Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Nicias
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:22 pm UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Nicias » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:26 pm UTC

After an (astronomical) brief cool-down the white dwarf will have a surface tempatures of the order of 10^4 K and the neutron star will have a temperature on the order of 10^6 K. Neutron star is hotter. I'm not sure why you think smaller implies cooler?

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3713
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby PM 2Ring » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:30 pm UTC

Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:

User avatar
Bloopy
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:16 am UTC
Location: New Zealand

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Bloopy » Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:39 am UTC

Haha, I have this book lying around. Anyone want it? Otherwise it's eventually going into the paper recycling to be turned into something useful.

The book's based on the alternative hypothesis of gravity that all particles/planets are inflating or expanding, causing gravity. As someone called it, "Einstein's equivalence principle taken literally". I'm sure some of you could address the problems with the idea much better than he did (if it hasn't already cropped up on the forum before). He basically takes a giant dump on science trying to make his theory fit.

I enjoyed reading the book for how it made me think, ie. how my imagination ran wild. Now that I've grown up a bit and can understand the simple beauty of relativity, I can only laugh at this other crap.

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Tass » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:26 am UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3713
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby PM 2Ring » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:27 am UTC

Tass wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.


Thanks, Tass! Why didn't I think of that? :)

"Frozen" degrees of freedom would force a chunk of neutronium containing a given amount of heat to have a greater temperature than a chunk of WD of the same mass & heat content, implying that it's rate of cooling would be greater. But would that be sufficient to overcome the mass and surface area effects... ?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:33 pm UTC

Tass wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.

It would presumably have to be at a much higher temperature, since there isn't much in the way of electrons. Aside from its "nuclear" degrees of freedom, it only has six degrees of Kevin Bacon freedom, right? Or am I vastly oversimplifying things?

I know that the surface of a neutron star isn't actually neutronium, but if we ignore the surface and just look at the core, this would seem to be the implication.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:19 pm UTC

Bloopy wrote:Haha, I have this book lying around. Anyone want it? Otherwise it's eventually going into the paper recycling to be turned into something useful.

The book's based on the alternative hypothesis of gravity that all particles/planets are inflating or expanding, causing gravity. As someone called it, "Einstein's equivalence principle taken literally". I'm sure some of you could address the problems with the idea much better than he did (if it hasn't already cropped up on the forum before). He basically takes a giant dump on science trying to make his theory fit.

I enjoyed reading the book for how it made me think, ie. how my imagination ran wild. Now that I've grown up a bit and can understand the simple beauty of relativity, I can only laugh at this other crap.

Scan it and put it up online for everybody to mock.

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Tass » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:19 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Tass wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.

It would presumably have to be at a much higher temperature, since there isn't much in the way of electrons. Aside from its "nuclear" degrees of freedom, it only has six degrees of Kevin Bacon freedom, right? Or am I vastly oversimplifying things?

I know that the surface of a neutron star isn't actually neutronium, but if we ignore the surface and just look at the core, this would seem to be the implication.


Well if it were hot enough there would be three degrees of freedom per neutron - a classical neutron gas (but then they would also decay to protons and electrons). But as it cools it is being held up by degeneracy pressure rather than thermal pressure, as we know. That means that most of the neutrons are trapped in the lowest energy state accessible to them an only the top neutrons (energy-wise, not in terms of position) are contributing thermal energy, the rest are frozen out.

But the top ones probably will still contribute something until the temperature goes pretty low. I don't think comparing it to a big nucleus is very reliable to estimate the temperature regimes here. For one the vastly different size will mean much closer spaced energy levels.

I am to tired to actually do Fermi gas math right now.

User avatar
Bloopy
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:16 am UTC
Location: New Zealand

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Bloopy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:15 am UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Scan it and put it up online for everybody to mock.

It'd be a lot more convenient to mock the PDF version!

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby ahammel » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:10 am UTC

Bloopy wrote:The book's based on the alternative hypothesis of gravity that all particles/planets are inflating or expanding, causing gravity.
Would objects be able to orbit one another if that was true?
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:12 am UTC

Tass wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:
Tass wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.

It would presumably have to be at a much higher temperature, since there isn't much in the way of electrons. Aside from its "nuclear" degrees of freedom, it only has six degrees of Kevin Bacon freedom, right? Or am I vastly oversimplifying things?

I know that the surface of a neutron star isn't actually neutronium, but if we ignore the surface and just look at the core, this would seem to be the implication.


Well if it were hot enough there would be three degrees of freedom per neutron - a classical neutron gas (but then they would also decay to protons and electrons). But as it cools it is being held up by degeneracy pressure rather than thermal pressure, as we know. That means that most of the neutrons are trapped in the lowest energy state accessible to them an only the top neutrons (energy-wise, not in terms of position) are contributing thermal energy, the rest are frozen out.

But the top ones probably will still contribute something until the temperature goes pretty low. I don't think comparing it to a big nucleus is very reliable to estimate the temperature regimes here. For one the vastly different size will mean much closer spaced energy levels.

I am to tired to actually do Fermi gas math right now.

The "degrees of freedom per neutron" are the "internal degrees of freedom" referred to, right? I was thinking of something along the lines of the last equation on this page. Most of the time for ordinary matter you cannot reach such a low temperature that the nuclear degrees of freedom "freeze out," but for neutronium this should happen even at very high temperatures, since almost all degrees of freedom are essentially "nuclear" in a sense (which is what makes it a degenerate Fermi gas even at 1012 K).

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Tass » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:09 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:The "degrees of freedom per neutron" are the "internal degrees of freedom" referred to, right? I was thinking of something along the lines of the last equation on this page. Most of the time for ordinary matter you cannot reach such a low temperature that the nuclear degrees of freedom "freeze out," but for neutronium this should happen even at very high temperatures, since almost all degrees of freedom are essentially "nuclear" in a sense (which is what makes it a degenerate Fermi gas even at 1012 K).


I seem to have misunderstood what you meant with "nuclear degrees of freedom". In ordinary matter you have three degrees of freedom (translation) for each nucleus, those practically never freezes out. But you almost never have high enough temperature to actually excite the internal degrees of freedom of those nuclei. At high enough temperatures you'd have three degrees of freedom per nucleon not per nucleus. Those are almost always frozen out in normal matter.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:26 pm UTC

Wait, six degrees of freedom, not three. Right?

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Tass » Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:02 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Wait, six degrees of freedom, not three. Right?


I am not sure at which energies rotations of nuclei or nucleons begin to matter.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Jorpho » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:44 pm UTC

Do the rotational energies of "spherical" particles ever matter? We never talked about that in statistical mechanics. I can't quite remember why.

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby thoughtfully » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:47 pm UTC

The Earth is a mostly spherical particle. Nucleons, rather less so.
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User avatar
Bloopy
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:16 am UTC
Location: New Zealand

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Bloopy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:59 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
Bloopy wrote:The book's based on the alternative hypothesis of gravity that all particles/planets are inflating or expanding, causing gravity.
Would objects be able to orbit one another if that was true?

His explanation is that objects fundamentally move along curved paths (conveniently avoiding the word geodesic). If I understood it right: for it to be possible for two objects to remain the same distance apart (surface to surface, regardless of whether in orbit), they must be able to accelerate away from each other on exponentially curved paths, because they're expanding exponentially. In the case of orbit it'd be a spiral. I guess not only their volume is expanding, but also their momentum somehow.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:04 am UTC

It's almost as if that change in momentum were caused by some sort of force . . .

How does he tie in electromagnetism and the nuclear forces? Or does his "final theory" only involve gravity?

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Shro » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:23 am UTC

Google ads decided to serve up a banner ad for One Direction's new fragrance while visiting this page (all that browsing for makeup at sephora/ulta). I may have found it more captivating than the actual content.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
Bloopy
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:16 am UTC
Location: New Zealand

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Bloopy » Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:56 am UTC

I scanned a couple of pages for a bit of amusement:

Image Image

The second one explains that the electric charge is actually a different rate of expansion at the sub-atomic level. Yes, every atom is like a little TARDIS. If I'd scanned the pages following, you'd learn that electrons bounce off the nucleus rather than orbiting it. I... need to destroy this book.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby davidstarlingm » Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:00 pm UTC

Bloopy wrote:I scanned a couple of pages for a bit of amusement:

Image Image

The second one explains that the electric charge is actually a different rate of expansion at the sub-atomic level. Yes, every atom is like a little TARDIS. If I'd scanned the pages following, you'd learn that electrons bounce off the nucleus rather than orbiting it. I... need to destroy this book.

BOING!!

**reads the first page**

Oh God what is this horseshit.

