viscount aero

neither is true. as well if you propose an idiotic pseudo-intellectual premise that is clearly reaching, you rightly need to be called an idiot. the premise of entitlement to absolute widespread free published works is twofold stupid in that 1)it's not done in the real world as standard practice in every situation 2)doesn't suddenly validate anything were it all free. there has been an overtone through-line in this thread that goes a little like "well, if McCutcheon was really worth it, he'd publish everything he has for free." but the double-standard doesn't apply to people like stephen hawking or feinman, people who may reveal new insights onto old ideas. regardless of McM validity or not, it is clear that by and large people are prone to run with sheep when they're too cool for skool to be caught dead showing any interest in something different. i have to give it to Buffy and Gang for allowing this thread to continue. i do not overlook that. it's much more than a place like space.com would tolerate for sure.

hawking's "radiation" and his theoretical principles are every bit as theoretical as MMc's works --both hawking and Mc retain traditional bare essentials and build upon them. as for learing2read, i did and you are basically saying that trying to prove you are correct in a published work is 1)wrong and 2)should be for free. as well, you then premise that to reveal possibly new horizons to humanity --or not-- is futile and will not matter! so, what is the point of publishing ANYTHING at all for sale? go down to the local chain book seller (yes, books are for sale throughout the world) and you tell them of your premise and see what they say. maybe your free education down under is lacking if your mode of thinking about what constitutes entitlements to free knowledge and such is what it is. you should demand any author release their property for free, then. there must be life elsewhere for sure because you are from Mars! :rolleyes:

the door swings both ways, tiger. you give stephen hawking 30 bucks and if he's wrong he still has "won." why are you assuming people like hawking are profoundly more correct and worth the 30 bucks, then? what an inane premise you have. why would somebody endeavor to publish a work and claim themselves to be incorrect? as well, any work by stephen hawking isn't going to reinvent the ballpoint either. so what is your point, einstein? who owes anybody altruism?! where are you getting this pseudo-intellectual garbage from? for that matter, all higher knowledge should be for free! -- theoretical or otherwise. so go to the closest university campus and enroll in a physics and astronomy class, and implore that the registrar sign you up for everything for free --because paying for knowledge is not altruistic. go ahead and do that and get back with me to let me know how it went. what amazingly reaching and asinine modes of logic to avoid reading something.

we've gone over that orbit equation before. it's the basis for other equations. he plainly states this. there is other quite involved math throughout the entire book, including the BS basis of energy-to-mass conversion and vice versa, as well as flaws in special relativity derivation. you must not have read those.

lots of papers are subscribe/pay only. regardless, that does not invalidate or make wrong having to pay for a published work. for that matter, stephen hawking is then an a*hole for not giving away all copies of "a brief history of time" for free. the idea that scientific knowledge of this manner should be free access all of the time is one of the dumbest arguments i've seen.

hey buffcake, who ever said it's verboten to discuss without reading it? i'm saying like whatever. go ahead and continue not reading it! but it's tit for tat. don't go saying it's not supported with math. it is. he explains quite a lot mathematically, some of which is beyond the scope of what i can relate back on this chat line. by the way the barometer issue is very compelling. i will think of something. i'll even ask him directly if i have to. it's his theory so he is ultimately accountable :rolleyes:

the premise of secrecy = having to buy the book is laughable. going to Kinkos or anywhere to use a xerox machine at 10 cents a copy is also an act of secrecy? :lol: :phones:

LOL McC ideas are kept secret? hardly. the objection to actually buying a copy of the book does not = secrecy. you have to subscribe to services as well that publish official papers from universities all of the time. that is secrecy too? i don't think so, sunshine. by the way, did you see all of the secret books they have at Barnes & Noble that i'm not going to buy? why do authors insist on publishing anything if it's just going to be up for sale and kept secret? i never read "Jaws" because it was kept secret as it was for sale! damn them all!

do you have a link to the post where he or others mention that? i did see that, but i don't have any idea what page it's on.

it's no surprise you're the first to reply, buff-buff, taking the post above and beyond what it really is (religious cult? your penchant for condescending overstatement is amazing). for so many opposed to the theories in the book, and having not read it, sure seems pretty myopic and hypocritical to me even if the book is wrong. personally i don't care one iota what you or anyone on here reads. this is an artificial cyber-environment of personalities that i'll never actually meet. but to get on about how the theory is patently false, demanding to see the all-coveted math, and not doing your own legwork to at least thumb through a 50-cent thrift store copy of the book is just stupid in my opinion. were i to refute the bible, i'd be the first one to read it to gain insight into what rebuttals i'm going to face. and i may actually learn something new, regardless if i adopt it.

it's not ignorant pseudoscience. the book is replete with math. everywhere. most of the opinions in this thread against the theory are formed on the basis of not having read the book. for such widespread interest in FT, as this thread proves as it is so long, few want to buy the book! people are complaining over spending 30 bucks. you spend more than that on beer at the pub and dinner for one night. the book can be read and re-read for years, allowing for time to grasp the ideas. i've spent way more than 30 bucks reading books on subjects that i had little idea about to gain exposure to what is in the world. sure, McC may not be entirely correct, but it's one hell of a book and theory. at the very least it points out the blaring contradictions within accepted sciences today. it's worth the money to simply read it for that alone. all of the arrogant math people in here who demand to see the math should look at the book and shut up.

sure. and any gravitational effects, ie, apparent "pulling into" another object [as seen in gravity assist manoeuvres, for example] is due to the smaller expanding object approaching the near vicinity of the larger expanding one, creating a partial orbit. this exact effect is seen here by throwing a rock up to the sky, it slows, peaks, turns back, then continues to accelerate more and more and more until hitting the ground. this is the underpinning of the "natural orbit effect." all of the "at a distance" type of "gravitational effects" remain, but for reasons not due to pulling in to a body due to an inherent gravity force directly related to mass.

could you explain this in another way...

right. it is according to theory. stuff doesn't explode and burst out of thermometers, etc. the incredible hulk doesn't burst out of everyone's shirt. it remains stable.

sure, i'm not going to refute that. the Method is good. regardless of how gravity works, it doesn't preclude one iota that i have to rise early tomorrow; so as much fun as this is, i'm going to bed. i will lay down to sleep and gravity, somehow, will keep me there through the night. --later.

you misunderstand the theory, then, if you equate the above with MMc's theory.

don't give one damn if you buy the book, personally. who cares. so you must throw out big bang theory, too. as well as the stretching of the spacetime that is accelerating. you must catch my drift, too. these theories are actually widely considered viable.

he admits no such feebleness nor implies it. he points out from whence the term "g" came into existence and how it then ended up in every other equation thereafter. standard theory does not do any such "better" job that you claim. he has extensive knowledge else he cannot posit refutations of it as he does at length and very thoroughly. that is a statement of your own judgmentalism and ignorance of the material. most all major soft-science theories of our universe's origins and mechanics is terminally flawed, too. so it appears that a good many skeptics of the theory refuse to buy the book simply because it costs something? so you will only buy a book if it corroborates what you already believe? it would appear to me that if many of you who claim to be curious, scientific, full of wonder, hungry for knowledge --at the very least enjoy debate-- would buy the book to see the other side. for example, liberal talk show hosts subscribe to conservative papers to see what the "enemy" is thinking. and conservative hosts will read liberal papers for the same reason. to digest knowledge and have a comprehensive view. but many of you are not this way --wanting to read things already in accord with your beliefs. for example, big bang theory is a belief only spacetime "fabric" that stretches and mysteriously accelerates is a belief. it is not factual. it violates conservation of energy, but it is taught as a viable theory. if you then buy into this contradiction, how can you claim to have cornered the market in official knowledge of our cosmos? and then when another theory arises, you refuse to actually know it? that is not science. that is the equivalent of xenophobia.

i'm not expecting you to read the book and then you "see the light." hardly. it makes a good case for an alternative. it at least points out blaring inconsistencies in standard ideas. that isn't necessarily true either. anyone has a right to recoup losses for print and distribution of a book; making a profit is not a disqualifier if he makes any. i highly doubt he's making a windfall from this book. as well, many abstracts and official papers must be subscribed to or paid for in some form. having to pay for a work does not invalidate it whatsoever. again, this isn't about "go read a book and it's all fine" -- you're awfully pedantic and condescending. sure. they're calculating for geometric conditions. final theory does not invalidate the outcomes of the equations.

it's not his equation. it's an equation that subsequent ones are based upon. that is cited in the book very clearly.

good idea. i don't know why, then, the thread has gone to nearly 9000 pages and nobody has yet done this. will that not violate copyright? i guess if i cite the source, i'm fine.

he clearly admits orbits are not perfectly circular.

but then you're not reading the book and then suggesting i pour through this entire epic thread is a double-standard. insofar as simple, it is. the math you demand is in the damn book. you will see how g has been slipped into equations for no reason other than to promote the idea of a pulling force that is entirely unnecessary. "...unwillingness to recognize well understood and well-proven evidence..." of what? what is proven that you claim? that gravity exists as proposed by Newton? this is proven beyond doubt? no way.

alright. but before i contribute anything --to preface, i don't want to get into a hostile crossfire anymore. i will withdraw my prior statements about the clergy if that makes others more at ease. i've gotten deep into this topic on other forums and they have escalated to attacking and then in some cases into banning. so i'm not going to go there. it's just a theory as any of it is. cosmology today is just as much of a belief system as it is scientific. little of it is factual or provable. if you want to actually talk it out, then we can. if we're going to throw rocks and get all sarcastic and caustic beyond this point, then forget it. the theory is not that hard to grasp, neither is the orbit effect. i'm going to assume that a good many skeptics of the theory haven't read the material, which has diagrams that can help convey the ideas. were you to see these it would greatly aid in explaining things. but, alas, it appears many of you have not read any of it. so it makes re-creating the material here that much more tedious even though the whole thing is very simple. there's plenty of math in it, too. i'm not able to perform calculus in front of everyone, i'm not a mathematician. i can understand algebraic concepts and some trig. but the math in the book is within grasp of most alg/trig students, with some of it more advanced. therefore, if you go into the trite "well, you're not an engineer with a degree so you have no idea of anything, do you?" then we can just forget it. that is not a criteria for understanding the universe. our cosmos is not the product of mathematical models, nor does it necessarily actually exist as a model suggests. the book is replete with equations and such, so don't suggest that it doesn't. as well, most all of the equations currently used to predict orbits are exactly usable in the final theory, as such equations derive from others, modified albeit to include the "g" constant which is not necessary. therefore you can predict orbits with or without "g." doesn't matter.

after 9780 pages and you don't understand the theoretical why of how the "orbit effect" occurs? have you not read any of the posts? someone must have discussed that. ???? some of you appear to ask questions that should have already been clarified.