The Final Theory

[viscount aero]

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

[Erasmus00]

you have to subscribe to services as well that publish official papers from universities all of the time

 

Most recently published academic papers are available free on the arxiv.

-Will

[viscount aero]

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

[Erasmus00]

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

 

But most of this math is wrong. I have skimmed a small chunk of the book (having purchased it used for a very small price) and found most of the book is full of the same basic mistakes that can be found in the first chapter. For instance, lets discuss his "geometric orbit equation" (I choose this example simply because it in the free online chapter available to all).

 

His geometric orbit equation (if you take a table or real planetary data) simply DOES NOT WORK. It would ONLY work if planets orbitted in circles. It is, however, close. However, the great "Keplerian revolution" was the realization that planets ACTUALLY orbit in ellipses. McCutcheon's starting point (geometric orbit equation) instantly puts us back into circular orbits.

 

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.

 

As has been mentioned, the math in the book is, by and large, faulty. Also, as to these "blaring contradictions," when asked you seem incapable of actually mentioning what these are. McCutcheon certainly doesn't understand the standard model of physics well enough to really critique it. All of his "contradictions" are mistakes that first year university students make!

-Will

[OzAnt]

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.

Ok, that would suggest that, in recent times, no scientist/physicist has gone running to his buddies saying, 'Hey, look, I've got data that doesn't match current scientific beliefs'.

 

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.

I do understand what you're saying. Thank you.

 

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.

 

Does that help?

Buffy

It helps me heaps. Thanks Buffy.

 

Now, I'm not about to tell anyone that this is irrefutable evidence of gravity. It is nevertheless, just enough evidence for me, to convince me not to give a most likely candidate (in my opininon) for snake oil sales, money. It's not about the money btw. It's about the principle. If I give McCutcheon $30 and he's wrong, he still won.

 

Finally, why is McCutcheon trying to convince Joe public he's right?!? How will that benefit science anyway? Rest assured that if McCutcheon's right and he convinces me of this (an example of Joe public), the world will not benefit from a better microwave oven or a faster spacecraft or a more reliable pacemaker.

 

There is only one other reason I can think of him wanting to do this and the reason I'm thinking of isn't altruistic :rolleyes:

[viscount aero]

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

[viscount aero]

If I give McCutcheon $30 and he's wrong, he still won.

 

the door swings both ways, tiger. you give stephen hawking 30 bucks and if he's wrong he still has "won." why are you assuming people like hawking are profoundly more correct and worth the 30 bucks, then?

 

Finally, why is McCutcheon trying to convince Joe public he's right?!? How will that benefit science anyway? Rest assured that if McCutcheon's right and he convinces me of this (an example of Joe public), the world will not benefit from a better microwave oven or a faster spacecraft or a more reliable pacemaker.

 

what an inane premise you have. why would somebody endeavor to publish a work and claim themselves to be incorrect? as well, any work by stephen hawking isn't going to reinvent the ballpoint either. so what is your point, einstein?

 

 

There is only one other reason I can think of him wanting to do this and the reason I'm thinking of isn't altruistic :rolleyes:

 

who owes anybody altruism?! where are you getting this pseudo-intellectual garbage from? for that matter, all higher knowledge should be for free! -- theoretical or otherwise. so go to the closest university campus and enroll in a physics and astronomy class, and implore that the registrar sign you up for everything for free --because paying for knowledge is not altruistic. go ahead and do that and get back with me to let me know how it went.

 

what amazingly reaching and asinine modes of logic to avoid reading something.

[OzAnt]

the door swings both ways, tiger. you give stephen hawking 30 bucks and if he's wrong he still has "won." why are you assuming people like hawking are profoundly more correct and worth the 30 bucks, then?

Incompatible arguments. Stephen Hawking books aren't asking us to re-write physics. My understanding is that they work WITH mainstream physics and simply offer a deeper understanding for those interested in how the universe might have come into existence. I don't believe Hawking is saying that any other premise is wrong or flawed. He is simply offering his premises and ideas based on those premises and saying, 'hey, based on what we know, this could have happened'.

 

what an inane premise you have. why would somebody endeavor to publish a work and claim themselves to be incorrect?

Huh?!? Learn2read. Not even justifying this with an answer.

 

who owes anybody altruism?! where are you getting this pseudo-intellectual garbage from? for that matter, all higher knowledge should be for free! -- theoretical or otherwise. so go to the closest university campus and enroll in a physics and astronomy class, and implore that the registrar sign you up for everything for free --because paying for knowledge is not altruistic. go ahead and do that and get back with me to let me know how it went.

 

what amazingly reaching and asinine modes of logic to avoid reading something.

Well, I still, subscribe to this theory. Education should be free. In Australia, it still kind of is. Without getting caught up in politics, I can still say that a poor person in Australia CAN get an education without signing away their first-born.

 

Look, McCutcheon is basically saying current physics is wrong. If he's right and he convinces me (an example of Joe public), what good is that?!? What good is it if he convinces a million Joe publics, what will he have achieved?

 

Precisely nothing - except for lining his own pocket. I'm not going to be able to convince a single physicist to change their mind. I mean seriously, here's how a conversation would go...

 

"Did you know you're wrong dear physicist"

"Really, and what are you? A rocket scientist?"

 

My point is that if you're trying to convince the world that physics is wrong from the ground up, then convince the people that it would matter to. The rest of the world would eventually follow suite.

[viscount aero]

Incompatible arguments. Stephen Hawking books aren't asking us to re-write physics. My understanding is that they work WITH mainstream physics and simply offer a deeper understanding for those interested in how the universe might have come into existence. I don't believe Hawking is saying that any other premise is wrong or flawed. He is simply offering his premises and ideas based on those premises and saying, 'hey, based on what we know, this could have happened'.

 

 

Huh?!? Learn2read. Not even justifying this with an answer.

 

 

Well, I still, subscribe to this theory. Education should be free. In Australia, it still kind of is. Without getting caught up in politics, I can still say that a poor person in Australia CAN get an education without signing away their first-born.

 

Look, McCutcheon is basically saying current physics is wrong. If he's right and he convinces me (an example of Joe public), what good is that?!? What good is it if he convinces a million Joe publics, what will he have achieved?

 

Precisely nothing - except for lining his own pocket. I'm not going to be able to convince a single physicist to change their mind. I mean seriously, here's how a conversation would go...

 

"Did you know you're wrong dear physicist"

"Really, and what are you? A rocket scientist?"

 

My point is that if you're trying to convince the world that physics is wrong from the ground up, then convince the people that it would matter to. The rest of the world would eventually follow suite.

 

hawking's "radiation" and his theoretical principles are every bit as theoretical as MMc's works --both hawking and Mc retain traditional bare essentials and build upon them.

 

as for learing2read, i did and you are basically saying that trying to prove you are correct in a published work is 1)wrong and 2)should be for free.

 

as well, you then premise that to reveal possibly new horizons to humanity --or not-- is futile and will not matter! so, what is the point of publishing ANYTHING at all for sale? go down to the local chain book seller (yes, books are for sale throughout the world) and you tell them of your premise and see what they say.

 

maybe your free education down under is lacking if your mode of thinking about what constitutes entitlements to free knowledge and such is what it is. you should demand any author release their property for free, then. there must be life elsewhere for sure because you are from Mars! :rolleyes:

[InfiniteNow]

How many famous theories were proven by name calling and slander?

 

Hence, the analogy to a cult. "But, god said so..." It is strangely parellel, and you are hurting your own cause, vissy aero. Too much tantrum, not enough fact.

 

You clearly do not understand the theory well enough to answer any hard questions regarding it. Either that, or you understand the theory perfectly, but the theory itself is incapable of providing explanations and answers to these questions. :rolleyes:

[viscount aero]

neither is true.

 

as well if you propose an idiotic pseudo-intellectual premise that is clearly reaching, you rightly need to be called an idiot. the premise of entitlement to absolute widespread free published works is twofold stupid in that 1)it's not done in the real world as standard practice in every situation 2)doesn't suddenly validate anything were it all free.

 

there has been an overtone through-line in this thread that goes a little like "well, if McCutcheon was really worth it, he'd publish everything he has for free." but the double-standard doesn't apply to people like stephen hawking or feinman, people who may reveal new insights onto old ideas.

 

regardless of McM validity or not, it is clear that by and large people are prone to run with sheep when they're too cool for skool to be caught dead showing any interest in something different. i have to give it to Buffy and Gang for allowing this thread to continue. i do not overlook that. it's much more than a place like space.com would tolerate for sure.

[Erasmus00]

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

 

His "flaws" in special relativity derivations are McCutcheon's mistakes, not mistakes of derivations. McCutcheon's mistakes are, in fact, mistakes quite often made in first year university courses on physics. I am unwilling to type up and correct McCutcheon's errors, but if you post his flaws (in another thread) I am perfectly willing to explain where he goes wrong.

 

The geometric orbit equation is NOT the basis for any equation in currently accepted physics (because its wrong). When McCutcheon claims this, he is either talking out of ignorance or straight up conning you. For instance, Newton did NOT use it to derive his gravitational law. Newton never made an analogy with a rock on a string, etc, etc. Even more damning- McCutcheon's equation DOES NOT WORK! It has errors of a few percent for both Mars and Mercury (the two most eccentric planets).

 

McCutcheon's exposition of E=mc^2 is similarly dishonest. If you are willing to type it up (in your own words, on another thread) I am willing to discuss why he is wrong.

-Will

[OzAnt]

hawking's "radiation" and his theoretical principles are every bit as theoretical as MMc's works --both hawking and Mc retain traditional bare essentials and build upon them.

I can't argue as I know too little on the subject matter. I can't say I've read more than a few pages of Hawking without my eyes glazing over.

 

as for learing2read, i did and you are basically saying that trying to prove you are correct in a published work is 1)wrong and 2)should be for free.

Yes, the thing is though, I never said anything about 'claiming themselves to be incorrect'.

 

as well, you then premise that to reveal possibly new horizons to humanity --or not-- is futile and will not matter! so, what is the point of publishing ANYTHING at all for sale? go down to the local chain book seller (yes, books are for sale throughout the world) and you tell them of your premise and see what they say.

 

maybe your free education down under is lacking if your mode of thinking about what constitutes entitlements to free knowledge and such is what it is. you should demand any author release their property for free, then. there must be life elsewhere for sure because you are from Mars! :rolleyes:

 

Look, from what I've read, scientists have a peer review process. It appears that McCutcheon doesn't want to participate. Instead he wants to convince the masses.

 

The topic he wants to convince the masses on is that science today is wrong at a very fundamental level. He purports to having a nice simplified and unified theory. According to him, all of science stands to benefit from his theories. Why then is he trying to convince the lay person?!? The lay person that can't put up an argument against what he's saying because they don't know one?

 

I'd happily pay $100 for the information! But only if it's got a semblance of a chance of being right.

[Erasmus00]

the premise of entitlement to absolute widespread free published works is twofold stupid in that 1)it's not done in the real world as standard practice in every situation 2)doesn't suddenly validate anything were it all free.

 

It is, in fact, standard practice for any government funded research to submit your paper to the (free) preprint arxiv.

 

there has been an overtone through-line in this thread that goes a little like "well, if McCutcheon was really worth it, he'd publish everything he has for free." but the double-standard doesn't apply to people like stephen hawking or feinman, people who may reveal new insights onto old ideas.

 

There is a difference between Hawking's book and McCutcheon's. Hawking's book is a new description of an old theory. There is nothing in Hawking's book that is fresh, original research (and all of the research discussed in Hawking's book can be learned for free). This is more true of Feyman's lectures on physics, which are introductory physics! Every idea in both Feynman's lectures and Hawking's books can be found in other (often free) sources.

