Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 http://www.thefinaltheory.com This was advertised in the ad at the top of a page around here, so I thought I would take a look. Apparently this guy has a theory about how the universe works and how all science is wrong. Then he takes the physicsforums thread about it and gives that as proof, stating that all they are doing is argue over it. So I thought I would run the idea past the people here, to see what we'd all say. If possible, someone could get the author to register here and put up a defense. In a minute or so I'll start working on a debunking of his theory, but I'll do that separately so you all can start yours sooner. note: this goes along with my interesting discussion thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Isn't this the guy that with the book though. Without his book, how can I tell what he's talking about? I'll look through some of the site later. See what that has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 As we all know' date=' perpetual motion machines are impossible,and claims of such devices are a clear sign of bad science. No device (or natural phenomenon) can operate endlessly without draining a power source, and certainly no device can operate without a power source at all. Yet, our science states that an object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would oscillate back and forth endlessly from one end of the planet to the other.[/quote'] Perpetual motion machines have to produce more energy then they use. They are defined as producing useful energy "from nowhere", not just running forever. They have to do something. Also, with air in that tunnel, there would be drag, and the object would slow down. If you pumped the air out, you would still have to put energy in to keep air from seeping in. Atoms of oxygen and nitrogen could seep through the walls, thus ruining the device. When all else fails' date=' we are told not to worry about thegravitational power source because gravity never does any work throughout the universe.... . Yet, as we all know, it certainly takes energy to push a heavy boulder even if it doesn't move or to hold an object in our hands even though it isn't moving. But in today's science, since the Work Function states that work = force x distance, no movement means zero distance and therefore zero work, apparently resolving the issue. All physicists will repeat this same flawed logical justification attempt when asked about the power source for gravity, and will refuse to discuss the matter further since this is all they were ever told by their instructors.[/quote'] Have you asked all the physicists in the world about this? Anyways, you really are putting that energy somewhere. You may not move the rock, but you are pushing yourself backwards, as well as sliding along the ground creating heat from friction. But I'm not a physicist, so I'll let someone like Swansont answer that. fridge magnets are impossible according totoday's science. As we all know' date=' it takes tremendous energy to cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge magnet is not glued to the fridge -- it is held by magnetic energy. And, as both our science and our common sense tell us, such an expenditure of energy requires that a power source be drawn upon to support this effort. [/quote'] No. Not really. Gravity is not doing anything. This is like saying that gravity is pulling on desks, so where do the desks get the energy to resist it? Or even a string attached to the ceiling. It doesn't need energy to do that, since it is doing absolutely nothing. The magnet is not using any energy by moving around or fluttering around certain people's empty heads. Q: Light slows as it passes through water or glass' date=' causing it to bend, but how can it return to light-speed on its own once it exits? A: This is impossible in today's science. No object in nature can speed up of its own accord after being slowed.[/quote'] No it isn't. Light doesn't really slow down. It is just delayed, in a sense. It is absorbed into an atom. Then the atom spits out the energy it aquired in the form of another photon. Why does the photon go right out the other side, not squirting out one side or going right back? The same reason that a row a pool balls hit on one side will cause the other to be launched out the other side. A pool ball to the left of the ball you hit isn't even moved a millimeter (if you hit the ball perfectly straight). Even Einstein’s own theory shows this is impossible!As shown above in the Twin Paradox explanation' date=' Einstein's Special Relativity Theory has a logical flaw, initially appearing to predict such effects, but a closer examination shows that they should not occur. We could consider either the airplane or the Earth below to be in motion since everything is relative, giving totally opposite results.[/quote'] All that matters is that they are going at different absolute speeds. The airplane might be going in the direction of the earths orbit, causing the plane to be moving faster relative to the earth, and the clock to slow. Or it may be vice versa. Note thatalthough it is commonly stated that atomic clocks operate by reading the inner oscillations of individual atoms' date=' in actuality they are very cumbersome, delicate instruments that operate on the external properties of clouds of atoms as they are accelerated and irradiated by various fields. One could imagine many ways in which the delicate machinery of an atomic clock might be affected by a variety of environmental influences that might occur on an airplane flight. [/quote'] They are operated by measuring the vibrations of cesium atoms stimulated by microwaves. Turbulence will not change how fast it vibrates. Yet' date=' a simple experiment crossing 2 light-beams from common laser pointers shows that it is impossible for light to vanish into thin air simply because 2 beams are mis- aligned (out of phase). In fact, it is a violation of the Law Of Conservation Of Energy to even expect this to occur.