# The Final Theory

884 replies to this topic

### #35 jonorr

jonorr

Curious

• Members
• 6 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 10:49 PM

I found this forum while looking for a sound debunking of this book. I was disappointed that I didn't find any I couldn't believe no one had put negative remarks on amazon.com, but I suppose it is not in their best interest to display them. The man is quite obviously a charlatan, so I hope at least some people see this.

I admit, I only read the first chapter available at thefinaltheory.com, but let me tell you, it is enough to convince me he's trying to fool you. Besides, if he is as mathematical as he claims, then I should only need to debunk the things from the first chapter to overthrow most of the rest of the book.

So let me just say a few things...

First, it is critical to his theory that gravity requires a power source in order to keep planets in orbit. This is simply not true. Imagine a rock tied by string to a well greased ring on an axis (long pole?) in _space_. Now set the rock rotating around the axis. The string will keep the rock in orbit around the axis until the energy is dissipated by friction of the ring with the axis. A similar phenomenon keeps planets rotating.

Second, it is critical to his theory that no evidence exists for the proportionality between gravitational acceleration and mass. He claims that we would need detailed knowledge of planetary bodies in order to verify this. Again, simply not true. The proportionality constant can be measured by the gravitational acceleration of two much smaller objects. This was done long ago by Cavendish: http://kossi.physics.../Cavendish.html

Third, he repeatedly claims refers to Newton's and Einstein's work as "flawed," as if they didn't have the intelligence to think about their ideas rigorously before running around claiming they'd figured out "everything."
Can someone please inform McCutcheon of the Golden Rule?

If this guy was really interested in helping us earth residents to find our "birthright" he would share it first, then point to his book for people who wanted to find the details. Why is he so afraid he has to hide the real goods(his gravitational power source) in later chapters of the book and not present them for free? Did he really figure it out, or is he trying make a quick buck from people who don't understand thermodynamics?

### #36 ldsoftwaresteve

ldsoftwaresteve

Explaining

• Members
• 757 posts

Posted 02 June 2005 - 06:11 AM

Welcome Jonorr. You said,

I found this forum while looking for a sound debunking of this book. I was disappointed that I didn't find any I couldn't believe no one had put negative remarks on amazon.com, but I suppose it is not in their best interest to display them. The man is quite obviously a charlatan, so I hope at least some people see this.

Not everyone on this forum believes he is a fool. I have read his entire book and, unlike you, I completely agree with him. But, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, which is more than you gave him. In your defense, his theory is scary and says that there is a basic flaw in some of our time honored assumptions. And fear seems to be quite a driving force even in science. But let’s take your points…

First, it is critical to his theory that gravity requires a power source in order to keep planets in orbit. This is simply not true. Imagine a rock tied by string to a well greased ring on an axis (long pole?) in _space_. Now set the rock rotating around the axis. The string will keep the rock in orbit around the axis until the energy is dissipated by friction of the ring with the axis. A similar phenomenon keeps planets rotating.

I suspect your point is that the string keeps the bodies from flying apart and counteracts the centrifugal force of the relative motion? What McCutcheon is pointing out is that “Standard Theory” requires the string as you have so eloquently pointed out. He does not, but not having read the book you wouldn’t know that, would you? You missed his point, entirely.

But, since he is such a charlatan and you are not, show me the string between the earth and the moon or the sun and the earth, I’d appreciate it. In the history of the world, no one has ever detected the string. To date, it is an inference.

Second, it is critical to his theory that no evidence exists for the proportionality between gravitational acceleration and mass. He claims that we would need detailed knowledge of planetary bodies in order to verify this. Again, simply not true. The proportionality constant can be measured by the gravitational acceleration of two much smaller objects. This was done long ago by Cavendish:

Sorry pal, but if you had bothered to read his book, pages 186-190 covers the Cavendish experiment in detail and he shows a completely different explanation for the observations, which he says are correct, just misinterpreted.

Third, he repeatedly claims refers to Newton's and Einstein's work as "flawed," as if they didn't have the intelligence to think about their ideas rigorously before running around claiming they'd figured out "everything."
Can someone please inform McCutcheon of the Golden Rule?

Which rule is that? He said their theories had flaws. He did not say they were charlatans. He points out what he considers their mistakes. You kick him in the family jewels.

If this guy was really interested in helping us earth residents to find our "birthright" he would share it first, then point to his book for people who wanted to find the details. Why is he so afraid he has to hide the real goods(his gravitational power source) in later chapters of the book and not present them for free? Did he really figure it out, or is he trying make a quick buck from people who don't understand thermodynamics?

Not a quick buck, old buddy, a very slow one. He did not find a publisher for his book and did it himself at his own cost. That, I think, is not an indication of the efficacy of his ideas but an indication of the power of established theory.

### #37 Boerseun

Boerseun

Phantom Cow of Justice

• Members
• 6056 posts

Posted 02 June 2005 - 06:21 AM

So - you've read the book.

Care to spill the beans? Do you believe what he says? And if you do... what are your qualifications in physics? If you don't know squat as far as physics is concerned, and you can't explain the gist of the book to us, then your opinion in this regard can't be worth very much. Nothing personal, but I'm very sceptical about people who claim to be able to explain the universe in one single theory. Maybe that's why he couldn't convince a publisher to print his book - the guy who proofread the script passed 8th grade physics, or something.

### #38 ldsoftwaresteve

ldsoftwaresteve

Explaining

• Members
• 757 posts

Posted 02 June 2005 - 08:08 AM

Here's the beans. McCutcheon has posited an entity which is the building block of all things and a single phenomenon which is responsible for all natural laws. Let's call this entity a 'photon' and the phenomenon is expansion. His theory is based upon the idea that all 'photons' are expanding at the same rate.

Since we are part of the universe and expanding ourselves we are unable to perceive this expansion directly. Since any unit of measure we would use to detect this expansion is itself expanding we are unable to detect any change. It can only be inferred. The only direct clue of this expansion is our ability to perceive the effect of gravity.

I can understand your request for 'qualifications' since that appears to be the common thread of most of the arguments I've seen (argument from authority) at least on this thread.

But that's not important or at least it shouldn't be. What is important from the perspective of simply being a human being, is to correctly model existence so that we can deal with it properly. Nothing else matters. I believe that we can and should make sense of all things. I believe that to be our purpose for being.

And I have assumed that these forums exist because others think the same way. Am I wrong? Is this some sort of exotic pecking order dance? If so, I am wasting my time here.

### #39 Boerseun

Boerseun

Phantom Cow of Justice

• Members
• 6056 posts

Posted 02 June 2005 - 08:27 AM

No, not at all. And sorry if I created that impression. By the way, I'm also new here, so don't stress too much about my opinion on anything.

The fact is - as far as I understand it, McCutcheon is trying to propose a new theory that could very well be the Holy Grail of the Grand Unified Theory they've been looking for for the last how many years. Now, I understand that if that is the case, and he actually did achieve it, somebody who is seriously clued up in Standard Physics (Non-McCutcheon) should review the whole of his thesis and see if it is apliccable to observations. I mean, if he can convince an expert that Einstein was wrong, then he will convince me. It can't be hard for him to convince a layman that Einstein was wrong, but that won't swing any weight with me. No offence intended, seriously.

His idea of everything inflating, causing the effect we perceive to be gravity, could also very well be explained by everything staying the same, but space shrinking. The effect will be the same. So, there's already two different possible explanations for our perception of gravity, both of which will yield the same results. Myself, I tend to go with the dent in space/time causing gravity...

Another question (I haven't read past the free chapter 1): What does McCutcheon say about Black Holes? If his eplanation of expansion holds true, then black holes should expand faster than light travels? And how does expansion influence the path of light past heavy masses like stars? And if expansion happens faster than light, pretty soon everything will be gulped up in one big black hole?

I'm open to new ideas, I just don't want to pay $30 for them... ### #40 coldcreation coldcreation Resident Bright • Members • 1577 posts Posted 02 June 2005 - 08:45 AM The critic is Newtonian mechanics is fair, but the rest is a no go. My bladder is expanding, I'll be back... ### #41 ldsoftwaresteve ldsoftwaresteve Explaining • Members • 757 posts Posted 02 June 2005 - 09:40 AM I guess I have seriously begun to question the wisdom of spending time presenting an argument when the outcome, even if I were successful in getting another person to consider my point, is questionable. I mean, what is to be gained? Am I doing this because I want someone else to take it from here? Hmmmm. Very interesting question. Perhaps one foot in front of the other is the way to go. We come into and leave this world totally alone. Many of you have given me the pleasure of your company and your beautiful thoughts and for that I thank you. I have business to attend to. ### #42 coldcreation coldcreation Resident Bright • Members • 1577 posts Posted 02 June 2005 - 10:11 AM I guess I have seriously begun to question the wisdom of spending time presenting an argument when the outcome, even if I were successful in getting another person to consider my point, is questionable. . ldsoftwaresteve, I'm considering your words carefully. Especially when you say "The only direct clue of this expansion is our ability to perceive the effect of gravity." which comes from the book in question. That argument is a vicious circle. The search for an ultimate theory does depend heavily on the mechanism of the gravitational interaction. And it is a good thing that a few (unfortunately very few) people are trying to figure it out. Richard P. Feynman wrote with due reason that “All we have done is to describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go. Newton made no hypotheses about this: he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery.” We use mathematics to describe nature without knowing what mechanism is operating, though many have been suggested. Feynman continues, “No machinery has ever been invented that “explains” gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist.”(1994 pp. 107-109) I'm afraid that expansion will not agree with emperical evidence. On the otherhand, Einstein's general postulate of relativity does. The key is the mechanism. First we need to find out what makes spacetime distort and how it works. From there will follow a host of changes in physics. Everything will fall into place: unification, history or evolution of the universe, material creation, the cause of feeling alive, i.e., consciousness, etc. Whatever the ultimate theory turn out to be, you will see, it will be simple, elegant, beautiful, and obvious. Incidentally, thermodynamics plays a key role in the ultimate theory. 1st law: You can’t win, you can only break even. 2nd law: You can break even only at the absolute zero. 3rd law: You cannot reach absolute zero. (from The American Scientist 1964, p. 40A) A.M. aka coldcreation Conclusion: You can neither win nor break even. ### #43 jonorr jonorr Curious • Members • 6 posts Posted 02 June 2005 - 03:09 PM I suspect your point is that the string keeps the bodies from flying apart and counteracts the centrifugal force of the relative motion? You did miss my point. It is not just that the string counteracts centrifugal force, it is that it does this without doing work. The string does not need a power source to keep the rock revolving, and neither does gravity. This experiment verifies the "Standard" formula for determining work. McCutcheon spends nearly the entire first chapter trying to justify his statement that the "Standard" formula for work is wrong because it depends on the angle between the force and direction of motion. This experiment shows that the formula is not wrong. Because this formula is right, _gravity does not do work to keep planets in orbit,_ just as the string does not do work keeping the rock revolving around the axis. That is my point. I suspect that McCutcheon is well aware of this. He tries to fool you by appealing to your experience of fatigue when twirling a rock on the surface of the earth. In case the revolving rock is too abstract, a rolling ball serves the same purpose. What McCutcheon is pointing out is that “Standard Theory” requires the string. Show me the string between the earth and the moon or the sun and the earth. I do not have to show you a string between the earth and moon in order to show that the force of gravity does not need a power source to keep planets in orbit. While this does not appeal to your desire to have a tactile understanding of gravity, the fact that gravity in the "Standard Theory" is a conservative force is undisputed. Pages 186-190 covers the Cavendish experiment in detail and he shows a completely different