The Final Theory

[Erasmus00]

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.

 

First, you have to understand that G is the hardest constant (by far) to measure precisely, due to the fact that gravity simply cannot be screened. While I no longer have access to the original equipment I used to conduct my experiments, I want to point you to The University of Washington Eot-Wash Group These guys have verified Newtonian gravity (inverse square law) down to (I believe) micrometer scales.

 

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.

 

If I was ill informed, it was only because McCutcheon was unable to provide me with any details. I performed my experiment at his direct request. However, I have since learned more of McCutcheon's theory and have noticed that it implies that gravity is a constant force NOT an inverse square law. Therefore, the incredibly precise Eot-Wash group demonstrates the theory completely disagrees with empirical data.

-Will

[DougF]

After reading this very interesting thread on "The Final Theory" I decided not to buy the book, but I just had to say I was linked to Hypography and this thread when I started reading I could stop at the time I had no idea how long it was but like I said couldn't stop, :hihi: and had to tell all of those who participated in this thread that I for one really enjoyed it thanks :singer:

[plb]

...I want to point you to The University of Washington Eot-Wash Group These guys have verified Newtonian gravity (inverse square law) down to (I believe) micrometer scales. ... Therefore, the incredibly precise Eot-Wash group demonstrates the theory completely disagrees with empirical data.

-Will

 

Will,

 

The findings of the Eot-Wash group are not in disagreement with Expansion Theory. Their instrument approximates G with less variance than a Cavendish instrument. I doesn't prove any particular theory of gravity right or wrong.

 

www npl washington edu

eotwash

publications

pdf

prl85-2869.pdf

 

The Eot-Wash group acknowledges that measurements of G disagree wildly among respected research teams and says "the collection of these new results suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally thought." McCutcheon explains why dimensions in the Cavendish experiments are relevant. It would be interesting to see the Eot-Wash experiments repeated with a similarly constructed instrument of different proportions.

 

Does anyone recall a NASA experiment where the trajectory of two dissimilar balls were measured as the descended to Earth? I heard on the radio several years ago that the results proved "Einstein was correct"; what wasn't stated is if the balls varied by mass or by diameter--I expect they had the same diameter. If someone knows of that experiment and can point to the research then I'd appreciate it.

 

Paul Baumann

[Erasmus00]

The findings of the Eot-Wash group are not in disagreement with Expansion Theory. Their instrument approximates G with less variance than a Cavendish instrument. I doesn't prove any particular theory of gravity right or wrong.

 

They measure an inverse square law for gravity. McCutcheon theory predicts a linear/constant relationship, hence, it is wrong. ANY Cavendish experiment that shows a decrease of force with distance demonstrates that McCutcheon is simply wrong.

 

McCutcheon explains why dimensions in the Cavendish experiments are relevant. It would be interesting to see the Eot-Wash experiments repeated with a similarly constructed instrument of different proportions.

 

If you read the papers, you'll see they actually use several different pendulums of different sizes and varying mass distributions. This doesn't effect their results (and is why they think they'll greatly reduce the uncertainty in G in a few years when there most accurate results are published).

-Will

[CraigD]

The Eot-Wash group acknowledges that measurements of G disagree wildly among respected research teams and says "the collection of these new results suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally thought."

Although technically an accurate paraphrasing of publications of the Eöt-Wash group, I believe plb quotes too brief a text, risking giving a false impression of what the researchers mean by “disagree wildly” and “much larger than originally thought.

 

From The University of Washington Eot-Wash Group

Recently the value of G has been called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group found a curious space and time variation of G of up to 0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally thought. This controversy has spurred several efforts to make a more reliable measurement of G.

As current values of G have since the 1980s been estimated to be certain to within 0.0128%, results differing by 0.7% can reasonably be said to “wildly disagree”. It’s important to note that the Eöt-Wash group does not conclude that this disagreement is due to a fundamental flaw in the classical law of gravity in which G is a constant, but due to experimental error, which they have developed experimental methods to eliminate.

[plb]

...The University of Washington Eot-Wash Group These guys have verified Newtonian gravity (inverse square law) down to (I believe) micrometer scales. ... I have since learned more of McCutcheon's theory and have noticed that it implies that gravity is a constant force NOT an inverse square law. -Will

 

The Eot-Wash experiments said their "largest systematic uncertainty was due to the attractor mass distance measurement". They used micrometer precision, but they did not vary the distances between masses. Those tests did not verify inverse square law. Besides, when dealing with rotating masses you are really talking about "artificial gravity" that McCutcheon describes on pages 100-101.

 

Expansion Theory explains gravity as an inverse square law based on object dimensions rather than mass. The expansion rate of subatomic particles (electrons) is constant. Gravity originates as a side effect of bouncing and expanding electrons that expand the size of all atoms at a slower but constant rate. There is no diminishing force between objects as the distance between them increases because what appears to be a force is just a geometric relationship between expanding objects and orbital rings.

 

How does inverse square gravitational force based on mass explain the unexpectedly large pull on the Pioneer spacecrafts in deep space? It doesn't. McCutcheon provides an explanation on page 178.

 

Paul Baumann

[plb]

...If you read the papers, you'll see they actually use several different pendulums of different sizes and varying mass distributions. This doesn't effect their results...

-Will

 

Please provide links to those papers. I didn't find any mention of such variances.

[Boerseun]

Okay - just thought about this one, for all the die-hard McCutcheonites out there:

 

Take a pound of cheese, say, 1 foot across. Weigh it, make sure it weighs a pound.

 

Take it to a tall building. Ride the elevator to the highest floor. Weigh your cheese again. Take it to the beach, at sea leavel - weigh your cheese once more.

 

Contrary to what NASA might tell you with all their experience, the cheese should weigh more on top of the building than it does at the beach, because it now experiences the expansion of Earth plus the expansion of the building. On the beach it'll weigh less because the distance from the expansion center is less.

 

Reams and reams of data (free of charge, I might add) tells us that this is simply not the case. Make your peace with it. If McCutcheon contained any resemblance to a workable theory, you would have had a measurably heavier cheese.

 

This theory is such utter bollocks, I can't believe people are still taking it serious.

 

Go read another book, there are a lot of con artists, nutcases and fruitcakes in general battling for your $30.

[Erasmus00]

The Eot-Wash experiments said their "largest systematic uncertainty was due to the attractor mass distance measurement". They used micrometer precision, but they did not vary the distances between masses. Those tests did not verify inverse square law. Besides, when dealing with rotating masses you are really talking about "artificial gravity" that McCutcheon describes on pages 100-101.

 

arXiv.org Search

 

Pay close attention to the various inverse square law papers. There are quite a few. Also, note that many of these papers describe different sized pendulums and he like. (hence, my assertion that the mass of the pendulums has been varied).

 

Expansion Theory explains gravity as an inverse square law based on object dimensions rather than mass.... There is no diminishing force between objects as the distance between them increases because what appears to be a force is just a geometric relationship between expanding objects and orbital rings.

 

I am aware that there is no diminishing force according to expansion theory. This, to me, is the single largest problem with the theory!! As you'll see if you read the papers, this diminishing force has been carefully measured.

 

How does inverse square gravitational force based on mass explain the unexpectedly large pull on the Pioneer spacecrafts in deep space? It doesn't. McCutcheon provides an explanation on page 178.

 

The problem is that in explaining 1 thing, you leave many thousands of others unexplained. Gravity diminishes with distance this is experimental fact. Also, keep in mind that McCutcheon doesn't accurately explain the Pioneer acceleration at all- McCutcheon's theory predicts an acceleration that is WAY to large (keep in mind that the pioneer anamoly is, in fact, very small).

-Will

[CraigD]

They [the Eöt-Wash Group] used micrometer precision, but they did not vary the distances between masses. Those tests did not verify inverse square law.

This claim contradicts the groups web site. According to The University of Washington Eot-Wash GroupOne of the group’s 4 specific goals is to

Search for experimental signatures of quantum gravity that would violate Einstein's Equivalence Principle and/or the Newtonian inverse-square law at some length scale (which may be anywhere between the inaccessible Planck length and infinity).

The University of Washington Eot-Wash Group Describes experiments designed and performed by the group. http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/review.pdf (640 K pdf) is a review published by the group of inverse square law tests.

 

Note that the group focused mostly on searching for inverse square law violations at distances less than 1 mm, because many theories of quantum gravity predict the existence of such violations. “The Final Theory” predicts its violation on all scales. Because this prediction can and has been discredited by literally countless experiments, publications stating specifically “this experiment shows that the distance squared law is NOT violated on all scales” are rare, much as are astronomy publications stating “the Sun rose in the east again today”. Erasmus00‘s posts in this thread, and similar ones in other forum and personal websites, performed specifically to address “The Final Theory”, are the only ones of which I aware.

 

The latest string of posts in this thread exemplify one of the several social phenomena that cause me to find TFT such an annoying work. Although it predictions, (such as the violation of the distance squared law at all distances), have been routinely discredited, supporters of the theory ignore these results, suggesting instead that experimental findings disagreeing with convention theoretical predictions (such as the inverse square law) by less than 1 part in 100 are evidence.

 

People who honestly believe that the idea of expansion as an explanation of gravity should, IMHO, attempt to produce a formal theory that is not contradicted by practically all experimental evidence, rather than denying that such evidence exists. I have yet to see any such effort by people other than those wishing to show some of the initial difficulties in such a theory, such as myself, in this thread.

