The Final Theory

[Buffy]

who is Rush?

A guy who uses the same argumentative techniques that you seem to enjoy! :)

what is a major point(s) of discontent concerning the final theory that riles ardent pom-pom waivers of standard theory?

That all objects move in curved trajectories is a given of McCutcheonism: he's not under any obligation to say *why*--just as Newton was under no obligation to explain why gravity "sucks". But no one in this thread has been able to explain any scenario under which these trajectories take different curving paths purely based on expansion, nor have there been any equations proposed as to how you would predict such paths.

 

Its a place to start (again).

i've posted in here ages ago, but am late to the party about this time. i'm not going to read the entire 500 pages of this thread to catch up.

Just a warning: if you're not going to put any more effort into this than calling people names and saying "the standard theory is obviously wrong" you might find the rest of us uninterested in engaging you.

 

They're magically delicious,

Buffy

[viscount aero]

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.

[Buffy]

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.

I've read every post in this thread and contributed a fair number. No, no one has been able to explain it. Most people who have studied the book point to this inability to rationally explain how not only orbits by fly-bys can be explained as being one of the biggest holes in McCutcheon's theory.

 

You're *absolutely* right that they "should have been clarified," and the fact that they have not is the 500-pound gorilla sitting in this thread that you're welcome to try to address....

 

Maybe instead of just acting all incredulous and dumbfounded you could actually contribute an explanation or two.

 

Waiting for McGodot,

Buffy

[viscount aero]

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.

[Buffy]

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.

Be aware that you came in here with a 'tude, and you were responded to in kind. We're happy to discuss the topic rationally, but as this thread attests, frustration is created by this kind of hostile attitude of "you just *won't* understand it because you're all out to get us seekers of the truth": it comes across as paranoid rantings whose only purpose ends up being to hide behind a lack of evidence for the theory.

cosmology today is just as much of a belief system as it is scientific. little of it is factual or provable.

This would appear to be an unwillingness to recognize well understood and well-proven evidence that existing theories do in fact work. We'll be the first to grant that there is much in cosmology that is conjecture and seeking further evidence, but saying that "little of it is factual or provable" is exactly the sort of specious argument that Creationists use to "teach the controversy" and imply that *any* open issue proves that *all* of the theory is baseless. You would be wise to reconsider this statement if you really want to debate this issue or it will indeed devolve in to arguments based on denial of existing data.

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.

To sum up many of the preceding posts: this has been an ongoing "claim" that its "simple" but "too hard to explain here" which needless to say creates considerable cognitive dissonance. If its easy, then it shouldn't be hard to explain, should it?

 

Many of us have rather heavy duty math backgrounds. I'm an amateur, but I have gone through differential equations and have considerable applied math experience in abstract algebra and group theory. That's really not going to be a problem here. Unless...

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.

This *shouldn't* be a problem, and so far nothing along the lines of the statement you have given as an indelicate straw man has been posted in this thread. We have had a problem with proponents saying "I haven't had enough math to explain it or defend it" which we don't mind except for the fact that the discussion never even gets to the table. I'm kind of hoping to actually see it explained by you, and even if you can't we can even try to help out. In fact if anything our response would be to try to help you understand where it goes wrong, something that you may not have the background to understand. Conversely, you may convince us!

 

We try to be as open minded as possible. We've got an attitude that we like to promote here--that we like to think is different from some forums--that defending existing theories is essential to finding the new theories that supplant them, and its only through this active debate that we ever get anywhere.

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.

Models are exactly that: "models." They are abstractions that either work or are discarded. Again I remind you that if you try to attack existing cosmology with such straw man arguments you won't get very far.

 

Now after all that introductory chatter, lets get down to business:

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.

If G is not necessary, then there are equivalent equations that will predict orbital motion and spacecraft trajectories, for which we have amazing amounts of data that exactly confirm Newton and Kepler, both of which require G in a non-expansionary model. We're all waiting for the equivalent equations that work with an expansionary model that do not use G. From what we've seen so far, that requires at least an assumption that contrary to Newton, all objects travel in curves unless acted upon by a force, although the equations for those curves have never been posted here. Would you care to explain this orbital effect, recognizing that the same equations have to explain trajectories in N-body systems as well as simple orbits?

 

Pardon the use of the royal "we" here: I am not trying to be pretentious, but there are a bunch of us of a single mind who have contributed to this thread and what I've written here is a polite attemt to summarize all those posts so that you don't *have* to read them all, although I'd still suggest that you do, because quite frankly not doing so is in effect wasting the time of those of us who have taken the time to read it.

 

Curvature changing with the inverse square of the distance,

Buffy

[viscount aero]

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.