[/quote'] They are not perfectly out of phase in your "experiment." One beam's peak/crest has to be directly over the other's trough. And also, it is not a violation of the law of conservation of energy. The negative part of one wave simply cancels out the positive of the other. Negative + positive=nothing. No doubt they would gladly fix all these glaring problems if they had the proper understanding' date=' but they don’t.[/quote'] Are you saying experts in their fields are stupid, compared to you, who the only person that appeared on a google search of your name was a hockey player? Yeah, right. What gets me is how many people believe this. note: I'm not an expert in this, so I may be wrong. But this is what I believe. And can someone e-mail him to get him to see this so he can defend himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 He's just a SFA looking for people to buy his book. He seems to be using clips of his book to prompt this sort of reaction, as it generates publicity and sales of his book. You can mail him at markm @thefinaltheory.com to to see if he's interested in discussion, so long as you don't say you represent scienceforums.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadianpoet Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 I have come across this man's work before. In my opinion he is an ignorant moron who has a very very limited understanding of the most basic principles of science!! My neighbour’s 5 year old knows more science than he does. He's just out to make money trying to make gullible people buy his book and start disbelieving all the hard working scientists and engineers who do real science!!! We should try and boycott him! It would be interesting if he did come on here and defend or back up all his outlandish theories!! See what he has to say for himself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Well he blatently won't, because then he'd lose all credibility. As long as he can ignore the questions that will disprove him and modify others to suit his needs, then he'll keep selling books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Q: How do heavy objects rest on a table without its molecules giving way, collapsing the table? A: Science has no viable explanation for this today. This mystery is similar to the mystery of the fridge magnet. Atomic bonds are said to result from electromagnetic energy attracting and holding atoms together. Yet, there is no denying that tremendous ongoing energy expenditure is required to hold the structure of a table together under the weight of a heavy object. Where does this energy come from? How quickly does this subatomic power source drain as it expends all this energy? Today's science has no explanation for this everyday occurrence, so such questions are never discussed. What happened to Electromagnetism being multitudes stronger than gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Answering his questions, starting with a correction with one of your answers: Perpetual motion machines have to produce more energy then they use. They are defined as producing useful energy "from nowhere", not just running forever. They have to do something. Also, with air in that tunnel, there would be drag, and the object would slow down. If you pumped the air out, you would still have to put energy in to keep air from seeping in. Atoms of oxygen and nitrogen could seep through the walls, thus ruining the device. Incorrect, sort of. There will be drag even in a perfect vacuum, from the quantum fuzz and background microwave radiation. The next one... Force isn't work. The next one... Force isn't work. The next one... It's the propogation speed. It's nothing to do with the light accelerating or decelerating. The next one... The Twin Paradox is NOT A PARADOX. Furthermore, he's ignoring the effect of acceleration, both in moving the plane, and due to gravity. The next one... I've no idea what this is supposed to MEAN. The next one... It's just like talking to a creationist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonfraz Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 first one: An object dropped down a tube to the centre of the earth would stop at the centre as the gravity sums to zero there. second one: In the boulder pushing analogy there is loads of work done. The boulder may not move but your muscles will contract and your tendons will stretch etc. This is all movement in the direction of the force and hence the value for work will not be zero. thrid one: It only takes effort for us to hang from a cliff because we have to keep our muscles tensed and out of their relaxed state. A crash test dummy with hooks for fingers could hang indefintely without using any energy. fourth part: Light is a wave not an object. Newtonian mechanics dont apply to waves. He wants them to. fifth part: don't know anything about that one sixth one: I think its reasonable to suggest that this guy has no idea how atomic clocks actually work or how they are built seventh one: don't know anything about that one His final comment: This guy is an idiot, but dont underestimate the power of the stupid. Look at George Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 At least this guy isn't President Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsatan Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Q: How do heavy objects rest on a table without its molecules giving way' date=' collapsing the table? A: Science has no viable explanation for this today. This mystery is similar to the mystery of the fridge magnet. Atomic bonds are said to result from electromagnetic energy attracting and holding atoms together. Yet, there is no denying that tremendous ongoing energy expenditure is required to hold the structure of a table together under the weight of a heavy object. Where does this energy come from? How quickly does this subatomic power source drain as it expends all this energy? Today's science has no explanation for this everyday occurrence, so such questions are never discussed. Hes the type of person that would claim the world if flat if he lived in the old days, loll. What happened to Electromagnetism being multitudes stronger than gravity?