"the final theory"

[fo3]

Not selling anything? 3-post user, who is the only one who has something good to say about the book? This sounds to me like a desperate attempt to sell more copies..And there are plenty of other forums, where a new user pops up and starts advertising the book..

 

[Yuriy]

And most funny is the following "naive" insertion:

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.

Really funny trick: "Look, how objective I am! You can not judge until will not ... buy the book to read it whole!"
So, people, when you occasionally have tasted a BS, do not spit it out ... until you will not finish entire dish! (Oh, yeah, do not forget to tip the author!)

 

[superluminal]

Good Yuriy. I like that!

...tasted a BS, do not spit it out ... until you will not finish entire dish! (Oh, yeah, do not forget to tip the author!)

God I'm glad there's some humor in here!

 

[SteveHan]

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...

You have a right to be confused. Your model of how orbits work, right or wrong, has been internalized and you are experiencing the beauty of the human mind at work doing what it's supposed to be doing; letting you know something is not quite right.
It took me over a year to understand how expansion could actually work for orbits. If you persist, you'll see it.
My 'awakening' happened when I reread that part of his book for the 3rd time and literally took-my-time. I went slow, in other words. I also refused to allow any other thought to intrude on my focus and I think that was the key.

Start by referencing your model of attraction as the 'force' behind orbits. And simplify it. Two spheres on a collision course are in orbit, it's just not going to be sustained very long. Be an observer on one of those spheres. You see the other body approaching. Describe what you see. How do you know it's approaching? When you say, "well, it's getting bigger." Then you've got it because, that's what he (McCutcheon) says is going on. Tangential motion becomes a requirement to compensate for the expansion. Where there isn't enough tangential motion, the objects will collide. In my mind, the expansion behaves exactly like an attractive force would behave. On the one hand (McC's) you have a changing reference, on the other (Standard theory) you have a fixed frame. Fixed is definitely easier to see, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

The problem that most classically educated people have with this whole theory is that there are so many internal models that have to defend themselves from attack. The more powerful the mind, the louder the voices of defence become and the easier it is to dismiss the idea.

The trick is to take each issue one by one and see if the possibility exists that an explanation through expansion might just work.

It helps if you believe that we are perception machines and that we don't create reality through our perceptions. All we do is deal with what we see. And, it also helps if you are brave enough to admit that what we see is just an interpretation of what is really there. It's an interpretation that works, to be sure, but that all things could be expanding as we speak is a terrifying thought to get past and I believe it to be the driving force behind most of the violent attacks McCutcheon has had to endure.

In short, his theory requires you to be fearless.

 

[bsemak]

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.

Hmm, non-luddite. Interesting name, since this book obviously tries to smash the physics we know.
In any case, there have been so many "I have found the truth" books, which all have been refuted, that it is booring to think about. Reading the posts (not the book), it seems to me that the author really has a weak grasp of physics. More precisly, what physics claims to be capable of.

 

[charles brough]

It seems that the general concensus here in this thread is that The Final Theory is "crap" and "bull shit." Sorry to say this has had the opposite effect than to convince me you all know what you're talking about.

 

[BenTheMan]

I like your avatar brough---
too bad you don't deserve it.

 

[Zephyr]

What kind of scientist publishes a textbook without first confirming their ideas via experimentation and peer reviewed articles?

 

[Reiku]

From the Final Theory, these are statements that the author used to promote his book >

1. What if Newton and Einstein were wrong
and gravity is neither an attracting force nor
warped spacetime?

First problem. He is wanting to say that gravity is neither an attracted nor a warped spacetime...
What a load of rubbish... Did he forget about a million gravity-dependant theories? To state something like this, is to re-write general relativity all over again, and unless he is considered to be the next Einstein, then i'm not happy with anyone messing about with theories they know nothing about, because, the author surely cannot know the true relativity of generalized spacetime, because he is willing to put all of that aside as a fundamental error.
Now... what the hell does he really mean by ''not an attractive force'', because on a spacetime sheet, two objects with gravity will inexorably be attracted to each other... This is probably the one theory that gets me rawled up. Now, i understand that the author wants to rid of big bang... Next he'll be announcing we live in the centre of the universe... wacko

2. What if Special Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics are misguided abstractions,
with even electric charge, magnetism and light
sizably misunderstood today?

Well, i suppose he would say this wouldn't he... I mean, afterall, he wants to rewrite the laws of gravity and spacetime curvature. He would need to say we had the idea of electromagnetic packets wrong, because he wouldn't have been able to answer why light can couple to gravity... Poor physics... Really poor.

3. Billions in public funds for high-end physics
experiments would be misguided. And the public
would suffer needless paradoxes, confusion and
mysteries about their otherwise sensible universe.

Paradoxes are the real truths and the necessity of the universe and nothing but a lack of knowledge and misunderstanding from our part. Never mind the physical paradoxes, he seems to be a paradox unto himself...

Terrible... How did this man ever publish a book. He should be reserved in an assylum for his terrible physics.

Reiku :m:

 

[Zardozi]

Oh man, that's good crap. I wonder if I can smoke what the authours did...

:m:

Nice to smell you again, Mr. Kitz