"Fatal Flaw In Science" - Or is it fatal flaws in this guy's science?

kryters
kryters's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
"Fatal Flaw In Science" - Or is it fatal flaws in this guy's science?

I live in Scotland and I'm doing Advanced Higher courses in Chemistry and Physics. I say this because I'm on my 13th year of formal education. I've been doing Physics for the past 6 years starting from a very basic level. I came across an advert for this website: http://www.thefinaltheory.com/homepage.html

It worried me because I thought I understood physics. At first thought, I knew this guy was nuts. However, I can't take this guy's theories on. Einstein and Newton would be turning in their graves.

Here's a taster from the "Fatal Science Flaws" page:

<quote>

Q: What is gravity?

A: The answer cannot be found in today's theories.
Newton only claimed that gravity was an attracting force
between all objects because that's the way things appear
--
objects fall to the Earth or approach each other when floating
in outer space. So Newton understandably claimed that it
must be some type of attracting force emanating from objects,
but he gave no scientific explanation for this force. Why does
it attract and not repel? How does it cause falling objects and
orbiting planets without drawing on any known power source?

Einstein was so dissatisfied with our lack of understanding
about gravity even two centuries after Newton that he invented
an entirely new theory of gravity, known as General Relativity.
Yet this theory doesn’t solve these problems either, adding
that since everything in 3-dimensional space takes time to
occur we must include our time measurement as a literal 4th
physical dimension of our universe’s structure -- hence
"4-D space-time", which somehow warps 4-dimensionally in
the presence of matter for still-unexplained reasons,
presumably explaining gravity.

In addition to the increase in unanswered questions with
General Relativity, it has been found to completely fail even to
explain the motion of stars in galaxies. This has led to the
further invention of exotic "Dark Matter", said to invisibly fill
galaxies, rather than questioning Einstein’s theory and the
often-repeated claim that it has been tested to extreme
accuracy. Add to this the fact that there are still a half-dozen
theories of gravity officially under consideration at the
moment, all with different physical description of gravity,
and it is no wonder many are still asking: "What is gravity?"

From "Nailing Down Gravity", Discover Magazine, Oct 2003:

For Michael Martin Nieto, a theoretical physicist at Los
Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the mystery
involves much more than a few hunks of spacefaring
hardware; it reveals that there might be something wrong
with our understanding of gravity, the most pervasive
force in the universe. "We don't know anything," he says.
"Everything about gravity is mysterious"

==> To learn what gravity truly is, see Chapter 2
where a new and totally overlooked atomic
principle is revealed!

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 clear oversight.
Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear
energy and physically 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 is truly understood about
either
.

Q: How can scientists be so mystified by gravity
yet also claim to explain it?

A: This is a basic conflict in our science. It is the function
of our educational institutions to teach the beliefs of the day
and to stand by them no matter what. This often means
justifying or defending theories that are actually indefensible
upon any serious close inspection. Take a good look at these
examples of fatally flawed explanations related to gravity in
plain view, which are commonly taught as correct in physics
classes around the world today:

1) Gravitational Perpetual Motion:

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 expend energy
without draining a power source, and certainly cannot operate
with no power source at all. Yet our science states that an
object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would be
accelerated
to the center by gravity, then decelerated as it
approached the other end, only to be accelerated
down again,
over and over – endlessly
. Even our most elementary physics
states that it takes energy expenditure from a known power
source to accelerate and decelerate objects, yet there is no
power source in site here, let alone a draining one. Despite
detailed atomic theories and even having split the atom,
science has never identified a gravitational power source.
This describes an actively operating mechanism that never
ends and never drains a power source – an impossible
perpetual motion scenario, according to today’s physics.

2) The Work formula:

When all else fails, we are told not to worry about the
gravitational power source because gravity never does any

work throughout the universe. According to today’s science,
all of the gravity-driven dynamics in our universe occur without
any work being done, therefore there is no reason to expect
energy expenditure from any power source – no power is
required for any of it. We are told that objects are pinned
forcefully and continually to the planet by gravity, but since
they just sit there, even though forcefully pinned down, no
energy source is required to explain this. How can such a claim
be justified? Simple – ignore the physical gravitational energy
expenditure and recast it as a formal Work scenario. Why does
this suddenly seem to solve such a deep physical problem?
Because the formal definition of Work in physics is: (force
applied) x (distance moved). Note: this is not
the form of
work that we all relate to, where expending energy is
doing
work. Instead, Work, by definition, ignores all energy expended
unless it happens to move something. While this formal Work
definition does calculate the energy expended to move objects
it will also obviously give a zero result whenever an applied
force cannot move an object, such as when we push on a wall
or when gravity pulls on an object that is already on the ground.
Of course this does not mean no energy was expended, but
simply that the Work equation was only designed to deal with
a very limited energy scenario where the applied force happens
to move something. It is an extremely grievous elementary
abuse of physics to borrow the formal Work formula and
misapply it to a scenario where no motion exists just to claim
that the "zero work" result means no energy source is required
to forcefully pin objects to the ground. Part of the reason this
explanation has been allowed to slide for so long is because
this very limited Work definition has the same name as the
actual concept of energy-driven work that we are familiar with.
So when an authority figure presents a formal "Work" equation
from a physics textbook and does a calculation that gives a
"zero work" result, apparently resolving enormous questions
about gravity in our science, it is difficult to resist the "no work,
no energy" assurance from a teacher, which everyone else
seems ok with, never to seriously question it again. And so it
goes, generation after generation, leading to the current mess
we have over common gravity in our science today.

Even the forceful constraining of the moon in its orbit is said to
require no energy, since the Work equation is also defined to
give zero when an object moves perpendicular to the applied
force. So the fact that gravity pulls downward on the passing
moon is said to free science from acknowledging the enormous
energy that must be required to constrain the moon in orbit.
Not only is this just as grievous and elementary an error as
shown above for all the same reasons, but it further mistakes
the motion of the passing moon as pertinent to the calculation.
In actuality, the moon already had a pre-existing coasting
motion past the planet that has nothing to do with gravity’s
pull. It is the continual motion of the moon downward due to
the downward pull of gravity that keeps its coasting constrained
to circle the planet rather than proceeding off into deep space.
Once the thinly veiled "zero work" excuses are removed, it is
clear to see that none of today’s gravity theories can answer
even the simplest physical questions about gravity, which is
why the Work equation diversion technique is used over and
over in classrooms around the world when such questions
arise, since the only alternative is to admit "I don’t know"
.

==> All of these issues are resolved in Chapter 2

Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity
endlessly without draining a power source?
A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to
today's science.
It certainly 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 clings endlessly to the fridge by magnetic energy.
And, as both our science and our experience tell us, such
an expenditure of energy requires that a power source be
drawn upon to support such effort. Yet a permanent magnet
not only maintains its strength indefinitely (no theory or text-
book shows the power drain characteristics of a permanent
magnet as it clings against the pull of gravity), but there isn’t
even a power source in sight! Endless magnetic energy
apparently emanates from permanent magnets without
any explanation in our science. The only explanation that any
physicist will give for this mystery is that there is no mystery
since the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if
you plug this into the Work equation – a severely flawed

diversionary tactic that was exposed above. No physicist will
acknowledge the error of applying the Work equation to deny
the ongoing magnetic energy expenditure, nor agree that a
power source is required to cling energetically against gravity.

This excerpt from an article on magnetism in Discover
Magazine, Dec. 2002, further makes this point:

Moreover, asking that question [why some non-metallic
objects are magnetic] inevitably lets you in on a surprising
secret: Physicists are also a little fuzzy about those bits of
iron alloy attached to your refrigerator. "Only a few people
understand -- or think they understand -- how a permanent
magnet works," says Makarova [a Russian physicist
working at Umea University in Sweden]. "The magnet of
everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a quantum-
mechanics thing ... I'm just working as an engineer, trying
to find out where the magnetism comes from
."

==> These mysteries and law violations are
resolved in Chapter 4, where a totally
overlooked and misunderstood subatomic
principle is revealed!</quote>

 

Could somebody do some explaining, or has this guy got a point?

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
kryters wrote:  Yet our

kryters wrote:

 Yet our science states that an
object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would be
accelerated
to the center by gravity, then decelerated as it
approached the other end, only to be accelerated
down again,
over and over – endlessly

 

 

I did a question like this in my analytic mechancis class. It does indeed oscillate.

 

 

Quote:

How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity
endlessly without draining a power source? 

  The materials in both the fridge and the magnetic are what is called 'Feromagnetic' which means that it is affected by a magnetic field. There are three elements: Nickel, Iron, and fuck...Tungsten(?).

 

Anyway, if you run a strong enough current through the material, it will hold it's magnetic charge permantly due to the re-arrangement of the atoms. No extra energy is drawn from per se, but it is jsut a new arrangement of the atoms.

 

 


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Well couple of things   1)

Well couple of things

 

1) If you are asking these questions at 18 you have an extremely good future as a scientist

2) How the various forces interact which each other is as far as I know unknown and is what the world's greatest minds are working on

3) Gravity and other forces are meant to be due to the swapping of fundamental particles which is way beyond what I did at university (Leicester) may moons ago. A lot of it is theoretical and we have a long way to go in understanding it

4) While humanity knowledge is far from complete our science does allow accurate predictions of how things will work in the future something on theologian/farieyologist can ever make 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Another note: Newton's

Another note: Newton's gravity didn't explain why the planets attract etc...

 

Einstien solved it with his famous theory. That the planets warp space-time ergo cause the planets to come towards each other.

 

Also, they exchange elementry particles known as 'gravitrons' which could extend and hecne dilute to higher dimensions explaining why gravity is so weak compared to the other three forces (Strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic.)  

 

The LHC collider will be looking for KK particles which would dilute into other dimensions, taking energy away from this one, ergo the missing energy from collisions could conform the presence of higher dimensions. 


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh my... A couple of years

Oh my... A couple of years ago (when I was an idiot) I bought the book "Final Theory" written by a guy called Mark Mc. Cutcheon (or whatever his name was). I actually thought he was right in his theories, and I thought he had invented the "final theory". Until I began to understand how much his "theory" sucked. It's supposed to be simple and fix some flaws in the standard theory, however it only dumps an only slightly flawed model, replacing it with a new, unproven model that has even more flaws. The "final theory" is so simple, it's just ridiculous. But hell, what would you expect from an electrical engineer.

However, I have to say that some things he says about "flaws" in modern science sound reasonable. I know I may change my mind about this when I learn more about physics. Even though his new theory is awful.

I can't really comment on the science flaws addressed on this post and the book "Final Theory". I don't know enough about physics to do so.

EDIT:

Oh, by the way. I want to briefly explain the simplicity of the universe as in "The Final Theory":

 The universe is a whole bunch of balls that are expanding.

That's it. According to Mark Mc. Cutcheon, that is ALL WE NEED to explain EVERYTHING in the universe. Gravity, light, magnetism, matter, everything. The balls are actually electrons that group together, forming photons, protons, and all other particles. I'm not sure whether the electrons are expanding at an accelerating or decelerating rate, because Mc. Cutcheon contradicted his claims in the book.

The theory also contradicts itself a number of times, but that's another story. 

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


In6Days
Theist
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
Similar to kryters(I

Similar to kryters(I think), I am a freshman in college, studying physics.

In reference to the "Science Flaws" that are presented, some are reasonable, and some are not.

Quote:
What is gravity?

Granted, the true source of gravity is unknown as of yet. However, that does not mean that Newton and Einstein are incorrect. Both Newton's and Einstein's theories assume that, though we do not understand it, we know that objects are attracted to one another as a function of their mass. Both of these theories make preditions about how objects should interact. We have observed many times the predictions of these theories confirmed.

Second, Einstein was not dissatisfied with Newton's theory. Relativity is simply a more accurate mathematical description of gravity. It is more mathematically difficult, and Newton's theory is a very close approximation of what happens at low speeds(much less that the speed of light), therefore it is still useful for most explorations of mechanics.

Third, with reference to the idea that dark matter is invented to hold up the theory of relativity, this is ridiculous. Granted, I think that dark matter is a purely made up construct. However, it was devised to explain superclusters. It has nothing to do with propping up relativity.

Quote:
But don't we know all about the gravity of Black
Holes and how even light can't escape?

We have never actually seen a Black Hole. However, the action of Black Holes can be predicted by the tested theory of relativity. This comes from the fact that light can be affected by gravity. We know that if Black Holes could form, their mass would be so great that not even light could escape their gravitational pull.

Quote:
How can scientists be so mystified by gravity
yet also claim to explain it?

1. Gravitational Perpetual Motion

Perpetual motion is existing only in theory, however, if one could find a perfect vacuum, a massive ball with a hole in the center, and somthing to drop through it, it would oscillate back and forth. Perpetual motion is prohibited because friction occurs. Even very small amounts of matter can cause loss of energy and thus lack of perpetual motion. If we could cut a hole through the Earth, and drop a ball through, it would eventually stop in the center, due to loss of energy.

2. The Work-Energy Thereom

The Work-Energy Thereom has nothing to do with this. His claim that an energy source is required for forces to work is false. Energy is required on a macroscopic level when not dealing with gravity. That is because we want to move things in areas where we must overcome friction. This requires an addition of energy that is noticable, due to the loss of energy to heat and sound from friction. So a constant addition of energy is required to maintain motion. The idea that forces require power sources comes froma very superficial understanding of physics, learning only about elementary mechanics.

Quote:
How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity
endlessly without draining a power source?

I believe that I have sufficiently answered this in the previous answer. However, I will apply the above explanation to this situation. The magnititude of the force of gravity is smaller than the magnitude of the electromagnetic force. Therefore the magnet will stay attached to the refrigerator.  No power source is needed for these forces.


TomJ
atheist
TomJ's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Gravity is a conservative field

In physics, gravity is known as a conservative field. This means that whatever energy you put into it, you will get all of it back. The ball oscillating forever is just an example of kenetic energy being converted to gravitational potential energy and back to kenetic energy over and over again. ZOMG!!! Perpetual motion! Not quite.

One thing that can not be avoided is that each atom is gravatationally (and often electrically) attracted to every other atom. As the ball moves past the walls of the hole it is traveling through, it will disturb every atom it passes by, giving up a little energy. This energy loss is known colloquially as friction. Eventually all the energy will be lost by this mechanism and converted into heat energy along the length of the hole. When all the energy is lost it will come to rest at the center of mass of the Earth. So much for perpetual motion.

Oh, and the fridge magnet situation. How does the author explain how a screw or nail keeps a picture in a wall. By his logic, any fastener would need a battery or external power source in order to cling to a wall.

The magnet is doing no work, it is not moving, so it is not using any energy. One has to think of Newton's third law: For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Another way to say this is that forces come in pairs. The magnet exerts a force attracting the fridge, and when it comes in contact, the fridge exerts a normal force on the magnet. Gravity is also tugging on both the magnet and the fridge, but friction is keeping the magnet from sliding down. The sum of the forces adds to zero. No work is being done. No energy required.

If gravity were strong enough to overcome the friction, then the magnet would slide down. You can try this at home by getting a magnet that has a paper clamp attached to it. Clip a heavy weight to the magnet and watch it scratch up the surface of your fridge. If your parents ask, tell them Gravity and Friction did it.

Remember how you figured out there is no Santa? Well, their god is just like Santa. They just haven’t figured out he’s not real yet.


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
TomJ wrote: The magnet is

TomJ wrote:

The magnet is doing no work, it is not moving, so it is not using any energy. One has to think of Newton's third law: For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Another way to say this is that forces come in pairs. The magnet exerts a force attracting the fridge, and when it comes in contact, the fridge exerts a normal force on the magnet. Gravity is also tugging on both the magnet and the fridge, but friction is keeping the magnet from sliding down. The sum of the forces adds to zero. No work is being done. No energy required.

As I said, I own the book where this "fallacy" of fridge magnets is explained. According to Mr. Mc Cutcheon, all atoms in the universe are expanding. Therefore, we experience gravity on earth because the earth is expanding away from the center. Actually fridge magnets aren't a problem to the standard theory, but they are a problem in Mc. Cutcheon's "final theory". Because the magnet and the fridge are moving upwards, an energy source is required to keep the magnet in place.

