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

The Final Theory - is this guy serious?

  1. May 1, 2006 #1
    "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:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. May 1, 2006 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  4. May 1, 2006 #3
    Wow! A crackpot so dense, he's about to collapse into his own graviational field! I'd better alert the astronomers. :biggrin:
     
  5. May 1, 2006 #4

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

  6. May 1, 2006 #5
    I go to that website every once in a while.:approve: (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
    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 belive them.

    It is a scam.
    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.
     
  7. May 1, 2006 #6

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Forget it. If it makes money, they'll sell it.
     
  8. May 1, 2006 #7
    Yeah the problem is that there making money false information.
    Oh well atleast 80% of the popluation will belevie us.
     
  9. May 1, 2006 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    haha as of 2 days ago, even im not dumb enough to fall for this one!
     
  10. May 1, 2006 #9
    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 dont know where to turn
     
  11. May 1, 2006 #10
    Why would we give a crackpot 40 bucks of our hard earned money?
     
  12. May 2, 2006 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Cough up the $40 yourself and i'm sure someone on here will be glad to call your bluff.
     
  13. May 2, 2006 #12
    Someone get a 14 year old to explain high school physics to this guy.
     
  14. May 2, 2006 #13

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. May 2, 2006 #14
    I smell a nobel prize in physics...
     
  16. May 2, 2006 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    He sure blew my mind! :confused:
     
  17. May 2, 2006 #16
    :rofl: That's funny.
     
  18. May 2, 2006 #17

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

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

    "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.
     
  19. May 2, 2006 #18
    Read above pengwunio, you asked that question and now you have a more detailed answer to work on your muscles.
     
  20. May 2, 2006 #19

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  21. May 2, 2006 #20
    What do you mean no energy was being drawn? What do you think the motor was running on?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Final Theory - is this guy serious?
  1. Final Theory: a Novel (Replies: 2)

Loading...