# Final Theory?

I would have thought this had been discussed before but I could not find any references to it in the search.

Basically, what on earth is this website all about?
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/2/index.htm [Broken]

It has many examples which claim to disprove or disrepute common well known laws and theorys. I'm not a physist so I can't say that these claims are definatley wrong (although a few strike me as rediculous, for example they claim that time dialation cannot happen because of the twin paradox but I remember reading an article that showed there is no twin paradox).

Anyway what do people here think of it? If you ask me the author of the website and the accompanying book seems to be using the average person's shallow depth of physical understanding to convince them that what they have been taught is wrong and to replace their knowledge with his own ideas and theories. The website doesn't explain what this 'Final Theory' is all about (I assume you have to read the book to find out). Does anyone know what this book attempts to show and how it is supposed to give us a 'deeper physical understanding of the universe'?

Last edited by a moderator:

LURCH
The website is all about selling a book. The first chapter of the book is available online for free (that's right; it's absolutely free! So if you order now...). The firs chapter is a set of questions. Each question is followed by a promissed answer, to be found, of course, in a later chapter (which can be yours today by Pay Pall or credit card!).

The great mysteries claimed in the advertisement page are bogus, many of the conflicts listed do not actually exist. As for the legitimately unnanswered questions that are mentioned; I think it can be safely assumed that this cracked pot does not answer them. Even if he does, the first page shows him to be a disshonest writer, who manufactures mysteries where they don't exist, so how could one trust his answers, or his recorded observations, even if there are any?

Don't give this rube your time, your effort or (most importantly) your PayPall account or Credit Card numbers (liars are often thieves, as well).

I also stumbled on the website and at first thought it was an exposition of UniKEF, appearing on a sciforum near you. On reading the free 'Chapter 1' I figured it should have been left in the slush pile BUT I'm always interested in what is being peddled on an unsuspecting public (and it seems to have taken in some press reviewers).

So, does anyone have any idea of what is in 'Chapter X', X>1 ? I don't expect anyone here will have bought it but you might have seen a review copy, or a library copy.

The book basically steals an idea from a Dilbert cartoon that I read years ago... that gravity is not a real force and that is it merely every atom expanding at some certain rate, making everything "push" together??? I did NOT read the book. Trying to find a non-$30 version. But he claims that in the book, by calling on this atomic expansion, that all the laws of nature can be explained including planetery orbits, magnetism, etc. Based on the first chapter, which is one big sales pitch where he repeats himself so much I was about to go buy some No-money-down real estate and fill the pantry with diet pills, I doubt he fully explains everything flawlessly (there were quite a few conceptual flaws in the first chapter). Otherwise, we'd see papers of his all over Science and Nature, which we have not 2 years after its publication. maybe someone should read the book before drawing conclusions nothing conclusive can be said about an unread book other than - I never read the book how many crackpots have made criticisms about Relativity Theory without ever even reading the text of Relativity Theory do you really want to join 'Club Strawman'? Last edited: A quote from the Final Theory Book about gravity A: The answer cannot be found in today's theories. Newton only claimed that gravity was an attracting force between all objects because that's the way things appear -- objects fall to the Earth or approach each other when floating in outer space. So Newton understandably claimed that it must be some type of attracting force emanating from objects, but he gave no scientific explanation for this force. Why does it attract and not repel? How does it cause falling objects and orbiting planets without drawing on any known power source? Not exactly true, Newton did give us an insight into what he thought was the cause of gravity. Newton published his mathematical work on gravity in his book Principia Mathematica in 1687. It was not necessary for Newton to know the cause of gravity in order to develop mathematical laws describing its behaviour. But later, when he published his treatise Opticks in 1704, he gave insight as to what he thought caused gravity. In Query 21, Newton wrote on the subject of an ethereal medium link with gravity. Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great Bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer? The Final Theory title of the book leads one to think that it will answer the mysteries of science, but it doesn't give answers, it just raises more questions. Dear Mark McCutcheon (The author of "The Final Theory") If you have the time then please answer to some simple questions: 1) Is your theory can predict the results of any undone yet experiments? 2) If your simple common source that explains everything is based on information that you get from past and current experiments, then how can you be sure that this information is not wrong and leading you to wrong conclusions about your simple common source? 3) Is common sense is some invariant law of nature, or totally depended on the logical reasoning that you chose to work with? For example: excluded-middle reasoning , included-middle reasoning, ... ? 4) Why do you thing that there is such a thing like final theory of something? Sincerely yours, WWW Ah, saved another$30

wisp said:
In Query 21, Newton wrote on the subject of an ethereal medium link with gravity.
Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great Bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

This is amazing! Doesn't it sound to you that this medium he is speaking of is spacetime, somehow? Spacetime is warped to become "much rarer" within (or around) dense bodies, to where the bodies want to move from the dense to the less dense? I think he was leaning more toward an aether-type scenario. I guess I've never read any Newton explicitly, but it sounds like he's setting up all the aether guys to get it wrong, to only propel einstein toward relativity. (?)

Another thing about the first chapter of "The Final Theory." He keeps on about K being superior to GM in the gravitation equation. How can K be superior to GM, when K varies by the mass of the object? If you take out the mass of the object you are left with a constant every time, for evey planet, moon, or sun, you are left with G. That's why GM must be superior to his K.

shrumeo said:
Another thing about the first chapter of "The Final Theory." He keeps on about K being superior to GM in the gravitation equation. How can K be superior to GM, when K varies by the mass of the object? If you take out the mass of the object you are left with a constant every time, for evey planet, moon, or sun, you are left with G. That's why GM must be superior to his K.

I'm still unsure if this guy's idea is a total hoax, but at least I'm willing to give him a chance.
As far as I understood his first chapter, it's not so much about K being superior to GM.
I think his main point is, that the general assumption that planet orbits are gravitational effects might be wrong.
He agrees that the mass of the ORBITED body is somehow responsible for the orbit-properties of any trabant, but the fact that the mass of the ORBITING body is not necessary for the calculation of it's orbit (the only relation is between velocity and diameter) makes him wonder, if this is really a gravitational effect.
I think he's got a point there.

In fact it doesn't matter what the mass of a moon is, if you got its orbit radius you can calculate its velocity and vice versa. We automatically assume, that speed or radius of a body are influenced by its mass, but I'm not sure if this is enough to prove orbits to be gravitational effects.
If someone can disprove the following statement, I'm willing to kiss this guys idea goodbye at once:

If our moon had the double of its mass, but still the same cruise velocity, its orbit would be just the same it is now.

(of course the effects for us would be horrific, but that's not the point)

I am not able to find a formula of planetary motion, that would contradict the above statement...

Can someone help, because I'm really worried ?

Last edited: