The Final Theory Again?

theone · Sep 27, 2007

I read the famous physics book named THE FINAL THEORY, it was the best book i have ever read without errors for me but is the expansion theory right i mean if its right then why are they still teaching quantum mechanics and standard theories in institutions so can any one help me

vogon13 · Sep 27, 2007

Welcome to Spacedotcom. Nice run on sentence by the way. Are all the punctuation keys OK on your computer ?? (I did see one comma, but by itself, it couldn't really do much.) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Have a nice day ! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

brellis · Sep 27, 2007

The FINAL SENTENCE <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> j/k Welcome to SDC I have nothing further to add not even any punctuation <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

enigma10 · Sep 28, 2007

Welcome to SDC. In refference to the book you read, the beginning of all the flawed logic is contained within the title itself. Good luck!<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

witgenestone · Sep 28, 2007

Probably because their not in agreement. Congratulations with your 23rd post. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Is it this book: Amazon Link ?

adrenalynn · Sep 28, 2007

What I think Enigma was alluding to was the title "Final Theory" being oxymornic. It's not possible to have a "Final Theory". They contradict each other. No theory is every final. If it were final, it'd be a Law, not a Theory. The work is largely full of such contradition and fluff. It's worth reading, just like much of the off-the-wall stuff is: It's a perspective worth questioning. But when the proverbial rubber hits the road, Quantum Mechanics (QM) gets real work done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 28, 2007

The book (and the theories contained within) are not peer-reviewed. His ideas are simplistic, only impressive to people with little scientific background knowledge. His views are unsupportable when compared to our observations, a little like some of the "I have a theory" threads you'll read in phenomena. This work is very similar to "expanding earth" theories, he applies expansion at the atomic scale, but with a very large rate. His theory is explicitly based on only atoms expanding, not space itself. He does ask a few interesting questions in this book, but his answers are unsupported by our observations. (I got this from reading reviews) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

theone · Sep 28, 2007

I have read the answers to my question, but first i don't give a thing about the two guys complaining about my punctuation and for the other guys thanks for the replies and if only you guys tell one good reason about a flaw or error in his book (theory) Thanks again guys

theone · Sep 28, 2007

The author of the book is not saying it is the final theory either because he says it may be a pathway to other useful theories

SpeedFreek · Sep 28, 2007

From a professor of theoretical physics at Harvard University... "Physicists do not know everything yet; this is why we struggle with string theory and other directions so much. But we definitely know enough to say that this book is not right." The book argues that general and special relativity are wrong, when we test them every day and have yet to find them wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 28, 2007

"Physicists do not know everything yet; this is why we struggle with string theory and other directions so much. But we definitely know enough to say that this book is not right." Indeed. That is applicable to so much speculation in the field of astronomy and astrophysics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

ashish27 · Sep 28, 2007

haven't read the book so can't comment. but there are many trash books with trash ideas just for making a kill at retail customers.

SpeedFreek · Sep 28, 2007

Science is about furthering human knowledge. Scientists publish their ideas in journals (and on arXiv.org) for other scientists to review, they share (and often argue about) their ideas, in order that others might test them. People who write books about alternative theories that haven't been peer-reviewed seem to be more interested in making money out of their novel idea, than submitting it freely into the pool of ideas for others to review and test. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

theone · Sep 28, 2007

I am not saying that the theory is indeed the final theory or whatever, but it is somehow very reasonable, for example in book author states a good reason for gravity behaviour with any unknown mysterious force pulling everything like Newton says, but instead it does show a good path without any mysterious force pulling everything. It says that every atom in universe is expanding so this is the cause of gravity. I hope that somebody would tell me a good reason why this theory is not a good theory in respect to standard theory. PS(English is not my primary or mother language so sorry for any inconvenience)

theone · Sep 28, 2007

I think Newtonian gravity also violates law of conservation of energy

witgenestone · Sep 29, 2007

Is this guy a physicist?

brellis · Sep 29, 2007

It's Borat <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 29, 2007

I hope that somebody would tell me a good reason why this theory is not a good theory in respect to standard theory. The book argues that general and special relativity are wrong, when we test them every day and have yet to find them wrong. We have too many observations that confirm GR and SR, to dismss them. GR and SR are confirmed by all the experiments done at particle accelerators like CERN, and are confirmed by the need to adjust the internal clocks of our GPS satellites because time dilation. So, if every atom in the universe is expanding, but space is not, like the author states, why do the relative distances between objects that are orbiting another object not decrease? If the Earth and the Moon are getting larger, but space isnt, someday they will touch each other. Is that correct? For the Earth to be expanding enough to "push against our feet", wouldn't that imply that it grows rather quickly? But if space doesn't grow too, surely things will soon start bumping into each other? How does the Moon stay at the same apparent distance from us, if both the Earth and Moon are expanding, but space is not? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Sep 29, 2007

Is this the same "everything expands" theory that bonzelite used to champion ? If so then I think you, I and everything else is supposed to expand along with the planets and stars and such. This in turn would lead to an apparent "gravitational" effect which depends on an objects geometry and/or orientation wrt the planet or body it's on. I made a diagram to illustrate this but alas that'll be poofed now. In any case we don't observe taller objects apparently falliong faster than less tall ones, so the theory needs work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

dragon04 · Sep 29, 2007

The book argues that general and special relativity are wrong, when we test them every day and have yet to find them wrong. I'm more inclined to believe that general and special Relativity are approximations of a larger theory just as we can use Newtonian physics to describe things that travel at velocities significantly less than luminal. As applied to what we know, they certainly are not wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

derekmcd · Sep 29, 2007

"Is this the same "everything expands" theory that bonzelite used to champion?" I had fun with that one <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 29, 2007

I'm more inclined to believe that general and special Relativity are approximations of a larger theory just as we can use Newtonian physics to describe things that travel at velocities significantly less than luminal. As applied to what we know, they certainly are not wrong. Yes of course, I hope I didn't make it sound like I think GR and SR are the "final theory" or anything! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

yevaud · Sep 29, 2007

Yeah, Bonz had some tenacity about defending it; until unanswerable questions arose, such as how to explain Gravitational Lensing via an "Expanding Universe." I recollect he just waved the issue away, de nada, it's nothing. But yeah, it was fun. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Sep 29, 2007

But yeah, it was fun. I thought I was backing him into a corner with a simple effect his theory should manifest, an effect I think he couldn't deny nor say was being observed. Alas he was "piked" shortly thereafter IIRC. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

yevaud · Sep 29, 2007

Past experience here shows the debate could have gone on for a decade, and nothing resolved. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

The Final Theory Again?

theone

Guest

vogon13

Guest

brellis

Guest

enigma10

Guest

witgenestone

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

theone

Guest

theone

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

ashish27

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

theone

Guest

theone

Guest

witgenestone

Guest

brellis

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

dragon04

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page