Thereis a new book out "The Final Theory" by Mark McCucheon, That proposes a bran new theory to explain everything in the universe in a new light. You might call it the Theory of Everything that Einstein, and others have long tried to come up with, but failed. The book is a science bestseller on amazon.com but you can order it from your lokal book store also. And I would like to discus it with some one who has read it. to see if they can falsifi the new theory. Personaly I cant. I cannot discribe the complete theory in this post. (the book is 415 pages) but I'l give you a hint. McCutcheon claims there is no such thing as grvity. F.Ex. When we drop a stone from 4.9 meters obove the ground it hits the earth in one second. But it is not gravitational force that pulls the stone down, but the earth is expanding upwards to meet the stone. McCutcheon postulates that everything in the universe from atoms to everything that is made of atoms, like the earth, the moon, your table and you and me are expanding at a constant rate of aprox. one billions its radious pr second. The reason we dont percieve this is of course because we are all expanding at the same rate, including our rulers and yardsticks. The author explains everything from orbits (the moon) to magnetism and electricity and the nature of light, in terms of his "Expasion Theory". It is a fasinating new look at the universe, and if it is eventually proven right, it will delegate Newton and Einstein to the role of well meaning amateurs.I'm hoping that some one has read the book and can give me some feedback and criticue. If you have'nt, get the book, I guaranti it will be the most facinating pageturner you have ever read. I will try to answer any question on spesific aspects of the theory as best I can. There is a website <thefinaltheory.com> but it realy does'nt give much of the details. You simly have to read the whole book to form an opinion.

REGARDS APOLO

...I'l give you a hint....When we drop a stone from 4.9 meters obove the ground it hits the earth in one second. But it is not gravitational force that pulls the stone down, but the earth is expanding upwards to meet the stone. McCutcheon postulates that everything in the universe from atoms to everything that is made of atoms, like the earth, the moon, your table and you and me are expanding at a constant rate of aprox. one billions its radious pr second.I'll give you a hint. A 415 page book would make a very good door stop.

Now since you'll answer a specific question: If we can't perceive this expansion happening, how does McCucheon know it's happening?

Hi Marv.

You asked "if McCutcheon cant perceive the expansion, how does he know it is expanding ?"

My answer will be annother quuestion. If Einstein could'nt se the warping of Spacetime how did he know it was warped ?

In fact, for several years after Einstein published his theory of relativity most scientists thought he was a crank, and some of them kept thinking that untill 1919. And I would'nt be surprised If some of them kept his papers in the bathroom in case they ran out of toilet paper.

Now dont get me wrong, I'm not defending the new theory. I'm not convinced it is corect, but I have an open mind on it,That's why I'd like to discuss it with some one who has read it. It is deffinitely the most radical new theory to come along in the last 100 years. And when you think of it, McCutcheon's ideas are really no sranger than the patchwork of cosmology theories that's been patched up with patch upon patch upon patch by todays scientists. BTW the website is www.thefinaltheory.com You wont learn the whole theory from that site, but perhaps it will arouse your curiosity.

REGARDS APOLO

When we drop a stone from 4.9 meters obove the ground it hits the earth in one second. But it is not gravitational force that pulls the stone down, but the earth is expanding upwards to meet the stone.Either there's more to it or it's a crock because this wouldn't work. How does he explain the inverse square law of gravity?

e.g. If everything is expanding, including space, then the stone wouldn't get closer to the Earth because the space between the rock and the Earth would be expanding at the same rate. If space is not expanding then the clouds and the moon and the sun would be getting closer to the Earth at the rate of gravity and that isn't happening.

~Raithere

@Raithere
Hum,
I think what he means is that (it’s the old theory of acceleration in another spatial dimension) every point in 3d space is moving.
Ultimately gravity may be a inter-dimensional wave.

However, there are problems that I have with where the `new` energy comes from, that is needed to create this acceleration.

Blobrana asked; "where does the energy come from for the expansion?

