3.13 Two best proofs of Atomic Expansion Theory — The levitating slinky and ball (no paywall)
The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon — Theory of Everything in Physics (11 of 13)
3.13 Two best proofs of Atomic Expansion Theory — The levitating slinky and ball
It is very difficult to identify a proof for a theory in physics, when other theories that might be incorrect, or misinterpretations of physical phenomena, can still model reality very well, and equally explain what we see. Atomic Expansion Theory can explain all the so-called proofs of Einstein’s theories, and can re-interpret everything stated within Quantum Mechanics, from the point of view of expanding and contracting matter.
They are all theories after all, supposed to model perfectly all identified phenomena in nature. And you can always tweak these theories to infinity, so they still model what we see. For example, by inventing wild and unlikely concepts such as dark matter, dark energy, gravitational waves, graviton particles, black holes, singularities, etc. Better that, than admitting that a theory is incorrect, I suppose. But when exactly do we draw the line and admit that the theory is wrong?
The key to prove Atomic Expansion Theory, is to find proofs where the expansion of the planet and all objects, explain something that no other theory can explain. So it should be a consequence of the expansion of matter, and show what is happening behind the scenes, to justify what we see in our resulting reality.
I came up with the two best proofs for Atomic Expansion Theory that I could think of. I do not guarantee that in time, people would not use other theories to justify what is happening, and state that these are not proofs after all. It would not disprove Atomic Expansion Theory, it would simply mean that other theories can also explain them. However, they better explain them convincingly, without resorting to magical thinking. I’m pretty sure levitation is not part of Standard Physics, no matter how someone somehow could justify it.
3.13a The physics of a stretched suspended slinky being dropped
No proof appears to be convincing enough, it seems. Which brings us to the physics of the drop of a stretched suspended slinky. Good luck explaining convincingly that particular phenomenon, using either Newton or Einstein’s theories of gravity.
First you need to watch on YouTube these four videos from Veritasium, showing in slow motion what is happening when you drop a fully stretched slinky from the top of a building:
When you drop an extended slinky from high up, film it and play the video in slow motion, the base of the slinky does not move at all, until the top reaches the base. Almost as if it was free floating in space, as in Einstein and Atomic Expansion Theory, which are both geometry based theories, with the exception that it is actually levitating for a while.
This experiment is even visible to the naked eye, from a drop of your own height. There’s no need to drop the slinky from the top of a building, or to film it first in order to slow it down. You will see, the bottom levitates, it stays there suspended in the air, until the slinky is fully contracted back, and only then, will it fall down.
The first obvious issue is that levitation is impossible in Newton and Einstein. As soon as an object is dropped, the entire apparatus must immediately start falling down. This is true whether gravity is a force acting at a distance, or is explained by geometry, where any dropped object must immediately follow the curvature of spacetime.
You would not expect a bearing ball dropped at the top edge of a funnel, or of a garden trampoline, not to move for a while, before starting to fall towards the middle. Slinkies and springs don’t have a special status when it comes to gravity, simply because when they are stretched then dropped, they not only fall, but they also contract back to normal. And that is key.
The second obvious issue is that, it is impossible for a stretched slinky or a spring, suddenly freed from both ends, not to have both ends come back together. One end cannot suddenly remain immobile in the air, while the other end comes back towards it. This is a serious misinterpretation of what is happening here.
In Einstein, the bottom end of the slinky is not attached to anything. And granted that there is no force acting at a distance upon it, and it is free floating, but once dropped from the top, it should still immediately follow the curvature of spacetime to its destination, which is the ground.
These two issues are common sense. The first issue is telling us that neither Newton nor Einstein can explain this observation, which is levitation, hence they cannot be correct explanations for gravity. The second issue is telling us that, despite what we observe, the bottom end of the slinky must be going up, as the top end is coming down, as the slinky contracts back together while falling.
It cannot possibly matter, if the slinky is more stretched nearer the top, and more contracted towards the bottom, with a centre of mass nearer the bottom. Both ends must always come back together, even if they don’t do so in equal measures or at the same rate.
Fine, I hear you say. The slinky is not falling immediately, because the bottom end is going up, as the slinky contracts back, which explains why it remains suspended in the air for a while. However, this is still magical levitation.
No matter what anyone might say, gravity does not wait for information to come from the top of the slinky to reach the bottom, before starting to fall, no matter where its centre of mass is. This is a desperate and illogical argument to explain the unexplainable, in the absence of a valid theory in physics that could explain what is really going on.
And the bottom end cannot remain immobile floating in the air, even if it is going back up. The entire slinky must immediately start to fall down under both current theories of gravity, even while it is contracting back to normal.
In the Supersized Slow-Mo Slinky Drop video, they have an experiment meant to reflect the other, but without any gravity involved. They put an unstretched spring horizontally on a table, hit one end, and we can see that the other end remains immobile until the spring is fully contracted, then it bounces back. This is an entirely different experiment not equivalent in any way to the first one.
First, there is no real stretching of the spring whatsoever. So, you would not expect both ends of a spring to come back together, when you let go of it, when the spring is not stretched.
Second, not only they have eliminated the downward force of gravity, but they also removed the other upward force against gravity, while the object is being held. There are two forces here acting on the slinky. So, whether one end of the spring remains immobile or not while horizontally, in that particular experiment, is hardly equivalent to what would happen with gravity, a force holding the slinky at the top, and stretching.
The linchpin of the entire phenomenon, is the fact that not only the slinky falls down due to gravity, but also that it contracts back at the same time. If you eliminate the stretching as well as gravity and the holding force, then you are comparing two different phenomena.
A more accurate experiment would have been a horizontal spring tied at one end, being dragged on the table by that end until it is stretched, and then let go. Then both ends would have come back together during the contraction of the spring, no end would have remained immobile.
And this is precisely what is happening that we cannot see, when the slinky is suspended from a rooftop, because it is only happening behind the scenes, where we can see the expansion of the Earth.
So here is the solution that no other theory, I feel, could explain. Once the slinky is dropped, the base must be going up while the top is going down, while the entire slinky contracts. But the bottom end must be going up at the exact same rate as the expansion of the Earth. Which is not surprising, since the stretching corresponds precisely to the measure of gravity on Earth.
This is because, the force holding the slinky at the top before the drop, is dependent on the expansion rate of the planet pushing it upwards in the first place. The planet is constantly expanding at a rate of 4.9 metres per second, pushing everything upwards, and this is what causes the initial stretching of the slinky while it is being held.
Consequently, it seems like the bottom end of the slinky is not moving at all, when in fact the base is going up. The important difference here, is that the slinky is free floating in the air as soon as it is dropped. It is not being attracted to the Earth, and it is not following the curvature of spacetime. It is the Earth that catches up with the entire apparatus in its expansion, once the slinky is no longer being pulled upwards while suspended.
And since the base is going up at the exact same rate as the expansion of the planet, it appears as if the slinky is levitating in the air. The base of the slinky is not going up from our point of view, but it actually is behind the scenes, if you could see the expansion.
It would be interesting to try a variant of the original experiment to see the result. For example, if someone on the sixth floor holds the top of a supersized slinky, normally it would stretch all the way to the second floor. But if someone on the fourth floor brings up the bottom half of the slinky, holds the base there, and then both persons let go of the slinky at the same time, then what would happen to the base of the slinky?
In the original experiment, the base of the slinky appeared immobile and levitating, because in the background, it was going back up at the exact same rate as the Earth’s expansion. In the second experiment, the stretching of the slinky no longer corresponds to the Earth’s gravity, since the base is held at the mid-point. It is therefore possible that the slinky would start to fall down immediately. However, it would do so slower than would be expected from normal gravity, since the base would still be going upwards, while the slinky contracts back to normal.
This said, since the stretch is now less pronounced than before, and both ends would be coming back with less force, it might compensate for the difference in the two experiments. After all, the stretch still corresponds to the force of gravity, it is just that the slinky is now held at two different points. As a result, the base might still levitate and remain immobile in the air, until the top reaches the base, and then fall down. If you attempt it, please let me know the result, so this point can be settled.
And now, let’s move on with another prediction that could doubly prove Atomic Expansion Theory, when we replace the slinky with a ball. Which brings us to our second best proof.
3.13b The physics of a suspended ball being dropped
If a person on the top of a building is holding a ball, then obviously the building, the person and the ball, would be going up at a rate of 4.9 metres per second, being pushed upwards by the expansion of the Earth.
So when the person drops the ball, and the distance between the ball and the ground reduces in an acceleration of 9.8 metres per second square, the expansion of the Earth would first need to overcome that initial speed of the ball going upwards.
And while it is doing so, just like with the slinky before, the ball should appear immobile in the air, as if levitating, in the first half second it will take for gravity, to overcome that initial upward speed of 4.9 metres per second.
This is completely different from Newton or Einstein, where the dropped ball should immediately start to fall back to Earth. Because in their theories, there is no such thing as an expanding Earth justifying gravity, and the ball held in the person’s hand would not already be going upwards at a rate of 4.9 metres per second, before being dropped, since this is a consequence of the expansion of the planet. So if we could witness this, it would be the perfect proof for Atomic Expansion Theory.
I don’t know if from these limited heights, we would be able to prove a levitating ball, just before it starts to fall back down. However, the levitating act of the slinky is so striking and obvious, it gives me hope that we might also be able to witness and measure the levitating act of the ball. A speed of 4.9 metres per second upwards before being dropped, as could be seen behind the scenes, is quite a measurable quantity, so maybe this could be tested and proven.
Now, there is another issue. Measuring this using our actual equations for gravity, or even the Atomic Expansion Equation, might not be sufficient. Because these equations might have been derived from empirical evidence, from how long a dropped object takes to reach the ground, through simple observation. And without these equations having been established, while being aware of that initial upward speed of any held object, these equations might already be measuring it by default.
For example, Mark McCutcheon has developed his Atomic Expansion Equation, based on empirical evidence of how long it takes an object to fall back to Earth. Most probably Newton and Einstein did the same, since their equations needed to match observation. Even the expansion rate of the atom, and of everything else, is based on how fast an object falls back to Earth, and might need to be re-adjusted slightly in light what I am saying now.
Even an object falling from a plane has an upward speed, as planes must constantly be going up in order to counteract the expansion of the planet. Even an object dropped from the International Space Station must be going upward, because behind the scenes, all orbits are constantly enlarging away from Earth, while all objects are being accelerated as well. Anyway, an object being dropped from the space station, would simply continue on the same orbit as the station, since it would already be going at the right speed for that altitude, to continue on the same orbit.
Therefore, any kind of measurement comparisons for this, should be done in space, far from the planet. So we could compare if our equations bring similar results, for the gravity of two objects totally free in space, and the gravity between the ground and a held ball, before being dropped, while standing on an expanding planet.
This said, the levitating act of the ball in slow motion, might be as obvious as the slinky one, for a long half of a second, before the ball starts to fall. And that prediction and fact alone would be all the proof we need. No calculations using equations are required to prove it.
Table of content (no paywall)
3.1 First and second types of expansion and contraction of matter according to Mark McCutcheon, concerning General Relativity and the four fundamental forces
3.2 Atomic Expansion Theory
3.3 New model of the atom, strong and weak nuclear forces and chemical bonds
3.4 Gravity and the formation of galaxies in Atomic Expansion Theory
3.5 Two types of distance decrease to calculate gravity in Atomic Expansion Theory
3.6 Atomic Expansion Equation to calculate gravity in Expansion Theory
3.6a The Atomic Expansion Equation
3.7 Second type of growth and shrinkage of matter — The Crossover Effect — Static electricity
3.8 Magnetism and Electricity in Atomic Expansion Theory
3.9 Energy in Atomic Expansion Theory
3.10 Motion and Orbits in Atomic Expansion Theory
3.11 Behind the scenes — Four different perspectives required to explain orbits and gravity
3.11a The first perspective — The God’s viewpoint with expansion — And can we change the expansion rate of matter?
3.11b The second perspective — Our resulting reality without expansion
3.11c The third perspective — Expansion re-established after the relative effects — And how orbits enlarge in spirals and naturally accelerate objects
3.11d Are orbits in the third perspective enlarging gradually or exponentially?
3.11e The fourth perspective — Objects passing each other in space if there were no expansion or gravity
3.12 Slingshot effect and other gravitational anomalies explained
3.13 Two best proofs of Atomic Expansion Theory — The levitating slinky and ball
3.13a The physics of a stretched suspended slinky being dropped
3.13b The physics of a suspended ball being dropped
3.14 Atomic Expansion Theory concepts and orbit simulations on YouTube
3.14a Cruz deWilde
3.14b Life, Everything And The Universe
3.14c The late Gerald Clark’s series about gravity featuring an interview with Roland Michel Tremblay, which are also on YouTube
3.14d Gerald Clark’s Premium Content requiring subscription, except for the free ones indicated
3.14e Chris Freely (The Cosmic Fool)
3.14f Ian Moore (Ianto)
Download New Age Physics Free Chapters:
Book PDF, Docx PDF, DOCX, Kindle ePub, Kindle Mobi, Apple Books, Nook, Google Play, Kobo, Generic ePub
