The Final Theory

[Boerseun]

If the Theory of relativity is wrong,Whether every thing we know about the Universe is

wrong.

 

We are using the E=mc^2 in nuclear reactions.

 

:eek2: If it is wrong then how the calculated energy became correct .

Hi Dinesh

 

I think that you've maybe replied in the wrong thread.

 

However, the Theory of Relativity might be disproven tomorrow with a New, Improved! theory that might even marry Relativity with Quantum physics.

 

You never know.

 

But that's one of science's best features - when somebody's proven wrong, we all learn through it. Science is an asymptotic search for the Truth, and we'll never quite get to the full story...

 

...but it's worth a try, though!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseun:

The lead ball can be proven to exert a higher gravitational influence than the plastic ball.

Sweet. Please point me in the direction of this proof. If your proof consists of the math, forget it. Within the math is the assumption that mass is behind the gravitational effect. I would have to accept your premise prior to accepting your proof and I don't. It's the premise that McCutcheon disputes.

And the observer, who is also expanding, will still be the same relative size although he may have gotten bored from this conversation by then and walked away.

I'm not bored, but I thought that was funny. I still do. I have taken more than my share of barbs and jibes and they've been a hell of a lot more personal than that one. And all I'm doing here is defending a very straight forward, albeit controversial observation.

[Buffy]

Boerseun: Sweet. Please point me in the direction of this proof. If your proof consists of the math, forget it. Within the math is the assumption that mass is behind the gravitational effect. I would have to accept your premise prior to accepting your proof and I don't. It's the premise that McCutcheon disputes.

McC is very selective on what he looks at. Its easy to measure gravity! There are lots of groups doing testing for various purposes (here's one: http://www.physics.uci.edu/gravity/ ) that use measurements of tortion balances: no theory or assumptions about mass involved.

 

Moreover its easy to expand Boerseun's argument even to different size objects, because even in a McC-universe, measurable gravitational effects would be proportional *only* to diameter, when we can show easily that the effect of Jupiter is less than it would be on its moons as a gaseous planet than it would be if it were solid lead. The moons' orbits would be completely different and the probes we've sent by it would not follow the paths that have been predicted. (Not even getting to the issue that McC doesn't seem to have any explanation for why orbits work at all).

I'm not bored, but I thought that was funny. I still do.

Its okay! We're *all* having fun on this bus! :eek2:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[coldcreation]

McC is very selective on what he looks at. Its easy to measure gravity! There are lots of groups doing testing for various purposes (here's one: http://www.physics.uci.edu/gravity/ ) that use measurements of tortion balances: no theory or assumptions about mass involved.

 

Moreover its easy to expand Boerseun's argument even to different size objects, because even in a McC-universe, measurable gravitational effects would be proportional *only* to diameter, when we can show easily that the effect of Jupiter is less than it would be on its moons as a gaseous planet than it would be if it were solid lead. The moons' orbits would be completely different and the probes we've sent by it would not follow the paths that have been predicted. (Not even getting to the issue that McC doesn't seem to have any explanation for why orbits work at all).Its okay! We're *all* having fun on this bus! :eek2:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

It seems the search for an ultimate theory continues.

It was Einstein himself that wrote a mind experiment about a laboratory out in space being pulled by a very long rope with constant acceleration. The person inside the box, or laboratory was able to stand on the floor. An artificial gravity field was created, indistiguishable from a real gravity field. In fact, every time one moves, walks, runs, takes a subway, a train, a car, a plane, accelerates, a gravity field is created. It is no less real than the one surrounding Earth. It is equivalent. Spacetime is curved.

 

This fact is unexplainable in the McC model. This fact also leads to insight as to what gravity is, what causes it, what is its source, what is the mechanism at work, and what is the cosmological constant. What is being curved? Minkowski spacetime. Curvature is a deviation from Euclidean space. Lambda equals absolute zero. Food for thought.

 

Buffy, I like your new photos. It kicks butt. I liked the other one too, hi hi hi.

 

Gravity rules...

 

PS. ...so does the cosmological constant

PSS. I'm back in Spain from a U.S.A. vacation. Barcelona is hot.

 

Coldcreation

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Thanks Buff, I'll check out the links.

 

I'm curious about the value of Jupiter's attracting force. How was that calculated? If it's based upon mass, how did we calculate that or did we 'back' into it.

Its okay! We're *all* having fun on this bus!

Sure we are. :eek2:

[CraigD]

…It was Einstein himself that wrote a mind experiment about a laboratory out in space being pulled by a very long rope with constant acceleration. The person inside the box, or laboratory was able to stand on the floor. An artificial gravity field was created, indistiguishable from a real gravity field. In fact, every time one moves, walks, runs, takes a subway, a train, a car, a plane, accelerates, a gravity field is created. It is no less real than the one surrounding Earth. It is equivalent. …

I have an objection to this particular thought experiment – its customary conclusion, which you state, is demonstrably wrong.

 

If you are in a box with non-zero volume being pulled with constant acceleration, and weight object of unchanging mass at one height (Y1) relative to the floor, then weigh it again at another (Y2=Y1+H), you will obtain the same measurement of force. If you perform this same experiment in a real gravity field (eg: sitting on the surface of earth at distance Y0 from its gravitational center), the measurements will differ slightly: F1= k/(Y0+Y1)^2 vs. F2= k/(Y0+Y1+H)^2. Although for typical values of Y0, Y1 and H this difference is very small, it in principle exists and is easily measurable for sufficiently large values of H.

 

Although I’m aware that the thought experiment is only intended to be illustrative, not factual (“Relativity: a Special and General Theory” goes on to explain that it’s really only referring to points, not non-zero volume boxes), my experience is that most people who are aware of the thought experiment are unaware of this distinction, spreading vague and troublesome confusion about General Relativity.

 

… This fact is unexplainable in the McC model …

What I’ve read of McC’s “The Final Theory” strikes me as nonsense. It appears to me to be yet another “theory” derived from the notion that “Mainstream Physics is difficult to understand, therefore anything easier must be correct,” or, more cynically, the debatable notion that “you can make money selling fringe science”.

[Boerseun]

What I’ve read of McC’s “The Final Theory” strikes me as nonsense. It appears to me to be yet another “theory” derived from the notion that “Mainstream Physics is difficult to understand, therefore anything easier must be correct,” or, more cynically, the debatable notion that “you can make money selling fringe science”.

Well put!

[Buffy]

I'm curious about the value of Jupiter's attracting force. How was that calculated? If it's based upon mass, how did we calculate that or did we 'back' into it.

You're still missing the point here: Mars is a rock, Jupiter is a gasseous ball. They have radically different densities as well as radically different sizes. We send probes flying by them and they have specific changes in their courses as they pass these planets. Under *any* formula, the X factor that represents each of the two bodies "influence" on that change should be proportional. In Newton, the X factor is mass and:

mass = volume * density or

mass = 4/3 (pi) r^3 * density

In McCutcheon, the X factor is *only* the volume or radius, so the measured change in courses as a probe goes by these two planets should be the same ratio as computed by the difference in their radii. BUT its NOT! And the *only* factor that is different between McC and Newton on this point is *density*: McC says that mass is irrelevant and therefore density is irrelevant, but then all of the experimental data that we have shooting these probes around the solar system would have them ending up in *completely* different trajectories! Honest! I've got friends at Jet Propulsion Lab and except for when the meatheads at Lockheed decide that English is better than Metric, they hit their marks to far better than 5-9s accuracy! Any experiment you want to devise has already been done, and this orbital/trajectory effect of gravity matches Newton everytime, and just from the simple equations above, if you take density away, the numbers will never ever be even *close*.

 

So to reiterate: You send a probe past Mars, its trajectory will change X degrees, you send a probe past Jupiter and its trajectory will change Y degrees. X/Y can be proportional to radius, or it can be proportional to (4/3 (pi) r^3 * density) but by simple algebra, it can't be proportional to *both*, and guess which equation every piece of experimental data -- data that is based on simply observing the angle of change in trajectory and not computing the mass in at all--agrees with? Yup! Good ol' Issac!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Beagleworth]

I also read the Final Theory, and I just started following your discussion.

