The Final Theory

[Tom Palmer]

Originally Posted by 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

Friend Lee,

I appreciated your reply - it seems that, even though you're attracted to some of his ideas, you are striving to remain objective. Objectivity and a healthy skepticism - hang onto them! As I mentioned in a previous reply, I haven't read the book, so I don't have any business addressing specific points.

But having so said, I can't resist remarking on one of his claims you happened to mention: that the Hubble red-shift is due merely to "space debris." If McCutcheon is claiming that this debris (which does exist in places) is simply filtering out the shorter wavelengths of light and letting through only the longer (i.e., redder) wavelengths, then he is way off base.

Here's why. The redshift cannot simply be the result of selective transmission of light - that wouldn't be a true "shifting" of wavelengths, but only a screening of already-existing wavelengths.

We know that wavelengths across the entire stellar spectrum are being truly shifted, because we see the presence of characteristic, telltale spectral lines (like the solar "Fraunhofer lines") that uniquely identify the different chemical elements. (In practice, it is the absorption lines resulting from the stars' cooler surface layers that form the basis of spectroscopic stellar classifications today.)

The distinctive patterns of these lines are unmistakably all shifted toward the red end of the spectrum - I can't even begin to imagine any way that "space debris" could accomplish that remarkable feat.

Only two possible mechanisms for this phenomenon are known. One is gravitational, requiring an enormous mass for the star that emits the light. In this case, stars of differing mass would exhibit differing degrees of redshift.

The other mechanism is the Doppler effect. We know this is the true cause of the Hubble red shift because the shift is proportional to the distance (from us) of the galaxies emitting the light. The effect is far too general and all-embracing (too "global," in the parlance of physics) to allow for "local" effects such as space debris - which couldn't really explain it anyway.

(I'm editing in this additional paragraph later.) IF I haven't misunderstood McCutcheon's "explanation" of the Hubble redshift, then I have to say that he has fallen into the same trap as others of his ilk: airily dismissing with a glib evasion anything that might contradict his views. Such dismissiveness should be a red flag for the perceptive reader. If, on the other hand, he honestly confronts these contradictions without any such sleight-of-hand to make them disappear, and honestly acknowledges the gaps and inconsistencies in his theory (and ALL new theories have gaps and arguable inconsistencies), then - and only then - I would conclude that he is credible and trustworthy.

I'll end my rant here. Please let me know if I misunderstand what McCutcheon is claiming about the redshift. It's good that you're putting his ideas to the test by posting here. Again - hang on to your objectivity! It will serve you well.

Tom Palmer

[CraigD]

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.

[leeroy]

Tom,
Thanks for the encouraging reply. Although I'm not on chapter 6 yet, here is what the author says on his book summary page on his web site:

Is Our Universe Truly Expanding?
The concept of a universe that is not only expanding, but accelerating its expansion due to mysterious "Dark Energy" is yet another clearly flawed belief. But further, it is a belief that our scientists already know better than to follow since it is based on the completely unsupported assumption that distant Red-Shifted light is explained by the same Doppler Effect as shifted sound frequencies. But light is such a completely different phenomenon than sound that this is an extremely speculative assumption. But also, light is widely known to be Red Shifted by other far simpler causes, such as merely passing through plastics and gases of all sorts. The fact that light appears Red-Shifted after traveling billions of light years through space, which is filled with all manner of radiation, particles, and materials should surprise no scientifically educated individual, and lends no particular credibility to the belief in an ever-accelerating expanding universe with no known power source, driven by some sort of mysterious "Dark Energy".

I'm not sure if he considers "radiation, particles, and materials" space debris or not, but that's the way I took it.

I don't know if the author is on the right path or not, but one thing is for sure he does present some interesting ideas and makes you think about currently held beliefs about how things work within the bounds of our knowledge. To me science is about considering and researching possibilities, even if they seem strange. And if anything, hopefully I'll come away with a better understanding of physics in general after reading his book.

Lee

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseon: 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.

Well, if McCutcheon is right, for the same reason Jupiter hasn't swallowed up the earth if gravity sucks. The implication, which is anything but obvious, is that our ability to perceive - to be directly aware of the expansion - doesn't exist. In order to comprehend anything we need a fixed frame of reference. We've evolved with a built in blindness to it because it would serve absolutely no purpose but to confuse us if we were perceptually aware of it. It can only be inferred.

Boerseon: 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?

