Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ooh! Yet another Final Theory!

  1. Jul 28, 2004 #1
    There's this one guy, an amateur physicist by the name of Mark McCutcheon, who has written yet another one of those "theory of everything" books. The difference between this guy and most others is that he lists a lot of "science flaws" on his homepage and he takes on everything from Newton's gravity to quantum physics, often mixing and matching the two.

    http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/2/index.htm [Broken]

    That's his "Science Flaws" article. Reading that, I've come to the conclusion that he is either a very confused person or a true genius, who tries to communicate too many ideas at the same time and ends up mixing them all together.

    Anyway, go read that much at least. He even debunks Einstein a few times there, offers an interesting view of the twin paradox, (I am not a physicist and I haven't even properly studied the theory of relativity, but his explanation seems very fishy and doesn't take into account the rest frame, or so it seems to me) points out a few curious things (how the four forces of nature don't seem to do any work) and even points out serious flaws in Einstein's maths.

    Anyway, it's a fun read and although a large part of it seems to be bull, it made me think about a few things. So if anyone feels like pointing out his flaws, that'd be nice :)

    Oh and he said he has calculated the universal constants using his theory :)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 29, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    Some of it was interesting, and some of it was just garbage. I think I remember the author being on this forum a few months ago trying to promote the book, and explain his views, but he had a tough time trying to convince mostly everyone (me included). His lack of understanding of the definitions of basic concepts such as work, and how orbits work lead me to question his knowledge of physics. I believe he should have a fundamental knowledge if he is trying to refute it.
  4. Jul 29, 2004 #3
    Didnt know wu-tang members posted on here! lol
  5. Jul 29, 2004 #4
    Good link though, and i found myself nodding away to alot of it, i liked this bit particularly...
  6. Aug 6, 2004 #5
    i may be wrong, but i think that that is the point of his book. to try and put forth a new theory that is completely different from anything else out there. trying to debunk the author with arguments like, "well anyone who knows basic physics can see that he is wrong" is missing the point as he is saying that the basic concepts are wrong. while his theory may be the stupidest theory ever put on paper, he does make arguments that make sense to a lay person. and even theories that make sense to physicists have many flaws, so why is one more right than the other? :rolleyes:
  7. Aug 8, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I know people who debunk all of science by merely stating how poor they are at predicting the weather. Of course, then they go cook something in the microwave and watch television. But science is useless, and wrong, to certain ppl.

    My expieriances have shown such are generally religous, and do not want to accept the paradox of holding there beliefs and accepting science.
  8. Aug 14, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    Creating an argument that makes sense to a layperson isn't all that difficult in my opinion. Reading the rave reviews on amazon.com about the latest book written by a physicist for the layperson that contains almost nothing but speculation, yet receives such positive press should confirm this. I have actually gotten a chance to read a chapter where he attempts to explain how objects can orbit each other under the premise of indefinate expansion, and was not at the least impressed. He couldn't seem to show exactly how it is possible for orbits to exist with his theory, so he simply swept the whole matter under the rug by attacking the work-energy theorem (since he didn't understand what the significance of work is, something you can ask any introductory physics student).
  9. Apr 15, 2006 #8

    from the website

    two ideas both have the same fundamental flaw

    edit: same goes for this


    the creation of potential energy results in a single stored energy value that is relative to the 'resting state' of the system involved

    this store degrades and energy is lost over time..

    permanent magnets do lose there zip... thermodynamics and all that

    the notion that energy is being continually created in some flow is a infinity.... as the interval of creation is infinitesimal.. ie the energy is recreated every moment.. which means that an infinite amount of energy is created at any potential level..

    if you claim that the potential remains constant because it is lost as it gains ie the object only retains PE by virtue of a flow then where does the energy go?

    it would have to radiate it out somehow.. since this is a infinite flow all our energy requirements could be solved by placing something on a shelf and using the radiation coming of it to drive a turbine or something..

    this is clearly bonkers..

    so to resolve it we have this notion stuff is expanding... well that doesn't help as the energy of the collisions caused by this needs to be created as well by some unknown force never mind resolving how the rest of reality compensates for such a state of affairs... or even more perplexing if the nature of space and light etc etc expanded reciprocally it would negate the effect anyway....

