The book details a new theory of physics that advances science past Einstein and Newton.  He shows how Einstein and Newton omitted certain areas in their equations (when published) and came up with false conclusions about gravity.  He reworks the science of today into a new and much more understandable and logical system using his new concept called expansion theory.  I was wondering if anyone else had read this book yet and if so if they wanted to join the discussion on My Space about it.
214470
I also want to know who has read that book
43451
Nope. Ben just got it wrong.\n\nWhen he came up with "positive" and "negative" he wasn't even thinking in terms of current they way we do today. Frankline did have an "fluid theory" of electricity, but it was much different in scope with anything we would think of. It was not until 1897 that the electron was discovered.\n\nSo, Ben, can be forgiven. When he was working he wrote in a letter that "I feel a Want of Terms here and doubt much whether I shall be able to make this intelligible," and he supposed to have come up with a variety of terms in use today:     \n\n    * battery\n    * charge\n    * condensor\n    * conductor\n    * plus\n    * minus\n    * positively\n    * negatively\n    * armature\n\nUsing a positve flow is useful in that it keeps a lot of the quantities positive. (Though I confess, in Physics grad school we always used the electrons moving bit.)\n\nAlso moving protons are good if one wants to use special relativity to show that electricy and magnetism are the same.
95556
Laney, first of all allow me to say that I'm incredibly glad and pleasantly surprised to hear of your genuine interest in this field.   You are to be truly commended for your intellectual courage and abilities.  ...But to address your question, there are in fact thousands of great explanatory/layman-type books out there on Quantum Mechanics, Field Theory, Gravity, Philosophy, Reality, and associated topics like cosmology, etc.  Some of them even dating back to the mid 70's, that nonetheless are still wonderful reads.  ...Theoretical physics at the level that we are talking about here, though, is unfortunately a seven-headed exotic mathematical monster that is not even accessible to most physicists, much less the lay person.   Having said that, and as you know, there have been courageous attempts by talented physicist like Brain Greene (and many others before and after him) to make our latest theoretical/scientific visions of the physical world/universe available to the general public.   ...Since you mentioned that you are NOT mathematically inclined, but did enjoy Greene's The Elegant Universe, the first thing that came to my mind (and the book that I would recommend most) was in fact Greene's newer work called "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" - in case you haven't read it yet.    \n\nAmong some of the other more recent titles worth mentioning also are:\n\nThe Great Beyond - by: Paul Halpener (A very nice book)\n\nThe Cosmic Landscape - by: Leonard Susskind\n\nHiding in the Mirror - by: Lawrence M. Krauss\n\nThe Road to Reality - by: Rofer Penrose\n\nA First Course in String Theory - by: Barton Zwiebach (This is a very nice book but a lil' more mathematically oriented than you might enjoy - let's say undergraduate physics level) \n\nI also highly recommend:  The Five Ages of the Universe - by: Fred Adams\n\nThat should keep you busy for a while - Good Reading!  ;-)
103690
How are you still alive?\nSo, how did you come up with the gravity idea?\nDid the apple really fall on your head or is that just a stupid story?\nHow do you back up your theories if you are the first one to come up with the theory?
95791
I'm reading this book right now\n\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0452285259&itm=1\n\nI just got it, so I haven't read too far, but so far it's very interesting and easy to understand.  Here's some others on my list\n\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0195142373&itm=2\n\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=019514743X&itm=5\n\nI would look on ebay or half.com, or even your library, first.\n\nI also think game theory and number theory are interesting topics, so if you or anyone else has a recommendation for those, please let me know :)\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nI forgot this one, it's on my list, too\n\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?z=y&pwb=1&ean=9780691058542\n\nAnd I agree, good for you for expanding your horizons.
299193
YES!!! "Biblical Mathematics"!!! \nAWESOME AND STAYS AWAY FROM NUMEROLOGY!!\n\nI had it but gave it to a minister who teaches College Physics. He was ecstatic! \n\nMine also came with a cassette so you could listen to it as well! \n\nHow awesome! God just brought that book to my mind today, making me feel as though I should get another one and read it again...and now you ask this? Hmmmmm
340897
According to Mark McCutcheon who sort of justifies why Einstein’s Theories of Relativity are flawed, and according to his Expansion Theory of the Universe, here is what he says in his book The Final Theory:\n\n“Warp speed has been within our grasp ever since the early days of the space program. We simply have not achieved it because we haven't tried, and we haven't tried because Special Relativity Theory said we couldn't – and we believed it. All that is required is continuous acceleration from an extended fuel burn; a spaceship would accelerate faster and faster as its fuel burns, just as common sense tells us it should. The spaceship will not undergo a mysterious "relativistic mass increase" as it increases in speed, it will not need to burn more and more fuel to compensate for such "mass increase," and it will not have any special difficulty approaching or exceeding the light-speed "barrier." ”\n\nNow, you can imagine the implications for these particle accelerators which apparently cannot accelerate particles at speeds beyond the speed of light because their weight or relativistic mass reaches infinity. McCutcheon states:\n\n“The "energy" used to accelerate the particles is supplied by electromagnets that are timed to pulse as the particles pass by, giving them a boost. However, as shown in the previous chapter, a magnetic field is actually a cloud of expanding electrons. If each pulse sends a cloud of electrons expanding toward the passing particles at the speed of light to give them a push from behind, it is not surprising that the particles are accelerated less and less as they speed by faster and faster. As the particles approach light-speed they would be shooting past almost as rapidly as the electron clouds would be expanding behind them. The expanding electron clouds would barely be able to catch up with the particles as they pass, and so, would only be able to give them a tiny additional boost that gets smaller still as the particles get even closer to light speed.”\n\n“Increasing the energy input simply means producing denser electron clouds from the pulsing magnets, which improves the efficiency of each boost (makes each push more solid) but does not increase the speed of expansion of these electron clouds. Therefore, as ever more energy is put into the system, the passing particles receive ever more solid nudges toward light-speed but still can never exceed the speed of light since this is the limit of the speed boosts. This need not be considered as validation of the mysterious "relativistic mass increase" concept of Special Relativity Theory, but merely as an expected result once the true nature of magnetic fields is understood.”\n\nAnd yet, we’re going to create micro-singularities soon, or micro black holes, in the new Large Hadron Collider at CERN in 2007. So we’re going to accelerate the particles even closer to the speed of light, and that will be enough? Who knows...
568245
Hi NY NY 2\n\nQuite a hodge podge of answers above.  let me see if I can clear some misconceptions up for you:\n\nFirst, the evidence. About 8 years ago two separate independent groups announced measurements of the brightness of supernova at a redshift z=1.  (Cosmologists use redshift factor "z" to show how far away something is in space-time by designating how far light from the object is redshifted by the time it arrives at earth.  The redshift is due to the expansion of the intervening space.  Redshift z=1 corresponds to a distance where the wavelength of light has been redshifted to double its original wavelength.).  These results indicated that the universal expansion was accelerating.  Since that time the results have been confirmed, and supporting evidence was found in the detailed mapping of the microwave background.\n\nSurprisingly (you might think) it is very easy to modify the equations which describe the universe's evolution to make the expansion accelerate.  The reason for this is that Einstein originally included such a factor in his early equations.\n\nBriefly, the equations for the universe at large scale talk about gravity and pressures.  Gravity tries to collapse the universe together and pressures push it apart (roughly).  When Einstein came up with his model (1915), everyone thought the universe was static (so called "steady state"), ie it didn't change over time.  So he included a cosmological constant to counteract the collapsing action of gravity and keep the universe steady.  This cosmological constant "pushes outwards" to counter gravities inward push.  By 1928 Hubble's catalogue had convinced people the universe was expanding (not steady) and physicists realised the cosmological constant wasn't required.  Einstein called its original inclusion "his biggest blunder".  It seems that call was wrong.  :o)\n\nNow the cosmological constant is coming back.  To describe an expanding universe you stick it back in and change the values for the density of normal mass-energy and the cosmological constant, and voila - an expanding universe.  The question then becomes: what does this constant physically represent?\n\nAt present cosmologists use the term "dark energy" to refer to a number of possible culprits.  From the equations we know the properties of this dark energy very well.  Some physicists link it to action of the quantum vacuum, some label it "quintessence" (the "fifth force").  \n\nIt is *not* (as suggested above) dark matter or antimatter.  Dark matter is invoked to explain galactic dynamics: galaxies tend to rotate in a fashion which suggests they have more mass than we can actually see.  This missing mass is presumed to be dark (which is why we can't see it).  Dark matter would act like ordinary matter in Einstein's equaitons, and so can't produce an accelerated expansion.  Antimatter also behaves gravitationally like ordinary matter and so it can't be responsible for accelerated expansion either.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
163246
cannot prove or disprove this hypothesis.\n\npast empirical proof has been to tell someone to throw something up and see.  this worked until we started putting things in orbit...and beyond.\n\nnow, how do we know (or not) that those items that have exceeded our known local planetary orbit patterns will not come back because of a larger as yet unforeseen orbit?\n\nif anyone attempts to prove or disprove this it must include a hypothesis that effectively refutes the steady-state universe vs. the big-bang theories.\n\nthis would effectively place matter consumed by black-holes back to the initial "down" and all "up" would eventually return to the same place or "come down."\n\notherwise it is a lie.  technology and our knowledge of the structure of up and down have already effectively refuted this infantile "law" of gravity.  but thanks for reminding us of our humble beginnings in thinking.
471759
NO!!  If people would stop (mis)quoting half-remembered precepts here, and do a spot of THINKING, instead, we might get somewhere.\n\n1.  If a moving spherical ball directly hits an identical free, stationary ball head on in an elastic collision, the moving ball STOPS, and the previously stationary one heads off with the original velocity of the other.  So ALL of the moving ball's K.E. has been transferred to the other ball.  \n\nHere are two ways to see this:\n\n1a.  The device known somewhat indelicately to British schoolboys as "Newton's balls" (but in squeamish America as "The Swinging Wonder") provides an excellent table-top demonstration of this.  Most undergraduate physics instructors must haul this out from time to time.\n\n1b.  You can easily solve it analytically, but a thought experiment will also demonstrate it.  In the originally stationary ball's frame, let the other ball approach with speed v.  Now shift (with an appropriately directed speed of v/2) to the frame in which the two equal balls are simply approaching each other, each with a speed in this frame of that same v/2 (oppositely directed, of course)!  Clearly, from the symmetry of the situation, they'll bounce off each other with the same (oppositely directed) speeds in this frame, still of v/2.  Now go back to the original frame: the previously moving ball is now completely stationary, while the originally stationary one is haring off with speed v.  (You may need to make little sketches of what is happening as viewed successively from each of these frames, to see this; I admit that that's what I did.)\n\n2a.  A similar approach can be used to solve the general case for an arbitrary ratio of masses, m (initially moving)/M (initially stationary).  Hint: have the balls approach one another in their center of mass frame with equal but opposite momenta of mv and  MV.  They'll clearly bounce off one another in such a frame, retaining the same values of their respective (but now oppositely directed) speeds.  Then you can do the other frame-jugglings from there. \n\nHowever, this analytical approach, done accurately, is a tedious mess.  So, to appreciate the general problem more physically, consider just the following:\n\n2b.  The case of m << M.\n\nConsider the "equal but opposite momentum" frame for these two balls, in which MV = mv.  This means that if ball M is VERY MASSIVE, the speed it will have in such a frame, V = (m/M)v; that is, it's VERY SMALL compared to little puny m's high speed.\n\nSo, transforming to the frame in which M itself (the big guy) is initially stationary takes only a speed shift of O(m/M)v.  (In fact identically so.)  This only affects the speed of puny m minutely, so m's initial K.E. is still of order O(m v^2).  (There's no need to do picky constant book-keeping for these purposes.)  \n\nNow after the collision: In the original frame, Big M is now moving (and in fact at 2V if you think about it.)  But, being loose about the constants, M's K.E is only O(MV^2).  \n\nSo, the ratio (m's K.E.)/(M's K.E.) ~ (mv^2)/(MV^2)\n\n= (m/M)(M/m)^2 (since mv = MV)\n\n= M/m.\n\nBINGO!  The little bugger still carries by far the larger amount of the kinetic energy.  The massive ball (i) moves sluggishly, and (ii) because  K.E. involves both mass but also the SQUARE of the speed, the TWO POWERS of (small) speed more than cancel out the effect of its (large) mass.\n\nThis is a well-known fact in particle collision theory, that little particles basically bounce off big ones.  \n\nYou could also say that it's well-known in "space billiards": when spacecraft head close to Jupiter to receive a "gravitational sling-shot effect" that sends them off to the outermost planets.  \n\nIt's more complicated because of 3-D effects there, but analogous frame-shifting methods can be used to show that the spacecraft can pick up considerable speed AND change
87866
Stephen Hawking gives many theories abt the unverse in "a brief history of time". \n\nIf we accept the no boundaries preposition, ie the universe has no boundaries, neither in space nor in time, then there is no space for god anywhere.\n\nIf we accept the theory of multiple universes, ie there are a very large number of universes, and in each of them separate laws of physics apply, then God has gotta be out of the whole system, because how can he be in just one universe, and ignore the rest(unless each universe has its own god, but the how will they coordinate??)
573335
Hi Anna M\nThis book looks interesting. I think I'll buy and read it.\nThanks.
367107
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
306034
To be sure, the theory has a lot of gaps.  So it's not a Law.  All's it takes is one scientifically provable discovery that doesn't fit the theory to launch a search for a new theory that will explain the new information while keeping the old proven stuff too.  A good example is Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  Newtonian Mechanics fails at extreme sizes and speeds.  Relativity so far has been able to explain all the variances found to date at those extremes, but has not been proven to be 100% valid all the time, so it's not a law yet.  If you can discover something that invalidates evolutionary theory, you'll probably win a Nobel Prize!
530899
did he? \nhe talked about attraction force (F) between bodies (m1, m2, staying d distance apart) though\nF = G (m1. m2) / d^2
502546
yeah. \ni dunno about M theory\nbut i learned about black holes and supernovae a couple years back in a book called "an introduction to modern astrophysics" by carrol and ostlie\nit's hefty, but in depth, and a decent introduction.\ni think i took the course in second year, so the physics in it isn't too tough, but the explanations will do in a pinch.\n\nit's not a pretty book, though (just warning you). and it's big. you'd be better off buying it used, but that's probably not hard to do.
655721
Very interesting theory. To get people to grasp the concept of the size of one universe is difficult, (Douglas Adams touched on this in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe, "Amazingly big multiplied by stupendously large....... etc") , so to ask people to think in terms of multiverse is difficult enough, (I have no major problems with the concept.)........., then to throw in the concept of one god per universe in a multiverse, ...phew...! I prefer to think of one creator of everything, simplistic I know, but easy for me to grasp.