Two objects....passing each other....are actually expanding....so they seem closer....which makes us think they are orbiting? Because that makes perfect sense and exactly matches our observations of the conservation of energy in orbital mechanics.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Flumble » Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:24 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Two objects....passing each other....are actually expanding....so they seem closer....which makes us think they are orbiting?

Can't you see? It's clearly shown in the diagrams!

Well, at least it is for the part where they have passed eachother and they expand tangentially... and then the universe explodes.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby davidstarlingm » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:02 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Two objects....passing each other....are actually expanding....so they seem closer....which makes us think they are orbiting?

Can't you see? It's clearly shown in the diagrams!

Well, at least it is for the part where they have passed eachother and they expand tangentially... and then the universe explodes.

Did he even remotely consider whether or not this would work for a single orbital cycle?

Periodic occultation?

Elliptical orbit?

Anything?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:37 pm UTC

No, he doesn't even understand any of those things well enough to consider them. He can't even math.

Mutex
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Mutex » Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:17 pm UTC

Bloopy wrote:Haha, I have this book lying around. Anyone want it? Otherwise it's eventually going into the paper recycling to be turned into something useful.


It sounds like it'd be useful to use as a paperweight. Obviously until the internal battery runs out and it doesn't have the energy to exert pressure downwards, of course.

EDIT: Just read the first page... just... wow. So two objects sat right next to each other just expand until they overlapped each other? Or do they push each other apart or something... I need to lie down.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:47 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Bloopy wrote:Haha, I have this book lying around. Anyone want it? Otherwise it's eventually going into the paper recycling to be turned into something useful.


It sounds like it'd be useful to use as a paperweight. Obviously until the internal battery runs out and it doesn't have the energy to exert pressure downwards, of course.

EDIT: Just read the first page... just... wow. So two objects sat right next to each other just expand until they overlapped each other? Or do they push each other apart or something... I need to lie down.

Two objects set down next to each other are expanding, but the earth is expanding too, so they are kept apart because the distance between them along the earth's surface is increasing.

No explanation whatsoever for the proportionality of surface gravity to density.

Mutex
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Mutex » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:56 pm UTC

Sorry if my example implied they were on the Earth's surface, I meant if they were in space, stationary, next to each other.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:39 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Sorry if my example implied they were on the Earth's surface, I meant if they were in space, stationary, next to each other.

Then they will expand until they collide, but because everything is expanding, this will manifest as mutual gravitational attraction between the two objects. Which, to be fair, does happen.

But Eebster was right; he can't math at all. In order for the expansion to be undetectable, it must maintain a constant rate for any given system, taking into account the radii of the objects involved. However, even the most cursory torsion balance test will demonstrate that gravitational attraction is proportional to density for spherical objects. This is a mathematical requirement, too; if (apparent) gravitational attraction was proportional to radius, you could produce gravitational attraction of arbitrary degree by defining an aggregate of objects as a singular object (or vice versa). Clearly the force of gravity is unaware of the definition you have chosen.

Not to mention that different systems will produce different rates of expansion. In order to produce an apparent surface gravity of one gee, Earth would need to be expanding such that its surface accelerated toward other objects at one gee. (Never mind that this would make the inverse-squared relationship of gravity impossible.) Running a basic kinematic equation tells us Earth's radius needs to double every 1140 seconds, and so everything sitting on Earth's surface needs to also double in size every 1140 seconds. But the moon has a different radius and different gravity; it needs to double in radius every 1465 seconds. So when the astronauts were on the moon, their bodies would have been expanding more slowly than when they were on Earth. But in order to be within the same gravitation field of Earth, they'd still have to be expanding at the same rate too. Of course those kinematic equations depend on a constant acceleration, but acceleration is based on the definition of a meter, which is apparently expanding as well, so who knows how the math is supposed to work out.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:45 pm UTC

Yeah, I basically can't math either, but when he said that the reason we don't notice is because everything is expanding uniformly, and yet it has the effect of resembling motion (or any effect at all, for that matter) he failed basic life and clearly can't life at all.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby thoughtfully » Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:49 pm UTC

Verbs into nouns I can deal with (building, etc), but this topsy-turvy, inverted, bass-ackwards stuff is turning my brain outside in.
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:58 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Yeah, I basically can't math either, but when he said that the reason we don't notice is because everything is expanding uniformly, and yet it has the effect of resembling motion (or any effect at all, for that matter) he failed basic life and clearly can't life at all.

If everything was expanding uniformly but space was not, then you would certainly observe an apparent attraction between all bodies. Of course, to sustain the apparent attraction, you need exponential expansion, which would fill up the universe within a couple of days. His notion of expansion-in-relative-motion-looking-like-gravitational-perturbation is sadly not-so-well-thought-out.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:44 pm UTC

thoughtfully wrote:Verbs into nouns I can deal with (building, etc), but this topsy-turvy, inverted, bass-ackwards stuff is turning my brain outside in.
So you have a problem with words like "sleep" or "drink" or "deal", right?

Oh wait.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
phillip1882
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:11 pm UTC
Location: geogia
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby phillip1882 » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:17 pm UTC

i actually kinda belive the theory.
yeah i know you all are probably gonna jump down my throat and go WHAT??!!
but it does make a wierd sence to me.
i dont think science currently is wrong, far from it, i just feel that matter expanding makes more sence to me than gravity endlessly pulling or warped spacetime.
good luck have fun

elasto
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby elasto » Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:00 pm UTC

phillip1882 wrote:i actually kinda belive the theory.
yeah i know you all are probably gonna jump down my throat and go WHAT??!!
but it does make a wierd sence to me.
i dont think science currently is wrong, far from it, i just feel that matter expanding makes more sence to me than gravity endlessly pulling or warped spacetime.

But how does a circular orbit arise? If you've got a stationary object in the middle and another above it and moving left, and half an orbit later it is below it and moving right, how does that come about if there's no attraction between the two (just simply expansion)? How does a leftward trajectory turn into a rightward one?

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby dudiobugtron » Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:08 pm UTC

Bloopy wrote:I scanned a couple of pages for a bit of amusement:

[redacted]

The second one explains that the electric charge is actually a different rate of expansion at the sub-atomic level. Yes, every atom is like a little TARDIS. If I'd scanned the pages following, you'd learn that electrons bounce off the nucleus rather than orbiting it. I... need to destroy this book.


While the author might appreciate the advertising, I imagine you don't have their permission to copy the book. In New Zealand law, that is a breech of copyright, unless it's for personal study, or for educational purposes; and in the case of the latter, the educational institution should probably pay some royalty fees to the publisher. In US law, it might count as 'fair use', though I'm not sure exactly what that means. If you're just using it to deride the author, does that count as fair use? Should we really be able to read parts of the book without paying for the privilege?
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Dec 23, 2013 8:40 pm UTC

Yes, criticism definitely counts as fair use. It doesn't mean it feels fair to the person being quoted, but that's not what the law means.

(I know there is still a limit to the quantity you can copy, and I don't remember what that limit is or how much was copied in this case, but the point is that quoting something to criticize it is not the problem in itself.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
phillip1882
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:11 pm UTC
Location: geogia
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby phillip1882 » Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:14 am UTC

okay so ill try to explain orbits here under the expanding matter hypothesis.
planetary rotation.png
planetary rotation.png (3.03 KiB) Viewed 5157 times

firstly, i make the implicit assumtion that total momentum in any system is constant.
that is, any change in momentum must be counteracted in someway.
since matter expands at an accelerating rate, this acceleration must be counteracted by a change in momentum.
in the above diagram, i show two bodies, one orbiting the other. the black line represnting the "desired" velocity, the red line showing the true trajectory as a result of the acceleration effect.

unforuntaly the theory does fall apart at a point. i can't really explain planetary orbits given the equation for gravity under the expanding matter hypothesis. i did the cacluations, and the earths moon should rotate about 4 times faster than it actually does given its distance, and many other such mathematical inconsistances.
i want to abondon the thoery but i just can't, it seems so beautiful.
good luck have fun

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:41 am UTC

Expansion alone wouldn't get you *any* change in direction, though.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3713
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby PM 2Ring » Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:02 am UTC

phillip1882 wrote: i want to abondon the thoery but i just can't, it seems so beautiful.

Sorry, that's a pre-scientific way of thinking. Sure, science likes beautiful theories, but beauty in a theory is not in itself sufficient: the theory has to tally with the empirical data.

BTW, the word you're looking for is theroy. :)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:41 am UTC

Silly as that thread was, I would much rather have kids throwing out their wild ideas on forums like these then pretending they are proven and profound and trying to trick people into paying to hear them.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests