• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

The Final Theory Again?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theone

Guest
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
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Welcome to Spacedotcom.<br /><br />Nice run on sentence by the way. Are all the punctuation keys OK on your computer ??<br /><br />(I did see one comma, but by itself, it couldn't really do much.)<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Have a nice day !<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
B

brellis

Guest
The FINAL SENTENCE <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> j/k<br /><br />Welcome to SDC<br /><br />I have nothing further to add<br /><br />not even any punctuation <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>
 
E

enigma10

Guest
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"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>
 
W

witgenestone

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

adrenalynn

Guest
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But when the proverbial rubber hits the road, Quantum Mechanics (QM) gets real work done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
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.<br /><br />He does ask a few interesting questions in this book, but his answers are unsupported by our observations.<br /><br />(I got this from reading reviews)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
T

theone

Guest
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)<br />Thanks again guys
 
T

theone

Guest
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
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
From a professor of theoretical physics at Harvard University...<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />The book argues that general and special relativity are wrong, when we test them every day and have yet to find them wrong. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
"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." <br /><br />Indeed. That is applicable to so much speculation in the field of astronomy and astrophysics.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

ashish27

Guest
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.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
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.<br /><br />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"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
T

theone

Guest
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.<br />It says that every atom in universe is expanding so this is the cause of gravity.<br />I hope that somebody would tell me a good reason why this theory is not a good theory in respect to standard theory.<br /><br />PS(English is not my primary or mother language so sorry for any inconvenience)
 
T

theone

Guest
I think Newtonian gravity also violates law of conservation of energy
 
B

brellis

Guest
It's Borat <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<font color="yellow">I hope that somebody would tell me a good reason why this theory is not a good theory in respect to standard theory.</font><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
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"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
<font color="yellow">The book argues that general and special relativity are wrong, when we test them every day and have yet to find them wrong.</font><br /><br />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.<br /><br />As applied to what we know, they certainly are not wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
"<i>Is this the same "everything expands" theory that bonzelite used to champion?</i>"<br /><br />I had fun with that one <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<i><font color="yellow">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.<br /><br />As applied to what we know, they certainly are not wrong.</font></i><br /><br />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"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
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.<br /><br />But yeah, it was fun. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<font color="yellow">But yeah, it was fun.</font><br /><br />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"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Past experience here shows the debate could have gone on for a decade, and nothing resolved. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY