The Final Theory
Posted 10 April 2005 - 04:40 AM
But I don't think those credentials necessarily mean you are right. Nearly every negative response to McCutcheon I've read uses the 'argument from authority'.
In particular, although you grant McCutcheon credence with respect to the idea that gravity is an effect of expansion, you say that it will only be correct if someone can mathematically explain it. What if your assumption is wrong? What if all things cannot be explained with mathematics?
How do you explain the fact that consciousness exists even though nobody has explained it with a mathematical model?
If the universe is expanding at the 'atomic' level, as McCutcheon claims, then allow me to make some observations relative to that and lets see where it goes.
First, if we are all part of that expansion, we are going to be blind to it with respect to perception.
Second, expansion at an atomic level is not currently in any of the standard atomic or molecular theories. It would seem absurd to assume an expansion process would have no effect on those theories. This means that standard models are probably wrong.
Third, our models of chemical processes and electrical processes rely heavily on our current atomic models, which once again do not include the phenomenon of expansion.
Fourth, if our understanding of electrical processes is flawed then so is our understanding of magnetism and light. Now we're into the electromagnetic spectrum. Now everything is screwed up.
It would have been irresponsible of McCutcheon to propose the expansion theory without attempting to address these issues, which he does in the book.
Finally, I don't think that it is McCutcheon's responsibility to have read every book ever written and be terrified of not being aware of someone else's contribution to the concept of expansion. Give him the benefit of the doubt on this, at least for now. If he stole the ideas, I'll help you beat him up later. After all, being the mathematical wizard that you are, you are certainly aware of the fact that Calculus was invented by more than one person at the same time.
To the other comments about lay people, etc. I can only tsk. tsk tsk.
To paultrr, wow, beautifully written. I can't say I understand it all, but what I did understand I agreed with. I'll work on it. I don't think that our being conscious has an effect on the nature of existence. The fact that we are conscious and we exist means that the two work together. Consciousness must be a property of existence.
Posted 13 May 2005 - 09:59 AM
Posted 15 May 2005 - 06:28 AM
thank you for taking the time to look at it. I had problems with orbital mechanics and I struggled with how it could possibly work for over a year. The only thing I can say is that when it finally did appear to be believable it was after I realized that his explanation is at the very least no less incredible than orbits caused by a pull. So I simply said, 'why not?'.
I still don't know if he's correct. The strength of my conviction is not a measure of the voracity of his theories. They are either more accurate than current theories or they aren't. Only when we are able to fill in the substantial vacuum that he has created in our understanding of the natural world, and use that understanding with more certainty than our current models, will we be able to say that he is more correct.
But, if a line were drawn in the sand and I was required to stand on one side or the other, I'd step on McCutcheon's side without hesitation. And if it were a bet, I'd bet the farm.
Recently, I made the observation that McCutcheon actually provides a way to define time in terms of something other than a unit of time. It is my understanding that time is considered a fundamental phenomenon that can't be broken down into component parts. We provide a way to measure time but we always use a standard that contains time within it. When this dawned on me, I checked the book to see if McCutcheon addressed this issue. He had.
Toward the end of the book, which I had read with a mostly fried brain, he made the same observation.
So, most likely, my epiphany had been triggered by what I had read and it just took some time for it to get through my filters and reach the surface. But that's one of the things that I love about the book. It provokes thought and is so incredibly fresh.
Posted 16 May 2005 - 05:13 AM
So I will be back shortly to comment further on this subject,
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!!!!
Posted 01 June 2005 - 07:13 PM
I admit, I only read the first chapter available at thefinaltheory.com, but let me tell you, it is enough to convince me he's trying to fool you. Besides, if he is as mathematical as he claims, then I should only need to debunk the things from the first chapter to overthrow most of the rest of the book.
So let me just say a few things...
First, it is critical to his theory that gravity requires a power source in order to keep planets in orbit. This is simply not true. Imagine a rock tied by string to a well greased ring on an axis (long pole?) in _space_. Now set the rock rotating around the axis. The string will keep the rock in orbit around the axis until the energy is dissipated by friction of the ring with the axis. A similar phenomenon keeps planets rotating.
