Aaron and others. The excerpt in the following explains about
Electricity, Magnets and the last part explains about the doublet
slit experiment (here there appears to be a flaw as he didn't
apply the single slit or sorta). To the Mccutcheon folks. Sorry
for the excerpt but this will be the last. To those who have
read Mccutcheon book, just form a forum to discuss and see where
his creativity can be expanded (pun intended). I didn't master
his book very well because it is thick (400+) and I have others
to read and besides, it should be the wrong model since it can't
explain consciousness. Thanks Aaron for pointing out about fusion,
reactivity in elements, etc. I'll look into them. Also I'll let you
know when a forum is created so others can give their own input
and share the ideas because I just can't type them all.

Quoting Mccutcheon in The Final Theory
(in the book he explains dozens of others such as polarization,
photoelectric effect, black hole, gravitational lens, etc. so just
get the book or visit his website at
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm
for the full length of them as I can't just quote or type a lot
explaining each of them. I need concentration in qi research.
The following starts in the part after Mccutcheon describe the
current theory of electricity and how his differs):

"Expansion Theory, on the other hand, describes this as a surplus of
electrons in the "negative" half of the battery, which are essentially
trapped between subatomic and atomic realms. That is, they are free
enough to attempt to grow out into the atomic realm, as in the earlier
static electricity discussion, yet are also confined by a loose
association with the atoms within the battery as well as by the walls
of the battery casing. This situation presents a large expansion
pressure within the battery that se eks a way out. Connecting wires to
the battery provides a conductive path for the electrons to expand out
along the wire and through the circuit. The "positive" battery
terminal at the other end of the circuit is not actually "positively
charged," but rather, it contains a material that has a deficit of
electrons, essentially creating a region of very low expansion
pressure that readily accepts the expanding electrons from the
circuit.

Therefore, once the circuit is completed, the surplus electrons from
the high-pressure ("negative") battery terminal are able to expand
freely along the wire, through the circuit, and into the low-pressure
("positive") terminal in a continuous flow. Also, similar to the
spark in the earlier static electricity discussion, once a continuous
span of electrons extends to the other battery terminal the whole
river of electrons tends to rapidly return to their subatomic
definition within the far terminal - somewhat like one long,
controlled spark through the circuit. As this proc ess continues, it
equalizes the high and low expansion pressures wi thin the two sides
of the battery, gradually reducing the current flow and eventually
bringing it to a halt entirely, leaving a drained battery. The battery
is not actually drained of "charge," however, but has simply reached a
state of equalized expansion pressure on both sides.

This explanation of electric current solves the mystery of how, for
example, the resistor continually heats up simply because "charged"
electrons flow through it, while the electrons lose neither charge nor
even kinetic energy (speed) in the process. That is, although not
generally recognized today, there is no identifiable energy transfer
from the flowing electrons to the circuit components, leading to the
logical conclusion that the battery only powers the movement of the
electrons through the circuit - b ut not the circuit components
themselves. Since the circuit components do, nevertheless, consume
power in order to operate, this is a deep "energy-for-free" mystery
that is only solved by realizing that this whole process is not driven
by "energy" a all, but by the ongoing subatomic expansion of all\0
electrons.

Once again, the term "energy" is merely an abstraction that was
invented in an attempt to explain observations in the absence of an
Understanding of expanding matter. With this understanding, we can see
that it is not actually the battery that powers the circuit, but
subatomic expansion that drives this whole process (as it drives all
things), in this case using the battery to enable a temporary
crossover effect into the atomic realm known as current flow. The
details of precisely how subatomic expansion po wers circuit
components will be addressed further as the discussions continue,
leading up to an analysis of a very special type of resistor - the
light bulb.

As might be expected, as the electrons expand and push each other
along the wire, they would experience far less difficulty expanding
along the outside of the wire than through its dense center, which
should result in electricity tending to flow along the outside of the
wire. And, in fact, there is a well-known but little understood effect
called the "Skin Effect that describes precisely this behavior of
electric current. This effect is so-named because electricity is known
to flow as a thin coating or "skin" along the outside of the wire
rather than flowing equally through the whole volume of the wire
itself (Fig. 4-13).

This tendency to expand along the outside of the wire creates a very
important side effect, which can be clearly seen in the diagram. As
the expanding electrons push one another along the outside of the wire
they would also freely expand out into space, creating a surrounding
cloud of electrons that radiates outward as it moves along with the
current. This is actually a very well known and measurable effect,
known as a magnetic field. Although today the Skin Effect is thought
to occur mostly in circuits having rapid back-and-forth current
oscillations rather than continual one-way current flow, Expansion
Theory suggests this is an oversight due to a failure to recognize
that the magnetic fields surrounding all wires carrying current are
actually such externalized electrons. This defines a new concept for
magnetic fields:

NEW IDEA

The magnetic fields surrounding all wires that carry
electric current are actually the electrons themselves
expanding outward into space as they move along the
wire.


Rethinking Magnetism

Permanent Magnets

A permanent magnet is typically created by repeatedly passing an
existing magnet in the same direction across an iron bar until the bar
becomes magnetized as well. As mentioned earlier, Standard Theory
states that there are thousands of tiny magnetic regions throughout
the iron bar, but which are all initially oriented randomly. These
tiny magnetic dipole regions, as they are called, are thought to align
when an external magnet is repeatedly passed over an iron bar, turning
the whole bar into one overall ma gnet. The resulting magnet is now
said to have 41 north pole magnetic energy" emanating from one end and
"south pole magnetic energy" emanating from the other - phenomena
whose nature and behavior have just been shown to be completely
unexplained.

From the perspective of Expansion Theory, however, the process of
repeatedly passing a magnet over the iron bar causes the electrons
within the iron bar to migrate toward one end, and then further out
onto the outside of the bar. These externalized electrons naturally
expand out as a cloud radiating in all directions. This is similar to
the objects in the earlier static electricity discussion, except that
such objects are typically non-conductors whose surface becomes coated
with electrons from an external source. In the case of the iron bar,
however, the conductive metal of the bar allows the electrons within
the volume of the bar to be pulled toward one end of the bar during
creation of the magnet. This end becomes saturated with electrons that
have been dragged from the other end, which is now depleted of
electrons. The changes in the molecular alignment of tiny regions
throughout the iron bar mentioned in Standard Theory would most likely
function as a barrier preventing th e electrons from diffus ing back
to the depleted end, rather than these regions acting like tiny
unexplained magnets themselves, as currently believed. The end of the
iron bar that is now saturated with electrons is the north pole, and
has an electron cloud radiating from it due to the surplus electrons.

This process would leave the south-pole end with a deficit of
electrons, resulting in a low-pressure region much as in the earlier
"positive" battery terminal discussion, and also likely an external
electron cloud of lesser density as in the static electricity
discussion. Depending on which of these two effects is dominant, as
the dense electron cloud at the north pole fans out into space it
either encounters the less dense south-pole electron cloud or the low
pressure of the south pole directly. In either case, the dense
electron cloud would be rapidly drawn into the subatomic realm within
the south pole, aided by the conductive nature of the iron bar. This
return to the microscopic subatomic realm at the south pole would
cause a size equality readjustment to immediately ripple back through
the dense electron cloud, causing it to tighten around the iron bar in
the characteristic field lines of all bar magnets (Fig. 4-19). Since a
sizable number of electrons are still stretched between the poles
outside this newly created magnet in the form of a magnetic field, the
south pole still remains significantly depleted. This description
shows that, once expanding matter is considered, magnetism can be seen
as an emergent group behavior of many electrons, and not the result of
an unexplained magnetic property Of individual electrons and atoms
within the magnet, as thought today.