    the mistake is thinking that potential energy is being re-newed...

    well its not its being lost..

    work done in a energy field will create a potential energy that is degraded..


    the deceleration of the earths rotation is a transfer of energy to the moon so the energy loss is outward into the moon from the earth. the moon is spiraling out. gaining potential energy

    the potential energy stored in a spring system or elastic will degrade... elastic after a while becomes inelastic... springs lose there springiness etc etc etc

    the fridge magnetic will fall off the fridge if you wait long enough


    this is why our arms tire because the bio mechanical "rest state" is piss poor compared to a shelf so the energy is lost quicker AND stress energies in our arm that make it a tool of flexibility come into play

    a bow and arrow held by a arm is not efficient compared with storing the energy in a crossbow..

    in classic mechanics we do not think of the crossbow re-newing the energy store moment to moment... the crossbow does not radiate energy if we store energy in it only to be re-newed the next moment by magic energy coming out of the bow/bowstring...

    these people want to plunge us into the dark ages

    the idea of circular motion requiring 'power" is a complete lack of basic understanding...

    energy in a revolving system will continually to be there until it is degraded...friction etc... if we accept circular systems of rotation require a through put of energy the way our universe would work is truly bizarre

    insisting that circular/wheel motion requires continuous power... such as orbits... is a failure to understand physics that is learnt between the ages of 11 and 15 in most western societies.

    the implication of such fundamental ignorance is startling and does not only demonstrate alack of knowledge but a lazy intellectualism that can not be bothered to think things through before committing them to publication under the pretense of "authority" for monertary gain

    one may be forgiven for thinking that a energy flow is required to 'power' a orbit or circular motion if one was thinking about the issue from some position of ignorance... ie a human of limited knowledge.. but to then insist this was the truth of some paradox in current physics without trying to inform one self of the facts is a appalling crime..

    even a human of moderate intelligence with no real understanding of physics should be able to deduce that circular motion does not necessitate continually energy inputs from everyday experience...

    for instance if one pedals a bicycle and stops pedaling a universe that worked with this "energy flow" concept should require that the bike comes to an immediate infinite G(!) stop as no energy is being added to the system...

    this is not the case as the bike rolls on for a while before stopping...

    this is because the energy put into the system is lost though friction not some concept of renewal.. lot less friction in space compared to a bike wheel.. hmmm says average not well educated bloke let me think on that

    citing orbital mechanics as an example of "physics is broke" because of this renewal concept is just so stupid it beggars belief

    I wonder if the disseminators of this sort of rubbish may get sued for damaging peoples education and fraud thru the use of bogus credentials?

    0/10 go straight to jail do not collect £200

  10. Apr 15, 2006 #9
    Do you have a link to that theard.
  11. Apr 17, 2006 #10

    This author is at best laughable... What he said about magnets and molecules is complete and utter bs (as explained above...)
    Geez... this stuff is basic physics... Even things I'm acostumed to conceptualy test my students... The nerve on this guy to actually try to "debunk" such things...
  12. Apr 17, 2006 #11
    I'm sure that's incorrect too...
    the object oscillating would lose energy due to damping on each oscillation (a damping due to gravitational energy exchange), until it eventually remained at the centre of the gravitational mass.

    edit: Just reading through all of them, and I'm getting irritated by the smarmy "A: This is impossible in today's science." when in fact, today's science has explanations for most of, if not all of his points.
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2006
  13. Apr 17, 2006 #12
    stupid format

    :rofl: He has best crackpot format I ever seen:rofl:
    New Idea:Introduces a new idea for conserditon:rofl: Key word Idea
    Law:Reminder of a current law in physics in the starnder theory:rofl: I wonder he means by current
    Viltiation:Indicates a physical viltion in current secientfic belif:rofl: He thinks he proved that he found a violtion in the laws of physics that physicsit have missed for hundreds of years:rofl:
    Error:Indicates a logical or mathmatical error in current secientfic belief:rofl: He needs one on the cover of his own book
  14. Apr 18, 2006 #13
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook