Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#16121 10/02/05 07:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
?The Final Theory?, by M. McCutcheon

I am a newcomer to this book which may have received some discussion here before my time. I just bought it and only read about 50 pages so far. This author really goes after Newton?s gravitation formulas and I was wondering if there are some of you that have considered his comments on Newton?s stuff and what you think about it?

I can verify from my own efforts that the orbit of a planet around the sun is equivalent to orbital velocity and has nothing to do with the mass of the orbiting object. You can track every mile from the sun going out and precisely calculate the orbital velocity for an object in that position, with out regard to the objects mass. However, I would hesitate to debate with Newton, ever.

Jim Wood

.
#16122 10/04/05 07:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Haven't read McCutcheon's book. But I would definitely recommend any of Brian Greene's books.

The problem with books about the "Final Theory" are that it doesn't exist and won't within your lifetime.


DA Morgan
#16123 10/04/05 09:07 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Thanks:

I have him on my list for next.
jw

#16124 10/05/05 12:51 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
You can track every mile from the sun going out and precisely calculate the orbital velocity for an object in that position, with out regard to the objects mass.
Really? Tell us abut the observed perihelion precession of Mecury's orbit.

McCutcheon is crap. You were suckered from your money,

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/08/amazoncom-controlled-by-crackpots.html


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#16125 10/05/05 07:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Uncle Al:

McCutcheon may be crap. I have not read enough of his book to make a judgement. I find your comment humerous because the quote you find offensive has nothing to do with McCutcheon-

That is MY statement of my work and I can prove my contention.

I have not tried to do anything to explain the wanderings of the planet Mercury. It is my understanding that those that argued against Einsteins theory as an explanation had calculated that if the sun was oblate it would tell the tale on Mercury. No one saw any oblateness in the sun so Einstein's explanation won out. I think the sun is oblate like all the other objects that rotate and and have satellites pulling on them. Things are not always as they seem.

Jim Wood

#16126 10/07/05 11:38 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Uncle Al:

I went to your link and read the offering, part of which recites:

"Mark McCutcheon: The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy (Paperback)
As I explain below, the book does not deserve anything else than one star (and my guess is that the readers, even those who sometimes like to argue with me, will agree). The short story is that the staff at amazon.com has repeatedly prevented the reviews by Brian Powell from appearing on their website."

The Blog contains the authors low opinion of McCutcheon, his backround, his lack of training and his lack of knowledge; and that is his right. I will read the book with that sources information in hand. I need not take your mans view over any one else because I do not know any of these people. I don't mind buying books.
Jim

#16127 10/10/05 10:48 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
The Final Theory revisited.

It seems that Uncle Al may have the word on this book. I am now in pages seventies. I have been anxious to see what the author had to say as a substitute for Newton?s and Einstein?s conception of gravity. It looks like he sees the atom in a constant state of expansion thereby causing everything composed of atoms to be in a constant state of expansion. In his world this uniform atom expansion does not really have objects falling to the Earth it has the earth expanding outward to meet the object just as the object is expanding to meet the Earth. To accept this view we must concede that everything in our three dimensional universe and right here in our solar system, is in constant expansion. He rationalizes this on the basis that because all of this expansion is uniform and universal we do not see it ? there is nothing to compare it with. His discussion so far deals only with the Earth and the most rudimentary examples. I will continue to read his effort but I wanted to post this to discourage any one being tempted to buy the book right now.

The author lost me on a very fundamental issue. We know that the acceleration of a falling object is directly related to the Mass of the object towards which it is falling. Earth?s ?surface? gravity is stated to be 32.16 feet per second, per second. The suns are like 900 feet per second, per second. To apply his approach it seems to me the sun should be expanding about 28 times as fast as the Earth. That would apply to every other planet more massive than the Earth as well. As old as these objects are we should be in one big ball by now! I will continue to read the book to be sure I have not miss-judged it.

Jim Wood

#16128 10/20/05 01:07 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3
G
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
G
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3
Regarding McCutcheon's "Expansion Theory" - Consider a pendulum, a child in a swing, a grandfather clock. How does "Expansion Theory" explain the cycles?

By the way, what is a "Poll" on this website?

Garry Grofcsik

#16129 10/20/05 04:03 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
A "poll" is an option on this site whereby you can post a question with two or more options as possible responses and allow members to express their opinion by voting on the options.

Hope that helps.

#16130 10/20/05 10:15 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3
G
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
G
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3
Oh, thanks.

