The Final Theory

[Phi for All]

i never trust experiments because thy can be somehow false where hypothes give you a very good estimate.

You have it backwards, actually. Hypotheses are often skewed by a desire to have them proven, but true scientific experimentation shows whether a hypothesis is true or false.

[swansont]

first what do you mean by light being a constant for all inertial observers? and another as i had said before time is not a vector or dimnesion ( ill assume there similar) time is just a way to measure things, time only exists because of being alive we can understand how long things happen because we can percieve it to happen longer or not without lving beings time is nothing in the universe. and just because im 14 doesnt mean im incorrect and also even if people study the theory of relativity for hundreds of years. yes i understand i could be wrong but to me i fell as though im right and until i get very strong evidence im right in my head.

 

Sorry, but feeling as though something is true isn't a valid measure.

 

You aren't incorrect because you are 14. It's that you haven't been exposed to much of the physics and the many, many experiments that have been conducted and would demonstrate that you are incorrect because you are only 14.

 

Relativity in not intuitive for most people. The speed of light is a constant for all inertial observers - anybody who measures c will get the same answer, regardless of whether we are stationary with respect to each other or moving at some constant velocity. One of the ramifications of that is that the measurement of time itself depends on motion.

[gamefreek_01]

so your saying that even if i was traveling faster then the speed of light wihle measruing it will still measure as the speed of light, that makes no sense. your wrong with that if i measure the speed of light while moving if i was mvonig say 30 miles an hours there would be a differemce yet not a large one compared to how fast light is.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No.

 

If you were to be going 500 mph, and you turned on a flashlight, the light would shoot ahead at the speed of light relative to you. To an observer, it would appear to go the speed of light relative to them. So it appears to go slightly different speeds (with you it is going ahead at c, but you are going 500 mph as well).

 

I know it's confusing.

[gamefreek_01]

thats exactly what im saying, the difference in speed would make it appear that the light is going faster by 500 mph if you were on the train i think, yes and if the person not moving would emit the light then it would appear to be going slower.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No. It always appears to be going at c, or the speed of light in a vacuum, relative to you, no matter how fast you are going.

 

If an observer watches the guy going 500 mph, the light does not appear to go at c+500, it only goes at c exactly.

[swansont]

so your saying that even if i was traveling faster then the speed of light wihle measruing it will still measure as the speed of light, that makes no sense. your wrong with that if i measure the speed of light while moving if i was mvonig say 30 miles an hours there would be a differemce yet not a large one compared to how fast light is.

 

You can't travel faster than the speed of light.

 

At any speed you move you will measure the speed of light to be c - all observers will agree on this. What they won't agree on is the frequency (or wavelength) - that shifts depending on the motion.

[gamefreek_01]

lol first of all when i mean to say that it "appears" to go faster i mean that it would seem to but only because of the extra speed of the person or the light source adn second yes anything can go faster then the speed of light its just that the speed is so great that its hard to make soemthing go that fast

[Ophiolite]

Gamefreek. Please refer to the post before yours. When Swansont makes a statement relating to basic physics you can be pretty confident of its scientific accuracy.

Nothing can go faster than light. Nothing.

The speed of light, in a vacuum, is a constant. Its speed measured relative to each observer remains fixed, regardless of how fast those observers are moving relative to each other.

A huge chunk of modern physics and much of cosmology is based on this simple fact.

[swansont]

lol first of all when i mean to say that it "appears" to go faster i mean that it would seem to but only because of the extra speed of the person or the light source adn second yes anything can go faster then the speed of light its just that the speed is so great that its hard to make soemthing go that fast

 

We can give subatomic particles billions or trillions of electron volts of energy, and yet they still do not exceed c. Interestingly (or not, really, at this point) their speed exactly follows what is predicted by the theory of relativity - even doubling the energy only incrementally increases the speed, which is asymptotic to c.

[myeditorial]

In science, how many theories are there to claim something as a final theroy?

In the best of my experience in teaching and research in biophysical chemistry, I know science has only one theory.

Rest of them are not theories. They are just either methodologies or observations.

Even many of my collegues suffer with the problem of projecting everything as a theory!

[Ophiolite]

In science' date=' how many theories are there to claim something as a final theroy?

In the best of my experience in teaching and research in biophysical chemistry, I know science has only one theory.

Rest of them are not theories. They are just either methodologies or observations.

Even many of my collegues suffer with the problem of projecting everything as a theory![/quote']

Define a theory please.

[bascule]

Sorry to drag this thread out of the muck, but I certainly have a bone to pick with this Mark McCutcheon character. As an aspiring author myself, I really hate to see him bilking money out of people with what is clearly utter nonsense.

 

My favorite from his "science flaws" section was this:

 

Q: But don't we know all about the gravity of Black

Holes and how even light can't escape?

 

A: No. This often-repeated error is based on a simple oversight.

Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear

energy and collapses. But starlight only shines from intact,

functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to

expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out,

smashed light bulb. This is a commonly repeated error in

plain view that is intended to showcase and dramatize our

scientists' deep understanding of Black Holes and gravity, but

which actually exposes how little they truly understand about

either.

 

When clearly the "simple oversight" he is making is having never seen a photograph of a black hole, showing a dark swirl-like region surrounded by light from nearby stars or other celestial features...

 

As for all the positive reviews he's received on Amazon, one can note that the majority of these reviews were from reviewers who reviewed only his book and gave it five stars. My guess would be that these are fake reviews designed to increase his book's ratings. As for the others, such as the Top 500 Reviewers, my guess would be their reviews were commissioned for a fee, or perhaps they're so genuinely disillusioned as to buy into his "theory".

 

Personally I think some people with a clue about science need to hop on there and thoroughly discredit his book in the reviews, so a gullible individual isn't tricked into believing there's actually something there.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I tried to discredit him, but my review didn't get through. I guess I was a bit too scathing.

[Newtonian]

Until a century ago physicists believed the universe was filled with a type of ether.As light travelled in a wave it would require something to move through.Its been thoroughly rubbished for over 100years....yet just recently experiments are being conducted on the premise those views could be wrong.

Ive noticed many here offer ridicule of this book without even showing us that they have the basic understanding of what he is trying to convey.Simply stating that its ''clearly utter nonsense'' or "i was a bit too scathing" doesnt quite cut it as an informative opinion.I would if possible like to read your review Cap'n Refsmmat.I like your posts so look forward to reading it.

[swansont]

Until a century ago physicists believed the universe was filled with a type of ether.As light travelled in a wave it would require something to move through.Its been thoroughly rubbished for over 100years....yet just recently experiments are being conducted on the premise those views could be wrong.

 

That's a little misleading. The ether of 100+ years ago is not a valid model, as it dealt with a preferred reference frame. However, the idea that physical space is "nothing" isn't right, either. In the investigation into the properties of physical space some people use the term "ether" which is unfortunate, since it is not implying a preferred rest frame. The new ether is not the same as the old ether.

[Newtonian]

Agreed.The intention was to remove some peoples blinkers and irrelevent comments.The final theory is in fact a very old hypothesis with added glitter,im sure you know the subject matter.However its apparent others dont know exactly what their trying to discredit with daft remarks.

[bascule]

Simply stating that its ''clearly utter nonsense'' or "i was a bit too scathing" doesnt quite cut it as an informative opinion.

 

I might remind you that we're not the ones claiming Planck, Schrodinger, Einstein, Hawking, and Witten are "wrong", and that all the experimental confirmation of both quantum and relativity is "wrong". He claims no big bang but can't explain the cosmic microwave background. He claims quantum entanglement is nonsense but can't explain the delayed choice quantum eraser. He claims relativity is nonsense but can't explain why the velocity of light appears constant.

 

No, I haven't read his book, but after reading his "science flaws" section I have no inclination to shell out $30 for his obvious scam.

[Newtonian]

Dont hide behind famous peoples skirts,regardless of his claims(which you dont know as you have not read the book)how can you dismiss a subject that you dont know.Science progresses its inevitable,clearly saying 'utter nonsense'!

isnt meritable.Attack his points scientifically !

We could argue or agree over scientific data,but we cannot debate 'utter nonsence'.

 

Ps Im not standing up for the book per se only your approach.(yes ive read it)

[swansont]

Dont hide behind famous peoples skirts' date='regardless of his claims(which you dont know as you have not read the book)how can you dismiss a subject that you dont know.Science progresses its inevitable,clearly saying 'utter nonsense'!

isnt meritable.Attack his points scientifically !

We could argue or agree over scientific data,but we cannot debate 'utter nonsence'.

 

Ps Im not standing up for the book per se only your approach.(yes ive read it)[/quote']

 

OK, let's look at starlight only shines from intact, functioning stars, of course.

 

This is wrong. Blackbodies emit light, and the spectrum is related to the temperature.

 

A lot of modern-era physics is counterintuitive. It's easy to point to much of QM and relativity, laugh, and say "this is preposterous." And if you have a little charisma or flair, the scientifically ignorant will agree with you. That's not science, though. That's selling snake oil. (And it's also why creationism plays so well among a particular audience.)

[Newtonian]

Can i ask you a question swansont.I will Pm you.

[Sayonara]

Dont hide behind famous peoples skirts

He quite clearly didn't.

[bascule]

regardless of his claims(which you dont know as you have not read the book)

 

No, I have not read the book, but I have read the "science flaws" page, which demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of classical mechanics/orbital mechanics, relativity, and quantum. How can you begin to debunk the accumulated scientific efforts of all of mankind if you don't even understand them yourself?

 

When he dismisses relativity, he doesn't provide any mechanism for explaining the behavior of light which greatly influenced Einstein's development of special relativity in the first place: the velocity of light is the same in every reference frame. Move 20km/s towards the photons whose velocity you're measuring and you don't get c - 20km/s, you get c. Move 1000000km/s away from the photons whose velocity you're measuring and you don't get c - 1000000km/s, you get c.

 

This is very easily explained by time dilation in relativity, as your relative velocity changes so does your time dilation, therefore so does your conception of a "second" and thus the benchmark by which you evaluate the velocity of light has been altered.

 

Until he can explain this behavior of light otherwise, he can't dismiss relativity.

[Christ slave]

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.

 

No' date=' because stress is caused by energy. If hooks are hanging on a cliff, the dummy itself is utilizing some sort of gravtional energy--lest it be a rocket and shoot off into space. Its atoms are comprised, like our physical bodies, of the dust of the earth. To simply suggest that because your soul occupies that dust, that gives you the right to deny the dust as being of the earth and its being here, by which it has become entangled in the frictionous web called earth. There is a force of energy, and it's called stress, friction, and gravity...although I myself am attempting to detangle gravity and rewrite what it is and how it works.

 

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.

 

I disagree, because I believe physics are echoed...whereby you can equate different elements to that of other elements (i.e. a sea of water, a sea of air, a sea of dirt, etc.).

 

To drop an object through the earth, it would depend on the states of the object to how far it would fall. For instance, a helium balloon wouldn't be happy with it and would go to its rightful, frictionous place up in the sky. Likewise, the earth itself is no sluggard. It isn't going to simply allow any old thing to fall into the center...why? Because, I simply doubt it's possible to put a hole inside the planet. If you did, the entire planet would combust like a balloon, or a bubble. Air would seep in where it isn't meant to go, and the earth would, like a cracked piece of glass, become a fragile balloon and bust...it would explode...and, furthermore, if you were to drop some lighter elements into the core, they too would most likely make the earth explode.

 

I believe this is physically correct, and if you'd like to join the debate on the revision of gravity and rethinking of the cellestial bodies (I equate them to bubbles, and galaxies to that of drains or hurricanes in a sea of darkness), you can visit this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10253

 

(edit: Okay, so perhaps it's possible to put a hole in the planet, but don't be surprised when halfway or so down you cause the planet to explode)

[Phi for All]

I myself am attempting to detangle gravity and rewrite what it is and how it works.

Good luck with that.

I disagree, because I believe physics are echoed...whereby you can equate different elements to that of other elements (i.e. a sea of water, a sea of air, a sea of dirt, etc.).

Can you make this sentence a bit clearer?

An object dropped down a tube to the centre of the earth would stop at the centre as the gravity sums to zero there.

Because' date=' I simply doubt it's possible to put a hole inside the planet.[/quote']His hypothesis presupposes a tube through the earth for the purposes of his gravity example. You're disagreeing with his hypothesis because his supposition doesn't suit you.