About Expansion and light

Hello everyone.

First of all thank you to whoever created this forum, so that I can discuss Mathis theories with someone else constructively.

This question / thought considers the Expansion Theory to be true. This means, that all matter expands at the same rate and this gives us the impression of "gravity" between objects.

Let's take this scenario:
The sun at a certain moment has a diameter of 1. On that instant a ring of photons starts its travel from the "edge" (as seen from us) towards our eyes. After several minutes, this ring arrives and we can give it a size. During this time the sun expanded.

If the photons expanded as well, the ring we see matches the current size of the sun.

If the photons did not expand, the ring we see has the size of the smaller sun of several minutes earlier.

So, my question is, which one is the case? How can we tell? Also I must add that the second scenario would tell us that distances between objects are much smaller than thought, because: imagine a probe going to the sun and measuring its diameter, then returning here where we use that value to confront it with what we see on a telescope and carry out a distance (average). Since the image on the telescope would be much smaller than what the sun really is at that moment, that distance is wrong.

Hi Ciaolo, welcome to the forum.

I'm not sure I agree with some of your assumptions but I can answer your question definitively. The photons expanded. I say that with absolute certainty (within the confines of the theory) because the only things that exist are BPhotons so if anything is expanding, it is them.

Your assumption that the ring we see matches the current size of the sun does not hold. The ring of photons and the sun are two very different entities and they will expand differently. Well, they will expand exactly the same (as in it is the BPhotons expanding) but the motion of that expansion will affect each entity differently.

The sun is a sphere of photons and the sum of the expansion of those photons causes the surface to move outwards because that is the only unconstrained direction. The ring does not have such constraints so each photon has more freedom in the directions it can go when struck by an adjacent photon because both have expanded. A photon in the ring could move outward, mimicking the suns photons, but they could just as easily move inward. The result of expansion on the ring would be a blurring rather than the ring getting larger.

So the ring we see would be a blurry image of the sun as it was 8 minutes before the measurement. The earth reacts to the charge field of the sun 8 minutes ago. Miles has used that to derive the 1/r^2 drop-off of gravity, which has never been done before.

Nevyn, thank you very much for your answer, it was really helpful.

But I don't quite understand what you mean by blurry, since we can see clear images of the sun and also of other much more distant objects...

Also, what about the true distance between objects? Is what I proposed in the OP true? (That sky objects are much nearer than expected)

Expansion doesn't make sense in reality, but Tharkun said expansion tendency is balanced by photon emission inward, so I think the expansion tendency is prevented from actually occurring, if he's right. Otherwise, if all matter expanded, it would be obvious, because they would get increasingly closer together.

My reply was written about a ring of photons in isolation to everything else. So its photons could only collide with other photons in the ring (and then only the ones next to it since we are assuming a common trajectory). But that is not how reality (in this theory) works. There are photons everywhere, moving in all directions. They don't interact that much, but they can.

Our measuring devices, even our own eyes, won't miss a few photons that didn't make it, if they were knocked off their path by some other stray photon, because our devices measure an average over some time frame. This can help fix the blurriness because we are going to ignore the few photons that have moved slightly outward since there won't be many of them and they won't average out to a large enough value to register in the device. There are plenty of other photons from inside of the circle of photons coming from the sun that can also be nudged outward and take their place.

You would have to block the internal photons as close to the sun as possible to have a ring of photons and even then you wouldn't because the charge emission of the blocking device is also photons (although of a different kind so we could measure the difference, but that doesn't stop them from interfering with the ring of visible light photons on the path to our telescope).

If you take a look at various photos of our sun, you will see the blurriness around the edge. There is no sharp boundary that marks the surface of the sun as bright and right next to it is blackness. There is always a transition from light to dark. That is the blurriness I am talking about.

With respect to the actual distance being smaller than we calculate, I'm not really sure. I was going to argue against it but the more I think about it the more confused I get. I'll let you and the others make some comments and see how I feel about it. Right now I could be persuaded either way. If the earth is reacting to the charge field of the sun as it was 8 minutes ago, then it should also see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. If we measure the sun we see using our current definition of the meter (by that I mean that the meter has expanded during those 8 minutes, so it is longer than it was) then we not only see a smaller sun than it really is at the time of measurement, but we also measure it smaller than it is because our comparison length is bigger. This may give us 2 separate ways that it looks smaller than it should, assuming we could find its true size at the same time that we measure the size from the earth.

LloydK wrote:Expansion doesn't make sense in reality, but Tharkun said expansion tendency is balanced by photon emission inward, so I think the expansion tendency is prevented from actually occurring, if he's right. Otherwise, if all matter expanded, it would be obvious, because they would get increasingly closer together.

Ciaolo was very clear in defining the framework of their question when they stated:

Ciaolo wrote:This question / thought considers the Expansion Theory to be true.

The discussion is working within the theory, assuming it to be true and seeing what would happen. Not arguing for or against it.

I am interested to see Tharkun's explanation though. Do you have a link to that? I can't make much sense of your sentence but I would prefer to argue with the source rather than a single sentence about it.

I don't want to hijack this thread but it seems you are arguing that gravity itself does not exist. Things do get closer together, that is what gravity is and expansion is just a way that it might occur. Expansion is the only theory of gravity that I have seen that can explain why gravity can not be blocked, why gravity ignores mass and why there are no anti-gravity devices (a device that causes levitation, such as a spinning super-conductor disc, is not an anti-gravity device, it just causes a force in the opposite direction, it does not nullify gravity).

Nevyn wrote:[...]

The sun is a sphere of photons and the sum of the expansion of those photons causes the surface to move outwards because that is the only unconstrained direction. The ring does not have such constraints so each photon has more freedom in the directions it can go when struck by an adjacent photon because both have expanded. A photon in the ring could move outward, mimicking the suns photons, but they could just as easily move inward. The result of expansion on the ring would be a blurring rather than the ring getting larger.

[...]

I extracted the ring from its context because I wanted to make clear that the final measure would have been the size of the sun image. That ring, though, is not as free as you described because it's accompanied by a lot of concentric rings (because the sun is spherical), and following rings. This could also propose the question: if photons expand, do they "push" preceding photons? They should always travel at the same speed, so there is something I clearly don't grasp here...

A quick OT question: expansion was proposed by Mathis (also by others?) because he inverted the gravity attraction vectors. If we put them back to the original versus, what is the equivalent phenomenon? Is it 4-dimentional curvature or something else?

The sun emits photons from random locations on its surface, in random directions at random time intervals. It doesn't emit a perfect sphere from its surface immediately followed by another layer. The ring is only conceptual, not real. The photons that make up the ring do not start out at an equal distance from the telescope. They don't travel side-by-side and arrive all at the same time. Each photon has a bit of space to itself. Some may collide with each other but we won't measure those or if we do, they will look like they came from a different spot on the sun (or even off the sun).

Any measurement we make will take some amount of time in order to interact with enough photons to make an image. That time frame sets the maximum distance that one photon can be in front of another photon (ie. the distance between them along the line from the measuring device back to the sun) for them to be in the same measurement.

So most of them can expand without colliding with any others and they maintain a view of the smaller sun without much, or any, blurring.

Sorry if I bump this old thread.

I’d like to suggest that, if we assume that the sun is indeed 3 minutes of expansion larger than we think, all the other planets and satellites are some time-expansion larger too.
We could redraw our solar system accordingly and do some measurements and predictions.

In expansion theory, how much time is required for a doubling in radius?

.
Ciaolo wrote. I’d like to suggest that, if we assume that the sun is indeed 3 minutes of expansion larger than we think, all the other planets and satellites are some time-expansion larger too.
Airman. Your suggestion is a fact according to Expansionary gravity, although the 3 minutes figure is incorrect. The sun is actually eight minutes of expansion larger than we can see. Distance from Earth to Sun, s = 149.6X10E6km, c=3X10E5km/sec.  s/c = 8.31 minutes.

Ciaolo wrote. We could redraw our solar system accordingly and do some measurements and predictions.
Airman. Agreed.

Ciaolo wrote. In expansion theory, how much time is required for a doubling in radius?
Airman. s = (1/2) at^2. Solve for t when s equals the Earth’s radius s = 6371X10E6m; a equals gravity g = 9.81m/s. t = Sqrt(2s/a) = 19 minutes.
.

Miles has used this time difference between planets to explain the inverted square root relationship of orbits. Something the mainstream has never been able to explain. However, that also tells us that we already do take these things into consideration, even without knowing it. The existing math already contains it, whether the mainstream acknowledges it or not. If they did understand it, then they might be able to see that their equations are limited in their freedom to express the real field.

