Page 3 of 4

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:19 pm UTC
i guess my problem with newtonian theory is that;
all forces that act to cause change in acceration, such as a the moon pulling on the earth and vice verca,
should cause a drain in some form of energy wheather it be kenetic, geo thermal, or whatever.
you can't, in my own opinion, claim that you need energy to expel force while here on earth, and then claim that the force of gavity of earth itself expels no energy.
and eisteins thery of warped spacetime, i'm not even gonna attempt to touch that one with a 10 foot pole. its just too bizarre for words.
*shugs* dunno, i dont have a good answer people. wish i did.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:49 pm UTC
Energy is radiated away from an orbiting system in the form of gravitational waves.

And again, even if your intuition were right about Newton, the theory currently under discussion isn't beautiful. How can a theory of gravity be beautiful if it can't even explain orbital motion?

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:42 pm UTC
gmalivuk wrote:Energy is radiated away from an orbiting system in the form of gravitational waves.

Well not in classical (Newtonian) gravity. And gravitational waves in General Relativity should cause orbital decay.

The reason classical gravity doesn't "drain energy" is because of course it conserves energy, like every force must. As an object falls to Earth, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. This is no different from an iron ball "falling" toward a magnet, in which its electromagnetic potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There is no mystery here.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 2:12 pm UTC
Yeah, that's what I was getting at with "even if your intuition were right".

To make it more explicit: your intuition about how forces must drain energy is just plain wrong.

That's what we get for having intuitions that evolved to help us navigate the friction-filled environment of Earth's surface.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:32 pm UTC
The moon's orbit around the Earth is the same as a spinning top. A spinning top doesn't "drain" any energy; it would spin forever if not for friction. And there's no friction (at least, not very much) in space.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:47 pm UTC
hmm. in sence i agree, for exmaple if you had a rod, and a rock, and a string attached between the two, and flung the rock round the rod, the string would keep it in place preventing it from flying outward for a very long time.
but there's a problem. with the rock and string model, theres a very clear mechanism for keeping the rock from flying outword.
the molecular bonds in the string.
with gravity, there is no such clear mechanism. which is why i find the exanding matter hypothesis appealing.
however, i also agree, an explanation that doesnt fit the data is no explaination at all. so right now i almost feel like throwing up my hands and saying god controls the universe.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:03 pm UTC
phillip1882 wrote:hmm. in sence i agree, for exmaple if you had a rod, and a rock, and a string attached between the two, and flung the rock round the rod, the string would keep it in place preventing it from flying outward for a very long time.
but there's a problem. with the rock and string model, theres a very clear mechanism for keeping the rock from flying outword.
the molecular bonds in the string.
with gravity, there is no such clear mechanism. which is why i find the exanding matter hypothesis appealing.
however, i also agree, an explanation that doesnt fit the data is no explaination at all. so right now i almost feel like throwing up my hands and saying god controls the universe.

But what is the mechanism behind the bonds? Electromagnetic force at a distance.

Why is it different just because the moon and the earth are 1018 times further apart than the atoms of the string?

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 12:40 am UTC
well, not sure i agree the bonds are eletromagnetic force at a distance, but i'm not a scientist so i really can't say.
but let's say for the sake of agument that it is.
why can't it work the same way with the moon? well for one the moon and earth are signifcantly more massive. the amount of eltromagnetic force required to keep the moon in orbit for nearly 4 billion years would be phenomonal beyond comprenhension. secondly atoms are fairly close together realtive to their size, as far as i'm aware. even given newtons law, twice the distance equals 1/4 the force, i just don't see it as feasable. thirdly as far as im aware gavity is not considered to be electromagnetic in nature.
but again I readily admit I'm no scientist.
just a layman looking at it from the outside going "HUH?"

let me ask you 3 questions.
do you agree it requires an expendature of energy to pull an object toward you?
do you agree it requires an expendature of energy to change velocity?
do you agree that the moon is contantly being pulled tward the earth, and is changing velocity (not just direction but also speed)?

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 12:55 am UTC
Yes, of course gravity is not the same as electromagnetism, but the point is that your logic for one applies equally to the other, so what special additional thing leads you to conclude that gravitational attraction must drain energy while electromagnetic attraction gets along just fine without doing so?

If in principle gravitational attraction drains energy when it holds one big thing in the vicinity of another big thing at a great distance, then by whatever logic led you to that conclusion, electromagnetic attraction must also drain energy when it holds one small thing in the vicinity of another small thing at a small distance.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:01 am UTC
If in principle gravitational attraction drains energy when it holds one big thing in the vicinity of another big thing at a great distance, then by whatever logic led you to that conclusion, electromagnetic attraction must also drain energy when it holds one small thing in the vicinity of another small thing at a small distance.

well no. atoms gernally dont move while being held together im a molecular state. thier electrons move, which agian i would ague should drain some sort of power, or if it is motion without power, the only way i see that possible is with expanding matter, but the atoms themsleves do not move. unless a chemical reaction occurs that enables them to change their molcular makeup.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:24 am UTC
phillip1882 wrote:but the atoms themsleves do not move.

This doesn't seem right at all.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:26 am UTC
phillip1882 wrote:do you agree it requires an expendature of energy to pull an object toward you?

Eebster already addressed this: Scientific thinking is that energy cannot be created or destroyed; Energy is never 'expended' - it only changes from one form to another.

The example Eebster gave was as one object gains speed towards another, potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. But there are many other kinds - like a rocket converting chemical energy (which is really just another form of potential energy) into kinetic energy. If one object is in a perfect circular orbit around another, its kinetic energy and potential energy stay constant.

do you agree it requires an expendature of energy to change velocity?

Scientific thinking is that momentum is another thing that cannot be created or destroyed.

So while the momentum of an orbiting object does indeed change due to the changing direction of travel, the momentum of the object at the center also changes - so if initially one object is above and moving leftwards, the central object will be moving rightwards - and half an orbit later when the first object is below and moving rightwards, the central object will now be moving leftwards.

The total momentum of the pair remains constant.

Likewise when a magnet pulls a piece of iron towards itself: It itself moves towards the piece of iron in an exactly proportionate way.

---

Eventually all forms of potential energy will get converted into maximum-entropy kinetic energy - ie heat. And then nothing interesting will be able to occur thereafter (one-in-infinitesimal events excluded).

This is why energy appears to be 'lost' to our intuition: In our experience, a notably high proportion of the potential energy we make use of - eg. dropping something onto the floor, or blowing up a bomb, or picking up an object (ie. converting food energy into kinetic energy) - gets converted into useless heat via friction. But the energy isn't really 'lost' - the rise in temperature of the objects in question can be measured and perfectly conforms with theory. If we had a magical Maxwell's Demon we could convert that useless heat right back into potential energy again and end up right back where we started.

atoms gernally dont move while being held together im a molecular state. thier electrons move, which agian i would ague should drain some sort of power, or if it is motion without power, the only way i see that possible is with expanding matter, but the atoms themsleves do not move.

Why would atoms not move? If nothing else they move for the same reason the moon orbiting the earth makes the earth move.

More generally, you seem to find the notion of motion not draining power dubious - but why isn't exponential expansion without draining power even more dubious? What is driving the ever accelerating rate of expansion? (Because the maths *really* doesn't work out if stuff is only expanding at uniform speed - objects have to double in size at a fixed interval - which is exponential growth). In short, if a magnet and lump of iron moving towards each other without consuming energy is fantastical, a magnet endlessly and exponentially expanding without consuming energy ought to be even more fantastical.

