Hmmmm

[Daveyboy]

I've just been told of a book called "final theory" by Marl McCutcheon. Has anybody heard of or read this book. Does the book stand up.

 

http://www.thefinaltheory.com

[Lance]

Has a book disproving science ever 'stood up"?

[Daveyboy]

Has a book disproving science ever 'stood up"?

 

 

True.

[Lance]

By the way I think theres another thread somwhere about that book. Or at least it was mentioned somwhere else. Try doing a few searches.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Whats it about. Disproving science sounds a bit weird.

[Daveyboy]

By the way I think theres another thread somwhere about that book. Or at least it was mentioned somwhere else. Try doing a few searches.

 

cheers, will do

[atinymonkey]

I think someone was going to invite the author onto the site to discuss his book at one point.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4584

[Daveyboy]

I think someone was going to invite the author onto the site to discuss his book at one point.

 

 

Didn't happen i guess. What a surprise.

[Daveyboy]

[url']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4584[/url]

 

 

cheers. That clears that up then.

One thing though. I was reading his website. Can anyone ecplain this to me??

 

Q: How can freezing water expand, even bursting

metal pipes, with no energy input to explain it?

 

A: According to today's science, this is impossible. As we

all know, every energy output requires a balancing energy input

to remain within our laws of physics. A balloon left in the sun

will expand and burst, in the process doing work against the

surrounding atmosphere as well as its elastic skin, but this is

balanced by the energy input from the sun, so it is no mystery.

However, freezing water has no energy input. In fact, it has just

the opposite of an energy input -- energy is continually drained

from the water as it cools toward freezing. So, how does the

water suddenly expand with such force from within that it easily

bursts metal pipes? No scientifically viable answers to this

mystery can be found from today's scientists -- only confused

explanation attempts that crumble under logical scrutiny.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, cold water has LOST energy, and where does that energy go?

[LucidDreamer]

cheers. That clears that up then.

One thing though. I was reading his website. Can anyone ecplain this to me??

 

Q: How can freezing water expand' date=' even bursting

metal pipes, with no energy input to explain it?

 

A: According to today's science, this is impossible. As we

all know, every energy output requires a balancing energy input

to remain within our laws of physics. A balloon left in the sun

will expand and burst, in the process doing work against the

surrounding atmosphere as well as its elastic skin, but this is

balanced by the energy input from the sun, so it is no mystery.

However, freezing water has no energy input. In fact, it has just

the opposite of an energy input -- energy is continually drained

from the water as it cools toward freezing. So, how does the

water suddenly expand with such force from within that it easily

bursts metal pipes? No scientifically viable answers to this

mystery can be found from today's scientists -- only confused

explanation attempts that crumble under logical scrutiny.[/quote']

This is complete bull. The balloon expands because the air molecules are excited by the sun. I could also create an experiment where I had a balloon with a heated stone suspended by a string in the balloon. When the stone has sufficiently heated the gas of the balloon it will explode. In this case I have added heat into the balloon that results in expansion.

 

When water is frozen it will expand because solid water has more volume than liquid water because of internal interactions of water molecules. The pipes burst when the frozen water expands. The water expands because it freezes and it freezes because there is a heat flow from the water to the surrounding air. The water freezing is a favorable reaction because there is a loss of heat energy from the water. There is still a change in energy even if it is flowing in the opposite direction. Water is just a weird substance because its solid state has greater volume than its liquid state. But this doesn’t defy any principles of science.

[badchad]

I agree with lucid. There's an energy transfer SOMEWHERE. This would be easier to observe in a smaller "system". Put the pipe filled with water in a freezer. It's easy to see that the freezer had to input energy to cool the water. Same principle, but on a larger scale.

[AL]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I don't find any of these explanations to be very satisfactory and I've been wondering about this for some time now (and I'm dying for closure on it!). Anyone else want to take a stab at the question of what type of energy freezing water is using to perform work (in this particular case, displacing a pipe by bursting through it?)

 

I agree with lucid. There's an energy transfer SOMEWHERE. This would be easier to observe in a smaller "system". Put the pipe filled with water in a freezer. It's easy to see that the freezer had to input energy to cool the water. Same principle, but on a larger scale.

What you say is true, there is an input of energy somewhere in the system, but this only tells us that this phenomenon doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. It doesn't tell us what type of energy is being used by the water molecules themselves -- the water is losing thermal energy and there appears to be no input of energy of any kind into the water. Are you claiming that the dissipated thermal energy is what is being used to break the pipe? Thermal energy is one of the most useless forms of energy in terms of performing work so I find this highly doubtful. Perhaps it has something to do with chemical energy of water's hydrogen bonds? But I don't see how that would work.

[swansont]

Sorry to bump an old thread' date=' but I don't find any of these explanations to be very satisfactory and I've been wondering about this for some time now (and I'm dying for closure on it!). Anyone else want to take a stab at the question of what type of energy freezing water is using to perform work (in this particular case, displacing a pipe by bursting through it?)

 

 

What you say is true, there is an input of energy somewhere in the system, but this only tells us that this phenomenon doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. It doesn't tell us what type of energy is being used by the water molecules themselves -- the water is losing thermal energy and there appears to be no input of energy of any kind into the water. Are you claiming that the dissipated thermal energy is what is being used to break the pipe? Thermal energy is one of the most useless forms of energy in terms of performing work so I find this highly doubtful. Perhaps it has something to do with chemical energy of water's hydrogen bonds? But I don't see how that would work.[/quote']

 

Does the water have more or less energy when it's frozen than when it's liquid?

 

Given the answer to that, why do you think conservation of energy violated by this process?

 

Does a broken pipe have more or less entropy than an unbroken one?

[AL]

What I wanted to know was specifically what type of energy the water is using to perform work on the pipe.

 

When something gets colder, it simply transfers its thermal energy into its surroundings, so when the water freezes, the work being performed by the thermal energy is used to "heat" the molecules of its surroundings. Clearly, this is not what causes the pipe to burst. What's causing it to burst appears to be the mechanical force of expanding water pushing on the pipe. How does this work though? Does the thermal energy transform into mechanical energy? But how can it do that while simultaneously spreading heat to neighboring molecules?

 

I suspect it has something to do with the energy in water's hydrogen bonds, but I don't see how that would work out. I've already asked a physics professor and a chemistry professor, and they're both stumped on this one.

[Mispelled]

When the water loses energy, the chemical forces (hydrogen bonds in this case) become strong enough to keep the molecules from bumping all around. This forces them to settle into a crystal lattice where each O atom has two H atoms from other molecules next to it. This takes up more space than if the molecules were more randomly scattered, as in liquid state. I found some good pictures here: http://www.iapws.org/faq1/freeze.htm

So, to answer your question, it is the hydrogen bonding that causes the expansion.

[MetaFrizzics]

There is definitely more required than just the Conservation of Momentum/Energy.

 

For instance, similar processes occur when various gases and liquids change phases.

 

You need a more detailed balance sheet to explain where the energy and application of it came from which burst the pipe. However, there actually are in fact mechanisms to account for the energy. For instance, an almost infinite amount of energy can be stored in rotational motion (angular momentum) without significantly affecting the average translational speed of a molecule (until there are are collisions). A flywheel operates on a similar principle, storing energy which is available later for useful work.

 

When molecules are 'frozen' into solids and stuck like magnets onto crystals, certain kinds of energy storage are no longer available, like rotational energy, and other forms of energy storage are restricted, like vibrational energies in covalent bonds. On average, diatomic molecules and molecules like water (H20) can store both rotational and vibrational energy when in liquid or gas form. These modes of motion are no longer available when the molecules become trapped as solids, and so the energy has to go somewhere. It is transferred through collision and Electromagnetic field exchanges to the container and the remaining gas/liquid.

[Daecon]

The heat energy from the water is transferred into the kinetic energy that breaks the pipes.

[Severian]

This book seems to be the usual bullshit ramblings of someone who doesn't understand any science whatsoever. How can these people get published? Never ceases to amaze....

 

One example of extreme stupidity (I assume I don't have to explain to this audience why it is extreme stupidity):

 

As we all know, 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. This is the result predicted by both Newton's and

Einstein's theories of gravity, yet this belief clearly violates our

most elementary laws of physics as well as common sense.

There is no claim of a draining power source, nor even any

mention of a power source at all to drive this process. Despite

detailed atomic theories and even having split the atom we

have never identified a gravitational power source.

 

lol

 

 

On a more serious note, I think it is appalling that Amazon should stock this. Maybe I should send them a letter....

[insane_alien]

i always wonder why they are in the popular science section and not the comedy or humour sections.

[MetaFrizzics]

Mark McCutcheon is a comedian and scientist. His book is a spoof.

He has money to burn on these amusing projects of his.

[Severian]

Mark McCutcheon is a comedian and scientist. His book is a spoof.

He has money to burn on these amusing projects of his.

 

that is certainly not apparent from his website, or indeed the Amazon reviews. His readers seem to take hime seriously, just look at this:

 

http://homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html

[swansont]

This book seems to be the usual bullshit ramblings of someone who doesn't understand any science whatsoever. How can these people get published? Never ceases to amaze....

 

...

 

On a more serious note' date=' I think it is appalling that Amazon should stock this. Maybe I should send them a letter....[/quote']

 

 

Publishing is about what sells, not about what's good. One of the current bestsellers is a book that claim that sunscreen causes cancer and other fantastic things. The guy used to sell coral as a cure for cancer and has been banned from selling any health products because he's such a scam artist. Now he has the book...