.
Ciaolo, If you haven't seen it yet, please read, “The Perihelion Precession of Mercury”, the longer, uncut version.

What we will be looking at here is the light travelling from the Sun to Mercury. Since the Sun would be expanding after the emission of the light, we may disregard it. We need look only at the expansion of Mercury while the sunlight is in transit

It turns out that if you understand gravitational expansion, then you also understand General and Special Relativity (I’ll need to read this paper several more times myself). Both Relativity theories are due to the differences between the observed and actual (time-increased) masses and accelerations. Miles uses Mercury’s size expansion difference to show Einstein’s calculations for the curvature of space is off by 4%.

Nevyn wrote. Miles has used this time difference between planets to explain the inverted square root relationship of orbits…
Airman. You made the same comment in this thread above on 09 Sep 2016, “Miles has used that to derive the 1/r^2 drop-off of gravity, which has never been done before”. Neither comment includes a paper reference. Never pass up the opportunity to reread papers, I’ve been reading and searching through several.

At first, I thought you were referring to Explaining the Ellipse *. I reread that paper and see that the inverse r^2 compared to r^4 is described by the float of a wooden ball in water. E/M and gravity is the two force field that keeps orbits stable. I don’t see any mention of expansion theory in that paper. Rereading EXPANSION THEORY an interlude led to my rereading of The Source of Gravity. I now have a much greater appreciation for the idea that universal stacked spins may replace expansion theory as the  origin of gravity.  The Perihelion Precession of Mercury has saturated me for the time being. Do you happen to recall the paper you referred to?

58. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury. http://milesmathis.com/merc.html
A long critique of the historical problem, showing the major errors of Einstein and others. 32pp.

6. Explaining the Ellipse. http://milesmathis.com/ellip.html Holes in the elliptical theory of orbits are filled at last. 5pp.
.

I’ll re-read those papers, thank you.

Anyway, I applied the math and found out that, starting from 7x10^8 m, the radius of the Sun (I hope that’s correct...), we get to exactly 10^10 m at the time the light got to our planet.
I can’t believe how round these numbers are! You should try and do the same!

I’ll continue with Mercury and Venus, and if I find interesting numbers I’ll go with the Moon before Mars.

.
Radius of the Sun = 7x10^8 m (?).

Correct. Although if you're worried/wondering about round numbers, the tables below allow greater precision, Radius of the Sun = 6.957x10^8.

Another fine reference, NASA Planetary Factsheets:

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html
.

Actually I was mainly surprised by the 499 seconds for the sunlight to get here. After redoing the math without approximations, I get a radius at t1 of 1,062,689,932.72 m when the radius at t0 was 696,392,000 m. Not too much round since it’s nearer 11x10^9 than 10^10, but cool anyway.

Airman, I can't find the paper containing that info. I can rarely remember which papers stuff comes from and it is even rarer to find it when looking specifically for it.

My vague memory is suggesting that the paper was talking about Saturn. At least it used Saturn in the example of the time discrepancy. The paper might not have been about Saturn, per se. It was an old one. One of the first papers I read of Miles work. I would think that it would be in the Gravity section, but none of them jump out at me as being the one.

.
Ok, I think I've got it.

173. The Third Wave: a Redefinition of Gravity, Part III. http://milesmathis.com/thrid3.html. An explanation of the inverse square law using expansion theory. It is also shown that the Standard Model contradicts the law. 6pp.
.

I did the math completely wrong. Here is the correction:

a = s/t^2; s = a x t^2
acceleration of expansion = 9.8 m/s^2
t1 - t0 = 499 s
r1 - r0 = 9.8 x 499^2 m
r1 = r0 + 2,440,209.8 m
r0 = 696,392,000 m
r1 = 698,832,210 m

Please, check it. If this is correct, we have a difference of about 2.5 km, which is negligible in %.

Ciaolo, I'd check, but I don't understand what you're calculating. Please explain it to me first.

Defined t0 the time light starts from the sun, t1 the time light gets to Earth, and r0 the sun size at t0, I calculated r1 which is the size the sun has at t1.

I went on by doing this for all the planets and also our moon, and there are surprises.

.
Starting with the Planetary Fact Sheet, here are my numbers showing the amount of Solar expansion that has occurred in the time it takes for the sunlight to reach the planet. Some effort is required since the table is too wide, the columns aren't aligning, and the number formatting isn't round. For example, the sun has increased it's size 1,365 times in the time it took for the sun's light to reach Pluto.

Code:

Solar Expansion.
The numbers pertain to: MERCURY VENUS EARTH MARS JUPITER SATURN URANUS NEPTUNE PLUTO
 
1 Distance from Sun(10^6 km)5.790000e+01 1.082000e+02 1.496000e+02 2.279000e+02 7.786000e+02 1.433500e+03 2.872500e+03 4.495100e+03 5.906400e+03
2 Dist from Sun (secs) 1.930000e+02 3.606667e+02 4.986667e+02 7.596667e+02 2.595333e+03 4.778333e+03 9.575000e+03 1.498367e+04 1.968800e+04
3 Size of Sun 1.825201e+05 6.373942e+05 1.218475e+06 2.827758e+06 3.300520e+07 1.118791e+08 4.492351e+08 1.100100e+09 1.899325e+09
4 Sun scale increase 1.311773e-01 4.580956e-01 8.757190e-01 2.032311e+00 2.372086e+01 8.040758e+01 3.228655e+02 7.906427e+02 1.365046e+03
 


.
I’ve enjoyed reviewing The Third Wave: a Redefinition of Gravity, Part III. I’m understanding expanding mass and relativity theories better than I did before. Below, I’ve collected the boldened text from that paper for an even speedier review.

Every distance separation is also a time separation.

What we have always assumed we were learning with the inverse square law is how two different forces or accelerations looked from the same place.

If we have Saturn experiencing a smaller Δx over the same Δt, then Saturn will be experiencing a smaller acceleration than the Earth over that interval.

I have shown that if you increase the distance, you decrease the acceleration; but only if you measure all the distances and accelerations from the same time and place.

Therefore acceleration must vary as the inverse of the distance.

In this problem, if we give the acceleration to the planet instead of to the Sun, the inverse square law cannot be derived!

This is the problem: (According to the postulates of the Standard Model) we cannot get the acceleration to vary over time.

It is not expansion theory that fails to explain the inverse square law, it is the Standard Model.
.

Has anyone read this paper?
http://milesmathis.com/mach.pdf
It seems like Mathis overcame expansion. Those surprises I talked about earlier were fascinating, but false...

Has anyone read this paper?
http://milesmathis.com/mach.pdf
It seems like Mathis overcame expansion. Those surprises I talked about earlier were fascinating, but false...

Yes Sir, earlier this week I’d reread half of it.

Wed. 28 Feb 2018 at 4:11 above I wrote. Rereading EXPANSION THEORY an interlude led to my rereading of The Source of Gravity. I now have a much greater appreciation for the idea that universal stacked spins may replace expansion theory as the origin of gravity.

There’s nothing “false” about Expansion Theory (ET). Universal Stacked Spins (USS) may indeed be the cause of gravity; however, USS conveys absolutely no sense of the resulting mechanics. ET, on the other hand, completely describes gravity in a way that’s easy to comprehend. It’s the mind boggling mass growth rate that makes ET so difficult to accept. Having achieved that mental hurdle I can now interpret USS as a comforter for those not able to accept ET. Cr6 mentioned mainstream's recognition of the accelerating expansion of the universe last night in the Halton Arp thread. ET may only be apparent. I'll be more than happy to accept USS, I'll need to understand it better first. I’m just pointing out that we need to understand ET whether USS is true or not.

Any comments on the Solar Expansion table?
.

Yessir



t0 = time when light starts
t1 = time when light reaches Earth
r0 = radius at t0
dist0 = medium distance to Earth at t0
Dt = time light takes to travel dist0
Dr = calculated expansion of r0
r1 = size at t1
dist1 = this is distance at t1, meaningful only for higher Dr%
Dr% = comparison between r1 and r0
Ddist% = comparison between dist1 and dist0, again to give meaning to dist1.

LongtimeAirman wrote:

Has anyone read this paper?
http://milesmathis.com/mach.pdf
It seems like Mathis overcame expansion. Those surprises I talked about earlier were fascinating, but false...

Yes Sir, earlier this week I’d reread half of it.

Wed. 28 Feb 2018 at 4:11 above I wrote. Rereading EXPANSION THEORY an interlude led to my rereading of The Source of Gravity. I now have a much greater appreciation for the idea that universal stacked spins may replace expansion theory as the origin of gravity.

There’s nothing “false” about Expansion Theory (ET). Universal Stacked Spins (USS) may indeed be the cause of gravity; however, USS conveys absolutely no sense of the resulting mechanics.

Actually it makes sense. It’s based on gravity through bombardment. USS causes a 3D vector out from all object, and they are kept from dissolving or expanding by charge bombardment. In the paper I linked There are some calculations about Earth, Moon and humans.

ET, on the other hand, completely describes gravity in a way that’s easy to comprehend. It’s the mind boggling mass growth rate that makes ET so difficult to accept. Having achieved that mental hurdle I can now interpret USS as a comforter for those not able to accept ET. Cr6 mentioned mainstream's recognition of the accelerating expansion of the universe last night in the Halton Arp thread. ET may only be apparent. I'll be more than happy to accept USS, I'll need to understand it better first. I’m just pointing out that we need to understand ET whether USS is true or not.
.

I’d like to add that even if USS requires all objects to have a 3D vector out, bphotons should not have it or they would expand like in the ET. Their peculiarity is traveling at c at all times, and perhaps this is linked to the assumption we do that they are the only indivisible particle (no internal forces to act on to expand them).

EDIT: I must add something else. I did some research about Saturn, the farther planet of the ones we always knew, and found out that all the survey missions were successful and if Saturn was as big as the table I posted earlier they wouldn’t be.

EDIT 2: I’m sorry, in the calculations I used 9.8 m/s^2 for every object, but I saw that it changes for each one. Can you tell me the various numbers or the function, please?

.


In reviewing Ciaolo’s table, I’ve found an error in mine. On Friday 2 March I wrote that in the time it takes for sunlight to reach Pluto, the sun will have expanded 1,360x. Correcting a diameter to a radius doubles that to 2,730 times. My corrected table is above.

Reviewing Ciaolo’s table below.

Ciaolo wrote.
t0 = time when light starts
t1 = time when light reaches Earth
r0 = radius at t0
dist0 = medium distance to Earth at t0
Dt = time light takes to travel dist0
Dr = calculated expansion of r0
r1 = size at t1
dist1 = this is distance at t1, meaningful only for higher Dr%
Dr% = comparison between r1 and r0
Ddist% = comparison between dist1 and dist0, again to give meaning to dist1.

Airman Comments:

1. t0. Change from, t0 = time when light starts, to t0 = time when light leaves the sun. Note this is only a guess based on 2.

2. t1 = time when light reaches Earth. That must mean the light left the sun at t0.
 
3. r0. Not all numbers shown agree with planetary fact sheet.

4. dist0 = medium distance to Earth at t0. I believe your numbers are incorrect.



Referring to the above diagram. It’s a CAD model. The Sun is slightly larger than this period - . The planets – black - (no moons), Mercury through Mars and their concentric orbits about the sun (black) are also included at true scale at their rightmost, or 3 o’clock positions – too small to see. The red dimension lines include numeric values which appear as tiny hyphens, the planets are much smaller. A reminder that the scales involved are incredible.

I’ve shown the dist0 - or distance to Earth - numbers as red concentric circles centered on the Earth. The sun’s distance from the Earth always remains the same. The rest of the dist0 numbers appear to be minimum distances – the closest the Earth ever reaches the planets - rather than medium median. The average distance is referred to as the mean, median, or average, but not medium. English is a phunny language. If you do mean minimum, Earth and Venus appear ok, but Mars and Mercury and the rest of the planets still have problems.  

Please correct me if I’m wrong, I believe the median distances of the Earth to any of the other planets should be equal to that planet’s orbital radius about the sun.

5. Dt equals the dist0 column divided by light speed, so it must have problems.  Why does the smallest number belong to the moon? If the light is leaving the sun, the light would arrive at the Earth and moon at roughly the same time. It appears that you are trying to make the Earth the center of Expansion. The sun should be at the center.

6. Dr = calculated expansion of r0. s=(at^2)/2; a = 9.81m/s^2. t is taken from the prior adjacent Dt column. The calculation looks ok, thanks, it pointed to an error of mine. Again, since the expansions you’ve provided are based on distances from the Earth they don’t make sense to me. Expansion must be centered on the sun and not the Earth. I’ll leave the remaining columns without comment.

