stretched elastic between them.
But this is not what happens. The elastic actually contracts during the fall, pulling the objects together. Yet this should not occur according to either Newton’s gravitational force or Einstein’s “warped space-time”. However, it should occur if the planet’s expansion was initially pushing the held object upward, forcefully stretching the elastic before the drop - an influence that would vanish during free-fall, which allows the elastic to contract as everything floats free while the ground approaches. This simple cutting experiment would appear to seriously challenge both Newton and Einstein, according to the Scientific Method where even a single negative result disproves any theory, while supporting the expanding-atom concept of gravity.
In this view, orbits at a distance are now a simple geometric consequence of surface gravity. It is easy to see, for example, how dropped objects would effectively fall due to planetary expansion alone, and how horizontally tossed objects would similarly curve and plummet toward the ground. Such dramatic momentum change solely due to the geometry of expansion demonstrates that gentler curving trajectories traversing increasing fractions of Earth’s circumference would result with greater horizontal speed. Unlike the absolute straight-line momentum suggested by Newton’s first law, there is actually no reason such an object would not travel one-third, one-half, and eventually a full orbital circumference about an expanding planet as its speed increased.
This also suggests that ocean tides need not, and cannot, arise from a lunar influence, but from internal dynamics within Earth - an effective inner wobble that must be present even according to classical physics, since the center of mass of the overall Earth-Moon rotational system lies off-center within our planet. This view suggests why the passing Moon always coincides with rising tides, roughly speaking, but for purely internal reasons that follow from the creation, evolution and ongoing dynamics of the Earth-Moon system.
And, much as expanding atoms replace the notion of “gravitational energy”, expanding subatomic particles replace the energies of “electric charge” and “strong and weak nuclear forces”. These separate energy concepts similarly become unnecessary abstractions in an atomic model where neutrons and protons are not true particles, but clusters of expanding (not “charged”) electrons, and where “orbiting” electrons instead bounce repeatedly off the resultant continually expanding nucleus. Today’s “strong nuclear force”, holding the powerfully repelling “positively charged” nuclear protons together, is replaced by the crushing force of rapidly expanding protons and neutrons against each other. And the “weak nuclear force” causing occasional nuclear decay further suggests the characterization of neutrons as less stable clusters of active expanding electrons that occasionally eject an electron to become a more stable proton cluster in a more straightforward proposal for this nuclear “decay” process. This concept extends further to chemical bonds, currently attributed to endless electric-charge or electromagnetic energy, and even beyond as external clouds of expanding electrons that we call electric and magnetic fields. Even electromagnetic energy such as heat and light becomes clusters of freely expanding electrons pushing one another through space, while electricity is expanding electrons pushing each other through wires and extending outward as a surrounding magnetic field.
In the end, all known forms of matter and energy become manifestations of the singular unifying phenomenon of expanding matter. Although easy dismissals are tempting with most alternate theories, a closer look may well show Expansion Theory to be much more scientifically viable, comprehensible and verifiable than the other seven “theory of everything” candidates. In fact, such a comparison could be very eye opening indeed.
Roland Michel Tremblay
Mark McCutcheon is author of “The Final Theory:
Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy”.
For more information and further reading on Expansion
Theory, visit http://www.thefinaltheory.com