Gbz Unaq said:
1.) Newton's theory of gravity has no source so hence it is to be defined as pseudoscience because it as stated in
www.thefinaltheory.com has no known source because of the law of energy conservation. He is absolutly corect.
Wrong. The (crude) experiments at that time suggested 1/r<sup>2</sup> behaviour for gravititational force, and a proportionality with both the masses. It was then a matter of adding a constant which balanced force and the m<sub>1</sub>m<sub>2</sub>/r<sup>2</sup> term.
There is no
a priori reason within Newtonian theory to take this particular formula, so in that sense "there is no known source". The absence of a source being due to the law of energy conservation seems like utter nonsense.
Calling Newton's law of gravity pseudoscience is hilarious. It is the longest standing scientific law that we have, and it works amazingly well. Do you have the slightest clue on HOW well ???
Gbz Unaq said:
2.) There is no true definition of what electricity is in all of science. Ther again he is right.
Riiiiight... How about "electricity is the collection of electric effects, i.e. those due to interactions between electrically charged objects" ? Everything in this sentence is very accurately defined.
Ofcourse, not in first year physics handbooks ... (no ... i am wrong, it is even remarkably well in first year physics handbooks). This suggests that the "final theory" (what an ego) author does not have a good overview of existing literature and science.
Gbz Unaq said:
3.)Only people who read and know this principle he proposes should comment on its vallidity. He purposely does not show you this principl in the free chapter. He didn't even tell you his purposal.
Did you know that I also have the great theory that unifies all forces ? Quantum gravity *does* exist, I have it here laying next to me, all worked out in detail!
But I won't publish it, I want you to pay $100.000 first.
Gbz Unaq said:
4.) Physics and most other sciences were founded to create an easy discription that makes sense, that all man-not just supersmart scientists (like ourselves)- can understand.
The classical "we don't understand so it must be wrong" argument. Been there, done that.
What don't you understand ? Tried asking on this forum ? There are a dozen qualified people here (yes, with degrees and phd's and ... ) that are more than willing to help you understand physics. You just have to ask, and accept that for the "complete picture" you need to study it yourself. We can only give you a hint at what it means.
Gbz Unaq said:
5.) Considering 1,2,4 which he grasped perfectly there's no need to asume that the book's author was wrong in his proposition which as stated in #3 the concept of which you don't know.
Considering of what I heard already, the book's author must be a an individual with a huge ego-problem; who calls his pet theory the "final" theory and claims that "it is the theory scientists don't want you to read" ? Let me correct that, from what I heard already, my personal, scientific opinion is that the author is a ***[censored to protect the young and faint of heart]***.
Gbz Unaq said:
The point is give him a chance. When Einstein proposed his theories people said that it was a pile of poopie. And no I will nto say the curse because it would be unproper on a purely scientific forum.
... they didn't. It was looked at rather sceptically, but there is a difference between saying that a theory is a "pile of poopie", like the final theory dot com, or that it seems rather incredible, but mathematically sound and proposed by someone who knows what electricity means.
The only genius thing the author of "final theory dot com" did, was asking $59,99 for a crap theory. I'm pretty sure that he indeed is convinced that those scientists are dumb-asses by just giving away their work for free... to the public! (nobody cares, but that is not our fault!)
Bye!
Crisp