Ciaolo wrote. I’d like to add that even if USS requires all objects to have a 3D vector out, bphotons should not have it or they would expand like in the ET. Their peculiarity is traveling at c at all times, and perhaps this is linked to the assumption we do that they are the only indivisible particle (no internal forces to act on to expand them).
Airman. All photons, including bphotons must expand. How can light speed remain the same? Expansion theory is a real brain teaser.

Ciaolo wrote. EDIT: I must add something else. I did some research about Saturn, the farther planet of the ones we always knew, and found out that all the survey missions were successful and if Saturn was as big as the table I posted earlier they wouldn’t be.

Airman. I have no idea what you're referring too.

Ciaolo wrote. EDIT 2: I’m sorry, in the calculations I used 9.8 m/s^2 for every object, but I saw that it changes for each one. Can you tell me the various numbers or the function, please?
Airman. As far as I understand it, the universal gravitational acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. The Expansion is constantly accelerating, getting stronger. As objects grow, the gravitational acceleration remains the same but the outward surface velocity of those objects increases. Expansion will continue until the proton’s surface velocity reaches light speed, at which time atomic matter may cease to exist, that is, of course, unless Nevyn’s Spin velocity formula suggests something else.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Ciaolo wrote. I’d like to add that even if USS requires all objects to have a 3D vector out, bphotons should not have it or they would expand like in the ET. Their peculiarity is traveling at c at all times, and perhaps this is linked to the assumption we do that they are the only indivisible particle (no internal forces to act on to expand them).
Airman. All photons, including bphotons must expand. How can light speed remain the same? Expansion theory is a real brain teaser.

In Universal Spin theory, photons don’t have to expand, but stacked photons and all particles have vectors out (solo gravity part of the Unified Field) together with charge emission. Since solo gravity is an apparent force, Expansion is just a quick, logical explanation of the vector out, but we have it with the USS too. Mathis explained all the relations between the vector out, emission, mass, volume, ambient field and so on, in that paper I linked some posts earlier.

Newton gravity is both vector out and charge emissions, we always have them together and we see the combined effect. But there is an exception.

We don’t have charge emission from a Bphoton.
And we don’t have vector out from a Bphoton.

A Bphoton only has c.

Ciaolo wrote. EDIT: I must add something else. I did some research about Saturn, the farther planet of the ones we always knew, and found out that all the survey missions were successful and if Saturn was as big as the table I posted earlier they wouldn’t be.

Airman. I have no idea what you're referring too.

My research was about how do we measure planet sizes, and I got to the Voyager and other survey missions. Since my calculations suggest a huge Saturn and sizes of Uranus and Neptune much bigger than the sun, it was obvious that there is no expansion of those planets, or those machines would have had unexpectedly low distances.

Ciaolo wrote. EDIT 2: I’m sorry, in the calculations I used 9.8 m/s^2 for every object, but I saw that it changes for each one. Can you tell me the various numbers or the function, please?
Airman. As far as I understand it, the universal gravitational acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. The Expansion is constantly accelerating, getting stronger. As objects grow, the gravitational acceleration remains the same but the outward surface velocity of those objects increases. Expansion will continue until the proton’s surface velocity reaches light speed, at which time atomic matter may cease to exist, that is, of course, unless Nevyn’s Spin velocity formula suggests something else.
.

I remember reading a paper where Mathis said that there is no limit to the Proton expansion speed because (in Expansion theory) since the photon expands, and its speed is still always c, there was no scenario where emission would go slower than expansion.

Having said all that,

Here is the updated table with a more precise legend:



When astronomers calculate sizes, they send radios waves to the planets and measure the time it takes to get back, and then observe the angular size of the planet to calculate the size.

r0 = the radius of the object when the light starts from it (not from the Sun). In meters.

dist0 = the average distance between the object and the earth. In meters.

Dt = Delta time, the time light takes to travel the distance dist0. In seconds.

Dr = the distance traveled by accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2 for Delta time seconds. In meters.

r1 = the radius of the object that, starting at r0, expanded of Dr. In meters. This represents the real size of an object that was “pinged” with radio waves to calculate the distance from it, and was then observed using a telescope that could only see its image how it was Dt seconds earlier.

Dr% = the ratio between the distance Dr and the observed r0.

.
Ciaolo wrote. In Universal Spin theory, photons don’t have to expand.
Airman. Agreed. I believe photons must expand In Expansion theory.

Ciaolo wrote. My research was about how do we measure planet sizes, and I got to the Voyager and other survey missions. Since my calculations suggest a huge Saturn and sizes of Uranus and Neptune much bigger than the sun, it was obvious that there is no expansion of those planets, or those machines would have had unexpectedly low distances.
Airman. Thanks for trying to explain, I still don't understand. Even given Expansion theory, how can the Jovians possibly be bigger than the sun?  

Ciaolo wrote. I remember reading a paper where Mathis said that there is no limit to the Proton expansion speed because (in Expansion theory) since the photon expands, and its speed is still always c, there was no scenario where emission would go slower than expansion.
Airman. I don't remember that. On the contrary, I remember Miles performing a calculation of the age of the universe based on the proton surface velocity.

Proceeding to the table review, I see the dist0 numbers are better.  


The image above shows the planetary orbits out to Neptune. All the dist0 numbers now align with the sun or planets.


The diagram above only shows the Sun through Mars for the most clarity and ease of discussion. The corrections you’ve made to the distances are readily apparent.  

Please note that the Earth and all the planets are at the 3 o’clock positions, at which time all the numbers shown are correct. Try this exercise, with the Earth at 3 o’clock, pick any random point for any other planet somewhere in its orbit. You will see that that distance will exceed the dist0 value you’ve given. The dist0 numbers are therefore the minimum distances from the object and the earth, not the average distances.
.

Ciaolo wrote:My research was about how do we measure planet sizes, and I got to the Voyager and other survey missions. Since my calculations suggest a huge Saturn and sizes of Uranus and Neptune much bigger than the sun, it was obvious that there is no expansion of those planets, or those machines would have had unexpectedly low distances.

This reasoning is faulty. You are looking at expansion as if it existed on its own and then suggesting that expansion doesn't exist because we don't find big planets or that the distances to them are too large for expansion to be occurring.

What you are forgetting is that you are actually talking about orbits, not just radii and distances. Expansion is only one part of an orbit with the other being charge repulsion. That repulsion is pushing the planets back outwards as everything expands so that the relative distances are kept the same. Another important thing to consider is that the actual meter has also expanded. Or I should say that what we use to determine what a meter is has expanded, which ends up in the same place.

Everyone falls into the same trap when thinking about expansion. They try to make things expand without themselves expanding. That is, you must always recognize that you are part of the model. Any device you use to measure is part of the model. We can only work from within, never from the outside.

I based the calculations on this:

When astronomers calculate sizes, they send radios waves to the planets and measure the time it takes to get back, and then observe the angular size of the planet to calculate the size.

When we take time into account, expansion and time are related.

.
Nevyn is correct, everything – including us - is expanding. My revised table is below. Column G – Expansion, applies to everything. Column F shows the Expanded Sun radius for reference, one can make a column for a given planet using the same col G multiplier. Unless I’m mistaken (what?), in the time it takes for sunlight to reach Neptune (15,000 sec), the solar system (and everything inside and out) will have expanded 1,580x. I would like to figure out how to make a spiral orbit model, where in a single Earth year, a single spiral if you would, everything expands 7*10^9x. As usual, comments are welcome.


Table showing how quickly the solar system expands, given Expansion theory.    

Ciaolo wrote.

My research was about how do we measure planet sizes, and I got to the Voyager and other survey missions. Since my calculations suggest a huge Saturn and sizes of Uranus and Neptune much bigger than the sun, it was obvious that there is no expansion of those planets, or those machines would have had unexpectedly low distances.

and

I based the calculations on this:

When astronomers calculate sizes, they send radios waves to the planets and measure the time it takes to get back, and then observe the angular size of the planet to calculate the size.

When we take time into account, expansion and time are related.

Airman. I agree, all the planets are larger than we think; however, I do not believe your calculations are correct. I can’t say how they are wrong since I’m still trying to figure out the problem.

When we see the planet we are seeing it as it existed sometime in the past – from the time it took the light to get here – not as it is now, that light speed time delay is well understood. Expansion theory adds the fact that all objects are expanding at 9.81m/sec^2. Observers must also see slightly differing expansion rates due to differing locations in time and space. We know that light speed (such as radio waves) is not the same as the expansion rate, and so all celestial (large or small) observations or measurements require an expansion correction. I think the planetary data may indeed need corrections.

In order to solve for the actual planetary radius, we need a common time to tie that planet to the Earth. Above, I recommended you read “The Perihelion Precession of Mercury” in order to get a feel for the thinking involved. I believe we need to include the Sun in order to compare Earth and any of the other planets. If you already understand all that, please help.
.

Observers must also see slightly differing expansion rates due to differing locations in time and space.

What if this is why the orbits are thought to be elliptic when actually they are circular?

Airman, column B in your table isn’t the real object size, it’s the result of the calculation process based on the radio waves and the angular size, as measured from Earth.

Both for Mercury and Venus, and for the outer planets, we should start with real observations and measurements, not from the calculated size, like Mathis did in the precession of Mercury paper.

Ciaolo wrote:I based the calculations on this:

When astronomers calculate sizes, they send radios waves to the planets and measure the time it takes to get back, and then observe the angular size of the planet to calculate the size.

When we take time into account, expansion and time are related.

Only in the sense that expansion happens in time, but then so does everything else because time is a measurement of change.

The mainstream calculations are making a few assumptions that need to be validated when looking at it from an expansion perspective. They are using time to make measurements but to do so, you must assume the constancy of the speed of light. The speed of light is a velocity so they are also assuming the constancy of the distance. They can do that because they are not using expansion. However, to look at it through expansion then you must admit that the distances are not constant. The relative distances are constant, but the real distances are not. So, relative to us and everything else in the universe, the speed of light is a constant but from a non-expanding perspective it is most definitely not. In fact, from an expansion perspective, it isn't even a velocity, it's an acceleration.

Things change under expansion. Basic things. Nothing can be taken for granted and must be re-evaluated to make sure that we understand the tools that we are using. It is difficult and confusing and time consuming but it will help you more than you can imagine with all Physics work because it forces you to look closely at the little things and get a better understanding of what they are and how they operate. So keep looking into this and any other problems you can find and keep challenging your own assumptions. Every time you come across some value, stop and think about how that value has been measured and how expansion effects that measurement.

None of this means that expansion is real. Only that if you want to look at things from such a perspective, then you have to get down'n'dirty and make sure that you are applying expansion at every step that it must be applied.

.
Ciaolo wrote.

What if this is why the orbits are thought to be elliptic when actually they are circular?

Airman, column B in your table isn’t the real object size, it’s the result of the calculation process based on the radio waves and the angular size, as measured from Earth.

Both for Mercury and Venus, and for the outer planets, we should start with real observations and measurements, not from the calculated size, like Mathis did in the precession of Mercury paper.

Airman. On the 28 of Feb I mentioned reading Explaining the Ellipse. As I said, I didn’t see Miles mention expansion directly; nevertheless, your idea that the varying expansion rates we observe somehow creates the appearance of elliptical orbits certainly seems possible to me.

I agree, any planet radii determined by the method you indicated - radar return time delays and optical angular measurements - will not include the planet expansion that occurs during the time it took for the planet’s light to reach us – the now. The Sun and all the planets are actually bigger than we think, and column B needs expansion corrections. For example, if we were to visit Mars, we would see that the planet is actually larger than indicated in the Planetary fact Sheet.

I read “The Perihelion Precession of Mercury” once again. Though much of it seems beyond me, expansion theory itself is certainly straightforward. It is the inverse of curved space, making relativity easy to understand. I know the reader is not surprised at this point, I came up with another solar expansion table. This time, I calculated the surface gravity of the Sun and each of the planets separately. The radius doubling time, 19 minutes, must be the same for all bodies; but each body’s radius is different, therefore each body's acceleration due to gravity must be different. Now the sun has expanded only 173.85x in the time it took sunlight to reach Neptune. I feel better about these numbers because now I see the Sun's radius doubles between the Mars and Jupiter orbits, where I should have expected to see it.



Of course, I see that my calculated 19min radius doubling gravity values do not agree with the planetary data gravity values. The data says the Sun's gravity is 274 m/s^2, I believe it must be 1071.24 m/s^2. Using the gravity from the data sheet (274m/s^2), the body will not double its radius in 19minutes. Using my calculated gravity accelerations, and the dist0 minimum distances, the radius correction numbers are much smaller than I expected. I'll need to look at it more before sharing.

Nevyn, thanks for the additional insight. I may be testing yours and everyone else's patience, but I'm certainly enjoying the review.
.