The Final Theory

[Kuba]

Yeah but I was using Sebastian's equation to calculate the gravitationnal acceleration on earth's surface. Up to date it still does not work. With Newton's theory it is quite easy. Just plug the earth radius and mass in the equation a = G*M/r^2 and you instantly get 9.8 ms^-2. Sebastian claimed that you could also derive an inverse square law in McCutcheon's theory but the result, as I tried to use it, is inconsistent with reality.

 

McCutcheon uses the same equation except the arbitrary GM you use is the same as the constant K; which was derived from the original geometric orbit equation. This equation is purely geometrical and works with ET.

 

Also, the result 4.9 ms^-2 had no physical meaning in your previous post when you arbitrarily changed the units from m/s to m/s^2. But now you just totally changed its meaning again (which is now correct since the equation d=1/2a*t^2 is used in the context of measuring a displacement under constant acceleration). But now it has nothing to do with the inverse square law anymore.

 

 

Then what exactly determines the center of gravity of an object? Why would we suddently need mass to explain ET? Then what causes mass to expand? How does the dark side of the moon "knows" that the center of gravity is offset and that it should expand faster? In this case, if the dark side expands faster, why doesn't the moon have a "big butt"?

 

The center of gravity is determined by mass but mass is not the reason for the effect of gravity; the size of the object is. Mass plays a role in weight but not in the acceleration of objects towards the earth. We have observed this to be true. Take, for example, a feather and a piano and drop them in a vacuum. The acceleration and the time in which they hit the ground is the same but the weight measured, according to their mass, gives an enormouse difference. This is a known phenomenon, hardly explained by ST.

 

I read the first chapter of McCutcheon's book (the free one) but it was so overwhelmed by his mistakes and false premises that I judged I should spend my time educating people about real physics rather than reading the rest of his book. I could make the same argument against you, you have never studied general relativity and you are trying to critisize it. You'll probably say that you've got a life and don't have the time to study all the maths to understand the real theory and I'll say that it is perfectly fair and honest. But if I was in your place I would not hold my breath over proving wrong people who have been studying physics every fricking day of the week for years.

 

I don't understand how you can judge the theory from the first chapter when the theory wasn't even introduced until chapter 2? And just because YOU don't understand it and interpret it as the mistakes of the author, does not make the theory invalid.....How do you know I never studied general relativity? Oh, and maybe you are right, i shouldn't question the status quo, after all thinking different usually scares people. I'll just let other people do the thinking for me. Im sure these 'experts' always know what they are talking about. (sarcasm, in case u didnt catch it)

 

Then why is Einstein's paper on relativity cleverly named "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"? Special relativity is strongly connected to electromagnetism (this is why the constant 'c' is so important in SR, this is the speed at which EM waves propagate in void). The relativity you are really talking about is galilean relativity. Check Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_relativity. Yes I perfectly understand the galilean principle of relativity but to clarify your arguments, don't invoke Einstein when there is no Einstein to be invoked.

 

The relativity of Einstein stated that if you are standing in a spaceship and travel away at near the speed of light. To the observer on the spaceship the planet traveled away at near the speed of light, while an observer on the planet would see the exact opposite, whilst still another person from from outside the planet and ship might see the two speeding away from each other; each going at nearly half of the speed of light.....see where im going with this......this was Eistein's idea of relativity....everything is relative to the eye of the observer. And the SAME THING can be observed in MULTIPLE ways. Now, whether he drew his ideas from Galileo is another subject.

 

Also, out of curiosity, could you quickly summarize McCutcheon's point of view on magnets, electricity and electromagnetic waves, please?

 

No. It is too much to explain. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time trying to explain ET to a person that hasn't even read the book. If you really want to build a sound argument against ET you first need to play devil's advocate. Read the book. Try and understand it. Try to answer people's questions about the theory....I gaurantee it will open your eyes, and if not it would at least make it easier for you to argue your point of view.

 

***** THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART WHICH MUSTN'T BE AVOIDED *****

Finally, I would honestly consider ET as interesting if you could solve the problem of the moon revolution period. I love this problem since measuring it is easy (and the result have been known for millenia) and it is also quite easy to predict it using Newtonian mechanics. If you could come up with a good result it would show that ET is at least equivalent to standard theory in some cases.

 

P.S. If you only answer to one thing in this post it has to be the moon orbit problem, I don't care about the rest since answering this one will satisfy all the others.

 

What is your exact question anyway? How ET explains the moon's orbit?

I'll try to simplify it for you, mind you it probably wont be the most accurate way of describing it but it will give you a general idea.

 

Imagine, you went to the moon. you are standing on the side facing the earth. As an observer from the moon. The earth is stationary. The earth has NO ORBIT! It is simply spinning around in place. (that's where the relativity comes in play) All of a sudden there is no 'orbit' to explain. there are simply two stationary planets, one of which is spinning. The moon "orbiting" or "spinning" around us, is simply an illusion because we ourselves are spining with the earth. following me?

 

Now that was not taking into account the sun, meteors or other planets. I kept them out of the loop for simplicities sake but if you do the math and geometry correct you will realize that orbits are simply illusions.

[Kuba]

Kuba - your explanations are getting more and more bizarre.

 

I suggest you read through this thread, once more.

 

Since when does things fall 4.9 meters in one second?

 

lol. Since...um...i dunno...ALWAYS? lol

If you pick up an object and drop it from 4.9 meters from the ground, it will hit the ground in exactly 1 second. go ahead and try it (make sure it is heavy so that the air and wind factor is kept at a minimum).

d = 1/2at^2 <--------Constant Acceleration Equation

9.8m/s^2

 

The reason is because you have to remember that it was at zero when you where holding it and it had to accelerate up to 9.8m/s^2. Effectivly this gives you 4.9 meters in one second.

 

Why, according to your reasoning, doesn't the moon expand skew? The moon clearly shouldn't be round by your reasoning.

 

There you go again, with your false assumptions. That is not according to my reason...that is according to your misinterpretation of my reason.

 

Of course we should feel the expanding effects of the Earth's orbit expanding. You can't simply dismiss it because it's not physically 'connected' to our feet. Space vehicles change course when they pass big bodies like Jupiter. How is this possible? They shouldn't be 'feeling' the expansion of Jupiter? Why is this? Why are they changin course?

 

They aren't changing course. It is simply the geometry of speed, acceleration, expansion, and spin. It is simply how we see and interpret what is happening but in the real world of relativity you can see the same thing from a whole different view.

 

Do yourself another favour, and read McCutcheon's dismissal of current science, that he calls "Science Flaws" on his website. If you have even a rudimentary knowledge of science and physics, you will immediately see that McCutcheon is completely incompetent in the sciences that he so easily dismisses. He doesn't understand the difference between kinetic and potential energy. The classic mind-experiment of a hole being drilled through the Earth with a rock dropped into the hole, that will forever oscillate between the two sides of the Eart (bar air friction), he dismisses as a perpetual motion machine. He does not see that the same principle driving this mechanism, is the same thing that drives the moon around the Earth. It is not a perpetual motion setup, it is gravity. And gravity simply converts potential energy to kinetic energy. And McCutcheon does not see this.

 

The standard view that it will oscillate infinitly is not even supported by ST. If gravity is due to mass then the person 'falling' through the earth would increasingly be slowed down by the ever increasing mass behind him/her. Eventaully coming to a stop in the center.

 

And your assumption that this is a 'driving' force that is the same force that is responsible for the moon's orbit is once again because your mindset has not changed to interpret McCutcheon's theory.

 

Mark McCutcheon is a scientifically illiterate dimwit suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking. I have had it with idiots such as these keeping on bullshitting the population with trash like this. And it sells very well, because people are naturally suspicious of the scientific establishment, because few understand it. But "The Final Theory" is scientific snake oil, and Mark McCutcheon is coining it on the general public's bad understanding of science.

 

Mark McCutcheon actually makes it a deciding factor for scientific principles to be able to "pass the laws of common sense". Keep in mind, common sense gave us a flat Earth, the Sun orbiting the Earth, the Earth being the center of the Universe, etc. No serious scientist worth his saline solution would ever trust "common sense". But they're probably wrong, again.

 

Have you even read the entire book? Cause if you haven't, you have no right to accuse the man of being an illiterate dimwit. Your the type of person that would have burned Galileo at the stake for his discoveries and ideas. Your very closed minded and wont even concede to ANY points anyone has made on this subject.

 

Mind you, that I am playing the devils advocate or backing the underdog, so to speak. So, I have to be strong in my position but you on the other hand are now trying to defend the status quo and the popular view. Conceding to points well made would benefit your argument in my opinion but instead you choose the route of anger, hate and denial.

[Boerseun]

No, Kuba, I haven't read the book, and I don't intend doing so. I battled through chapter 1, and then gave it up. I have better things to do with my time.

 

But do me a favour, and read this page: Then come back and tell me that if this is the guy's point of departure, there could be anything worthwile in the rest of the book. The guy is clearly an idiot.

 

He's trying to debunk science. Fair enough, and I will give anybody who attempts that, all the time in the world. But you simply cannot try to debunk something you clearly don't understand. The holes in this guy's understanding of what he tries to disprove is enormous. You cannot, in all honesty, take his "scientific flaws" serious, and claim that you know anything about current science, simultaneously.

 

The guy's take on modern science is so naive it's actually laughable. Now tell me again why I should read past the first free chapter?

 

Snake oil, my friend, snake oil.

[Sebastian]

Hi guys, I’ve been away for some time and was planning to say something about elliptical orbits when I realized that Sajuuk had not yet grasped the equation I put before, so I think I should deal with that first.:hihi:

Could you use your equations to calculate the acceleration of the moon please? (Hint: it's about 384400 km away). You could also calcultate the acceleration of an object on the earth's surface (we are about 6400 km away from the center). I expect the results to be interesting.

 

Yes the results are very interesting and I would be pleased to explain, yet again, what the equation is and how it should be used.

The problem seems to be your inability to discern what Δt is. Δt is equal to Δx / c where Δx is the distance traveled by light to the observer on the ground. We know that the earth doubles in size according to expansion every seventeen or eighteen minutes. With this any one can calculate that in one second ( we use one second here because of the nature of acceleration) the earth expands by approximately 0.0019 of its radius. Since the real size of the body is unknown ( it is constantly expanding) we will use 0.0019 as our Δx. If you do that the rest should be a case of substitution.

Δt = 0.0019/3*10^8

Δt = 6.3*10^-12

With that the acceleration of the moon is

a = 2* (3*10^8)^3 *6.3*10^-12/385000000^2

a = 0.0023m/s^2

That of the body on the earth is

a = 8.3m/s^2 (just substitute the value of x above with radius of the earth)

 

Although it is not accurate, it is close enough to wonder about the truth of the equation. I really think you should read my explanation of the equation because there are better equations that can be derived using the full potential of relativity and it gives a reason why this equation is so close. I used the solar system example before because it was easier to explain and allowed us to measure from an orbiting body making the math easier. I am not as stupid as you might think.:friday:

[Sebastian]

And your assumption that this is a 'driving' force that is the same force that is responsible for the moon's orbit is once again because your mindset has not changed to interpret McCutcheon's theory.

 

Have you even read the entire book? Cause if you haven't, you have no right to accuse the man of being an illiterate dimwit. Your the type of person that would have burned Galileo at the stake for his discoveries and ideas. Your very closed minded and wont even concede to ANY points anyone has made on this subject.

 

 

 

 

 

I seriously don't think we should resort to these personal attacks. I thought this was a forum to discuss McC's ideas and see their validity in real life observations, not attack each other.

Kuba, i don't think you are giving Boerseun much credit seeing that he had been on this forum for a long time. I don't think he is as closed minded as you say he is. i think Beorseun was over the edge with the posts.

There are some valid points about his orbits. Even with his new law of motion, bodies have to be accelerating in their curved paths which is not possible. Like i said before i think the rest of his theory is solid and he does understand modern physics since he took elective courses in them.:phones:

[Sajuuk]

Hi guys, I’ve been away for some time and was planning to say something about elliptical orbits when I realized that Sajuuk had not yet grasped the equation I put before, so I think I should deal with that first.:phones:

 

 

Yes the results are very interesting and I would be pleased to explain, yet again, what the equation is and how it should be used.

The problem seems to be your inability to discern what Δt is. Δt is equal to Δx / c where Δx is the distance traveled by light to the observer on the ground. We know that the earth doubles in size according to expansion every seventeen or eighteen minutes. With this any one can calculate that in one second ( we use one second here because of the nature of acceleration) the earth expands by approximately 0.0019 of its radius. Since the real size of the body is unknown ( it is constantly expanding) we will use 0.0019 as our Δx. If you do that the rest should be a case of substitution.

Δt = 0.0019/3*10^8

Δt = 6.3*10^-12

With that the acceleration of the moon is

a = 2* (3*10^8)^3 *6.3*10^-12/385000000^2

a = 0.0023m/s^2

That of the body on the earth is

a = 8.3m/s^2 (just substitute the value of x above with radius of the earth)

 

 

At last! Something tangible to ponder at. I'll be back on the subject later tommorow since I am quite busy today, but I already wonder how you came up with the number that the earth doubles its size every 17 ou 18 minutes and how it is consistent with the result you just found.

 

Now it is becoming interesting.

[Sajuuk]

I thought about it a little last week and I still don't see how you find comforting the idea of starting from the value of 9.8 ms^-2 to get the expansion rate of the earth, plugging it into your equation and then finding 8.3 ms^-2 as the acceleration rate on earth's surface. Isn't it like saying that 8.3 = 9.8? I guess we are still far from general relativity's predictions that are confirmed up to a 99.5% accuracy.

[Sebastian]

I thought about it a little last week and I still don't see how you find comforting the idea of starting from the value of 9.8 ms^-2 to get the expansion rate of the earth, plugging it into your equation and then finding 8.3 ms^-2 as the acceleration rate on earth's surface. Isn't it like saying that 8.3 = 9.8? I guess we are still far from general relativity's predictions that are confirmed up to a 99.5% accuracy.

 

 

I made two mistakes in the last post that I will have to address (sorry, my bad).:hihi:

Unfortunately I won't do that right now because I don't have time; I'll probably do that tomorrow.

[TheNightFly]

Think of an object resting on a table. Obviously, gravity is exerting a force on it, yet there is no acceleration. Moreover, you could push down on the object with some more force, and still no acceleration occurs. So the equation [F=ma] is clearly wrong, right?

There may be no appearent accleration of an object sitting on a table but only because you remain stationary with it in an accelerated frame. It's weight on the table is not a force of gravity but the object's force of inertia caused by it's resistance to an upward acceleration. However, an outward acceleration of the surface of the Earth (expanding matter theory) is inconsistant with other characteristics of gravity so, the obvious alternative is an inward acceleration of the space around the Earth following an inverse square law.

 

The equations of GR were made to model gravity as a geometric curvature of four dimentional space-time but, I wonder if they could equally well be used to model an accelerated flow of normal space into matter- perhaps an omni-directional length contraction of space into every partical of matter. In that case, it might be argued that particals of matter aren't really point-like at all but have volume and that this volume may be increasing in direct proportion to the decreasing volume of the space around them.

[bilge]

It is possible to explain everything in the universe by energy. We know that the materials and all powers and mental activities are originated from energy.

The final theory is developed due to characteristics of energy.

 

Also, the philosophic fictions must be established on paradigm of energy

[CrimsonWolf]

hehe.

 

Nice to see people are still talking about Final Theory. :doh:

 

I have been away awhile preoccupied with my job and life. I still find Expansion Theory in my thoughts now and then.

 

I have not been here for almost a year.

[arkain101]

Gravity

pressure...? dimension....? expansion.....? attraction force...?

great ways to express the same effect...

 

Ever notice how one thing can be explained many ways relative to how you choose to look at it.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

hehe.

 

Nice to see people are still talking about Final Theory. :doh:

 

I have been away awhile preoccupied with my job and life. I still find Expansion Theory in my thoughts now and then.

 

I have not been here for almost a year.

Me too. Same reasons. I hope all is well for you.

 

I've been told that this is by far the biggest thread on Hypography. So, perhaps it would make sense to break the discussion down into the same components as are contained in McCutcheon's book. Perhaps by the different applications of the theory and the different affected areas?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Gravity

pressure...? dimension....? expansion.....? attraction force...?

great ways to express the same effect...

 

Ever notice how one thing can be explained many ways relative to how you choose to look at it.

Yes. And in this case it cuts deeper than you might think. Have you read the book?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I read about half of the review of The Final Theory by Doug White and although parts of it were interesting, it seemed to me that the author was way more intent on explaining his concept of Observer Physics than he was in reviewing McCutcheon's book. So, from that sense it seemed rather confusing. Now, he did say he was going to do that up front and I like that he at least warned me.

The technique was to reference a concept from McC's book then either go off on a tangent intruducing Mr. White's theories or give an explanation of the idea being referenced by telling us how we use standard theory to explain it or engineering to implement it.

The document was a pdf so I wasn't able to copy and quote it. That makes it kinda tough to respond to.

I'll read it again later after I have let it settle a little in my mind. But I have to admit I saw it as more a springboard for his theories than an actual review.

The one thing I did actually like about it was White's attempt to get us to think about how we perceive existence - although I didn't get a strong feeling that he has a clear idea of the difference between the map and the territory. The thing that drew me to McCutcheon in the first place was the fact that his ideas really concern our perception and that if we have a fundamental problem in that area it will affect all of our conclusions. I have a fundamental belief that there is a difference between the two (the map and the territory) and that to get them confused is a fatal error in judgement. But that might just be my inability to grasp what he's saying. The guy is smart.

I'll contemplate it for a while and hit it again later, maybe.

On the bright side, he did point out that McC has some interesting observations and for that I thank him.

[Boerseun]

Steve, we've bashed heads in the past over McCutcheon, and, in all honesty, I've stopped following this thread. But something occurred to me:

 

McCutcheon's point of departure in his refutation of 'gravity', is that it's a constant expenditure of energy, and where does the energy come from? For instance, the Earth keeps pulling at the moon, where does the energy come from? It seems as if the concept of 'free falling' makes no sense to him.

His alternative, however, being expansion theory, doesn't replace his objection to gravity's (non-existent) energy expenditure with a solution. He proposes that everything is expanding, at an accellerating pace. That specific solution, accelleration, will need a constant energy input. And where would that come from? McCutcheon is trying to replace one mystery with another mystery. The first mystery, however, accounts mathematically for mundane things such as orbits. The second, however, falls flat on its nose when it comes to orbital mechanics. His solution is not internally consistent, however intuitive it may seem at first.

 

It's time to get a new theory and move on. This one's broken.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun,

 

McCutcheon doesn't have to declare how expansion is taking place, he's identifying it as THE single fundamental phenomenon. All other phenomena are derived from that cause.

 

You say that isn't any better than a non-measureable, non-existent sucking force (gravity) or a bending of space-time which I've heard attributed to Einstein. Now I've heard that even Einstein didn't believe it.

 

You simply can't put them in the same category. McCutcheon provides a primary cause and nobody else does.

 

Your antipathy toward McCutcheon is amazing and I don't know if it's because you feel you can't grasp the concepts or what. But time will tell. And we have your remarks on record. And what happens if it turns out that you've been wrong? What do you do, say, 'Oh well, my bad' ?

 

The difference between you and me is that I've never said "McCutcheon is right" whereas you've said "McCutcheon is wrong". Big, big difference. And it's one that apparently eludes you.