 

McCutcheon's book DOES claim to be fresh original research. Tradiationally, fresh research is submitted to peer reviewed journals as well as uploaded to a preprint arxiv. McCutcheon has done neither of these things.

 

regardless of McM validity or not, it is clear that by and large people are prone to run with sheep when they're too cool for skool to be caught dead showing any interest in something different.

 

I find it interesting that ANY reluctance to accept McCutcheon's ideas is blamed on an inability to show interest in something different. I DID show an interest, I even bought the book (though I was sure none of my money went to McCutcheon). Why can't it be that McCutcheon put out a hypothesis, and people found that his hypothesis is simply unworkable? Points raised about expansion theories inability to correctly predict tides, barometers, etc are very strong reasons NOT to believe McCutcheon!

 

I believe I still stand as the only person in this entire thread to have done an experiment. I did said experiment at the behest of McCutcheon himself. It failed, and McCutcheon cut off all correspondance with me.

-Will

[OzAnt]

Thanks Erasmus00. I didn't know how to properly argue the Hawking analogy because I knew too little about the subject matter.

[InfiniteNow]

I find it interesting that ANY reluctance to accept McCutcheon's ideas is blamed on an inability to show interest in something different. I DID show an interest, I even bought the book (though I was sure none of my money went to McCutcheon). Why can't it be that McCutcheon put out a hypothesis, and people found that his hypothesis is simply unworkable? Points raised about expansion theories inability to correctly predict tides, barometers, etc are very strong reasons NOT to believe McCutcheon!

 

I believe I still stand as the only person in this entire thread to have done an experiment. I did said experiment at the behest of McCutcheon himself. It failed, and McCutcheon cut off all correspondance with me.

-Will

For those interested, I've done the search for you, but Will deserves the credit:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/41578-post45.html

http://hypography.com/forums/41748-post47.html

http://hypography.com/forums/43466-post83.html

http://hypography.com/forums/43475-post89.html

http://hypography.com/forums/75128-post376.html

http://hypography.com/forums/119365-post604.html

 

 

I would also like to encourage users to search for all posts by Erasmus00 in this thread. He is calm, well-informed, and (I believe) truly approaching this with an open mind. However, he is also aware that the data just isn't right, hence his decision not to accept the theory as valid. Seriously Will, thank you. :rolleyes:

[plb]

I followed the posted advice, I reviewed what Will [Erasmus00] had posted...

 

Eramus00 wrote on 06-05-2005:

I put together a simple cavendish balance, and I was able to measure G to 10% of the accepted value, so I was pretty happy with it. McCutcheon wanted me to replace one of the two movable weights (not the ones on the barbell) with a ball of the same weight but a different material. I replaced one of the iron weights I'd been using with a lead weight (weighing the same, but smaller in size due to the larger density). According to his theory, this should effect the experiment(he was never clear on how, just that one of the two weights should be expanding differently becasue of the difference in size/density). I imagine he expected the barbell to pull slightly to one side, or something. As it stands, nothing out of the ordinary happened, the experiment worked the same as before. While I have no way to comment on his theory, the only experiment likely to be performed as a verification has come up short.

 

Eramus00 wrote on 06-17-2005:

I measured G to within about 10% of the accepted value, after I switched the one ball weight, I was within 12% of G, and close to my original measurement. My uncertainity was about 3% of G, so the two values are well within each other.

 

My comment:

G would be reduced by small amount as the ball size was reduced. By only replacing one of the four weights the difference in G would be half. The difference in G depends on the relative dimension of the measurement apparatus--you'd need to provide measurements. Was the "margin of error" consistently skewed within 10% of "accepted" value or were the data points truly random? If skewed then the 10% difference is a comparison of the dimensions of your apparatus to one with dimensions that gives results that match "accepted" G. The 3% difference in measured G would support what McCutcheon claims.

 

Based on what I read in the Eramus00 links provided, Will didn't know enough about what McCutcheon claims to know what to look for and he did not realize that the differences that he observed were relevant.

 

Paul Baumann