 

In McC's theory, the change is affected by more than the radius. You need to add the distance between the 2 objects and the relative speed/direction between them. There is also the size of the other object, but it becomes irrelevant when the size differences are big.

 

So from McC point of view.

 

An object passing by Mars will change X degree depending on the expansion of Mars, the expansion of the object, the distrance between Mars and the object, the relative speed/direction between Mars and the object.

 

An object passing by Jupiter will change Y degree depending on the expansion of Mars, the expansion of the object, the distrance between Jupiter and the object, the relative speed/direction between Jupiter and the object.

 

Now if you are ON the planet. Then, the accelation felt will be proportional to the radius and the mass(or density). And by that, it means that if you sit on a planet of lead of Radius X or sit on a planet of styrofoam of Radius X, you would not feel the same acceleration, because the mass of the styrofoam would not create enough force to cancel the push of your mass.

 

Note that mass, in Expansion theory, really means the sum of the pressure created by the expanding atom forming an object.

[Buffy]

In McC's theory, the change is affected by more than the radius. You need to add the distance between the 2 objects and the relative speed/direction between them. There is also the size of the other object, but it becomes irrelevant when the size differences are big.

You're ignoring the expansion of space here, which has to occur under McC-theory, otherwise the sun and the planets will expand *into* eachother PDQ. Unfortunately, you're also missing the point that my explanation assumes the expanding radius of McC theory, but to an observer, this expansion is unobservable because of the expansion of the intervening space--that happens to be perfectly proportional to *all* of the objects in the universe, although how is never explained as far as I understand it--and as a result, it doesn't provide *any* mechanism for explaining why the trajectory of a passing object occurs *at all*. To simplify the argument here though, I'm assuming more than McC tells us by saying "okay, since we see alterations in trajectory, there's probably something he hasn't gotten to yet that will explain it." So I'm giving you guys that one, *but* what I've described above presents you with a problem:

So from McC point of view.

 

An object passing by Mars will change X degree depending on the expansion of Mars, the expansion of the object, the distrance between Mars and the object, the relative speed/direction between Mars and the object.

 

An object passing by Jupiter will change Y degree depending on the expansion of Mars, the expansion of the object, the distrance between Jupiter and the object, the relative speed/direction between Jupiter and the object.

Here, you've restated the description I gave above, so we're on the same page, the difference in the angles (and speed too) will change as an object passes another one, for *some* reason, and we are *not* going to try to say what, we're merely noting that this change in angle and speed can be measured, and because we're talking about non-relativistic speeds, they're all going to read the same for all observers in the solar system (plus or minus an ignorable epsilon), so it does *not* matter which planet you are on when you're watching this or if you're just hanging out at the local Lagrange Point:

Now if you are ON the planet. Then, the accelation felt will be proportional to the radius and the mass(or density). And by that, it means that if you sit on a planet of lead of Radius X or sit on a planet of styrofoam of Radius X, you would not feel the same acceleration, because the mass of the styrofoam would not create enough force to cancel the push of your mass.

You've said something that is in direct contravention of what McC says, namely that mass has nothing to do with "gravitational force", it is supposed to be *entirely* based on expansion, and the density of the object is irrelevant. Now on the other hand, I know why you're trying to say that density is important, because based on my equations above, if it has no effect on the trajectory, then the observed *ratios* of change in trajectory should be exactly proportional to the rate of expansion which according to McC is exactly proportional to the rate of expansion. Unfortunately, 30 years of sending probes to these places in the solar system proves conclusively that density *does* have to be taken into account, and unfortunately, this is simply one more proof that McC-theory makes no sense. This is a simple proof, and it explicitly *assumes* that density has no effect, so you can't argue that I'm basing my arguments on old, tired and wrong Newtonianism: I'm assuming McC is right and saying the data does not match.

 

Note that if I keep going along these lines, but try as you have to "bring density into it" that the only logical conclusion within McC theory is that objects of different densities *expand at different rates* which is easily disprovable, as all you would have to do is place a lead ball next to a styrofoam ball and watch the lead ball expand relative to the styrofoam one. I've never seen that! Have you?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Beagleworth]

You're ignoring the expansion of space here, which has to occur under McC-theory,

McC does not claim that at all. He has some interesting discussion about the nature of space when he presents his atomic model and later during the book, but that's whole different discussion. Let's go back to orbit.

 

This is what McC says about orbit(Note that he passes more than 3 small paragraph dicussing the subject).

 

1. Objects in space do not have absolute momentum, it is only relative.

 

From 1, we can say that

2. All models we built about the motion of objects will then be relative.

 

When we draw an orbit on paper, with Newton's theory, we make an object go in a straight line and have it pulled internally by a force. What McC is arguing is that it is not going in a straight line. It is going on a imaginary relative straight line and a such, we cannot make any claim has to where it will go next, because after the object movied on its relative straight line the position, direction, speed of the situation has changed and so it will go into another relative motion.

 

So what McC says is that we do not know the real absolute motion of matter. But this motion, added with the expansion of matter, causes Orbits when an object approaches another one at the proper relative speed/direction. So orbits are really just a relative motion problem.

 

He also says that since everything expands, you will always see a curve motion between 2 objects in motion because they get closer together. So, in the universe, there is a "Natural Orbit effect" and object will either "Go toward one another" or "orbit around each other".

 

And so, you do not need space expanding to keep an orbit, you simply need the right conditions. What the conditions are? well there is a discussion about v*v*R = GM. But I fear this reply will be long, so I will keep it for another message :eek2:

 

In conclusion, he is really trying to show that gravity is not required to explain orbits.

 

More importantly, is that our models of object motion, which are purely relative, do need to apply to the absolution motion of things.

 

It is not that far fetched. For example, if matter is expanding, then our model of gravity obviously does not apply. We will get similar values in the end, but the logic to get there is not the same.

 

So for motion, he argues they are not the same, but the final results would be similar motion.

 

You've said something that is in direct contravention of what McC says, namely that mass has nothing to do with "gravitational force", it is supposed to be *entirely* based on expansion, and the density of the object is irrelevant.

 

Not true. The styrofoam planet discussion is in the book.

 

Now on the other hand, I know why you're trying to say that density is important, because based on my equations above, if it has no effect on the trajectory, then the observed *ratios* of change in trajectory should be exactly proportional to the rate of expansion which according to McC is exactly proportional to the rate of expansion

 

McC does not claim such a thing. To compute the final change of direction, you need to take into account, the motion of the object too.

 

Unfortunately, 30 years of sending probes to these places in the solar system proves conclusively that density *does* have to be taken into account, and unfortunately, this is simply one more proof that McC-theory makes no sense.

 

He is arguing that motion is the one that makes the difference here.

 

This is a simple proof, and it explicitly *assumes* that density has no effect, so you can't argue that I'm basing my arguments on old, tired and wrong Newtonianism: I'm assuming McC is right and saying the data does not match.

 

You argument is compelling, but you are not using everything McC says. You see, one of differences is that you are saying that describing the motion of object in space is a "gravity problem", just like an object on a planet.

 

McC says that the motion of object in space includes expansion but you also need to add the motion between the objects in space.

 

Pure expansion only apply if you are on the planet.

 

 

 

Note that if I keep going along these lines, but try as you have to "bring density into it" that the only logical conclusion within McC theory is that objects of different densities *expand at different rates* which is easily disprovable

 

Agreed, it is easely disprovable. But it is not what I said. Density only comes into play to "feel" the gravity once you are ON the planet.

 

-------

One more thing to think about from his theory:

 

If you are in space and you take 2 balls of the same size, one of lead and one of styrofoam and you insert them at the same distance of the inside edge of a picture frame floating in space, you would see them move toward one another and they would touch in the middle of the frame, because their gravity would match their radius.

 

This is different from Newton who says that the contact point would be closer to side of the lead ball.

