The Final Theory

[Boerseun]

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

Sorry man - not intended!

 

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.

...which I'd love to see, though - without paying the $30 penalty, of course!

 

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.

By all means. Include me in that 'foundation of fallacy' statement. That's how science works.

 

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

True, true - but how do we go forward? We charge money for stuff like copyright, or patent rights, through royalties etc., but, can we in all honesty charge money for discovering Laws of Nature? Royalties, copyright, patent rights, all forms of intellectual properties, are just remunerations for the applications of Natural Laws. This is clearly not McCutcheon's approach. And that bothers me, and makes the $$$-making racket alarms go off.

 

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.

First of all - I can discuss Buffy's virtues with you for the next three weeks, at least. :hyper:

I do not deny McCutcheon the size of his cahones, not in the least. Matter of fact, I've got my own reservations towards science set in stone, like gravity, relativity, etc., buuuutttt....

I'd love to read the rest of the book, but I am not paying a cent for any knowledge that should by rights be freely available. Scientists discovering new laws and principles get immortalized with having their names given to their discoveries, not by getting royalties through book sales. His whole approach casts a very dim light on his science indeed. This is not how principled scientists operate.

[coldcreation]

Here are a few words by the author of the book in question:

 

"What kind of mind would a god have? Who knows? How would that mind have evolved, or otherwise come into being? Who knows? How would it function, both similarly and differently to ours? Who knows? What would such a being see from their perspective on the universe, if they even existed at all? Again, who knows? We don't live in that godlike realm, our minds haven't evolved in that realm and don't function in it. Our experience and our minds and their function and interaction exist completely here on the "inside". To use our minds to try to imagine what it must *theoretically* be like for a god on the outside is an interesting exercise, but shouldn't be a show-stopper no matter how well we are able or unable to achieve this feat."

 

"However, Expansion Theory doesn't do this. It completely abolishes "God" and mystery from our science *here on the inside*, whereas current science sprinkles "God" and mystery all throughout our experiences on the "inside". Expansion Theory, for the first time ever, gives us an entire unified science that remains pure science and simple, comprehensible mechanics *all throughout*, here on the "inside", and pushes questions of God to the "outside". Your objections have to do with the "outside", which may always be debatable no matter how correctly we understand our universe here on the inside. For the first time, however, we have a completely scientific science here on the inside, and we can choose to contemplate the nature of God if we wish to further turn to questions of the "outside". This is a first for science, philosophy, and religion, and this and other concepts in Expansion Theory provides powerful new ways to think about each of these areas."

 

Sounds dubious to me...

 

See - http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf062/sf062p13.htm

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/node5.html

if you're interested in reading more of the same...

[coldcreation]

who's buffy?¿

 

Yo Bro's, It's almost time to start a thread called Cold Creation, The Essence of the Physical Universe And its Evolution in Time

 

The Ultimate Theory

 

 

 

 

Something has only just begun

 

A.M. Coldcreation

[infamous]

who's buffy?¿

 

Yo Bro's, It's almost time to start a thread called Cold Creation, The Essence of the Physical Universe And its Evolution in Time

 

The Ultimate Theory

 

 

 

 

Something has only just begun

 

A.M. Coldcreation

 

Just for the sake of argument, I really wish you would refer to this "Ultimate Theory" as "A New Theory". There will never be a Final, Ultimate Theory , that is if we humans are willing to grow in our understanding. To suggest that we have a final, or ultimate anything pronounces the death of investigation, the end of science. I'm not ready to accept that kind of death yet. I am however interested in your views and am anxious to hear about them.

[Turtle]

___Tempis fugit y carpe diam! Start that thread Cold Fusion :hyper:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseun, you said

Scientists discovering new laws and principles get immortalized with having their names given to their discoveries, not by getting royalties through book sales. His whole approach casts a very dim light on his science indeed. This is not how principled scientists operate.

Well, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this. The work that goes into theory is harder than the work that goes into laying bricks or pouring concrete and without the theory even the bricks couldn't be laid down.

One would never question paying for a sidewalk. And the theoretician is no less deserving.

[coldcreation]

Just for the sake of argument, I really wish you would refer to this "Ultimate Theory" as "A New Theory". There will never be a Final, Ultimate Theory , that is if we humans are willing to grow in our understanding. To suggest that we have a final, or ultimate anything pronounces the death of investigation, the end of science. I'm not ready to accept that kind of death yet. I am however interested in your views and am anxious to hear about them.

 

I woudn't get all hyped-up about the name of a theory.

 

An ultimate theory is not the end of physics, of research, or of scientists, obviously (neither is a theory of everything, or a final theory for that matter). The idea is to establishment a basis, a platform within which gravity can be explained in relation to other forces, in relation to quantum mechanics (I'm sure you know this, I write it for newcomers). As you know too, string theory and M-theory amongst others have been unsuccessful (to date) at unification. The hope too is that unification will give insight to what happens in a big band type event. The history of the universe is at stake, because without that knowledge an important section of the model, the 'beginning,' is missing.

 

There is hope that some day one of these theories (or a derivative of) will lead to that goal. But is is very unlikely. The energies needed to explore minuscule dimensions will never be available. And so these theories will always remain speculative. It is my contention that these extra dimension do not even exist (and yes there are reasons why). If a theory can explain physical reality with four dimension (those that are observable) then there is no need to invent others. And so the prospect that unified theory might emerge from string or M is at best dismal.

 

Must the ultimate theory explain everything? It only needs to provide the foundation from which everything follows. It must state the laws of nature in a way that describes nature without the need for the development of more fundamental principle. Cosmology must be derived from those laws, not the other way around.

 

As it happens, there is a fundamental law of nature that has been overlooked, or at the very least, poorly defined.

 

This law is essential if contemporary theory is to accurately represent our universe and its constituents. Finally, it is this law upon which the entire foundation of Cold Creation rests. If this law is untenable, so too is Cold Creation theory. The law deals specifically with the scale-independent geometrical structure of spacetime.

 

I'm still formulating the next mail...to be post on a different thread. See the Cosmological Constant: A new law...for the rest of the exposé.

[infamous]

I woudn't get all hyped-up about the name of a theory.

 

An ultimate theory is not the end of physics, of research, or of scientists, obviously (neither is a theory of everything, or a final theory for that matter). The idea is to establishment a basis, a platform within which gravity can be explained in relation to other forces, in relation to quantum mechanics (I'm sure you know this, I write it for newcomers). As you know too, string theory and M-theory amongst others have been unsuccessful (to date) at unification. The hope too is that unification will give insight to what happens in a big band type event. The history of the universe is at stake, because without that knowledge an important section of the model, the 'beginning,' is missing.

 

Granted coldcreation; I can relate to this difinition based upon your wishes to relate to the newcomer, we can then continue in our investigation with a sense of agreement.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

cold creation, I hope the scope of your theory covers the same amount of territory that McCutcheon's does. If so, you will have to cover light, magnetism, orbital mechanics, electricity, black holes, the gravitational slingshot effect and even time itself. And that doesn't cover everything he talks about in his book. He relates it all back to a single phenomenon which he says causes the effect of gravity.

 

Sir, what is the overlooked phenomenon that will explain it all in your theory?

[coldcreation]

cold creation, I hope the scope of your theory covers the same amount of territory that McCutcheon's does. If so, you will have to cover light, magnetism, orbital mechanics, electricity, black holes, the gravitational slingshot effect and even time itself. And that doesn't cover everything he talks about in his book. He relates it all back to a single phenomenon which he says causes the effect of gravity.

 

Sir, what is the overlooked phenomenon that will explain it all in your theory?

 

Hello ldsoftwaresteve,

 

You are correct. An ultimate theory must have implications on all aspects of all physical phenomenon, in all fields of physics. The implications should affect our knowledge of the history of the universe, the material creation process, the explanation of why hydrogen is the most abundant element, how the other elements are formed, the origin of the cosmic microwave radiation, the interpretation of cosmological redshift, the formation of planetary sized objects, why orbits are so stable, the formation of galaxies, specifically the barred types (the bar shape has remained difficult to explain for a variety of reasons), and the properties you mention, light, electromagnetism...etc.

 

McCutcheon is right on one subject: the problem with modern physics, cosmology specifically, relates to gravity. Einstein was correct. His general relativity theory GR has passed every test. But Einstein never properly defined the cosmological constant, and therefore never succeeded in unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity.

 

I have not read the book under scrutiny. But I have read enough to know that his expansion theory in non-operational in the real world, i.e., it is untenable. Why?

 

There are observed in the universe structures at varying scales from atomic nuclei to superclusters of galaxies that are in stable, or quasi-stable equilibrium configuration. The theory you mention requires new physics (unknown physics), Cold Creation theory does not. It covers the widest possible scope. It is founded on nothing but GR, where spacetime is a four dimensional continua, quantum mechanics (and units them in passing), the laws of thermodynamics.

 

There is one fundamental constant of nature (lambda) that had to be identified and elucidated, and one law of nature that had to be written which itself does not constitute 'new physics.' It too is founded on all the other laws, and even further, explains why all the other laws (and constants) are the way the are.

 

P.S. Steven Weinberg, in Dreams of a Final Theory (1992), wrote “The final theory may be centuries away and may turn out to be totally different from anything we can now imagine” (p. 211). It might be mentioned that Weinberg, in the same novel, portrays the cosmological constant as “mutilating” Einstein’s equations (p. 224), but does not deny the possible existence of the term.

 

He was wrong about the cosmological constant mutilating the field equations, and he was right that the term may exist. It does exist, but not in the form pondered by the expansion camps. It was he, Einstein who had come closest to pinpointing the mechanism involved, but it is Cold Creation that ultimately had to define it.

 

a.m. coldcreation

[coldcreation]

cold creation, I hope the scope of your theory covers the same amount of territory that McCutcheon's does. If so, you will have to cover light, magnetism, orbital mechanics, electricity, black holes, the gravitational slingshot effect and even time itself. And that doesn't cover everything he talks about in his book. He relates it all back to a single phenomenon which he says causes the effect of gravity.

 

Sir, what is the overlooked phenomenon that will explain it all in your theory?

 

 

Indeed the problem is with gravity, spacetime curvature. McCutcheon's idea is interesting, but it neglects the actual mechanism involved in the gravitational interaction. His expansion hypothesis is just as magical as considering gravity as an attractive force, only the opposite, almost). I'm sure his scope is large, with very long explanations.

 

I've tried (sometimes in vain) to keep the discourse simple. The problem with our conception of gravity is a complex one, but the mechanism is simple. There are several aspects that must be taken into consideration, digested, processed and elucidated. One of those is the Euclidean connection (this is perhaps the most important, because from it can be derived all the other features of gravity. Basically the problem can be taken from where Einstein left off. He present the problem very well.

 

Even though his general theory has passed all the tests (except for gravitational waves) he realized early on that there were peculiar coincidences or features: e.g., The gravitational mass of a body is equal to its inertial mass, "Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or on the physical state of the body," the intensity or field 'strength' of gravity and electromagnetism under normal conditions diminishes inversely to the square of the distance.

 

An ultimate theory must ascribe meaning to all aspects of science: biology, psychology, chemistry, etc. I'm am interested to know, most of all, and maybe without spilling the beans, you can relate to me what McCutcheon writes about the relationship between his expansion theory and consciousness, imagination, freedom, the feeling of being alive, consciousness in general: Whether or not in his universe life can continue to flourish in this universe. I'm curious to hear his take on how memory is stored in the brain, how it is retrieved, how electromagnetic signals cross the synapses; the relationship to gravity, expansion. Curious too, I am, as to how he explains the significance of other 'magic' phenomenon, such as Brownian motion, Bose-Einstein statistics, condensates (BEC), superfluidity, superconductivity. That’s not all: an ultimate theory should explain too why there exists a limit for temperature at absolute zero, why according to the third law of thermodynamics is zero K is unattainable, what is the thermal history of the universe and hoe will the CMB evolve deep into the future.

 

Wait, there is more. What is the physical connection between BEC and superclusters of galaxies, between mater and antimatter, between superfluidity and a stadium full of football fans, between an expanding bladder and a gravitational potential well (OK, the latter goes a little too far maybe). And how about the relationship between a black hole and the human imagination, between a Mobius strip and something real. How is the imagination capable of imagining things that do not exist (21 dimensions, magnetic monoploles, BHs, parallel universes, multiverses, branes, god: the list is extensive...). What in nature gives us that capability, what in nature gives us the potential to explain not just our own origins, but that of the universe itself.

 

To omit any of these features from a unified theory would be to neglect that all things in the universe (e.g., constituents such as, elementary building blocks and nest of forces defined as elementary particles, atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, ions, and field, such as gravity fields and electromagnetic fields: along with the properties energy, entropy and ultimately consciousness) are bounded by the same fundamental laws of nature.

 

 

A.M. Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

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

 

As my hero Buffy has so accurately pointed out: Gravity sucks or blows.

 

 

A snowball in a firestorm. That not as bad as a standard candle in Antarctic blizard.

 

If gravity sucks, the cosmological constant blows.

(that was the line Buffy)

 

ldsoftwaresteve, I'm curious. Does The Final Theory book cover all the aspects of the universe including human consciousness, creativity, imagination? Whether or not in his universe life can continue to flourish in this universe. How memory is stored in the brain, how it is retrieved, how electromagnetic signals cross the synapses; the relationship to gravity. And Brownian motion, Bose-Einstein statistics, condensates (BEC), superfluidity, superconductivity? Or why there exists a limit for temperature at absolute zero, why according to the third law of thermodynamics is zero Kelvin is unattainable, what is the thermal history of the universe and how will the CMB evolve deep into the future?

 

coldc

[ldsoftwaresteve]

coldc:That not as bad as a standard candle in Antarctic blizard.

lol. Not Bad.

To answer your question: No. McCutcheon does not deal with consciousness. But that's nothing new in the field of physics.

I've been reading some of your other posts and I catch the hint that you don't have much faith in the 'red shift' and the conclusions based upon the belief that it's a doppler effect. McCutcheon does provide another reason for that and of course, a whole herd of oxen will be getting gored if he's correct. But I had the feeling that particular herd was already in your sights. Am I correct?

I look forward to what you have to say.

[mojassty]

I can't give a full appraisal of McCutcheon's book, because I only read the first chapter. However, that chapter was filled with so many conceptual flaws about classical physics that I would never waste the money on buying the book to read the rest of it.

 

I'm an astrophysics major at Villanova University, and all of the errors McCutcheon points out (at least in the first chapter) can be explained by things I learned in my freshman physics class. The problems go away once you understand the mathematics behind the science. (For instance, Newton's laws of motion can't violate the law of conservation of energy because the law of conservation of energy is derived from Newton's laws of motion)

 

In later chapters he goes on to more complicated physical concepts, but I doubt he knows much of what he is talking about. He is just trying to make a few bucks by deceiving people who don't know much about physics (and judging from the reviews on Amazon.com, he's succeeding!) No professional physicists would ever waste their breath talking about McCutcheon's ideas because he is nothing more than a hack.

 

 

By the way, coldcreation, there already is an explanation for why the temperature scale stops at absolute zero. Heat energy is created by atomic vibrations. At absolute zero, particles stop oscillating and no heat is generated. You can't have a temperature below absolute zero any more than you can have a negative mass.

[polemotheos]

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 1% 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.

-Will

If this is true you have experimentally disproved his theory. Can you try the inverse of your last experiment. Provide a larger sphere which is the same weight. Can we get someone else to check Erasmus00's work?

 

I may disprove his theory mathematically (feel free to check my work);

 

Here is his equations which he does not provide;

 

s(t) = (y0 - 7.7X10^(-7)*t^2*(R1 + R2))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)

 

Where y0 is the initial distance between the surface of two bodies, R1 is the radius of one body and R2 is the radius of the other.

 

 

d/dt [s(t)] = v(t)

 

= v0 - (2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*t*7.7X10^(-7))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)^2

 

Where v0 is an initial velocity.

 

 

d^2/dt^2 [s(t)] = d/dt [v(t)] = a(t)

 

= (2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*(3*7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 - 1)*7.7X10^(-7))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)^3

 

To evaluate his function lets look at t0 the initial time.

 

a(t0) = -2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*7.7X10^(-7)

 

Notice that in Newton's theory as the distance increases (/R^2) the acceleration do to gravity decreases.

 

However in the Final Theory as the distance increases, y0, so does the acceleration do to expansion. At infinite distance there is infinite acceleration. :shrug:

 

I think now I understand why he says in his latter chapters why he thinks some satellites are slowing down as they leave the solar system. Infact he suggests the satellites will return.

 

 

Just incase anyone wants to know the "authority" appeal. I am an inventor and study on my own and have never finished a degree in college because of finding college inefficient and often a waste of time.

 

peace,

Mars

[polemotheos]

However in the Final Theory as the distance increases, y0, so does the acceleration do to expansion. At infinite distance there is infinite acceleration. :shrug:

Well actually what I said is a sort of thinking that is rather linear. If you add all the geometry of the universe into the equation (or atleast the whole solar system) the answer is far less explicit. I don't know if I have the math abilities to do it much less comprehend it's effect.

[mojassty]

If this is true you have experimentally disproved his theory. Can you try the inverse of your last experiment. Provide a larger sphere which is the same weight. Can we get someone else to check Erasmus00's work?

 

I may disprove his theory mathematically (feel free to check my work);

 

Here is his equations which he does not provide;

 

s(t) = (y0 - 7.7X10^(-7)*(R1 + R2))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)

 

Where y0 is the initial distance between the surface of two bodies, R1 is the radius of one body and R2 is the radius of the other.

Mars

 

I'm not sure whether this equation came from Erasmus00 or McCutcheon, but the units don't work out. s(t) is a distance and should be measured in meters. This means that the right side of the equation should also reduce to meters. y0, R1, and R2 are all in meters, and in order to combine all of them, that 7.7 constant can't have any units. In the bottom of the equation you have t^2, which is measured in seconds-squared (and the 1 needs to have seconds-squared as well).

 

So if you reduce the units on the right hand side of the equation, you get meters per square-seconds. This is the unit for acceleration, and it can't be equal to the distance s(t).

 

Perhaps you accidentally wrote your parentheses wrong? Or maybe t doesn't stand for time like I thought it did. Otherwise, this equation is erroneous, as is everything you developed from it.