The way I understand it The author claimes, that expasion of of atoms, and everything made of atoms is a built in quality of all matter and build his theory onward from there. It is really no different from Newton postulating that the reason a stone falls to the ground is because the earth and all material objects has this built in quality (he called it gravity) that atract other matter. He did not explain - and no one ever has - explained what powers this mysterious atractive force. If we have an electromagnet connected to a source of power, it will atract other metalic objects in the neighbourhood, and when we switch the power off it doesnt atract anything anymore. but when the power was on the magnet performed some actual work by moving other objects across the table toward the electromagnet, without any one touching them. If f.ex. a battery was used as a power source we find that we have used up some of its energy to do the work of moving the objects. And if we do it often enough, the battery will run down. But we can drop a billiard ball from 100 feet up a thousand times, it'l hit the earth every time. But the earth has not lost any of its gravitational power to atract things. So what we see is a contradiction of the law of conservation of energy. The earth has performed some work, without the expenditure of any energy. You might say - and I know you will- That a person used energy to lift the ball up before it fell. But what about the stray meteors that acidentally venture too close to the earth and get pulled down ? I should make it clear, that I'm not defending the new theory. All I'm saying, I've read the book (Becuase I have a curious mind) as I like to read anything new that comes along in science. And I mentioned the book in this forum in the hope the some one else might have read it, and we could discuss the pros and cons of the new theory. The one examble I gave about the falling rock is only a tiny portion of the complete theory, which goes on to explain everything from planetory orbits to electrisity and light. At least 3 scientist have read the book, and I remember Steven Weinbegr's comment was "huum- well- I cant disprove it" ,So if you have'nt read it, please spare me any humerous comments about using it for a doorstop etc. etc.

REGARS APOLO

At least 3 scientist have read the book,
Three? Hmmmm. Impressive. :rolleyes:

OK. So no one who has read the book has replyed. But if you have a great curiosity, and an open mind, by all means get the book. If you dont posses those 2 qualities, forget it. According to Amazon.com lots of copies have been sold, it was a bestseller in the science category, and I was hoping that some of these copies were bought by members of this forum, who suposedly are interested in science and the latest developements.

REGARDS APOLO

I reckon I'll give it a shot when I'm done with my, "little green book."



Fred

OK. So no one who has read the book has replyed. But if you have a great curiosity, and an open mind, by all means get the book. If you dont posses those 2 qualities, forget it. According to Amazon.com lots of copies have been sold, it was a bestseller in the science category, and I was hoping that some of these copies were bought by members of this forum, who suposedly are interested in science and the latest developementsWhy do you feel that you can only discuss the theory with people who have read the book? Seems an odd notion to me.

If you want to talk about the theory then just present it.

~Raithere

Hey, I'm in 9th grade and have very little educational background in physics (as some of you may have noticed by the topic I started), so would this be too far over my head until I get more basics down first (and get older, so my brain can mature), or more importantly: would it be a better use of time to read other books with more basic and universally accepted ideas? Any suggestions other than creek 1984's would be nice too, thanks.

I personally have not read the book, however based on your description of the book and the theory of which it presents I would say I completely agree with Raithere.

Granted, as there is currently no way to prove this theory wrong as there is not any way to test it, it would still be a good read, I imagine. If I ever pick up the book, I will get back to you on this thread, should it still exist.

There are many, many theories and questions with respect to the intermingling of physics and cosmology that are open (unresolved) questions based on observable fact, or completely hypothetical theory; nonetheless, one can never have enough perspective - even an incorrect perspective creates a more complete perspective. This concept still applies even if you know the correct answer.

There is a key difference between the comparison you make with respect to Einstein breaking ground in his day versus the author of this book with his theory; Einstein’s logic was centered around a key fact he believed to be correct: the speed of light is constant. This gave him a basis to work out numbers. As far as I can tell (from the description you gave of the book), there is absolutely no way to measure the expansion rate of the universe, as everything is expanding uniformly. Additionally, I fail to see how this hypothesis unifies the 3 separate theories at this time. But I suppose reading the book myself would solve this.

Anyway, keep reading anything and everything that interests you, and always ask a knowledgeable person to clarify anything that does not make sense to you. You will find that the more you learn, the more deeply you can appreciate everything that is observable in nature, among many other things. :)

My answer will be annother quuestion. If Einstein could'nt se the warping of Spacetime how did he know it was warped ?


Hey creek!

I'll start this post by saying that I have not read the book.

Einstein actually saw that space was warped during a solar eclipse. Stars which were on the other side of the sun became visual, as the light from these stars travelled around it due to gravity. I have no link to give you, but a few searches on google for "galactic lensing" would probably end up in a neat picture of it.

Time dilation and length contraction have also been proven.

Have a nice evening,

orange

I'll give you a hint. A 415 page book would make a very good door stop.

Now since you'll answer a specific question: If we can't perceive this expansion happening, how does McCucheon know it's happening?

it' s transcedental

Three? Hmmmm. Impressive. :rolleyes:
no there were 4...I'm the fourth oneeeeeeeee............o.k damnit I lied.
:m:

Creek 1884,
Like you I have actually read the book, so like yourself, I think I probably have at least a basic idea of what Mark McC is trying to say. While I cannot determine the validity of his theory, it is nonetheless interesting to read something a little off the beaten path.

The whole reason I even read the book (along with several other standard texts on quantum mechanics and relativity) is to try get a handle on the nature of gravity. My background is in computer science and mathematics, not in physics, so when I asked some basic question about gravity I really thought that a fairly fundamental explanation was forthcoming. I thought wrong. Mark McC’s assertion that gravity is an “effect” (of continuously expanding matter) and not a “force” I found intriguing. Is it correct? I have no idea and I would be hard pressed to devise a way of testing it. But as far as I can tell, neither quantum or relativity really give an adequate explanation either, although they do provide a means of describing its effects (i.e. models).

One of the things in the book that is giving me some trouble is Mark’s explanation of planetary orbits. No matter how I try to work the math I never get a circular path for any two objects. Anyone care to try to explain it?

I think in the end that whether or not Mark McC’s theory is dismissed as “crackpot’ science or a revolutionary way of explaining our world, it is worthwhile to challenge our fundamental beliefs in pursuit of a deeper understanding.

Hi everybody.
I've been away for a while, but I see several posts have shown up on this site. One asked me to present the new theory rather than asking people to read the book. Well I could'nt posibly describe a 400 page book in the limited space available on this site. BUt I'l give out annother tidbit
to try and arouse your curiosity.
Among other things (and it is only a small part of the complete theory) the author posits, that there is no such thing as electric charge? if there was, 12 ore more protons could not stay togeter in the nucleus of an atom. They should fly apart cause they are all positive ! OK OK I know that scientists say the strong nuclear force hold them there. But the author claims that this is an artificial invention by scientists who could'nt find an explnation for it. He says the electron is the elementry particle, and protons and neutrons are made up of bunches of electrons. (Fact; it is known that neutrons are slightly heavyer than protons, by an amount equal to 1 or 2 electrons, and ocationaly a neutron will eject an electron and become a proton) He further claims that light is not waves but a stream of electron clusters. Each of these postulates, by themselves sounds cracy, I thought so when I started reading the book, but when I finished, I desided to leave my mind open on the subject untill I heard the opinion of others. But beleive me, it does take 400 pages to descibe the complete theory which ccvers everything from planetary orbits and magnetism to light and gravity and relativity. I would really be interested seeing what some of you math experts out there think of the way the author tears apart Einstein's equations on special relativity
. There is a website www.thefinaltheory.com that'l give you some information on the book and how to order it. including coments from people who have red the book.

REGARDS APOLO

ConfusedSQLwrote:

Granted, as there is currently no way to prove this theory wrong as there is not any way to test it...

I have not researched this theory at all. However, if the above statement is true, then there is no point in discussing it at all. All new scientific theories rest on the knife edge of experimental evidence for or against.

Thanks.

spam

Hi creek,

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the site has the warning signs of pseudo science all over the place. He rants on and on about how terribly wrong and obviously erroneous "mainstream" theory is while demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of many of the theories he decries. He also gives no real information as to what his theory entails. The most he says about it is that his theory answers all the questions, which is suspicious assertion in itself. If his theory is so certain, one would expect him to at least present a few intriguing tidbits for people to chew on.

Many errors. Lots of hype. No substance. I cannot say this encourages me to go out and buy the book.

~Raithere

This page was posted in Physics&Math too, and its been somewhat discussed there. Most of the posts are showing the author wrong, so you might wanna take a look there too. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36294

And if you would have a little search on the google, then you'd find plenty of other forums related to science, where a newly-registered user pops up and starts promoting the book and telling people to buy it. To me, this sounds like a bit of marketing done by the author of the book, who's trying to get more people buying his book and earn more money out of something he calls "a scientifical theory". The book is just written in a way that it is easily understandable and seems logical at first for a reader who knows nothing about physics.
What kind of a scientist tries to sell his theory as a book instead of publishing it in some scientifical magazine or just releasing it on the internet. Even in forums like this, if he cannot find any other ways, on his own god-damn website, if not anywhere else. I am surprised, that he hasn't tried to patent his theory, so that no one else could profit from it..
This theory is as good as a product you see in a pop-up ad or find in your email inbox, saying you can have the looks of a moviestar in two weeks if you eat these new pills, that cost only 99.99$.

bhyde
I read your posting with interest. It was nice to finaly make contact with some one who has actually read the book. You said you had trouble with the way the Mark discibe the creation of circular orbits. That did'nt bother me, it is pure geometry. But I was really facinated by his explanation of elliptical orbits (as we know all planets are in elliptical orbits) according to Newton's laws elliptical should be impossible. I never thought about it before, but he is absolutely right, when a planet swings around the sun and arives at far end of the oval what is it that mystericalle slows it down and return for annother loop? The explanation that scientists have been giving us for this phenominom is pure nonsens, about gravitational energy beeing converted to kinetic energy and back again.
My math skill are good enough to follow all the equations in the book but perhaps not good enough to poke holes in them. Since one of your majors are math, can you tell me if Mark is correct (pages 333 to 336) where he shows that Einstein did a leap of logic and actually did some fuging with the math in special relativity. The way I read it, it looks like Mark is correct.
As you said, it is imposible prove the new theory at this time, but test will come if some one can definitely disprove it or some aspect of it. After all most of the current hogepot of cosmology theories cannot be proven either and some are contraditory. But Mark has one thing in his favor the explanation of why voyerger 10 and 11 is mysterilly slowing down after it moved out past the orbit of pluto. No scientist has been able to explain this.
Whether the theory turnes out to be right or wrong, it was refrehing to see some one had the currage to jump outside the box and write something completely different.

REGARDS APOLO

expansion is motion, motion is relative, if everything is exapansion there is no relativity, there is no motion, there is no expansion. the theory eats its own tail.

Interesting theory. I noticed that the book is referred in the bottom of the great Rudulph Steiner's page (scientific lecture on light and gravity...):
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Science/19191223p01.html

Until I can order this book to the arab world (it takes few weeks), I have a question, if the world is expanding, than it is expanding in all directions, since a stone in china is falling as well as in USA or another location of the EARTH SPHERE.
Do you mean that the diameter of the Earth is expanding? if so it would have been noticed...?
Excuse my comment if I did not get it...

Does he mention the relation with the Ether in his book?

Impatient to get the book... and I agree with you that such a book should be read rather than discussing the theory alone.

Awaiting your answer...

Regards
Esoteric_Concept

Interesting theory. I noticed that the book is referred in the bottom of the great Rudulph Steiner's page (scientific lecture on light and gravity...):
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Science/19191223p01.html


lol.. if you're talking about the ads at the bottom of the page, then those ads are put there by google and are randomly selected. The owner of the page has simply sold the space for ads or something, and he can't pick them on himself. "The great Rudolph Steiner" doesn't even know that the ad is there and I don't think that he would ever recommend such a book.

The explanation that scientists have been giving us for this phenomenom is pure nonsense......
Care to explain in what way tens of thousands of physicists and astronomers have been talking nonsense. In detail.

Premonitioner Hi.
If you think I'm defending the Final Theory as beeing corect and the answer to everything, you are mistakig. Though I think that some aspekts of the theory might just possibly be proven correkt some time in the future. When I buy a book on science, I do it becaouse I'm a curious person. And I dont worry about whether the aurthor is making money on it or not.
I have more than 60 books in my book case on physics, asronomy and astrophysics. I heen collecting them since I went to grade 5, and they span all the way from James Jean through Niels Bohr to Rutherford, Hoyle, Guth, Sagan, Green, Arpp and Livio to name a few. I started the thread becaouse I would like to discuse with others who may have read the book.
So far only one person has. And he seems to have an open mind one it, neither accepting or rejecting the concept out of hand. I have given a few tidbits from the book in hope that some one might be currious enough to get it, and then give some feedback on it. I realize it was a mistake. It is useless to discuss single parts of the theory with some one who has'nt read the whole book. So please dont expect me to answer questions on any of small portions of the theory I have mentioned previously. It can only be understood in it's entirety.

PS. In case anyone is interested. I used to publish under the handle of APOLO for the last 3 years. But one day my computer screwed up, or was it the network? I could'nd access the site
so I had no choice but re register as a new member, and I chose the handle of creek 1884.
REGARDS APOLO

I have been wanting to get this book for the longest time. After reading one of your posts I have a question. If a stone dropped lands not because of gravity but because of the earth expanding, does not the rock expand as well. And if both the rock and the earth are expanding, then what about the space in between the rock and the earth? Wouldn't that be expanding as well, thus creating a situation where the rock just levitates - ever expanding but never falling or being drawn to the earth or pushed towards it. I have a problem with gravity and our current scientific theories. Can you tell me how McCutcheon resolves this and I have no problem with you spoiling the book for me. I would really appreciate it if you could tell me what his new principle in nature is that has thus far eluded us.

Many thanks, e_sword

Ok look, since the argument directly above my post here has been used sooo many times; i'll enlighten you all with another occurence which should not happen according to this theory, but which does because of GRAVITY. All scientists now generally agree that our universe is expanding, correct?, so when galaxies, solar systems, planets move further away from the center of the universe, the things they orbit should be flying further away too. But when you consider the this theory here, the planets that orbit should not be orbiting at all because that would imply for them to change velocity and acceleration with respect to the origin of the universe....which goes against the equal growth idea of this theory. Thus there must be some force pulling these objects around and changing their velocity and acceleration....namely GRAVITY! I hope you understood what i have said, i could give you a couple of pages of mathematical proofs but im not sure you would understand it plus i have no time to post such things on the web. If you can't understand my proposal then its because I'm german and have english as a foreign language :)

so when galaxies, solar systems, planets move further away from the center of the universe, the things they orbit should be flying further away too.


It should be pointed out here that the centre point of the universe is (from our perspective) each and every point in our space time (and all at the same time) is the centre.

If we take that the expansion of the earth and space is indeed happening, then we should see no difference to the Newtonian view point.
As for this to affect the orbits of asteroids or the pioneer craft unfortunately I find that the curve of space time is kept the same.

(ie 45 degrees enlarged, is still 45 degrees)

And the space craft should be still following classical Newtonian trajectories.

The theory is I find another nice way to view gravity. But to explain away the pioneer affect we should perhaps look elsewhere.

Answer to Esoteric Concept

When the author claims that the earth expands and the moon
expands, the reason the reason they dont colide is that the space between them is also expanding.
It should be noted that scientists have long postulated that as the universe is expanding, it is actually space itself that is expanding. Yes that emtyness between stars and
galaxies we call space. I found that hard to beleive when I first read it, but is accepted by most cosmologists.

BTW there is annother new revolutionary book published by an east indian gentelman, the whole book is on the internet at http://c-radhakrishnan.netfirms.com/stuff and style of the universe,
it's called "the ultimate theory" The book is not published yet in north america. But I read it on the internet it was tough going, but I slugged through it anyway because of the bad habbit I have, called curiousity. Im not prepared to say whether this theory or the final theory is correct. On ballance I would say that neither one is. But there are certain aspects in both theories that may possibly be accepted as part of our understanding of the universe in the future.

REGARDS APOLO

It should be noted that scientists have long postulated that as the universe is expanding, it is actually space itself that is expanding. Yes that emtyness between stars and
galaxies we call space. I found that hard to beleive when I first read it, but is accepted by most cosmologists.

Can you name any of those cosmologists? Other then the author of this book and the references sourced within it.

I think there might be a problem with this theory due to the ratio between surface area and volume as an object expands.

Note that a one unit cube has one cubic inch of volume and 6 square inches of area. For a two unit cube, it is 8 units of volume and 24 of surface area. For a three inch cube it is volume 27 & surface 54.

Even if we might not notice the expansion due to our rulers expanding, there are effects that would be noticeable.

Answer to UnderWhelmed

90% of cosmologists beleive that it is space itself that is expanding. But to comply with your request, I'l name 2 who are quite famous. Brian Green and Allan Guth. OK
REGARDS APPOLO