The Final Theory
The Shrinking Theory (Roland Michel Tremblay)
Vs.
The Expansion
Theory (Mark McCutcheon)
Last updated: 25 September 2007,
The
Final Theory, a Book by Mark McCutcheon
Comments
by Roland Michel Tremblay
RM Tremblay, 44E The Grove, Isleworth, Middlesex,
Tel +44 (0)20 8847 5586
www.themarginal.com rm@themarginal.com
www.themarginal.com/relativity.htm
Summary
Shrinking Theory vs. Expansion Theory
Comments or clarification about Expansion Theory
Key points to investigate (questions)
To be continued…
It has been a while since I worked on my Shrinking Theory of the Universe or Universal
Relativity as I came to also call it eventually. In a
way it is a good thing that I didn’t develop it further, because I understand
now that I was not on the right track, though I sometimes feel I was closer
than any other theoretical physicists out there. Perhaps if I had continued I
could have come up with what Mark McCutcheon realised, especially if I had paid
more attention to gravity, and how it turns out that expanding electrons and
hence the expansion of all objects in the universe explains gravity completely.
However, Mark McCutcheon (also a Canadian like me) wrote such a great book
about it all, it is as well that he also was interested in this way of picturing
the universe.
My problem, and why I started working on
theoretical physics in the first place, is that Einstein Theories did not make
any sense to me. For a long time I assumed that it was because I couldn’t
understand, and when you are confronted with such mind boggling ideas, you can
spend an eternity trying to figure out how this all works in practice, without
even realising that altogether the theories were wrong. And this is what I did,
I tried to push it as far as I could, to understand the real implications of
that logic, and trying to fix the problems I was encountering in Einstein’s
theories. I could only come to the conclusion that somehow matter must shrink
and must expand, as it was the only way Einstein’s ideas could work. So I was
on the right track when I assumed that somehow matter was expanding, I just
needed to forget Einstein and push the idea further.
I came across Mark McCutcheon’s book very suddenly
as well. I was only attracted to the book in the first place because anyone suggesting
that somehow all matter could be expanding sounded like my own theories. I have
come across such idea so seldom since I started writing my ideas in 1995, that
of course I jumped at the chance to read anything upon the subject. I wasn’t
prepared for what I have read, McCutcheon is in my mind a genius, and on that
scale, if it turns out that he is right (and I cannot believe for a second that
he is wrong), I feel he will be remembered as a genius mind surpassing Newton
and Einstein, because in the end, he would be the one who finally figured it
all out.
What is impressive, is how the simple idea
and principle that there is only one fundamental particle in the universe, the
electron, and that this electron is expanding at a constant rate, can lead to so
much understanding about physics, and revolutionise everything. I admit that
sometimes it is what the Standard Theory states, and Expansion Theory is just
another way of interpreting it, different ways of calling certain phenomena,
but the revolution is still there, because now we understand everything, and
this could lead to better technology, even perhaps new technology we never
imagined could exist. As for Science Fiction though, I’m afraid, just like the Standard
Theory, it has just been killed. A lot of creativity will be required indeed to
come up with great new sci-fi, and I have already some great ideas boiling
inside.
I have
read the book The Final Theory twice now (and perhaps more as I kept re-reading
many passages) and I am now reading it a third time. Frankly, I feel it is
really worth reading. I have read the comments on Amazon.com and .co.uk, I found that most
negative critics were poorly developed and seemed to have been written by
people who never read the book but somehow felt threaten by it. Mark McCutcheon
may turn out to be right. He certainly convinced me and I am eager to read more
critics by real theoretical physicists upon the subject of what McCutcheon has
presented. You cannot deny that a large percentage of the positive critics must
be real, so there must be something about this book. I doubt you could write a
negative critic of the Final Theory after reading it. And negative critics from
people who never read the book in the first place is a bit ridiculous.
As this is a report in development (a
work in progress) about the book The Final Theory, many sentences will remain
unfinished, or other ideas or comments poorly developed and badly explained. In
the end, maybe I am writing this for myself, in order to help me fully
integrate this new physics and develop some ideas for future sci-fi books and
film scripts.
I also do
not see the point of rewriting here Mark McCutcheon’s book, and I will not
explain in details everything he has already written, especially when I feel
the subject at hand is quite complicated, overwhelming, and can only be explained
by a multitude of details about every single area of physics. It is not doing
justice to the book, but hey, people are going to start talking about this
book, as we have already witnessed in some forums over the Internet, and so, in
the end, it is better to at least talk about it than not at all.
So for
the purpose of this report, I will assume you have read the book. If you are
not going to purchase the book, you may find it hard to follow my comments and
arguments. I suggest then that you try to grasp whatever you can from what I
have written, and when I state something Mark said without justifying it, you
can be certain it is well explained in his book. I also encourage you to read
the comments on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk, you might get a
better idea about Mark’s theories. It is not that helpful to read Mark McCutcheon’s website, or
the one of his publisher, you will find
nothing there about his theories. You will be able to read the first chapter
demonstrating where
You will
never read anything related to physics the same way after reading the book. I
see the loopholes everywhere, I know the answers now, and it is extraordinary to
see those struggling theoretical physicists inventing stuff to justify for example
the Pioneer satellites anomaly as they exited the solar system, when they have
their answer right here in Expansion Theory. My guess is that eventually it
will explode all over the world and Expansion Theory will be seriously
considered, I can see however that it is possible that it might never happen
and the world could go on ignoring a strong candidate for the Theory of
Everything. It is however so convincing, it is most probably just a question of
time. At first sight, without reading the book, I admit that it sounds preposterous.
However it quickly becomes serious and credible as you read the chapters. No
one can dismiss it out off hand, we need proper debunking by knowledgeable
people, and it is too early yet to have such analysis or critics at hand.
One word of warning, if something does
not appear to make sense in what I am saying, or sounds like a contradiction, especially
when talking about McCutcheon’s book and concepts, it is probably because I
haven’t completely understood everything yet. The book is however very well
thought out and I’m sure the mistake is mine, not Mark McCutcheon’s. It is
after all over 400 pages long. I wouldn’t want you to believe he said certain
things that he never stated, though I understand it may become difficult to
make the distinction.
I
encourage you to read the book The Final Theory, and then you will quickly
understand what Mark has said compared to my additions and other comments.
Don’t simply assume he said these things himself, I am struggling to assimilate
everything he has written and what he exactly meant by all of it. I am also
trying to extrapolate his ideas further to see what kind of sci-fi I could come
up with when considering Expansion Theory.
Even
though his book redefines Physics as we know it, and that you will find plenty
of maths and equations to justify his points, you can easily skip the hard
science as it is clearly defined in certain specific sections, and then the
book can remain popular science accessible to anyone. Don’t be afraid of
reading it even if you are not a theoretical physicist. And if you are a theoretical
physicist, even if you reject the main idea outright (as I would think you
cannot fail to do), there are a lot of other points identifying real problems
in Physics today, and then let’s see if you can find answers to all of these
questions as McCutcheon did.
Another
warning, this discussion with myself assumes outright that everything Mark
McCutcheon stated is true, whether it is or not. I am not here comparing
Expansion Theory with Standard Theory, including Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics, I assume Expansion Theory is true for the sake of the argument, and
from there try to see further. If you are not familiar at all with the Standard
Model, you could really get confused here and start believing things that you
would never hear in class. So don’t be surprised when I assume that there is
only one fundamental particle in nature, the electron, when you have learnt
that there were many different subatomic particles in nature like protons,
neutrons and quarks. This is all taken out of context, so read the book first
if you want to understand where I’m coming from.
Vs.
The
Expansion Theory
I would like to thank everyone who read my ideas in the last 12
years, who sent me great comments and showed enthusiasm. Though I was never
sure if I was right, especially on all my wild claims, no one was ever able to
convince me that I was wrong. And God knows I was always there expecting the
e-mail that would confirm that I was completely mistaken.
In times I have met one or two other
persons with similar ideas, but we appeared to be going in different directions.
Apart from my discussions with William Taggarth working on Scale Relativity (that you can read
here), I was very much alone thinking my theories. I
also have to say that William did not share much with me, I never read his book
for example because I couldn’t find it, and he was afraid of telling me more,
as perhaps he felt it was dangerous knowledge. So I’m not certain how we
connect with our theories.
I was attracted recently to The Final
Theory, written by Mark McCutcheon, a Canadian-born Engineer with a lot of
theoretical physics background, and science enthusiast now living in
So after reading his book, and being
completely convinced that he went much further than me on the topic and must be
right, I feel I have more to add which could contribute to his ideas. This is
why for the first time in many years I have decided to get back to explaining
my theories further, helped with what Mark McCutcheon has claimed. I feel that
I have never been so close to the truth and it is now demonstrated how matter
can expand and how it would explain just about any weird phenomena in physics,
even though according to Mark all matter only expands at the same rate at all
time, and so it remains for me to find out if electrons can also shrink, or if
at least the expansion rate could be variable. According to Mark, the answer is
no.
I don’t know how Mark came to his
conclusions, or how he first thought that all atomic structures were expanding
at the same rate (could it be after reading the book Flatland?). Once someone
told me: what about gravity in your theories? And right there I knew I had
never thought of the role of gravity in my ideas, and I was supposed to
investigate it later. Unfortunately I never had the time, with my full time
jobs. Is it possible I would have made the link between gravity and expanding
matter, to the point of eradicating all
I came to my own conclusions, I would say,
following a different logic than Mark. I did think that matter was expanding
and shrinking with acceleration or deceleration, but this is not part of what
Mark states in his Expansion Theory. However as you read my comments, this way
of explaining the universe could still be applicable when you travel faster
than the speed of light, even though it would be more like an optical illusion
than reality. He described it in more technical terms and with maths, something
I could not do. And now, I feel I can contribute to identify more of the
underlying principles of the mechanics of physics, though I’m hoping that Mark
has not already finished the job.
