The Final Theory

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus: It remains to be seen if they are fallacies will.

 

McCutcheon's whole first chapter is on conventional physics and why he feels it goes wrong. However, most, perhaps even all, of what he says about conventional physics is false.

 

Even his "geometric orbit equation" does NOT fit empirical data unless you round (his equation would work fine if all planets moved on circles, but since Keppler it has been known that planets move on ellipses, if not very eccentric ones.).

-Will

[CraigD]

It may sound ignorant and ambitious of me, but I dissagree with what mathamaticians have to say.

I must confess, it does sound that way to me. Ignorance, however, gives way with education and experience, while ambition is what fuels advances in Math and Science. If you disagree with mainstream Math, develop you own mathematical formalism (you’ll need plenty of ambition, discipline, and time to do this!), and, if others find it useful, it will influence or supplant the mainstream.

Stating the obvious.

Zero is nothing. No thing (no quantity, no limit, just as infinity).

"Z-e-r-o" is not a number but a word.

This assertion, in mathematical terms, is equivalent to the assertion “Of ‘cardinal numbers’ and ‘ordinal numbers’, only ordinal numbers are ‘numbers’.”

 

The distinction between cardinal and ordinal numbers is an important mathematical concept. That Math should be restricted to only ordinal numbers is not a strategy that most mathematicians would recommend, however.

[arkain101]

well thanks for the links and info.

 

I dont mean to make it as though other math is faulty. But mainly in respsonse to 0/0=1/1=1 , what I had to say explains the fault in that persons logic.

 

Craig, you do understand my main point correct?

 

5x0=0

6+0=6

Why not,

5 x __ = 0

6+__ is 6.

 

that way, his 0/0 = 1/1 = 1 could be written as.

__ / __ = nothing accomplished. __

[CraigD]

I dont mean to make it as though other math is faulty. But mainly in respsonse to 0/0=1/1=1 , what I had to say explains the fault in that persons logic.

I believe jonorr was joking in his post “The Final Parody”, poking fun at the tone of writing in McCutcheon's post “The Final Theory”. 0/0 is NOT equal to 1/1 in any serious conventional mathematical sense - it is “inderterminant”, which is to say, could be any value, so is not a very useful arithmetic expression.

Craig, you do understand my main point correct?

 

5x0=0

6+0=6

Why not,

5 x __ = 0

6+__ is 6.

I think I understand you. Certainly it doesn’t matter what notation (glyphs) we use for 0, as long as we all recognize it – historically, many different marks have be used to express the elusive concept of “the number that is the count of the contents of an empty container”.

that way, his 0/0 = 1/1 = 1 could be written as.

__ / __ = nothing accomplished. __

there is an important difference between the expression n/0, which is indeterminant, and no expression at all, thought both could be vaguely described as “nothing accomplished”.

[jonorr]

Brilliant parody, jonorr! I was half asleep when I read it, somehow failed to grasp the title, and was mentally preparing a scathing debunking of your “math” until I got toand realized you weren’t serious!

 

You should keep your day job, however – the audience for math parody is, regrettably, a small one.

 

Thanks Craig. Normally I try not to bother people with my demented sense of humor, but it was April 1st after all. :)

[Indroneil Ghosh]

In the book 'final theory', I did find some reason it the whole theory. But the crude way in which the existing theories have been dismissed and showed to be wrong has gotten me in a very negative opinion condition about the book. It appears that the writer is simply suffering from a very severe misunderstanding of the current concepts.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

In the book 'final theory', I did find some reason it the whole theory. But the crude way in which the existing theories have been dismissed and showed to be wrong has gotten me in a very negative opinion condition about the book. It appears that the writer is simply suffering from a very severe misunderstanding of the current concepts.

There are many who would agree with you. I am not one of them. McC comes at it from a different direction and time will prove him correct I think. The issue is our perception of reality, that we are not capable of seeing the underlying expansion of all things that exist. We only feel the effect of gravity. That's the only perceptual link to the fact he's trying to show. We have used our incredible intellect and created theories that explain it in terms we can relate to (Newton, Einstein and others). McCutcheon now shows that all of it can be explained by an underlying expansion which we are perceptually blind to.

[Boerseun]

There's a lot of people pro McC and con McC, some more verbal than others.

This thread have been going for quite some time, and I propose (completely objectively as to the subject of this thread) that before you post anything here, please try to read through the thread.

 

Yeah - I know, it's a monster thread - but whatever question or comment you might have regarding "The Final Theory", chances are that it has been covered already, in detail.

[tarajee]

The final theory.

Writer of the book “The final theory,” has done a fine work where as he speaks for failure of the theory of gravity already presented by the old thinkers. But one thing is strictly objectionable to use the hard language for the scientists gone from the field, above all when he himself has failed to produce workable theory. He has given a theory, a dull theory but in the appealing words. You are right when you say how nicely he has presented the totally wrong theory. Up to this time only workable theory is from Newton.

The author of the book has presented a theory relative to the expansion of the structure of the atom. So every thing is bound to expand. If an apple is falling down towards the earth, actually it is not in falling process but it is expanding while at the same time earth is also becoming big. This process of expansion minimises the gap between the apple and earth resulting in a crash of both the things. In such a case the atoms of every sky object will expand and so sun moon and earth with other planets will try to fill the gape between each other. What will happen….a crash, but things are not going to obey the writer. Where I may place the intellectual power of the persons who say that writer has done a remark able work while he has come in this field with a remark able blunder? The only thing which goes in the favour of the writer is that he knows how to write. Final theory is still far far away from the minds of the people. Tarajee

[ldsoftwaresteve]

tarajee:

In such a case the atoms of every sky object will expand and so sun moon and earth with other planets will try to fill the gape between each other. What will happen….a crash, but things are not going to obey the writer.

Your reading and understanding is not correct. Objects that haven't crashed into each other are moving relative to each other at a velocity that keeps them apart, by definition. If you actually did read the book, reread pages 81 - 85.

While you read, keep in mind that the objects in motion are changing size but maintaining the same size ratio. In other words, if a bowling ball and a marble have an 8:1 ratio with respect to their radii, they will still have an 8:1 ratio 2 days from now. There are numerous conceptual hazards to grasping what McCutcheon is saying so be careful and think it through with an open mind.

By the way, welcome to the discussion. Try reading some of the previous posts as Beorseun has suggested.

[tarajee]

tarajee:Your reading and understanding is not correct. Objects that haven't crashed into each other are moving relative to each other at a velocity that keeps them apart, by definition. If you actually did read the book, reread pages 81 - 85.

While you read, keep in mind that the objects in motion are changing size but maintaining the same size ratio. In other words, if a bowling ball and a marble have an 8:1 ratio with respect to their radii, they will still have an 8:1 ratio 2 days from now. There are numerous conceptual hazards to grasping what McCutcheon is saying so be careful and think it through with an open mind.

By the way, welcome to the discussion. Try reading some of the previous posts as Beorseun has suggested.

 

Will you please clear the function of a bullet; say hits a man who is at a considerable distance standing still. What is ratio of expanding both the things? Is it possible that the bullet expands towards the target only? Other sides of the bullet remain constant. How it is possible? There are so many other such things which do not become fit according to the expansion theory.

No logic or the common sense in any way accepts the theory to be work able. Totally wrong theory. This I must accept that again it will be proved a correct theory, by the language force.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

tarajee:

Will you please clear the function of a bullet; say hits a man who is at a considerable distance standing still. What is ratio of expanding both the things? Is it possible that the bullet expands towards the target only? Other sides of the bullet remain constant. How it is possible? There are so many other such things which do not become fit according to the expansion theory.

No logic or the common sense in any way accepts the theory to be work able. Totally wrong theory. This I must accept that again it will be proved a correct theory, by the language force.

I think something is getting lost in the translation because I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Please read previous posts that discuss the expansion of different objects and how that expansion does not affect their relative sizes. If you think it is wrong because it doesn't make sense and you have total confidence in your perception, then go on to something else. There are a lot of people who agree with you, but I am not one of them. :)

[Here's Johnny!]

Hi All!

 

I'm posting here for two reasons. One is that I see that many posters tend to believe McCutcheon's "Final Theory." The other is because I'm fustrated that I couldn't find an email address for Mr. McCuteheon to send this rebuke to him:

 

"Final Theory Rebuked:

 

Dear Mr. McCuteheon,

 

I am a retired mechanical engineer and student of the cosmos (amateur thought tinkerer). I bought your book because it sounded very interesting and I was not disappointed. It'is an amazing work, well written, very clear and concise. However the ideas in it are not that well thought out. For example your “work” definition is lacking and your orbit theory is divisive. Your biggest problem however, is the basis of your book – the expansion theory that you put forth. I thought of this idea many years ago and then rejected it because it is physically impossible over a long time span.

 

 

You claim that your Final Theory is based, in part, on your “fact” that Gravity is not a force but merely the effect of matter expansion. (I agree with you in that I never thought of gravity as a force.) You say that all material expansion has a constant value of expansion. The exception (you say) is the absence of matter, or space, which does not expand. You say your constant (the Universal Atomic Expansion Rate) is: 0.00000077 per second, per second, (approximated) for all material objects, be they atoms or large stars. Otherwise stated, this is the percent change in the size of the material object for each second that passes.

 

I won’t even add the “dx” value of expansion (the acceleration part) to my consideration of your ideas. I’ll merely say this… If you take the rate of expansion as constant to simplify this result, you will see that expansion does not work, given time. For example take the Earth and our Sun. You say the Earth is expanding at this rate and therefore the Sun also has to.

 

The Earth has a diameter of 6,371 kilometers (average – your numbers). Using your formula “Xa = Gravational Effect/Radius of Body,” I will plug in 4.9 meters (1/2 of the “gravity” effect) and divide it by 6,371 km, which gives 0.00000077 (your constant).

 

Therefore eliminating “dx” and only using your constant, the Earth expands 4.9 meters radially every second (dx is the percent change of size or the acceleration component). Without dx the expansion would be constant.

 

The Sun has a diameter of 865,000 miles or 1,392,000 kilometers, approx.

 

The earth is located approximately 150,000,000 km from the Sun, measuring from the center of the Earth to the center of the Sun. According to you this should not change (no Platonian ether to expand, just empty space).

 

Every second the Earth expands approximately 4.9 meters radially and the Sun expands approximately 1,070.7 meters radially, each second. (Crunch the numbers – the sun is approximately 109 times larger, radially, than Earth.)

 

This means that each day (which has 86,400 seconds) the Earth grows 423,360 meters closer to the Sun and the Sun grows 46,254,240 meters towards the earth, or each day they come 46,465,920 meters or 46,465.9 km closer to each other, relatively speaking. This doesn’t take into account the acceleration factor, “dx”. (Do the calculus if you want.)

 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that they will collide (like a big bang) in way less than 3,228 years (approx). And if you run this backwards to 2000 thousand years ago, (at the supposed time of Christ) or 4000 years ago (during the Sumerian Empire) the Sun would have been so relatively small that the earth would have been a frozen waste land, similar to the moons of Saturn, many times colder than it is now.

 

Since space science hasn’t noticed this expansion occurring over time, I doubt that your “final theory” is that final after all.

 

Of course your final theory never addressed the really big questions anyway. Those are, where did everything come from? And if there was a “Big Bang,” where did it come from, and what existed before it? Also how far is infinity and theoretically, how big could anything be or how small could something get? What was the beginning of time and what will be the ending of time? To find these answers it is necessary to look beyond physical limits and explore the mental universe. Of course you literalists (lovers of a physical final solution) could never lower yourself to consider that maybe there is more than the physical. I am not a born again Christian and do not believe that Christ ever walked on this planet or any other. However I do believe in a spiritual reality, a God/thinking power that is the originator of the physical Universe. Not a God that we humans bow down to but a God that is equal to us spiritually. Exactly what or who that God is, is open to debate. Organized religions do not have the answers and the scientific school of thought that looks for a physical answer to all, does not either.

 

Anyway thanks for publishing this book. I enjoyed it and don’t want my money back like others. It goes in my library of failed ideas alongside Ohaspe and the Bible. I loved your deconstruction of the other final theory unification attempts. Einstein was wrong and science is wrong. There is more than meets the eye! In looking for a needle in a haystack you forgot to check if there was a needle to begin with, so you keep searching that empty haystack for the needle (a final theory of everything).

 

I hope you do get rich from book sales because what I’ve revealed might deflate your balloon.

 

Sincerely,

 

J. Dent

 

Anyway thanks for letting me rant and get this off my chest.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Nice try Dent.

 

Go back over the posts and look for the discussion about two objects of different sizes expanding. You're not seeing it correctly. The problem is easy to get by, however.

 

Each object has a structure. That structure has a size relative to the other structure. It doesn't matter that the number of particles in one is greater than the number of particles in the other. The size is relative. As each expands, the relative sizes remain the same. The number of particles remains the same and the expansion doesn't change the nature of the structure.

 

With respect to the orbits, the velocity remains the same (in relative terms) because the unit of measure expands along with the objects. You are thinking in a fixed frame of reference and that doesn't exist.

 

The part I had trouble with was how the expansion could behave like an attraction. It took a while but it just dawned on me one day that they are exactly the same. At first, I was incapable of visualizing it.

[ronthepon]

Can some body hold a poll on wether the book is good or not?

[InfiniteNow]

Can some body hold a poll on wether the book is good or not?

Most readers will decide that for themselves, regardless of what a poll shows. Pick it up, decide for yourself. Can't afford it? Just spend some time in the local B&N or Borders and sit down for a few hours...

 

 

Cheers. :hyper:

[ronthepon]

Most readers will decide that for themselves, regardless of what a poll shows. Pick it up, decide for yourself. Can't afford it? Just spend some time in the local B&N or Borders and sit down for a few hours...

 

 

Cheers. :singer:

 

The problem is that i got no bookstore in a 500 lightyear radius of the laptop im punching on. I'm thinkin of getting one from the internet...