Wintermute11,

I did say: "However, I would need to study this effect in depth as to whether or not it is exhibiting a variable G constant or not. So, for now it is bracketed in my brain, and left for future thoughts..."

So no disagreement with you on that, for either Mercury, or Pluto, or Halley's comet.

* * *

There is something here that needs an explanation, since some think I am trying to 'prove' that gravity is a variable-constant. This is simply not the case at all. What I am doing is trying to 'discover' that this is so, that is why I am looking for 'clues' of whether or not gravity is a universal constant as now believed, or not as I suspect. The reason I listed my ideas on this and other forums was to solicit like-minded minds to look in on this, and try to network with other smart people to see if there is a possibility it is so. I do not feel challenged when others disagree with me, though it can be amusing, since I too am searching like everyone else. The trouble I have, and maybe why I dumped Einstein's Relativity, is that some ideas had reached the level of 'state religion' which makes it very difficult to argue against, since some take offense. No offense is ever meant by the ideas expressed by me, but merely an exploration into something that physics perhaps had overlooked. I truly do not know if my equation is right, and perhaps it is wrong. But then again perhaps the conclusion reached via an erroneous path may be right, that gravity is a variable. Then, and here I encourage all who can to participate with their ideas, we can collectively come to some understanding that would better define why this is so, if it is so. So there are many unknowns still to be uncovered, but that's what exploration of new ideas is all about. So do not be offended if I present an idea, because I am not trying to prove you or anyone else wrong. Nor am I offended, in fact, I am honored with all the inputs of ideas, yours included. Sometimes, these 'rebuttals' can be brutal, or simply not very gracious, but I overlook that, and think of it as the only way you or someone else knows how to express themselves. What I am really after is discovery, by all of us, if there is room for improvement on the state of knowledge such as it now exists. Am I the best qualified to do this search? I think the answer to this is very obvious, of course not. I do not have the training, nor the educational credentials, to come across as an authority. So please bear with me, I am only asking for your help in this, for I think there may be cause to think that we can improve on what is now understood in physics. And if we can't? It's okay, at least we tried to see something from a different point of view. I should conclude with this, that there are many who feel that Einstein's Relativity has in fact already been disproven, but it cannot be made public because it would do more damage than good at this time. However, I do not know this for a fact, so accept it only as an opinion, no more than that. Now, how dare we challenge what had been accepted for the past hundred years by very smart people who had demonstrated beyond a doubt that it is true? Because challenge is what Science is all about. It is not politics, nor religion, though it might be a speculative philosophy until proven or disproven. That is what I want to do, to find evidence either pro or con, not in textbooks, but in the universe itself. And if we do that well, then the proof will come of itself.

I think we're going into Space big time. But we cannot get there with our current level of understanding, nor with the chemical propelled rockets now used. That was invented about the time of the automobile, and like it still using 19th century technology of exploding pistons, rockets will not get us to where we need to go. We will have to discover a new technology to get there, and it starts in places like this.

* * *

If I am out of line in my presentations, then have ADMIN close out my membership, and I will take my ideas elsewhere without regrets. But if I am accepted here, then try to see my ideas with some level of tolerance for what they are trying to express.

[Edited by Coppernicus2 on 12/07/03 at 04:22]
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

Though I may get frustrated, I would never and have never requested Admin to censor yours or anybody elses posts. I only get frustrated because you claim that you seek knowledge, but the internet is a poor source at best. I too sought and still seek knowledge. However, I favored to build a strong foundation by learning from the mistakes and successes of thousands of years of human endeavor before me, before I tried to unlock the mysteries of the universe.

As for helping you, I have offered assistance both in the forum and via email. My latest offer of assistance to you went unanswered. I've also offered the same sources of information that I use for my own research. Its frustrating to point out the same mistakes, while providing sources so you can verify the mistake, repeatedly. Its frustrating because simply repeating it does not make the mistake go away.

Like I had said before, I don't necessarily disagree you're idea of a variable gravitational constant. Just your proof and your theory of a relationship between it and electromagnetic radiation wavelength. If you are passionate about knowledge and answers, you would continue your search. Learn from your mistakes and revise your theory. The answer is not in the formula you derived, but I encourage you to keep trying.

Peer review is one way of keeping us honest, and I can assure you every physicist that presents a new theory has had to endure the same process. Those that survive do so because the theory is valid and strong. Relativity stands because it explains or at least agrees with previously observed phenomenon (i.e. Mercury's orbital precession), and predicted future observed phenomenon in repeatable situations (i.e. Muon life span, gravitational lensing, etc..). Not because we didn't want to hurt Einstein's feelings. Those that accept it out of blind faith, do so because they cannot or do not want to understand it.

Oh yeah? Try this post:

Here is the description of the question raised a few weeks ago that I couldn't answer dew to time, it is a theory based on graviton:

Gravitons are postulated as basic building block of matter, therefore all elementary particles consist of orbital interlocking graviton structures due to graviton properties. Within a graviton there are two forces, push and pull; they balance at velocity “c” speed of light in vacuum, living the graviton stable as pure energy. All particles experience acceleration due to their structure make up of gravitons by transfer (in/out) gravitons in form of packets such as light. The velocity v of a particle naturally cannot surpass the velocity c at which a graviton forces (push and pull) stabilize keeping its forces in equilibrium.
Furthermore, due to graviton stability all particles stability are function of c, therefore all velocity are function of c (stability of graviton) due to the particle natural interlocking of gravitons.
When two or more gravitons collide they follow fundamental(basic) laws of conservation, that is they interlock for given time depending on their magnitude(mainly velocity) and direction (angle of collision).When they interlock the push and pull forces of both graviton interact or connect creating a system of gravitons. It is further postulated at this point each graviton within the system act as one or in union as long as they are stable. In this view, when two or more gravitons interlock they acquire properties due to their collision magnitude and direction. Such properties of a system are unique in a way they can only interact with other system of gravitons or particle that have same properties, in order to remain stable.
These properties increase as a system becomes more complex, they are intrinsic properties such as wave, spin, mass, charge, e.t.c. Here a wave is external and internal property of a system, internally in a system gravitons collide and naturally following the laws of conservation in order to remain stable momentum is formed in turn a wave like property is formed in a system, externally due to mechanical forces a system acquires a wave like property. It is further postulated in a particle or system of gravitons such as an electron exhibits property of wave naturally.
In process of collision the gravitons interlock in a way they acquire rotational properties that determine their future. These rotational properties such as spin are also due to gravitons collision magnitude and direction that is they naturally follow fundamental laws of conservation when they collide in order to keep the system of gravitons stable. In such a case the system acquire higher resistance to directional change as it absorbs more energy (graviton). In addition, a particle size is a function of the number of graviton making up this interlocking structure, but not necessary accumulative to its total apparent mass, a particle charge value is a function of its exhibited resistance to change in the arrangement of interlocking structure while being bombarded by eternal gravitons usually in packets(photon), the charge type(negative or positive or neutral) is based on the system resistance to change due to inner rotational properties such as total spin direction acquiring or emitting or acquiring and emitting gravitons.
The inertia or apparent resistance to linear acceleration of a particle is due to gravitons interlocking when collision of two or more gravitons occurs they acquire rotational properties that set them unique and in helical pattern therefore affecting the accumulative gravitons then the system increases in energy-gravitons. The energy bombardment in this system creates momentum that creates mass property in function of various properties mainly rotational property when in turn inertia is observed.

With millions of different structure of graviton-particles- only a few stable particles survive and many decay. Forces bind up particles together in order to remain stable; these forces are function of properties of the system. It is further postulated on this theory gravitons accumulate to make systems and then properties accumulates, the gravitons on the system work in unity, the most outstanding property will determine the particle most determining force. Outstanding property is the property that the particles mainly interact with other particles or gravitons. For example an atom most influential(outstanding) property with other atoms is electromagnetic property in turn electromagnetic force is most influential when atoms interact, although there is numerous (properties) forces within the atom. In a force exchange particles (packet of gravitons) are exchanged which carry certain properties of the system, such in a case of photon released by an atom. Furthermore, no force is said to be isolated in our universe, therefore no graviton is isolated in our universe, therefore gravity force or the push and pull forces interaction between gravitons is the most dominant force-gravity force in our universe. Although a property (in turn producing a force) can be so strong in a given system the gravity force will dominate macroscopic world.
It is further postulated in a given system one will use same mathematical expression of the influential property or force to calculate the gravitons interlocking property (gravity force) in the same system, such a case when calculating an atom influential property the same formula is used to calculate gravity force in electromagnetic world. For every system has to keep c as the limit, therefore each properties calculation have a mathematical expressions that keeps this intrinsic limit in turn mathematical constants are observed. When calculating the influential property all properties constant are contained in the main constant calculation in order to have a more precise answer, such a case in coulomb constant, but for gravity force in same system is directly function at the speed where a graviton forces stabilize, that is c. Therefore by saying the amount of energy the two forces in within a graviton are equal and then using laws of conservation of energy (E=mc^2) when these two forces interact the mathematical expression can be derived until solved for gravity force for electromagnetic system.

E=mc^2
c^2=E/m where E=W=Fr (r stands for radius or distance or ‘s’)
therefore c^2= Fr/m
therefore c^2= c^2----when forces interact the forces hold true the constant c^2 in order to remain stable
therefore Fr/m= Fr/m
Fr/m=mar/m ----where F=ma
Fr/mm=ar/m ----where a=F/m
therefore Fr/mm=Fr/mm
Fr/mm=Fvt/mm ----v=r/t where r=vt
Fr/mm=Frt/tmm ----where v=r/t
therefore Frt/mm=Frt/mm
Frt/mm=Frr/vmm ----where t=r/v
Frtv/mm=Frr/mm ----where v=r/t
therefore Frr/mm=Frr/mm
where F=(Frr/mm)mm/r^2 ----(Frr/mm) is proportionality for example: F=Kq1q2/r^2-electromagnetic force
The "G" (=Frr/mm) is a way of expressing how the constant c is kept true mathematically when forces interact just the way c^2 is a mathematical expression expressing that c should always remain true in order for the matter to remain stable.



__________________
“For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will long to return”

well, since this conversation seems bent on the absurd,
i'll just close with a tiny two cent creeper.

Gravitons do not collide ever.

Energies are absorbed into and displaced out of wave functions, but if it were true that gravitons collide,
their energy functions would be lessened, spin dissipated,
dah dah dah.

A single graviton quantae is by definition massless and
volumeless. It occupies exactly one singularity worth of
space, and since thats less than zero in all three dimensions, theres no reason to imagine that theres any
surface area from which or by which to have any kind of collision.

A "graviton" as a word is used to describe a wave function,
not usually the quantae. If you want to say graviton quantae, please say graviton Quantae.

This will be my last post to this thread;
since common sense is apparently being tossed out the window for somebodies ego gratifications.

__________________
designing starships cuz nasa is stoopid

In response to the earlier quote (sorry, I am new to this forum and am unsure how to use the [] codes properly at the moment, so I'll just wing it for this initial post):

QUOTE by Coppernicus2 Dec 6, 2003
"The most interesting, though I conclude totally false ... is Mark McCutcheon's book "The Final Theory ... It made no sense to me, but I read it anyway, and found the author very smart, but wrong ... I would never censor anyone from reading anything, if they wish, provided they are able to reason."

Very regrettable when a reader doesn't get your work, but it is bound to happen occasionally. However, aside from this singular exception, dozens and dozens of readers have emailed me to thank me for opening up their minds to what is very likely the truth of their universe. Also, many very positive reader reviews are appearing on online bookstores, as well as very enthusiastic posts from readers in various physics newsgroups. Further, a very positive professional review is about to appear in a major UK newspaper over the holidays by a staff science writer with the angle of "most ambitious amateur scientist of 2003". I will post a link to the article when it appears in print shortly.

But don't take my obviously biased word (as the author), as advised in the above quote, have a look and reason it out for yourself. Check out the website (www.thefinaltheory.com) and in particular, make sure to check out the link to the physics forum discussion at the top of the Science Mysteries page, where many people have attempted to refute the points I make on that page, and where my responses are posted later in that same discussion thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=389c94819a509a10c35429703ab12380&threadid=2972)
. I highly recommend checking this out and evaluating the evidence for yourself. You just may find the answers you are looking for!!

Allow me to state categorically that you are a moron and your theory is bull***t.

The very first page of your website confuses the concepts of force, energy, and power. You use the phrase 'work function' in the wrong context, and don't seem to grasp the concept of work anyway.

Crawl back under your rock.
__________________
Shambolic - keeping it complex analytic

website. Its not welcome here.

You have been reported to the ADMIN people for any further action necessary.

My goodness, what hostile, closed-minded responses to my posting. I assume this is merely an aberration of an unfortunately vocal minority and is not representative of this forum's members in general, to whom I address this final follow-up post.

As I mentioned, the book's website is full of important, objectively verifiable information and discussions about serious science and the equally serious flaws and misunderstandings in today's science paradigm, also showing the way to some very compelling answers, as echoed by the vast majority of those who have read the book and emailed me. Increasingly, even professional science writers are finding the book fascinating and compelling enough that they are choosing to dedicate their valuable time to reading it and their limited column space to discussing it; a return to the website in a week or two should show a link to the upcoming newspaper article I mentioned in my previous post, once it's in print.

This is for real. The book in question (and even just the website alone if you never even read the book) has an extremely important message to share with those who are in this forum to sincerely and intelligently consider and explore the answers to their deepest questions. I am doing my best to let the world know about and consider what I -- and increasingly many others -- believe to be a great overlooked truth of our existence. Superficially dismissing the entire issue outright -- either sight-unseen or on quick, easy assumptions, as displayed in the two previous posts -- is the simplest thing in the world to do, and does a great disservice to anyone who is truly seeking understanding. I am not addressing these superficial naysayers with axes to grind, but to the rest, I sincerely hope you do yourself a favor and give the matter serious consideration for yourself. Ok, I've said my piece .. the rest is up to you.

Happy Holidays,

Mark McCutcheon

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shambolic
Allow me to state categorically that you are a moron and your theory is bull***t.

---

Now now Shambolic - name calling could well be seen as a breach of forum rules!

But I think in this case we can call it a statement of fact!

FinalTheory, DON'T use my forum to promote your product! You can delete your posts - or I can do it for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shambolic
Crawl back under your rock.

---

Couldn't have put it better, myself!

__________________
SPACETALK ADMIN - He Who Pays The Piper Calls The Tune!!

Always Happy to ZAP the CRAP!!