In any case, this is early days for this
brand new theory of everything, and since it is still quite unknown, I feel
like some sort of pioneer assimilating new theories, with a great and unique
chance to be one of the first to comment on it. Nice change, because there is
little you could have added to the Standard Theory, most of it being over a
century old. My uncle once told me that in this day and age we could now only
contribute a little detail, nothing more, and when you look at the people who
won the Nobel Prize in recent years, you have to agree that there has been
nothing revolutionary in there for decades. And now Mark McCutcheon has proven
that one single little idea, can change just about everything we thought about
physics.
I will first start by quickly explaining
what Mark’s theory states. For copyrights reason, I will not be able to go too
much in details, and eventually, if you are interested in this subject, you
will have to read his book. It is anyway difficult to convince anyone of the
credibility of this theory if they have not read the book. Many proofs are
available there that I could not write here without rewriting the book. So for
the purpose of this report, I will assume that you have read his book, or will
eventually read it. So I can only state the main lines and move on.
Then I will go on to describe other things
I thought over the years that could be added to what he said, or how it can
connect. Questions also, more questions, as I need to understand better the
implications of Expansion Theory.
Links
to discussions expanding on Expansion Theory
It might be helpful to read these before
going any further, it will help you get the basics of Expansion Theory
according to Mark McCutcheon (but you really need to read the book to get the
whole picture):
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/sci.physics.particle/msg02546.html
(follow all the linked-answers at the
bottom to read the whole discussion)
(I will add more links as I find them.)
Comments or clarification
about
Expansion Theory
Difference
between matter and energy, considering that both are made of expanding
electrons either in the subatomic realms (within the atom, forming neutrons,
protons and bouncing electrons, ie matter), or in the atomic realm (outside the
atom structure, free electrons or externalized), or freely expanding electrons
in space (electron clouds being electric and magnetic fields and radio waves,
or electron clusters being light, heat and radiation).
Everything is made of expanding electrons,
they always expand at the same expansion rate (Xs). Within the subatomic realm,
they are trapped within the structure of the atom, in itself composed of
expanding electrons forming protons and neutrons (nuclei) and bouncing
electrons. As such they are matter and can create the different elements of the
table of elements via chemical bonding, and hence form the bulk of all metals,
rocks and biological matter.
When the electrons expand freely in space
once they are externalized from the subatomic realm, they are defined basically
as all forms of energy including electricity, radio waves, magnetism, light and
radiation like for example heat and microwaves.
Important note is that the electrons always
expand at the same expansion rate, whether they are expanding in the subatomic
realm or the atomic realm. The difference being that in the subatomic realm
they are tightly compacted together in atoms to form matter, and in the atomic
realm they are outside the subatomic realm, and then the electrons can expand
as electron clouds or clusters. Electrons expands at a different rate than the
rate at which atoms expand, it could be a much higher rate. Within the atom,
despite the fact that electrons expand much faster, the atom does not expand as
fast.
Any machine or technology we have developed
to produce energy is a machine or technology destabilizing atoms, in effect
freeing the electrons from their compacted subatomic realms, so they can be
turned into energy. In that respect, a power plant does just that, freeing
electrons from atomic structures to create for example electricity. And this
electricity (expanding electrons outside the subatomic realm going on a wire,
pushing each other as they expand) can be stored and sent via wires to our
homes so we can have light, heaters, conventional ovens and microwave ovens.
These machines we use are taking advantage
of already freed electrons to create all forms of radiation, including light,
microwaves and even the heating in the conventional oven. These electrons are
not only free from the subatomic realm at that point, they have now become free
expanding electron clouds (electric fields, magnetic fields, radio waves) or
free expanding electron clusters (light and other forms of radiation like
X-rays and gamma rays).
We could say that these free electrons,
once they have gone through one of our machines, or even in natural occurring
phenomena like thunderstorms or northern lights, are now being moved to the
speed of light, and the resulting phenomenon depends on the speed (intensity) and
concentration (power level) of production or release of expanding electrons.
So we have been quite successful at
building machines capable of destabilizing or vibrating atoms and freeing the
expanding electrons. We have also been highly successful at creating machines
capable of turning these free electrons into all forms of radiation by sending
them through space at the speed of light at different intensity and frequencies.
In old terms, we are excellent at turning matter into energy, even though now
energy is simply expanding electrons, and so there is only matter in this
universe.
But what about turning energy into matter? I
thought the question was important, because I am looking for examples where
clouds or clusters of free expanding electrons could return to the subatomic
realm to form once again atoms composed of neutrons and protons and bouncing
electrons (note that protons and neutrons are many electrons stuck together and
maintained as such by the geometry of expanding electrons creating a binding
force).
There lays the possibility to create
replicators and holodecks like in Star Trek. However I was initially interested
in this because I thought somehow free expanding electrons within clouds or
clusters, were now expanding faster than within an atom. I understand now that
this is not true, they always all expand at the same expansion rate, either in the
subatomic realm or in the atomic realm, or even when they expand freely in space
as magnetic fields, radio waves, light or radiation. The difference being that when
freely expanding in space, they are propelled and go at the speed of light. So
it is not a question of expanding at a different expansion rate, eliminating
the possibility of shrinking at any time, it is a question of speed and
concentration of electrons within a cluster or a cloud. And so a microwave oven
for example, or a lamp, simply take free electrons moving on a wire to vibrate
atoms of some transistor, and propel the electrons into the air at the speed of
light, creating light or highly concentrated heat.
No proof of anything shrinking yet, no
proof we can get those electrons to stop expanding or shrink. At least I may
wonder if we can force them to return to form atoms. Can we? It seems so from
what I read in the book of Mark McCutcheon. It is clear though that electrons
outside the atomic realm can shrink back to the subatomic realm, this is what
occurs in batteries, when the electrons expands on the wire around a circuit
and shrink back to the subatomic realm when they reach the end of the circuit
(+).
Question
1:
Apparently a battery or a closed circuit
work on the premise that externalized free electrons go back at the end of the
cycle to the subatomic realm, and in doing so, those free electrons, I wonder,
could go back to form neutrons, protons and bouncing electrons to form atoms,
or can they? They appear to go back to the subatomic realm naturally, without
us having to do anything to force them to do so. Now the question is, can we get free expanding electrons in
electron clouds or clusters to become simple free electrons on a wire, and then
back into atoms?
In those particle accelerators at CERN, by
creating bursts of protons propelled in these high magnetic fields, we get some
of the these electron clouds to return to the subatomic realm, this is when we
say that a particle has been created out of nothing, or when we say that a
virtual particle or even a particle of antimatter has collided or annihilated a
particle of matter. This is in fact Electron clouds returning to electrons,
returning to form subatomic particles (electrons glued together, but not enough
to form a proton, a neutron or an atom, or a full atom), a new particle is
created. In fact these new particles are just a variable amount of electrons
together. And antimatter no longer exists in Expansion Theory.
I’m still far off finding out if electron
clouds or clusters can become spontaneously atoms again, or if this a process
that takes a long time. Are there not simpler technology or natural phenomenon
where clouds or clusters can go back to normal matter, atomic structures?
Eventually a bunch of electrons together in the subatomic realm, still
expanding, must go and form atomic structures again..
Question
2:
Can
we get those expanding electrons to stop expanding or even start shrinking? Stopping the Expansion
of the electrons of a spaceship (shrinking it), how could we ever achieve it in
science fiction, whilst still sounding plausible from the point of view of
Expansion Theory.
Wow, this is a crucial question, because my
entire theoretical physics ideas are based on that simple supposition.
It is true that since I have read the book
Final Theory, I basically realised that, first, I came very close to the real
physics underlying our world, and yet, very far in the sense that I was wrong
completely, even though I had the idea that somehow matter could expand and
shrink. My error, I believe, could be that pretty much everything I wrote was
based on Einstein’s relativity and quantum mechanics, which now, even though
they were good at observing and describing models of what really goes on,
anything based on these theories, or anything else in the standard theory, will
most definitely fail.
And yet, I cannot stop thinking that if
somehow an expanding electron could be stopped from expanding, or expand at a
different expansion rate, or could even start shrinking, there could still be
hope in science that we could go a long way towards creating worthy
technologies, not the least creating interesting science fiction. Because in
light of the Final Theory of Mark McCutcheon, the final word is that science
fiction is now dead. There are no more bizarre phenomena in physics, there are
no more mysteries and extraordinary or unbelievable events, it is all explained
as plain as day, and we are all very limited indeed in what we can do in terms
of science fiction.
As fantastic as the idea of an expanding
electron is, considering that this is now described as the only fundamental or
basic subatomic particle there is in this world, how impossible is it that
there could exist shrinking electrons? Is there anything in science or in this
world suggesting that perhaps there are shrinking electrons, or even, a
variable expansion rate instead of a single one and universal expansion rate
for all electrons, and hence, of everything there is in this world?
