Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Double-A , You say :
" What I want to know is where Benjamin Franklin found
those ' plastic ' rods in the 1700's ??? "

Did Benjamin Franklin use natural rubber rods ?


Hi Jeff,

Yes, Ben used rubber rods, since plastic wasn't invented until the 19th century.

Double-A

(cinquirer) wrote in message . com...
(AaronB) wrote in message . com...

I don't know if this would necessarily produce stability. Think of
having a whole bunch of balloons in a cluster. Now start inflating
them. The balloons will naturally try to separate as much as possible.
Furthermore, it would seem to me, that if you were to have a second
atom (or any particle) approach the nucleus with some speed, it could
very easily cause the nucleus to fragment itself. Now, this process is
possible (nuclear fission) but it obviously requires a considerable
amount of energy.

But the expansion is very great so it can't escape and bind with
each other.

The expansion isn't very great though. We've already established that
the rate of expansion for any particle is 0.000077% of its
radius/second (might be off by a zero or two, not sure). Given that an
atomic nucleus is very small to begin with, if another particle was to
strike, the expansion rate would not be able to overcome the change in
momentum of the rest of the system. In fact, the rate of expansion
would be on the order of 10^-17 m/s^2. In order to escape the nucleus,
the object which collided with it would only need to transfer enough
momentum to escape that expansion rate, which wouldn't be too tough.
Even a speed as measly as 1 m/s would be more than enough.

About particle hitting it. That's what Mccutcheon
explains are what produces the particles in particle accelerator
experiments when the nucleus is only made of clusters of
electrons.

Electric theory would suggest otherwise. Why do protons attract
electrons, but free electrons repel electrons, when both are made of
the same thing?

About causing the nucleus to fragment itself. Mccutcheon
said they recombine immediately after being hit..

Why would it? There's nothing keeping the nucleus together; for that
matter, why would the nucleus even be together in the first place?

which explains
why the "quarks" in the proton, neutron can't be separated or why
the gluons are stronger when further apart.

No it doesn't.

About fission. Well.
This is when atomic space relativity is applied. The space outside
is not the same space inside. Let me illustration. It's like your
living room expand. Yet when seen from outside. It is same size
and when people throw object at you from outside. You would get
hit. However, inside the room. You can expand so big as to include
an entire aircraft carrier. It's because the space inside atoms
are some sort of hyperspace (my term) and the space outside
is defined by inside. Now the thousands of electrons in the
nucleus expand so fast (to maintain stability), yet no atomic
expansion is seen from the outside except that one half of the
diameter of the expanding electron in the edge of the atomic realm
which cause gravity. Back to fission. He said fission is when you
transfer the expanding electrons to the "space" outside the atomic
realm (where space is not relative to ours). When that occurs.
The expanding electrons get translated to our space continuum
releasing vast amount of energy in terms of atomic bomb. Crazy
idea, isn't it.

But he still hasn't established why the nucleus should stay together
under any circumstance!


About muons, he said
those particles seen in particle accelerator experiments
are really part of the electron nucleus clusters that
has break off. Now let's go back to charge.

Why wouldn't this be a nuclear fission reaction as stated above?

Since
the nucleus has no positive charge, and electrons don't
have charge either, then the electrons simply bounce
off the nucleus.

How would atoms bond chemically without charged particles?

The bouncing electrons (relatively speaking) are shared between
two atoms. The bond is formed when the bouncing distance gets
smaller as they "handshake" each other as each nucleus expand
and the bouncing electrons are intermingled between the 2
atomic realm. He explained this in 10 pages.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If the electrons were close between
the atoms, they would be FORCING THEM APART. An electron colliding
with a nucleus would cause the nucleus to move away from it.

Furthermore, this explanation still does not consider periodic
properties of the elements. For instance, why is fluorine (9
electrons) the most reactive element, while neon (10 electrons) is one
of the least? Shouldn't any element be able to bond with any other
element by this logic? Why should a reaction between sodium and
chlorine release heat? etc. etc. He's not only trying to rewrite all
of Physics; he's trying to rewrite chemistry too!


And the rise of falls of the many
bouncing electrons produce the effects made by
"quantum probability clouds".