[charles brough]

Moonchild, I guess you and I read two different books. In the book I read, Mark gave consistent and very adequate credit for all that has been accomplished because of the work of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Einstein and others . . .

My feelings are that he has done a great job of dispassionate analysis of the current state of our engineering and scientific environment.

 

I agree entirely.

 

So far, I have read only the first chapter in the book's website because, I am ashamed to say, I am too stingy to pay for the whole book yet. I have had a lot of experience with social science theory books and won't even take most of them out of the library because of the double-talk, academic-fluffed-up style and vapid nothingness that fills so many of them.

 

I can hardly believe Mark McCutcheon or anyone, for that matter, could take such a difficult subject and so clearly and without wasting words or trying to impress, explain it all so well. This is rare!

 

I am unclear so far as to why this book seems to now appear when it was copyright in 2002. Anyone know?

 

I read in one website that the author's theory is that the rapid expansion of the universe is the key element to his theory. I don't know.

 

I read another website and the author was critical of his new theory. That website showed an ignorace of the way evolution works, so I dismissed it.

[Buffy]

So far, I have read only the first chapter in the book's website because, I am ashamed to say, I am too stingy to pay for the whole book yet.

Then like many of the posters in this thread, you have no right to pass judgment on the book!

I can hardly believe Mark McCutcheon or anyone, for that matter, could take such a difficult subject and so clearly and without wasting words or trying to impress, explain it all so well.

I like Tim Ferris and Brian Greene much better myself!

I am unclear so far as to why this book seems to now appear when it was copyright in 2002. Anyone know?

I read in one website that the author's theory is that the rapid expansion of the universe is the key element to his theory. I don't know.

Don't feel bad, most of the rest of us can't figure it out either!

 

There's a P.T. Barnum born every day, and that's more than enough,

Buffy

[charles brough]

Buffy, you castigate me for "passing judgement" (which I did not do!) and then you liken his work to that of P.T.Barnum, presumably because you HAVE read his book! (I only commented favorably on his writing skills, which I sincerely admire). Don't you re-read your posts and remove inconsistencies before sending them in?

[Buffy]

Buffy, you castigate me for "passing judgement" (which I did not do!) and then you liken his work to that of P.T.Barnum, presumably because you HAVE read his book! (I only commented favorably on his writing skills, which I sincerely admire).

I profusely apologize for the assumption that you had read the rest of this thread and the use of satire without explicitly identifying it for those who might be unable or unwilling to identify it as such.

Don't you re-read your posts and remove inconsistencies before sending them in?

Aye: it makes the commentary all the more meaningful in its intentional inconsistency!

 

Tigers often look fluffy and cute,

Buffy

[charles brough]

I profusely apologize for the assumption that you had read the rest of this thread and the use of satire without explicitly identifying it for those who might be unable or unwilling to identify it as such.

Aye: it makes the commentary all the more meaningful in its intentional inconsistency!

 

Tigers often look fluffy and cute,

Buffy

 

Buffy the fluffy tiger!

[theumpossible]

Hey guys...... I'm new to this forum and I'm new to posting stuff, so I hope I'm doing it right...... but I was wondering if someone could help me? I've just read the first chapter of 'the final theory' by Mark McCutcheon and the tone of this first chapter seems to lean toward some kind of (without putting to finer point on it) religious force?.....Can anyone who's read the book assure me that any religious points of view are totally ommited in the following chapters and the rest of the book deals purely with the laws of the true scientific/physical world of existence? otherwise I won't buy it..... cheers.

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, theumpossible :)

Can anyone who's read the book assure me that any religious points of view are totally ommited in the following chapters and the rest of the book deals purely with the laws of the true scientific/physical world of existence? otherwise I won't buy it..... cheers.

You ask a difficult question, as people who have read the book but are not of the sort commonly termed “true believer” are, I think, rare. Most people with proficiency in mathematical and experimental physics, such as Erasmus00 in this thread, have not read the book, but corresponded with its author (McCutcheon), or others who have read it.

 

The overwhelming consensus at hypography and similar science forums, and among professional scientists, appears to be that “The Final Theory” is pseudoscience. Worse, I believe McCutcheon’s interest in writing this book is not scientific, but commercial – that he is promoting and capitalizing on public dissatisfaction with the difficulty of learning conventional science, offering an alternative based on the premise that “if it’s difficult to learn, it must be wrong”.

 

I’d personally recommend against buying the book.

 

This thread, on the other hand, is available free of charge, and, if you can bear the hours even a cursory browse of it requires, provides not only some physics refuting (and simply trying to define) McCutheon’s theories, but insight into the psychology that makes it possible for books like his to be financially enriching.

 

PS: I’m unaware of any reports of the book promoting a religious point of view;

If you decide to explore the thread, I recommend you use the “search this thread” feature liberally.