"the final theory"

cephas1012 said:
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm

yeah i heard abt the bloody book...n ur right its all BS bt its interestin BS..n theres nuthin to worry abt...wht the author is claimin to be the final theory is just a consequence of einstein's expansion principle....i found this entire exchange on the net bw the author(mark mccutcheon) n this other engineer called dave abt the stuff in the book n this dave guy totally blew up this guy;s theory....
its amusin
Click to expand...
 
s prty hrd t read wat ur sayen mi fellow ELTS

*translation*
yes i heard about the book, and your right it is all BS. But, it's interesting BS and there is nothing to worry about..... what the nuts who wrote this are claming to be the final theory is just a consequence of einstein's expansion principle.....i have found this entire exchange on the net by the author (Mark McCutcheon) and this other engineer called Dave about the stuff in the book, this dave guy totaly blew up this guys theory........
it is amusing
 
Err, seriously guys if you order this book i think you'll find out you've purchased a bible. They only really seem interested in disproving science, all of science, science as a concept even. The language, the images, i don't know all seems very, well..biblical.
 
Very very rude group of people here. Is it a requirement? If so, then I'll stay away.

I thought science meant the way we relate to existence and attempt to understand and comprehend it.

I have read the book through and through. I have also had discussions with the author.

And frankly, unlike the nastiness I find on this forum, Mr McCutcheon is a total gentleman.

You see, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter what any of us think. Reality is whatever it is. We can wave our degrees in the air, we can chant around a fire and smear paint on our faces and proclaim all together that he is wrong.

But reality isn't determined by vote.

The accuracy of his model will prove to be either better than Newton's or it wont.

McCutcheon provides a different model of the universe. That's why it's called "The Final Theory". And it's no accident that it covers everything. He had no choice.

This I know for certain: Both Newton and McCutcheon can be wrong but they both can't be right. And I for one am betting on McCutcheon.
 
Newton was superceded by Einstein, SteveH.

Sorry about the rudeness. Not everybody here is like that. In the Physics forum we do tend to get our fair share of nutters, though, and so people's patience can wear a little thin at times.

Welcome to sciforums.
 
Basically his entire theory appears to have been derived from his incapability of understanding the four elementary forces, stating that there is no energy source for them therefore they can't exist. He does not understand the perpetual motion law and claims that a ball endlessly oscillating through the centre of the earth represents a perpetual motion machine. It does not, of course, because you cannot subtract energy from this ball in order to do anything with it. A perpetual motion machine is a machine out of which you can obtain a continuous supply of energy, not some object which is perpetually moving.

Apparently every elementary force needs a "power source", so either each quanta is plugged into the mains, or he postulates infintely small leprechauns on bicycles providing all the energy.
 
I finished reading the book on January 21st, 2005, having received it on January 13th. I had a tough time leaving it alone as I went through that rather busy week. The book appealed to and challenged me that much.

In regards to the book, I am impressed by the author's obvious intelligence, the breadth of his understanding of today's science and his logical presentation of a surprisingly comprehensive and difficult theory. Kudos to Mark McCutcheon.

I sincerely hope that we can prove his efforts to be worthwhile.

Further, I think it would be enormous good fun to be part of an effort that contributes to the testing, validation, clarification, correction, extension and establishment or discrediting of Mark McCutcheon's "Final Theory."

Mark McCutcheon is an audacious author. He is definitely not afraid to challenge the "sacred cows" of existing science and physics Standard Theory.

Do yourself a huge favor and DO NOT PERMIT YOURSELF to be one of the close minded, bigoted or self adulating people who will have difficulty being patient and open minded enough to read all the way through the book. Such people will leap to a negative conclusion about the entirety of Mark's "Final Theory" based upon their not understanding or mis-understanding and negative reaction to some point along the way. I was tempted to do so, myself. But, as I continued to read I found that later information gave me good reason to be pleased that I had not dismissed the book out of hand.

Mark lays out his theory in a logical step-by-step manner with no overview or preview to give us a look ahead at what is coming (for valid and good reasons). This works very well if you are patient, but otherwise you may be tempted to skim, look or jump ahead. Trust me you will be well rewarded for patiently reading page by page.

Using the time honored practice, I highlighted the places where I had issues, as I went.

Mark fully acknowledges the worth and the obvious workability of the existing Standard Theory in science and physics. But, he challenges Standard Theory where it tells "what or how" but not "why." His "Final Theory" gives his explanation of the "why" and in many cases that leads to a new explanation of the "how."

A most refreshing intellect is housed within this author's brain.

As you would probably expect, my second reading of the book (currently in progress, Jan 29, 2005) is proving to be even more interesting, challenging, focusing and clarifying. In many cases the theory looks even better the second time around, but, also, the difficulties and questions stand out in more vivid relief.

For those who do as I am doing, reading the book again, I suspect we will find it easy to have focused discussions with intelligent content.
 
But why pay money for some crack-pot theory when you can get a new one each week right here for no charge? Plus you get insults, abuse and foul language as part of the package. True, the ocassional boring old fart wanders in, writes down a few squiggles and Greek thingies none of us understands, but eventually they realise that adults aren't welcome in the playground, and wander off.
 
I've only read the first chapter (on the net), but I must say that the author does not seem to have grasped what science is about. Science does not claim to explain "why", only describe "how". The former is realm of philosophy and religion.
 
Last edited:
When we finally get it right, I suspect that the accepted science will describe the, "why" as well as the how. The reason we generate so many "crackpot" schemes is because our present science is not sound philosophy, IMHO. The book is not either BTW.
 