explanation for the observations, which he says are correct, just misinterpreted. After the first chapter, I would doubt the way that he presents historical experiments. As an example, take his presentation of the history for calculating work. He implied that many men had calculated work by using his traditional formula. Somehow, Newton or someone else must have come along and changed it so they could create their mystical force of gravity. But let's get this straight, the work formula is a direct consequence of conservation of energy. There is no history to argue with, it is a logical consequence of postulates that he stated as facts. If this is the case, why did McCutcheon try to argue that it was some kind of cover up? Why didn't he give the correct history, that it is simply an unassumed consequence? If he presents the men who discovered work formula(which is all physicists) this way, what can I expect of his presentation of Cavendish? ### #44 Vishesh Vishesh Thinking • Members • 14 posts Posted 03 June 2005 - 10:03 AM I have been trying to get that book for months now. unfortunately I could not find it anywhere! Could someone tell me exactly what it is about ? Forgive me, but I think I have joined this discussion a bit late. ### #45 Erasmus00 Erasmus00 Creating • Members • 1561 posts Posted 05 June 2005 - 11:48 AM Hi, by way of introduction I'm a physics graduate student at U of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I did my undergrad in physics at Cornell University. Anyway, as a poor student I haven't read the book, but I did contact the author, as I was intrigued by what this new final theory could be. He suggested a simple experiment that could verify his theory. He asked if I could perform a modification of the cavendish experiment. As I have access to a lab, I put together a simple cavendish balance, and I was able to measure G to 10% of the accepted value, so I was pretty happy with it. McCutcheon wanted me to replace one of the two movable weights (not the ones on the barbell) with a ball of the same weight but a different material. I replaced one of the iron weights I'd been using with a lead weight (weighing the same, but smaller in size due to the larger density). According to his theory, this should effect the experiment(he was never clear on how, just that one of the two weights should be expanding differently becasue of the difference in size/density). I imagine he expected the barbell to pull slightly to one side, or something. As it stands, nothing out of the ordinary happened, the experiment worked the same as before. While I have no way to comment on his theory, the only experiment likely to be performed as a verification has come up short. Edit: for many months the 10% I inserted read 1%, which would have been quite incredible. -Will ### #46 ldsoftwaresteve ldsoftwaresteve Explaining • Members • 757 posts Posted 06 June 2005 - 03:14 PM I've decided to not give up quite yet. Erasmus, you said According to his theory, this should effect the experiment(he was never clear on how, just that one of the two weights should be expanding differently becasue of the difference in size/density). I imagine he expected the barbell to pull slightly to one side, or something. As it stands, nothing out of the ordinary happened, the experiment worked the same as before. While I have no way to comment on his theory, the only experiment likely to be performed as a verification has come up short. I'm just curious, if you never understood how it was supposed to affect the experiment, how do you know it came up short? I know that the density of the material should affect the dynamics of the expansion, but I think that the scale being used might have been too small. In this case, I suspect that the expansion would be more on the end which was iron, that being less dense than the lead. But you might not be able to detect it without very sensitive devices and not knowing what you had to work with, I can't say much more than that. To be fair to his ideas, you really should understand them well enough to know what to look for just to make sure you've covered yourself adequately and looked for the results in the right place and over the correct time frame. That would seem to be the 'scientific' thing to do. It could very well be that he is wrong, but if you're going to 'prove' that, be more careful. If possible, show the math according to McCutcheon and what the predicted results should be then show the empiricals. If there is a difference between actual and predicted, and if you can repeat with the same results, then I'll believe you have 'proven' him wrong. And, quite frankly, I'd be happy to see the proof. I'm tired of getting beat up over this subject but until I see the proof of him being wrong I'll have to be the f'n martyr. ### #47 Erasmus00 Erasmus00 Creating • Members • 1561 posts Posted 06 June 2005 - 10:06 PM I've decided to not give up quite yet. Erasmus, you said I'm just curious, if you never understood how it was supposed to affect the experiment, how do you know it came up short? I know that the density of the material should affect the dynamics of the expansion, but I think that the scale being used might have been too small. In this case, I suspect that the expansion would be more on the end which was iron, that being less dense than the lead. But you might not be able to detect it without very sensitive devices and not knowing what you had to work with, I can't say much more than that. To be fair to his ideas, you really should understand them well enough to know what to look for just to make sure you've covered yourself adequately and looked for the results in the right place and over the correct time frame. That would seem to be the 'scientific' thing to do. It could very well be that he is wrong, but if you're going to 'prove' that, be more careful. If possible, show the math according to McCutcheon and what the predicted results should be then show the empiricals. If there is a difference between actual and predicted, and if you can repeat with the same results, then I'll believe you have 'proven' him wrong. And, quite frankly, I'd be happy to see the proof. I'm tired of getting beat up over this subject but until I see the proof of him being wrong I'll have to be the f'n martyr. I have no desire to clutter the forum with a a discussion of the cavendish experiment, so I will send you a private message on the subject, suffice to say that the gravitational force is so weak that it takes very accurate equipment to detect the deviation. McCutcheon told me that the experiment should behave differently after I switched the weights, but it did not. He was unable to provide me with any math at all detailing what difference I should see, he just told me that I should notice some obvious change. -Will ### #48 Queso Queso Synesthetic • Members • 7281 posts Posted 07 June 2005 - 03:43 PM "the final theory" isn't that name flawed? if the final theory is the final knowledge and explaination of everything, wouldn't it not be a theory? ### #49 infamous infamous Visions of grandeur • Members • 3962 posts Posted 07 June 2005 - 04:04 PM "the final theory" isn't that name flawed? if the final theory is the final knowledge and explaination of everything, wouldn't it not be a theory? Absolutely Orby, Read my lips Hypography members: There will be NO final theory. ### #50 Boerseun Boerseun Phantom Cow of Justice • Members • 6056 posts Posted 08 June 2005 - 01:20 AM ...if expansion is supposed to be the source of gravity, then it should be a constant expansion, relative to the size of the particular mass? Then how come, if I climb up a tree and jump off, I accelerate towards terra firma? I should approach the Earth at the speed at which the Earth is expanding, no? And, if expansion is the case, lesser rocks like the Earth should have been swallowed long ago by planets like Jupiter, which would, in turn, have been swallowed by the sun - seeing as they all *expand* at different rates? With all due respects, Steve, I'm as open to new ideas as the next guy, but to defend a new point of view by attacking all oposing views like McCutcheon does in the first chapter which is the only chapter he'll give us for free, smacks of a$-making racket. The curvature of spacetime describes the gravitational phenomena much better. Why it curves is as valid a question as to ask what is causing the expansion.

Besides - science is an open endeavor that feeds on peer review. Denying this inherent mechanism that's driving science is not scientific.

### #51 ldsoftwaresteve

ldsoftwaresteve

Explaining

• Members
• 757 posts

Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:24 AM

lol. Man, I feel like a snowball in a firestorm.

Here's the deal guys. McCutcheon is not a dishonest fella. He's sincere and has gone through an incredible amount of effort to explain all kinds of phenomena coming from what he has to know is a really, really, strange point of view.

I am a firm believer in the idea that mankind moves forward using many assumptions that simply turn out to be not true. Another way of putting that is the vast majority of us operate on a foundation of fallacy. I include myself in that analysis.

Reality is kind enough to let us. We stumble on. We're amazing in that we can still move forward at all.

As my hero Buffy has so accurately pointed out: Gravity sucks or blows. Well, McCutcheon has taken one of the two possible candidates (the red-headed stepchild) and run with it. The guy has cahones, you've got to give him that. And if you bother to read the rest of his book you'll find that he's done a really excellent job coming at it from that point of view.