The final theory - anyone read it?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jnorman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Final Theory
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Mark McCutcheon's book "The Final Theory," which proposes a radical rethinking of gravity, suggesting it is unnecessary as a force or field. Critics assert that McCutcheon's arguments contradict established principles of physics, particularly the conservation of energy. The initial chapter claims that both Newton and Einstein are incorrect, leading to a flawed definition of work that undermines classical mechanics. Overall, the consensus is that the book lacks scientific validity and may mislead readers about modern physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newtonian physics
  • Familiarity with Einstein's theory of general relativity
  • Basic knowledge of the conservation of energy principle
  • Concept of work in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Newton's laws of motion and their implications
  • Study Einstein's general relativity and its impact on modern physics
  • Explore the conservation of energy and its foundational role in physics
  • Investigate the definition and applications of work in classical mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of gravity and the critiques of alternative theories in modern physics.

jnorman
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
howdy again - i DL'ed the first chapter of "the final theory" by mark mccutcheon - ( http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm ) - and read it, whrein he hints that he has developed some significant new concept which does away with the need for gravitational as a force or even as a field, as per GR. it sounds suspiciously like hooey, but sometimes there can be a germ of truth buried in such thinking. has anyone read the book, or does anyone know more about his ideas? vielen dank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your first reaction was correct- it's hooey. In that first chapter, on gravity, he notes that both Newton and Einstein must be wrong because the Earth must use energy to "hold" things in orbit or in position on its surface- and that contradicts "conservation of energy". And you'd better not object that "work" only applies to a force in the same direction as movement- he argues that that is an incorrect definition of work. In other words, his "correct" definition of work (any time you apply any force, you do work) causes the violation of conservation of energy which proves the theory of gravity is wrong!
 
I think it's a shame. Sometimes I direct people to this website so they can learn about some of the ideas in modern physics. There is a good chance these people will click on the final theory advert and be even more convinced that modern physics is wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K