Final Theory: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Final Theory » Final Theory

Final Theory
Fishing for opinions

Final Theory

Timothy
The Author of Waverly

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Unemployment line
Total Topics: 70
Total Posts: 1931

Posted 09/10/08 - 08:33 PM: Subject: Final Theory	#1
Mark McCutcheon proposes a "final, unfied theory" on a book entitled like this thread (official link: http://www.thefinaltheory.com/homepage.html but don't expect much info from it). I actually own the book and even though I haven't been through all of the arguments, explanations and what not, I find this new theory somehow flawed, at least from a philosophical point of view. I'm wondering about what the more scientific-informed people around here think. The theory is stated in Chapter as the Expansion Theory: McCutcheon wrote: Every atom in the universe is expanding at an identical universal atomic expansion rate An obvious reply would be that there's no way for us to observe this if this were the case (since everything would maintain its relative size). To this, McCutcheon replies: McCutcheon wrote: There would however, be a noticeable effect from all this underlying expansion - objects would take up more and more of the space around themselves and, therefore, between one another as they grew, eventually touching and continuously pushing against one another due to their ongoing expansion. But does this actually happen in our world? Indeed it does. This is the very reason Newton introduced the notion of an attracting gravitational force - to explain the fact that allobjects seem to pull toward one another, and experience an ongoing force holding them together once they touch In a nutshell, this is the basic idea. Let's see if I catch a remark or two...
""Physics investigates the essential nature of the world, and biology describes a local bump. Psychology, human psychology, describes a bump on the bump." W.V.O. Quine

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2989

Posted 09/11/08 - 04:30 AM:	#2
Well, that's an interesting idea... but does it predict anything, really? I mean, honestly, if there aren't any equations in the book, then the entire theory is rubbish. Because that is where the strength in Newton's theory lies. Newton was able to build the machinery to demonstrate that the forces that he described can be measured in numerous different ways and all of these measurements produce the same results (and some of them are very sensitive).
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Timothy
The Author of Waverly

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Unemployment line
Total Topics: 70
Total Posts: 1931

Posted 09/11/08 - 10:08 AM:	#3
From what I've glancd ahead, there is a mathematical component to this theory. For example, McCutcheon finds a way to calculate the atomic expansion rate (a constant). The credentials of the guy are a B.S. in Electric Engineering and Physics, with sevral elective courses in Special Relativity and Quantum Physics. As to predictions goes, I haven't found any single "new" prdiction that this theory may have over our current ones. It seems to me that McCutcheon has proposed a (supposedly) better explanation of phenomena; he admitedly accepts that the davantage of his theory is that better explains phenomena such as gravity, electromagnetism and lectricity, gaining plausibility from so-called "flaws" in actual physics. Howver, as we trained philosophers ( ) are aware, the fact that an explanandum saves the phenomena in a "simpler" way doe snot neccesarely entail that such explanandum is true, or even close to the truth. This, methinks, is the philosophical flaw I've mentioned before. Now I'm probing for scientific flaws as well. I may have to post an equation or two for this purpose. Will do as soon as I get back home.
""Physics investigates the essential nature of the world, and biology describes a local bump. Psychology, human psychology, describes a bump on the bump." W.V.O. Quine

ughaibu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 221

Posted 09/11/08 - 07:31 PM:	#4
Undetectable expansion was proposed as a thought experiment by Poincare and refuted by Schlesinger, among others. One means of detection is barometers, which are an interaction of pressure with gravity. There's a long thread refuting McCutcheon here: http://hypography.com/forums/books-movies-games/7...

Timothy
The Author of Waverly

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Unemployment line
Total Topics: 70
Total Posts: 1931

Posted 09/11/08 - 07:52 PM:	#5
Thank you ughaibu. After reading several blogs and independent reviews of the book (written by Physics graduates and the like), I've come to the conclusion that the book is pure rubbish. One doesn't need to go beyond the second chapter. Replacing gravity and other "mysterious" phenomena with an equally (or even more) mysterious "expanding force" is self-defeating. Several reviews have pointed out the flaws of the math involved, as well as a deep misunderstanding of key physical concepts being criticized. I would do well to throw that book away and spend my time on something more productive.
""Physics investigates the essential nature of the world, and biology describes a local bump. Psychology, human psychology, describes a bump on the bump." W.V.O. Quine

throng
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 195

Posted 11/02/08 - 06:40 AM:	#6
Timothy wrote: Thank you ughaibu. After reading several blogs and independent reviews of the book (written by Physics graduates and the like), I've come to the conclusion that the book is pure rubbish. One doesn't need to go beyond the second chapter. Replacing gravity and other "mysterious" phenomena with an equally (or even more) mysterious "expanding force" is self-defeating. Several reviews have pointed out the flaws of the math involved, as well as a deep misunderstanding of key physical concepts being criticized. I would do well to throw that book away and spend my time on something more productive. I read the first chapter. I would doubt the merit of someone who refers to gravity as a force. It keeps proving accepted and proven science is wrong by asserting gravity is a force. Gravity is not a force. I sincerely believe more accurate information has been published. I'd like to see his alternative explanation. The effect of 'past mass' on gravity is described as expanding. The strength of gravity was mathematically linked to the density of matter so it had some merit. I wonder what happened to that theory. Nothing describes everything and gravity isn't a force.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.