The Final Theory

[coldcreation]

ColdCreation: Not heat. Abuse. there's a difference. Although from what I've seen, there are some so-called scientists that aren't capable of distinguishing it.

Perhaps someday we'll place a value on honesty. Until we do, the world will be bathed in pain.

 

NOT abuse. I will publish in this thread some bottom line of the interchanges I am referring to (next week with my own computer, now I'm in Madrid with my sister inlaws' computer). They were absolutly not abusive. The question posed to McC were strictly of scientific nature. He could not answer them, and so resorted to argument of the type: "I also had difficulty visualizing it at first" (just like you, this is why I think you are McC promoting here your book, keeping the thread alive).

 

cc

[Boerseun]

Beorseun:Oh my. I've never anyone that spoke for the world before. Cool. :)

Let me get this straight. Because McCutcheon's theory might be wrong and then I would be too, it's ok to be abusive. Is that about it?

Now that is an interesting thought. Thank you for being so up front about it.

Honesty is always a good thing even in this case.

Beorseun, please look at what you just said. Do you really believe that?

If I say that the Sun is just a pile of potheads smokin' it up, and what we're seeing is the sum total of a lot of lit doobies, that's my personal view and opinion. If I present if to the world at large, and specifically the scientific world, I will be asked:

"Where's the proof?"

"What does it prove?"

"Can your assumption make any predictions?"

"What experiments can we test it with?"

...etc., ad infinitum.

 

If I can't supply any of the above, or overthrow established science with what I have humbly called "The Final Theory", and a lot of people tell me that I am wrong am I being abused?

 

You shouldn't take criticism so personally, for dog's sake. Science isn't about ego. Science is about proof.

 

Expansion might just be the "Final Theory". But until I get the equations and formulas describing gravity and specifically orbits, I'm not convinced. There's a HUGE gap in this theory as far as orbits are concerned, and if it doesn't account for that, it doesn't account for gravity. Expansion of the Earth accounting for what we perceive as gravity is intuitive. But only as we sit flat on our collective butts feeling the ground sucking us down. It doesn't explain terminal velocity (a local home-grown example), or orbits.

 

Criticism as far as new theories are concerned is nothing new. But it certainly is nothing personal, either.

[vnbalakrishna]

I EXPECT MORE INTELLIGENT REPLIES FROM YOU GUYS. C'MON U CAN DO BETTER.:)

[coldcreation]

But there is another scientific truism that in the three states of matter only gas can be compressed not solids or liquids. Is this not a contradiction which has been overlooked. .

 

Where did you get this from? This is not true. All three can be compressed. Plus you neglect plasma, as a state of matter, which too can be compressed.

 

 

However how does one explain Andromeda galaxy’s birth. It is elementary Watson. There was there another Biggest Bang that created Andromeda galaxy. If so why or who separated the two infinitely condensed matter? Andromeda no doubt is a separate universe. Then why was this separation visualized. If so by whom? If there was no visualization there must have been only one compact universe. There is a mismatch in applying the Big Bang to our universe..

 

This is not worth the screen you're writting on.

 

Big Bang is a self-styled explanation to the unknown. It is too pat..

 

Too pat? Self-styled. Your saying someone designed it? ...to the unknown designer?

 

Scientists say that as a way of checking the Universe’s age estimate, the oldest things in the universe are 10-15 billion years old, but definitely not older. From radioactive dating of uranium isotopes, we know that the oldest isotopes were created (through nuclear reactions in supernovae) about 10 billion years ago. From our current model of star evolution, we know that the oldest stars in our Galaxy are about 12 billion years old. These ages are consistent with the age estimated from the observed expansion of the universe. This agreement suggests that the universe really began a finite time ago, providing an encouraging reason to believe in the big bang model of the universe..

 

What's the relation with this thread?

 

When so many universes exists is it not assuming a paltry 10 billion years lifespan sounds like an ant assuming that a elephant must be eating food equivalent to the food consumed by million ants! If universe now is racing apart then there could be other reasons too. Maybe some unknown cosmic energy that is blowing everything apart like the wind blowing the kites flying in the sky apart? .

 

...like God blowing outwards in all directions from inside? Or like god sucking inwards from outside?

 

I feel we are too young to come to a definitive explanation. Instead of going the whole hog on the Big Bang there is lot more thinking needed.

 

"...the whole hog" ?, too young?

 

I bet you didn't even read the first chapter.

 

Dang it.

 

cc

[vnbalakrishna]

Where did you get this from? This is not true. All three can be compressed. Plus you neglect plasma, as a state of matter, which too can be compressed.

cc

 

Cud u please enlighten me how solids and liquids can be compressed. Isn’t the atoms and molecules in liquids are already so close (very very close in solids) that they cannot be compressed? Since the particles of a solid are already touching each other, they cannot be squashed any closer. I think every boy knows this.

Even if I go by your argument that they can be compressed could they have been compressed so much that the universe gets packed into a size no bigger than that of a mole in our skin?

I think you are totally missing my larger question and instead trying to nitpick. :)

[vnbalakrishna]

Where did you get this from? This is not true. All three can be compressed. Plus you neglect plasma, as a state of matter, which too can be compressed.

cc

 

Cud u please enlighten me how solids and liquids can be compressed. Isn’t the atoms and molecules in liquids are already so close (very very close in solids) that they cannot be compressed? Since the particles of a solid are already touching each other, they cannot be squashed any closer. I think every boy knows this.

Even if I go by your argument that they can be compressed could they have been compressed so much that the universe gets packed into a size no bigger than that of a mole in our skin?

I think you are totally missing my larger question and instead trying to nitpick. :)

[coldcreation]

Cud u please enlighten me how solids and liquids can be compressed. Isn’t the atoms and molecules in liquids are already so close (very very close in solids) that they cannot be compressed? Since the particles of a solid are already touching each other, they cannot be squashed any closer. I think every boy knows this.:)

 

Every boy? You should do your homework before doing a critic in bold large letters.

 

QUOTE=vnbalakrishna]Even if I go by your argument that they can be compressed could they have been compressed so much that the universe gets packed into a size no bigger than that of a mole in our skin?

I think you are totally missing my larger question and instead trying to nitpick. :)

 

Is this your larger question? Who is Responsible?

[vnbalakrishna]

Every boy? You should do your homework before doing a critic in bold large letters.

 

QUOTE=vnbalakrishna]Even if I go by your argument that they can be compressed could they have been compressed so much that the universe gets packed into a size no bigger than that of a mole in our skin?

I think you are totally missing my larger question and instead trying to nitpick. :)

 

Is this your larger question? Who is Responsible?

Is this forum meant for discussion or to listen to your diatribes.

[coldcreation]

Is this your larger question? Who is Responsible?

Is this forum meant for discussion or to listen to your diatribes.

 

Please answer my questions.

 

What is the larger question you're asking (you mentioned it not I).

 

Have you read the first chaper of the book under study here?

[coldcreation]

Is this your larger question? Who is Responsible?

Is this forum meant for discussion or to listen to your diatribes.

 

You have not answered yet:

 

What is your larger question?

 

Have you read the first chapter of the book?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

beorseun:

Criticism as far as new theories are concerned is nothing new. But it certainly is nothing personal, either.

Ok. I agree. And Beorseun, that was a good post you made. Thank you for being serious.

[coldcreation]

Still waiting...still waiting

[ldsoftwaresteve]

coldCreation:

The question posed to McC were strictly of scientific nature. He could not answer them, and so resorted to argument of the type: "I also had difficulty visualizing it at first" (just like you, this is why I think you are McC promoting here your book, keeping the thread alive).

Sorry pal, I'm not. He lives in Australia. I live in the U.S. And as far as keeping this thread alive, you're doing that quite well without my help.

 

CrimsonWolf and Beagleworth both had very good observations about McC's ideas and seem to be reasonable people and there have been a few others. So it appears that some people think he might be on to something.

 

You have your own theory which you keep mentioning. Well, publish it. Give me the first chapter for free and let me see if I like it. If it makes sense to me, I'll buy it if I think it helps me comprehend the world better.

 

But I do think that today we're limited in our understanding of our world because we've been on the wrong track. McCutcheon is taking us in a different direction and ripping us out of the rut we're currently in.

 

The two sciences that have the worst records for following false leads are cosmology and archeology. They've been dominated by certain ideas that over the years have turned out to be quite wrong. Even mathematics is based upon the idea that we have a fixed frame of reference. Mccutcheon says we don't and if he's correct, that is why among other things, orbits are so hard to comprehend. It's also why this perspective hasn't been pursued. In the end, we'll modify mathematics into something new if need be and move forward again. Mathematics has to model things the way they actually are. And that is why this is so important to consider.

 

And if you wonder why I remain interested, it's because I'm fascinated by the response to his theory, not just the theory itself. I'm fascinated by self induced blindspots. And I think that the ramifications of McC's theories are much more profound than even he thinks.

[coldcreation]

... And as far as keeping this thread alive, you're doing that quite well without my help. .

 

You're right, even bad advertizing is good.

 

CrimsonWolf and Beagleworth both had very good observations about McC's ideas and seem to be reasonable people and there have been a few others. So it appears that some people think he might be on to something..

 

Now all you need, then, are observation that support the idea of McC. Still waiting...

 

You have your own theory which you keep mentioning. Well, publish it. Give me the first chapter for free and let me see if I like it. If it makes sense to me, I'll buy it if I think it helps me comprehend the world better..

 

Where did I mention my theory?

 

But I do think that today we're limited in our understanding of our world because we've been on the wrong track. McCutcheon is taking us in a different direction and ripping us out of the rut we're currently in. .

 

Granted, I'm saying though that the direction places the observer in another rut somewhere else - with the expansion of all undifferentiated matter to explain gravity.

 

The two sciences that have the worst records for following false leads are cosmology and archeology. They've been dominated by certain ideas that over the years have turned out to be quite wrong. Even mathematics is based upon the idea that we have a fixed frame of reference. ....

 

True for cosmology, but archeology has been quite thorough. Are you saying that evolution is not correct? If not, where did archeology go wrong? If so, wht is the correct theory?

 

And if you wonder why I remain interested, it's because I'm fascinated by the response to his theory, not just the theory itself. I'm fascinated by self induced blindspots. And I think that the ramifications of McC's theories are much more profound than even he thinks.

 

You're fascinated by the response? You're facinated that most of us think the theory is untenable (for empirical reasons, ie., for the lack of empirical verification). Name one testable prediction that differenciates it from the standard model?

 

CC

[CrimsonWolf]

Standard model failures:

 

The latest test on the Muon particle was far enough out standard deviation that it's properties are now being considered for need to be rewritten in the text books. Fact

 

The discovery of a Pinta-Quark is a complete mystery. Fact

 

Standard model works well atomic and sub-atomic levels well. It does not however describe gravity or everyday motion that well. It's useless when applied to gravity. Theory should describe whole universe, not just the micro-scales.

 

Discovery of Dark Matter completely baffles science. Standard Theory failed to predict it. Fact

 

Discovery of Dark Energy also was not predicted by Standard Theory or even expected. Fact

 

Standard Theory does not explain where or why even the simplest lifeforms exist. The odds of all the right combinations of molecules and structures needed is ten to one-hundred thirteen (1 with 113 zeros!) power. Anything over ten to fifth power is considered by probability (basis of Standard Model) as not happening. According to science we shouldn't be here. Fact

 

Standard Theory explains bio-chemistry but not how bio-chemistry starts. The simplest lifeforms are still as complicated if not more so than any human device. Bio-mechanics cannot just happen. Fact

 

The odds of the right combinations of over 2,000 proteins needed in most cell activity as coming to together by chance is 10 to the 40,000 power! Standard models observes the proteins but not explain how they come together so precisely in basic cell functions in the first place. Fact

 

The odds of even simplest histones needed for DNA activity coming about chance is 20 to the 100th power! Once again Standard Model explains what histones do but not how they came about. Fact

 

Gamma Bursts release so much energy that E=m*c squared is violated unless you turn to theoretically unproven black hole collision. Standard Model cannot explain either Black Holes or how Gamma Burst could occur. Fact

 

Now don't get me wrong. Standard Model has it's uses. However it is not really a explanation so much as really just a modeling tool. It's been hammered to fit observations over the last century with numerous scientists coming together to form it. Heck it does not even explain why particles have properties, just that they do. It's statements and counter logic were needed to put it together in the first place. Never mind the fact that brings a bunch of probabilities of things just happening for some reason without a cause!

 

No the Standard Model will not stand the test of time. It's just to messy and obviously no where near final statement on the matter/energy of the universe. It's best try so far. But still falls short of the mark.

[Boerseun]

Crimson, you're not telling me that 'Expansion Theory' can make up for all the above shortfalls?

 

Another thing - nowhere (to my knowledge) has the Standard Model ever claimed to be the final word. Matter of fact, one of the pillars of science in determining the admissability of any theory in any given field, is that the theory shouldn't claim to be the final word on the matter. The US courts actually affirmed this point in a Creationist court case in 1982.

 

In other words, Science will forever be evolving, and any theory is a potential target for someone with a better explanaition. The fact that Sciene isn't complete and never will be, isn't a weakness - it's one of its greatest strengths.

[TheBigDog]

Is the book as entertaining than this thread? Such drama! I am going to check the library this week.

 

Bill