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

StevenH
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:54 pm UTC

Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Postby StevenH » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:53 am UTC

SU3SU2U1, thank you for that considered response.

"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?"

That is a valid question. The way I see it is that he doesn't have a poor grasp of the current theories, so you should trust him - at least to the extent that he just might be presenting another way of looking at it.

He starts with the daunting task of having to break through the ingrained belief in gravitational pull and the necessary gravity waves which we can only infer and not actually detect. The rest of it, the work equation and the entire concept of energy are ways that we can grasp what appears to be going on in newton's worldview. It's a model and it seems to work most of the time.

But I guess the problem I have was expressed by my son when he said, "Dad! The current model works. Why do we need another one?". And he had a point, except, as you pointed out Newton doesn't explain "why?". That alone should raise a question mark.

Newton modeled everything mathematically and there's no doubt that this nails his work down pretty solid. McCutcheon has a horrendous task trying to model his theory mathematically because his reference points are constantly accelerating. The reference frame keeps changing. It's enough to drive you crazy trying to work it out mathematically. But the thing that holds me is that I can visualize it actually working. I couldn't at first. That took time.

I think it's worth your time because you are extraordinarily gifted and the puzzle of the math alone should give you some measure of joy. But there's more to it than that.

All of our concepts relating to space, time, length, mass and motion get shaken up. Even the idea of an "existent" changes. For instance, we say that atoms exist as objects. In McCutcheon's worldview they do as well but with a difference: Atoms are events. Long duration events to be sure but that ends up making us see everything differently in a very subtle sort of way. If an event can be considered an existent, other models start shaking too. And isn't that a symptom of a more profound model?

So bottom line, yeah, he disagrees with Newton's use of the work equation but he has to. His model is based upon different dynamics.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Postby yurell » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:13 am UTC

StevenH wrote:That is a valid question. The way I see it is that he doesn't have a poor grasp of the current theories, so you should trust him - at least to the extent that he just might be presenting another way of looking at it.


I think you just missed the point — he has demonstrated that he doesn't have a good grasp of the current theories, which makes his claim that his new theory fixes flaws in the old incredibly dubious because those flaws may not exist. Specifically, in the case that SU3SU2U1 pointed out, it is an error in McCutcheon's understanding, not our current understanding.

StevenH wrote:The rest of it, the work equation and the entire concept of energy are ways that we can grasp what appears to be going on in newton's worldview. It's a model and it seems to work most of the time.
...
But I guess the problem I have was expressed by my son when he said, "Dad! The current model works. Why do we need another one?". And he had a point, except, as you pointed out Newton doesn't explain "why?". That alone should raise a question mark.


If this model explains how gravity works at a fundamental level, it shouldn't be wrong any of the time, so working 'most' of the time demonstrates that it is merely a mathematical abstraction ... and one that works less well than our current mathematical abstractions, so what would be the point of it?

StevenH wrote:So bottom line, yeah, he disagrees with Newton's use of the work equation but he has to. His model is based upon different dynamics.


If you are using a word differently to how it's used by everyone else, then you need to use a different word. To do otherwise is to obfuscate.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:00 pm UTC

StevenH wrote:But I guess the problem I have was expressed by my son when he said, "Dad! The current model works. Why do we need another one?". And he had a point, except, as you pointed out Newton doesn't explain "why?". That alone should raise a question mark.


If we didn't know the "why" but had a theory which worked everywhere, the why would no longer be a question for physicists, but for philosophers. This is not the reason Newtonian gravity got replaced.

The reason Newtonian gravity got replaced was that, yes, it does work at human scales and even, reasonably well, up to orbital scales but that, at larger scales it starts getting things a bit wrong. It works, but only within a certain regime.

Someone then comes up with a new theory, one which works over a larger regime. Generally, this regime will contain the previous regime within it and, because the old theory worked in that regime and, by construction, so does the new theory, they must both agree within the regime of the old theory (to a good degree of approximation).

Newtonian gravity works because, in the weak-field, short-scale, low-pressure limit it is equivalent to GR. Unsurprisingly, the human scales Newton could work with are, by cosmological GR-y standards, weak-fields, short-scales and low-pressure.

From the other side, QM starts behaving exactly like classical mechanics (or SR for relativistic QM) in the limit of large quantum numbers (high-energy, high-angular-momentum etc.). Again, by quantum standards, the human scale of classical mechanics is high-energy and high-angular-momentum.

The main issue today is that neither QM nor GR describes the whole picture. They both reduce to classical stuff in the middle, but either side they both start behaving strangely and in different ways. This is where quantum gravity would come in because it would be a theory whose regime includes both QM and GR and, hopefully, quite a lot of other space as well.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26831
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:40 pm UTC

elasto wrote: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
I merged it into that thread before realizing I'd locked it, and since I'm on my phone it would be a pain in the ass to take these posts back out.

So I unlocked the thread in the hopes that people might be able to explain to StevenH why the theory doesn't work. In the event that he engages in the usual crackpottery newcomers usually do in threads like these, I'll lock it again.
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)

SU3SU2U1
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:15 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby SU3SU2U1 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:32 pm UTC

I'll take another stab at this:

That is a valid question. The way I see it is that he doesn't have a poor grasp of the current theories, so you should trust him - at least to the extent that he just might be presenting another way of looking at it.


Lets continue on in chapter 1: McCutcheon introduces something he calls the "Newtonian orbit equation" and something else he calls the "Geometric orbit equation" Both of these equations are things McCutcheon simply made up. Both equations depend on R, the radius of the orbit. McCutcheon asserts that 1. this equation could have been known by Newton, 2. Newton used it to derive his inverse square law by making a false analogy to a rock-on-a-string.

McCutcheon is lying- no such equation exists. Newton was trying to explain Kepler's orbits, WHICH ARE (famously) ELLIPTICAL. There is no single R to plug into McCutcheon's made up equation. Further, a spinning rock-on-a-string analogy wouldn't work, because you'll only ever get a circle that way, and Kepler's orbits are generally elliptical. McCutcheon hasn't looked at the historical arguments Newton actually put forth, he has instead simply made up a goofy line of reasoning and then attacked it.

Now, lets ignore how badly McCutcheon misunderstands current theory, and take his theory at face value. Lets assume that gravity is entirely an "apparent force" between two objects, caused by an ever increasing expansion of all objects. What would this mean? One obvious consequences is that this "apparent force" cannot vary with distance. Its a property of the objects themselves. So the force between two objects can only be a function of the objects masses and volumes.

So lets say I take earthly objects, say some big lead weights, and very carefully measure the attractive force between them, and then move them slightly, and measure again, so on. If I then plot the results, McCutcheon says I should get a straight line (constant force for all distances), Newton says I should get a 1/r^2 plot. In 1798, Henry Cavendish actually carried out such a measurement. He got the 1/r^2 plot. In senior year modern experimental lab courses, all over the country, hundreds of undergrads do a modern (much easier) variant of the same experiment- they also get 1/r^2 plots.

Even more modern- a physics group at the University of Washington has pushed the boundary even further- here is a review on tests of the inverse square law: http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/s ... review.pdf

The inverse square law has been verified down to 200 micrometers.

Theories live and die on experiment- these very direct experiments falsify McCutcheon's theory right out of the gate.

StevenH
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:54 pm UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby StevenH » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:07 pm UTC

Thank you to all who replied to my post. I am honored by the attention and I apologize if I have wasted your time.
My point was not to try and prove that McCutcheon was correct or that Newton, Einstein, QM or all combinations of the above were wrong (I don't think they are), all I wanted to do was point out that there might be another model that could explain the same phenomena. Obviously, without supporting mathematics that handle all aspects of the expansion, he won't be taken seriously by anyone who has internalized the current mathematics - and I understand that and accept it and I damn sure don't blame any of you for that and applaud the tremendous effort you expended in grasping all of it.
Just consider how hard McCutcheon's model is from a mathematical point of view. It may even require a new mathematical system in order to prove it - or it could even be impossible.
But again, I can visualize it working. I can visualize how two bodies in an orbital system can rotate around each other using expansion. I can then add a third and treat the first two as a single unit and make that work too, visually. Using expansion, I can also visualize how light is "bent" as it passes near the sun. So, if I can do that, perhaps there is a way to express it in mathematical terms. It's a puzzle guys. Try and see it from that perspective.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26831
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:22 pm UTC

