The Final Theory

[viscount aero]

but then you're not reading the book and then suggesting i pour through this entire epic thread is a double-standard.

insofar as simple, it is. the math you demand is in the damn book. you will see how g has been slipped into equations for no reason other than to promote the idea of a pulling force that is entirely unnecessary.

"...unwillingness to recognize well understood and well-proven evidence..." of what? what is proven that you claim? that gravity exists as proposed by Newton? this is proven beyond doubt? no way.

[ughaibu]

Copy the maths from the book and e-mail it to Buffy. If you need diagrams, draw them on paper, scan them and post them on the thread as attachments. These are minor practical difficulties that are easily overcome. Get to the explanation.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by viscount aero

insofar as simple, it is. the math you demand is in the damn book. you will see how g has been slipped into equations for no reason other than to promote the idea of a pulling force that is entirely unnecessary.

Actually, McCutcheon borders on dishonesty over this issue. In the first chapter, he posits his "geometric orbit equation" and then presents a quite frankly ridiculous "derivation" of Newtonian gravity from the "geometric orbit equation."

Unfortunately, the huge wrinkle is that McCutcheon's "geometric orbit equation" simply does not work for anything other than a circle. The beauty of Kepler's laws is that they fix the problem of the orbit of Mars by showing that all planets have elliptical orbits, just most of them have very small eccentricity. McCutcheon's equation is a step back into the Copernican solar system, and his equation is a reasonable approximation for MOST planets. However, it falls flat on its face when we consider the precision measurements of Mars that were avaiable in Kepler's time.

Given that much of McCutcheon's later work is based on this orbit equation, the whole book more or less falls apart.
-Will

[viscount aero]

he clearly admits orbits are not perfectly circular.

[viscount aero]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

Copy the maths from the book and e-mail it to Buffy. If you need diagrams, draw them on paper, scan them and post them on the thread as attachments. These are minor practical difficulties that are easily overcome. Get to the explanation.

good idea. i don't know why, then, the thread has gone to nearly 9000 pages and nobody has yet done this. will that not violate copyright? i guess if i cite the source, i'm fine.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by viscount aero

but then you're not reading the book and then suggesting i pour through this entire epic thread is a double-standard.

No, the point of this forum is to discuss these topics in your own words *here*. The point is to defend theories. If you can't explain them in your own words, you will get a negative reaction because simply saying "read the book and you'll see I'm right" is content free.

Moreover, it is a common trait among charlatans who wish to make money off of the gullable insist on getting their money up front before letting anyone see their "secrets." Scientists working on theory freely publish their works for others to scrutinze. McCutcheon comes across much like the folks who sell plans for perpetual motion machines. Its hard not to be skeptical about such hiding of the "secrets" behind "you need to pay McCutcheon $50 in order to be able to make any criticisms."

Originally Posted by viscount aero

insofar as simple, it is. the math you demand is in the damn book. you will see how g has been slipped into equations for no reason other than to promote the idea of a pulling force that is entirely unnecessary.

This is what we call in our rules, "an unsupported claim." You need to defend it with more than just "go read the book." Defend it in your own words. If its really easy, its not that much effort is it?

Originally Posted by viscount aero

"...unwillingness to recognize well understood and well-proven evidence..." of what? what is proven that you claim? that gravity exists as proposed by Newton? this is proven beyond doubt? no way.

The equations governing orbital motion and trajectories in n-body spaces are accurate enough to within a few hundred meters across hundreds of millions of miles in our own solar system as shown by hundreds of interplanetary probes launched in the last 40-odd years. These equations are all highly accurate--way beyond "5-nines"--and have shown no discrepancies except those adjusted by Einstein over Newton.

Note this assumes *nothing* about the "true nature of gravity" which is *meaningless* in this discussion precisely *because* we are entertaining a theory which posits that "gravity does not exist". These models happen to agree with a scenario in which gravity exists, and G in fact is derived based on theories of its existence, but we can ignore that when entertaining equations which are proposed as "equivalent" because those equations *must* agree in all cases with the equations that use G, for which there is mounds of evidence.

I will note that many who have argued for expansion have tried to argue both sides of this, first saying "you are making assumptions that gravity exists" and then questioning why we don't insist on gravity existing in these arguments, which is quite disingenous.

You need to understand that the "laws" of orbital mechanics and the equations that govern motion are highly accurate models with no errors of any kind. Unless McC's equations agree exactly with the old equations *and* really do eliminate G, then his equations are not useful models and do not support expansion. This does *not* require any "assumption of gravity" but it is very annoying to proponents if it disproves the Final Theory!

Logic rules,
Buffy

[ughaibu]

If you send stuff privately to Buffy there's no copyright violation, you could even lend her the book. Diagrams just need to give the ideas, they dont need to be copies or even close resemblences, so again no violation.

[viscount aero]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Unfortunately, the huge wrinkle is that McCutcheon's "geometric orbit equation" simply does not work for anything other than a circle.

Given that much of McCutcheon's later work is based on this orbit equation, the whole book more or less falls apart.
-Will

it's not his equation. it's an equation that subsequent ones are based upon. that is cited in the book very clearly.

[viscount aero]

Originally Posted by Buffy

No, the point of this forum is to discuss these topics in your own words *here*. The point is to defend theories. If you can't explain them in your own words, you will get a negative reaction because simply saying "read the book and you'll see I'm right" is content free.

i'm not expecting you to read the book and then you "see the light." hardly. it makes a good case for an alternative. it at least points out blaring inconsistencies in standard ideas.

Moreover, it is a common trait among charlatans who wish to make money off of the gullable insist on getting their money up front before letting anyone see their "secrets." Scientists working on theory freely publish their works for others to scrutinze. McCutcheon comes across much like the folks who sell plans for perpetual motion machines. Its hard not to be skeptical about such hiding of the "secrets" behind "you need to pay McCutcheon $50 in order to be able to make any criticisms."

that isn't necessarily true either. anyone has a right to recoup losses for print and distribution of a book; making a profit is not a disqualifier if he makes any. i highly doubt he's making a windfall from this book. as well, many abstracts and official papers must be subscribed to or paid for in some form. having to pay for a work does not invalidate it whatsoever.

This is what we call in our rules, "an unsupported claim." You need to defend it with more than just "go read the book." Defend it in your own words. If its really easy, its not that much effort is it?

again, this isn't about "go read a book and it's all fine" -- you're awfully pedantic and condescending.

The equations governing orbital motion and trajectories in n-body spaces are accurate enough to within a few hundred meters across hundreds of millions of miles in our own solar system as shown by hundreds of interplanetary probes launched in the last 40-odd years. These equations are all highly accurate--way beyond "5-nines"--and have shown no discrepancies except those adjusted by Einstein over Newton.

sure. they're calculating for geometric conditions. final theory does not invalidate the outcomes of the equations.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by viscount aero

he clearly admits orbits are not perfectly circular.

...which doesn't follow from his maths. So how can he say he's right when he clearly admits his maths are feeble, and not able to explain observed phenomena? How can he say Standard Theory is full of holes and falling to pieces, when it does a better job of it than his own 'Final Theory'?

You see, Viscount, we have all participated in this thread because we're all interested in Science, and anything that can contribute to a better understanding of Nature. So, whenever someone writes a book called 'The Final Theory', we'll be in; hook, line and sinker. But when they charge you for the knowledge, and they give you the first chapter for free as a teaser, and after reading the first chapter where the guy goes on about how flawed Standard Theory is, and the only conclusion you can draw from reading only that chapter is that the author has very little understanding of the Science he so airily dismiss as 'flawed', it makes you very skeptical of the quality of the rest of the book. So, as it turns out, most of us never bought it because its crap. We're discussing the pros and cons of the premise in order to convince ourselves to maybe buy the book. And the premise is 'Expansion'. And, as we've described in detail in the 10 million or so posts above this one, the premise is terminally flawed. So, chances are very small of us buying the book, apart from maybe as a study in marketing techniques.

Do us a favour:

You've got the book. Scan some of the explanations and paste it here. Not only won't McCutcheon not mind, but there are clear delimitations at the US Trademarks and Patent Office of what can be patented/copyrighted and what can't. And Laws of Nature is on their front page as one of the things that cannot be copyrighted. So, if McCutcheon is right, you can copy and paste to your heart's content. If there is a little c with a little round circle anywhere in your copy of the 'Final Theory', then it is copyrighted, and the author must make his peace with the fact that the book is deemed 'Fiction' by the USTPO and filed as such. If he truly believes he's right, then you can copy away without any infringement.

Please do so. I'm itching to see how McCutcheon's gonna top the first chapter for comedic value. But I'm not hauling out a red cent for it.