Go Back   Science Forums
View Single Post
Old 11-23-2008   #871 (permalink)
Maurice A. Williams's Avatar
Maurice A. Williams
Curious


Location:
Cleveland, OH
 
Maurice A. Williams is a jewel in the roughMaurice A. Williams is a jewel in the roughMaurice A. Williams is a jewel in the rough
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
I read the book

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
Reply With Quote
 
» Advertisement
» Current Poll
Who's the sexiest man alive? Johnny Depp or Robert Pattinson?
Johnny Depp - 27.27%
3 Votes
Robert Pattinson - 0%
0 Votes
Someone else (please specify) - 45.45%
5 Votes
I'm too macho to think a guy is sexy - 27.27%
3 Votes
Total Votes: 11
You may not vote on this poll.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:33 AM.

Hypography?

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

Share the love!

Please add more science to your life. Use our RSS feeds on your blog, your portal, or your favorite feedreader!


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000-2009 Hypography
Part of the Hypography - Science for Everyone Network