The constant expansion rate explains the
speed of light and radio waves being a constant (C), so if the speed of light
can be relative at all, or changing, then the expansion rate must also possibly
be variable or relative. But relativity is now all gone, we will not find
answers in there. And the other proof that the speed of light might be variable
in time turns out that we simply didn’t understand the physics involved, and
that the red-shifted light does not mean that galaxies are speeding away from
us at speed faster than light.
If somehow at some point in history the
speed of light was different than now, then the expansion rate must also have
been different. With it, all gravity would be different as well, because
gravity depends entirely on the constant expansion rate of electrons and all
matter. However, the idea that the speed of light might have been different in
the past comes from the idea that galaxies are accelerating away from each
other all the time, but Expansion Theory shows that red-shift in the spectrum
does not mean necessarily that galaxies are moving away from us at high speed.
But Expansion Theory does states that whilst the electrons originally expanded
at the birth of the universe, there may have been a time when the expansion
rate was different, or at the very least that as they were not all of identical
size at that point, it seems that their expansion rate could have been higher
compared with larger electrons, proportionally speaking. But then the laws of
physics must have been very different then and atomic structures as we know it
must have been a difficult process that most probably came later as the
electrons became more and more of identical size.
The distance between all objects in the
universe shrinks constantly at the same rate, even though proportionally larger
objects (not more massive or heavier) will quickly take over other smaller
objects, which explains why we are stuck on Earth all the time and objects fall
back to earth at a constant speed (9.8 m/s2), no matter how heavy or
light the object is. It is now known (according to Expansion Theory) that the
earth expands at a rate of
If you can travel faster than the speed of
light, and there is nothing in Expansion Theory to prevent you from doing so,
then you would in fact be moving faster than what light can report to you, and
hence, you could at least see the past.
If for example sometime in the future we
invent some technology capable of letting you travel at 50 times the speed of
light, for example, you could reach another star system almost instantly. What
would you see then? It takes 50 years for the light from that system to reach
Earth. So what you see from here is a star and planets of a certain size, but
when you arrive there these are much larger than you could have imagined, because
in 50 years these star and planets had the time to expand considerably compared
to what you see on Earth. As you moved closer at high speed, they would grow
much larger under your very eyes. So this is a way to get instant higher
expansion rate than the reality, as this star 50 light years away would have to
expand from what you saw into the past to what it is now. So in fact, whenever
you accelerate towards an object, that object expands faster than usual, even
though this is just an illusion. That star simply expands at a rate of
0,00000077 metre per second squared in real time.
And as you go along at speed faster than
light, the Earth behind you would start shrinking from your point of view,
because once you are on that other star, the Earth would look like it was 50
years ago, the time it took for light to reach that star, and so the Earth
would look much smaller than it really is. You would be looking at the past of
the Earth, 50 years into the past, and as the Earth expands a full 4.9 meters
per second, and double in size every 19 minutes, the difference in size will be
huge.
Going back to Earth at 50 times the speed
of light would bring you back to the present. If you came back to Earth at a
speed of 100 times the speed of light, could you travel in time? Not really,
the Earth would simply expand at a higher expansion rate than if you were to
return at 50 times the speed of light.
Could you actually shrink or expand at a
different rate than the 0.00000077 m/s2, which is the universal
expansion rate of everything in the universe? Could there still be some sort of
weird relativity as Einstein stated? Or else, what would happen exactly when
travelling at such velocities?
It is perhaps possible that acceleration
and deceleration have an effect on the expansion rate of the accelerating and
decelerating object, most especially on objects going faster than the speed of
light, as in essence, those objects would be going faster than the rate at
which expanding electron clusters expand, and then perhaps the electrons
composing these objects would also expand faster than normal electrons at rest.
I don’t believe McCutcheon would accept such an idea, but he has not talked
about this kind of relative motion in details in his book.
If the electrons in the subatomic realms
can go faster than the speed of light, what happens then when suddenly you
vibrate a few atoms and electrons start expanding freely into space to become
electron clouds? Would these freely expanding electrons still only move at the
speed of light? I guess so. It is weird that electrons in the subatomic realm
could go faster than light, but as soon as they expand freely into space, they
would expand and move at the speed of light. So how could you see anything if
light would be travelling slower than you do? How could you heat up your
spaceship, when heat is basically expanding electron clusters which would
expand at the speed of light, and could not keep up with you? And what about
radio waves? Could you still use your radio and your TV, or even computers?
I don’t think there is even a chance for
time travel just by going faster than the speed of light, however with a
powerful telescope it would certainly be possible to see the past of the Earth
if we were to travel at many times the speed of light away from the Earth
before looking back.
I cannot shake up the fact that as soon as
you start moving faster than the speed of light, suddenly the old Theory of
Relativity from before Einstein (including the equations of Lorentz), might
apply. And my old Shrinking Theory (which could also be called Expansion
Theory), might also apply, even though in reality these objects would not be
expanding and shrinking at extraordinary rates, even though they would appear
to be doing so from your point of view.
All right, what is it that I have not
understood yet about all this? I need to think more upon the subject.
Time for some calculations (there is always
a first). VY Canis Majoris is the biggest star we have identified in the night
sky and is about 5000 light years away from us. At the moment we have estimated
that it is about 1800 to 2100 solar radii in size (using the old physics, so
all these figures could be horribly wrong, however it will do for the purpose
of this exercise). So, let’s assume this star is 2000 solar radii, in itself
this is really huge, and if we were to replace our sun with VY Canis Majoris,
the circumference would go up to the orbit of Saturn (in at least one of the
interpretations about how big that star really is).
Now, as it is 5000 light years away, what
we see is the size it was 5000 years ago. As its size since then continued to
double every 19 minutes, in fact, this star is so huge, it might as well be in
a different scale universe. I tried to do some calculations about how big it really
is, but all I got was mind boggling numbers and I’m afraid I may have made a
mistake.
Assuming I am not mistaken, according to
Expansion Theory, then most celestial bodies we see in the night sky could in
fact be much larger than we think. If it is the case, it would be interesting
for someone to do a computer simulation to show us what everything truly looks
like in the universe compared with us, taking into account how far away these
stars and other objects are, and how much they have expanded since their light
reached us. With that new vision, we might have a better idea of what the
universe might look like at another scale.
That computer simulation would need to be
static, as if it was a photo of the universe taken from outside of it at one
point in time. And then this simulation could be extended to show us what it
would look like if it was in fact filmed, and how all this looks like as it
expands in time.
The simulation would also need to show us
how it would look to us, which would mean not showing the expansion of
everything, but what we would see as we expand with it. We already have a good
idea about that, spiralling things, orbiting things, but then, we don’t have a
complete picture as we cannot see how expanded these other objects really are
compared to us, considering that it takes years for their light to reach us.
And if we see them as orbiting, it is not necessarily how they truly move as
they expand, if we could see it from outside of the universe and if we were not
expanding with everything else. This true motion of objects in space when you
look at it as they expand, and not as we see it whilst within it and expanding
with it, is what interests me most.
Question
3:
Are
there any instances where light or the speed of light or a radio signal does
not appear to be constant? This in order to suggest that the expansion rate
could also be variable, relative or not so constant.
When
light goes through certain materials, sometimes it appears as if light can go
slower, and sometimes, it could even appear as if light is going faster than C.
If this is not just a trick of reflection or an optic illusion, at that point,
at the very least, the expansion rate might not be so constant, and perhaps
there is a way to change the expansion rate of electrons, to perhaps stop it,
and then, maybe we could think of an experiment where the expansion rate can be
reversed, and electrons and objects could now shrink instead of expanding. Then
travelling anywhere instantly, or communicating instantly with anyone anywhere
in the universe, might be possible.
McCutcheon
spoke of light going through a material, and being slowed down by the matter of
the material as the electron clusters collide with it, and states that the
light coming out at the other end, instantly continuing to expand at its normal
expansion rate, must have lost a few expanding electrons in the process. I
think this is what he said. But has this truly slowed down the expansion of
electron clusters for a while? And could we then stop this expansion somehow?
At
the time that the film Frequency went out, it was said that some people did
experience for real some strange communications from the future and the past
between two users of HAM radio. It was said that somehow possibly the signals
travelled into space and were deflected back to Earth, and so instant
communication with the future and the past was possible. I don’t know how this
could be explained from the point of view of Expansion Theory, but it would be
interesting, because if it is true, you could in theory change the future. Maybe
the extra material on the DVD is the source of this having happened in real
life, I need to look at it again.
If
radio wave signals are just compressed band of freely expanding electron
clouds, could they be deflected back after travelling for quite a while into
space to permit different timeframe communication? Even with a 10 years up to
30 years time difference?
I
have to mention that McCutcheon believes in instant communication at speed
faster than the speed of light, and that if people living in other solar
systems were to try to communicate with us, it is likely they would use the
very light of their Sun to do so in order to communicate with us instantly
instead of waiting for the expanding electron clouds to cover such time
consuming distances. As a light beam is a continuous flow of expanding electron
clusters all touching each others, by vibrating one at one end, you could
instantly vibrate them all up to wherever that light has reached so far. So in
theory you could instantly communicate with another solar system thousands of
light years away from here, as you have a direct connection of electron
clusters from here to there as soon as you see the light from their sun. The
process is similar to these
In
Star Trek TNG, there was an episode called New Ground about a ship travelling
on a soliton wave in space, or something similar. It was going faster than the
speed of light anyway, so I don’t remember exactly what it was. Could somehow
the fact that we have a whole link of electron clusters all the way to all the
stars we see in the sky be used for more than just instant communication?
Question
4:
Are
there any instances where gravity seems to be variable, or changing? Are there
any observed objects which perhaps expand faster or slower over time, and even
change their rate of expansion?
The answer to that question might be found
in Black Holes and whatever it is that is happening in those instances. I
understand now that there are no such things as singularities, and so no more
wormholes or possible holes in the fabric of space or of spacetime (no more
time as a dimension, time is now meaningless, a simple convention, and this
world has indeed only three dimensions).
There is nothing magical or impressive now
about black holes, there is no such thing as so much gravity around it that
even light cannot escape, and we all know anyway that light and radiation can
escape. There is a lot of gravity there, simply because there is a large object
there, not even a massive one. It does not appear clearly because usually it is
a dead star, and dead stars are no longer shiny objects readily observable via
a telescope.
If gravity is slightly different at the
poles, it is only because the Earth is not circular, it is flatten at the
poles. It is normal and explainable, gravity depends on the shape of an object
and its size (but not it’s mass or weight). The distance between two balloons
as large as planets and filled with nothing, will shrink at the same rate as
the distance between two massive planets.
So what is my question exactly? Gravity can
no longer be used to time travel, what can it be used for? It does not even
explain the slingshot effect anymore that we use to speed up our satellites and
spaceships through the solar system, as this is now explained, I believe, by
the expanding orbits around the Sun. Highly massive objects will no longer have
tremendous gravity fields around them, it is now a question of size and shrinking
distances as objects expand.
So my real question is, are there any
instances in the universe where gravity could be variable or changing, meaning,
the expansion rate of these objects might vary, and that not being the
consequence of weirdly shaped objects?
Question
5:
What
is the origin of the constant and universal atomic expansion rate of all matter
and energy, of all electrons? Why is it what it is (0.00000077 per second each
second (s2)) for the atoms, and Xs (unknown) for the electrons
themselves? And could we artificially change that expansion rate or is it
intrinsic to our universe and cannot be changed?
Great sci-fi could come out of that, a
changing expansion rate for electrons composing an object, what would happen
then?
From
what I could gather from Mark’s book, there must be some sort of primordial
universe containing ours where there could be some primordial time different
than ours. As we have no idea about what that universe might look like, we
cannot assume there is there a different primordial expansion rate of
electrons, the only fundamental particle in nature. I also could gather that
the way the whole thing started is a bit like ripples on a pond, and from there
the expansion rate not only must remain constant, but if it was not, all matter
and objects in the universe might stop to exist. In view of that, can there
really be some electrons and even objects not expanding at a constant expansion
rate?
Question
6:
Is there some missing mass in the
universe, or some dark matter?
Mark
McCutcheon does not mention missing mass in his book, he does mention dark
matter and dark energy a few times, just to dismiss them, proposing instead
that Expansion Theory will probably bring new answers to these debated
questions. I believe it, however I would like to hear more on the subject.
I
understand why Mark could not venture too much into this, because it would
require a lot of calculations to find out if the whole structure of what we see
in the universe could very well exist just by considering the size of
everything we see, instead of their mass which we know by now we have
completely wrong using Newton’s equations. None of the orbits and movements of
the planets require a force or a mass, only the size of all the expanding
objects is necessary, expansion and surfaces dictate the space shrinking
between the objects and their orbits. Motion in the universe is purely a
consequence of the geometry of the expansion of matter.
Already
there, how could there be a missing mass in order to explain what we see, as it
has been said that we would need something like ten times more mass in the
universe to explain its configuration, when its configuration has nothing to do
with mass? Is there still a problem then, or will Expansion Theory explain it
all? I have no doubt it will, and I wish Mark McCutcheon could have ventured
further on the topic, but there is also that black holes from the point of view
of Expansion Theory do exist, even if there is no singularity in the middle. A
collapsed neutron star could be a black hole, but it would still be large in
size enough to have things orbiting it or crashing into it, and it would be
impossible for us to see simply because these collapsed stars are by definition
collapsed, and hence they simply don’t emit light that we can see, unlike stars.
It would not mean that there is anything weird about it, no singularity, no
extra gravity, just a large object we cannot see which can still create orbits.
And then the question is how much of these large objects not emitting light are
there or would be necessary to explain the configuration of the universe? And
is there such a need for a lot of these objects, or switching from
One
fact at the very least could be taken into account, from what I gathered
thinking about it tonight. First, when you look at a star 100 light years away,
you need to take into account that in reality that star is very much larger
than you see it, in fact, the whole sky are filled with objects that are much
larger than you see them, as we see them in the past, the time it takes for
light to reach us.
It doesn’t really matter how much they
expand in time, everything expands at a constant rate. But when you look at a
galaxy, some of the stars you see are closer to you, the last ones at the end
are further away, if we’re talking light years in difference, then you would
see stars a certain size, others a certain other size, it would not be an exact
representation of how this galaxy really looks like. It could even explain why
objects would look more shrunk in the direction they’re going as Einstein
pointed out, because you see the end at a later time in the past and so for you
the end compared with the beginning has not expanded as much as they truly have
in reality.
So, in order to truly make a good
approximation of what the universe looks like, or what it could represent at a
large scale if you could somehow get out of it, you need to assess how far away
every single object is in the universe, and bring them back proportionally to
their real size as they would have expanded much more in the time it took light
to reach us. Perhaps then you might consider that there is no shortage of
sizable objects in order to explain what we see.
Another
explanation is that if there is no real speed limit in this universe and that
objects can now go faster than light, as I always thought anyway, it is still
possible that there are sizable objects or even just electrons going faster
than light in this universe and could still affect orbits and configuration of
the universe.
Question
7:
Can light ever go faster than the speed
of light? Can matter ever go faster than the speed of light?
No
more speed limit, we can go faster than the speed of light. What happens then
to the matter going faster than light? Does it explain why in Quantum Mechanics
we see a particle at many different places at the same time? And then, what is
Expansion theory saying about this? Also what are these people working on
exactly when developing Quantum Computers in view of Expansion Theory killing
Quantum Mechanics?
I
didn’t get a sense that light could go faster than the speed of light, reading
McCutcheon, especially his talks about what happens in those particle
acceleration colliders. However some studies have shown that it is perhaps
possible to have light going faster than the speed of light, and so that could
have strange effects on communication one day, as if light can go faster than
light somehow, than we can talk to the future and to the past, no? Or something
like that.
Matter
is more what could go faster than the speed of light, so these electrons as
they are still in their atomic realm could be accelerated to extraordinary
velocities. The problem at the moment is that we are using energy to try to
achieve this feat (in particle accelerators), energy that cannot travel faster
than the speed of light. So we have to come up with a better idea to accelerate
those electrons. What else could we use? And are there not in nature particles
already going faster than light? What would have made this possible? In Star
Trek they are called Tachyon Fields, fields imply energy. A tachyon I believe
is a particle going faster than light, but none of that has been proven to
exist.
I
thought myself that the best proof we had were these experiences we do in
Quantum Mechanics where a particle has been observed at many different places
at the same time, which spawn all the theories about parallel universes. If
these particles can be a many places at the same time, then perhaps it is
because they are going faster than light, many times the speed of light in
fact. But as we use light to observe these particles, then we are limited in
our measurements, we would in fact find a particle at five different places in
one measurement if these particles go at five times the speed of light. And if
Quantum Computers become a reality today, they would not be using particles in
parallel universes, they would in fact be exploiting the fact that these
particles are going faster than light, even without perhaps realising it. And
then as usual it would be through trials and errors that some new technology
would work and reach the market.
Right,
after re-reading McCutcheon’s book, the main reason if not the only one we
believed that a particle could be a two places at the same time, was because of
the double-slit experiment. McCutcheon has sort of explained that we were badly
interpreting this experiment, and so a particle is never at many places at the
same time, it is most probably that what we called a photon is in fact many
electrons in an electron cluster (even when we thought there was only one
photon), and so some electrons must be going in one slit whilst some others are
going in the second slit. They are not going faster than light, they do not
multiply, they do interfere with each other just like molecules of water would
in a wave-like manner in a pond. So no more wave-particle dual nature to light.
no more Uncertainty Principle or probabilities, no more Schrodinger’s Cat, no
more Parallel Universes, no more Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics. We might as well commit suicide now, as this is so disappointing!
As
to the explanation about the pattern on the screen on the other side of the
double-slit experiment, light does not act like a wave, it is composed of
particles, and there would be many unseen and undetected electron clusters in
that experiment, and so they would still interfere with each other.
Now,
the implications of this, is, what are they actually discovering with these
quantum computers? What is the point of view of Expansion Theory about that? Instead
of entrapping an electron, they think they are entrapping a photon with many
different spins, but then, one photon is probably just a sea or burst of
electron clusters, freely expanding electrons. So instead of entrapping one
electron in the atomic realm, they are entrapping many freely expanding
electrons in clusters. What could they hope to achieve in that kind of
scenario? Or more to the point, how do we explain what they have already
achieved? And finally, how will Expansion Theory helped them develop quantum
computers further, or will it be the death of Quantum Computers as it is now
for Quantum Mechanics? This is also a crucial question for me, it is included
in one of my short stories in my novel Anna Maria.
Question
8
Could we get back to the structure of
an atom which actually looks like what we observe in our solar system?
What
I am most disappointed about when we consider Expansion Theory, or more
specifically what Mark McCutcheon states about the structure of the atom, is
that the electrons are no longer orbiting the nucleus, they are bouncing on it.
I understand his reasons for stating it as such, it corresponds very well with
observations and the model of Quantum Mechanics, and now that we no longer need
to talk in terms of positive and negative charges, and other nuclear forces,
then they might as well just be jumping on the damn nucleus, and justify
chemical bonding by simply electrons bouncing from one nucleus to the other
nucleus of another atom. I also understand his main argument that if an atom
was like a solar system, atoms could not bounce off each others the way they
do. Orbiting planets around the sun is too fragile an object, that if another
solar system came to hit ours, it would be chaos, but it would not bounce off
into space leaving it all intact. Or would it?
Why
am I disappointed? First because of the science fiction story I had in mind for
many years now, that I already started
to write and will write again soon in Anna Maria.
In there we shrink a ship to the size of an electron orbiting a nucleus, and it
turns out it is an M class planet capable of supporting life. I will still
write that story, but it kind of not exactly agree with McCutcheon, and this is
what is annoying.
Not
only that, how could it be that the damn solar system looks exactly like an
atomic structure, and that we are talking about these things expanding and
doubling in size every 19 minutes, and yet, they would be two entirely
different things? How long does it take for an atom to get to the size of a
solar system as it expands in nature? Not long I would reckon, that tiny
structure will be at our scale, exactly where we stand now, in no time. How
could it have bouncing electrons on it instead of orbiting ones? It has got to
be the same thing. And I don’t care about how we justify it, how we justify
chemical bonding and what we have observed so far.
It
stands to reason that these electrons are in turn composed of smaller electrons
at another scale, and our stars and planets (our electrons) are part of another
structure at a higher scale. Thinking any other way would be unthinkable.
I
think that the structure of our solar system is not as weak as Mark McCutcheon
thinks, and when he talks of the inside of an atom being another realm of
reality, I think it is simply that electrons are expanding faster than the
atoms, because they are part of the smaller scale universe that is composing
ours. Just like our own planets must be expanding much faster than our overall
solar system, which in turn must be a slower expansion rate for atoms composing
the larger scale universe.
I think that if the inside realm of an atom
is acting weird for the outside of the atom, then it is quite possible that a
solar system is also acting weird taken outside the solar system. After all,
McCutcheon said it himself, the whole solar system is expanding as one object,
the orbits of the planets are not only expanding as well, we can use these
solar orbits as slingshot effect to boost speed of travelling satellites and
spaceships. It sounds very weird to me, and perhaps if another system was to
come our way, it could crash into us and bring chaos, or it could orbit around
us bringing about the chemical bonding of some other molecule at a larger
scale. Perhaps atoms don’t bounce off each other, could they simply be orbiting
around each other, or coming for an orbit and then go on to continue on their
way?
I don’t know, I don’t know enough about
what we have observed so far in the infinitely small world that is the atomic
world. All I know is that these electrons must be orbiting the nucleus of the
atoms. And if truly the inside of an atom is more another sort of dimension compared
to us, then surely inside, it could be orbiting instead of bouncing.
Not
sure what I am going to do about this. It should be interesting for my novel.
As
far as I can understand in expansion theory, electrons are the only subatomic
particles in existence (fundamental particles). Together they form protons and
neutrons within the nucleus of an atom as well as bouncing on it to keep it all
together, though it seems they would keep together no matter what, the proton
most especially, since it reforms or try to in particle accelerators after
being hit. Neutrons, once they lose one or two electrons, become stable
protons.
Anyway, electrons exist within the atom in
the subatomic realm, they also exist outside the atom in the atomic realm where
they can go on wires and be part of the basis of an electronic circuit, they
can also expand freely in space as electron clouds, which means electric field
and magnetism including radio waves, and they can expand freely in space as
electron clusters, like heat, light, x-rays, and other radiation. Not only
that, they are all the exact same size and they all constantly expand at the
same expansion rate (Xs).
Well, if electrons are supposed to be
planets, I’m not out of the woods yet in order to explain how it could be. We
have never observed planets suddenly expanding freely in space, unless there
are some events in the heavens which could correspond to that. Planets are not
the same size, far from it, and they will never be. So how is it possible that
all electrons are exactly all the same size and all identical?
McCutcheon brought in this analogy of
circles in the pound expanding, and that if you have two circles, one 5 times
larger than the other, after a while they will become the same size, and this
is an observed fact. But how do I know if this analogy is any relevant to
electrons? It is certainly not true when it comes to planets, and surely it
should be the same thing? After all they are all expanding objects, whether
they are very small or large. Granted one is supposed to be a subatomic
particle which is indivisible (apparently), and the other is composed of these
indivisible subatomic particles, there may lay the difference.
What about atoms then, are they all the
same size as well, despite the fact that some of them have more electrons in
it, more protons and more neutrons? If they are the same size, how would you
explain it? If they are of different sizes, then my mistake, I guess the
electrons might be in a class of their own and when they expand, they eventually
all become the same size. I think the analogy is not very convincing, however I
understand the other arguments stating that if the electrons were not all the
same size and expanding all at the same expansion rate, the universe as we know
it simply could not exist.
So electrons appear to be nothing like
planets. And our sun does not appear to be composed of a bunch of electrons (it
is, but I mean electron like objects at our own scale), or neutrons and
protons. Have we oversimplified what an atom really looks like? Or are they
radically different from solar systems?
I find it hard to believe that in this
universe there could be an indivisible particle. At least I will only accept it
the day we will have proven it beyond doubt. At the moment I feel that not only
physics knew nothing about nothing until Mark McCutcheon came along, but on top
of it our technology seems incapable of truly confirming any of our theories. It
does not seem that we can actually see clearly at that scale, and if we have
not done it by now, I wonder if we will ever be able to see more clearly. If it
was a question of adding mirrors to get a better resolution, I’m sure we would
have built those microscopes by now.
And if the stars, other solar systems and
galaxies are supposed to be bonding in some sort of chemical bonding in order
to form molecular structures, is there nothing we have observed so far in the
sky which could suggest such a thing? Maybe. I remember reading something and
looking at images of reconstruction of larger scale universe images. Altogether
the distribution of matter looked like it could form branches of a tree, or
synapses of a brain, or even potatoes. But then, it didn’t seem that all that
matter forming all this in the sky had to touch each other in order to create
this chemical bonding. It could be that even at a distance, all that matter
could form altogether molecular structures. And so, maybe atoms are not
touching each other in all those chemical bonds. I really need to look at all
this more closely. I’m throwing stupid ideas in, just in case it lights up some
ideas in your minds, and also it will give me some avenues to explore. I’m
pretty sure this is all wrong, I need to at least mention it.
In fact, if we are to truly acknowledge
planets as electrons, there could be a very good reason as to why they are not
all the same size right now, and even some evidence that eventually all planets
in the universe would be the same size with the same expansion rate. After
reading the end of Final Theory, where some primordial time and some primordial
particles would exist in a primordial universe supporting all the matter within
ours, you cannot help but imagine that if there was any primordial universe to
our stars and planets, that primordial universe would be the subatomic world. Because
what is it that drives the expansion of our planets and stars, it is the
expanding atoms, which expands because of the intrinsic expansion rate of
electrons. What would then be the primordial ocean driving the expansion of the
stars and planets composing the atoms and molecular structures of a larger
scale universe?
Let me put you in the context. According to
McCutcheon, the realm in which the electrons expand, or more specifically what
initially decided the rate of their expansion, must have something to do with a
primordial universe having its own primordial time defining the rate or speed
at which the ripples on an ocean expand. This analogy of ripples on a lake to
described the spheres that are electrons is obviously an important analogy to
McCutcheon, even to the point that he talks a lot about the primordial ocean
from which the electrons came from, as if they could have been created by a
multitude of pebbles thrown into the ocean, and from there the ripples or
circles started. Just like on a lake the ripples always expand at the same
rate, as the circles expand ever more, they expand relatively less, to the
point where all ripples become identical in size, even though the original
expansion rate never changed, neither their absolute size difference, their
advance amounts always remain identical (p.343).
First I thought that perhaps electrons were
living in a different realm than us, that instead of being all of different
sizes and simply expanding just like planets and stars, they follow some other
law of nature, the expansion of ripples in a lake, which eventually leads to
all of them being the same size. We could never imagine that the planets could
follow the same pattern and eventually, through their relative growth, could
tend to all be of the same identical size, can we? But why not? If it is true
of spherical electrons, then it must be true for all spherical objects in
nature, whether the larger spherical objects are made of this fundamental
subatomic particle that is electron or not.
It
would also explain a lot of things. McCutcheon mentions that some astronomers
might have uncovered through the background radiation that somehow in the past
the laws of physics might have been different, like the speed of light, the speed
and strength of electricity and magnetism, etc. In fact, he talks about an
expansion rate that was much higher until the primordial time slowed down and
the expansion rate kind of balanced itself as all the electrons reached an identical
size.
This
would mean that the rate of expansion of the Earth compared with the rate of
expansion of Jupiter, might not be the same, and that eventually the Earth and
Jupiter would be the same size, at which point they would have the same
expansion rate. Of course McCutcheon sort of state that this is impossible,
because then the laws of physics would be different on Jupiter compared with
Earth. And maybe they are slightly different.
If
you were to blow two balloons side by side, but one of them was already half
blown when you started blowing them both, would it obeys the laws of ripples on
a pond? Would both balloons end up relatively the same size after a while
(assuming these balloons could not burst for some reason)? I feel they could
end up the same size after a while, as their overall expansion rate slows down
as they become larger. Once again, the amount of air going in would not change,
as the expansion rate of the Earth and Jupiter does not change either, it is
more, I believe, that relatively speaking as they grow larger they would expand
less compared with other smaller objects.
That
would mean that us, smaller objects on Earth, should expand proportionally
faster than the Earth, but according to McCutcheon it is the total opposite.
Overall the larger size of the Earth means that, even though its expansion rate
is the same as ours, it overtakes us as it grows proportionally much more than
us.
The
explanation to this might have something to do with the number of atoms
composing the Earth and us. As there are infinitely more of them in the Earth,
it expands faster than us altogether. Just like with Jupiter could
proportionally expands faster than the Earth and would quickly overtake it if
the Earth went anywhere near it. So this may compensate for the fact that
really it seems that smaller ripples on a lake expand much faster than larger
ones initially until they all become the same size. Or how else do we explain
this difference between the expansion of ripples in a lake and of all
electrons, and the expansion of planets and other objects in our scale? Both
cannot follow different laws of physics, either they will all grow to become
the same size or they all are of different sizes and should remain so forever
as they continue to expand. Or what am I missing?
Also,
if eventually all planets would become the same size, and they were just like
in the early universe of the electrons expanding until they reached an
identical size, then it would mean that our stars and planets would be a
universe in its birth, which would explain why we don’t see so much of the same
things in the very large universe as in the very small. As McCutcheon states,
in the early universe atoms would be rare, even though our solar systems shows
it is not, and that molecular structures would be impossible. Well, we do have
galaxies, and perhaps that is some form of molecular structure or beginning of
it, but ultimately, if what we see in the night sky is representing a universe
in formation, until all planets are the same size and until many stars from
different solar system can be judged to have a certain amount of protons and
neutrons, and based on that define what element of the periodical table of
elements they represent, then maybe it is too early to try to establish what
our universe might be representing. Also it would explain the major differences
between the atomic world and the universe.
Question 9
Do
orbiting objects always accelerate away from the object they orbit? Or does a
constant speed would be enough to compensate for the shrinking distance? Is the
rate at which distance shrinks constant in time or does it accelerate to shrink
ever faster?
McCutcheon states that the Earth expands
If the planet expands 4.9 meters per
second, and that this is constant, why would there be a parabolic trajectory to
cannon balls fired from the top of mountains? This proves that not only the
planet expands by
Why am I worried about this? Well,
considering that all objects in this universe double in size every 19 minutes,
to keep the same constant distance between two objects in orbit you would need
a considerable speed, and not only that, it would need to considerably accelerate
as well in time. Where did these objects found enough initial push to
constantly accelerate like that?
The conclusion is staggering, not only we
expand extraordinary fast, but each second we expand ever more faster, and
objects keep accelerating faster and faster. Where will this end and what sort
of effect can this have on humans for example?
McCutcheon thought of that but dismissed
it, stating that it resets itself moment by moment, as the distance between the
two objects remains constant, meaning that every second we have the same
scenario, and so it does not matter if the expansion keeps accelerating. I find
that hard to believe, or I must have difficulties understanding his argument.
Perhaps a computer simulation would help me visualise this. So objects don’t
need to accelerate away from us to remain in orbit, a constant speed would
suffice even though the expansion of both objects keep accelerating.
Interesting, though I need more explanation.
It becomes a bit clearer when McCutcheon
speaks about the orbits of the planets around the Sun. These orbits constantly
expand with the expansion of the star and the planets, and so it compensates
for the acceleration of the expansion, and of course, the expansion of these
orbits must also be accelerating, which somehow explains the slingshot effect
that spaceships and satellites can experience as they switch from one planetary
orbit to another.
Highly interesting. Especially this
acceleration of the expansion of everything, including of the orbits. And the
slingshot effect that results from it. This needs more study.
Question
10
Helium as a gas is puzzling, sound
travel three times faster in helium, light can be slowed considerably when
going through helium. Also that helium balloon just fly off into the air,
defying gravity, and as a super fluid, helium is also acting quite strangely,
moving up the walls, remaining on ceilings of the container, etc. Helium is so
strange, Quantum Mechanics had to come to the rescue to explain some of its
atomic properties, as it is said that helium can act very much like in the atomic
world, but in the macroscopic realm, or something like that. What has expansion
theory got to say about helium, can it explain all the strangeness of that gas?
I
will get back to that later, I just thought I needed to consider it somehow. Is
helium simply defying gravity because it is a lighter gas, and as such tends to
go up when surrounded by heavier gases? Or is there a more profound quality to
helium that somehow makes it expand at a different rate or makes it defy the
laws of gravity (the expansion of the Earth beneath it)?
Is Time Travel still possible in Expansion
Theory?
I
understand that McCutcheon dismissed the possibility for time travel in light
of Expansion Theory. I need however to think real hard and find some ideas
about how we could still justify time travel within Expansion Theory and how we
would go about travelling in time. Science fiction could never recover if time
travel was to be proven an impossibility.
I need to expand on this. The idea of
being able to go faster than the speed of light must open some avenues to
explore when time travel is considered.
There are also some clear reports from
normal people claiming that they did travel in time (mostly in the television
series of documentaries called Ghosthunters, most specifically an episode
called “Ripples in Time”. It is about Parallel Existence, Travel in Time, Times
overlapping in the
There are also many people on websites
about time travel claiming to come from the future. Though many have been debunked,
some still enjoy some celebrity, the most well known being John Titor. John
Titor even provided schematics of his time machine built by the American army,
it uses two micro-black holes with singularities. Expansion theory states that
singularities don’t exist. And as for black holes, there is nothing exotic
about them safe that matter as imploded after the star finished burning out,
and if they look black is because they are dead stars, and so we should not
expect to see them even though they could still be quite large. And now gravity
is explained by the size of an object, not its mass. And so there could be very
large objects out there which simply do not emit light, and yet, have stars
orbiting around them or with them with some centre of mass somewhere in
between.
Since relativity is dead, there is no
more such idea that gravity or acceleration could somehow permit time travel or
time dilation processes. The logic behind the twin’s paradox is flawed
according to McCutcheon (and I sure believe it). And so the micro black holes
of John Titor, in Expansion Theory, would be of little help to travel in time,
in fact they could not exist.
Of course, it is also plausible that
expansion theory will be debunked to satisfaction and proven to be impossible,
and I would love to read such a debunking exercise by many theoretical
physicists, as long as they are impartial and objective. But for now, even
though McCutcheon might have a made a few mistakes here and there, I think the
bulk of it must be true. I would be surprised if they succeeded in debunking
it. And so for now John Titor was no time traveller in my mind, even though I
wanted to believe. Then again, who knows.
I still believe that some people might
have actually experience time travel, as from other reports we have. And
assuming they were not lying or were not crazy, which the investigators told us
was not the case, then we may still have to explain this in light of Expansion
Theory. If it cannot explain it, either we still have insufficient knowledge
about all that is possible in this universe, or the witnesses were crazy or
lying after all.
The
question is, how would it be possible to time travel within Expansion Theory?
And is travelling faster than the speed of light helps such a feat or not? I
don’t know. This requires more thinking.
Question 12
Are Parallel Universes still possible in
Expansion Theory?
The same
goes for parallel universes in Expansion Theory, there isn’t much that could
justify them. However, I need to justify from expansion theory’s point of view
if parallel universes could still exist, and how it would be possible to travel
to a parallel universe.
At the
very least there could still be a way out and a way for parallel universes to
exist. It is if somehow parallel universes could be created by a mind over
matter kind of process. One way McCutcheon explained the way the distribution
of electrons appeared in the universe, is possibly via a virtual universe
created by a computer, at this point the spheres that are electrons could have
appeared on a screen monitor and still obey very similar laws of physics as we
know them today, after a bit of programming. That virtual universe, very much
like The Matrix film, would in fact exist in the memory buffer of the computer,
and not necessarily on the screen.
Well, as
an expert on computer games, for having played for over 25 years graphic
adventures of simulated environments and universes, one thing is quite clear
about virtual universes. They die when you turn off the computer, they come
alive once again when you load the programme again, you can simultaneously have
three games running at the same time, or if a million copies of the adventure
game has been sold, then a million of these similar virtual worlds exist, which
by definition, could mean parallel universes. It is an acceptable analogy.
And so
our universe might not be the only one, and I mean, an almost identical one at
that. They may be running on different computers at different time frames,
which would mean that you could potentially travel to a parallel universe in
the past or the future. I may be beginning the game, but my neighbour might be
at the end of it.
Now, very
much like the memory of a computer made of silicon, our own memory or brain,
made of carbon, could also be a way to create in our mind some virtual universe
much like our real physical universe. It is quite possible that everything we
see, observe and interact with in the universe, which ultimately comes to our
brain via our five senses, is in fact a pure fabrication of our mind. It may
seem real, but could all be virtual, and each one of us could be living in his
or her own bubble universe made of expanding electrons.
It would
go hand in hand with many philosophies and religions, talking about creation
and the capacity to create worlds in our mind, and even influencing our actual
physical world via our own mind powers. Many self-help books state just that,
that if you want something badly enough, it cannot fail to actually happen. I
have experienced that myself, to the point that I feel I somehow changed my
future, even switched realities or timelines. Now, I understand this is all
speculations, I have no proof, I may have misinterpreted the phenomenon, and
even, I could be delusional. However, for a science fiction book, the idea of
being able to recreate a different universe similar to the one we have today,
slightly different, and even create an infinity of them in our own mind and
start living in those universes, is a way to incorporate parallel universes in
a world driven and explained by the expansion of electrons, which cannot permit
any such thing as parallel universes. This is what I did in Anna Maria
to justify parallel universes, the first short story.
Another
possible way of explaining the advent of parallel universes, would be if first
we could invent a way to justify time travel in expansion theory. If time
travel is theoretically possible again, then possible parallel universes could
also exist as a consequence. If you go into the past and change an event, then
the future will now be different. If you were in that future before, and
witnessed events that will now never exist, well, that old reality must still
exist somewhere, since you experienced it, you lived in that alternate reality
that has now been changed.
Maybe
there is only one timeline, and by preventing yourself from being born, it would
make you disappear, and then we get the old paradoxes of how you could have
gone into the past and prevent yourself from being born, if in fact according
to the new timeline you will never exist. All these paradoxes were solved by
the advent of parallel universes and an infinity of you in all those parallel
universes. But this idea came from Quantum Mechanics, and QM is now dead.
Does it
matter anyway if you can justify time travel and parallel universes from the
point of view of physics before you can use them in science fiction? There are
still many unexplained phenomena in this world, and yet we do build science
fiction around it, even though we may only get the answers much later, and
maybe never. In the end time travel and parallel universes do not have to die
just because expansion theory entered the scene and changed the landscape of
physics forever. They may still be possible and we may eventually come up with
theoretical ideas that would make time travel and parallel universes plausible
within expansion theory. And who better than science fiction writers to think
up some ways to justify them?
In Star
Trek, there were always weird and unexplored region of space where suddenly all
the laws of physics as we knew them changed or vanished. This has not been
observed in nature, is not likely to be any time soon, and yet, in our mind, it
could be possible, because who knows what you can meet in an unexplored region
of space? In the unknown?
Who’s to
say if somewhere in the universe suddenly the expansion rate of electrons
doubles? Who’s to say if perhaps there may be universes where electrons shrink
instead of expanding, and what would then be the consequences on the laws of
physics? Ripples on a lake never shrink, and why not? They could grow at a
different rate with all sorts of consequences.
We are
still free to write interesting science fiction, even if it was originally
based on old physics ideas no longer valid, as there may always be a new idea
to support such phenomena that we can think of. For example, if originally this
universe came to be as a simulation in a computer, then many similar
simulations can exist, and they can all be different from the one we’re living
in depending on the initial parameters of the software, or they can all
sensibly be similar to a certain extent.
Question 13
Expanding matter further, how could we achieve
that considering Expansion Theory?
This is a crucial question for my novel Anna Maria.
I can think of a way to shrink matter by simply stopping its expansion using
other bombardments of electrons, or magnetic fields (freely expanding electron
clouds), even though this is farfetched, this is how I will shrink matter. But
how about bringing back my ship to Earth? How to expand it back to our scale?
It’s got
to be possible to justify, and I better justify it before I explain my
shrinking process, because one may depend on the other. This would be so easy
in my own theories where acceleration expands you and deceleration shrinks you.
It is not so easy now if acceleration and deceleration have no effect on the
expansion rate of matter and that you could not picture the universe as we see
it if matter was not always expanding at the same constant rate of 0.0000007
meters per second per second. This is the solution I require to start writing
the last short story of Anna Maria. I need to find a solution other than simply
state that Anna is such a genius, she figured out, but then not telling how she
figured it out.
Could it
be possible that acceleration could somehow change the rate of expansion of the
object accelerating? Relatively speaking, acceleration and deceleration, as
stated earlier on, would definitely make you see other objects outside your
frame of reference as shrinking and expanding faster that their normal constant
rate, but this is not a true occurrence of the reality. Or else, we would need
to resurrect Einstein and my theories from the dead, which I would be quite
willing to do actually.
To which
extent whatever Einstein stated could still be true in Expansion Theory? Good
question. As it stands, great imagination on his part, great effort, and yet,
all wrong, Special Relativity, General Relativity, even the Photo-Electric
Effect for which he got a Nobel Prize for. If ever Expansion theory is declared
the theory of Everything, I would imagine Einstein’s descendants will be
spinning out of control. In the meantime, I will give an expanding lollypop to
anyone who could help me justify how we could expand matter instantly so it
could reach a higher scale universe.
Question 14
What is Expansion Theory’s interpretation of Sonoluminescence, Bubble fusion and Cold Fusion? (Follow
the hyperlinks to Wikipedia
to find out what this is all about.)
These three phenomena are plagued with
mysteries, I wonder how Expansion Theory would interpret the data so far and if
somehow could turn Bubble Fusion or Cold Fusion into a reality as a new power
source? Or perhaps Expansion Theory will simply explain the phenomena and
dismiss any possibility of some sort of nuclear reaction at normal temperature?
I need to think further about this, but
if you wish to help, please think about it and let me know what you come up
with: rm@themarginal.com.
Scale Universes
First Brainstorm Session
I am getting desperate to write either a
novel or a double short story for my novel Anna Maria called Scale Universes. I
am still facing unsolvable problems that I need to discuss here, hoping that I
will eventually get ideas or that perhaps someone out there could help me with.
If new questions arise from it, I will add them above.
My main problem for a start is to shrink
a spaceship, and if truly it would mean two much G forces, then some sort of
robotic probe. A probe would mean that there would be no need to bring it back,
to expand the ship with humans back to us. But then, it is far less
interesting, and it would be sad travelling so far off in different scale
universes either in the subatomic world or the very large, and yet, without
getting anywhere. I will have to take it point by point and see if I can se the
light.
First of all, there is no distance per
say to travel, the distance between me and the an electron in front of me, is
no distance at all for a spaceship to cross. And so, once shrunk, my spaceship
does not really have to cover any distance to get back to my normal scale. Or
does it? Because as you shrink, distance not only suddenly becomes much longer,
but there is double effect as your measuring instruments shrink with everything
else. If two electrons are separated by one meter at my scale, surely I can
bring the first electron to the second in no time, without any kind of huge G
forces for that electron, no?
At the very small scale, going to another
solar system is easy, as long as I get help from people at our normal scale. At
the very large scale, travelling to another solar system would be nearly
impossible. Wherever I will end up once I am expanded to that scale, is where I
will remain. Unless I were to expand to another scale, so two scales over our
normal one. At that scale I should be able to move very quickly wherever I want
to go in the universe in the very large scale universe. And you know what this
means. It means that if I wanted to go to another solar system from here on
Earth, I would only need to expand myself to the very large scale universe, and
from there cross a small distance, and then shrink back to any point in our
universe.
There may be a flaw in this logic. The
flaw might be that when I expand, I don’t necessarily cover any distance, and
so if suddenly we where to expand a spaceship here on Earth, it would simply
cover the whole solar system and more and more, it would not bring me in any
way to another larger scale universe. So the question is, where is this larger
scale universe? If the solar systems and galaxies we see at the moment in
space, are composing that larger scale universe, then all the electrons, atoms
and atomic structures composing the spaceship would need to expand to a point
where all these particles and structures would be sensibly the same size as our
planets, solar systems and galaxies. I assume here that electrons are planets,
atoms are solar systems, and molecules are galaxies, just at a different scale.
Then moving all those galaxies at high
speed might be easy at that scale, any small thrust or propulsion system could
move that small bubble universe very quickly compared to our scale. And then
shrinking back would bring me somewhere else in our universe almost instantly. But
for that, not only would I need to expand all the atomic structures of the
spaceship very rapidly, I would also need to insure none of that expansion
could interfere with the actual structures of our actual universe. Or else, I
could easily destroy the balance of the whole galaxy, all these orbits would go
out the window.
The thing is, from our point of view, if
I were to shrink a spaceship here on Earth, I would basically take a whole
chunk of the actual universe as seen by someone living on an electron, and
bring it to the scale of the very small. Expanding back here would be like
bringing back that whole chunk of that very small universe to normal size, our
spaceship here on Earth. We wouldn’t be worried about expanding back to normal
scale, because the universe viewed from an electron is so vast, that no one
would be worried if as a consequence a few solar systems and galaxies were
destroyed in the process. We would get back to some place in that universe as
we expand, but it seems that the universe is large enough for that and it could
take it.
And so it must be the same for a
spaceship here which we would expand to the size of a big chunk of the universe
we see, many solar systems and galaxies. It would be preferable to expand where
there is nothing already, preventing the destruction of many solar systems and
galaxies, and perhaps even our solar system, but then, we would need to expand
somewhere else, or at least arrange to cover huge distances as we expand, so by
the time the spaceship becomes the size of galaxies, it is not exactly within
our galaxy or even the universe we can see using our most powerful telescopes.
And covering huge distances as you expand larger and larger, shouldn’t be a
problem. As you expand, distance shrinks considerably, at twice the speed considering
the doubling effect, speed accelerates as you expand, even if you were going at
a constant speed, since as you expand your measuring instruments expand as
well, and so any distance shrinks rapidly.
Which means also that my spaceship that I
want to shrink to the size of an electron, if I wish to enlarge it back here,
this expansion will need some sort of acceleration as well, or else I would be
expanding right over my electron, and destroy it in the process. There are so
many electrons between me and my table right now, that expanding from an
electron in the table to where I sit is not only a small distance, it would not
affect the electron in the table if I were to time it right.