It's a puzzle that doesn't work, as has already been explained. You can visualize a third body in a circular orbit around two others, perhaps, but expansion alone definitely can't give the more chaotic orbits we actually tend to observe in 3-body dynamics.
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
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby addams » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

StevenH wrote:Thank you to all who replied to my post. I am honored by the attention and I apologize if I have wasted your time.
My point was not to try and prove that McCutcheon was correct or that Newton, Einstein, QM or all combinations of the above were wrong (I don't think they are), all I wanted to do was point out that there might be another model that could explain the same phenomena. Obviously, without supporting mathematics that handle all aspects of the expansion, he won't be taken seriously by anyone who has internalized the current mathematics - and I understand that and accept it and I damn sure don't blame any of you for that and applaud the tremendous effort you expended in grasping all of it.
Just consider how hard McCutcheon's model is from a mathematical point of view. It may even require a new mathematical system in order to prove it - or it could even be impossible.
But again, I can visualize it working. I can visualize how two bodies in an orbital system can rotate around each other using expansion. I can then add a third and treat the first two as a single unit and make that work too, visually. Using expansion, I can also visualize how light is "bent" as it passes near the sun. So, if I can do that, perhaps there is a way to express it in mathematical terms. It's a puzzle guys. Try and see it from that perspective.

hi.
I am not good at Math.

I have known a few people that are.
One woman ReInvented Algebra.

She had known sense she was a child, "It doesn't have to be this way."
She did her Master's Project on Math Theory. She reinvented Algebra.

She was not The First.
She and the Math Department at her University were satisfied with her work.

She settled down and taught Math.
She was quite good at Theory.

If you and your friend have a new way of doing Math,
You must be able to communicate it to Math Majors.

In my Experience they are not a close minded group.
They are a little snotty about people born without Math Skills.

They, just, don't understand.
The good ones can explain their perspective.

Math Illuminates the Universe for us.
I am grateful to them. They light the candle I see by.

The idea of Gravity expressing itself on bodies is an entire special kind of math.
I once knew a man that worked on The Dance of Star Cluster Galaxies.

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

Why anyone would dedicate their life to such an undertaking is beyond me.
He was doing it before we met. It was his Passion.

This concept may be your Passion.
Poor You. Such a demanding field of study.

If it is your Passion, you may not have much choice.
You have to know. When you find out, you will tell.

It is the Nature of The Beast.
The math in this thread will get too hard for me.

The best of luck to you and your New Way.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Postby JudeMorrigan » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:31 pm UTC

SU3SU2U1 wrote:Start with Newton's third law, F= ma, and integrate the left hand side and the right hand side with respect to distance.

Small, trivial correction: that's Newton's second law.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby eSOANEM » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:52 am UTC

I have a question, in this theory, are the bodies expanding or are the gaps between them shrinking?

StevenH wrote: Obviously, without supporting mathematics that handle all aspects of the expansion, he won't be taken seriously by anyone who has internalized the current mathematics - and I understand that and accept it and I damn sure don't blame any of you for that and applaud the tremendous effort you expended in grasping all of it.


(emphasis mine)

No. Without supporting mathematics, he's not making testable predictions and isn't doing science. Being charitable, he might be trying to suggest areas for future research but, more likely, he's posturing trying to make people think he's clever.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

StevenH
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:54 pm UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby StevenH » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:36 pm UTC

Only the mass is expanding. As the bodies expand, the units of measure change too - all of them with respect to any previous moment. And I think this includes Time as well but I'm not so sure about that.
We measure time by using a reference event - a starting state and an ending state which we use as a unit. All other events are measured against that unit.
The velocity of an object moving through space increases as the unit of distance increases. But, it doesn't increase in its frame of reference. It only increases if measured against units of a previous moment, a previous frame of reference.
There are mental traps that are easy to fall into here because our archetypes or patterns of thinking do not include such considerations. For instance, a balloon expanding will pop eventually. We aren't talking about that kind of expansion. Another trap that I've fallen into is thinking that a large object like Jupiter will expand and gobble up everything around it, etc. As would the sun. But that falls apart too because their tangential velocities increase along with their sizes. The constancy of orbits remains the same, elliptical ones too. There is no violation of any of that. And just one more point about traps I should make. If two bodies in space have no tangential velocities, they will expand toward each other. The space between them will diminish. It will appear as though they were accelerating toward each other - exactly as they should with an attracting force. Bodies with enormous distances between them do not have to have very large tangential velocities to remain in their positions.

McCutcheon's mistake was a tactical one and simply bad manners. He shouldn't have attacked Newton's work equation because it is simply a stipulation of Newton's theory and part of his ground rules. Is it confusing? Yes. There is work and then there is Work. So what. It's HIS theory and he gets to do that. And the theory works so why argue with it?

There are two issues that I think are important here: whether or not universal expansion can explain everything as McCutcheon claims and what are the ramifications if it can?

Dismissing it because his attack on Newton was wrong simply delays the day when it will be taken seriously and properly debunked, that is, if it can be. The number of advocates is not diminishing and if somebody nails the math, well, who knows what will happen then. It stands to reason that if the current theories are displaced, the one which displaces them will be radically different. And wouldn't it also be true that the math might actually prove that Newton, Einstein and QM were correct within limits? I mean, they do after all, work. I'll end with that.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby PolakoVoador » Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:25 pm UTC

StevenH wrote:McCutcheon's mistake was a tactical one and simply bad manners. He shouldn't have attacked Newton's work equation because it is simply a stipulation of Newton's theory and part of his ground rules. Is it confusing? Yes. There is work and then there is Work. So what. It's HIS theory and he gets to do that. And the theory works so why argue with it?

No, it wasn't just "tactical" or "bad manners". It showed the author clearly doesn't understand the theory he is trying to supplant. If you don't understand the current theory, you don't get to propose a new one.


StevenH wrote:There are two issues that I think are important here: 1)whether or not universal expansion can explain everything as McCutcheon claims and 2)what are the ramifications if it can?

1) No, it can't, as it was already explained somewhere along thing this thread.
2) Somewhat irrelevant, since it can't.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
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 Jun 13, 2014 4:58 pm UTC

The mathematics of this "expanding objects theory" would not be as complicated as you seem to think. They do not result in anything remotely similar to the gravity we actually see. For instance, it doesn't predict elliptical orbits. It doesn't predict the inverse square law. A world in which gravity was replaced with "stuff expanding" would look nothing like this world.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26831
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:07 pm UTC

Hell, I'm still unclear on how it's supposed to give orbits at all, let alone elliptical or chaotic ones.
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
Sizik
Posts: 1260
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Sizik » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:45 pm UTC

I think the fact that two objects of the same size but different mass stay the same size pretty much disproves the theory. (Objects with high mass have a stronger gravitational field than those with low mass, which means they must be expanding faster)
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

SU3SU2U1
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:15 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby SU3SU2U1 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:00 pm UTC

StevenH wrote:Dismissing it because his attack on Newton was wrong simply delays the day when it will be taken seriously and properly debunked.


Please see the end of my previous post, where I show that McCutcheon's theory is empirically disproven. His theory predicts that gravitational attraction will not follow an inverse square law. The linked paper shows the inverse square law has been measured down to 200 micrometers.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
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 Jun 13, 2014 10:06 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Hell, I'm still unclear on how it's supposed to give orbits at all, let alone elliptical or chaotic ones.

