[CraigD]

Originally Posted by johnfp

Craig, I hear what you are saying. But did we throw away the theory that light is a particle when we saw it behave as a wave or vise versa?

Well, actually, yes. Both purely ballistic theories of light and purely wave (eg: ether) theories were discarded in favor of theories in which all particles (not just photons, but massive particles with relative velocities less than the speed of light) are wave-like and particle-like, theories including the concept of wave–particle duality.

Originally Posted by johnfp

Do we not accept the fact that no matter how hard it is to cognitively visualize something can be a particle and a wave, we do indeed accept it?

Yes – but only because it is possible to make predictions using the formalism of these theories, test them experimentally, and find good agreement. Were modern physics – quantum mechanics – unable to make predictions as testable as the classical mechanics they replace, or if their predictions in no way differed from those of classical mechanics, or if they differed, but were incorrect, these new theories would not have been accepted.

Originally Posted by johnfp

Do we have to think about the concept of the expanding universe down to the subatomic level while disregarding the formulas and previous theories that work mathematically? Can we not accept both and apply each where it fits best to understand out universe more completely?

We can’t accept The Final Theory because the few vague predictions that its proponents (specifically, Mark McCucheon) have made, have failed experimental tests.

Originally Posted by johnfp

Why not simply explore the idea with the reservation that while all things are expanding, because our measurement devises expand also, we are not able to apply expanding calculation to our physical world. We have to accept that we are stuck in the "same frame of reference" and thus the formulas we have devised so far can/have to still be used. We cannot step outside this expanding universe to see how physics would apply to the expanding universe based on a non expanding frame of reference.

TFT predict that all bodies expand in such a way that their relative size remains constant. Were this not the case, the expansion would be very noticeable.

It’s mathematically trivial to use this to translate to and from an absolute coordinate system fixed on an observation at an arbitrary time. When you do, however, the following equation for the height of a small body falling toward a large one can be derived:
[1]
where is the body’s height at time , the radius of the large body, and the expansion factor, (sometimes given as ).

When is a small fraction of , we can experimentally observe that is nearly given by the uniform acceleration equation for distance,
[2]
where is the constant acceleration (about 9.8 m/s/s for small values of )

The problem is, you can’t get equation [1] to agree with [2], which agrees well with experimental data.

This is not advanced math. Select a practical value for , and try to select a value for that fits the data. Find one that works for a particular value of , and the TFT-derived equation gives incorrect predictions for for other values of .

You can easily get predictions from the admirably simple idea of the expansion of mass. You just can’t get the theory to correctly predict the observed behavior of the universe. Either bodies change dramatically in relative size, which we don’t observe, (and would regardless of what we use to measure them), or their observed motion follows equations such as [1], which we don’t observe.

Expansion is a perfectly good hypothetical model, if one cares to derive it in detail. It just doesn’t agree with observed reality. This is a major drawback for a physics theory.

Originally Posted by johnfp

Now, if the current formulas and theories still work even with the concept of the expanding universe, then why adopt an expanding universe theory?

because they don’t work!

Originally Posted by johnfp

I am sure this is what many scholars and professions feel.

I can only conclude that such scholars have not attempted to reconcile the expanding universe theory given in The Final Theory with scientific observations

Originally Posted by johnfp

But it could be that if some, which I am finding out that McCutcheon has supporters that do in fact back his claims, were open minded in this thought process that other new and exciting and revolutionary and unbelievable scientific breakthroughs could be unveiled.

Where, then, are these backing-ups of McCutcheon’s claims? A very simple example such as the one I give above could be backed up in about as few words and numbers as I used to refute them.

Until I’ve seen just one simple example of the support you believe exists, John, I can only conclude it’s a myth. As a lover of mathematical novelty, I’d love to see this theory made to work, but can’t accept it until I have.

[uFollow]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Welcome to hypography, theumpossible You ask a difficult question, as people who have read the book but are not of the sort commonly termed “true believer” are, I think, rare.

theumpossible: The book presents a cogent, internally consistent "new physics" that in no way relies on religious explanations. The theory, like Standard Theory, may be right or wrong, but it's not religious. Anyone representing otherwise is more than pseudofullofit.

Originally Posted by CraigD

The overwhelming consensus at hypography and similar science forums, and among professional scientists, appears to be that “The Final Theory” is pseudoscience.

That one may disagree with an idea, find it less than compelling, or fail to understand it no more makes it pseudoscientific than, say, Standard Theory (with which one may disagree, find less than compelling, or fail to understand).

Originally Posted by CraigD

Worse, I believe McCutcheon’s interest in writing this book is not scientific, but commercial – that he is promoting and capitalizing on public dissatisfaction with the difficulty of learning conventional science, offering an alternative based on the premise that “if it’s difficult to learn, it must be wrong”.

theumpossible: The laws of the universe may remain a mystery, but the economic laws of publishing have been revealed. Yet, the idea that the publication of this book was a commercial enterprise has been a common theme in this thread. It would be hard to dream up a worse way to make money than to write and self-publish a book like "The Final Theory." Such a title might net the author roughly minimum wage (given the time devoted to it) if published by a mainstream house; self-publication turns even that sad math on its head. Financially, this type of book is always a "labor of love"; the supposed financial benefits exist only in the popular imagination.

Originally Posted by CraigD

I’d personally recommend against buying the book. This thread, on the other hand, is available free of charge...

Eww. Just... eww.

theumpossible: If you are open to entertaining a different perspective, and are secure enough to question received wisdom (even if calls into question your own viewpoint-til-now) you'll probably find "The Final Theory" an engaging read, even exciting. And it provides the best example of no-nonsense, straightforward explanations of certain physical phenomena -- including material descriptions of Standard Theory -- that I've ever seen. That it then goes one step further, debunking certain of those phenomena, is what makes some people uncomfortable.

That discomfort, more than anything else, recommends the consideration of these ideas.

[Boerseun]

Sadly, uFollow, that's not the case.

Every single day I sign on to Hypo, I see a google ad for "The Final Theory: What Scientists Don't Want You To Know!"

Google ads cost money.

Self-publishers are also self promotors.

That all costs money.

And no, as you write in your post, he doesn't "debunk" any aspect of Standard Theory. Scientists aren't little evil lechers clutching on to their knowledge with tooth and claw, never letting the common man into their secrets. Scientists live for progress - and progress is only made when proposed theories are falsified. If anything written in "The Final Theory" was credible in the least, the Scientific World would have embraced it, kicked Standard Theory into the dustbin, and boosted McCutcheon to the levels he would deserve.

Sadly, that is not the case.

Our objection towards McCutcheon's fairy tale isn't the commercial part. That is human, and understandable. It's not very scientific, though. Our main gripe with the guy is that what he proposes, is simply not happening. If you take his "expansion" as your point of departure, the world around you, the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy, everything, simply wouldn't look like they currently do.

"Expansion" fails to explain relatively trivial things like orbits. In a world where "Expansion" caters for gravity, moons won't orbit planets, and planets won't orbit stars. A pound of cheese on top of a tower would be heavier than at the base of the tower. Clearly, that is not the case.

So - Mark McCutcheon sells snake oil. Pure and simple. And he simply has to self-publish, because none of the peer-reviewed journals will touch this kind of tripe.

...and that's about it.

If "Expansion" was indeed true, it won't "debunk" Standard Theory - if it was true, it would become Standard Theory, and each and every Scientist on planet Earth would have a massive simultaneous orgasm that the nature of gravity has finally been described.

McCutcheon makes a strawman about the average garden variety scientist not wanting to give up his secrets, and not willing to challenge existing knowledge. That is, once again, not how science works, which makes me even more skeptical about the author of "The Final Theory"s understanding of basic science.

Scientists live for what Mark McCutcheon is attempting. Nobody would suppress it, as he's claiming.

[phillip1882]

i've decided to try to play devil's avocate here. i don't particurally subscribe to TFT, i consider it possible but unlikely. as for my qualifications, i have a degree in comp. sci., so as you can see this isn't exactly my field of study. never the less, i will do my best to support the thoery of expanding matter, and if you see a flaw, or would like a clarification, i'll try my best to clarify matters.
i would also like to state that i haven't read all the posts, just from page 77 onward. so i apoligize if i'm repeating arguments and the like.

firstly lets talk about ocean tides. if ocean tides are entirely caused by the moon's gravity, then why is high tide on the oppisite side of the earth as well? though the moons shoul pull on water on that side as well, it should pull it at a much weaker strength, meaning high tide should be signifcantly less.
TFT claims that the earth wobbles in a 24 hour period, producing two ocean tides, one on each side. if true, his would be more in line with the fact that ocean tides are fairly equal in strength at both times of the day. further, TFT explains that, during the formation of the earth and moon, this earth wobble would be in line with the moon because the inner structure of the earth would be "pulled" tward the moon, giving it an off-center center of mass.

secondly lets talk about falling objects. all object fall at a fairly equal rate of speed, this is an undeniable fact. from what i understand, neuton claims that heavier objects are pulled with more force, but they dont fall faster than lighter objects because it takes more force to move them. this seems very odd logic to me. i mean gravity shouldn't be able to pull two objects right next to eacthother with two different amounts of force. with TFT the answer is simple and straightforward, all objects fall equally becuase the suface of the earth is literally rising up to meet them. we can even derive the equation for falling objects directly from this principle of expanding matter. first, let's consider absolute expantion. when two objects double in size, the distance between the two objects is cut by 2. for exapmle consider two circles radius 1, and a discance of 8 radiuses from eachother. after doubling in size each radius will now be two, and the distance between them will be 6 radiuses. however you also have to consider realtive expantion. when two obects double in size, theiie radius increases by that much as well, therefore the disance is futher reduced by half. that is though its 6 smaller radiuses from eachother, its 3 larger radiuses from eachother. form these two obsevations, we can get the equation for falling objects as...
d' = (d0 - 1/2 *ex *n^2 *(R1 +R2))/(1+ex*n^2)
where ex is the expansion rate, n is the amout of time, and R1 and R2 are the two radiuses of the objects. for the earth and a small falling object, this equation essentially becomes...
0 = d0 -a*n^2.
which is precicely the standard equation. however, it has an added bonus of being able to determine what happens when you drop a object into a tunnel through the earth, as n goes to infinity, the object will travel less and less further untill it reaches the center, and stays there, no endless occilation as predicted by newton and einstein.
i also find it interesting that the standard equation doesn't have any sort of force variable in it, i mean if gravity is a force, then it should be a factor in the equation wouldn't you think?

i'll stop here for now, give people a chance to reply, and add more later.

[Tom Palmer]

For phillip1882--

I am a "retiree" from this thread, but I have to reply to your recent posting. Back in 2005 I had submitted a number of postings, a few of which happen to address concerns you mentioned. You might want to go back and read them.

Posting #157 is entitled "The Final Theory - NOT (Part 2)" and deals with the fact that in a vacuum bodies fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

Posting #223 is entitled "Origin of the tides," and my follow-up Posting #241 ("Re: The origin of tides") included an explanation of the tidal twin-bulge phenomenon.

I would also like to suggest that you read posting #154 ("The Final Theory - NOT"). I hope you find these postings helpful.

Best regards.

Tom Palmer

[phillip1882]

i greatly apreciate these posts you pointed me to. they were very helpful. i've always had trouble with the "potential energy" aspect of gravity. particually with orbits, as a planets are always in motion, so it seemed to me at least that there really is no potential energy, or at least not enough to constantly keep such a large body in motion. as MC pointed out, gravity is not really thought of as a rechargeable battery, where the further out you go, to more its powered up so it can pull objects in. it seems to me by newtonian physics, in order for an object to change movement, a force must be applied, and in order for force to be applied, either some power source must be expended, or it must be hit with some sort of object. since there hasn't been a discovery of the gravity particle, this leaves the power source option. you seem to claim that potienal enegy, that is how far the object is from the other, is that power source. am i correct in this assumption?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by phillip1882

it seems to me by newtonian physics, in order for an object to change movement, a force must be applied, and in order for force to be applied, either some power source must be expended, or it must be hit with some sort of object. since there hasn't been a discovery of the gravity particle, this leaves the power source option. you seem to claim that potienal enegy, that is how far the object is from the other, is that power source. am i correct in this assumption?

Although a common misunderstanding, this assumption is a simply and profoundly incorrect interpretation of classical physics.

The easiest way to see this, I think, is to write and consider the first few fundamental definitions of classical physics:

• Velocity = change in Position divided by change in Time
• Acceleration = change in Velocity divided by change in Time
• Force = Acceleration times Mass
• Work (or Energy) = Force times change in Position
• Power = Work divided by change in Time

A body in orbit (for the sake of simplicity, let’s for now say a perfectly circular orbit, where the distance between the orbiting body and its barycenter (the center of the circle) is constant, would, at a glance, appear to be under a constant centripetal (“toward the center”) Force, while changing Position, require a constant Power. However, Velocity and Force are both vector quantities. The centripetal component of the Velocity of a circular orbiting body, because the distance between the body and its barycenter does not change, is zero, while all of the force is toward the center, so Work and Power are both zero.

However, orbits are not circular, but elliptical, so the centripetal component of their Velocity is not zero, and their power is nonzero and varying. The Work of half of each orbit, however, is exactly equal to the negative of the Work of the other half. Thus, an elliptical orbit is like a rechargeable battery, reaching “100% charge” at apogee, and “0% charge” at perigee. That

Originally Posted by phillip1882

gravity is not really thought of as a rechargeable battery

is not an accurate description of classical physics.

The chapter of the Final Theory that was at one time available for reading without purchasing the book addresses this by denying that classical physics is correct.

[phillip1882]

would, at a glance, appear to be under a constant centripetal (“toward the center”) Force, while changing Position, require a constant Power. However, Velocity and Force are both vector quantities. The centripetal component of the Velocity of a circular orbiting body, because the distance between the body and its barycenter does not change, is zero, while all of the force is toward the center, so Work and Power are both zero.

what? okay you seem to be saying here the becuase the object is contsantly changing momtentum no work is being done, as long as the force is tward the center. this makes even less sence than the potentail energy consept.
for example consider a person swinging a rock on a string around himself, would you say hes exerting no work/energy/power on the rock?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by phillip1882

what? okay you seem to be saying here the becuase the object is contsantly changing momtentum no work is being done, as long as the force is tward the center. this makes even less sence than the potentail energy consept.
for example consider a person swinging a rock on a string around himself, would you say hes exerting no work/energy/power on the rock?

Yes, exactly.

Work is Force multiplied by change in Distance. In the case of a satellite in a circular orbit, or a rock being swung in a circle with an un-stretchy string of fixed length, the change in Distance is zero, so regardless of how great the Force, Work is zero.

In the case of a rock swinging in a circle, it’s helpful to imagine replacing the person holding the string with a sturdy pole. In a frictionless system – the string attached to the pole with a perfect bearing, the entire system in a perfect vacuum – the rock would circle the pole forever with no change in period, no energy entering or leaving the system from outside it, and thus zero work. It’s easier to grasp this illustration of the formal physics with an obviously inert, energy-less pole, in a frictionless system, than with a person, who intuitively seems to be working hard to keep the rock in motion, in a system were friction is continuously converting the kinetic (movement) energy of the rock and string into heat and sound energy, and also where the many complicated biomechanical moving parts of the person are consuming energy moving, and simply being alive.

A more common classroom illustration is to consider a person exerting all the force they can against an immovable wall – for the sake of clarity, imagine they are pushing against the wall with a sturdy brick. Despite the large force, the change in the wall’s position is zero, so the work performed by the wall and pushing brick system is zero. Again, this is more intuitively obvious if you imagine the person replaced with a steel plate that exerts exactly the same force as the person, and is thus indistinguishable to the brick and wall system from the person.

If none of these illustrations make intuitive sense, you can confirm the “realness” of zero change in distance resulting in zero work by measuring the power input of an electric motor, first when the motor is turning against a load, after the load is increased until the motor stalls, then unwrap the motors wires from its armature, and measure the load on them when they’re no longer in the motor and clearly not doing any usable mechanical work. The power will be greatest when the motor is turning, and the same when it is stalled as disassembled. Were the motor made of a circuit consisting of only superconducting wire, the stalled and disassembled power would be zero – for ordinary wire, some power is consumed even when the motor is doing zero mechanical work, because it’s generating waste heat.

[phillip1882]

you know you won't belive this but shortly after my post i was thinking of a frictionles rock on sting modell and was trying to determine for myself wether or not the rock will ever stop moving. in all honesty, without friction, i can't concieve of a reason. wow how dumb do i feel? thank you for the enlighten- ment. gravity has aways been a touchy point for me, i just couldn't concieve of a zero power system. but this helps.