Well put. I had problems with this part too. I could get orbits to work through 180 degrees but couldn't figure out how the hell a moon went all the way around a planet or a planet went all the way around a sun. So after about a year I decided to come at it (again, ASSUMING McCutcheon is correct) from a different direction. In correspondence with McCutcheon on this very issue, he pointed out that he had exactly the same problem. If I understand it correctly, straight line motion doesn't exist and what we perceive is actually the first derivative (my term) of what is actually happening underneath.

Boerseon: 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.

lol. Very well put. You are assuming that McCutcheon thinks black holes are expanding at the speed of light. He doesn't. If I understand him correctly, he likens a black hole to a burnt out and smashed light bulb. Not as glamorous as what is commonly thought, eh? His explanation is much more elegant than mine.
One final comment and then I'm going to bail. The hardest problems to solve are the ones where the initial observations are incorrect. But the symptoms are similar. Every time you end up on the end of a branch, it breaks. The genius of the human species is that we are aware of awareness and that strikes at the heart of the issue.

[Boerseun]

Idsoftwaresteve:

Thanks for the extended reply.

However, and I mean this in all kindness, you haven't answered any of the issues I have with McCutcheon's premise.

Likening black holes to 'burnt out lightbulbs' is not only overly simplistic, but I think totally wrong. The bending of light by gravity has been proven, and the degree by which it is bent has been calibrated for the specific mass doing the bending. It therefore follows that the more mass is added, the more light (which follows space) would be observably bent. Up until a point where a black hole forms. With a 'burnt out light bulb' I can only imagine he's referring to a dead star, a brown dwarf or something similar. But even a dead star will turn into a black hole if you keep on adding mass.

I honestly think McCutcheon is trying to promote an understandable, simplistic view of the Cosmos in order to sell his book to the uneducated masses who can't follow complicated analogies and examples. He would, after all, have a much larger audience than Hawking, for instance.

He is to be commended for trying to bring science to the masses. But it doesn't help at all if he's flat out wrong.

[Tom Palmer]

Originally Posted by leeroy

Tom,
Thanks for the encouraging reply. Although I'm not on chapter 6 yet, here is what the author says on his book summary page on his web site:

Is Our Universe Truly Expanding?
The concept of a universe that is not only expanding, but accelerating its expansion due to mysterious "Dark Energy" is yet another clearly flawed belief. But further, it is a belief that our scientists already know better than to follow since it is based on the completely unsupported assumption that distant Red-Shifted light is explained by the same Doppler Effect as shifted sound frequencies. But light is such a completely different phenomenon than sound that this is an extremely speculative assumption. But also, light is widely known to be Red Shifted by other far simpler causes, such as merely passing through plastics and gases of all sorts. The fact that light appears Red-Shifted after traveling billions of light years through space, which is filled with all manner of radiation, particles, and materials should surprise no scientifically educated individual, and lends no particular credibility to the belief in an ever-accelerating expanding universe with no known power source, driven by some sort of mysterious "Dark Energy".

I'm not sure if he considers "radiation, particles, and materials" space debris or not, but that's the way I took it.

I don't know if the author is on the right path or not, but one thing is for sure he does present some interesting ideas and makes you think about currently held beliefs about how things work within the bounds of our knowledge. To me science is about considering and researching possibilities, even if they seem strange. And if anything, hopefully I'll come away with a better understanding of physics in general after reading his book.

Lee

Friend Lee,

Thank you for your kind reply and for clarifying what McCutcheon says about the Hubble redshift.

Until I read his claims about the effect, I was willing to give him the benefit of at least a little doubt, but no more. He says that "light is widely known to be Red Shifted by other far simpler causes, such as merely passing through plastics and gases of all sorts." To which I can only reply, "Aaarrrghh!!!" I mean ... who are these vague, nebulous authorities who allegedly 'widely know' that light can be red-shifted by passing through plastics, etc.? (It can't!) So much for proof.

I must now categorically state: He is either ignorant or dishonest. If he actually believes his claim, then he is ignorant or has deceived himself. If (as I suspect) he knows better, then he is intellectually dishonest and is counting on the reader's unfamiliarity with the Doppler effect to get away with it. He implies that the Doppler effect for light has been extrapolated from its known effect on sound waves, and that it is therefore an "assumption" that is "unsupported" and "extremely speculative." As CraigD would put it: "Baloney." (Please note the six red flags he lists at the beginning of his posting.)i

The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves (light, etc.) was discovered by the French physicist Fizeau back in 1848. In the intervening 157 years, it has been abundantly proven. It is routinely relied on in the space program. To give just one example: The Galileo probe was able to reveal the mass of the Jovian moon Amalthea by means of the measurable Doppler shift in the probe's radio signals - increasing as it approached the moon, then decreasing as it receded from it.

Yes, it is necessary to stretch the mind and not be slavishly bound to traditional models. But that doesn't make every heterodox idea right, or justify the rude dismissal and reckless disregard for ideas that have proven their worth - even if in time they will be superseded. Newton's greatness lay not just in conceiving the law of universal gravitation and then writing a book. He mathematically developed his model and established proofs based on actual measurements of the celestial bodies. Then and only then, he published his Principia - twenty years after he had his first inking of universal gravitation. McCutcheon is no Newton.

Thanks again, Lee, for sharing your thoughts.

Tom Palmer

[emessay]

I am really a poor man in following latest theories in final theory or theory of everything[TOE], actually I am 44 yrs old as a practical engineer try to look everything related humans: 10,000 yrs civilized consciousness, 4.5 bya life evolution on Earth , and 13.7 bya baryonic particle evolution of universe.

Imagine human history chronology and 'THE HUMAN-FACE MIMIC FACTOR' behind history from Hammurabi Code Mesopotania, gods pyramids of Egypt, Plato academy, Aristotle syllogism, Alexander hellenism expansion and invasion, Xi Huang Ti Great Wall China, Cleopatra and Caesar Romans Empire expansion to Europe, Islam expansion and invasion, Battle of Tours till Crusaders met Saladdin in Jerussalem. Why should Albert Einstein [Jewish] tried to solve 'equation of everything E=mc2' , why not Ts'ai Lun should discover the equation even paper and powder gun was discovered from China. Why Hitler hates Jewish and how about if Hitler use the first nuke or perhaps if Genghis Khan invade Europe for hundred years like Romans Empire.

What a wonderful world.....Uhh Yeahhh.....that's a song of...... EVERYTHING

That's why I believe in SHAKESPEARE words that say : WE'RE ON STAGE OF THEATRE, the theatre of human-face mimics, theatre of space time , and also theatre of life, perhaps our consciousness are only 'surviellence tool' in zooming universe journey which will be finalized or restarted 'BY OTHER'.

10,000 yrs human civilization, in searching of everything, wisemen always say humanity is ALL OF EVERYTHING, that's we are on stage of theatre of universe, like we create chess-board for our game and we play its numerical step by step to challange ourselves.

But do not forget that the poor people are the big sum of 6 billion around on 'EVERYTHING OF ONE EARTH' and we're still thinking everything beyond nothing out there.

That's paradox of everything......................

[Boerseun]

You're all wrong.

The HOKEY POKEY is what its all about.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseon:Likening black holes to 'burnt out lightbulbs' is not only overly simplistic, but I think totally wrong. The bending of light by gravity has been proven, and the degree by which it is bent has been calibrated for the specific mass doing the bending. It therefore follows that the more mass is added, the more light (which follows space) would be observably bent. Up until a point where a black hole forms. With a 'burnt out light bulb' I can only imagine he's referring to a dead star, a brown dwarf or something similar. But even a dead star will turn into a black hole if you keep on adding mass.

He was drawing an analogy and simply saying that the current concept of a black hole having a gravity so strong that it won't even let light escape is incorrect.
I'm done discussing this. Let's let some time pass and see what happens. But here's something to think about: Existence doesn't give a crap what we think. Whatever is, is. The downside to not considering the possibilities is to induce blindness to whatever truth lies down that path and all the discoveries connected to that truth.
We've hit a wall scientifically, in my common-man, huddled-masses mind, and the symptom is all of the goofy, incredibly hard to comprehend (and most likely wrong) explanations of how some things work. I think most of it is bullshit. Bullshit that has alienated most of us common-folk and bullshit that improperly elevates the spreaders of it to the status of 'guru'.
So hang on to your warped space-time, event-horizoned model my friend. If we survive long enough maybe we'll find out what really is true.

[emessay]

And.......we must examine ourselves firstly : "Who are 'WE' really 'WE'RE FORMED' ? Are we only matters+electron+photon mechanism ? or Are we only shadows and dust for the future ? Can we explain conscious process in microtubule with Bose-Einstein equation only ? or what ??

Thinks before 'we' plan to create atmosphere on Mars next to another journey at nearest star of Alpha Centaury ........4.5 light years...........