The Final Theory

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Three? Hmmmm. Impressive.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

 

Why 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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

 

it' s transcedental

 

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

 

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