[ughaibu]

Copy the maths from the book and e-mail it to Buffy. If you need diagrams, draw them on paper, scan them and post them on the thread as attachments. These are minor practical difficulties that are easily overcome. Get to the explanation.

[Erasmus00]

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.

 

Actually, McCutcheon borders on dishonesty over this issue. In the first chapter, he posits his "geometric orbit equation" and then presents a quite frankly ridiculous "derivation" of Newtonian gravity from the "geometric orbit equation."

 

Unfortunately, the huge wrinkle is that McCutcheon's "geometric orbit equation" simply does not work for anything other than a circle. The beauty of Kepler's laws is that they fix the problem of the orbit of Mars by showing that all planets have elliptical orbits, just most of them have very small eccentricity. McCutcheon's equation is a step back into the Copernican solar system, and his equation is a reasonable approximation for MOST planets. However, it falls flat on its face when we consider the precision measurements of Mars that were avaiable in Kepler's time.

 

Given that much of McCutcheon's later work is based on this orbit equation, the whole book more or less falls apart.

-Will

[viscount aero]

he clearly admits orbits are not perfectly circular.

[viscount aero]

Copy the maths from the book and e-mail it to Buffy. If you need diagrams, draw them on paper, scan them and post them on the thread as attachments. These are minor practical difficulties that are easily overcome. Get to the explanation.

 

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.

[Buffy]

but then you're not reading the book and then suggesting i pour through this entire epic thread is a double-standard.

No, the point of this forum is to discuss these topics in your own words *here*. The point is to defend theories. If you can't explain them in your own words, you will get a negative reaction because simply saying "read the book and you'll see I'm right" is content free.

 

Moreover, it is a common trait among charlatans who wish to make money off of the gullable insist on getting their money up front before letting anyone see their "secrets." Scientists working on theory freely publish their works for others to scrutinze. McCutcheon comes across much like the folks who sell plans for perpetual motion machines. Its hard not to be skeptical about such hiding of the "secrets" behind "you need to pay McCutcheon $50 in order to be able to make any criticisms."

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.

This is what we call in our rules, "an unsupported claim." You need to defend it with more than just "go read the book." Defend it in your own words. If its really easy, its not that much effort is it?

"...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.

The equations governing orbital motion and trajectories in n-body spaces are accurate enough to within a few hundred meters across hundreds of millions of miles in our own solar system as shown by hundreds of interplanetary probes launched in the last 40-odd years. These equations are all highly accurate--way beyond "5-nines"--and have shown no discrepancies except those adjusted by Einstein over Newton.

 

Note this assumes *nothing* about the "true nature of gravity" which is *meaningless* in this discussion precisely *because* we are entertaining a theory which posits that "gravity does not exist". These models happen to agree with a scenario in which gravity exists, and G in fact is derived based on theories of its existence, but we can ignore that when entertaining equations which are proposed as "equivalent" because those equations *must* agree in all cases with the equations that use G, for which there is mounds of evidence.

 

I will note that many who have argued for expansion have tried to argue both sides of this, first saying "you are making assumptions that gravity exists" and then questioning why we don't insist on gravity existing in these arguments, which is quite disingenous.

 

You need to understand that the "laws" of orbital mechanics and the equations that govern motion are highly accurate models with no errors of any kind. Unless McC's equations agree exactly with the old equations *and* really do eliminate G, then his equations are not useful models and do not support expansion. This does *not* require any "assumption of gravity" but it is very annoying to proponents if it disproves the Final Theory!

 

Logic rules,

Buffy

[ughaibu]

If you send stuff privately to Buffy there's no copyright violation, you could even lend her the book. Diagrams just need to give the ideas, they dont need to be copies or even close resemblences, so again no violation.

[viscount aero]

Unfortunately, the huge wrinkle is that McCutcheon's "geometric orbit equation" simply does not work for anything other than a circle.

 

Given that much of McCutcheon's later work is based on this orbit equation, the whole book more or less falls apart.

-Will

 

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

[viscount aero]

No, the point of this forum is to discuss these topics in your own words *here*. The point is to defend theories. If you can't explain them in your own words, you will get a negative reaction because simply saying "read the book and you'll see I'm right" is content free.

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.

 

Moreover, it is a common trait among charlatans who wish to make money off of the gullable insist on getting their money up front before letting anyone see their "secrets." Scientists working on theory freely publish their works for others to scrutinze. McCutcheon comes across much like the folks who sell plans for perpetual motion machines. Its hard not to be skeptical about such hiding of the "secrets" behind "you need to pay McCutcheon $50 in order to be able to make any criticisms."

 

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.

 

This is what we call in our rules, "an unsupported claim." You need to defend it with more than just "go read the book." Defend it in your own words. If its really easy, its not that much effort is it?

 

again, this isn't about "go read a book and it's all fine" -- you're awfully pedantic and condescending.

 

 

The equations governing orbital motion and trajectories in n-body spaces are accurate enough to within a few hundred meters across hundreds of millions of miles in our own solar system as shown by hundreds of interplanetary probes launched in the last 40-odd years. These equations are all highly accurate--way beyond "5-nines"--and have shown no discrepancies except those adjusted by Einstein over Newton.

 

sure. they're calculating for geometric conditions. final theory does not invalidate the outcomes of the equations.

[Boerseun]

he clearly admits orbits are not perfectly circular.

...which doesn't follow from his maths. So how can he say he's right when he clearly admits his maths are feeble, and not able to explain observed phenomena? How can he say Standard Theory is full of holes and falling to pieces, when it does a better job of it than his own 'Final Theory'?

 

You see, Viscount, we have all participated in this thread because we're all interested in Science, and anything that can contribute to a better understanding of Nature. So, whenever someone writes a book called 'The Final Theory', we'll be in; hook, line and sinker. But when they charge you for the knowledge, and they give you the first chapter for free as a teaser, and after reading the first chapter where the guy goes on about how flawed Standard Theory is, and the only conclusion you can draw from reading only that chapter is that the author has very little understanding of the Science he so airily dismiss as 'flawed', it makes you very skeptical of the quality of the rest of the book. So, as it turns out, most of us never bought it because its crap. We're discussing the pros and cons of the premise in order to convince ourselves to maybe buy the book. And the premise is 'Expansion'. And, as we've described in detail in the 10 million or so posts above this one, the premise is terminally flawed. So, chances are very small of us buying the book, apart from maybe as a study in marketing techniques.

 

Do us a favour:

 

You've got the book. Scan some of the explanations and paste it here. Not only won't McCutcheon not mind, but there are clear delimitations at the US Trademarks and Patent Office of what can be patented/copyrighted and what can't. And Laws of Nature is on their front page as one of the things that cannot be copyrighted. So, if McCutcheon is right, you can copy and paste to your heart's content. If there is a little c with a little round circle anywhere in your copy of the 'Final Theory', then it is copyrighted, and the author must make his peace with the fact that the book is deemed 'Fiction' by the USTPO and filed as such. If he truly believes he's right, then you can copy away without any infringement.

 

Please do so. I'm itching to see how McCutcheon's gonna top the first chapter for comedic value. But I'm not hauling out a red cent for it.

[viscount aero]

...which doesn't follow from his maths. So how can he say he's right when he clearly admits his maths are feeble, and not able to explain observed phenomena? How can he say Standard Theory is full of holes and falling to pieces, when it does a better job of it than his own 'Final Theory'?

 

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.

 

the author has very little understanding of the Science he so airily dismiss as 'flawed', it makes you very skeptical of the quality of the rest of the book.

 

he has extensive knowledge else he cannot posit refutations of it as he does at length and very thoroughly.

 

So, as it turns out, most of us never bought it because its crap.

that is a statement of your own judgmentalism and ignorance of the material.

 

 

We're discussing the pros and cons of the premise in order to convince ourselves to maybe buy the book. And the premise is 'Expansion'. And, as we've described in detail in the 10 million or so posts above this one, the premise is terminally flawed.

most all major soft-science theories of our universe's origins and mechanics is terminally flawed, too.

 

 

Please do so. I'm itching to see how McCutcheon's gonna top the first chapter for comedic value. But I'm not hauling out a red cent for it.

 

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.

[Boerseun]

None of us claims Standard Theory to have 'cornered the market'. We are scientifically honest to say that Science is, was, and always will be an approximation of the Truth, an asymptotical approach to Truth that will be fine-tuned with every single new theory coming to the fore that survives analysis, peer review, makes testable predictions, in short, passing the 'Scientific' test. Anything else is mere speculation.

 

Scan some of his explanations and paste it right here. I dare you. You don't have to worry about any repercussions like infringing on Copyright. If the author wants to blow you out of the water for infringing on his Copyright, then he a) clearly doesn't understand what can be copyrighted or not, or :) he understands it, but has no faith in his work as being an explanation of how Nature works. In which case he's a charlatan, and only here for a quick buck.

 

Please scan and paste. And then we can discuss.

 

And if you tell me once more to buy the book, you're as scientifically dishonest as McCutcheon and probably simply here to pimp McCutcheon's wares.

 

Do yourself a favour and peruse this thread. It'll take you a while, but you will clearly see how Expansion is flawed from its foundations up. It won't even cost you a cent. The knowledge is free. Problem is, everything else in 'the Final Theory' stems from this flawed premise, so there is, in effect, zero reason to buy the book. Anything stemming from a flawed premise won't fix the flawed premise, if you catch my drift.