The Final Theory

[CraigD]

To the best of my understanding, according to Expansion Theory, bodies at rest or in motion are not effected by gravitational force …

… 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.

These last 2 posts serve merely to demonstrate that we understand the basic, high-level principles of Expansion Theory, something that can be said of most of the long-time participants in this very long thread.

 

Having many people understand the high-level principles of an idea does not make of it a testable scientific hypothesis, nor perform those tests, nor assure the predictions tested are confirmed. In post #793, I’ve derived from 2 of these principles a prediction, in form of a formula, and compared it to reproducible data, and found an obvious failure of prediction to match data. What must follow, scientifically, is either a rejection of the theory (which I and most people aware of a test of the theory have done) or modify the predictions – change the formulae derived from it – so they no longer disagree with the data. To date in this thread, or, to my knowledge, anywhere, no one has done the latter. So the theory has failed to explain even the most simple of observed physical phenomena. Until it does so, it must be considered a false theory.

[OzAnt]

This is certainly an impressive thread.

 

I found this forum after reading the first chapter (freely available from McCutcheon's website) and after finding what he had to say interesting, searching the web to see what other people thought. In not too many clicks I found myself here reading through page after page.

 

I'm neither a scientist nor a physicist. This precludes me from two things:

1) arguing about physics

2) validating what McCutcheon is saying.

 

This means I found what was being said here very, VERY interesting. However, I was out of my depth. This is a little ironic mind you, as McCutcheon has developed this book for the likes of me apparently :shrug:

 

So, from somebody who isn't a physicist, I feel compelled to add my two cents worth. If I'm understanding what McCutcheon's on about correctly (I haven't read past chapter 1, so my understanding is based on what I've dug up on the web), he's saying that there is no gravity and that what we feel as an attraction to the earth is in fact the earth expanding towards us at an ever accelerating rate.

 

Even if I've got his proposed 'alternative' wrong, I think I can safely say that what he's saying is that there is no attraction due to mass.

 

Well, my specific two cents worth is this: how does he account for the fact that the sun and moon affect the earth's tides? I read somewhere (perhaps even in this thread) that he attributes the earth's tides to the 'wobble' in it's trajectory (which is straight, but appears curved due to expansion, if I'm not mistaken).

 

Am I to understand that he would argue somewhere in his book that it's sheer coincidence that the earth's water mass appears to respond to the moon's and sun's gravity? In fact, one web site on tides suggests that land also responds to moon's gravity by moving towards the moon by several centimetres.

 

I've nearly convinced myself to buy the book, given that, at the end of the day, it's fairly cheap entertainment. However, there's a part of me that just doesn't want to hand somebody 30 US dollars if they're taking me for a ride.

 

I mean, what he's suggesting, is perhaps as tricky to get one's mind around as it was for people who believed the earth was flat to get their mind around that it's in fact a sphere.

 

So dear scientists, does anyone know if there exists any valid scientific opposition to the moon/sun tide thing? Have there been any observations that would allow a scientist a valid argument that the tides mightn't be affected by our moon and sun?

 

I doubt there is, but I had to ask the question, because, from a layman's perspective, this seems to me a pretty simple way to ascertain if McCutcheon's simple, logical and rational explanations are really that. After all, I won't for a second buy the "well, it's just co-incidental that the earth's tides are in sync with the moon's travels" theory.

 

Kind regards (and thanks in advance).

Ant

---------

Mouse movement detected. Restarting windows for changes to take effect.

[Boerseun]

Hey Ant, and welcome to the crypt!

 

"Taking you for a ride", yeah - that pretty much sums it up.

 

There are so many holes poked in that theory already, but the general answer for all these issues (orbital mechanics, torsion bar experiment, tides, etc.) by the pro-expansion crowd is usually "you just don't get it".

 

Now I'm no professional scientist by any means, but that simply doesn't cut it. Ironically, I found Hypo by doing a search on that book too, and stumbled over this forum, and this thread, in particular. It's now a few years and a few thousand posts later, and I can tell you with full conviction that McCutcheon's 'expansion' theory is utter bollocks.

 

But welcome to Hypo, and keep your $30 safely tucked away. There's much better entertainment to be had for thirty clams.

[OzAnt]

Hey Ant, and welcome to the crypt!

 

"Taking you for a ride", yeah - that pretty much sums it up.

 

There are so many holes poked in that theory already, but the general answer for all these issues (orbital mechanics, torsion bar experiment, tides, etc.) by the pro-expansion crowd is usually "you just don't get it".

 

Now I'm no professional scientist by any means, but that simply doesn't cut it. Ironically, I found Hypo by doing a search on that book too, and stumbled over this forum, and this thread, in particular. It's now a few years and a few thousand posts later, and I can tell you with full conviction that McCutcheon's 'expansion' theory is utter bollocks.

 

But welcome to Hypo, and keep your $30 safely tucked away. There's much better entertainment to be had for thirty clams.

 

Thank you Boerseun!

 

I'm also fairly confident it's bovine refuse :hihi: Sorry to be adding to this already extensive thread, but I only added to it in the belief that I'd found a nice, simple, layman argument to counter with.

 

I guess I was just trying to tackle the problem from the same alleged perspective that McCutcheon does. For instance, he likens gravity as a person spinning around with a reasonable size rock hanging off a string (a bungee cord, btw, would make more sense to me) and argues that just like the person is expending energy, so too must gravity.

 

Now, I can see the logic here, but only from the perspective of a layman, which means he might well be pulling the wool over my eyes and I don't know it (well, I believe I do know it, I just don't know how I know it :D ).

 

Instead of trying to study physics to understand the subject matter, I thought of something that the average lay person is familiar with - the moon's (and the sun's) gravitational effect on the earth's tides. Now... if gravity doesn't exist (ie: if masses don't attract each other), how might McCutcheon explain the fact that the earth's water (and land for that matter) movements are in fact in sync with the moon's (and sun's) movements?

 

Soooo, does anyone know if there's any possible current science debate over the earth's tidal effects being a product of the moon's and sun's gravitational pull? If there, as I suspect, isn't, then I can't for the life of me see how the heck McCutcheon can defend his theory!?!

 

It's that simple - no formulas or maths required! :hyper:

 

PS: I haven't read the entire thread, and I apologise if somebody's already brought this up in this thread and I've missed it.

[Boerseun]

Ocean tides (and crustal tides, too) is a very good argument against expansion theory, and one that I cannot see them easily getting out of.

 

But then again, so, too is orbital mechanics, torsion bar experiments, and the fact that if we have been expanding away from the earth's core at 1g since the creation of earth, we would have exceeded the speed of light very soon after. Which means for expansion to hold true, there is no such thing as a limit to the speed of light. Which they counter with the fact that space expands as well, and not intergalactic space, mind you, but the actual space in which stuff exists, the distance between atoms keep on increasing. But if that is the case, then we won't feel any artifacts from expansion, because hey - space is expanding, and we're hooked onto the spatial matrix! Which invents the ether from scratch. Which doesn't exist, by the way. And so on and so forth. And all McCutcheon and his ilk can (and do) say about all these contradictions, is "you just don't get it".

 

I think the gist of McCutcheon's approach is to present science as an intuitive, understandable-to-the-common-man kind of thing, that relies almost solely on common sense. But it should also be pointed out that common sense gave us such moments of scientific brilliance as the flat earth theory. The earth must be flat! It's intuitive!

 

$30 will buy you lotsa cool stuff. But my $30 won't support ignorant pseudoscience.

 

Enjoy!

[Buffy]

Soooo, does anyone know if there's any possible current science debate over the earth's tidal effects being a product of the moon's and sun's gravitational pull?

Tides are generally considered data that supports the theory that gravity does exist. If you do the math--its an "n-body problem" with some hydrodynamics thrown in--you'll find that while its not "simple," it is fully computable, and the numbers always work out perfectly.

 

Now as with all science, that does not prove that it is the only explanation, just that it is a correct one that must be considered possible. In order to have a "scientific debate" you need to have an alternate theory that explains the observed phenomena *at least as well* as the other existing theories.

 

So, as I understand it, McC's argument here is that it is due to the earth's wobble. The problem is, that if you do this experiment on a small scale, you'll see that the amount and periodicity (how fast the wobble goes around) over the long run has to be synchronized with the wobble itself. While there's no question that the earth wobbles, its wobbles have a period of thousands of years, not 12 hours (you get two cycles every day you know). You can see this synchronicity with a simple experiment of taking a bowl of water and spinning it irregularly: you'll notice that the "high tide" is always away from where your finger is inducing the wobble. This would still not explain why the high tide is higher when the sun and moon are aligned and is less when they are not, unless there is an incredibly complex set of functions behind the wobble, which would make their synchronization with the sun and moon even more improbable.

 

The key problem here is that we don't measure any such wobble in the earth to keep it going like your finger does with the spinning bowl.

 

A slightly alternate theory is that the wobble of the earth existed long ago and stopped, and the tides are just momentum. This of course breaks just about every law of hydrodynamics, and since there is no energy input--no more wobble that we can see--and lots of friction--all those continents in the way--we should be able to see some measureable decrease in tides over time....which of course we don't!

 

Does that help?

 

Final usually isn't,

Buffy

[viscount aero]

Ocean tides (and crustal tides, too) is a very good argument against expansion theory, and one that I cannot see them easily getting out of.

 

But then again, so, too is orbital mechanics, torsion bar experiments, and the fact that if we have been expanding away from the earth's core at 1g since the creation of earth, we would have exceeded the speed of light very soon after. Which means for expansion to hold true, there is no such thing as a limit to the speed of light. Which they counter with the fact that space expands as well, and not intergalactic space, mind you, but the actual space in which stuff exists, the distance between atoms keep on increasing. But if that is the case, then we won't feel any artifacts from expansion, because hey - space is expanding, and we're hooked onto the spatial matrix! Which invents the ether from scratch. Which doesn't exist, by the way. And so on and so forth. And all McCutcheon and his ilk can (and do) say about all these contradictions, is "you just don't get it".

 

I think the gist of McCutcheon's approach is to present science as an intuitive, understandable-to-the-common-man kind of thing, that relies almost solely on common sense. But it should also be pointed out that common sense gave us such moments of scientific brilliance as the flat earth theory. The earth must be flat! It's intuitive!

 

$30 will buy you lotsa cool stuff. But my $30 won't support ignorant pseudoscience.

 

Enjoy!

 

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.

[Buffy]

it's not ignorant pseudoscience. the book is replete with math. everywhere.

Math that appears to be *wrong*, as far as we can tell. There are posts above that discuss this: why don't you *read* them?

most of the opinions in this thread against the theory are formed on the basis of not having read the book.

This is a discussion forum: if you want to discuss any aspect of the theory here, you're welcome to. Telling us to "read the book" is just as against our rules as simply posting a link with no discussion associated with it. We're simply saying, don't break our rules.

 

The fact that no one can explain any of it here of course is interesting.

people are complaining over spending 30 bucks.

No. People complain about putting money in the pockets of a charlatan.

at the very least it points out the blaring contradictions within accepted sciences today.

You're welcome to point them out and explain them with brief excerpts and *your own words*.

 

all of the arrogant math people in here who demand to see the math should look at the book and shut up.

The arrogant McC fans who all "don't know much about physics" should learn some and try to actually explain why McC's explanation of the world is better!

 

Saying "shut up unless you read the book" is what people who proselytize religious beliefs say! Are you confirming that "The Final Theory" is a religious cult?

 

There's belief and then there's science,

Buffy

[viscount aero]

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.

[ughaibu]

Viscount Aero: Perhaps you could answer Schlesinger's point about the barometers.

[Buffy]

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.

Sure! But I'd buy it from a source that's not going to point to it and use my purchase for things I don't agree with! I've got several bibles, but I can assure you none of them fattened the wallet of Jerry Falwell. Unfortunately Mr. McCutcheon likes to keep his ideas secret, and in this very thread we've heard the argument "I can't put any excerpts here because its copyrighted."

 

That *never* happens in the rest of the scientific community. If someone's ideas are being proposed, they are not only published but excerpts, rexplanations, implications, arguments for and against, are all published, argued and diseminated elsewhere. Nowhere else in science do we get the argument that "you have to read the original document and we're not allowed to discuss its contents." Heck, you don't even get that in mainstream religions (although you do in religious *cults*). I've never read Einstein's original papers or all of the Principia Mathematica, but I'm still able to make arguments and discuss these theories *in my own words*, that are correct interpretations of them. McC defenders should be able to do so too.

 

You can call me lazy for that, but the same can be said for McC supporters who are "too lazy to describe" elements of the theory. But what I really suspect is--given what I've seen posted in this thread--that most of the people supporting his theory do not understand it well enough to defend it or even describe what it is saying. You're welcome to prove me wrong, and it would be a much more useful way to spend time to have you describe why the tides issue that we just brought up is not a problem in the theory given the objection I raised just 4 posts back.

 

Can you explain in your own words what McC's theory of tides is and why my objections are invalid?

 

Or are you just going to tell me I'm "lazy because I won't read the book"?

 

Anti-Rovian,

Buffy

[viscount aero]

Viscount Aero: Perhaps you could answer Schlesinger's point about the barometers.

 

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.

[viscount aero]

Sure! But I'd buy it from a source that's not going to point to it and use my purchase for things I don't agree with! I've got several bibles, but I can assure you none of them fattened the wallet of Jerry Falwell. Unfortunately Mr. McCutcheon likes to keep his ideas secret, and in this very thread we've heard the argument "I can't put any excerpts here because its copyrighted."

 

That *never* happens in the rest of the scientific community. If someone's ideas are being proposed, they are not only published but excerpts, rexplanations, implications, arguments for and against, are all published, argued and diseminated elsewhere. Nowhere else in science do we get the argument that "you have to read the original document and we're not allowed to discuss its contents." Heck, you don't even get that in mainstream religions (although you do in religious *cults*). I've never read Einstein's original papers or all of the Principia Mathematica, but I'm still able to make arguments and discuss these theories *in my own words*, that are correct interpretations of them. McC defenders should be able to do so too.

 

You can call me lazy for that, but the same can be said for McC supporters who are "too lazy to describe" elements of the theory. But what I really suspect is--given what I've seen posted in this thread--that most of the people supporting his theory do not understand it well enough to defend it or even describe what it is saying. You're welcome to prove me wrong, and it would be a much more useful way to spend time to have you describe why the tides issue that we just brought up is not a problem in the theory given the objection I raised just 4 posts back.

 

Can you explain in your own words what McC's theory of tides is and why my objections are invalid?

 

Or are you just going to tell me I'm "lazy because I won't read the book"?

 

Anti-Rovian,

Buffy

 

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!

[Buffy]

Can you explain in your own words what McC's theory of tides is and why my objections are invalid?

 

Or are you just going to tell me I'm "lazy because I won't read the book"?

LOL McC ideas are kept secret? hardly. the objection to actually buying a copy of the book does not = secrecy....

Thought so! :rolleyes:

 

Its a club that requires "membership dues" and I assure you B&N won't let me use their Xerox machine!

 

More than happy to keep waiting for you though! Go ahead! Defend it! Please!

 

Let's go, Yes, let's go, :phones:

Buffy

[ughaibu]

Viscount Aero: Post 791:

the idea with the barometers is that they're an interaction of pressure with gravity, and while gravity varies as the square of the factor of expansion, pressure varies as the cube.

[viscount aero]

Thought so! :rolleyes:

 

Its a club that requires "membership dues" and I assure you B&N won't let me use their Xerox machine!

 

More than happy to keep waiting for you though! Go ahead! Defend it! Please!

 

Let's go, Yes, let's go, :phones:

Buffy

 

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:

[Buffy]

the premise of secrecy = having to buy the book is laughable.

Happy to hear you have a sense of humor! :phones:

 

But "not buying the book" = "no right to discuss it" is laughable too! :rolleyes:

 

You can answer our questions any time! Honest! Its fun! Its educational!

 

Nonplussed at the ability of some to stay on message,

Buffy