I guess it depends on your definition of "orbit." If an "orbit" is just any gravitationally-caused curve, then I guess by definition these would be orbits whatever path they take. They just wouldn't be elliptical, parabolic, hyperbolic, or any other useful shape. In the 2-body case, they would just be straight lines.

Really I am confused by how his theory is even supposed to make sense at any level. Does anyone have a page from the book that tries to explain it or anything like that? Is there even anything to understand?

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby elasto » Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:20 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Really I am confused by how his theory is even supposed to make sense at any level. Does anyone have a page from the book that tries to explain it or anything like that? Is there even anything to understand?

There's a couple earlier in this thread, now it's been merged (you might want to reread from the beginning to see all the various criticisms)

scanned pages

User avatar
Dopefish
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:46 am UTC
Location: The Well of Wishes

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Dopefish » Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:31 am UTC

I feel like this 'theory', as with most physics theories that aren't from PhD folk who have spent their lives working on these things, is one of those theories that might sound appealing and maybe makes sense if you don't think too hard about it, but it all starts off with something functionally equivalent to 'assume 1=0...'.

Some of them might manage to be relatively logically sound beyond that point (although usually not), but if you're basing stuff on false premises, then it's already dead as a viable explanation of reality.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory of Everything

Postby phlip » Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:17 pm UTC

StevenH wrote: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?"

No quality time? Do you think this post wrote itself? That maybe I knocked it out in a couple of minutes without thinking anything through?

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

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 » Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:01 am UTC

Has anyone gone as far as to actually make a little animation on YouTube or something to demonstrate how this guy thinks orbits work? Or is it just as broken as it seems that even plotting out the "path" in 3D proves that it doesn't work? (I know it's far from the only crazy concept called upon here, but it seems to be his starting point. )
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

StevenH
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:54 pm UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby StevenH » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:01 pm UTC

Sizik, I have to choose one of the statements to respond to and I picked yours.
"I think the fact that two objects of the same size but different mass stay the same size pretty much disproves the theory. (Objects with high mass have a stronger gravitational field than those with low mass, which means they must be expanding faster)"

Well, there are a couple of points here to speak to. But I'll pick just one.

take the phrase, (2)(5)=10. I can say that it is false. Then you'd say I was full of it so nothing I say could possibly be correct.

But if I'm measuring the "truth" of that statement using base 16, I am correct. You are using base 10.

Your statement presupposes a Newtonian gravitational field whereas McCutcheon's does not. Different bases, different perspectives. You see, McCutcheon's perspective is that the physical size of the object determines the effective "gravity" of the object.

When I said that Newton was correct within his frame of reference I meant that he was and is correct using his definitions. You are saying that any other theory cannot be taken seriously unless the new theory accepts Newtonian rules and disproves Newton using Newton's rules and by definition, one can't.

For those of you who will now jump on the mass angle, stable objects that persist with different masses but have the same shape and size will keep the same shape and size. For instance, take a Styrofoam ball the size of a bowling ball. Set it next to a bowling ball and wait for one (the bowling ball) to get bigger than the Styrofoam ball and you'll be waiting forever. A stable structure is a stable structure. This is one of the traps I talked about. Now put them in space and give them zero tangential velocity in any of the 3 dimensions (not an easy task - and it gets harder the further apart you place them - probably along the lines of the square of the distance) and monitor what happens. Over time, they will develop a velocity between them along their line of centers. When they collide, as you would expect, the bowling ball would remain pretty much unaffected but not so the Styrofoam ball. And, at the moment of impact, they will still be exactly the same sizes relative to each other. If the Styrofoam ball maintained its basic shape, it would probably bounce away back on its original path. In this scenario, both attraction and expansion function identically. At a great distance, placing them with no tangential velocity becomes almost impossible and motion only along the line of centers is likewise virtually impossible. Within M's frame, the other complication in this experiment is that the masses within the stable objects have to be perfectly uniformly distributed or a tangential motion will develop. That is why M says that all motion in space is curved.

One of the comments made wanted to know if someone had created a youtube video demonstrating how it worked. Well, I think someone has but I don't take it seriously because I don't know if the underlying mathematics generating the visual is using the as-yet-undeveloped mathematics needed by M.

It boils down to understanding that if you actually wanted to see what he's talking about, you first must accept his base, his assumptions, his point of view. Saying that he's wrong because you don't want to do that is... I don't know what that is. You won't hurt your brains if you try to see his point of view, actually, I suspect you'll really find it interesting. But you have to let go (temporarily) of Newtonian mechanics.

The absolutely crazy thing you'll find is that when you view the motion from a "godlike" point of view (meaning you don't change size - but you will have to be accelerating away in order to maintain the same relative sizes), two objects will rotate around each other but they'll do that in a straight line which is completely counter intuitive. That is when it will dawn on you that motion between two objects in space is entirely relative. Momentum is relative. Velocity, acceleration, everything is relative. Just like Einstein said.

From a god-like position, watching one object, it will move forward, then backward, then forward, etc. The other will do the same thing. But viewed from a point on either object, the motion will be circular. It's relative to the point of view.

I do not know if M is correct. But I do suspect hat it is not a trivial theory.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby brenok » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:23 pm UTC

StevenH wrote:things

So, after writing a massive amount of text, you managed to say precisely nothing.

How do you explain orbits? And the inverse square law?

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby yurell » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:32 pm UTC

Okay, StevenH, how about you employ this theory and use it to explain something like elliptical orbits, the inverse square law or Lagrange points? Your argument about 2*5=10 being false in base 16 is a complete non-sequitur — the basis we're using for physics is 'what happens in real life? Do my predictions accurately reflect this?' I know the mods start getting annoyed when you evade specific questions, and there have been point-by-point rebuttals of this 'theory' already given in this thread, which you are completely ignoring. You say "[it] boils down to understanding that if you actually wanted to see what he's talking about, you first must accept his base, his assumptions, his point of view.", but that is not how science works. I don't have to accept his point of view — I could find it completely insane, but the important thing is that if I plug numbers into his theory, it comes back with the correct answer. In this case, it doesn't, as has already been explained.

But in the end, my challenge is for you to use the theory to explain one of the following:
  • Elliptical Orbits;
  • The inverse square law;
  • Lagrange points.

Defending a theory that you can't use when everyone with knowledge of the field (let's not forget that those criticising M here aren't people with no knowledge of science — many of them are actual physicists) tells you that it's complete quackery is not a good sign.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby eSOANEM » Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:33 pm UTC

Dopefish wrote:I feel like this 'theory', as with most physics theories that aren't from PhD folk who have spent their lives working on these things, is one of those theories that might sound appealing and maybe makes sense if you don't think too hard about it, but it all starts off with something functionally equivalent to 'assume 1=0...'.


Oh no. You could definitely make a consistent and mathematically rigorous theory from his ideas so it isn't anything like 1=0. The problem is that this theory doesn't look anything like real life.

StevenH wrote:Your statement presupposes a Newtonian gravitational field whereas McCutcheon's does not. Different bases, different perspectives. You see, McCutcheon's perspective is that the physical size of the object determines the effective "gravity" of the object.


No, Sizik pre-supposes that, gravity is observed to obey an inverse square law. This is an empirical fact. If you wish to dispute it, then you're not doing physics at all and are just intellectually jacking off.

The universe doesn't care what definitions we use or how we define the thing we call distance. This means that we should be able to use any well-defined definition of distance to describe the physics going on (although some may be more complicated than others). If McCutcheon's theory agrees with experiments then, at human scales at least, we should be able to describe it in terms of classical distance and recover Newtonian gravity.

This is entirely equivalent to it being consistent with experiment.

As it cannot be made to agree with Newtonian gravity (this is immediately obvious as expansion cannot give an inverse square law behaviour), this means McCutcheon's theory is inconsistent with experiment.

In science, this is what it means to be wrong.

If you continue to defend a theory which disagrees with experiment then you are either deluded or a troll.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

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 » Sun Jun 15, 2014 5:56 pm UTC

One of the comments made wanted to know if someone had created a youtube video demonstrating how it worked. Well, I think someone has but I don't take it seriously because I don't know if the underlying mathematics generating the visual is using the as-yet-undeveloped mathematics needed by M.

Why does it take special math to describe straight paths and expansion? If that's even a remotely useful approximation for what he's describing, then it's much simpler than dealing with actual gravity.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:15 pm UTC

StevenH wrote:Sizik, I have to choose one of the statements to respond to and I picked yours.

I'm pretty sure you missed the point of what he said. In your bowling ball/foam ball example, the bowling ball exerts a much stronger gravitational field than the styrofoam ball. We know this because if we had a third ball (let's say a balloon), it would accelerate toward the center of gravity of the other two balls, which will be closer to the bowling ball than it is to the styrofoam ball. We don't need to assume anything to know this, we can just observe it by measuring the positions of planets and stars. Why does the bowling ball exert a greater attraction than the styrofoam ball? This makes sense in the context of Newtonian gravity or General Relativity, because the bowling ball has greater mass. But it makes no sense in the context of McC's theory, because the bowling ball and the styrofoam ball have the same diameter and remain at the same diameter, meaning they are expanding at the same rate.

The type of mass you mentioned in your post is called inertial mass, while the type of mass I am describing is called gravitational mass. These two quantities are equal, but in this theory they would not be equal, because there would be no such thing as gravitational mass.

douglasm
Posts: 630
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:53 am UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby douglasm » Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:41 pm UTC

StevenH wrote:Your statement presupposes a Newtonian gravitational field whereas McCutcheon's does not. Different bases, different perspectives. You see, McCutcheon's perspective is that the physical size of the object determines the effective "gravity" of the object.

It appears you're saying that, according to McCutcheon, gravity is proportional to volume. This has been demonstrated to be factually incorrect by actual experiments many times over.

There is one and only one true final arbiter of whether a theory is viable, and that is quite simply whether its predictions match real world experimental observations. If a theory fails this test by a small margin, it may simply need refinement. If a theory fails this test by a large margin, it is most likely not worth pursuing. McCutcheon's theory, just this single small part of it, fails this test by an utterly enormous margin, and every other part I've seen seems likely to fail similarly badly if I bothered to analyze in depth.

StevenH
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:54 pm UTC

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby StevenH » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:24 pm UTC

Yurell,
Eliptical orbits are no different than circular orbits. It all depends on the relative tangential velocities. If the tangential velocities are exactly right, it will be a circular orbit, otherwise as the object moves further away, the expansion (attraction) starts to diminish the proportion of line of centers relative velocity to the tangential velocity. It's exactly the same thing with newton's attracting forces. There is absolutely no difference. Well, except between you and me. I have taken the time to visualize expansion doing what attraction does and you haven't.
But that pretty much sums up all of our disagreements.
I have never claimed that McCutcheon is correct. I have never claimed that Newton is wrong (within the Newtonian framework). But what I claimed is that within McCutcheon's framework, McCutcheon is correct and internally consistent - at least as far as I can visualize it.
But unless you accept his thesis for the duration of contemplating his theory, you simply will not see how he is correct and internally consistent.
What is TOTALLY amazing to me is how the lot of you so quickly are repelled by the need to visualize something out of your comfort zone. It's as if because you can't readily visualize expansion behaving exactly the same as an attracting force, you reject the idea.
How is THAT scientific? How is that logical? Do you actually believe that your perceptions CREATE existence? Our perceptions are just the way our brains interpret existence, they don't create it.
So we have to theorize what is actually going on because we cannot directly perceive it.
My gut tells me that is the real issue here. All of you are upset because to contemplate McCutcheon's theory you'd have to stop thinking you have a direct connection to reality. You don't. I don't. McCutcheon doesn't, Newton didn't, Einstein didn't, nobody does.
Our future as a species depends upon our understanding that the search for the truth is an ongoing process. It is also a virtue, perhaps the most sacred one there is.
McCutcheon's courage in proposing his theory is unquestionable. And if you took the time to look, you'd see that he is as well versed in all of the models as any of you are.
I am truly ashamed of the treatment he has received by the so-called scientists who have berated him since he first presented his theory. Not on the basis of science or logic, but through the use of ad hominem attack and sheer bullying.
I am finished with this for now. And, if I am a troll (a relative term by the way) as one of you claims, then I have dared to venture into the land of trolls. So I'll leave.

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby speising » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:52 pm UTC

what does <persons> framework mean, anyway? and please don't equate correct with consistent.
this theory might be internally consistent, but as long as it does not describe what it purports to describe, ie. reality, it is not correct.
you don't need a "direct connection to reality" to see that, the most tenuous one would suffice.

Tchebu
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:42 am UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby Tchebu » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:01 pm UTC

... people HAVE contemplated it here for the past few pages of the thread and pointed out how this theory grossly disagrees with experiment.If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

1. Experimental fact: two objects of equal size remain equal size regardless of their respective masses. Furthermore, two objects of different size maintain the ratio of their sizes regardless of their respective masses.
2. Experimental fact: the gravitational dynamics of planets, stars, galaxies etc, manifestly depend on the mass of these objects and not on their size. This means that any theory trying to adequately explain gravity must have mass dependence built into it.

So now this expansion theory must make some claim about the dependence of the supposed expansion on the mass. Either the object depends on the object's mass, or it doesn't. In either case it disagrees with one of the two above well observed experimental facts. It is therefore wrong.
Our universe is most certainly unique... it's the only one that string theory doesn't describe.

User avatar
elliptic
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:21 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby elliptic » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

StevenH wrote:Our future as a species depends upon our understanding that the search for the truth is an ongoing process.


And success in that search depends on critically assessing novel ideas and throwing them out ruthlessly if they don't stand up to reality. McCutcheon's don't stand up at even the most basic level. So we throw them out and move on. Get over it.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
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 Jun 19, 2014 4:20 pm UTC

Steven, the reason people are calling you a troll is that you will skim over pages of serious posts and address NOT A FUCKING ONE OF THEM before repeating the same drivel. You literally are supporting a theory of gravitation with no concept of mass. Do you have any idea how worthless that is?

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 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:30 pm UTC

What is TOTALLY amazing to me is how the lot of you so quickly are repelled by the need to visualize something out of your comfort zone. It's as if because you can't readily visualize expansion behaving exactly the same as an attracting force, you reject the idea.


As has been variously explained, it does not in any way have the same behavior. And I've asked for visualizations of how the orbits would work, and you said that you haven't seen one made that's accurate to McCutcheon's story. That story seems, in my visualization, to fail to account for any part of the behavior it's meant to explain. I'd love to have some way of visualizing it properly! You just haven't provided any means to do so, and neither has McCutcheon.

And it's coming from someone who claims that science fails to explain gravity because it doesn't propose a "why" (which is wrong to begin with - if the behavior of the mechanism is fully understood, then it's accurate whether or not a deeper "why" is understood) and then presents a story that, itself, doesn't offer any deeper whys. I don't know why I would feel the need to accept a story that tries and fails to solve a nonproblem even on the face of it.

I don't think you understand the extent to which your defenses of McCutcheon sound exactly like predictable defenses of any pseudoscience. You accuse others of being closed-minded and having vested interests when valid objections are raised and appeal to your own subjective impression (that you can "see" how it would work, even if you can't do the math or describe the behavior) as evidence. There is no conspiracy, and it doesn't require a conspiracy to "keep down" a "theory" that no one can even explain.

The one thing I understand least of all is why McCutcheon seems to be pathologically averse to the idea of invisible fields of force. In his bouncing, expanding spheres of ? model, there's no way to explain something as simple as magnetic fields. That seems very silly to me.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26831
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:39 pm UTC

StevenH wrote:Eliptical orbits are no different than circular orbits. It all depends on the relative tangential velocities.

Yeah... you're either a troll or a crackpot, and either way I'm done with this experiment and locking the thread again.
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)


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: p1t1o and 18 guests