\"The Final Theory\"

[The Eternal Triangle]

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm

I don\'t know if any of you have come across this book. It has been around for a while now.

Basically the person who wrote it believes that all physics today is wrong because of the work function. He has a big problem with the fact that you can push something really heavy lots and lots and not move it, but do no work (in moving the object) and still feel tired. He also wants to know what the \"power source\" of gravity is. Where does the earth get the power to hold the moon in its orbit from?

Out of morbid curiosity, I read the first chapter of the book. It is frustrating to read. The guy must have failed high school physics and wanted revenge of some sort. I can\'t believe it\'s actually in the physics section at Amazon.com, and a top seller!

[keebler_giant]

The guy\'s a moron. I got as far into the chapter as the guy saying that our current form of gravity is wrong, and then he started attacking Newton\'s laws of gravity.

[spirit_wasa]

Errr you do do work dont you??? when you push something heavy and not move it. isnt it because friction is stopping you in which case you would be producing heat (if not in the friction in yourself) and this means that the atoms have been accelerated hense worked on. Am I wrong?

[keebler_giant]

No, but the problem with work that this guy has is that you can do all of the \"work\" you described but still not move the object, therefore there is no mathematical work. It\'s a simple case of using one definition while thinking of another that has gotten terrible out of hand.

[The Eternal Triangle]

From the first chapter alone, The Final Theory gets a 101 on the Crackpot Index.

[Sir_Zerp]

Originally posted by keebler_giant
No, but the problem with work that this guy has is that you can do all of the \"work\" you described but still not move the object, therefore there is no mathematical work. It\'s a simple case of using one definition while thinking of another that has gotten terrible out of hand.

And we disregard so many subtle effects of work.

When you press against a wall, you are moving it. You are also flexing the ground, connecting yourself and the wall.

If you think of the wall and the ground as a spring, there is work being done.

[The Eternal Triangle]

Originally posted by Sir_Zerp

And we disregard so many subtle effects of work.

When you press against a wall, you are moving it. You are also flexing the ground, connecting yourself and the wall.

If you think of the wall and the ground as a spring, there is work being done.

Yes, but isn\'t that negligible on a macroscopic scale?

[Fernanda]

but Michael loves to count photons LOL :lol:

[SplinterIon]

Aha - there is work being done. By your body on your body. Subtle, but still existing. You\'re just not doing work on the wall - no displacement. You being tired is resultant of the work done on yourself by yourself.

[keebler_giant]

But there is a difference between our everyday use of the word work and the mathematical definition of work.

[The Eternal Triangle]

Originally posted by keebler_giant
But there is a difference between our everyday use of the word work and the mathematical definition of work.

Yes! And the author doesn\'t seem to understand this.

[Sir_Zerp]

Originally posted by The Eternal Triangle

Yes, but isn\'t that negligible on a macroscopic scale?

I have viewpoint in physics of an absolute determinist.

There is nothing negligible on any scale.

If you stick your toe in the ocean to feel the temperature, you have changed the temperature of the ocean.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Sir_Zerp]

[lysdexia]

What bothers me is that he is aware of posts in various boards correcting him about work, refractive light re-emission, and terminology, but he leaves his wrong FAQ up without any acknowledging. He even invited people to email him when his address isn\'t even on that site; it takes searching for the publisher to reach him. He posted on physicsforums.com a few times but stopped before the second page (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2972&page=2&pp=15), where was a good message summing up what I was about to complain about:

>Paul Cook
I\'m a little unclear whether this \"Final Theory\" accepts or rejects the principle of conservation of energy. Many of the arguments around the propagation of light seem based on the conservation of energy.

However, the arguments around why magnets sticking to fridges, the tops of said fridges, pushing on boulders, etc. seem to disregard the principle -- since if, as the theory seems to claim, such static situations ARE using energy, energy which present theories can\'t explain, then where is that energy going to? We get tired pushing a boulder because, as mentioned, we are using up energy inside us -- as evidenced by the fact that we get hot. Now magnets sticking to fridges don\'t get hot, so if energy is being used, where is it going?

It also seems somewhat disingenious to disregard the GR resolution of the twins paradox \"problem\", merely because the twins paradox is mentioned in a SR context sometimes. If you are to disprove all of modern science, you really need to disprove it as a cohesive whole.<

He isn\'t just dismissing gravitic force, but seems to have a problem with all forces in equilibrium; that is, with any kind of stability. His equation isn\'t wrong, as v²r is just the other side of ar², but his elimination of force only by one derivation for a generic constant makes a boring, useless, and throwbacky theory. And he kept mistaking the work formula for the work function. He was supposed to have discussed the differences between net and gross forces, and their vectors and scalars, and that they could be added and subtracted in his first chapter, but made no mention. He also said nothing about the difference between kinetic, potential, and mechanical energy, and that the conservation of energy only applied to the last. He tosses around \"energy source\" many times, and once \"power source\", without defining them. Muscles are one, yet he compared muscles to magnets when they\'ve nothing to do with them; he should\'ve compared muscles to electromagnets, which [i]do get tired and heat up. He then denied that, under the conventional force concept, heavy bodies used up any energy combating their otherwise-straight line paths and downward paths in orbit. Oh but they do, with gravity waves from inner and outer tides. The Moon\'s whirling away; the Earth\'s slowing down; the planets are moving in; etc. But they don\'t have to do with tiring from gross forces making up no net force. Like Cook says, where is the energy going if they do force? Rather than accepting that there is cancelled gravitic force, I think McCutcheon would hence deny in such a thing and assert the balanced gravitic force which would operate independently of its competing vectoral forces. That\'s not a bad idea; it\'s been passed around a lot in free energy groups; I\'ve even thought of separating vector forces from scalar forces in systems having normals to break equilibrium. (That would take some kind of virtual pump, maybe suffering hysteresis.) But McCutcheon hasn\'t shown it to be a right idea. He latches onto some laws but not others, and assumes they\'re true without proof or argument. He uses anomalous gravitic effects in space to discredit gravitic force but fails to realise that such effects discredit the laws he\'s keeping, in his intro. From Dave Ruske\'s dialogs with him, having bought the book, it seems his theory is that things shift size rather than push and pull. The geometric relations are upheld the same, so who should care? When I was half my age, because of the equivalence principle I wondered whether gravity was caused by everything blowing up in size, holding us to the ground. But then Earth would engulf everything else here... Oh, he tries to unify the interactions by making G different for different interactions... like I haven\'t heard that before. Oh, something else, he complained that waves don\'t exist because he doesn\'t notice two laser pointer beams destructively interfere, even though the wavelength is about 700 nm and he would be hard pressed to set up and see any extensive darkened regions. Even if he did, he could further claim that interference is still caused by particles as composite particles that behave like waves, like he did elsewhere... so his objection is a red herring, or should I say a red speckle. The FAQ stays fraudulent.

[Edited on 17,Thu.02,Feb.2005 by lysdexia]

[nmondal]

If we all know that guy is a moron..why we are talking about him anyway....instead we should better be present physics in the better layman-understandable way... else these guys will make half the race insane....

:P

:grin:

[lysdexia]

Originally posted by nmondal
If we all know that guy is a moron..why we are talking about him anyway....instead we should better be present physics in the better layman-understandable way... else these guys will make half the race insane....


There are many kinds of fools, one whereof knowing there are other fools yet not knowing that oneself is one. We can\'t educate and correct by running away or shaking our head.