[/quote'] The table will bend (slightly) changing its vectors to equal the force of the heavy object, its the same as having a load of magnets end to end to make a rod, bend this rod it will bend but will with a push force, then move back to its rest state. The guy has a website (another I'll fidn it again) with an email addy, I emailed him as he said the reason for gravity was that everything was expanding, and that gravity doesnt excist. and different size oblect (more matter) expaned faster making more gravity, my simple answer this this is why are all object still the same size relative to each other, if something is getting bigger at a faster rate that something else it will get bigger, he didnt email back, (one to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kotake Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 He just doesn't understand it himself, and makes a public worriment out of it. Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake. He says so himself: Given our lack of understanding of so much in nature today' date='we have no choice but to invent theories and refine -- or even hammer -- them into experimental agreement.[/quote'] I am quite astounded at how people honour his book so much in the reviews at amazon.com. They say that people who don't like the theory are close minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 I don't have a problem with close-minded people if it means they ignore hogwash like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reverse Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Hey have you guys heard of two sub atomic particles the act in unison after they have been produced? No matter how far apart they are?? They seem to not follow the rules of normal physics, not follow the old intensity drops off as to the square of the distance thing. If something like that can be true then surely everything else is up for grabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 The book the final theory is good reading,however its nothing new. Its basically expansion theory wearing a mask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHARDBATTY Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 This guy sounds as looney as me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Hey have you guys heard of two sub atomic particles the act in unison after they have been produced? No matter how far apart they are?? They seem to not follow the rules of normal physics' date=' not follow the old intensity drops off as to the square of the distance thing. If something like that can be true then surely everything else is up for grabs.[/quote'] It's called quantum entanglement, and there are several threads on it. Use the search feature. It doesn't follow the rules of normal physics. It does, however, obey the laws of quantum mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 i would like to defend mark because me and him share similar views on these topics. so first of all a have to say if something fel through the earth it would move back and forth down the hole through the earth till the gravity slows down the object to a halt in the core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 Gravity wouldn't slow it down. Friction would. If there was no friction, then it would keep going forever. Example: The gravity accelerates you to 500 kilometers per hour as you reach the center. As you went out the other way, it would slow you down exactly that much when you got to the opening. Then you'd fall backwards again, repeating the process. Also: Who is "mark"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathby Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 "Mark" may also be henceforth called the Idiot Author. I'm surprised its a bestseller, considering its also only available on the internet, with no publicity surrounding his name as that google search revealed Most bestsellers would be known to a fair few people, the bestseller's name is usually general knowledge. I only went through the chapter summary, then looked through th PDF but found none of his equations for a real physicist to ridicule. How odd I would also like to add that hanging off a cliff by your fingertips doesn't rely on electrostatic force but on friction... which would mostly be dependent on gravity anyway - weight of your fingers on the cliff (+friction itself) vs weight of your body down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 lol mark is the author of the book we were arguing about. yuor right but thats not a very applicable thing its not like its going to happne or would need to be understood at alll but i see yuo are right, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 to thing with the table, all the author is saying is that all particles in the universe like molecules stay together endlessly with no visible power sorce to hold them together this is the main flaw of every. If yuo wonder to speculate on how this could go on yuo could say that the particles would be linked together in chains stukc together, thats what i thikn gravity andm agnetism is , although there might be one problem those particles that make up gravity and magnetism must be held to gether by sometihng, as yuo get small and smaller yuo have to keep explaining the force with particles stuck together in chains so the only way this endless explaination would be the only force in nature that only relies on other particles to push the particles together called pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 sry for my large amonuts of spelling mistakes i tend to make mistakes when i type fast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 But those are not using energy. They are not performing any work at all. You need motion for work. Read Jakiri's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 the particles that create the pressure are preforming owrk to keep the particles stuck together whcih in turn holds everything together resisting the other forces agaisnt the whole object Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now