 

I am looking forward to NASA trying this out. :xx:

 

But note, that if the balls are in motion relative to one another, the motion has to be taken into account to calculate the gravity and the contact point will not be at the center of the frame.

[Erasmus00]

One more thing to think about from his theory:

 

If you are in space and you take 2 balls of the same size, one of lead and one of styrofoam and you insert them at the same distance of the inside edge of a picture frame floating in space, you would see them move toward one another and they would touch in the middle of the frame, because their gravity would match their radius.

 

Lets generalize this to another experiment. Take the two balls, both of lead, one big, one small. Drop them (in a vacuum if you want) and see which strikes the ground first. According to the theory, the big one will strike first. If "apparent" gravitational effects are based on size, not mass, then objects fall at different rates.

 

Now, one final experiment, this one has been done. If McC is right, and Newton wrong, the much larger Earth should orbit the sun differently then the smaller Moon. However, lunar laser ranging has verified the equivalence principle to within 1.5*10^-13 (Anderson and Williams 2001).

-Will

[Beagleworth]

Lets generalize this to another experiment. Take the two balls, both of lead, one big, one small. Drop them (in a vacuum if you want) and see which strikes the ground first. According to the theory, the big one will strike first. If "apparent" gravitational effects are based on size, not mass, then objects fall at different rates.

 

From his theory, yes they would fall at different rate. But you need quite a big distance or big size variation to make a difference. With Standard Theory, two objects falling at the same speed whatever their size is something that has been accepted but not proven.

 

For clarity, here's the equation that gives the new distance between two objects without relative motion at the begining of the calculation between them after a certain time. (The derivation is quite simple but not that easy to type in message board).

 

D' = ( D - n*nXa(R1-R2) ) / (1 + n*nXa )

 

Where D is the original distance between the bodies in meters, n is the time in seconds. Xa is atomic rate of expansion and R1 and R2 is the radius of the bodies in meters and D' is the new distance between the objects.

 

Xa = 7.7x10-7 units/ s**2

 

As you can see, if one of the bodies is much greater than the other one, the other body will have pretty much no effect on the final D.

 

With McC's equation, even if you take a ball that's one kilometer wide and another that is one meter wide, because of the size of the Earth, you will still get pretty much the same time to hit the ground unless the original distance is very large. So, if McC is right, for us to say that 2 objects will fall at the same speed even if they are not the same size is a valid approximation for our day-to-day experiences.

 

Now, one final experiment, this one has been done. If McC is right, and Newton wrong, the much larger Earth should orbit the sun differently then the smaller Moon. However, lunar laser ranging has verified the equivalence principle to within 1.5*10^-13 (Anderson and Williams 2001).

 

I never heard of this before. I found a PDF of the article on the internet, but I am not sure I fully understand its premise. Would you mind expanding your explanations?

 

But anyway, In McC's theory, its the earth/moon system that orbits around the Sun. So it would not be suprising if there are no differences. But since I don't fully understand the premise of the paper, I can't really say anything more.

[Erasmus00]

From his theory, yes they would fall at different rate. But you need quite a big distance or big size variation to make a difference. With Standard Theory, two objects falling at the same speed whatever their size is something that has been accepted but not proven.

 

You really believe such an old assumption (the equivalence principle) wouldn't be tested again and again? It has been proven to the accuracy mentioned in my post above. For more experiments google Eotvos experiment.

 

I never heard of this before. I found a PDF of the article on the internet, but I am not sure I fully understand its premise. Would you mind expanding your explanations?

 

The idea is this: both the Earth and the moon orbit the sun. The moon and the Earth have a tremendous difference in both size and mass. According to newtonian gravity, they will fall toward the sun at the same rate (i.e. have the same acceleration toward the sun). According to "the final theory" they will not. Acceleration is dependant on mass, (F=ma) and gravitational force is proportional to size, so all objects will not fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. Anderson and Williams used lunar laser ranging to measure the accelerations of the earth and the moon and verified the equivence principle to 1.5*10^-13. McC's theory is dead in the water.

-Will

[Beagleworth]

You really believe such an old assumption (the equivalence principle) wouldn't be tested again and again? It has been proven to the accuracy mentioned in my post above. For more experiments google Eotvos experiment.

 

I will read stuff about the Eotvos experiment and come back later and tell how well or bad I see McC's theory does on that subject.

 

 

The idea is this: both the Earth and the moon orbit the sun. The moon and the Earth have a tremendous difference in both size and mass. According to newtonian gravity, they will fall toward the sun at the same rate (i.e. have the same acceleration toward the sun). According to "the final theory" they will not.

 

There's a difference. In McC's world ,they are not falling toward the sun. They simply orbit around it. Period. Actually the earth-moon system orbits around it. Hence there is not difference in their rate of "falling"

 

You have to remember from McC's theory, an orbit is a relative motion between the objects caused by their expansion and their natural motion which do not match our "absolute straight line motion without external force" rule.

 

By the way, I do think that the book being called "the final theory" is quite pompous.

[Tom Palmer]

What I’ve read of McC’s “The Final Theory” strikes me as nonsense. It appears to me to be yet another “theory” derived from the notion that “Mainstream Physics is difficult to understand, therefore anything easier must be correct,” or, more cynically, the debatable notion that “you can make money selling fringe science”.!

Well put!

I heartily second the motion. I sometimes despair that anything will get resolved in this thread, but every now and then cooler heads prevail. CraigD, Boersun, ColdCreation, and my friend and resident slayer Buffy, and doubtless others I have missed--all of you solidly enough grounded in real physics to see through the arrant nonsense of "McCutcheonism" (or, more accurately, "McBaloneyism"). And friend Repeater, who genuinely wants to know the truth, wherever it lies--and deserves better than the pseudo-intellectual obfuscations coming from the pro-McC camp.

 

So, for those who remain committed to McC, I offer you words of comfort:

 

I confess--every physicist knows in his or her heart that Mr. McCutcheon, and he alone, has found the true and ultimate "Final Theory of Everything and Then Some," and that our own wacko theories are all wrong.

 

I admit it--we who uphold conventional physics have been thoroughly deluded and are mere pawns in a vast supergalactic conspiracy dedicated to crushing scientific truth and promoting a bogus physics whose only justification is the flimsy excuse that modern physics has given humankind incredible, unimaginable wonders and sent out probes to touch other worlds. Obviously, all of that counts for nothing.

 

It may be tactless to be so blunt, but the time has come to say it: The extent to which you were convinced by McC was in inverse proportion to your knowledge of present-day physics. He was counting on your unfamiliarity with the nuts and bolts of modern physics. "Frankly, my dear," you have been suckered.

 

Please don't feel too hurt by this sting of this statement, for you are not alone. I was once suckered by an unscrupulous roofing contractor named Andy Kutscher. Mr. Kutscher is now cooling his heels in a state "facility" for such as him. It is only coincidence that "Kutscher" and "McCutcheon" have a somewhat similar ring, but there is a certain irony in it for me.

 

As I said, I sometimes despair. I despair because, despite the fact that some pretty powerful and decisive disproofs of McC have been posted, it didn't seem to make any difference. Is anyone really listening? A few, at least, have sought clarification on some of our points, and I respect them for that.

 

So, to all of you who still want to live in McCutcheonville---here is your assignment: Get yourselves a real physics book that is geared to the general public, and start boning up. And don't let that McCutcheon-induced skepticism keep you from seeing the validity of what you read. Healthy skepticism is fine, but not the scornful dismissiveness he "taught" you to have. Really, you should never have let McC into your heads before you first took this step, but perhaps it isn't too late to combat the infection.

 

I have progressively tired of fighting this battle, and I thank Buffy and others who have posted their intelligent, insightful replies. You have fought the good fight---keep it up.

 

Tom Palmer

[Beagleworth]

You really believe such an old assumption (the equivalence principle) wouldn't be tested again and again? It has been proven to the accuracy mentioned in my post above. For more experiments google Eotvos experiment.

 

I have read about it. And I have seen nothing showing how a large object would behave at a large distance which is only where McC theory changes with Newton's.

 

I have seen equation that implies large object at large distance should behave like small object at small distance, but this is using Newton's model.

 

You cannot disprove one model with another. You have to accept the built-in assumptions in the model. By assumptions, I mean things that simply cannot be explained at this point and you simply have to accept. Now, once you have accepted the assumptions, you need to see if

 

1. if it can solve known observations.

2. if the explanations of the known observations stands to logic.

 

The built in assumptions in Newton's model are :

 

1. All matter attracts each other.

2. Object moves in an absolute straight line motion until forced otherwise

 

Einstein somehow, did not fully agree with that and replaced the first assumption with :

Matter bends spacetime.

 

McC's assumptions are :

1. All matter expands

2. Absolute motion of matter is unknown. But the dynamic between the expansion and expanding matter causes orbit and "attraction".

 

If you want to discuss McC's you have to analyse it with its own assumptions to see if it matches obversvations.

 

In all the other 20 pages, I seen people rebutting his theory by using :

 

1. the assumptions of Standard theory

2. A mix of the assumptions of Standard theory

3. an incomplete set of his assumptions.

 

Of course you can rebutt it using those, it is not his theory.

 

It is also quite interesting that mostly the discussion stayed on Gravity as if this was the corner stone of his book. It is not. It is only a third of the book.

 

I would not have bothered to come here and discuss the book if all it tried to explain was gravity because a large portion of today's science would be missing and essentially nothing new is learned.

 

So, n the chapters about gravity, he logically explains a lot of observations using the built-in assumptions of is model. And they logicaly work. To show you that I would have to re-explain what is in those chapters. I have not interest in re-writing the book on this message board. I just want to discuss it.

 

What I want to know is if he missed observations, and if his theory hold up to a formal mathematical model? To find that, you have to either built a the mathematical model or find a behavior that cannot be explained using his model's assumptions.

 

Now, what makes the book really interesting and really make people want to talk about it, his the new atomic model. It requires 1 more assumption.

 

The other two third of the book uses all 3 assumptions and applies it to tons observations. The end result is, in my opinion, elegant, and logicaly strong, but the same questions apply : Did he miss observations? Will his theory hold up to a formal mathematical model? Again, to discover this, you have to built a the mathematical model or find a behavior that cannot be explained using his model's assumptions.

 

To show you why I feel his arguments are sound, I would have to re-explain another two third of the book, which I would really like to, but like I a said have not interest in writing a book in a message board.

 

So I can only offer piece meal information from his book.

 

So, to all of you who still want to live in McCutcheonville---here is your assignment: Get yourselves a real physics book that is geared to the general public, and start boning up

 

If I was not interested in physics,(and never read about physics in my life), why would I ever buy a book like "The final theory" and why would I ever come on a science message board?

 

And don't let that McCutcheon-induced skepticism keep you from seeing the validity of what you read. Healthy skepticism is fine, but not the scornful dismissiveness he "taught" you to have.

 

I am not here to discuss this subject because I believe McC is the all mighty oracle and that the ignorant masses should be educated. I want to discuss it because I want to find an observation it cannot explains.

 

His theory does have iffy explanations. But so does the standard theory. The realy question is which gives a better interpretation of the other observations.

 

From my text above, I claim his theory requires 3 assumptions.

I also claim Standard theory requires 2 for gravity. Then requires that particles are charged, that there is a magnetic energy, that energy is quantized, that there is such a thing as space-time, that the atom is surrounded by energy levels, and a few more.

 

Be careful about the way you interpret the last sentence, I am not saying that the observations that his explained with those concepts do not exists, they are real. But the explanations sits on unknown assumptions.

 

So if McC's theory has less assumption, and if the obersvations that are explained by particles are charged, that there is a magnetic energy, that energy is quantized, that there is such a thing as space-time, that the atom is surrounded by energy levels, and a few more. seems to be explained by using only 3 assumptions, then you can see why some people might find McC's theory interesting.

 

Don't get me wrong though, I would sleep perfectly fine at night knowing his theory is completely wrong.