The Final Theory - is this guy serious?

[Physics Nut]

"The Final Theory" - is this guy serious?

There's something I've been trying to figure out about this guy, Mark McCutcheon, and his "Final Theory"; is he serious? I find it pretty hard to imagine that Mark actually believes what he says. So, I'm wondering whether he's a charlatan trying to make some money off his book sales, or maybe he's just doing this "for the fun of it"? If he is serious, it seems to me that he needs professional help. Talk about delusions of grandeur! Also note all the rave reviews on his home page, are these reviews real or made up by Mark himself?

His mad, mad, mad site:

 

[Pengwuino]

I wasn't aware time dilation was made up...

Better go call up the guys who run the GPS system and tell them to stop re-calibrating the satellites.

 

[Rach3]

Wow! A crackpot so dense, he's about to collapse into his own graviational field! I'd better alert the astronomers.

 

[Curious3141]

It's on Crank dot Net http://www.crank.net/grand.html

I go there to screen any new site - it's a good way to weed out the obvious loonies.

 

[scott1]

It's on Crank dot Net http://www.crank.net/grand.html

I go there to screen any new site - it's a good way to weed out the obvious loonies.

I go to that website every once in a while. (Why didn't it get crankiest)
The Final "theory" is really called expansion theory. His theory is bascially saying that there is no gravity and atoms are expanding so that it seems like there is gravity. His reason for the nonexistance of gravity is because it's breaking the law that energy cannot be created nor destroy and he claims that physicst is lieing about the work funcation and trying to tell people that exist because it's no work

2) The Work Function:

When all else fails, we are told not to worry about the
gravitational power source because gravity never does any
work throughout the universe. That's right, according to
today's science, all of the gravity-driven dynamics in our
universe occur without any work being done, therefore there is
no need to identify a power source or to expect energy to be
drained from such a source to drive it all. We are told that
objects are held forcefully to the planet by Newton's
gravitational force, but since the objects don't move, no energy
source is required to explain this. Yet, as we all know, it
certainly takes energy to push a heavy boulder even if it doesn't
move or to hold an object in our hands even though it isn't
moving. But in today's science, since the Work Function states
that work = force x distance, no movement means zero
distance and therefore zero work, apparently resolving the
issue. All physicists will repeat this same flawed logical
justification attempt when asked about the power source for
gravity, and will refuse to discuss the matter further since this
is all they were ever told by their instructors.

He bascially rewrites the diffition of work(which I'am calling defftion of work Markons sicne it's his diffetion) and tries to tell everone that physicst are lieing and trying to get everone believe them.

It is a scam.

Q: If this really is the Theory Of Everything and
the answers are so simple, why not just state
what this new theory says here?

A: Although the answers are indeed solid and simple, very
rational and commonsense, and completely developed in the
book, they do still represent a completely different perspective
on all of our science and experience; you will never view even
falling objects the same way again after reading this book!
Such a radical new perspective on our universe requires a
proper context and solid foundation. Otherwise many questions
come to mind .. if that is so, then what about this? And how
does it explain that? Etc. Rest assured that all questions are
fully addressed and all points clearly explained in the book, but
justice couldn't be done to this new theory in any less than
the 400+ pages it contains -- there would be too many doubts
and questions otherwise. The theory itself is not complicated,
but it must be solidly applied to every aspect of our science
and our personal experience, from Newtonian gravity to
quantum mechanics and everything in between. This FAQ
clearly shows many major flaws in our current science -- many
of which are not even currently recognized today -- and goes as
far as possible and reasonable to show that the author knows
what he is talking about and that The Final Theory has the
answers. The rest is up to you!

You see he's trying to get everone to advertise his book for him.
We need to speard the word that it is a scam.Escipally on nonphysics sites,
By the way he also has a link to PF on his sight.
Does anyone know how we can get a pettion to get the publisher stop publishing a crackpot theory.

 

[Danger]

Does anyone know how we can get a pettion to get the publisher stop publishing a crackpot theory.

Forget it. If it makes money, they'll sell it.

 

[scott1]

Forget it. If it makes money, they'll sell it.

Yeah the problem is that there making money false information.
Oh well atleast 80% of the popluation will belevie us.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yet, as we all know, it
certainly takes energy to push a heavy boulder even if it doesn't
move or to hold an object in our hands even though it isn't
moving.

haha as of 2 days ago, even I am not dumb enough to fall for this one!

 

[Ricardhheitman]

Which of you has read the book?

Its only 40 bucks , roughly the cost of a movie for 2.

I will pay one of you the $40 to read it and write a full review in this site

Or are you folks just sooo busy you have to prejudge everything through the lense of your own formal and highly endoctrinated education

He claims to have found a flas in einsteins math in the derivation of SR

Dont you think its worth 40 bucks to debunk him and write a review of how his math is wrong ?

Come on , out of the chatroom and do some work for the rest of us simple minded folks that don't know where to turn

 

[Cyrus]

Why would we give a crackpot 40 bucks of our hard earned money?

 

[Pengwuino]

Which of you has read the book?

Its only 40 bucks , roughly the cost of a movie for 2.

I will pay one of you the $40 to read it and write a full review in this site

Or are you folks just sooo busy you have to prejudge everything through the lense of your own formal and highly endoctrinated education

He claims to have found a flas in einsteins math in the derivation of SR

Dont you think its worth 40 bucks to debunk him and write a review of how his math is wrong ?

Come on , out of the chatroom and do some work for the rest of us simple minded folks that don't know where to turn

Cough up the $40 yourself and I'm sure someone on here will be glad to call your bluff.

 

[Entropy]

Someone get a 14 year old to explain high school physics to this guy.

 

[Pengwuino]

Someone get a 14 year old to explain high school physics to this guy.

I think the problem is that he relies on a 14 year old's physics knowledge to make him sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Cyrus]

'Light slows as it passes through water or
glass, causing it to bend, but how can it
return to light-speed on its own once it exits?'

I smell a nobel prize in physics...

 

[Pengwuino]

I smell a nobel prize in physics...

He sure blew my mind!

 

[Cyrus]

That's funny.

 

[Curious3141]

Which of you has read the book?

Its only 40 bucks , roughly the cost of a movie for 2.

I will pay one of you the $40 to read it and write a full review in this site

Or are you folks just sooo busy you have to prejudge everything through the lense of your own formal and highly endoctrinated education

He claims to have found a flas in einsteins math in the derivation of SR

Dont you think its worth 40 bucks to debunk him and write a review of how his math is wrong ?

Come on , out of the chatroom and do some work for the rest of us simple minded folks that don't know where to turn

I glanced at the free first chapter. The wonders of this little morsel alone speak of the feasts of wisdom hidden deeper within.

"Consider the situation where an object is simply too heavy to move, despite all efforts to push it. There is no question that one could expend a tremendous amount of effort and energy attempting to move the object, yet never actually manage to move it an inch. However, applying the Work Function as a “work detector,” it calculates that zero work was done. A tremendous amount of force was applied to the object, but the object was nevertheless moved zero distance, and since work equals force times distance, the Work Function calculates that zero work was done. If this were further taken to mean no energy was expended, we would have a worker who is exhausted from attempting to move such a heavy object, yet who is considered to have expended no energy. Of course, this is obviously a serious misapplication of the Work Function that brings nonsensical results, yet this is precisely the logic used to justify the gravitational force, as we will see shortly. The Work Function is only designed to help organize and quantify situations where a force clearly moves an object through a distance, but is not meant to function as a generic “work detector” that further tells us whether any energy was expended by an arbitrary event."

Wow. Nowhere have I seen such a misleading and misguided interpretation of the physical meaning of "work". The "work function" IS perfectly adequate for quantifying the energy expended in futile manual effort. The apparent paradox is simply explained by considering what happens at the ultramicroscopic level in the skeletal muscle fibers where force is generated not by a static contraction, but by a dynamic cycling of myosin filaments over actin filaments. *This* process involves constant movement and conformational change, powered by the hydrolysis of ATP, an exothermic chemical reaction. Even isometric muscle contraction generating a constant force against a constant unmoving load is a dynamic, energy-using process because the actual work is being done on molecules in the muscle fibers (and being dissipated as heat), not on the carried load.

A medical student would've been able to give the author this simple resolution to the "paradox", yet the author seems to have put blinkers on and accepted the grade school version at face value.

If even the first chapter is mangling basic classical physics this much, I shudder to think what he's going to do with Einstein. No thanks, please keep the forty bucks, I have grave qualms about subjecting myself to further assaults by his rubbish.

 

[Cyrus]

Read above pengwunio, you asked that question and now you have a more detailed answer to work on your muscles.

 

[Pengwuino]

Come to think of it, i remember doing something where i was able to detect the current draw of a motor attempting to move some block. What confounded me at the time was that the blockw as so big that the motor couldn't move it yet no energy was being drawn.