Garry Grofcsik

#16131 10/22/05 10:05 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 9
J
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 9
I stumbled upon a 'read the first chapter free' link for 'The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy' by Mark McCutcheon yesterday. Rather silly. Mark spins a good yarn, but only undestands enough physics to be silly, not enough to be dangerous.

#16132 10/22/05 10:20 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Jack J, how about posting that link if you still have it? I'm sure people here would find it interesting. Oh, and welcome to the forum.

"Amaranth"

#16133 10/22/05 11:02 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 9
J
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 9

#16134 10/22/05 11:47 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Thank you, Jack J. I'll read it when I have more time.

"Amaranth"

#16135 10/23/05 12:44 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 9
J
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 9
Below is a link to another forum discussing this book. They give a very bad explanation of light bending in a crystal, but 'Hurkyl' does a very reasonable job with magnets, gravity, and energy that McCutcheon really butchers in the above mentioned chapter of his book:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=de041301ed9f9249a6404578e05f5028&threadid=2972

#16136 11/14/05 05:54 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Hi All,

I made it about halfway Mark's book and couldn't read on anymore. His ideas of the atom were just ridiculous. In his first two chapters (on gravity) he clearly shows that he doens't understand basic physics. I clearly doubt that someone who doesn't even understand how parabolic trajectories on earth go into elliptical orbits can come up with a theory that explains everything in our universe.
I would cleary advice against buying this book, because you'll be giving him the money and the means to continue to promote his unscientific ideas.

#16137 01/16/06 09:18 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I read the "free" online Chapter 1 of The Final Theory on 7 April 2004. I couldn't wait for the book to arrive from Amazon.com. While I was waiting, I tried to imagine what mechanism that Mark was going to posit for gravity. I've been bugged by this "action at a distance" issue since my first class in Astrophysics in college in 1970 - taught by one of guys who first detected radio emissions from Jupiter's moon Io.

On page 49 he lists some examples that he's obviously NOT selected. I have spent the last two years exploring the possibilities in one of his "discounted" approaches -- and all the while KEPT MYSELF from reading any more than the first chapter and the back cover of the book.

The civilian manager in my Air Force unit had earlier recommended "The Energy Machine by Joseph Neumann" which led to many good discussions about gyroscopes and electromagnetic fields. This drew me back into my hobby of physics (I was the Outstanding Student in Science in 1967 in my graduating class of 900+ students in Michigan).

In April 2004 he said I would probably enjoy The Final Theory and gave me the web link for the first chapter. He summarized the premise of the book as systematically and methodically applying Einstein's Equivalence Principle across the board.

I'm glad I waited to read The Final Theory. I've spent the last three days reading The Final Theory from cover to cover -- and yes, it was hard to continue at points, but Mark did such a magnificent job of cataloging the problems with Standard Theory that this book deserves a "landmark" status in annals of science.

While I do not subscribe to his "Expansion Theory", amazingly, the SPUE Theory that I developed comes to almost all the same conclusions and predictions as he as a result of his Expansion hypothesis. And I do agree with him that his book DOES present a new paradigm to replace Standard Theory.

His basic assumption, like Newton, is that the answer to gravity "is in the box." By taking his discounted approach of gravity being generated by STELLAR EJECTA, SPUE Theory posits that gravity is a "shadow effect" in a universe full of Sub-sub-sub-atomic Particles Universally Emancipated (SPUE). This SPUE ejecta comes equally from all directions and is the source of inertia at the atomic level. SPUE causes entropy and enthalpy LOCALLY and yet drives the gravitational effect which INCREASES ORDER UNIVERSALLY. With this model applied recursively, atoms (with dense nuclei) mirror not solar systems, but galaxies (with black holes REQUIRED at the center).

I don't want to go into SPUE Theory here, only to highlight testable differences with the Expansion Theory -- gravity can be blocked (from above, not below -- see John Hutchinson's videos)
and that magnetism in iron is caused by an elongation of atomic (galactic) systems which facilitates the flow SPUE "jet streams" which are currently below our ability to measure -- but which creates all "energy" that the Expansion Theory dismisses.

Expansion Theory has the "electron" as the fundamental particle (in the same sense that "hydrogen" is the fundamental element) - the most basic STABLE and OBSERVABLE "chunk" --

SPUE theory says that there is NO fundamental particle. SPUE Theory embraces infinity in both directions. Yes, there is infinite recursion on the microscopic scale, which, as heterogeneous small particles coalesce(if not spinning too fast-Van Der Waals) because they shadow each other in an even small particle SPUE wind and eventually show up on our RADAR as particles of interest.

Having a notion of SPUE Theory and its conclusions made reading The Final Theory a complete joy --except when reading about Einstein's "errors" which I cannot evaluate without the source documents even though I have a BA in mathematics.

As Mark makes clear, but does not actually state, Einstein's equations are designed to tell us WHAT WE WILL MEASURE given that we are using "light" as the yardstick -- not what is actually happening to the subject of our observations. Mark and I agree that the speed of light is NOT a limiting barrier for any object but for different reasons.

Note that SPUE Theory says that the Speed of Light is NOT a limit on the particles which we sense as light, just that we can only detect the right-size particles which HAPPEN to be passing at that speed -- which removes many paradoxical situations. "Light" for measurement is a rubber yardstick that is subject to all the heat and matter between us and the observed objects.

I would recommend that anyone with any interest in "gravity" buy and read The Final Theory. Even if you don't agree with the Expansion Theory this work presents a comprehensive list of all the issues and situations that any "new" paradigm must address. -- Thank you Mark for a wonderful work and a scientific achievement. -- Johnny

#16138 01/16/06 11:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
L
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
L
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
Yes,the book is a good read just for the mind bending paradigm shift. Everything made sense up to the section on orbits. I felt several times that I was just about to understand Mark's thinking, but I just went on reading. I wanted to hear him out before starting to design experiments. Then I was reading about the WMAP satelite which is currently doing a high resolution survey of the entire sky from L-2, a Lagrange point in space about which this small schoolbus sized satelite orbits. My mind was highly tweaked.Nasa put this spacecraft in an orbit around a GEOMETRICAL point. There is no mass there!

#16139 01/17/06 10:18 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
One does not have to read further than the first few pages of Mark's book to realise that he is stuck in the same paradigm that Ptolemy was before Galileo came along. He just does not understand relativity; not even classical relativity as it has been formulated by Galileo.I feel sorry for him. He thinks he has founded something new; but is only succeeding in making an utter fool of himself. The worst is that he claims that the entire scientific community from the time of Galileo has been bamboozled by untested dogma. Science does not work that way; it is tested experimentally. If Mark were correct problems would already have emerged in experiments over the past 350 years. So do not waste your money and become duped by his scientifically incorrect arguments. Anybody who believes that potential energy does not exist, is a fool.

#16140 01/17/06 10:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
L
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
L
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
Ptolemy assumed the earth was the center of the universe? Does McC think that? Or do you mean that because Ptolemy believed the earth was the center he invented epicycles to hypothesize why Mars, Jupiter and Saturn sometimes reversed directions in their travels through the sky?

#16141 01/18/06 08:22 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
No Ptolemy believed that bodies can only move around by "pushing" them; i.e. by expenditure of energy. McC also advocates this in his book. Galileo argued convincingly that bodies can move without needing to expend energy to move them. It is in this context that I am arguing that McC does not understand the fundamental basics of physics; i.e. relativity

#16142 01/19/06 02:37 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
L
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
L
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
Yes, Galileo understood inertia and momentum,but if a body has inertia and momentum that is tangential relative to another body, is not energy required to change that straight line path to an orbit of some kind?i.e. Newton's first law of motion.

#16143 01/19/06 08:53 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
No, this is falacious reasoning. The "force" changes the momentum as required by Newton's second law; in fact when it is perpendicular to the velocity it can only change the direction of the momentum; not its magnitude. The kinetic energy is given by the mass multiplied by the square of the velocity; therefore it does not change at all. Thus no extra energy is imparted to the body. What we define as a "force" is the desire of a body to go to a lower potential energy. When a body performs circular motion it tries to diminish its potential energy by falling towards the centrum. It is, however prevented from doing so by moving tangentially with correct speed. This is how a sttelite stays aloft. Neither the kinetic nor the potential energy changes. So why do you require energy to keep it moving in a circle. This is why you also have a set of Newton's laws for angular movement. When moving in a circle the angular momentum stays constant (1st law of angular motion) the angular momentum can be changed by applying a torque (2nd law of angular motion etc.) These laws have worked experimentally for more than 300 years! So why do you need energy transfer to keep a body moving in a circle. Be careful to assume that "force" is an absolute concept. For example if somebody passes you in a train and throws a ball into the air, you will see the ball following a parabolic trajectory and conclude that the person on the train has thrown it at an angle to the vertical direction; i.e. has applied a "force" with a horizontal component whereas it is not the case. Einstein combined all these concepts beautifully in his theories of relativity which shows that bodies can move along "non-straight" trajectories while not changing their energies. Thus McC analysis is wrong and will not stand the test of experimental verification. A theory that does not do the latter is just plain cr*p.

#16144 09/28/06 06:30 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I am going to stick with Newton and Einstein for
now. Here is why.

We should have accelerated past the speed of light
by now on the Earth's surface. I have measured
the speed of light in fiber optics on my work
bench. If I am moving faster than light, why can
I bounce a light beam off the moon? Why does it
still take eight minutes for light to get here from
the sun?

The Final Theory is interesting but flawed I think.

#16145 09/28/06 11:19 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi JohnnyW:

I am the guy that made the original posting regarding the book. I have not read past the first few pages in the 80"s.

While not being specifically educated in the manner some of you point out I have spent many years of my spare time working on the Solar System, including the effects of gravitation,
and I found the author's speculation of expanding planets and other celestial objects to be such a great distraction from reality that I stopped reading the book and I have not touched it since. Note I bought the book because I was ready to greet a new theory with open arms. No author can trash proven and tested criteria just by talking about it without providing better working formulas that stand up to reality.

Even so, I am pleased for the author that there are those that enjoy his efforts.
jjw

#16146 10/02/06 02:00 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw:
. No author can trash proven and tested criteria just by talking about it without providing better working formulas that stand up to reality.
Well said jjw. One must be led by experimental results; however, sometimes scientists become so dogmatised that when a new experiment leads to "better working formulas that stand up to reality", they do not even want to consider it objectively. I do not think the latter applies to McCutcheon's book. It is my belief that his teachers in physics erred by stopping his course on classical mechanics before teaching him the fundamentals of rotational motion.

#16147 10/02/06 10:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi JB:

Some things are simply beneath the peers of the topic. The book I wrote, in basic math, shows that the Solar System is truly symplistic, and can be broken down into very little stuff.

I am working on a better product, more detailed and with more expression of my views.

Any way, getting back to your comment on rotational factors, in our space I wanted to copy 2 pages of my book to save typing a lot of numbers and skipped it. I will create a new post with an expression of detail that I think will cause a little wonder after the first crush.
Or maybe no interest.
jjw

#16148 10/03/06 01:35 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw:
Hi JB:

Some things are simply beneath the peers of the topic. The book I wrote, in basic math, shows that the Solar System is truly symplistic, and can be broken down into very little stuff.

I am working on a better product, more detailed and with more expression of my views.

Any way, getting back to your comment on rotational factors, in our space I wanted to copy 2 pages of my book to save typing a lot of numbers and skipped it. I will create a new post with an expression of detail that I think will cause a little wonder after the first crush.
Or maybe no interest.
jjw
I am looking forward to seeing it. good luck!!

#16149 10/03/06 02:51 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
jjw wrote: "No author can trash proven and tested criteria just by talking about it without providing better working formulas that stand up to reality."

Authors have the great advantage of being able to present what they want their readers to see. The problem is this - many, many things are very simple when you first look at them, but very complicated as you get into them. We learn things in elementary school that are not quite true. This is not because we are stupid, though some of us are. It is not because teachers are stupid, though some of them are. It's not because anyone made a mistake, though there's plenty of them.

It's because we are taught what we're ready to hear. And so, many children are taught that babies come from mommy's "stomach." It's not colloquially wrong, but technically it is wrong.
It's not a lie. It's not a mistake. It's like a place-holder for future explanation. Mind you, I never explained it to my own kids this way, but I sympathize with those who did.

Similarly MANY things that we learn in our youths tend to be simplifications of reality - math, chemistry, physics, English. But many people will never get past those simpler understandings. A more coherent understanding of physics doesn't help a person pump gas any better, or teach English, or write better programs (in general).

When an author writes something about science to a lay audience, he is not necessarily communicating the same thing he might be conveying to a more sophisticated audience, even though he is using the same words. A lay audience might say, "Well, THAT does sound interesting and compelling." But the lay audience knows what it knows. It will almost certainly not have the broader context of a scientific or engineering audience.

It's not just science. An author can write about, say, the etymology of some word and that explanation might be utterly convincing to a person who is not well-versed in that subject; whereas, a person who is more knowledgable will be rolling her eyes at the same history. This is not a hypothetical example. It's quite real. The net abounds with apocryphal folk derivations for various words.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5