Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Final Theory


  • Please log in to reply
884 replies to this topic

#86 polemotheos

polemotheos

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:02 PM

I measured G to within about 10% of the accepted value, after I switched the one ball weight, I was within 12% of G, and close to my original measurement. My uncertainity was about 3% of G, so the two values are well within each other. I cannot do the inverse, as I've disassembled the balance I built, and I don't see a need to build it again.
-Will

How many digits of G?

You got a different measurement after switching the ball weight. If you kept the same weight and measured it again are you saying you could have gotten 12% of G? That is your percision is +or- 3%?

I am guessing your not going to give me the numbers to actually verify your experiment? Are you able to understand what I am asking for?

#87 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1561 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:04 PM

Like I said before, I haven't studied GR analytically, so I can't supply you with a mathematical equation regarding the effects of time dilation on an accelerating body. However, that doesn't change the fact that Special Relativity only applies to non-accelerating bodies. Einstein knew that special relativity wasn't applicable to non-inertial reference frames, which is why he went on to develop General Relativity and the equivalence principle.


Thats not entirely true. Working within the framework of SR, one can deal with accelerations. The 4 vector approach of minkowski works well for it, in fact. GR is simply a gravitational theory.
-Will

#88 mojassty

mojassty

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:12 PM

I didn't know that. All I've learned about Special Relativity has been the Lorentz transformations, and we didn't apply them to a scenario with accelerating bodies. Thanks for the correction.

#89 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1561 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:14 PM

How many digits of G?

You got a different measurement after switching the ball weight. If you kept the same weight and measured it again are you saying you could have gotten 12% of G? That is your percision is +or- 3%?

I am guessing your not going to give me the numbers to actually verify your experiment? Are you able to understand what I am asking for?


How much raw data do you need? I can send you the graphs I linear fit for G, as well as the raw data if you like. I measured first 5.99 *10^-11 m^3 kg^-1s^-2. plus or minus .167*10-11 (same units).
After I replaced my second sphere, I got 5.88*10^-11 plus/minus .169 *10^-11 (same units). I think the accepted value is 6.67300 *10^-11(same units).

I should note that I gave up trying to get a better measurement when McCutcheon would not or could not give me a measure for the size of the effect I was looking for, and I had wasted enough time.
-Will

#90 polemotheos

polemotheos

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:19 PM

How much raw data do you need? I can send you the graphs I linear fit for G, as well as the raw data if you like. I measured first 5.99 *10^-11 m^3 kg^-1s^-2. plus or minus .167*10-11 (same units).
After I replaced my second sphere, I got 5.88*10^-11 plus/minus .169 *10^-11 (same units). I think the accepted value is 6.67300 *10^-11(same units).
-Will

Thanks what are the radius's of the balls? What are there masses? How accurate are the masses? How accurate are the radius's?

Mars

#91 polemotheos

polemotheos

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:26 PM

Here is the equation I will be using to check your experiment;

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

If you know how to use the equation please demonstrate it.

#92 polemotheos

polemotheos

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 09:33 PM

If the energy in the electromagnetic spectrum is correct then the "Final Theory" is little more then toilet paper.

One electron flying at the speed of light has kinetic energy of 511 keV.

If the photons are suppose to be clusters of electrons then would not the energies be equivalent to multipules of 511 keV?

I would not suggest buying the book.

#93 ldsoftwaresteve

ldsoftwaresteve

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 757 posts

Posted 20 June 2005 - 06:04 PM

(Please keep in mind that I am just a lay person.)

polemotheos: If the photons are suppose to be clusters of electrons then would not the energies be equivalent to multipules of 511 keV?

I believe that assumes at least the following things to be true: 1. your understanding of the nature of an electron is the same as McCutcheon's understanding of his basic particle. 2. the energy in a cluster is just the energy of the fundamental particle times the number of particles in the cluster and that no energy is consumed in the bondings between the particles. 3. the energy to cluster 10 is twice the energy to cluster 5, etc. (the physical structure doesn't have an impact on the energy required to bind the particles together).
As a lay person, that would be my first concern with what you said.

#94 mojassty

mojassty

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 20 June 2005 - 07:27 PM

Polemotheos isn't the one who made the comment about laypeople, idsoftwaresteve. You can stop acting offended.

#95 ldsoftwaresteve

ldsoftwaresteve

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 757 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 06:16 AM

mojassty:Polemotheos isn't the one who made the comment about laypeople, idsoftwaresteve. You can stop acting offended.

Point taken. I guess what I was trying to say indirectly is that those who are subject matter experts need to exhibit some level of care in the way they draw conclusions. A lay person should not have to point that out.
The biggest thing that McCutcheon has going for him is that his theory is based on a very simple observation and that observation will keep coming back again and again until it is carefully looked at and soundly refuted. And from what I've seen so far, that isn't going to happen and I get embarassed at the attempts (although I must say that coldcreation does give me some hope even if he/she is a bit nasty).
I love the fact that Polemotheos has requested more facts about experiments because I think if carefully done, with a sound understanding of where McCutcheon is coming from, we can draw some conclusions based on direct observations and have some level of confidence in those conclusions. For or against, it doesn't matter to me. Only the truth matters to me.
I also want to thank Will (erasmus00) for taking the time to attempt an experiment to help out.
McCutcheon has put an awful lot of care and work into his theories. He asks questions and makes observations that others seem to have missed. He deserves an honest, considered response.

#96 coldcreation

coldcreation

    Resident Bright

  • Members
  • 1576 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:03 AM

Hello ldsoftwaresteve,
Sorry for coming off as not so nice, but sometimes emotions do run high. If you look closely at the literature you will see that it is standard procedure within the scientific community to use language such as used here. I've given some examples somewhere else, of Stephen Hawking's use of the words doubt, dead and demise with reference to inflation theory. If you like I can give you that one again and more.

I call it constructive criticism. It should never be taken personally.
My recent post in the Cosmological Constant: a New Law thread will testify. The text is a reply to someone called Spennithorn. It can be misinterpreted, I know, but it shouldn't be...to date it could be considered my nastiest reply, but with careful consideration you will see that it may be the most revealing. Check it out...let me know what you think...

more soon
coldcreation

#97 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6053 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 11:25 AM

I've asked it a quite a couple of posts ago, and I'll ask it again, seeing as I got no answer:

McCutcheon's theory is based on expansion causing gravity, or what we experience as gravity. Some of the issues I have with this view, is the following:

1) If expansion is fact, then why don't larger planets (with higher 'gravity', they should be expanding at a greater rate, according to McCutcheon) swallow smaller planets? We should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Jupiter and the Sun, for that matter, 'cause they've been *expanding* at a much greater rate than planet Earth.

2) How does Expansion Theory cater for orbits? I can understand the rationale for trying to use 'expansion' as the cause of the gravity-effect, but that should only be observable when on the surface of the mass (planet or star) where the 'expansion' is causing an upward acceleration. Why would Expansion drive the planets circling the Sun?

3) Black Holes (according to McCutcheon) should be physically the largest items in the Universe, seeing as they are the most massive. According to classical theory, they've just punched a hell of a big dent in space/time, from expansion theory, they're just expanding at more than c (seeing as even light can't escape). This being the case, every Black Hole is expanding faster than the visible edge of the Universe. Therefore, if there is any primordial Black Holes, they should have swallowed the whole observable Universe by now. Which is either not the case, or we're already inside one of the suckers. Which seems rather unlikely.

If Expansion Theory also includes 'Space' expanding, it means that everything, from mass, to empty space is expanding. Now - empty space is indeed expanding in classical theory, but mass and matter expanding? Isn't this just a convenient (if not exactly a completely explanatory) adage that'll battle slightly with Meister Occam?

#98 Tom Palmer

Tom Palmer

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 06:49 PM

This is just my second post, so please excuse any lapses.

First, I must state that I have not read Mr. McCutcheon's book. Frankly, I have a problem with any wannabe "physicist" who publishes his theory directly to the public. Such a book will surely be biased (intentionally or not) to favor his side of the issues he raises. Proponents will doubtless be quick to assure me that he fairly presents the opposing side, but how am I, a layperson, supposed to know how equitably he has done this?

