Shrinking Theory vs Expansion Theory

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 Newton went wrong with gravity, however it is in chapter two that we get to understand the solution to gravity and get acquainted with the expanding electron explaining and re-writing overnight all of physics. You will however get a very good idea about all that Expansion Theory solves when it comes to the mysteries of the old physics. And when you think about it, as you read it, it is overwhelming that the expansion of the atom could solve virtually all of these mysteries.

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.

The Shrinking Theory

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 Australia. I only bought the book because it stated that he had a new revolutionary theory called Expansion Theory. It was instantly clear in my mind that my Shrinking Theory could have easily been called The Shrinking-Expansion Theory, whilst Mark’s theory could only be called The Expansion Theory, from what I could gather from his book.

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 Newton’s theories on the subject? I don’t know. However Mark did it for me now, and he described it with clarity.

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.

Key points to investigate

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 4.9 meters per second. So you always appear to be falling back to earth at a speed of 9.8 meters per second-squared, when in fact, you never truly move at all, the distance between you and the earth shrinks at that speed. And this expansion is actually accelerating. You will have to read the book to understand all that, I’m explaining it wrongly.

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 Newton’s cradle toy or bearing balls suspended on strings. You move the first one and then instantly the last ball pops up much faster than it would take for the first ball to swing the whole distance. This came out of his debunking of Quantum Entanglement. So at the very least faster than light communication should be possible and might very well be the way to receive any communication from outer space. SETI might wish to investigate that further, how to listen to such communication from the light of distant stars. Could there be any unusual pattern in those light beams, hidden communications?

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 Newton to McCutcheon’s expansion is sufficient to explain this configuration without a need for missing mass, or missing large objects, or dark matter and dark energy? That is why Mark McCutcheon can only say that Expansion Theory will give us a new start in the study of this phenomenon, but could not state anything definite.

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.