The table
would be a high density of electrons, atoms and molecules, where just outside
the table there would be molecules of air, so much less density. This is where
I would need to expand and move towards as I expand in order to leave the table
intact as I expand. And so it must be at the larger scale, that eventually you
should be able to reach a patch of space with less density, where suddenly the
expansion of so many high density planets, solar systems and galaxies wouldn’t
be a problem. We would certainly not wish to expand within a solid object,
which could very well the case if we were to expand anything right now near our
solar system.
I have no
idea how many galaxies and galaxy clusters a spaceship might contain
(molecules), and so, I have no idea where it would be safe for a spaceship to
be expanded to a larger scale universe. Let’s see, 100 billion is a magic
number in chemistry and astronomy, as long as we can trust our actual laws and
equations.
Here is a
little story about the number 100 billion:
--------------
I made
a huge discovery today. Fasten your seatbelt. There are 100 billion atoms
(small solar systems) in a cell. There are 100 billion stars in your average
galaxy (and it is thought it could be the number in our own galaxy, though
estimates now states that it could be between 100 and 400 billion stars). And
there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe (though estimates are now that
it could be 125 billions). This is a good argument to prove that our Universe
is actually a cell.
Also
there are 100 billion cells in the human brain (and there are 100 billion
neurons in the brain). The magic number of 100 billion almost help us state
that the universe is an entity which is alive and intelligent. That the
universe is a brain instead of a cell.
All
explanations and details: Magic number: one hundred billion 1,000,000,000,000
Interesting facts that maybe we should
use at some point (that I read in the book “Manifold Time” of Stephen Baxter):
“Do you know why the numbers are
significant? A hundred billion seems to be a threshold... It takes a hundred
billion atoms to organize to form a cell. It takes a hundred billion cells to
form a brain.”
And
then Baxter goes on to say that 100 billions squid in space will transcend into
something else because there are 100 billion of them and it is some sort of a
threshold. (Don’t ask me why, but there are squid in space because astronauts
sent a pregnant one to an asteroid in the first place.) Baxter suggests that if
we ever had 100 billion humans, something weird could happen, we could
transcend into something else. The number is interesting because I found out
more about it:
From a
website: “A Galaxy, or nebula, is any large-scale system of stars, interstellar
gas, dust, and plasma within the universe. The average galaxy contains more
than 100 billion solar masses and ranges in diameter from 1,500 to 300,000
light-years, 90% of which is actually composed of largely unknown substance
called dark matter (sic). Individual galaxies are separated by distances in
excess of millions of light years.“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxies
Many
websites state that our galaxy has 100 billion stars, but many other websites
claim it is between 100 and 400 billions. So I guess these numbers of stars in
a galaxy might have been updated recently, it is likely that our galaxy has got
from 100 to 400 billion stars. However the average galaxy has got 100 billion
stars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
And the
icing on the cake, the universe could have 100 billion galaxies (though some
claim it has 125 billions, according to new studies from the Hubble Telescope):
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
So I
think this is quite important. There are 100 billion atoms in a cell. There are
100 billion stars (or solar systems) in a galaxy, and there are 100 billion
galaxies in the universe (probably the average for any given universe).
An atom
is like a small solar system. And a galaxy on its own is comparable to an atom
if we push it. So it is almost our first argument to compare the universe to a
cell, even though in this context, a cell would be more like a galaxy.
Then I
guess cells are forming something else, and that something else could be
compared to the Universe (like a brain perhaps)?
I
suppose we could still say the universe is a cell. But we could push it and say
it is in fact a brain. We could also forget the fact that some people say there
are between 100 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, and stick to 100
billion. We should not forget to mention that in average galaxies have 100
billion stars.
And
there are 100 billion cells in a brain, it is like 100 billion galaxies in the
universe. Enough to make the universe a living and intelligent entity.
It goes
on about the brain, magic number: “The adult brain contains 100 billion neurons
- more than the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy (sic).”
http://www.meds.com/archive/mol-cancer/2000/05/msg01333.html
“Your
brain is the hub of your nervous system. It is made up of 100 billion nerve
cells - about the same as the number of trees in the Amazon rainforest.” (Nerve
cells, same as Neurons? Wikipedia: “Neurons are sometimes called nerve cells,
though this term is technically imprecise, as many neurons do not form nerves
(ie. the brain)...”)
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/brain/1.asp
However,
we have to be careful in our statistics, everyone is contradicting the others,
one source says it is not as clear cut: “Average number of neurons in the brain
= 10 billion to 100 billion. Average number of glial cells in brain = 10-50
times the number of neurons.”
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/AniciaNdabahaliye2.shtml
By the
way, wikipedia states that it is not true that we are using only 10% of our
brain, we use it all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain
Other
stuff that has got 100 billion units inside of them, just in case it inspires
you: 100 billion brown dwarfs (in our galaxy)
Extrapolating
from the number of brown dwarfs they discovered, Ryan and his colleagues
estimate the galaxy has roughly 100 billion L- and T-type dwarfs. This number
is comparable to the Milky Way's total of all other stars put together. (Funny,
they say here we have 100 billion stars in our galaxy.)
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3451
How
Many People Have Ever Been Alive? 100 billions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
Larger
numbers
As of
2005, there are about six and a half billion human beings, each with his or her
own life story. Between 25 and 100 billion more have lived and died in the
past, although almost all of their lives are lost to history. As Arthur C.
Clarke put this, in his preface to 2001: A Space Odyssey (in 1968, when the
world population was only about 3.5 billion [5]):
Behind
every man now alive stand thirty ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the
dead outnumber the living. Since the dawn of time, roughly a hundred billion
human beings have walked the planet Earth. — Now this is an interesting number,
for by a curious coincidence there are approximately a hundred billion stars in
our local universe, the Milky Way. So for every man who has ever lived, in this
universe, there shines a star.
There
are, as indicated above, around 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) stars in the
Milky Way galaxy. [6]
“Although it is impossible to accurately
measure how many people have been alive, the Population Reference Bureau
estimates that from 50,000 BCE (when homo sapiens first appears) through 1995,
it is likely that more than 100 billion human beings have been born. Current
world population makes up about 6 percent of all human beings who have ever
been alive (1).”
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/how_many_ever.html
Long
version:
And
finally, just to get back to some sort of reality, McDonald's has sold around 100
billion beef-based hamburgers worldwide with a potentially considerable health
impact.
-------------------
So 100 billion is a magic number and that
number helps a great deal in establishing and comparing objects and the sizes
of different scale universes. And there you are, I forgot that a galaxy could
be compared to a cell instead of a molecule. And so a molecule would have to be
composed of many galaxies/cells.
And in
average 100 billion galaxies/cells would be the size of a human brain. A human
brain might be 5% of the overall size of a human being? And so 2000 billion galaxies/cells
would represent the size of a human being. As there are only 100 billion
galaxies in our universe, 20 universes would be a human being.
So I
guess in the end our universe is far from being finished, or at the very least
many other universes must be close by. Unless of course our whole universe
represents at a larger scale one human brain floating in space, and nothing
else around. If not a brain, at least something intelligent, like a CPU or a
computer memory chip, it’s the threshold after all. Since a brain is after all
mostly a storage device, just like a hard drive (a deficiently one, I know, it
seems we were better than God at designing a memory device, ours never forgets
anything and can calculate and compute at high speed).
Where was I? God knows. I’m too drunk now
to continue this brainstorm. I’m working tomorrow. Dear me, this is all I can
truly think about right now. Panic state, need to find more ways to escape reality.
Obviously thinking in these terms is insufficient. I wonder what alcohol and
drugs would truly mean in view of Expansion Theory? Why would any substance get
a universe to suddenly go mad and imagine things that simply do not exist?
Second Brainstorm Session
I still have to figure out a way to
shrink and expand these damn electrons. I feel my initial thought of squeezing
my spaceship via high magnetic fields or even bombardments of electrons would
not do. It would most likely create an explosion, as they will expand no matter
what, which explains nuclear bombs and why suns can go supernova. Trying to
contain matter by squeezing it, until it stops expanding, is madness, it wants
to expand so badly, it will eradicate everything around for miles and miles in
order to continue to expand. Bad idea. And anyway, the way I will shrink
things, must be the way I will expand things.
Now, the only way I can think of in order
to change the rate at which an electron expands, and eventually to cause it to
shrink, would have to be a method which acts directly on the damn electron. I
would need to know what is actually causing the electron to expand in the first
place, or at least find some way to stop that expansion, or increase it
considerably.
Magnetic fields won’t do. Electron clouds
and electron clusters won’t do. And yet, what is there left in the universe
apart from electron clouds and clusters, if not electrons taken at their most simplistic
and fundamental state? Nothing. If I can’t change the expansion rate with
electrons, electron clouds, or electron clusters, no matter what form they
could take in between, then I will never change the rate at which electron
expands.
I think I can safely forget electron
clouds and clusters. That leaves me with electrons. Or what together electrons
can form. Let’s not forget the chemistry reactions. Chemistry. Once those
electrons goes on to form certain atoms, and certain molecules, they form
specific elements from the periodical table of elements, and when two different
elements interact, suddenly you observe different reactions. There lay my
solution. I must find somehow some sort of chemistry reaction capable of
changing the rate at which an electron expands, at will.
At first sight, helium will have to play
a role in this chemistry equation. Helium is so weird, but I cannot simply
throw it into the mix and justify just a grandiose event just by mentioning
helium. Why not? Perhaps I can turn it in such a way… maybe not.
To be continued…
Roland Michel Tremblay
www.themarginal.com rm@themarginal.com
www.themarginal.com/relativity.htm