The Final Theory

[Maurice A. Williams]

I see quite an active thread on Mark McCutcheon’s “The Final Theory.” Many who posted comments said that they started reading the book but lost interest and did not finish it. I discovered McCutcheon’s free download of chapter one and was interested, so I got the book and read it. The rest of the book is not as intriguing as the first chapter. Here is what I got out of the whole book.

McCutcheon asks the reader to imagine the real world as being two-dimensional, and within that two-dimensional world, contemplate how a three-dimensional world might be visualized by people experiencing only two dimensions. We could not comprehend three-dimensional objects, but they would manifest themselves into our two-dimensional world. If all objects were conical, and we only see flat sections, then the flat sections we see would continuously grow bigger as the three-dimensional cones intersects into our two-dimensional world. It is equally difficult for us to imagine that objects we are familiar with in our three-dimensional world might somehow be our perceptions of objects from a four-dimensional world that project themselves into our three-dimensional view of reality.

McCutcheon’s proposes that the universe is four dimensional, the fourth dimension being outside normal experience, mysteriously beyond our normal three-dimensional comprehension. He argues that this fourth dimension is right here within our regular three-dimensional world. It exists even down to every atom. Atoms occupy the fourth dimension, which is completely foreign to us, with physics unlike anything in our atomic models today. It is the nature of this fourth dimension to continuously expand outward into our dimension, literally creating what we call atoms – but atoms (and large structures composed of atoms) that are continually expanding from this fourth dimension into our three-dimensional perception.

The space inside an atom is also different than the space outside an atom, almost like another unknown dimension. The rates of expansions in these two new dimensions are different, being much faster within the subatomic space within the atom. The internal expansion within the atom does not occur in space-as-we-know-it, and, therefore, does not consume space; instead, it merely supports the overall structure of the atom, which then defines space-as-we-know-it outside the atom. He claims that there is a big difference between the enormous subatomic expansion rate within the atom and the comparatively tiny expansion rate outside the atom. McCutcheon’s feels his new Expansion Theory, when used as a single overall theory, can explain everything that previously required three theories (a mix of Newton’s gravity, relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to explain.

My take on McCutcheon’s proposing a fourth dimension outside the atom and a fifth, much different, dimension within the atom is that it is very hard to comprehend. I hope he has worked out his Expansion Theory mathematically and that the mathematics supports his position. What diminishes my acceptance of his arguments is that his new dimensions do not seem to be based on empirical observation – nobody has discovered them, measured them, or described them. No experiment, I suppose, can prove that they exist. They seem to be purely intellectual theories that could possibly serve to give a single explanation to solve inconsistencies in the standard theories. Since the standard theories are backed up by mathematics, it would be interesting to see McCutcheon’s mathematical equations supporting his theory.

For those of you who have not read the entire book, this is what I understood from it. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Maurice A. Williams

[Buffy]

Hi Maurice and welcome to Hypography.

I think you'll find that this thread contains a very large number of disproofs of Expansion Theory. It's by no means comprehensive, but its a great place to find them.

Those of us who have been active in the discussions would point especially to issues having to do with the inability to explain orbits (McCutcheon's "assumption" that all things move in curved lines simply does not square with the fact that in the presence of masses that those curves will function differently based on the distance from the mass), the seeming special status of masses that are "touching" in order to "feel gravity" (e.g. why is this expansion "directional" toward the center of the larger mass?), and the inconsistencies that occur in celestial distances (space must expand along with the mass in order for celestial bodies to expand, but if this happened on Earth, everything would just float).

You're right that it provides no testable hypotheses, and the book I believe in the very first chapter simply defines away proving the theory by simply saying that the theory makes exactly the same predictions as Newton-Einstein, and in the rest of the book, simply replicates their equations.

Its just a more complicated way of "interpreting" the data, that ends up being highly self-contradictory and fails to explain many observed phenomena.

You'll find that we've pretty much beaten this one to death, so do read the thread thoroughly, but I'm sure we'll all have fun if you have further questions or ideas!

Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century,
Buffy

[Maurice A. Williams]

Thanks Buffy,

I think I'm going to enjoy this forum.


Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[final.theory.chick]

hey there
stumbled across some info on a new book about final theory due to be released soon...anyone heard of Nature's Watchmaker by John Thompson?

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, final.theory.chick! Please feel free to start an introduction thread telling us all a bit about yourself.

Originally Posted by final.theory.chick

stumbled across some info on a new book about final theory due to be released soon...anyone heard of Nature's Watchmaker by John Thompson?

Your post is the first I’ve heard of it, or its author. As it doesn’t appear to be in print yet, so I suspect not too many people have. From this bloggish semi-promotion, semi-review, I get the impression that some reviewers have read at least parts of the manuscript, but found from a quick web search no reviews by a recognizable scientist or science journalist, nor any academic or professional biography of the author. It’s publisher’s description page describes it (as such pages usually do) very positively.

If anybody has access to the manuscript or book, and can provide a synopsis, please do. As the above publisher’s description claims “it combines all the effects found in both the microscopic (atoms) and macroscopic (stars, black holes, galaxies) universes in one simply derived equation”.

I doubt Thompson’s ideas are related to those Mark McCutcheon’s promotes in his book “The Final Theory”, which this stupendously long thread discusses, and given how soundly McCutcheon and his claims have been discredited in this and other science forums and reviews, hope they’re not. If no one has any information connecting the two, I’ll move this and the preceeding post to a new thread.

[DrBang]

I read the thread with interest when I discovered it. I conceived this expansion theory long ago. I called it "The equivalence of gravity and expansion of mass."
I was very excited for a short time after I came with the idea because it seemed to show that gravity is a fiction and unnecessary in an expanding mass universe.
Very soon I realized the big problems, like inability to explain orbits and inverse square law. Another problem that nobody seems to have noticed here is that the increased velocity due to expansion would rapidly exceed that of light.
In short, many problems. I see here some have been detected but none resolved.