The Final Theory

[phillip1882]

would, at a glance, appear to be under a constant centripetal (“toward the center”) Force, while changing Position, require a constant Power. However, Velocity and Force are both vector quantities. The centripetal component of the Velocity of a circular orbiting body, because the distance between the body and its barycenter does not change, is zero, while all of the force is toward the center, so Work and Power are both zero.

 

what? okay you seem to be saying here the becuase the object is contsantly changing momtentum no work is being done, as long as the force is tward the center. this makes even less sence than the potentail energy consept.

for example consider a person swinging a rock on a string around himself, would you say hes exerting no work/energy/power on the rock?

[CraigD]

what? okay you seem to be saying here the becuase the object is contsantly changing momtentum no work is being done, as long as the force is tward the center. this makes even less sence than the potentail energy consept.

for example consider a person swinging a rock on a string around himself, would you say hes exerting no work/energy/power on the rock?

Yes, exactly.

 

Work is Force multiplied by change in Distance. In the case of a satellite in a circular orbit, or a rock being swung in a circle with an un-stretchy string of fixed length, the change in Distance is zero, so regardless of how great the Force, Work is zero.

 

In the case of a rock swinging in a circle, it’s helpful to imagine replacing the person holding the string with a sturdy pole. In a frictionless system – the string attached to the pole with a perfect bearing, the entire system in a perfect vacuum – the rock would circle the pole forever with no change in period, no energy entering or leaving the system from outside it, and thus zero work. It’s easier to grasp this illustration of the formal physics with an obviously inert, energy-less pole, in a frictionless system, than with a person, who intuitively seems to be working hard to keep the rock in motion, in a system were friction is continuously converting the kinetic (movement) energy of the rock and string into heat and sound energy, and also where the many complicated biomechanical moving parts of the person are consuming energy moving, and simply being alive.

 

A more common classroom illustration is to consider a person exerting all the force they can against an immovable wall – for the sake of clarity, imagine they are pushing against the wall with a sturdy brick. Despite the large force, the change in the wall’s position is zero, so the work performed by the wall and pushing brick system is zero. Again, this is more intuitively obvious if you imagine the person replaced with a steel plate that exerts exactly the same force as the person, and is thus indistinguishable to the brick and wall system from the person.

 

If none of these illustrations make intuitive sense, you can confirm the “realness” of zero change in distance resulting in zero work by measuring the power input of an electric motor, first when the motor is turning against a load, after the load is increased until the motor stalls, then unwrap the motors wires from its armature, and measure the load on them when they’re no longer in the motor and clearly not doing any usable mechanical work. The power will be greatest when the motor is turning, and the same when it is stalled as disassembled. Were the motor made of a circuit consisting of only superconducting wire, the stalled and disassembled power would be zero – for ordinary wire, some power is consumed even when the motor is doing zero mechanical work, because it’s generating waste heat.

[phillip1882]

you know you won't belive this but shortly after my post i was thinking of a frictionles rock on sting modell and was trying to determine for myself wether or not the rock will ever stop moving. in all honesty, without friction, i can't concieve of a reason. wow how dumb do i feel? thank you for the enlighten- ment. gravity has aways been a touchy point for me, i just couldn't concieve of a zero power system. but this helps.

[Maurice A. Williams]

I see quite an active thread on Mark McCutcheon’s “The Final Theory.” Many who posted comments said that they started reading the book but lost interest and did not finish it. I discovered McCutcheon’s free download of chapter one and was interested, so I got the book and read it. The rest of the book is not as intriguing as the first chapter. Here is what I got out of the whole book.

 

McCutcheon asks the reader to imagine the real world as being two-dimensional, and within that two-dimensional world, contemplate how a three-dimensional world might be visualized by people experiencing only two dimensions. We could not comprehend three-dimensional objects, but they would manifest themselves into our two-dimensional world. If all objects were conical, and we only see flat sections, then the flat sections we see would continuously grow bigger as the three-dimensional cones intersects into our two-dimensional world. It is equally difficult for us to imagine that objects we are familiar with in our three-dimensional world might somehow be our perceptions of objects from a four-dimensional world that project themselves into our three-dimensional view of reality.

 

McCutcheon’s proposes that the universe is four dimensional, the fourth dimension being outside normal experience, mysteriously beyond our normal three-dimensional comprehension. He argues that this fourth dimension is right here within our regular three-dimensional world. It exists even down to every atom. Atoms occupy the fourth dimension, which is completely foreign to us, with physics unlike anything in our atomic models today. It is the nature of this fourth dimension to continuously expand outward into our dimension, literally creating what we call atoms – but atoms (and large structures composed of atoms) that are continually expanding from this fourth dimension into our three-dimensional perception.

 

The space inside an atom is also different than the space outside an atom, almost like another unknown dimension. The rates of expansions in these two new dimensions are different, being much faster within the subatomic space within the atom. The internal expansion within the atom does not occur in space-as-we-know-it, and, therefore, does not consume space; instead, it merely supports the overall structure of the atom, which then defines space-as-we-know-it outside the atom. He claims that there is a big difference between the enormous subatomic expansion rate within the atom and the comparatively tiny expansion rate outside the atom. McCutcheon’s feels his new Expansion Theory, when used as a single overall theory, can explain everything that previously required three theories (a mix of Newton’s gravity, relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to explain.

 

My take on McCutcheon’s proposing a fourth dimension outside the atom and a fifth, much different, dimension within the atom is that it is very hard to comprehend. I hope he has worked out his Expansion Theory mathematically and that the mathematics supports his position. What diminishes my acceptance of his arguments is that his new dimensions do not seem to be based on empirical observation – nobody has discovered them, measured them, or described them. No experiment, I suppose, can prove that they exist. They seem to be purely intellectual theories that could possibly serve to give a single explanation to solve inconsistencies in the standard theories. Since the standard theories are backed up by mathematics, it would be interesting to see McCutcheon’s mathematical equations supporting his theory.

 

For those of you who have not read the entire book, this is what I understood from it. I hope this helps.

 

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[Buffy]

Hi Maurice and welcome to Hypography.

 

I think you'll find that this thread contains a very large number of disproofs of Expansion Theory. It's by no means comprehensive, but its a great place to find them.

 

Those of us who have been active in the discussions would point especially to issues having to do with the inability to explain orbits (McCutcheon's "assumption" that all things move in curved lines simply does not square with the fact that in the presence of masses that those curves will function differently based on the distance from the mass), the seeming special status of masses that are "touching" in order to "feel gravity" (e.g. why is this expansion "directional" toward the center of the larger mass?), and the inconsistencies that occur in celestial distances (space must expand along with the mass in order for celestial bodies to expand, but if this happened on Earth, everything would just float).

 

You're right that it provides no testable hypotheses, and the book I believe in the very first chapter simply defines away proving the theory by simply saying that the theory makes exactly the same predictions as Newton-Einstein, and in the rest of the book, simply replicates their equations.

 

Its just a more complicated way of "interpreting" the data, that ends up being highly self-contradictory and fails to explain many observed phenomena.

 

You'll find that we've pretty much beaten this one to death, so do read the thread thoroughly, but I'm sure we'll all have fun if you have further questions or ideas!

 

Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century, ;)

Buffy

[Maurice A. Williams]

Thanks Buffy,

 

I think I'm going to enjoy this forum.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Maurice A. Williams

[final.theory.chick]

hey there

stumbled across some info on a new book about final theory due to be released soon...anyone heard of Nature's Watchmaker by John Thompson?

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, final.theory.chick! Please feel free to start an introduction thread telling us all a bit about yourself.

stumbled across some info on a new book about final theory due to be released soon...anyone heard of Nature's Watchmaker by John Thompson?

Your post is the first I’ve heard of it, or its author. As it doesn’t appear to be in print yet, so I suspect not too many people have. From this bloggish semi-promotion, semi-review, I get the impression that some reviewers have read at least parts of the manuscript, but found from a quick web search no reviews by a recognizable scientist or science journalist, nor any academic or professional biography of the author. It’s publisher’s description page describes it (as such pages usually do) very positively. :phones:

 

If anybody has access to the manuscript or book, and can provide a synopsis, please do. As the above publisher’s description claims “it combines all the effects found in both the microscopic (atoms) and macroscopic (stars, black holes, galaxies) universes in one simply derived equation”.

 

I doubt Thompson’s ideas are related to those Mark McCutcheon’s promotes in his book “The Final Theory”, which this stupendously long thread discusses, and given how soundly McCutcheon and his claims have been discredited in this and other science forums and reviews, hope they’re not. If no one has any information connecting the two, I’ll move this and the preceeding post to a new thread.

[DrBang]

I read the thread with interest when I discovered it. I conceived this expansion theory long ago. I called it "The equivalence of gravity and expansion of mass."

I was very excited for a short time after I came with the idea because it seemed to show that gravity is a fiction and unnecessary in an expanding mass universe.

Very soon I realized the big problems, like inability to explain orbits and inverse square law. Another problem that nobody seems to have noticed here is that the increased velocity due to expansion would rapidly exceed that of light.

In short, many problems. I see here some have been detected but none resolved.

[Notthefinaltheory]

To all that think MM is off his rocker. I have noticed a lot of nonsense and circular argument in this book in only the first 3 chapters, but I would like to present a simple scenario regarding the basic premise of "every atom, and therefore every object, is doubling in size every 19 minutes, while space remains undisturbed and unstretched" for anyone to consider.

 

As I sit here and look up at an imaginary space shuttle in orbit above me, which comes back in about 90 minutes, what would MM have me think? For starters, 19, 38, 57, 76, 95 minutes later becomes 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, 32x (2 to the fifth) bigger than the present moment. Everybody agreed? So, let's be conservative and say that everything is 25x bigger when that shuttle swings by again. So the earth is 25x bigger and has thrust me some 160,000 km out (using the original measure 25 x 6371 km) which has made me feel my weight sitting in my easy chair while I sip on a beer waiting for the shuttle to come around again. But, of course all my sense of measurement has also expanded so I would expect the shuttle to still be some 300 km up there. Or would it?

 

If I have been accelerated outwards some 160,000 km (using a given measure, after all km is just a given amount and I could just as easily have said 25 of these special 6371 km units), then wouldn't the shuttle also need to have been accelerated outward the same amount? But according to MM objects in space are being approached by us, not the other way around. But clearly we are not approaching the shuttle. Yet MM would state that the shuttle is coasting by in a natural orbit, as though it were moving at a steady speed, with no gravity accelerating it. But if I have moved out with the earth and not bumped into the space shuttle long ago, then where is this 9.8 m/sec/sec of outward acceleration coming from? Is it some mysterious part of the natural orbit? That same natural orbit effect that brings two passing objects so close too each other that they begin to orbit one another by appearing to curve in towards each other. But they must now continue on this nonlinear path by resetting the geometry and curve away from each other by matching precisely the expansion of the earth. MM states that the orbiting body is coasting over the surface while maintaining a set distance, so as not be confused by gravity which causes acceleration. So what is this then, some kind of equal but opposite anti-gravity?

 

But wait a minute. Using those calculations that shuttle would be 300 km above me using the old measurements, which are 25 times too small for this next pass. No wonder it looms so big up there! So there must be an additional acceleration that swings the shuttle out 25x further above me so it would appear to be the same 300 km above me as I now reckon things. And don't forget that the shuttle is 25 x bigger, so there can be no doubt that it must be further out, and by a precise amount that matches the increase in size so that it won't appear to be any bigger. I estimate this to be less than 5% additional outward acceleration simply because the ratio of 300 km to 6371 km of the earth's radius.

 

And what of the forward motion of any orbiting body. In order to maintain a relatively uniform movement over the earth, meaning the same relative speed, any satellite or the moon must also be accelerated in a forward direction to match the ever increasing circumference that it must travel. For the earth, that would again at least have to be slightly larger than the 9.8 m/sec/sec, as doubling the diameter of the orbit would double a slightly larger circumference for the orbiting body, which would require a bit more acceleration for it to come around to the same point in the same amount of time.