The current scientific thinking is both simple and beautiful: Certain properties of the universe (energy, momentum etc.) remain constant. It agrees with observation. With it we can launch rockets to the moon and build computers. The Final Theory can't even explain a circular orbit.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 12:36 pm UTC
gmalivuk wrote:I know there is still a limit to the quantity you can copy

There's no hard limit. Copying of a complete poem has been ruled "fair use", because it was interspersed with a line-by-line dissection of the symbolism involved, while a review quoting a few sentences from a book was ruled infringing because those sentences were the main selling point of the book. Of the four factors involved in a fair-use decision, length is probably the least important.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:18 pm UTC
When I use the phrase energy expendature, I don't mean the idea that energy is destroyed. I mean energy is transefered from one state to another. with the planetary orbit there is no energy transfer, you dont go from kenetic energy to potential energy or vice versa, you seem to simply have a limitless supply of kenetic energy.

Scientific thinking is that momentum is another thing that cannot be created or destroyed.

and i agree completely here, but agian with the earth say rotating around the sun, the earth speed up and slows down while doing so, and would be flung out into space if not for gravity. as far as i'm aware the sun doesnt really move, except in its glactic orbit.

"Likewise when a magnet pulls a piece of iron towards itself: It itself moves towards the piece of iron in an exactly proportionate way."
okay this is what i have a problem with. its not just the motion, its the change in motion. you can have two magetically charged bars held down, let them go, and see them fly toward one another. so what is the energy transfer that enables them to do so?
where does the electromagnetic energy go when this happens, what does it transform into?

hell, let me ask this question, what excatly *is* magnetism?

More generally, you seem to find the notion of motion not draining power dubious - but why isn't exponential expansion without draining power even more dubious? What is driving the ever accelerating rate of expansion?

okay now this is a very good question. firstly lets assume that electrons are the smallest possible particle. (i know neutrinos are smaller but bare with me.)
now, there are two different explainations i can give as to why expanding matter makes more sence to me. firstly, if there is a smallest particle, then the size of everything is relational to them, and therefore they are free to be any size at all. secondly, is the nature of space, it is my belief that nature abhors a vacuum, and seeks to fill it, with some form of "matter". since there are a "finite" number of electrons, the electrons must expand to fill the void.
its like a balloon in space.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:50 pm UTC
Expansion alone still doesn't get you orbits.

And orbits arent a neverending supply of kinetic energy. A circular orbit just always has the same amount of kinetic energy forever, and an elliptical one exchanges between kinetic and potential as the thing speeds up and slows down, but the total energy remains the same.

Also, the Sun *does* move due to the pull of the planets. It just doesn't move a whole lot because it's so much more massive.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:02 pm UTC
well, i'm not going to ague any futher, i dont understand the universe and probalby never will.
if the current theory makes perfect sence to you have at it i say.
hope no hard feelings, best wishes and happy holidays.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:15 am UTC
phillip1882 wrote:When I use the phrase energy expendature, I don't mean the idea that energy is destroyed. I mean energy is transefered from one state to another. with the planetary orbit there is no energy transfer, you dont go from kenetic energy to potential energy or vice versa, you seem to simply have a limitless supply of kenetic energy.

But that's not the case. In an elliptical orbit, when a planet is at its aphelion, it is at its closest approach to the sun, and thus has the least gravitational potential energy, and it is moving at its fastest, and thus has the greatest kinetic energy. Conversely, when the planet is at its perihelion, it is at its furthest distance from the sun, and thus has the greatest gravitational potential energy, and it is moving at its slowest, and thus has the least kinetic energy. Similarly, when an object falls to the Earth, it gains speed (and thus kinetic energy) while losing height (and thus potential energy). At all times total energy is conserved.

It is impossible to do any work without transferring energy.

Scientific thinking is that momentum is another thing that cannot be created or destroyed.

Of course, total momentum of an isolated system is conserved. Thus when a planet is accelerating in its orbit, the sun is accelerating (very slightly) in the opposite direction.

"Likewise when a magnet pulls a piece of iron towards itself: It itself moves towards the piece of iron in an exactly proportionate way."
okay this is what i have a problem with. its not just the motion, its the change in motion. you can have two magetically charged bars held down, let them go, and see them fly toward one another. so what is the energy transfer that enables them to do so?
where does the electromagnetic energy go when this happens, what does it transform into?

You seem to have answered your own question here. The magnetic potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy in the moving magnets.

hell, let me ask this question, what excatly *is* magnetism?

That's really not a question I can answer in one quick post. The best I can do is say that it is one manifestation of electromagnetism, which is itself part of a larger unified force (electroweak). Our perception of magnetism is not only complicated by the nontrivial equations involved, but also by the fact that permanent magnets work by the cumulative forces exerted by trillions of trillions of individual electrons. Although it might not help, I can also point out that an electrical force from one reference frame will appear as a magnetic force from a different reference frame moving relative to the first, such that special relativity really does unify the two forces.

okay now this is a very good question. firstly lets assume that electrons are the smallest possible particle. (i know neutrinos are smaller but bare with me.)
now, there are two different explainations i can give as to why expanding matter makes more sence to me. firstly, if there is a smallest particle, then the size of everything is relational to them, and therefore they are free to be any size at all. secondly, is the nature of space, it is my belief that nature abhors a vacuum, and seeks to fill it, with some form of "matter". since there are a "finite" number of electrons, the electrons must expand to fill the void.
its like a balloon in space.

Thankfully, nature does not care about your beliefs.

All elementary particles are treated in the current standard model as having no volume (at least in the traditional sense), so electrons are only "smaller" than, say, muons because they are less massive, not because they "occupy less space". In this sense, volume can be a property of waves and of extended objects but not of individual point particles.

The reason a gas will expand to fill a vacuum is not because the vacuum "sucks it in" per se but because the gas particles bounce off each other, exerting a pressure, and that pressure will rapidly tend toward equilibrium. You can imagine a box half filled with a gas and half empty, in which the gas particles are energetic and thus constantly colliding with each other. Clearly some particles from the full side will be pushed into the empty side, while none can go the other way because there are no particles in the empty side to be pushed. Eventually you will have some particles in each, but with higher pressure still on one side. Now particles are moving in both directions, but more particles will be moving from the higher pressure side to the lower pressure side simply because there are more particles there to move. Eventually you will reach a dynamic equilibrium, where particles are still moving but at approximately equal rates.

The problem here is not with the theory but with your (lack of) understanding of it. Many physical facts will seem counter-intuitive if you don't understand them. Suffice it to say that the people who have dedicated their lives to studying physics for the last several centuries have confronted these issues and many more, and have devised a model far more powerful and elegant than you can be expected to achieve in a few hours of idle speculation. More importantly, they have rigorously tested their models against experiments and revised them whenever necessary. We now have a theory capable not only of explaining and predicting planetary orbits (something the "expanding matter hypothesis" fails to do) but can send probes to distant planets, create transistors out of twelve atoms, measure time on the 10-16 second scale, and much more.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:00 pm UTC
I'm trying to visualize the orbital motion between two bodies in space, such as the moon orbiting the earth relative to the sun... Normally we visualize it as the earth being completely stationary as the moon moves around it, but I feel like the axis of rotation shouldn't quite be at the center of the earth like that. (If we were to say that the orbit is completely circular and not elliptical at all) Shouldn't the axis of rotation be some point between the two of them, proportional to their relative mass? Would not two objects of equal mass orbit each other about the mid point between them? So not only does the earth swing the moon around it, but the moon swings the earth around a bit too. What distance would that be?

*EDIT:
Evidently my Google skills are lacking...

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:04 pm UTC
The concept you're looking for is barycenter.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 6:54 pm UTC
Cronos51101 wrote:I'm trying to visualize the orbital motion between two bodies in space, such as the moon orbiting the earth relative to the sun... Normally we visualize it as the earth being completely stationary as the moon moves around it, but I feel like the axis of rotation shouldn't quite be at the center of the earth like that. (If we were to say that the orbit is completely circular and not elliptical at all) Shouldn't the axis of rotation be some point between the two of them, proportional to their relative mass? Would not two objects of equal mass orbit each other about the mid point between them? So not only does the earth swing the moon around it, but the moon swings the earth around a bit too. What distance would that be?

*EDIT:
Evidently my Google skills are lacking...

Fun fact: it's hard to find an objective measure by which the Moon's primary could be said to be the Earth instead of the Sun. The Moon never moves retrograde in its orbit about the Sun, and the Sun's gravitational attraction on the Moon is greater than the Earth's. I guess you can argue for Earth-as-primary on the basis that the Moon is tidelocked to the Earth. A better mental model IMO is that the Earth and Moon orbit the Sun in coupled orbits, each wobbling about the barycenter as they do so.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 8:02 pm UTC
Are Jupiter or Saturn the barycenters of their moons?

I'm not sure how to determine this, but my gut says yes?

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 8:19 pm UTC
I think you are using the term "barycenter" wrong, Iza. The barycenter of multiple bodies is their collective center of gravity (which is usually about the same as their center of mass). So the barycenter of the Earth and Sun is some point between the Earth and the Sun, although the Sun is so much more massive that the barycenter is very close to the center of the Sun, and in fact is inside of the star itself. Technically the Sun does orbit this barycenter (or it would if the Earth were the only other body in the Solar System), but the motion is hard to detect without very sophisticated instruments.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 8:43 pm UTC
lgw wrote:Fun fact: it's hard to find an objective measure by which the Moon's primary could be said to be the Earth instead of the Sun. The Moon never moves retrograde in its orbit about the Sun, and the Sun's gravitational attraction on the Moon is greater than the Earth's. I guess you can argue for Earth-as-primary on the basis that the Moon is tidelocked to the Earth. A better mental model IMO is that the Earth and Moon orbit the Sun in coupled orbits, each wobbling about the barycenter as they do so.
Tidal locking is one such objective measure. Being inside the Hill sphere is another, rather important one: it means that you don't need to consider the Sun to get a very good idea of how the Moon orbits Earth. A corollary to this is that all the Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system are where we'd expect them to be without worrying about the Sun.

If never being retrograde were sufficient, on the other hand, then nothing could orbit Earth, because Earth goes around the Sun at 30km/s, and nothing goes around Earth that fast. What you're probably thinking of is the fact that the Moon's orbit is always concave toward the Sun, which is indeed unique among natural satellites in our system. But I don't see how that's a better or more objective criterion than the Hill sphere one.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:33 pm UTC

Luna doesn't orbit around Earth as much as the two orbit around one another, and both orbit around the Sun. Like Pluto and Charon?

gmalivuk wrote:What you're probably thinking of is the fact that the Moon's orbit is always concave toward the Sun, which is indeed unique among natural satellites in our system.
This is what I was trying to say/think. Luna is unique in this, or are there others (Pluto-Charon)?

EDIT: Isn't the barycenter of the Earth and the Moon within Earth?

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:52 pm UTC
I have often heard Earth-Luna described as a binary system. In other news, Pluto has three moons now!

EDIT: Oh dear. I'm afraid it's five. At latest count. Gotta watch those crazy astronomers, they're a shifty bunch!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Pluto

My post count is 2013! Guess that's all from me for a few days!

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:07 pm UTC
Izawwlgood wrote:Luna doesn't orbit around Earth as much as the two orbit around one another, and both orbit around the Sun. Like Pluto and Charon?

All bodies orbit their mutual centre of mass, but we can safely say that the moon orbits the Earth because the barycentre of the Earth-moon system is within the Earth. As for Pluto and Charon, I'm pretty sure their centre of mass is outside either body, so I'm unsure how that's not a binary dwarf planet system.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:52 pm UTC
thoughtfully wrote:I have often heard Earth-Luna described as a binary system.

But that's wrong. Their barycenter is over 1700 km beneath the surface of the Earth.

Also, are we calling the Moon "Luna" now?

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:54 pm UTC
gmalivuk wrote:If never being retrograde were sufficient, on the other hand, then nothing could orbit Earth, because Earth goes around the Sun at 30km/s, and nothing goes around Earth that fast. What you're probably thinking of is the fact that the Moon's orbit is always concave toward the Sun, which is indeed unique among natural satellites in our system. But I don't see how that's a better or more objective criterion than the Hill sphere one.

Wow, I was under the mistaken impression that all the other moons in the Solar system moved retrograde periodically - wonder where I learned that "fact".

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:34 pm UTC
Izawwlgood wrote:EDIT: Isn't the barycenter of the Earth and the Moon within Earth?
It is, but that's not all that relevant by itself. The barycenter of the whole solar system is sometimes outside the sun, but that doesn't mean all the planets aren't still basically orbiting the sun itself.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 5:39 pm UTC
I know this is Off Topic and I know I don't know much and Barycenter.
All the typing about Barycenter reminded my of this.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120225.html

That was my favorite Sky Thing for a while.
There was so much about it.

The Barycenter on that one.
So funny.
I don't know.

How would you feel about getting the Barycenter wrong?
It was Wrong for a while. Our collective eyes got better.

It's not a Quentet at all. I don't who Stephen is.
I knew a guy named Stephan once.
He was like a Brother.

His wife and I don't get along.
Just like fucking family.

Too bad it is so hard for me to make friends.
Back to the Beyercenter of Stephen's Quartet.

The galaxy in the foreground is not part of the Quartet.
Now what are the little Math Majors going to do?
A Mathematician was Wrong.

How can any of them live with that Fact?
I think that question was solved as a Joint Effort.
It was the day and age.

Now we know better.
What is the new Bayercenter?

Remember? Even with a good Telescope, Stephan's Quintet is just Five Stars.
Right? Hubble got the good photos. right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan's_Quintet

Science simply produces some of the prettiest pictures.
There was an animation somewhere of the Dance of Stephan's Quintet.

To produce that dance, someone was feeding a computer numbers.
They got those numbers from somewhere.

They thought they had produced a visual of what Stephan's Quintet would look like;
Over Time.

It takes Millions of Years for that Dance to unfold.
The Bayercenter was pretty. While it lasted.

Can you ask a computer to make a new one?
Will it be Ugly? Are four things Crashing Together ugly?

Opps. No Bayercenter if they are Crashing Together?
Yes. There is a Bayercenter. The bayercenter moves.

What would four things look like?
Would it be as much visual fun as five things were?

Four would reflect reality. Four is The Truth.
Five is a Dream. Five is not true.

Five is an old fashioned way of looking at Stephan's Quartet.

Will you, still, call it Stephan's Quartet?
I will. Until further notice.

Darn few people ever cared.
Astronomy.

Excuse me.
I don't know anything about Astronomy.

I have seen The Stars.
From what I understand, I have not seen All the Stars.

I am good with that. I don't know what is up there.
The dippers are fairly easy to find.

Have you ever looked for the North Star?
It sometimes gives me trouble. You?

I have given up on the North Star. You?
What if you Lost Hubble? No big deal.
What if you Lost all Satellites? Big deal. right?

If Hubble is real; It is, sort of, cool.
If Hubble is another one of those Government Conspiracies. (shrug)

I have been entertained by the visuals.

Bayercenters are fun.

The word Bayercenter is not known to the General Public.
Gang of Five is! That is funny.

The visuals are pretty.
some of the audio is good too.

Will the the little galaxies will go off and live Happy and Productive Lives. Or; Will the parents Eat Them.
I think it is funny.

In Astronomy a parent eating it prodigy is normal Star Behavior.
Some escape the Gravitational Pull of the parent. Some don't.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:23 pm UTC
What just happened?

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:48 am UTC
Eebster the Great wrote:What just happened?

What? The Topic is Wrong on the Internet.
I can do that.

I may not be able to be as wrong as the internet paper you read.
You are patient people. If you read that paper, my post is skippable.

Excuse me.
I will go back to lurking.

My only excuse is how interesting the other posters made Bayercenters sound.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:09 am UTC
Eebster, seriously, if you weren't already thinking that this thread needed a poetic tangent about the word barycenter, I'm not sure what to do with you. You preferred arguing semantics about words everyone already well knows because someone misused one?

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:11 am UTC
addams wrote:If you read that paper, my post is skippable.
Yeah, I added you to my Foe list quite some time ago.

### Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 4:00 am UTC
Your post saying so, on the other hand, added way more to this discussion, amirite?

On which note, I don't think there's much more to be said in this thread.

### Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:25 pm UTC
Hi boys and girls, I thought I'd step into the firing line and say that I, for one, think McCutcheon is very likely on to something.
I have actually read both of his books unlike all of the experts who have responded negatively to his audacious claim.
The other notable thing about the negative comments is that they resemble school-yard bullying more than calm, contemplative responses to a theory which, if you actually took the time to look into, provides a real possible alternative to what we have been led to believe is "true".
My question to these negative experts is simply, "What's the matter? Are you so bogged down in other issues that you don't have the time to spare Mr. McCutcheon some quality time?"
Is your world-view so tenuous that it cannot withstand a gentle shake now and then? Ok. So this constitutes more than a gentle shake. Still, is it that much of a threat? Really?
Did you know that Descartes thought that Newton was a mystic? Does the fact that we still, to this day, have not been able to detect gravity waves bother any of you? If McCutcheon is correct, that slightly irritating factoid disappears.

### Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:25 am UTC
The problem is not that it's a "threat". The problem is that it's baseless and wrong.

### Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:36 am UTC
StevenH wrote:Did you know that Descartes thought that Newton was a mystic? Does the fact that we still, to this day, have not been able to detect gravity waves bother any of you? If McCutcheon is correct, that slightly irritating factoid disappears.

For the record, Newton was a mystic, and we have detected gravity waves (although not observed them directly, we've inferred evidence of their existence from the behaviour of celestial objects). McCutcheon's work doesn't pass the Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist, and is plainly wrong and baseless to anyone with even a basic understanding of the material (I have only an undergraduate degree and can see piles of issues, so I can imagine how bad it is to someone who actually works in the field).

### Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:23 am UTC
y question to these negative experts is simply, "What's the matter? Are you so bogged down in other issues that you don't have the time to spare Mr. McCutcheon some quality time?"

Many years ago now, when I was a lecturer at a university (in physics) I asked McCutcheon for a review copy of his book. He refused. Because of this, I have only read the first chapter, the free one. Because I am bored, I'll reread the chapter right now, and offer some thoughts.

The Introduction-
This chapter is full of factual errors and misleading statements. Look at page 4 of his free chapter: the diagram showing "standard theory" is not at all what the frame work of modern physical theory looks like. There should be 3 blobs (strong nuclear force, electro-weak, and general relativity). String theory should be in there, with ties to all three and big question marks. Dark energy and dark matter can also be thrown in there with question marks if you like. Everything else in that diagram is unified into one of the 3 big blobs.

The rest of the pages up until 9 outline what I'll call an "unintentional conspiracy theory of science." Bad ideas get propagated by a combination of big names making mistakes, and everyone trusting them, and then its in textbooks and everyone believes it,etc.

Its hard to knock down a general conspiracy theory, but lets look at the example he uses on page 9.

McCutcheon says the idea that PSR B1913-16 pulsar confirms general relativity is full of logical fallacies. His first claim: Since his own book raises questions about general relativity, shouldn't we conclude that this claim hasn't been properly investigated (i.e. "My book is right, so this claim must be wrong, so no one must have looked at it carefully.") In point of fact, when I was in graduate school I was required to calculate the effects in question, along with a class of about 35 people. That course was taught once a year for the entire time I was in graduate school, so I personally know nearly 200 people (some physicists, some undergrads, some astronomers) who personally vetted the claim.

His second claim about the pulsar is that an inductive fallacy is being made. Even if general relativity correctly models the pulsars, we shouldn't then conclude it will model everything else correctly. First, this is pointing out a general problem with science (the general method IS inductive). Second, general relativity correctly models EVERY GRAVITATIONAL PHENOMENA WE KNOW OF. Its not just the pulsar evidence, there are quite a few 'tests of general relativity' even on the wikipedia page.

The third claim he makes is that the pulsar is an unrepresentative sample. i.e. 'no one talks about the pulsars GR doesn't get right'. This is nonsense- the pulsar in question was the first discovered, and hence the most studied and talked about. Other binary pulsars also confirm general relativity.

So basically, this whole introduction is nonsense.

Chapter 1- After some rambling, the author turns to specific claims about Newtonian gravity. In the box on pages 16 and 17 he asserts Newtons theory is 'scientifically impossible.' Specific claims
1. Newton's theory merely describes gravity, it does not explain 'why'. This is perhaps the only factually correct claim made in the first 17 pages of this book.
2. The gravitational field has no known power source. This claim is very poorly phrased, because McCutcheon is confusing the english word "power" for the physics concept of "power." The latter is rigorously defined as work over time, and so related to energy. However, gravity is a conservative force, so there is no change in energy- objects merely exchange kinetic energy for gravitional potential or visa versa. "Energy" and "power" are mathematical physics concepts.
3. Despite the earth holding the moon in orbit, it never drains a power source which violates conservation of energy. No, not at all. See 2.
4. These violations are overlooked because the work equation is misused. NO! NO! The work equation is related to the very definition of energy. Start with Newton's third law, F= ma, and integrate the left hand side and the right hand side with respect to distance. What you get is F*d (* is a dot product here, these are vectors) = change in (1/2 mv^2), which is the work equation. ITS THE DEFINITION OF ENERGY. Its McCutcheon who doesn't understand that the english word concept of "energy" is not the same as the physics/mathematical concept. His entire discussion of the work equation is nonsensical. Because human muscles can't "lock" the amount of effort it seems/feels like you expend is unrelated to the physics work you do. i.e. push on a heavy boulder without moving it, all day, and you'll be sweaty and tired, but you didn't do any work on the rock.

This goes on, but I'm not sure how much more worth of my time I should spend on this. McCutcheon has an understanding of physics that says physicists pull a ton of equations of the air, an equation for work, an equation for gravitational potential, an equation for energy, an equation for power. This is NOT AT ALL how physics is done. Newton's theory of gravity is summed up in his three laws of motion and one extra equation for the gravitational force (-G m_1*m_2/r^2). Everything else (energy, work, power,etc) is just mathematical manipulations of those laws.

In McCutcheon land, physicists started with the work equation, "misused it" to create the potential energy equation which patched up "energy conservation" in Newton's theory. I cannot stress how wrong this is.

Now, if McCutcheon has such a poor grasp of the current theories he is criticizing, why should I trust him to give me a new theory?

Also, from a conversation years ago, McCutcheon was proposing that objects only APPEAR to attract because everything is actually expanding (we just don't notice because we are also expanding). This would modify Newton's gravity pretty substantially (it would no longer be inverse square). Hundreds of senior physicists do Cavendish type experiments to measure gravitational forces in modern physics labs every year. So McCutcheon is empirically wrong.

### Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:24 am UTC
Btw, this book was discussed in another thread - and that one even included scans from the book giving the actual detail of his 'theory': viewtopic.php?f=18&t=104701