I believe that the free 1st chapter of Mark McCutcheon "The Final Theory" is, to use Carl Sagan’s preferred term, baloney.
Without getting into specifics, the following are red flags in any physical theory:
1. The claims that many or all existing theories are wrong, even when those theories are well supported by experimental evidence that the new theory lacks.
2. It alleges a wide-spread conspiracy among scientists to support existing theories and oppose new ones, and that only an “outsider” can arrive at “the truth”.
3. It states or implies that existing theories are too badly flawed to be expanded or corrected, and that a new, radically different theory is necessary.
4. The argument that existing theories are wrong, because they are difficult for an “ordinary person” to understand, while the new theory is correct, because it is easy.
5. It appeals to intuition by using terms it does not formally define.
6. It makes no falsifiable, observable predictions.
TFT chapter 1 has red flag #1-5. This doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong, only that it is either wrong, or revolutionary. The heliocentric model of the solar system, which ultimately superseded the geocentric model, had red flag #3 and 2.
In my analysis, all of the significant claims TFT chapter 1 can be derived from the following (using traditional Physics terms):
The classical definition of work (“The work function”), work = force * distance, is invalid when distance = 0. When distance = 0, work (which McCutcheon seems to prefer to term energy or “an external power source”) is greater than 0.
This appeals strongly to commons sense intuition – if one pushes with all ones might against an sturdy wall, exerting considerable force but moving the wall 0 distance, it doesn’t seem right to say that no work has been done, as the definition of work for the wall-only system demands. Indeed, if the various mechanical components of your body are included in the system, distance is not 0, and work is what common sense expects.
Once this classical definition of work is invalidated when distance = 0, planets orbiting the sun, objects held a fixed height above the ground, and so on cause gravity to violate the law of conservation of mass-energy
To resolve this violation, McCutcheon claims that this work-for-which-the-work-function-is-inapplicable is due to a fundamental property of geometry.
He then proceeds to argue that “the geometric orbit equation”,
[orbital velocity]^2 * [orbital radius] = [geometric constant],
is different in a fundamental way from
[orbital velocity]^2 * [orbital radius] = ([mass of central body] * [constant of gravity]),
which can be derived from the usual definitions of
universal gravitation and
centripetal force ([mass of orbiting body] * [mass of central body] * [constant of gravity] / [orbital radius] ^ 2 = force = [mass of orbiting body] * [orbital velocity]^2 / [orbital radius]).
This amounts to the claim:
[geometric constant] not= ([mass of central body] * [constant of gravity])
McCutcheon argues that, unlike the term (mass of central body * constant of gravity) the term [geometric constant] doesn’t rely on mass. Rather, the value of [geometric constant] varies depending on the “geometry” around a particular central body. The value of [geometric constant] is usually related to the central body’s mass, in much the way that the magnetic field strength of a bar magnet is usually related to its mass. The relationship is only typical, he argues, not due to physical law as defined by Newton’s law of Universal Gravitation.
This claim is a valid scientific hypothesis. Assuming that we have access to 2 materials where the relationship between masses of object constructed of them and the [geometric constant] associated them is different, we can construct an experiment to determine if the claim is true, as follows:
1. Using object A with mass MA, a measuring stick, an accurate clock, and material M, construct object B with mass MA, as follows: set object A in motion; measure the time it takes to traverse the measuring stick; collide A inelastically (no bouncing) with object B; measure the time they take to traverse the measuring stick; repeat, adding or removing material M until [time 2] = [time 1]/2.
2. Using the same object A, measuring stick, and clock, and material N, construct object C with mass MA using the same method as in step 1
3. Perform a variation of
Cavendish’s Torsion bar experiment with mass A and B, in which, rather than twist, orbital period is measured.
4. Repeat step 3 using mass A and C
5. Repeat step 3-4 enough times to overcome observational inaccuracies.
The orbital period observed in step 3 and step 4 should differ significantly. If it does not,
McCutcheon hypothesis, and the theory in TFT chapter 1, is false,
A critic of this experiment could argue that its initial assumption is invalid – that is, that it is not experimentally feasible to obtain suitable materials. This criticism raises baloney red flag #6, rendering the TDT chapter 1 claims scientifically unverifiable.
Regardless of how revolutionary a scientific theory is, it must make experimentally testable predictions. Extraordinary claims require proof, in the form of experimental confirmation of these claims. Appeals to intuition and simplicity are not enough.