 

But what about the moon which is reckoned to be about 384,000 km away in its orbit?

 

At more than 60 x the radius of the earth, this would require an outward acceleration of over 60 times that of the earth's expansion so that the moon would maintain its relative distance while getting bigger itself, something like 600m/sec/sec of outward acceleration and an equally phenomenal forward acceleration for the expanding circumference of its orbit.

 

MM doesn't like the infinite energy that he reckons is required for gravity to maintain the order of things, but what has he stated in his introduction that explains all these accelerations that would be required to maintain the order of his universe.

 

So all these orbiting bodies are being accelerated outwards and forwards by what, and each one is slightly different depending on its distance from the surface of the earth so that they will maintain their appearance relative to the observer?

 

I could say other things but this is enough for now.[GOOGLE][/GOOGLE]

[DAV]

I read the book and i read almost all of this thread. indepentent of expansion theory is true or false, this idea is very interesting because this single principle can create very complicated effect . in general relativity garavity is not discribed as a force then before McCutcheon, Physicist accept this idea that gravitiy is not a force. it seems, discription of orbit is the main problem of this theory, but this is important to note, expansion of matter is linear during expantion but our measurments divice expand too . by this effect absorbtion of object seems accelerated in the expansion world . therefore every object with certain escape velosity (view out of expansion world) can remain in constant distance related to refrence planet in expansion world. we only can measure tangential velosity. the escape velosity incresase with distance of the reference planet.

 

in my opinion , the main problem of the theory is not the orbit. how can we explain constant velosity movment? our rulers expand and distance shrink time to time!!!

[Boerseun]

how can we explain constant velosity movment? our rulers expand and distance shrink time to time!!!

Good thing we don't have to, seeing as the theory is utter bull to begin with.

[akashenk]

As a purely academic endeavor, reading the book does have merit. Any time you can be exposed to differing opinion can be beneficial in that it either strengthens your convictions about pre-existing beliefs, or causes you to reconsider. In that way, I think the book was a success. However, I believe it failed in two fundamental ways.

 

The first, and less important failure (from a scientific point of view) is that the book isn't particularly well written. It’s extremely repetitive and poorly organized. The style, which could easily be construed as extremely self-important and dismissive, is also a bit off-putting. As I read, I kept imagining the scene in the movie "The Princess Bride" where the character Vizzini says “Have You Ever Heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?... Morons!". I only mention the style because, if the goal is to convince others, I don’t think adopting such a style is ideal.

 

That being said, the greater failure in the book, is that it and the theory it describes often suffer from the same limitations and problems as the Standard Theory which it claims to replace as the real "Theory of Everything". The author attacks traditional views by claiming that, while they are useful models from an engineering/practical point of view, they do not explain the underlying phenomena, at least in a manner which is satisfactory to the author. He puts forth his "Expansion Theory", which is to explain all of the mysteries and inner-working of the universe, and yet he has no explanation for the fundamental source or inherent nature of his ubiquitous "expanding electrons", except that they exist. The author often bemoans the strange, inexplicable or paradoxical nature of various elements of Standard Theory, and yet his Expansion Theory is entirely based on a fundamentally strange and unexplained phenomenon.

[Marti]

Hello all. My first post here.

 

This looks like a great website. I found it as a result of searching for forums and comments on 'The Final Theory'. Interesting that this thread has been going for 5 years now.

 

I am not a scientist, and have only a basic (perhaps high school grade) level of understanding of maths and science. I am however, in my early 50's, married with kids, and very successful in my vocation, which is in the real estate / finance / banking fields. I hope that fulfills my obligation to give some basic info about myself.

 

I am also very interested in matters of cosmology, etc, and that's how I cam across the book a few weeks ago.

 

Incidently, for those who don't want to spend the $30 or so, it can be easily obtained 2nd hand through a site such as abesbooks.com - I got a virtually new copy from there, for $4, plus around $4 postage.

 

So, my brief comments on the book (I'm nearly at the end of it) - I LOVE it.

 

There is no need for me to take a position as to whether I believe it is true or false - I love it because it challanges the established order in a logical simple down to earth manner, and anything that does that is worthy of a good look. The only true scientific theory is of course, the prevailing one - all previous 'true' scientific theories over the last several millenia have fallen away ..

 

 

The book, to me, replaces many mysteries with one - that of the expanding electron. In fact, if I've understood it correctly, that's the basis of the whole book (though I haven't finished it yet) - that all is electrons, and that electrons expand at the rate of one millionth part per second.

 

I know there has been a lot of critisism here about the book and McCutcheons audacity. No doubt, it probably isn't perfect. But what is ? The vast array of scientists, cosmologists, etc, aren't perfect either, and often at odds with themselves.

 

I would really suggest to anyone who has a substanial interest in this, to get the book and read it completely.

 

OK - thanks for allowing me my say. And once again, a great site.

 

Marti

[phillip1882]

some experiments for the doubters out there of the final theory.

 

experiments with magnetism:

1) take two glass test tubes. rub each with a plastic balloon. try to bring them together. you will be unable to do so.

now do the same experiment with a second balloon. try to bring the two balloons together. again you will be unable to.

slowly try to bring the balloon together with the test tube. now they attract. you have attaction, repulsion, and only one pole.

hence a monopole magnet.

2) take a copper wire, a battery, and an iron nail. wrap the copper wire around the nail, and connect the two ends to the battery.

now take a sstandard bi-pole magnet, and try the north pole and south pole around the eltro-magnet. one will attract all the way around, the other will repel. again you have a monople magnet.

conclusion: all magnetism is static electricity. it is electicty that has yet to be discharged. bi-pole magnets are simply a more stable version, as they have both "poles".

experiments with light:

1) place two light emitters facing the same direction. note they cover the room in the same amount of time. thus the two light beams realtive to eachother are traveling zero.

2) place two light beams facing eachother. note that they still each indivually cover the room in the same amount of time. thus relative to eachother they are traveling twice light speed.

experiment with time:

1) take a fan. take six watches; 2 analog, 2 digital, 2 atomic. place one of each watch on the blade of a fan. run the fan for a year. note the "time dilation", if any. (note: if all three watches have different amounts of time dilation, then i suspect its not that time is actually being dilated, its the instrumentation.)

experiment with gravity:

1) get a long plastic tube. suck out the air. drop two very different sized objects. note the gravity.

this experiment as far as i am aware has never actually been done, and i would be interested in the results.

[WolfX]

I read the first chapter and then wrote a review which I posted on Amazon.com. I have included it here. It is long.

 

I read the first chapter of this book, and I have to say that it is pretty awful as a book of science or logic. Though it is clear and offers many facts, it has many glaring mistakes that make me cringe. Perhaps reading more would help, but my suspicion grows very fast when I see the kinds of problems that I saw, especially in the first chapter alone. If it were a novel, that would be one thing, but as a science book, the mistakes are fatal, which is why I wrote that it is awful. I have written this long criticism too. I should state that I have “only” a BS in engineering which includes three semesters of physics (the standard college stuff) and courses in statics and dynamics. With such a meager background, how can I be qualified to criticize this author’s work? Well, the little that I have learned seems enough, so I guess that is how.

 

Moving an object in a gravity field converts energy from one form to another, from potential to kinetic and back again. Gravity is a conservative force in that it generates no heat during the conversion. This is how science explains gravity in terms of Newton’s model. It is consistent in that view. There is no violation of The Law of the Conservation of Energy.

 

The author asks why people continue to use Newton’s Law when General Relativity is known. Scientists use Newton’s version of gravity instead of Einstein’s because Newton’s is much simpler to use, and Einstein’s version does not add anything useful for most “common” phenomenon. (As you read the rest of this, you will see that as simple as Newton’s Law is, many people still make all kinds of mistakes based on it. How much worse would it be if we all tried to use General Relativity? Yikes.) In fact, at “low” speeds and “low” masses, like those we experience everyday with stuff, like cars and nails and water and so on, Einstein’s law predicts practically the exact same results. So, if you need an answer and have a simple and complicated way of getting that answer, which would you use? Well, engineers use the simple one. The difference in predicted results is only significant when it matters, which depends on the application. When designing a typical structure, like a building or car or airplane, the difference does not matter (though I allow there might be some very specialized structures that require the precision of Relativity). However, if you want something to be in a very precise orbit, the difference becomes important. I want to write that simplifying models for particular situations is a very common technique: you determine what precision is good enough and use that part of the model that gives the kind of desired results. As long as the model is good enough for the application, there is no need to use a more complicated model. When somebody builds a chair, they measure with a tape measure to measure length. They don’t count atoms. Chairs work well. In fact, many chairs are built successfully not based on models by either Newton or Einstein. Rather, they are built based on guessing or experience.

 

The Work Function is NOT a measure of how much work was done, but how much work was done on something by something else. In the example of a person pushing against an object that does not move, the Work Function shows that zero work was done on the wall by the person, which is true when viewed at one level of detail (not including things like sound and heat). That is, the object was not moved, so no work was done on it. 'Work' as used in physics in this case. Clearly the person who did the pushing did do work. However, all the work that he did was tiring himself to some extent. The Work Function in this case has a very precise use. If one misuses it, nonsensical results do occur. The author’s misrepresentation of how the Work Function is used leads to a nonsensical result. A similar confusion arises when one does not understand Newton’s laws of motion. One equation is this: F = ma where F is the force, m is the mass of the object against which the force is applied, and a is the resulting acceleration. 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 is clearly wrong, right? Let’s make up some numbers (without units): F = 100, m = 4; hence, a would be 25. However, the object is not moving, so a seems to be really 0. Well, the problem is the equation is not being applied correctly. The equation as written only applies for one force. The object on the table is under at least two forces: gravity, as already mentioned, and the force from the table. Gravity pushes down, and the table pushes up. Well, the table does not push in the common usage of the term. Rather it does not move out of the way. It does this up to a point by exactly a force opposite in direction to that provided by gravity. (Past a point, the table bends or breaks). F in the equation would actually be the sum of the forces. Fg is the force from gravity; Ft is the force from the table. They are directed against one another, so the equation would be written this way: Fg – Ft = ma. Substituting numbers, we get 100 – 100 = 4 * 0, which is true. The point is that misuse of models usually leads to trouble. That does not mean the model is wrong. It means it is being misused.

 

He compares gravity with the muscles of a person and claims both must expend energy. Gravity is not muscle. Argument by analogy is not valid; sometimes it's useful; other time, not so useful. The confusion he has between energy expended as described by a work function and the energy expended by a person using their muscle’s is a case of confusion based on the fact that two separate phenomenon are referred to by the same word, a homonym. Yes, they are same word, and they have similar meanings, but precisely used, they are different. (Of course, the same kind of a work analysis could be performed on muscles and the laws of physics would apply. Chemical reactions would be take place and energy would be converted from form to another and the person would feel the work he is doing and he would be expending energy, but again, more careful use of models would be required.)

 

He writes about an object falling straight down, in which there is a distance traveled, and the work function shows there is work, so energy must be expended. However, he claims there is no energy source, so Newton’s law of gravity is violating the (other) Laws of Physics. This is called a Straw Man argument, which is a logical error. The author either intentionally or unintentionally is a frequent user of this kind of argument. Yes, there is no energy source powering gravity as he wants us to think there must be. However, there was an energy source. Remember, that all matter is always pulling against all matter (by that model). If an object can fall, that means it must have been first separated in distance from the thing towards which it would fall. (If there is no distance, we say the objects are “against each other.”) Hence, if the objects are separated, and yet gravity has always been trying to pull them together, the question should be, how did they get apart? Well, a common cause is someone picking up one object, against the force of gravity. To give a concrete example, a ball is on the sidewalk. A person picks up the ball, exerting work on that ball (and that work is against gravity). The process is like this. The ball was at rest. The person applied kinetic energy to the ball causing it to move up. As they did that in a gravity field, they also gave the ball potential energy. At the instance the ball is let go, the potential energy of the ball at the height exactly equals the kinetic energy applied to the ball when lifted. The ball falls because its “energy source” is the potential energy it has due to the separation. The kinetic energy came from the person using their muscles, which came from the food they ate, and so on. So there is no violation of any laws. There are energy sources. And conversions from one source of energy to another. And it all adds up nicely.

 

The author is inconsistent when trying to refute Newton’s Law. Earlier, he said that energy is not created or destroyed but merely is converted from one form to another, which is accepted as true. Then he claims that scientists claim that gravity does not exert energy and so they are wrong. However, scientists state exactly the same thing he has said. Moving an object in a gravity field converts potential energy to kinetic energy. Why does he not acknowledge or even mention potential energy?

 

Yes, a problem with Newton’s Law is that it assumes there is instantaneous action at a distance, which is not true as far as I know. This is a well understood limitation of the model. When that limitation matters, then Newton’s model is not a good one. The author claims that the law violates the Law of the Speed of Light (and that is true and well known), but I claim the value of the law is its simplicity and that the violation does not matter in many, many cases. The law is not a description of reality, so why criticize it for not being one.

 

The author claims that no tests have been made to determine the speed of gravity. Unless I have misread many articles, many tests have been done to try to determine the speed of gravity, but none of the tests have shown what the speed actually is, or some such result. To be honest, I don’t understand General Relativity well, so I can’t state what the experiments exactly were, but I surely believe some tests have been done.

 

He claims Einstein’ theory offers an unproven solution to the problem of instantaneous action at a distance. There are plenty of proofs about Relativity. Many, many things have been observed that agree with predictions made using Relativity. That does not mean that Relativity is the perfect model that explains all, but it does mean that it explains more than Newton’s model, and in the application to which it is claimed to work, no violation has been clearly demonstrated that proves General Relativity wrong. (Again, due to a limit in my knowledge, I cannot explain the contradiction between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.)

 

By the way, the author invokes “common sense” as a basis for judging the truth of claims. This is just plain silly, egocentric, and aggravating. Common sense leads us wrong many times, especially in uncommon situations, like relativistic and quantum ones. That we should assume that our brains in all cases product guesses that are always true is ridiculous, but that is what underlies the idea that common sense should be a measure of truth or sensibility.

 

When he writes about the history of Newton’s Law of Gravity, he inserts, “All of this made Newton’s theory of gravity a revolutionary discovery, as well as apparently irrefutable proof of the existence of such a force in nature.” It is invalid to jump from Newton’s Law of Gravity success as a model to that it is a proof of the existence of such a force. Though people have and do this, it is another misuse of a thing. That people makes logical mistakes is not a mark against Newton’s Law. A model is just that. It does not say anything about what is really going on. It does state that if A then B, a syllogism. Nothing more can be justifiably claimed. That difference is well understood these days by people who understand scientific method and science. The author is unfairly trying to make his case seem more compelling by pointing out mistakes made by some people. That is another logical error. Feynman, for example, has written much about how a model is not reality, and in fact, physics is not going to explain why things work the way they do, but only that it is an attempt to explain HOW things behave. That is a big difference. It is a well known limitation of science. That the common person and some authors make this mistake is their problem, not a problem with science or the models created by practitioner of science. The question of why is not a scientific question. Science is about things that can be proven wrong. A law of physics can be shown to be inaccurate very simply: show that its prediction does not match reality. A question of why cannot be proven either way. It does not even makes sense to refute a question of why. Assume the author really has found a model for all things. One only has to ask why does the universe work as described and not some other way? How could one answer that question? If you believe in God, you could say because God made it that way. Then ask why did God make it that way? Because he felt like it. Why did he feel like it? And so it goes. Science does not answer why questions. It answer how questions, like how does something behave, and even more carefully stated, science forms syllogisms that predict to some degree of accuracy and precision that given certain initial conditions, this will happen such and such a way.

 

His Geometric Orbit Equation does not predict what the motion of a satellite will be without first measuring the motion of a satellite in that orbit. Of course, the mass of an object is measured that way too. But given a mass, Newton’s Law tells us how an object will move (excluding relativistic and quantum effects). The author’s equations don’t offer that. And how would his equations work when there are multiple bodies? Newton’s Law, by proposing masses and forces, can predict what a satellite will do without having to measure the motion of a satellite first. If you know the mass of the bodies and their positions, you can predict how will they move. And it works for any number of bodies. How would one use the author’s equation to calculate forces? It can’t be done, so its utility is very limited. Newton’s Law does allow for this by introducing the theoretical force of gravity. The advantage of doing this is that a very useful equation is available to make useful predictions. The problem of the theoretical nature of gravity is only a problem for people who don’t understand that the equation is a model, not a statement about the why nature is the way it is. The correct statement is something like this: If there was a gravitational force that worked such and such a way, then here is an equation that would correctly predict what would happen. That ‘if’ is very important. And the introduction of the force makes the model very useful. And like all tools, it has to be used correctly and within its proper limitations, otherwise, things go wrong.

 

The author writes, “If a force were at work here, it would have to be quite a mysterious and unprecedented force indeed to achieve such a feat.” This in regards to gravity accelerating objects the same rate regardless of their masses and without stress on the objects. Again, the author is misusing a statement which I will state as follows: “Objects fall at the same rate.” This statement is not a general statement. In fact, it is about a very particular situation. That is, relatively small objects falling around the surface of Earth, relative to Earth. All of these limits are ignored by common usage when this statement is mentioned, which leads to misunderstandings both in laymen and the author. Proper use of the equation for Newton’s Law of Gravity is not that easy except for idealized situations. Most things that people make on Earth are very small compared to Earth and are very close to the Earth, so a simplification can be made which is summarized by “objects fall at the same rate.” However, this is generally not true, and when it matters, that statement is just wrong. Object are stressed by gravity, but in almost all common sense situations, the stress is so slight that it does not matter. Object approach Earth at rates that depend on their mass, and in fact, they pull on Earth too, but relative to Earth they don’t matter because their masses are so tiny compared to Earth. The force is not mysterious at all unless one uses a straw man argument to mischaracterize the law and then makes claims based on those mischaracterizations. The fact that the mass of the object cancels out only happens when calculating the force on that object due to Earth. It certainly matters when calculating the force of the object on Earth. Hence, the acceleration of both objects towards one another must take into account both masses. Sigh. Take and understand one semester of college physics and this is clear.

 

It is unbelievable that the author discounts the inertial applications of Newton’s Law. That is the most practical aspect of it. Sheesh!!

 

Well, that is my criticism of the first chapter of the book, “The Final Theory”. I am torn about trying to read more because maybe the author does have a good model to explain. It is too bad he has poisoned his own well such that I have to be so torn.

[phillip1882]

the argument of potential and kinetic energy balancing out doesn't really hold water, if you think about it. let's take a couple common examples. first, let's take the example of a spring.

let's say i stretch a spring out a couple inches, well within it's range to be able to pull back to the point of its natural equilibrium. the spring now has "potential energy", in that once i let go, it will be in motion. but what if instead of letting go, i held it stretched out for a long period of time, eating food and drinking water sufficient enough to do so? eventually the spring would become permanently stretched out, unable to bounce back to its natural shape. same thing with a balloon, if a blow up a balloon, i stretch it out. if i keep on filling it back up enough times, eventually the balloon will lose its elasticity, its ability to retain potential energy. with gravity, if i hold a baseball above the ground, no matter how long i hold it, hours, days, years, even eons, gravity won't dissipate, it won't lose its ability to pull the rock to the ground once i let go. further more, its unclear how exactly pulling objects apart imparts the object i pull away from with the potential energy necessary for it to accelerate back toward it.

on orbits, he provides a very simple equation for determining orbits, v^2 *r = K

where K is a constant, r is the distance the orbiting body is away, and v is the velocity of the orbiting body. in his book, he gives this constant value for both the sun and the earth. doing a bit of algebra on your own, it's not that hard to work out what the constant would be for other objects of any size. true, it only works well for two orbiting bodies. but that's also true with Newton's equation, try googling "three orbiting bodies" to see how complex Newton quickly gets.