The Final Theory

[polemotheos]

Here is the equation I will be using to check your experiment;

a(t0) = -2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*7.7X10^(-7)

If you know how to use the equation please demonstrate it.

[polemotheos]

If the energy in the electromagnetic spectrum is correct then the "Final Theory" is little more then toilet paper.

One electron flying at the speed of light has kinetic energy of 511 keV.

If the photons are suppose to be clusters of electrons then would not the energies be equivalent to multipules of 511 keV?

I would not suggest buying the book.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

(Please keep in mind that I am just a lay person.)

polemotheos: If the photons are suppose to be clusters of electrons then would not the energies be equivalent to multipules of 511 keV?

I believe that assumes at least the following things to be true: 1. your understanding of the nature of an electron is the same as McCutcheon's understanding of his basic particle. 2. the energy in a cluster is just the energy of the fundamental particle times the number of particles in the cluster and that no energy is consumed in the bondings between the particles. 3. the energy to cluster 10 is twice the energy to cluster 5, etc. (the physical structure doesn't have an impact on the energy required to bind the particles together).
As a lay person, that would be my first concern with what you said.

[mojassty]

Polemotheos isn't the one who made the comment about laypeople, idsoftwaresteve. You can stop acting offended.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

mojassty:Polemotheos isn't the one who made the comment about laypeople, idsoftwaresteve. You can stop acting offended.

Point taken. I guess what I was trying to say indirectly is that those who are subject matter experts need to exhibit some level of care in the way they draw conclusions. A lay person should not have to point that out.
The biggest thing that McCutcheon has going for him is that his theory is based on a very simple observation and that observation will keep coming back again and again until it is carefully looked at and soundly refuted. And from what I've seen so far, that isn't going to happen and I get embarassed at the attempts (although I must say that coldcreation does give me some hope even if he/she is a bit nasty).
I love the fact that Polemotheos has requested more facts about experiments because I think if carefully done, with a sound understanding of where McCutcheon is coming from, we can draw some conclusions based on direct observations and have some level of confidence in those conclusions. For or against, it doesn't matter to me. Only the truth matters to me.
I also want to thank Will (erasmus00) for taking the time to attempt an experiment to help out.
McCutcheon has put an awful lot of care and work into his theories. He asks questions and makes observations that others seem to have missed. He deserves an honest, considered response.

[coldcreation]

Hello ldsoftwaresteve,
Sorry for coming off as not so nice, but sometimes emotions do run high. If you look closely at the literature you will see that it is standard procedure within the scientific community to use language such as used here. I've given some examples somewhere else, of Stephen Hawking's use of the words doubt, dead and demise with reference to inflation theory. If you like I can give you that one again and more.

I call it constructive criticism. It should never be taken personally.
My recent post in the Cosmological Constant: a New Law thread will testify. The text is a reply to someone called Spennithorn. It can be misinterpreted, I know, but it shouldn't be...to date it could be considered my nastiest reply, but with careful consideration you will see that it may be the most revealing. Check it out...let me know what you think...

more soon
coldcreation

[Boerseun]

I've asked it a quite a couple of posts ago, and I'll ask it again, seeing as I got no answer:

McCutcheon's theory is based on expansion causing gravity, or what we experience as gravity. Some of the issues I have with this view, is the following:

1) If expansion is fact, then why don't larger planets (with higher 'gravity', they should be expanding at a greater rate, according to McCutcheon) swallow smaller planets? We should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Jupiter and the Sun, for that matter, 'cause they've been *expanding* at a much greater rate than planet Earth.

2) How does Expansion Theory cater for orbits? I can understand the rationale for trying to use 'expansion' as the cause of the gravity-effect, but that should only be observable when on the surface of the mass (planet or star) where the 'expansion' is causing an upward acceleration. Why would Expansion drive the planets circling the Sun?

3) Black Holes (according to McCutcheon) should be physically the largest items in the Universe, seeing as they are the most massive. According to classical theory, they've just punched a hell of a big dent in space/time, from expansion theory, they're just expanding at more than c (seeing as even light can't escape). This being the case, every Black Hole is expanding faster than the visible edge of the Universe. Therefore, if there is any primordial Black Holes, they should have swallowed the whole observable Universe by now. Which is either not the case, or we're already inside one of the suckers. Which seems rather unlikely.

If Expansion Theory also includes 'Space' expanding, it means that everything, from mass, to empty space is expanding. Now - empty space is indeed expanding in classical theory, but mass and matter expanding? Isn't this just a convenient (if not exactly a completely explanatory) adage that'll battle slightly with Meister Occam?

[Tom Palmer]

This is just my second post, so please excuse any lapses.

First, I must state that I have not read Mr. McCutcheon's book. Frankly, I have a problem with any wannabe "physicist" who publishes his theory directly to the public. Such a book will surely be biased (intentionally or not) to favor his side of the issues he raises. Proponents will doubtless be quick to assure me that he fairly presents the opposing side, but how am I, a layperson, supposed to know how equitably he has done this?

I recently read a multiple-author book (on an unrelated subject) which represented a particular viewpoint, but the editor had done a very wise thing. He had invited two academically qualified individuals to submit rebuttal essays, and these rebuttals were printed right along with the prevailing viewpoint. In this way, with both sides having their views fairly and competently represented, the reader could make up his own mind whom to believe. Somehow, I can't picture Mr. McCutcheon taking this route.

Perhaps I've been sensitized to this sort of thing by another book I chanced upon some years ago. It was titled, believe it or not, "Physics Is Constipated"! Just to give you some idea of the thrust of this deathless masterpiece, the author referred to Einstein as "superstupid." (At least, McCutcheon seems to be above this sort of calumny.) Not surprisingly, the errors in this book were breathtaking in both their number and their magnitude.

It's a shame that the physics establishment doesn't have any provision for amateurs to present their ideas and receive honest evaluations that acknowledge any meaningful contributions to our understanding of our world. I suppose others have already posted John Baez's "Crackpot Index." Although derogatory to - and belittling of - amateurs, it is nonetheless a useful compendium of the all-too-typical (and sometimes fatal) amateur inelegancies and errors. Every amateur theoretician should read it.

I'll conclude with just a general observation: A peer-reviewed paper in a recognized physics journal is a little more likely to be trustworthy than a profit-making vanity-press book. McCutcheon's major advantage is a readership that, on the whole (and I mean this as kindly as possible), lacks the skills, education and intellectual means to properly evaluate his claims.

As Proverbs 18:17 puts it (as paraphrased by The Living Bible): "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight."

[Tom Palmer]

Originally Posted by polemotheos

If the energy in the electromagnetic spectrum is correct then the "Final Theory" is little more then toilet paper.

One electron flying at the speed of light has kinetic energy of 511 keV.

If the photons are suppose to be clusters of electrons then would not the energies be equivalent to multipules of 511 keV?

I would not suggest buying the book.

I think your evaluation of the book is probably right on the mark, but I want to correct one statement you make.

First of all, no mass particle can fly at the speed of light. Its energy at that velocity would have to be be infinite, and that is impossible.

You are probably confusing the rest-mass energy of the electron (511 KeV) with kinetic energy. Also, photons are not clusters of electrons - if they were, they would have both mass and electric charge, but in fact they have neither.

I hope this helps.

[leeroy]

I'm about half way through the book and honestly I really like the concept. Even before reading this book, I've often thought of Einstein's space-elevator and gravity and wondered... What if gravity was just inertia?

I never really thought of atomic expansion, but it seems plausible. Although the way the author explains it, he doesn't seem to be very objective on the idea. It seems he backs up scientific models that he can explain with expansion and tries to debunk models and theory's that he can't make fit. That makes me feel like he's a salesman and not a scientist.

There a couple of issues I have with atomic expansion as he explains it. One is that orbits are a matter of perspective. It takes some mind bending to ignore the sidereal period, but okay. Also, elliptical orbits seem to present their own issues with objects passing each other because of expansion but not colliding. Above and beyond that, is motion and how it relates to the expansion process. In other words, it doesn't seem that he explained how objects in space maintain a constant relative velocity to their own growth. If everything is expanding and moving at a constant speed, wouldn't objects appear to slow down over time? And if you add the compounding effect of accelerating expansion, how would anything be able to maintain any type of orbit? It seems that if he added Hubble's Constant to his theory, he might of been able to counter balance this slowing effect, but I guess he dismisses Hubble's Constant all together, by saying that red-shift effect is caused by space debris.

Like a previously said I like the idea and I definitely like ideas that make you change your perspective on things. it just seems this theory, the way the author explains it, has got some holes.

Lee