Second, it is critical to his theory that no evidence exists for the proportionality between gravitational acceleration and mass. He claims that we would need detailed knowledge of planetary bodies in order to verify this. Again, simply not true. The proportionality constant can be measured by the gravitational acceleration of two much smaller objects. This was done long ago by Cavendish: http://kossi.physics.../Cavendish.html
Third, he repeatedly claims refers to Newton's and Einstein's work as "flawed," as if they didn't have the intelligence to think about their ideas rigorously before running around claiming they'd figured out "everything."
Can someone please inform McCutcheon of the Golden Rule?
If this guy was really interested in helping us earth residents to find our "birthright" he would share it first, then point to his book for people who wanted to find the details. Why is he so afraid he has to hide the real goods(his gravitational power source) in later chapters of the book and not present them for free? Did he really figure it out, or is he trying make a quick buck from people who don't understand thermodynamics?
Posted 02 June 2005 - 02:35 AM
But, since he is such a charlatan and you are not, show me the string between the earth and the moon or the sun and the earth, I’d appreciate it. In the history of the world, no one has ever detected the string. To date, it is an inference.
Can someone please inform McCutcheon of the Golden Rule?
Posted 02 June 2005 - 02:45 AM
Care to spill the beans? Do you believe what he says? And if you do... what are your qualifications in physics? If you don't know squat as far as physics is concerned, and you can't explain the gist of the book to us, then your opinion in this regard can't be worth very much. Nothing personal, but I'm very sceptical about people who claim to be able to explain the universe in one single theory. Maybe that's why he couldn't convince a publisher to print his book - the guy who proofread the script passed 8th grade physics, or something.
Posted 02 June 2005 - 04:32 AM
Since we are part of the universe and expanding ourselves we are unable to perceive this expansion directly. Since any unit of measure we would use to detect this expansion is itself expanding we are unable to detect any change. It can only be inferred. The only direct clue of this expansion is our ability to perceive the effect of gravity.
I can understand your request for 'qualifications' since that appears to be the common thread of most of the arguments I've seen (argument from authority) at least on this thread.
But that's not important or at least it shouldn't be. What is important from the perspective of simply being a human being, is to correctly model existence so that we can deal with it properly. Nothing else matters. I believe that we can and should make sense of all things. I believe that to be our purpose for being.
And I have assumed that these forums exist because others think the same way. Am I wrong? Is this some sort of exotic pecking order dance? If so, I am wasting my time here.
Posted 02 June 2005 - 04:51 AM
The fact is - as far as I understand it, McCutcheon is trying to propose a new theory that could very well be the Holy Grail of the Grand Unified Theory they've been looking for for the last how many years. Now, I understand that if that is the case, and he actually did achieve it, somebody who is seriously clued up in Standard Physics (Non-McCutcheon) should review the whole of his thesis and see if it is apliccable to observations. I mean, if he can convince an expert that Einstein was wrong, then he will convince me. It can't be hard for him to convince a layman that Einstein was wrong, but that won't swing any weight with me. No offence intended, seriously.
His idea of everything inflating, causing the effect we perceive to be gravity, could also very well be explained by everything staying the same, but space shrinking. The effect will be the same. So, there's already two different possible explanations for our perception of gravity, both of which will yield the same results. Myself, I tend to go with the dent in space/time causing gravity...
Another question (I haven't read past the free chapter 1): What does McCutcheon say about Black Holes? If his eplanation of expansion holds true, then black holes should expand faster than light travels? And how does expansion influence the path of light past heavy masses like stars? And if expansion happens faster than light, pretty soon everything will be gulped up in one big black hole?
I'm open to new ideas, I just don't want to pay $30 for them...
Posted 02 June 2005 - 06:04 AM
I mean, what is to be gained? Am I doing this because I want someone else to take it from here? Hmmmm. Very interesting question. Perhaps one foot in front of the other is the way to go.
We come into and leave this world totally alone. Many of you have given me the pleasure of your company and your beautiful thoughts and for that I thank you. I have business to attend to.
Posted 02 June 2005 - 06:35 AM
ldsoftwaresteve, I'm considering your words carefully. Especially when you say "The only direct clue of this expansion is our ability to perceive the effect of gravity." which comes from the book in question. That argument is a vicious circle.
The search for an ultimate theory does depend heavily on the mechanism of the gravitational interaction. And it is a good thing that a few (unfortunately very few) people are trying to figure it out.
Richard P. Feynman wrote with due reason that “All we have done is to describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go. Newton made no hypotheses about this: he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery.”
We use mathematics to describe nature without knowing what mechanism is operating, though many have been suggested. Feynman continues, “No machinery has ever been invented that “explains” gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist.”(1994 pp. 107-109)
I'm afraid that expansion will not agree with emperical evidence. On the otherhand, Einstein's general postulate of relativity does. The key is the mechanism. First we need to find out what makes spacetime distort and how it works.
From there will follow a host of changes in physics. Everything will fall into place: unification, history or evolution of the universe, material creation, the cause of feeling alive, i.e., consciousness, etc.
Whatever the ultimate theory turn out to be, you will see, it will be simple, elegant, beautiful, and obvious.
Incidentally, thermodynamics plays a key role in the ultimate theory.
1st law: You can’t win, you can only break even.
2nd law: You can break even only at the absolute zero.
3rd law: You cannot reach absolute zero.
(from The American Scientist 1964, p. 40A)
A.M. aka coldcreation
Conclusion: You can neither win nor break even.
Posted 02 June 2005 - 11:33 AM
You did miss my point. It is not just that the string counteracts centrifugal force, it is that it does this without doing work. The string does not need a power source to keep the rock revolving, and neither does gravity. This experiment verifies the "Standard" formula for determining work.
McCutcheon spends nearly the entire first chapter trying to justify his statement that the "Standard" formula for work is wrong because it depends on the angle between the force and direction of motion. This experiment shows that the formula is not wrong.
Because this formula is right, _gravity does not do work to keep planets in orbit,_ just as the string does not do work keeping the rock revolving around the axis. That is my point.
I suspect that McCutcheon is well aware of this. He tries to fool you by appealing to your experience of fatigue when twirling a rock on the surface of the earth. In case the revolving rock is too abstract, a rolling ball serves the same purpose.
Show me the string between the earth and the moon or the sun and the earth.
I do not have to show you a string between the earth and moon in order to show that the force of gravity does not need a power source to keep planets in orbit. While this does not appeal to your desire to have a tactile understanding of gravity, the fact that gravity in the "Standard Theory" is a conservative force is undisputed.
After the first chapter, I would doubt the way that he presents historical experiments. As an example, take his presentation of the history for calculating work. He implied that many men had calculated work by using his traditional formula. Somehow, Newton or someone else must have come along and changed it so they could create their mystical force of gravity.
But let's get this straight, the work formula is a direct consequence of conservation of energy. There is no history to argue with, it is a logical consequence of postulates that he stated as facts.
If this is the case, why did McCutcheon try to argue that it was some kind of cover up? Why didn't he give the correct history, that it is simply an unassumed consequence? If he presents the men who discovered work formula(which is all physicists) this way, what can I expect of his presentation of Cavendish?
Posted 03 June 2005 - 06:27 AM
Could someone tell me exactly what it is about ?
Forgive me, but I think I have joined this discussion a bit late.
Posted 05 June 2005 - 08:12 AM
Anyway, as a poor student I haven't read the book, but I did contact the author, as I was intrigued by what this new final theory could be. He suggested a simple experiment that could verify his theory. He asked if I could perform a modification of the cavendish experiment.
As I have access to a lab, 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.
Edit: for many months the 10% I inserted read 1%, which would have been quite incredible.