 

[Cyrus]

What do you mean no energy was being drawn? What do you think the motor was running on?

 

[Pengwuino]

I meant because the block wasn't being moved, the motor wasn't capable of moving (it was attached or something... i think we were screwing wiht some kind of pulley system), thus no work was being done.

 

[theCandyman]

This is crazy! It completely conflicts with http://www.timecube.com/" !

 

[Ricardhheitman]

Nice try boys .

So no one has read the book. I have it on order myself , I will let you know.

Maybe others will recall that the light passing through substance issue ( how it retains momentum) was discussed in depth in this forum and there was an amazingly high degree of disagreement about how the process worked. As I recall it needed a solid quote from Feynmans work to resolve it

Perhaps the obviously older than 14 years Pengweno could recite the process just to demonstrate his credentials to decide someone elses work is heretical without reading it , or possibly understanding it.

remember at one point everyone thought the Earth was flat and later that the sun revolved aroiund the earth. These were serious folks , although slightly fanatical , and the stakes were pretty high.

 

[ZapperZ]

Maybe others will recall that the light passing through substance issue ( how it retains momentum) was discussed in depth in this forum and there was an amazingly high degree of disagreement about how the process worked. As I recall it needed a solid quote from Feynmans work to resolve it

Whaaaa?

Just because there is a "disagreement" on here, doesn't mean there is an disagreement in physics. Open any solid state text, or condensed matter text, and you'll find a clear description of the normal transport of light in an ordinary dispersive medium.

What people are confused with was that the transport process depends on the NATURE of the medium. Light transmitting through a normal gas doesn't not have the same mechanism as light transmitting through glass. It is when people who don't know any better try to make an general theory of such a transport for different mechanism is when things get confusing.

You are welcome to check the FAQ in the General Physics forum and see the standard mechanism of light transport in a normal dispersive solid. There are no "disagreement" here.

remember at one point everyone thought the Earth was flat and later that the sun revolved aroiund the earth. These were serious folks , although slightly fanatical , and the stakes were pretty high.

And remember that all of the revolutionary ideas were done meticulously by people who have studied these things carefully. They didn't simply spew their ideas out of ignorance of the subject matter. The same cannot be said about this "book".

Zz.

 

[Cyrus]

So no one has read the book. I have it on order myself , I will let you know.

A sucker is born every minute. Nice job giving away $40 of your hard earned money to a crackpot, you could have bought an introductory physics textbook with that money.

 

[Curious3141]

A sucker is born every minute. Nice job giving away $40 of your hard earned money to a crackpot, you could have bought an introductory physics textbook with that money.

Exactly right.

 

[Ricardhheitman]

I will pay 40 bucks of my hard earned for a fresh idea. I will pay you 40 bucks if you can come up with a fresh idea.

I am amazed at the emotional energy level here. The definition of a sucker is someone who thinks there going to get something for nothing and ends up paying for it.

This guy has written 600 pages of stuff , spent the money to bind a few thoudsand copies , create a website , find a publisher , get Amazon and whomever to put it on their site..

In short a lot of energy has been expended. he obviously thinks he has something to say and has invested heavily in it.

All of you think he should publish the paper for free. I disagree , much as I don't think the writer of a novel should give that away for free.

By telling each other he is crazy and feeling good about him being stupid , you are precisely in the same mental and emotional place that the Spanish Inquisition was when it threatened to "purge" Leibniz for his theories. They were advised by the best ( meaning highest paid , most to lose) scientists of their time

You can't critique what you have not read , and you can take snippets out of context and react only to those.

FYI the author defended himself directly in this forum until the now closed thread of "ooh another Final Theory I believe. When he did so ( and the record is still available) there were very few actual challenges. He is also by the way a reasonably credentialed person.

 

[siddharth]

I will pay 40 bucks of my hard earned for a fresh idea. I will pay you 40 bucks if you can come up with a fresh idea.

Here's one.

Idea: The sky isn't blue, it's octarine!

May I have the 40 bucks, please?

 

[arildno]

For one, he betrays a complete misunderstanding of concepts like force, energy and work.
Why should one bother to read any more of this patent crackpot?

 

[arildno]

Here's one.
The sky isn't blue, it's octarine!

May I have the 40 bucks please?

Have you heard about a guy called Pratchett?
Send the 40 bucks to him, I'm sure he needs them.