Helium gas has two valence electrons and never bonds with anything.
Why don't those two electrons just fly away, given that they have
nothing to bounce on?

Now what made two
object get attracted or repelled to each other if
there is no charge. Well. The distribution of the
bouncing electrons are not the same in all substance.
Where two objects have bouncing electrons with
unequal density.

Hydrogen atoms have one electron each, and readily form H2 gas. That's
only two electrons with atoms that have the same electron density. And
even still, while the electrons may stick together as you suggest,
there is no reason why they should stick to the nucleus.

As the nucleus expand. It tries to expand into another nucleus.
And the bouncing electrons and shorter distances make the binding
and intermingling stronger.

What if the electrons are on the wrong side of the nuclei when they
bond? Eg.
e = electron, H = hydrogen nucleus (proton), - = direction of travel
eH-- --He
eH- -He
eH--He
eHHe

In this situation, shouldn't the two electrons just fly away?


I think I'm going to go with Joe Fischer on this one. Expansion theory
is a workable solution for problems that deal with gravitation. It is
not a workable solution for problems that deal with electric charge,
internuclear forces, etc.

A.

c


There is a density to bind each other
much like two opposite crowd of the football teams
going after each other and merging. Imagine each
person as electron although in reality there are fewer
of course. So the merging produces the attraction,
not the charge. Now in repulsion, the opposite
crowd has all big men on the front (concentrated
electron densities on the front), so the crowd
can't mix very easily because they have to wait for
the big men or wrestlers to fight off (which you see
on TV takes very long).

I don't know if the above is a good analogy.

Now, Aaron, your detailed comment. Let's debunk it
with penetrating counterarguments.

c

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Mark McCutcheon is a
crackpot.

A.



Joe Fischer wrote in message . ..
On 22 Nov (Cody R. Perkins) wrote:

Since you have already have mentioned the basics of Expansion Theory
to a public posting I will note a few points as well.

Expansion Theory basicly implies that all matter and energy are
composed of one subatomic particle. The electron. The electron by it's
nature is rapidly expanding in size. Taking up more volume of space as
it does. Space itself has no limit or any properties as all space
really is just the distance between atomic objects. All other
particles are made of groups of electrons. The mutual expansion of the
electrons in a group binds them together [BIG snip]

Baloney, nothing that bizarre is needed, other particles
could be expanding just as well as electrons.

The model builds itself, it does not need bizarre assumptions
or specification such as this.

Joe Fischer

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
cinquirer wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


when they are both travelling in parallel in space with both
expanding and the moon travelling faster. This is how I understood it.

Please explain how two objects moving on parallel lines can look like
one orbiting the other.

Let say the parallel lines are diverging (not so much a
parallel line as an inverted triangular)

Well, as you yourself see here, diverging lines are not parallel,
hence this is contradictory.

Nevertheless, diverging lines makes this even worse - this can't look
like an orbit, no matter which expansions you take into account.


[snip rest]

Bye,
Bjoern

I have been visualizing figures the past 30 minutes. I said
to myself this Mccutcheon thing may be a time wasting
task. And maybe I should just believe in the particle physicists
gravitons. However. In Einstein General Relativity. Equally deep
mental gymnastics have to be executed. His theory alleged that
the surrounding "space-time-fabric" in the vicinity of the
planet somehow warp into a four-dimensional curvature
around the planet, And objects that follows the curvature
appear to us as gravity. Is there experimental proof of
this latter. Many people ignore Einstein and just focuses
on gravitons. I wonder how many percentage are gravitoners
and Einstein Generalists here. Anyway. To understand qi. We
must unravel first the secret of gravity. For qi may be
related to the space-time-fabric. And understanding the true
mechanics of gravity may enable us to understand the true
mechanics of qi too.


c

(ZeroNeg) wrote in message . com...

This basicly states, in your words, that the theory of infinity is
true. While we use infinity as a basis of mathematical calculations,
the idea of infinity is not a relative concept. Think of is as a
theoretical concept. IF it existed then such and such would be
true...etc etc. Electric flux across a flat plane is an example of an
infinite surface for the sake of calculating the flux semetricly
through the n. So, in regards to this statement, you are also stating
that EVERY SINGLE PEACE OF HYPERSPACE IS EQUALLY RESPONDING TO THE
INFINITE UNIVERSE VIA EXPANSION AT AN EQUAL AND RELATIVE RATE.
Problem with this is, you have 3 other forces to contend with. 1
being the electro-magnetic force. By adjusting any single one of
these forces, such as gravity, you thereby cause a relational
breakdown between mass and electromagnetic forces. So this force MUST
be relationally growing as well as the weak and strong forces. Don't
forget, space time is literally warped by large masses. Therefore all
larger bodied masses would have to respond to each other with great
magnitude.

That's why he spent one half of the book on Expansion Theory particle
physics trying to explain the electromagnetic forces don't exist, nor
the strong force nor weak force. So the 4 fundamental forces are just
illusion and only the expanding electrons are real and how they
can all function as the 4 forces. See all my messages to Cody for
the details including how atomic bomb can occur according to
Mccutcheon. He has dozens of new ideas. Debunking each would be
fun.

c


Anyway. What the book basically says is that entire planet earth is
expanding as well as the rest of matter in the universe.
Since human is smaller and the earth bigger. The earth expands
faster compared to humans. So what we feel as gravity is
not us being attracted to the ground. But simply the ground
reaching up to us. So it's all about expansions. When we jump from

This is known as graviton particles, they flow as a massless particle.

airplane. It's not we who falls to the ground. But the earth reaching
up to us and we are feeling the falling because the earth atmosphere
is hitting our body. Also the protons don't fly apart in the nucleus

OK, basic theory, if the entire earth reaches up to grab us, what
happens to everyone relationally to that plane that is reaching for
us. The whole world would feel the effects of this folding of earths
mass. And with such a concept as this, how can we be considered as
SEPERATE from the earth. We are a part of the overall mass of the
earth once we are in contact with it. Therefore, each particle that
makes up the entire mass of the earth, equally create the
gravitational force that excerpts upon all of us. Remember, newtonian
physics took men to the moon and back, all mathematically. Don't just
up and put that aside.

because the particles are expanding too so it's maintening the core
and the space in the nucleus is not linear or something like that.
He is basically saying that gravitation, strong force are not needed,
even the others. When I first read the book. I have to laught out

I will remind you that breaking hte strong force is what causes
nuclear explosions like the atom bomb. if it were a breaching of
gravity, we would cause a chain reaction everytime we jump on the
trampoline in our back yards.

loud. But the book length of more than 400 pages explain every
scenerio from orbits to electromagnetic field. All your thoughts of
the contradiction and possible conflict of other scientific principles
is addressed in the book. For those who have read it. Let's find
any major flaw that can debunk everything. The following are the
comments of people in sci.physics who have read it. But unfortunately,
the discussions die down because they don't want to start debating
as it's gonna be very long as it involves the entire principles of
physics. Let note we can learn so much if we can debunk it.
The following are the comments of 3 people in sci.physics who read it.

1st person comments:

"I purchased and read The Final Theory a couple of months ago hoping
for a good challenge in finding the flaws of another theory and
finding the discrepancies that will prove it false and contradicting.
Instead, i found myself using an entirely different standard with
which to view the universe. Obvious but overlooked or ignored flaws in
today's Standard Theory are exposed and corrected. Fundamental
mysteries such as magnetism, electricity, and gravity are explained
and their causes made known. The theory p resented by the author is a
solid and extremely thought-provoking concept. There is nothing overly
complex. Everything is simple and makes perfect sense. This book is
well worth getting just for the way it will make you review all the
laws and theories we've grown up with and accepted, some for
centuries. Either you will find the Standard Theory reinforced as it
defends the laws at its core, or you will find a new way to view the
everyday fundamentals of the univers e. Either way its worth the
read."

2nd person comments:

"I have read the book. This not a book of fiction or crazy ideas. It
presents a theory that very well possibly could one day shatter
standard theory currently in use. It solves mysteries of outer space
and even a few mysteries with Pioneer spacecraft. It utterly brings
down Grand Unified Theoritical work of last several decades. I first
bought the book to read out of curiousity. However after reading it
and thinking over it and testing a few ideas I have been unable to
find any flaw with it. Sciences curren t description of the 4 forces
(gravity, electro-magnetism, Weak Nuclear Force, Strong Nuclear Force)
have been flawed for years. Final Theory shows how much these forces
are not understood by science today. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Super
String, GUTS, Big Bang, Antimatter, and more are exposed as the flawed
theories they have always been. The very nature of matter and atoms
have been overlooked for the last century, but this book shows why
this has happened. Implicati ons of this new theory are huge. Finally,
it brings new questions about origins of matter and energy in all of
the universe. This book is a must read for anyone who claims to love
science and seeks answers for physical laws function as they do."

3rd person comments:

" For everyone that always ask what "The Theory of Everything" should
be make an effort to get your hands on a book by Mark McCutcheon, The
final Theory. It is a masterful paradigm shift that deserves a closer
look. If you are man or woman enough to admit that there are serious
flaws in the existing Standard Model and all its subset of models from
General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics, then you will do everything
you can to get your hands on The Final Theory, your life will never be
the same again. No dou bt, there will be many questions that will
arise from his book but his proposed model goes a long way further in
explaining everyday existence than all the other models put together.
The model presented is logical and simple, just the way it should be
without elaborate and fancy postulates, mathematical models and
abstract thinking that cannot even be comprehended by the Einsteins'
and Hawkings' of this world. It may not be the final theory of
everything, but it presents a quantum lea p (of several magnitude s)
in thinking that is bound to change the physical representation of our
Universe forever. The question is, are you prepared to be left behind
or are you prepared to let go of your paradigms and be at the
forefront of the new science."

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
I notice that, although you replied to my post, you ignored (and
snipped,
without marking this!) *all* of my comments and questions. That's
*very* telling!


"Cody R. Perkins" wrote:

As a final thought to this current board

Let me reply to this Bjoern message to Cory's final words.


This is a newsgroup, not a message board.


I will mention the following
points. Current theories of all physics are models.

Vaguely right.


They are helpful
tools, but should not be mistaken for the truth.

Hey, finally something I can agree with!


If Relativity and
many other theories perfectly described nature, then why are
physicists looking for Unified Field Theory to explain all physical
laws in the universe? Simple. They don't know why the physical laws
work.

Wrong. The main reasons to look for a Unified Field Theory are
1) The fact that it was already shown that the electromagnetic and
the weak force can be unified suggests that the electroweak and
the strong force can be unified, too.

In the Big Bang Theory. Everything in the universe comes from a
point smaller than a pinhead. Has anyone notice this is as
bizarre as anything?? Currently, some scientists are studying
the brane theory, etc. which state collision between two
5-dimensional universe create our universe. The unification of
the weak and electromagnetic may be coincident. I mean. We
can say for example. Tom and Richard are now 40 years old and
they don't know each other. One can conclude that 40 years prior,
they are still fetuses inside the womb. And since a woman called
Mary is pregnant by that time. Tom and Richard are children of
Mary. So when super high temperature makes symmetry happens at
weak and em force. Then it is children of big bang.



2) Another piece of evidence for this is that all of the coupling
constants
become equal at a very high energy (around 10^16 GeV, IIRC), if
one calculates their changes according to their known running at
low energies.
3) There are several things in the SM which aren't nice from a
theoretical point of view - it's not very elegant.


They know through experiment and observation what many physics
of nature do. But not what makes them work.

I beg to differ. For example, attraction and repulsion is caused by the
exchange of virtual particles. If this is not an explanation how
something works, what is it?

What if the concept of virtual particles are not discovered and
instead the bouncing electrons probably clouds are used and
mathematics are built and adjusted to the model with Mccutcheon
Uncertainty Principle, etc.?



It's not like you can look
at most particles directly. They had to look for signs to prove they
were there in the first place.

Now I have mentioned a few basics from this theory, but by all means
have not mentioned all of the depth or material it covers. If you want
know more read the book. If it doesn't interest you then go do
something else. I will go into in depth talk of the book only with
someone who has read it.

Could you please give us a reason why we should read it?

We have only shared a few of his ideas which he has expanded into
400 pages with dozens of illustrations. So our message with just
a few paragraphs can't illustrate everything he is saying. He
touches every aspect from magnetism to radio waves and how his
expanding electron theory can explain it as well as the data.
It's a good book. If a student can read it and debunk every page.
That student would be expert in physics.



Otherwise I will only mention basics to
someone else. Is the theory right? Wrong? Who knows. Like any theory
it requires experimental evidence to back it up. A few experiments
come to mind that would prove it right or wrong.

I've already asked some questions about observations which it has to
explain.
Am I right that it explains none of these observations?

We haven't mentioned all the points in his book which include
a lot of particle physics stuff. I think the portion we can
focus is the two-slit experiment which can either support or
debunk his observation.



As theory it is interesting. Other theores are cropping up that
elementary particle makes all other particles of matter and energy. I
have had a similar hunch myself that all particles are made of
extremely small particle not reconized today by science yet.

People have looked for stuff like this for decades now and haven't
found anything so far.

To look at let's say particle as smaller as string of the super
string. I read in The Elegant Universe that you needs giant size
particle accelerator maybe the diameter of the moon or bigger.




So if
Expansion Theory is true that would be interesting. If not then it
least it probes new ways of thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if all
current theories are wrong or over look how nature of physical really
works in every area.

*I* would be surprised if they were sooo wrong - they describe the
experimental results with amazing accuracy!

I'd be happy if the Standard Model is accurate, of course. That means
we can unravel the secret of qi by looking at the model. But if it is
wrong. Then no amount of unravelling can produce the mechanics of
qi since the model may not be right in the first place.



The point is mankind does not know. Even if we did the average person
wouldn't care to much. Only the small percentage of scientificly
curious would care. So we can debate all we want but the truth is we
just don't know why the universe works or why it formed in the first
place. If break throughs are made, it would most likely be used for
military application. Why? Because science has always had close ties
with military in some form or fashion.

Well, quarks were postulated around 40 years ago. So far, the military
hasn't found any use for them. ;-)





As our chaotic world stands now
we not ready for a Final Theory anyway. There will be time when
mankind can handle it. But certainly not right now.

So Expansion Theory, GUTS, Superstring, and many more are interesting.

I strongly object to you putting these three "theories" together, as if
they
were somehow equally possible.


However every development mankind has done as been flawed or abused in
some way. Something to think about. Do we even to deserve to know how
the universe works?

You can't blame whole mankind on the misdeeds of only a small part of
it.


Bye,
Bjoern

(Double-A) wrote in message . com...
Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Double-A , You say :
" What I want to know is where Benjamin Franklin found
those ' plastic ' rods in the 1700's ??? "

Did Benjamin Franklin use natural rubber rods ?


Hi Jeff,

Yes, Ben used rubber rods, since plastic wasn't invented until the 19th century.

Double-A


Later, Einstein used the same rubber rods in his theory! :-)


Double-A

Hi Double-A , You say Benjamin Franklin :
" used rubber rods "

yea , I can picture Ben now ... Rubbing his rubber .

(AaronB) wrote in message . com...
(cinquirer) wrote in message . com...
To continue with the above comment.

Now that Cody has summarised the main points of
particle physics portion of Mccutcheon's The Final
Theory. Let us make a parallel scrutiny with both the
gravitational and orbitals as discussed earlier and the
subatomic part of Expansion Theory. With Aaron
incredible knowledge and discernment.

Most of my "incredible knowledge and discernment" is from a freshman
physics text.

We can determine
its state not long, whether the book has merit and a
Nobel Prize candidate or just the ultimate crackpot book.

Don't worry too much about a Nobel Prize for this "masterpiece" just
yet.

Let's start with Mccutcheon statement that "neither
charged particles nor electric charge actually exists
anywhere in nature". I'll not quote any text from his
book. But use my own words and the way I understand
it (others who have read the book who saw where I
err in my understanding, just point out to me, thanks).

When Franklin rubs two suspended glass rods with
silk, he noticed they repel. Same with two plastic
rods with fur. However he noticed plastic and glass
rods attract. So he concluded there must be two
charge, positive and negative. As a result, all
experiments and theories related to atoms and
subatomic particles today are unquestioningly framed
within the interpretation made by Benjamin Franklin.

Which is wrong, at least partially; Franklin guessed that positive
charges flowed in current toward negative. We know the opposite is
true (though Franklin did literally just guess in the matter, that's
why you'll hear of both "conventional current" and "electron flow" for
the same thing)

He didn't guess since he was working lightning.
That can be surmised from the very simple
principle that he was very fond of telling
European scientists:

Hey Frankenstein, we got keys in this country, so you better
be careful what castles you set on fire.

(AaronB) wrote in message . com...

The expansion isn't very great though. We've already established that
the rate of expansion for any particle is 0.000077% of its
radius/second (might be off by a zero or two, not sure). Given that an
atomic nucleus is very small to begin with, if another particle was to
strike, the expansion rate would not be able to overcome the change in
momentum of the rest of the system. In fact, the rate of expansion
would be on the order of 10^-17 m/s^2. In order to escape the nucleus,
the object which collided with it would only need to transfer enough
momentum to escape that expansion rate, which wouldn't be too tough.
Even a speed as measly as 1 m/s would be more than enough.

As much as Mccutcheon stuff is improbable. Let me present his view
even though I don't agree with him. It is his creativity of
explanations that is interesting. In that same message. I explained
about inner and outer atomic realm. Since he said electron are
chargeless and expansive hyperspace and protons, neutrons are
composed of thousands of electrons, the vicinity of the space
in between the outermost electron jump and nucleus itself is
not the same space as ours. So its expansion rate is not the same
as the one outside. The 0.000077% or so you mentioned is the
expansion from one half of the electron in the outermost part
while the nucleus itself expand much faster than it. However,
due to the fact space is not similar outside and inside atom.
Then even though it expands so fast inside to keep stability.
It is not reflected outside. However. There is a paradox in
that when you hit a particle from outside to the inside of the
atom. You would hit the nucleus like from outside perspective
although the inside space is of different nature than the space
we know it.



About particle hitting it. That's what Mccutcheon
explains are what produces the particles in particle accelerator
experiments when the nucleus is only made of clusters of
electrons.

Electric theory would suggest otherwise. Why do protons attract
electrons, but free electrons repel electrons, when both are made of
the same thing?

Can you specify an example? If you are talking about electrical
flow. Well. Mccutcheon has spent a chapter on this. Let me point
this out when you give details of particular case or experimental
setup.


About causing the nucleus to fragment itself. Mccutcheon
said they recombine immediately after being hit..

Why would it? There's nothing keeping the nucleus together; for that
matter, why would the nucleus even be together in the first place?

The extreme fast expansion inside the atomic realm can keep them
together (note the explanation again above about difference in
spaces inside and outside atoms).


which explains
why the "quarks" in the proton, neutron can't be separated or why
the gluons are stronger when further apart.

No it doesn't.

Due to the extremely fast expansion of the thousands of electrons
in the nucleus (noting again the space atomic relativity). Each
electron is also touching another. So they stick together. When
a particle is shot into the nucleus. The hit portion recombine
immediately because of the pressure from the fast expansion.



About muons, he said
those particles seen in particle accelerator experiments
are really part of the electron nucleus clusters that
has break off. Now let's go back to charge.

Why wouldn't this be a nuclear fission reaction as stated above?

Note again about differences in "spaces" between inner and outer
realm of atoms. In atomic explosion. He said "when stable atomic
structure or organization disintegrates, the expanding protons
and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom suddenly redefined or
bared as freely expanding electron clusters in the external atomic
realm. This essentially transforms them from expanding matter
particles contained within the subatomic realm, to freely expanding
electron clusters...".


Since
the nucleus has no positive charge, and electrons don't
have charge either, then the electrons simply bounce
off the nucleus.

How would atoms bond chemically without charged particles?

The bouncing electrons (relatively speaking) are shared between
two atoms. The bond is formed when the bouncing distance gets
smaller as they "handshake" each other as each nucleus expand
and the bouncing electrons are intermingled between the 2
atomic realm. He explained this in 10 pages.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If the electrons were close between
the atoms, they would be FORCING THEM APART. An electron colliding
with a nucleus would cause the nucleus to move away from it.

Exactly. Without the bouncing electron. The two nucleus would
touch. So the bouncing electron is to keep them from touching.
When the two nucleus gets closer. The bouncing is stronger. So
chemical bond and matter stability he said is formed from the
pressure of the two nucleus to touch each other and the electrons
that keep their distance and pressure.


Furthermore, this explanation still does not consider periodic
properties of the elements. For instance, why is fluorine (9
electrons) the most reactive element, while neon (10 electrons) is one
of the least? Shouldn't any element be able to bond with any other
element by this logic? Why should a reaction between sodium and
chlorine release heat? etc. etc. He's not only trying to rewrite all
of Physics; he's trying to rewrite chemistry too!


And the rise of falls of the many
bouncing electrons produce the effects made by
"quantum probability clouds".

Helium gas has two valence electrons and never bonds with anything.
Why don't those two electrons just fly away, given that they have
nothing to bounce on?

Mccutcheon call it crossover effect, where the electron crosses
to the space outside making it grow. This cause the bouncing
effect as the nucleus reach it to reclaim it in subatomic realm and
then boucing it back to outer realm.


Now what made two
object get attracted or repelled to each other if
there is no charge. Well. The distribution of the
bouncing electrons are not the same in all substance.
Where two objects have bouncing electrons with
unequal density.

Hydrogen atoms have one electron each, and readily form H2 gas. That's
only two electrons with atoms that have the same electron density. And
even still, while the electrons may stick together as you suggest,
there is no reason why they should stick to the nucleus.

As the nucleus expand. It tries to expand into another nucleus.
And the bouncing electrons and shorter distances make the binding
and intermingling stronger.

What if the electrons are on the wrong side of the nuclei when they
bond? Eg.
e = electron, H = hydrogen nucleus (proton), - = direction of travel
eH-- --He
eH- -He
eH--He
eHHe

In this situation, shouldn't the two electrons just fly away?

Since Mccutcheon theory doesn't require charges. It's not only
single electron inside. There is no requirement to balance to that
of the nucleus. I'll check his book again for the explanation.
Other who read it kindly assist me on this. Let us challenge
Mccutcheon's theories and collect all the fatal flaw for his
comments or submission. Gee. This can get us to become familiar with
many part of sciences. So even if his book is improbable. It's
the thought of what is the true mechanism of the "why" (and
not just "how") that makes it interesting


I think I'm going to go with Joe Fischer on this one. Expansion theory
is a workable solution for problems that deal with gravitation. It is
not a workable solution for problems that deal with electric charge,
internuclear forces, etc.

Hey. If Expansion Theory is workable solution for gravitation. There
must be a mechanism inside the atoms to make it work. One that
have to take into consideration how it will affect the 3 other forces.
Mccutcheon may have thought for years how to create the atomic
model that can expand and yet not be in conflict with expression
of other forces. His model may be all wrong. But he has great
creativity.

c


A.

c


There is a density to bind each other
much like two opposite crowd of the football teams
going after each other and merging. Imagine each
person as electron although in reality there are fewer
of course. So the merging produces the attraction,
not the charge. Now in repulsion, the opposite
crowd has all big men on the front (concentrated
electron densities on the front), so the crowd
can't mix very easily because they have to wait for
the big men or wrestlers to fight off (which you see
on TV takes very long).

I don't know if the above is a good analogy.

Now, Aaron, your detailed comment. Let's debunk it
with penetrating counterarguments.

c

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Mark McCutcheon is a
crackpot.

A.



Joe Fischer wrote in message . ..
On 22 Nov (Cody R. Perkins) wrote:

Since you have already have mentioned the basics of Expansion Theory
to a public posting I will note a few points as well.

Expansion Theory basicly implies that all matter and energy are
composed of one subatomic particle. The electron. The electron by it's
nature is rapidly expanding in size. Taking up more volume of space as
it does. Space itself has no limit or any properties as all space
really is just the distance between atomic objects. All other
particles are made of groups of electrons. The mutual expansion of the
electrons in a group binds them together [BIG snip]

Baloney, nothing that bizarre is needed, other particles
could be expanding just as well as electrons.

The model builds itself, it does not need bizarre assumptions
or specification such as this.

Joe Fischer

On 25 Nov 2003 16:56:41 -0800, (AaronB) wrote:

(cinquirer) wrote:
(AaronB) wrote:
I don't know if this would necessarily produce stability. Think of
having a whole bunch of balloons in a cluster. Now start inflating
them. The balloons will naturally try to separate as much as possible.
Furthermore, it would seem to me, that if you were to have a second
atom (or any particle) approach the nucleus with some speed, it could
very easily cause the nucleus to fragment itself. Now, this process is
possible (nuclear fission) but it obviously requires a considerable
amount of energy.

I don't know if the attribution of this paragraph is correct,
but whoever wrote it apparently didn't think it through.
Bodies having a greater density (mass to volume ratio)
would resist being accelerated more and tend to stay closer
to the center, and "balloons" having less density would be
nudged toward the periphery.

In a gas, two atoms would (and do) repulse each other,
and resistance to acceleration may tend to hold them together
to some extent, but a third atom would be more strongly
repulsed by both, causing H2 to be the most common.

Also worth mentioning is the fact, if all matter
was in the gaseous state, the Divergent Matter model
would be the preferred model, as the surface gravity
of any body of consistent density would be directly
proportional to radius. Also, the surface gravity
of spheres of the same radius but a different density
gas, would be directly proportional to density.
This is a good approximation of nature.

A simple molecule like water, would have the
heavier atom at the center and two lighter atoms at
NOT exactly 180 degrees, as the most common
configuration, if only repulsion and resistance
to acceleration was considered.

But the expansion is very great so it can't escape and bind with
each other.

The expansion isn't very great though. We've already established that
the rate of expansion for any particle is 0.000077% of its
radius/second (might be off by a zero or two, not sure).

Nobody has "established" that the expansion would be
only dependent on radius.
In fact, the expansion would have to be a function of
both radius and density, else Newtonian gravitation would
not be such an excellent approximation of nature.

Not only that, the expansion would have to consist
of a mixture of velocity and acceleration, dense elements
would have more outward acceleration of the surface and
less velocity, and less dense elements would have to have
a greater outward _velocity_ of the surface.

This would agree very closely with the Newtonian
approximation except in the case of hypothetical massive
bodies made up of shells of differing density elements
with the outer shells being the most dense.
Newtonian gravitation would not differentiate where
the shells are, a given mass with a given radius would have
the same surface gravity with dense shells in the center or
in the outer shells, but in massive bodies the more dense
elements move toward the center. The Earth's moon
has an anomaly though, with an off center dense core.

Given that an
atomic nucleus is very small to begin with, if another particle was to
strike, the expansion rate would not be able to overcome the change in
momentum of the rest of the system. In fact, the rate of expansion
would be on the order of 10^-17 m/s^2. In order to escape the nucleus,
the object which collided with it would only need to transfer enough
momentum to escape that expansion rate, which wouldn't be too tough.
Even a speed as measly as 1 m/s would be more than enough.

The standard model, with two possible charges,
is a much better fit of nature, but there is an interesting
aspect involving expansion and resistance to acceleration,
A force that appears to get stronger with greater
distance of separation might be observed, when it does
not exist. This would not be "gravity", it would just
be an observation effect, and might possibly allow a
model to be constructed with only repulsion of like
charges and resistance to acceleration (inertia).
Gravity would be a resulting phenomenon,
and not be a "force" at all, it would be simply a
result.
That would reduce the number of elementary
"forces" to two or even possibly one, that remaining
elementary force being just the electromagnetic.
As I understand the strong force, it could be
just the observation effect of a repulsion at close
distance, and less of a repulsion at greater distance.

The observers being made of matter may be
at a severe disadvantage, and must try to remove
observer bias from any observation interpretation.

Newton did not do that with gravity, Einstein
did!

Joe Fischer