The Final Theory

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Beagleworth

From his theory, yes they would fall at different rate. But you need quite a big distance or big size variation to make a difference. With Standard Theory, two objects falling at the same speed whatever their size is something that has been accepted but not proven.

You really believe such an old assumption (the equivalence principle) wouldn't be tested again and again? It has been proven to the accuracy mentioned in my post above. For more experiments google Eotvos experiment.

I never heard of this before. I found a PDF of the article on the internet, but I am not sure I fully understand its premise. Would you mind expanding your explanations?

The idea is this: both the Earth and the moon orbit the sun. The moon and the Earth have a tremendous difference in both size and mass. According to newtonian gravity, they will fall toward the sun at the same rate (i.e. have the same acceleration toward the sun). According to "the final theory" they will not. Acceleration is dependant on mass, (F=ma) and gravitational force is proportional to size, so all objects will not fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. Anderson and Williams used lunar laser ranging to measure the accelerations of the earth and the moon and verified the equivence principle to 1.5*10^-13. McC's theory is dead in the water.
-Will

[Beagleworth]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

You really believe such an old assumption (the equivalence principle) wouldn't be tested again and again? It has been proven to the accuracy mentioned in my post above. For more experiments google Eotvos experiment.

I will read stuff about the Eotvos experiment and come back later and tell how well or bad I see McC's theory does on that subject.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

The idea is this: both the Earth and the moon orbit the sun. The moon and the Earth have a tremendous difference in both size and mass. According to newtonian gravity, they will fall toward the sun at the same rate (i.e. have the same acceleration toward the sun). According to "the final theory" they will not.

There's a difference. In McC's world ,they are not falling toward the sun. They simply orbit around it. Period. Actually the earth-moon system orbits around it. Hence there is not difference in their rate of "falling"

You have to remember from McC's theory, an orbit is a relative motion between the objects caused by their expansion and their natural motion which do not match our "absolute straight line motion without external force" rule.

By the way, I do think that the book being called "the final theory" is quite pompous.

[Tom Palmer]

Originally Posted by CraigD

What I’ve read of McC’s “The Final Theory” strikes me as nonsense. It appears to me to be yet another “theory” derived from the notion that “Mainstream Physics is difficult to understand, therefore anything easier must be correct,” or, more cynically, the debatable notion that “you can make money selling fringe science”.!

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Well put!

I heartily second the motion. I sometimes despair that anything will get resolved in this thread, but every now and then cooler heads prevail. CraigD, Boersun, ColdCreation, and my friend and resident slayer Buffy, and doubtless others I have missed--all of you solidly enough grounded in real physics to see through the arrant nonsense of "McCutcheonism" (or, more accurately, "McBaloneyism"). And friend Repeater, who genuinely wants to know the truth, wherever it lies--and deserves better than the pseudo-intellectual obfuscations coming from the pro-McC camp.

So, for those who remain committed to McC, I offer you words of comfort:

I confess--every physicist knows in his or her heart that Mr. McCutcheon, and he alone, has found the true and ultimate "Final Theory of Everything and Then Some," and that our own wacko theories are all wrong.

I admit it--we who uphold conventional physics have been thoroughly deluded and are mere pawns in a vast supergalactic conspiracy dedicated to crushing scientific truth and promoting a bogus physics whose only justification is the flimsy excuse that modern physics has given humankind incredible, unimaginable wonders and sent out probes to touch other worlds. Obviously, all of that counts for nothing.

It may be tactless to be so blunt, but the time has come to say it: The extent to which you were convinced by McC was in inverse proportion to your knowledge of present-day physics. He was counting on your unfamiliarity with the nuts and bolts of modern physics. "Frankly, my dear," you have been suckered.

Please don't feel too hurt by this sting of this statement, for you are not alone. I was once suckered by an unscrupulous roofing contractor named Andy Kutscher. Mr. Kutscher is now cooling his heels in a state "facility" for such as him. It is only coincidence that "Kutscher" and "McCutcheon" have a somewhat similar ring, but there is a certain irony in it for me.