Silas, excellent. In fact, you cannot even measure any properties for the oscillating ball. even shining the slightest light on the ball will disturb it over time (photons do posess momentum). And even the slightest non-homogenaeities in the ball or the earth will induce some gravitational drag that, over time, will destroy the perpetual nature of the system. The moon is subject to gravitational drag and is slowly receding from the earth, and losing a tiny amount of energy in the process along with the earth...
 
Last edited:
I'm currently reading this book, I'm about a third of the way through my first reading. I'm having difficulty wrapping my brain around his theory of orbits. I welcome anyone that can offer a better explanation. Despite my best efforts, I keep coming up with a different answer to his equation. His theory sortof works if you are only dealing with 2 objects, orbiting each other. Once you throw in a third and have a point of reference, it doesn't work anymore. At least not for me. His answer seems to be dissociating the frames, which doesn't follow logic for me. It also sooms to violate the law of inertia, which he seems to toss aside as an invalid law - he seems to be saying that objects can follow a curved path naturally. What? This brings additional trouble, because if you're going to challenge one law, you have to challenge them all. He seems to be picking and choosing the laws that will work with his theory.

Like I said though, still reading, but it seems I've completed this particular section and it just isn't working for me...
 
cephas1012 said:
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm

I have no idea how I got to this website. I think it might have been an ad from here at sciforums or something, but it is really messed up.

Has anyone else heard about this? I have a long ways to go in understanding physics but even I can see this is bs all the way through. Its pretty funny though. Any comments about it from anyone?
Click to expand...
If photons are emitted in opposite directions simultaneously from the physical midpoint of two photon sensitve clocks (mounted on a common frame also containing a clock mounted at the physical midpoint), and the emitter and clocks are moving to the right with velocity v with respect to the spatial point defined when and where the photons were emitted, will the photons arrive at the moving clocks simultaneously?

If mirrors are also attached to the clocks and reflect the photons back to the center clock/photon-absorber, will the photons arrive simultaneously at the physical midpoint of the frame?
Geistkiesel
 
Non-Luddite said:
I finished reading the book on January 21st, 2005, having received it on January 13th. I had a tough time leaving it alone as I went through that rather busy week. The book appealed to and challenged me that much.

In regards to the book, I am impressed by the author's obvious intelligence, the breadth of his understanding of today's science and his logical presentation of a surprisingly comprehensive and difficult theory. Kudos to Mark McCutcheon.

I sincerely hope that we can prove his efforts to be worthwhile.

Further, I think it would be enormous good fun to be part of an effort that contributes to the testing, validation, clarification, correction, extension and establishment or discrediting of Mark McCutcheon's "Final Theory."

Mark McCutcheon is an audacious author. He is definitely not afraid to challenge the "sacred cows" of existing science and physics Standard Theory.

Do yourself a huge favor and DO NOT PERMIT YOURSELF to be one of the close minded, bigoted or self adulating people who will have difficulty being patient and open minded enough to read all the way through the book. Such people will leap to a negative conclusion about the entirety of Mark's "Final Theory" based upon their not understanding or mis-understanding and negative reaction to some point along the way. I was tempted to do so, myself. But, as I continued to read I found that later information gave me good reason to be pleased that I had not dismissed the book out of hand.

Mark lays out his theory in a logical step-by-step manner with no overview or preview to give us a look ahead at what is coming (for valid and good reasons). This works very well if you are patient, but otherwise you may be tempted to skim, look or jump ahead. Trust me you will be well rewarded for patiently reading page by page.

Using the time honored practice, I highlighted the places where I had issues, as I went.

Mark fully acknowledges the worth and the obvious workability of the existing Standard Theory in science and physics. But, he challenges Standard Theory where it tells "what or how" but not "why." His "Final Theory" gives his explanation of the "why" and in many cases that leads to a new explanation of the "how."

A most refreshing intellect is housed within this author's brain.

As you would probably expect, my second reading of the book (currently in progress, Jan 29, 2005) is proving to be even more interesting, challenging, focusing and clarifying. In many cases the theory looks even better the second time around, but, also, the difficulties and questions stand out in more vivid relief.

For those who do as I am doing, reading the book again, I suspect we will find it easy to have focused discussions with intelligent content.
Click to expand...
Why don't you invite the author to this forum, have him propose some scientific principal (like the rest of us) and then we will be able to judge the value of what the Final Theory is all about?
Geistkiesel

P.S. You first post on this forum is an advertisement for a book you are peddling? Why don't you post some scientific subject matter and allow us to see what kind of scientific understanding you have so we can build a measure of condifence that your information will justify the money and time necessary to read the book?
 
cephas1012 said:
Um, its not my book. I am saying the book is bs. Did you even read what I said?
Click to expand...
Yo, I missed some .... I saw a similar post on another forum and knee jerked myself in the head passing your post off as a repeat.

Geistkiesel.
 
Interestingly, as I search various forums around the net I find negative comments and reviews of "The Final Theory" only from people who have read only a portion of the book.
 
geistkiesel said:
Why don't you invite the author to this forum, have him propose some scientific principal (like the rest of us) and then we will be able to judge the value of what the Final Theory is all about?
Geistkiesel

P.S. You first post on this forum is an advertisement for a book you are peddling? Why don't you post some scientific subject matter and allow us to see what kind of scientific understanding you have so we can build a measure of condifence that your information will justify the money and time necessary to read the book?
Click to expand...

You might read the reviews of "The Final Theory" on Amazon.com to find the justification you need for the money and time necessary to read the book.

I'm not selling anything. I am only a very interested reader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top