Whether two north poles or two south poles of separate magnets meet,
they encounter tightened clouds of expanding electrons under tension,
which push on each other and cause the repelling force between like
poles. When a north and south pole meet, however, the north pole is
closer to the depleted south pole of the other magnet than it is to
its own, and the cloud begins to unwrap from around its magnet and
extend across the gap to the other magnet's south pole. As the cloud
tightens across the gap in the sa me manner that it ordinarily
tightens around its own magnet, the two magnets are drawn toward each
other (Fig. 4-20). This is the attracting force between north and
south poles. When the magnets touch each other, the electron cloud
shrinks to a microscopic cloud of subatomic particles sandwiched
between the two magnets, which can be forcefully stretched back out
like an elastic fabric of subatomic particles if the magnets are
pulled apart.

Unlike "electrically charged objects, the north-pole electron cloud
does not discharge into the other magnet and neutralize, or in this
case, demagnetize both magnets when they touch. The "charged" objects
discussed earlier do this because of a surface coating of excess
electrons isolated outside of non-conducting material, which will
readily leap to another object capable of accepting these isolated
surplus electrons if it is close enough. However, the surplus
electrons at the north pole of a magnet are pa rt of a continuum of
surplus electrons that extends throughout the north half of the
conductive iron bar. Therefore, the north-pole electron cloud is
actually an extension of a densely packed electron cloud within the
magnet, and does not readily separate and discharge from the surface
the way the electron cloud of a "charged" object does.

Also, "charged" objects are not strongly attracted to a magnet's
depleted south pole because the large and rapidly growing electrons in
the freely expanding electron clouds of "charged" objects are largely
isolated from the magnet's depleted south pole by the tightly wrapped
elections of the magnetic field. In a sense, the tight magnetic field
acts as a 'force field" that deflects the cloud of larger, freely
expanding electrons. There is also no strong repelling force between a
"charged" object and either p ole of a magnet for essentially the same
reason. That is, the tight magnetic field of the magnet does not
expand outward freely to cause a repelling push, but acts more like a
'force field" that mechanically deflects or brushes aside the object's
electric field when it nears. It is also worth noting that:

Note:

The preceding explanation for the repelling and attracting forces
between magnets is the only known explanation for this effect; today's
science offers neither a clear physical mechanism nor a scientifically
viable explanation for how or magnets repel or attract each other.

Rethinking the Classic Double-Slit Experiment

The double-slit experiment, first performed by Thomas Young in 1801,
has become a classic experiment in our science because it is thought
to show both the wave nature of light as well as the paradox of its
dual wave-particle nature. This experiment simply involves a barrier
with two vertical slits, through which light is able to pass. The idea
is that light passing through these slits will emerge on the other
side and radiate outward as two separate cones of light that will
interfere with each other in patt erns of constructive and destructive
interference. And indeed, with the proper selection of slit width and
separation distance between the slits, the emerging light does
interfere and cause light and dark bands on a far screen (Fig. 5-9).

This experiment is thought to be analogous to the interference pattern
that can be observed between water waves radiating from two nearby
disturbances in a pond. Likewise, since light is thought to be a wave
of pure energy - and, in theory, idealized waves that meet out of
phase cancel each other out - the light and dark bands have
traditionally been interpreted as constructiveldestructive
interference bands, validating the wave theory of light. However, a
simple experiment with overlapping lasers, as discu ssed earlier,
shows that light cannot be made to cancel itself out of existence in
the manner idealized in abstract wave theory. In fact, it is a
violation of the laws of physics to even expect energy to vanish in
the physical world in this manner. So, although light and dark
interference bands do occur within the two overlapping cones of light,
the dark bands cannot be regions where waves of disembodied "light
energy" cancel each other out of existence an y more than waves of
disembodied "water energy" canc el each other out in a pond. The
analogous interference pattern with water waves results from the
interaction of wavelike oscillations of matter particles (water
Molecules), and so, the logical conclusion is that the interference
pattern in light is a similar manifestation of matter particle
interaction. This would be expected if light were actually a sea of
electron clusters radiating out into space, as shown in Expansion
Theory.

Note: The double-slit experiment has been misinterpreted as
evidence for the "wave theory" of light, but is actually
evidence of an interaction between groups of particles.

A further reason the double-slit experiment is a classic is because it
is also thought to show a deeply mysterious wave-particle paradox. The
paadox supposedly arises when the intensity of the light beam is
reduced to the point where only single photons of light are
transmitted one-at-a-time from the light source. This means there
should no longer be two cones of light interfering with each other,
but rather, separate light photons traveling one at a time through one
slit or the other. If these photons then proceed on and strike a
photographic plate, the cumulative effect over time should develop
into two bright spots on the plate - one for each slit that a photon
might pass through. However, the actual result is an interference
pattern much like the original experiment with the full light beam.
This is thought to show that, even when light is sent toward the slits
as individual particles one-at-a-time, it can still produce a wavelike
interference pattern. It is completely unexplained how these
individual particles seem to "know" how to land in a wavelike
interference pattern on the photographic pl ate, doing so even though
the scenario is no longe r one of interference between two waves. This
is the famous wave-particle duality paradox of the double-slit
experiment, showing that even single particles of light mysteriously
act as if they were waves passing through both slits simultaneously.

Taking a fresh look at this apparent paradox, we can now see that it
is not actually a wave-particle paradox at all. It was just shown that
even the original interference pattern in Figure 5-9 is not a proven
"energy wave" phenomenon, but merely resembles known interference
patterns between waves of particles. So, the actual mystery of the
double-slit experiment is not that these particles of light somehow
individually produce the interference pattern of "pure waves," but
only that individual particles seem to still produce the original
group particle interference pattern. With this clarification, the
experiment simply leaves us with the questi on of whether this is
truly a situation of separate particles fired one-at-a-time through
the slits. As shown in the earlier discussion of light passing through
a glass block, the current Quantum Mechanical theory of "energy
photons" behaving like projectiles shot individually through space is
unsupported by experiment. Despite the evidence against such an idea,
this is precisely the claim that is made in the double-slit
experiment; therefore, there is good reason to question ,veil this
facet of the experiment. Evidence is mount ing for the possibility
that the entire classi c double-slit experiment may simply be a series
of logical and experimental oversights regarding the nature and
behavior of light. So then, what are we to make of the interference
pattern when it is thought that individual photons are passing
one-at-a-time through the slits?

Expansion Theory shows that light proceeds through space as a sea of
expanding electron clusters pushing each other away from the light
source. It is such an expanding beam of particles that arrives at the
double slits to cause the original interference pattern on the other
side much as a wall of water molecules would behave after passing
through *WO such openings. When the light intensity is reduced to the
point where Standard Theory claims it produces single photons,
Expansion Theory would maintain that c ontinuous beams of electron
clusters are still produced, but are very short-lived and sporadic
since the light source is just on the verge of being turned off. We
can picture the earlier description of agitated pools of electrons on
the surface of a light-bulb filament, but rather than a continuous
supply of electrons pooling and expanding off as a sea of clusters,
the supply is only barely enough to produce sporadic bursts of
clusters. Each burst would only extend a s hort distance through space
before its supply of electron clusters suddenly cuts off at the
source, in favor of producing another such burst a short while later.

Since a regular-intensity light beam would normally expand across the
entire distance from the source to the detector, our detectors are
designed to trigger based on this forceful stream of electron clusters
Continually arriving under their combined expansion pressure. If such
a beam has its source cut off before arriving, it becomes an orphaned
Partial stream of electron clusters in mid-air that is free to
dissipate Much of its expansion pressure before reaching the detector.
This is rather like a spring c oiled against a wall, which shoots away
from the wall and strikes a nearby target when it is allowed to
uncoil. If the wall is removed part-way through the uncoiling process,
the spring is unable to launch itself forward with its normal full
strength and strikes the target with much less force. In fact,
depending on when the wall is removed, the spring may not even make it
all the way to the target. Similarly, the space between the source and
the detector in the doubleslit exp eriment may be filled with burs ts
of unseen partial light beams that are unable to trigger the detector
but nonetheless pass through the slits and interfere with each other
much as before. The occasional beam that is supplied by the source
long enough to be detected (currently thought of as a single photon
fired across the distance) would still be affected by interference
between these unseen light beams; it would simply take longer to build
up the interference pattern at the detector.

Implications of the Double-Slit Reinterpretation

This reinterpretation of the double-slit experiment carries with it
some very deep implications, not only for the nature of light and
energy, but also for Quantum Theory itself. First, it explains a
long-standing experimental mystery in our science, showing that light
need not be considered to have a mysterious inherent wave-particle
dual nature that is fundamentally unresolved until detection.

Secondly, this reinterpretation shakes the very core of Quantum
Mechanics since the wave-particle duality paradox of light is thought
to exemplify and validate the concepts of quantum uncertainty and
probability in nature that have become deeply woven into Quantum
Theory. In fact, this wave-particle-duality concept has become so
widespread in our science today that it has even been extended frorn a
description of energy to a description of matter as well. In 1924,
Louis de Broglie postulated that electrons, atoms, and even regular
objects possess a mysterious wavelike nature as well. Via a simple
mathematical equation one can calculate the theoretical wavelength of
any such object, as if it truly had a wavelike nature. Even the
wavelength of a truck can be calculated, and although the result is of
no practical use, science today does consider such calculations to be
valid applications of the wave-particle-duality principle of Quantum
Theory - a principle whose core experimental support has just been
shown to be erroneous.

Yet, as apparent proof of this apparently mysterious wavelike behavior
of matter, beams of electrons have been made to interfere with each
other in a similar manner to the double-slit experiment, resulting in
a similar "wavelike" interference pattern. Although this has been
taken as proof of de Broglie's concept of matter having a paradoxical
dual nature as a quantum "probability wave," it was just shown that
such an interference pattern does not actually indicate a dual
wave-particle nature at all, but merely interference between
particles. Therefore, there is no particular reason to conclude that
individual electrons have mysterious "quantum wave" natures, but
merely that groups of electrons interfere in a manner much like many
other known examples of interference between large groups of particles
- just as we might expect.

Further, this supposed wave-particle dual nature of both energy and
matter is embodied in perhaps the most central equation in Quantum
Mechanics - the Schroedinger Wave Equation, named after Erwin
Schroedinger (1887-1961), one of the founders of Quantum Theory. The
Schroedinger Wave Equation is considered the cornerstone equation of
Quantum Theory, and claims to capture the mysterious probabilisticic
quantum wave" nature that supposedly underlies all energy and matter
in the universe. Therefore, it is a s izable problem for Quantum
Theory that the apparent experimental support for the "quantum wave"
nature described by this central equation now appears to simply be a
Misinterpretation of straightforward particle interaction.

It appears that neither the double-slit experiment, de Broglie's
Matter wave concept, Planck's "quantum energy jump" concept, nor even
the central Schroedinger Wave Equation stand any longer as the literal
description of our universe. Yet, these concepts are the key support
pillars for the theory of Quantum Mechanics, which now increasingly
appears merely to be an abstract model built partly on Unchecked
logical oversights in experimental interpretation and partly on
misunderstandings of expanding matter. This is the likely reason for
repeated descriptions of Quantum Theory as being mysterious and
bizarre rather than it being our universe that is bizarre and
"incomprehensible. Once the principle of expanding matter is
recognized, all of today's quantum mechanical mysteries vanish. This
can be further seen in yet another classic experiment that has been
taken as support for Quantum Mechanics - the Photoelectric Effect."


(AaronB) wrote in message om...
(cinquirer) wrote in message . com...
Aaron,

Before I answer the quiries below (which I will in this same
message). Let me share first what is Mccutcheon view on
electricity, magnetism, light bulb, energy, light, solar cell,
electromagnetism, etc. so it can be put in perspective.

First battery. He said a positive terminal has material that has
a deficit of electrons, while a negative terminal has an excess
of electrons (which is trapped between subatomic and atomic
realm).

You mean it doesn't have enough electrons inside the atomic realm or
outside?

So when you put a wire, the pressure is removed
from the negative side and flows to the positive.

Why is the wire necessary? Why couldn't it just borrow electrons from
matter in the air? And why does the wire have to be a specific metal,
instead of say, carbon? Why does it even care how many electrons it
has (valence or otherwise)?

This occurs
when expansion of the electrons push them. When the electrons
return to their subatomic definition at the far side, the pressure
slowly returns to normal. When it equalizes the high and low
expansion pressures within the two sides of the battery. Current
flow is gradually reduced until it halted. The battery then is not
drained of "charge" but has simply reached a state of equalized
expansion pressure on both sides.
(Note: the key to understand his theories depend on fully
understanding what he meant by "crossover effect" or space
between different inside subatomic realm and outside and how
the electron can change state producing the many phenomena)

Now let's go to light bulb. He said as electrons flow into the
filament. What made it produce light. He doesn't believe photons
exist. So what he said is that the electrons from the wire is transmitted
into space and these clusters of electrons are what we call photons.
Similarly, radio waves are not "electromagnetic energy" but waves
of electrons expanding into space. He spent some 20 pages and
illustrations on all these so I don't know if I have conveyed them
well in 2 short paragraph. No wonder others don't want to talk
about them because it's difficult to convey his ideas (It may be
wrong, but his creativity of showing it is what counts and this
may be good material for teachers as assignments for students).
Back to current in a wire. He said some electrons can escape
out in the wire as they expand and this produces magnetic
field.

But he said that electrons weren't charged, so why would they produce
magnetic field? And presumably the electrons should be escaping
radially from the wire, but magnetic fields act in concentric circle
patterns. Why would some objects be attracted to the field and others
wouldn't be?

Now solar cell. He said it's absurd how "photons" can convert
into electrons. So what occurs he said is that the solar cell
simply collects the electrons at the sky and the wire becomes
fill with electrons producing electricity.

About electromagnetic field. It is divided into a lower-frequency
section of electron compression bands and a higher-frequency
section of electron clusters. When we see lights and colors.
They are just illusions he said. They are just different arrangement
of electrons imprinting on our retina.

I think you mean electromagnetic radiation.

Now since light are just electron clusters. When they are redefined
from the subatomic space to outside space. "A rapid chain reaction
of countless disintegrating atoms would release tremendous numbers
of such freely expanding electron clusters, smashing them apart into
all manner of cluster sizes corresponding to all frequencies of
radiation."

Now I'll treat each of your queries below:


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



Then why is nuclear fusion (combination of two atoms) MUCH more
difficult to accomplish than fission (splitting of one large atom).
And for that matter, why are larger atoms easier to split than smaller
ones?

Hmm.... maybe the bouncing electrons have to be push so hard
and when they are overcomed, the nucleus can't maintain the
stability of the two atoms and get translate to outside space?
Dunno. He doesn't mention about fusion bombs.

Here's a simple example: I have two protons. They move away from each
other at a predictable rate. I have a proton and an electron; they
attract each other at a predictable rate. I see no need to get more
complicated than that.

How do you put two protons and make them go away at a
predictable rate? An actual example so I can know what particular
case you are describing. Remember the electrons can push
them away. Also I forget my chemistry lessons in college
so I have to review them. And I will in order to know how to
debunk each page of his book which would be fun.

I have two horseshoe magnets. I label one magnet A, and one magnet B,
and label each leg of the magnets 1 and 2. I have A and B facing each
other, in the following manner:

1 1
A B
2 2

And find that the magnets repel each other. I reverse A:

2 1
A B
1 2

And find they attract.