As I said, I sometimes despair. I despair because, despite the fact that some pretty powerful and decisive disproofs of McC have been posted, it didn't seem to make any difference. Is anyone really listening? A few, at least, have sought clarification on some of our points, and I respect them for that.

So, to all of you who still want to live in McCutcheonville---here is your assignment: Get yourselves a real physics book that is geared to the general public, and start boning up. And don't let that McCutcheon-induced skepticism keep you from seeing the validity of what you read. Healthy skepticism is fine, but not the scornful dismissiveness he "taught" you to have. Really, you should never have let McC into your heads before you first took this step, but perhaps it isn't too late to combat the infection.

I have progressively tired of fighting this battle, and I thank Buffy and others who have posted their intelligent, insightful replies. You have fought the good fight---keep it up.

Tom Palmer

[Beagleworth]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

You really believe such an old assumption (the equivalence principle) wouldn't be tested again and again? It has been proven to the accuracy mentioned in my post above. For more experiments google Eotvos experiment.

I have read about it. And I have seen nothing showing how a large object would behave at a large distance which is only where McC theory changes with Newton's.

I have seen equation that implies large object at large distance should behave like small object at small distance, but this is using Newton's model.

You cannot disprove one model with another. You have to accept the built-in assumptions in the model. By assumptions, I mean things that simply cannot be explained at this point and you simply have to accept. Now, once you have accepted the assumptions, you need to see if

1. if it can solve known observations.
2. if the explanations of the known observations stands to logic.

The built in assumptions in Newton's model are :

1. All matter attracts each other.
2. Object moves in an absolute straight line motion until forced otherwise

Einstein somehow, did not fully agree with that and replaced the first assumption with :
Matter bends spacetime.

McC's assumptions are :
1. All matter expands
2. Absolute motion of matter is unknown. But the dynamic between the expansion and expanding matter causes orbit and "attraction".

If you want to discuss McC's you have to analyse it with its own assumptions to see if it matches obversvations.

In all the other 20 pages, I seen people rebutting his theory by using :

1. the assumptions of Standard theory
2. A mix of the assumptions of Standard theory
3. an incomplete set of his assumptions.

Of course you can rebutt it using those, it is not his theory.

It is also quite interesting that mostly the discussion stayed on Gravity as if this was the corner stone of his book. It is not. It is only a third of the book.

I would not have bothered to come here and discuss the book if all it tried to explain was gravity because a large portion of today's science would be missing and essentially nothing new is learned.

So, n the chapters about gravity, he logically explains a lot of observations using the built-in assumptions of is model. And they logicaly work. To show you that I would have to re-explain what is in those chapters. I have not interest in re-writing the book on this message board. I just want to discuss it.

What I want to know is if he missed observations, and if his theory hold up to a formal mathematical model? To find that, you have to either built a the mathematical model or find a behavior that cannot be explained using his model's assumptions.

Now, what makes the book really interesting and really make people want to talk about it, his the new atomic model. It requires 1 more assumption.

The other two third of the book uses all 3 assumptions and applies it to tons observations. The end result is, in my opinion, elegant, and logicaly strong, but the same questions apply : Did he miss observations? Will his theory hold up to a formal mathematical model? Again, to discover this, you have to built a the mathematical model or find a behavior that cannot be explained using his model's assumptions.

To show you why I feel his arguments are sound, I would have to re-explain another two third of the book, which I would really like to, but like I a said have not interest in writing a book in a message board.

So I can only offer piece meal information from his book.

Originally Posted by Tom Palmer

So, to all of you who still want to live in McCutcheonville---here is your assignment: Get yourselves a real physics book that is geared to the general public, and start boning up

If I was not interested in physics,(and never read about physics in my life), why would I ever buy a book like "The final theory" and why would I ever come on a science message board?

Originally Posted by Tom Palmer

And don't let that McCutcheon-induced skepticism keep you from seeing the validity of what you read. Healthy skepticism is fine, but not the scornful dismissiveness he "taught" you to have.

I am not here to discuss this subject because I believe McC is the all mighty oracle and that the ignorant masses should be educated. I want to discuss it because I want to find an observation it cannot explains.

His theory does have iffy explanations. But so does the standard theory. The realy question is which gives a better interpretation of the other observations.

From my text above, I claim his theory requires 3 assumptions.
I also claim Standard theory requires 2 for gravity. Then requires that particles are charged, that there is a magnetic energy, that energy is quantized, that there is such a thing as space-time, that the atom is surrounded by energy levels, and a few more.

Be careful about the way you interpret the last sentence, I am not saying that the observations that his explained with those concepts do not exists, they are real. But the explanations sits on unknown assumptions.

So if McC's theory has less assumption, and if the obersvations that are explained by particles are charged, that there is a magnetic energy, that energy is quantized, that there is such a thing as space-time, that the atom is surrounded by energy levels, and a few more. seems to be explained by using only 3 assumptions, then you can see why some people might find McC's theory interesting.

Don't get me wrong though, I would sleep perfectly fine at night knowing his theory is completely wrong.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Palmer:

I admit it--we who uphold conventional physics have been thoroughly deluded and are mere pawns in a vast supergalactic conspiracy dedicated to crushing scientific truth and promoting a bogus physics whose only justification is the flimsy excuse that modern physics has given humankind incredible, unimaginable wonders and sent out probes to touch other worlds. Obviously, all of that counts for nothing.

come on Tom, isn't that just a shade too melodramatic? You assume that because an uninformed amateur like myself sees some truth in McCutcheon's ideas that I don't have any respect for what Sir Isaac and Albert and others have done and nothing could be further from the truth. Standard theory is NOT bogus physics. It's damn good physics.
I believe in virtue and ethics but I don't go to church and am not religious. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
McC is coming at the issue from a diametrically opposed point of view. Almost a mirror image. If everything I saw of the world was inverted, I could still deal with it. I could form models, theories and mathematics and build on those and fly to the moon. But that doesn't mean I'm in line with reality. It only means that I'm in line with it enough to command it. It remains to be seen which view is inverted.

And as far as 'the good fight' is concerned, lol, we have the case of very many to one. How does that constitute 'the good fight'? If I were Beagleworth, I'd walk away from this site and not return until someone started enforcing a code of conduct. Or are moderators 'protectors of the truth' by any means whatsoever?

[Beagleworth]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

And as far as 'the good fight' is concerned, lol, we have the case of very many to one. How does that constitute 'the good fight'? If I were Beagleworth, I'd walk away from this site and not return until someone started enforcing a code of conduct. Or are moderators 'protectors of the truth' by any means whatsoever?

I have to say I am bit scared. Well I am scared that the dicussion will devolve in personal attacks. But so far, I think the thread seems to have been walking a fine line and everything stayed mostly civilised which is why I decided to jump in even though the tone is mostly anti-McC.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Beagleworth

McC's assumptions are :
1. All matter expands
2. Absolute motion of matter is unknown. But the dynamic between the expansion and expanding matter causes orbit and "attraction".

If you want to discuss McC's you have to analyse it with its own assumptions to see if it matches obversvations.

Okay, can you possibly tell me how we can disprove any of his theory if "absolute motion of matter is unknown?" If that's the case, *no* useful predictions can be made and *none* of the theory can be falsified, thus it is not scientific!

Note that I'm making *no* assumptions based on Newton here. I'm simply asking for something that we can use to conduct an experiment of *any* kind, which cannot be possible if this second assumption is true!

Can you tell me how its possible to have any belief in a theory that says, "odd things happen that we can't explain, but the theory that does explain them can't possibly be right."

I must admit to being confused.

Originally Posted by Beagleworth

I am not here to discuss this subject because I believe McC is the all mighty oracle and that the ignorant masses should be educated. I want to discuss it because I want to find an observation it cannot explains.

...and unfortunately that's not possible if the theory is incomplete. Give us some equations that explain motion (the ones you give above of course do nothing but describe expansion and the second assumption says clearly that there *are none* that explain motion), and we might be able to do so. Please note that I'm *not* asking for an explanation of *what* the cause is for the force--Newton doesn't bother too either, although Einstein sure points it out--I'm just looking for an equation that would predict motion through space.

Originally Posted by Beagleworth

His theory does have iffy explanations. But so does the standard theory. The realy question is which gives a better interpretation of the other observations.

Can you point out what explanations in standard theory you find "iffy" are? We'd probably be happy to not only explain them but show you actual experimental data that prove them...unlike McC. You are absolutely correct that there is a theory that is a better interpretation, its just not likely that the theory that completely avoids trying to explain a major area like motion can be considered better!

In reference to your earlier post:

Originally Posted by Beagleworth

Pure expansion only apply if you are on the planet.

Agreed, it is easely disprovable. But it is not what I said. Density only comes into play to "feel" the gravity once you are ON the planet.

But at what point are you "not on the planet"? 1 foot up? 10000 miles? Its clear that the effects of the expansion have to be the same for all of these since the expansion is expanding toward you whether you've got your feet on the ground or you're in a balloon or airplane. Some how you pass some magic point where you're no longer affected? What you've said here does nothing to explain away the effect I've described, unless its something like density only affects very large masses, in which case the question is exactly the same: at some magic point it has an effect, but below it it doesn't? What is this size? Can you describe an experiment that we could use to find that point?

And what does this have to do with two balls in space as I've described? Its exactly the experiment you ask for:

Originally Posted by Beagleworth

If you are in space and you take 2 balls of the same size, one of lead and one of styrofoam and you insert them at the same distance of the inside edge of a picture frame floating in space, you would see them move toward one another and they would touch in the middle of the frame, because their gravity would match their radius.

This is different from Newton who says that the contact point would be closer to side of the lead ball.

I am looking forward to NASA trying this out.

You know that link above? There are all kinds of experiments you can conduct with torsion bars mechanisms that show *exactly* this effect. Even with very small table-top size masses, we have instruments that can and do show the effect of attraction between masses of different sizes and densities. If the postulate that density of small radii doesn't matter is the case, we'd see it here, and we don't. Don't "wait for NASA" there are hundreds of papers with data out there, just Google "gravity experiments torsion"...

Cheers,
Buffy

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Beagleworth

Well I am scared that the dicussion will devolve in personal attacks. But so far, I think the thread seems to have been walking a fine line and everything stayed mostly civilised which is why I decided to jump in even though the tone is mostly anti-McC.

That my friend is not a very good way to get out of an argument. If you feel that the questions posed here are personal, I'll do anything necessary to reassure you.

I will say that the problem does come down to Tom's last somewhat-facetious post: So many folks who support McC and similar theories have not done their homework, and unlike you and steve, aren't willing even look at data that refutes these, uh, "interesting" theories.

So much of the *defense* of unsupportable theories though does devolve into "you're just tied to your old-fashioned dogma" or "don't hate me because I'm beautiful". This gets really tiring, thus, the tone of exasperation that sometimes, uh, "slips out."

Cheers,
Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beagleworth:

I have to say I am bit scared. Well I am scared that the dicussion will devolve in personal attacks. But so far, I think the thread seems to have been walking a fine line and everything stayed mostly civilised which is why I decided to jump in even though the tone is mostly anti-McC.

Yeah, and I don't think my last post helped it much.
I wish I had the time and intelligence to actually discuss the contents of McC's book with you because from what I've seen you have a very gentle, unthreatened way of looking at things like this and the gain would be mostly mine. In my lifetime I have met just a handful of people with that ability but the experience has always been wonderful. For what it's worth, thanks for being the way you are.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy:

I will say that the problem does come down to Tom's last somewhat-facetious post: So many folks who support McC and similar theories have not done their homework, and unlike you and steve, aren't willing even look at data that refutes these, uh, "interesting" theories.

Thanks Buff, that means more to me than you might think.