I recently read a multiple-author book (on an unrelated subject) which represented a particular viewpoint, but the editor had done a very wise thing. He had invited two academically qualified individuals to submit rebuttal essays, and these rebuttals were printed right along with the prevailing viewpoint. In this way, with both sides having their views fairly and competently represented, the reader could make up his own mind whom to believe. Somehow, I can't picture Mr. McCutcheon taking this route.

Perhaps I've been sensitized to this sort of thing by another book I chanced upon some years ago. It was titled, believe it or not, "Physics Is Constipated"! Just to give you some idea of the thrust of this deathless masterpiece, the author referred to Einstein as "superstupid." (At least, McCutcheon seems to be above this sort of calumny.) Not surprisingly, the errors in this book were breathtaking in both their number and their magnitude.

It's a shame that the physics establishment doesn't have any provision for amateurs to present their ideas and receive honest evaluations that acknowledge any meaningful contributions to our understanding of our world. I suppose others have already posted John Baez's "Crackpot Index." Although derogatory to - and belittling of - amateurs, it is nonetheless a useful compendium of the all-too-typical (and sometimes fatal) amateur inelegancies and errors. Every amateur theoretician should read it.

I'll conclude with just a general observation: A peer-reviewed paper in a recognized physics journal is a little more likely to be trustworthy than a profit-making vanity-press book. McCutcheon's major advantage is a readership that, on the whole (and I mean this as kindly as possible), lacks the skills, education and intellectual means to properly evaluate his claims.

As Proverbs 18:17 puts it (as paraphrased by The Living Bible): "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight."

#99 Tom Palmer

Tom Palmer

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 07:56 PM

If the energy in the electromagnetic spectrum is correct then the "Final Theory" is little more then toilet paper.

One electron flying at the speed of light has kinetic energy of 511 keV.

If the photons are suppose to be clusters of electrons then would not the energies be equivalent to multipules of 511 keV?

I would not suggest buying the book.


I think your evaluation of the book is probably right on the mark, but I want to correct one statement you make.

First of all, no mass particle can fly at the speed of light. Its energy at that velocity would have to be be infinite, and that is impossible.

You are probably confusing the rest-mass energy of the electron (511 KeV) with kinetic energy. Also, photons are not clusters of electrons - if they were, they would have both mass and electric charge, but in fact they have neither.

I hope this helps.

#100 leeroy

leeroy

    Curious

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 04:00 PM

I'm about half way through the book and honestly I really like the concept. Even before reading this book, I've often thought of Einstein's space-elevator and gravity and wondered... What if gravity was just inertia?

I never really thought of atomic expansion, but it seems plausible. Although the way the author explains it, he doesn't seem to be very objective on the idea. It seems he backs up scientific models that he can explain with expansion and tries to debunk models and theory's that he can't make fit. That makes me feel like he's a salesman and not a scientist.

There a couple of issues I have with atomic expansion as he explains it. One is that orbits are a matter of perspective. It takes some mind bending to ignore the sidereal period, but okay. Also, elliptical orbits seem to present their own issues with objects passing each other because of expansion but not colliding. Above and beyond that, is motion and how it relates to the expansion process. In other words, it doesn't seem that he explained how objects in space maintain a constant relative velocity to their own growth. If everything is expanding and moving at a constant speed, wouldn't objects appear to slow down over time? And if you add the compounding effect of accelerating expansion, how would anything be able to maintain any type of orbit? It seems that if he added Hubble's Constant to his theory, he might of been able to counter balance this slowing effect, but I guess he dismisses Hubble's Constant all together, by saying that red-shift effect is caused by space debris.

Like a previously said I like the idea and I definitely like ideas that make you change your perspective on things. it just seems this theory, the way the author explains it, has got some holes.

Lee

#101 Tom Palmer

Tom Palmer

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 06:59 PM

I'm about half way through the book and honestly I really like the concept. Even before reading this book, I've often thought of Einstein's space-elevator and gravity and wondered... What if gravity was just inertia?

I never really thought of atomic expansion, but it seems plausible. Although the way the author explains it, he doesn't seem to be very objective on the idea. It seems he backs up scientific models that he can explain with expansion and tries to debunk models and theory's that he can't make fit. That makes me feel like he's a salesman and not a scientist.

There a couple of issues I have with atomic expansion as he explains it. One is that orbits are a matter of perspective. It takes some mind bending to ignore the sidereal period, but okay. Also, elliptical orbits seem to present their own issues with objects passing each other because of expansion but not colliding. Above and beyond that, is motion and how it relates to the expansion process. In other words, it doesn't seem that he explained how objects in space maintain a constant relative velocity to their own growth. If everything is expanding and moving at a constant speed, wouldn't objects appear to slow down over time? And if you add the compounding effect of accelerating expansion, how would anything be able to maintain any type of orbit? It seems that if he added Hubble's Constant to his theory, he might of been able to counter balance this slowing effect, but I guess he dismisses Hubble's Constant all together, by saying that red-shift effect is caused by space debris.

Like a previously said I like the idea and I definitely like ideas that make you change your perspective on things. it just seems this theory, the way the author explains it, has got some holes.

Lee


Friend Lee,

I appreciated your reply - it seems that, even though you're attracted to some of his ideas, you are striving to remain objective. Objectivity and a healthy skepticism - hang onto them! As I mentioned in a previous reply, I haven't read the book, so I don't have any business addressing specific points.

But having so said, I can't resist remarking on one of his claims you happened to mention: that the Hubble red-shift is due merely to "space debris." If McCutcheon is claiming that this debris (which does exist in places) is simply filtering out the shorter wavelengths of light and letting through only the longer (i.e., redder) wavelengths, then he is way off base.

Here's why. The redshift cannot simply be the result of selective transmission of light - that wouldn't be a true "shifting" of wavelengths, but only a screening of already-existing wavelengths.

We know that wavelengths across the entire stellar spectrum are being truly shifted, because we see the presence of characteristic, telltale spectral lines (like the solar "Fraunhofer lines") that uniquely identify the different chemical elements. (In practice, it is the absorption lines resulting from the stars' cooler surface layers that form the basis of spectroscopic stellar classifications today.)

The distinctive patterns of these lines are unmistakably all shifted toward the red end of the spectrum - I can't even begin to imagine any way that "space debris" could accomplish that remarkable feat.

Only two possible mechanisms for this phenomenon are known. One is gravitational, requiring an enormous mass for the star that emits the light. In this case, stars of differing mass would exhibit differing degrees of redshift.

The other mechanism is the Doppler effect. We know this is the true cause of the Hubble red shift because the shift is proportional to the distance (from us) of the galaxies emitting the light. The effect is far too general and all-embracing (too "global," in the parlance of physics) to allow for "local" effects such as space debris - which couldn't really explain it anyway.

(I'm editing in this additional paragraph later.) IF I haven't misunderstood McCutcheon's "explanation" of the Hubble redshift, then I have to say that he has fallen into the same trap as others of his ilk: airily dismissing with a glib evasion anything that might contradict his views. Such dismissiveness should be a red flag for the perceptive reader. If, on the other hand, he honestly confronts these contradictions without any such sleight-of-hand to make them disappear, and honestly acknowledges the gaps and inconsistencies in his theory (and ALL new theories have gaps and arguable inconsistencies), then - and only then - I would conclude that he is credible and trustworthy.

I'll end my rant here. :hihi: Please let me know if I misunderstand what McCutcheon is claiming about the redshift. It's good that you're putting his ideas to the test by posting here. Again - hang on to your objectivity! It will serve you well.

Tom Palmer

#102 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7233 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 09:17 PM

I believe that the free 1st chapter of Mark McCutcheon "The Final Theory" is, to use Carl Sagan’s preferred term, baloney.

Without getting into specifics, the following are red flags in any physical theory:
1. The claims that many or all existing theories are wrong, even when those theories are well supported by experimental evidence that the new theory lacks.
2. It alleges a wide-spread conspiracy among scientists to support existing theories and oppose new ones, and that only an “outsider” can arrive at “the truth”.
3. It states or implies that existing theories are too badly flawed to be expanded or corrected, and that a new, radically different theory is necessary.
4. The argument that existing theories are wrong, because they are difficult for an “ordinary person” to understand, while the new theory is correct, because it is easy.
5. It appeals to intuition by using terms it does not formally define.
6. It makes no falsifiable, observable predictions.

TFT chapter 1 has red flag #1-5. This doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong, only that it is either wrong, or revolutionary. The heliocentric model of the solar system, which ultimately superseded the geocentric model, had red flag #3 and 2.

In my analysis, all of the significant claims TFT chapter 1 can be derived from the following (using traditional Physics terms):
The classical definition of work (“The work function”), work = force * distance, is invalid when distance = 0. When distance = 0, work (which McCutcheon seems to prefer to term energy or “an external power source”) is greater than 0.

This appeals strongly to commons sense intuition – if one pushes with all ones might against an sturdy wall, exerting considerable force but moving the wall 0 distance, it doesn’t seem right to say that no work has been done, as the definition of work for the wall-only system demands. Indeed, if the various mechanical components of your body are included in the system, distance is not 0, and work is what common sense expects.

Once this classical definition of work is invalidated when distance = 0, planets orbiting the sun, objects held a fixed height above the ground, and so on cause gravity to violate the law of conservation of mass-energy

To resolve this violation, McCutcheon claims that this work-for-which-the-work-function-is-inapplicable is due to a fundamental property of geometry.

He then proceeds to argue that “the geometric orbit equation”,
[orbital velocity]^2 * [orbital radius] = [geometric constant],
is different in a fundamental way from
[orbital velocity]^2 * [orbital radius] = ([mass of central body] * [constant of gravity]),
which can be derived from the usual definitions of universal gravitation and centripetal force ([mass of orbiting body] * [mass of central body] * [constant of gravity] / [orbital radius] ^ 2 = force = [mass of orbiting body] * [orbital velocity]^2 / [orbital radius]).

This amounts to the claim:
[geometric constant] not= ([mass of central body] * [constant of gravity])

McCutcheon argues that, unlike the term (mass of central body * constant of gravity) the term [geometric constant] doesn’t rely on mass. Rather, the value of [geometric constant] varies depending on the “geometry” around a particular central body. The value of [geometric constant] is usually related to the central body’s mass, in much the way that the magnetic field strength of a bar magnet is usually related to its mass. The relationship is only typical, he argues, not due to physical law as defined by Newton’s law of Universal Gravitation.

This claim is a valid scientific hypothesis. Assuming that we have access to 2 materials where the relationship between masses of object constructed of them and the [geometric constant] associated them is different, we can construct an experiment to determine if the claim is true, as follows:
1. Using object A with mass MA, a measuring stick, an accurate clock, and material M, construct object B with mass MA, as follows: set object A in motion; measure the time it takes to traverse the measuring stick; collide A inelastically (no bouncing) with object B; measure the time they take to traverse the measuring stick; repeat, adding or removing material M until [time 2] = [time 1]/2.
2. Using the same object A, measuring stick, and clock, and material N, construct object C with mass MA using the same method as in step 1
3. Perform a variation of Cavendish’s Torsion bar experiment with mass A and B, in which, rather than twist, orbital period is measured.
4. Repeat step 3 using mass A and C
5. Repeat step 3-4 enough times to overcome observational inaccuracies.

The orbital period observed in step 3 and step 4 should differ significantly. If it does not,
McCutcheon hypothesis, and the theory in TFT chapter 1, is false,

A critic of this experiment could argue that its initial assumption is invalid – that is, that it is not experimentally feasible to obtain suitable materials. This criticism raises baloney red flag #6, rendering the TDT chapter 1 claims scientifically unverifiable.

Regardless of how revolutionary a scientific theory is, it must make experimentally testable predictions. Extraordinary claims require proof, in the form of experimental confirmation of these claims. Appeals to intuition and simplicity are not enough.