He basically first says that magnets are impossible in our standard theory because it contradicts HIS new theory. What a stupid logic. Also, he fails to explain why atoms are expanding at an accelerating rate without having an energy source. He answered this by saying that the mechanism that causes atoms to expand is not part of the physics of our universe, so it doesn't have to obey the law of conservation of energy. I wonder why this couldn't apply to modern ideas of magnetism and gravity that he is so much trying to debunk?

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
In6Days wrote:We have

In6Days wrote:

We have never actually seen a Black Hole. However, the action of Black Holes can be predicted by the tested theory of relativity.

Closest Black Hole to Earth Discovered

14 January 2000

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v4641_microquasar_000114.html

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
As a physics graduate I can

As a physics graduate I can safely say that it is this guys science that is flawed. Some of his answers to the suposed questions are really terribly flawed anyone with a physics degree (Or even plenty of people without one to be honest) would be able to pick apart his reasoning. The chap has clearly failed to understand some fairly basic principles. It looks like he is one of those idiots who is too stupid to realise his own stupidity.

I note that the moron has a degree in electrical engineering and phsyics and has taken and elective in quantum theory and special relativity. Nice one Mark - well done thats really impressive. So it would seem he has had an introductory undergrad study of quantum theory and didn't even stuy Einsteins proper general theory of reletivity (special relativity is generally covered in the first year of a phsyics degree, before one moves on to the real meat of general relativity). All good physics degrees will also have Quantum theory as a core subject with multiple courses in it over the 3 years. For my joint honors in Physics and Philosophy I think I did about 6 modules in quantum theory, one every semester, and they where not elective they wher compulsory. Without wishing to sound like too much of a academic snob I also note that he fails to cite which university he got his degree from. If it was from Scunthorpe Poly or some other such bastion of intellectual excellance I think we can safely say we understand why he is so confused.

 


In6Days
Theist
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Closest Black Hole

Quote:

Closest Black Hole to Earth Discovered

14 January 2000

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v4641_microquasar_000114.html


Granted. One can consider this "seeing" a black hole. I do not. But W/E.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Based on this list from

Based on this list from "Fatal Science Flaws" I have to say this guy is not worth listening to. There are numerous errors and plain bad explanations throughout. I don't have time to be exhaustive, but here is one example.

Quote:

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 clear oversight.
Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear
energy and physically 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 is truly understood about
either
.

Black holes are not called black because they give off no more light. It's because, according to relativity, any mass above a certain density will have an escape velocity that exceeds the speed of light. Light goes in but it doesn't come out. The idea is that black holes cannot emit anything since nothing travels faster than light and the escape velocity of a black hole exceeds that amount.

Hawking introduced the idea of Hawking radiation showing that blak holes might emit energy due to the effect of gravity on the quantum foam near the event horizon. This is purely theoretical though and has not been demonstrated in any way.

And one more point. Einstein's theory of gravity is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Newton's. The idea, which I hear fairly often, that relativity subsumes the gravitational force is completely wrong. Newton's says gravity is a force with a certain diminishing strength proportional to distance from the source mass. Einstein's says that gravity is due to the warpage of spacetime caused by mass. If one of these theories is right, the other is wrong.

The interesting part is that the results of calculations using both theories match to a high degree of accuracy in near-static reference-frames. But I think this says more about what math can do than about what is really going on with gravity. And this is why I reject the idea that science does, can or even should be expected to tell us about what is really going on.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
In6Days wrote:Granted. One

In6Days wrote:

Granted. One can consider this "seeing" a black hole. I do not. But W/E.

If by "seeing" you mean seeing with the unaided human eye then no.  However we can still detect them, measure them, and track them.

By that definition humans have also never seen a bacterium as they are too small to see with the unaided human eye.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
evil religion wrote:

evil religion wrote:

It looks like he is one of those idiots who is too stupid to realise his own stupidity.

I think not. I believe he understands the flaws of his theory and reasoning. At some point, The Final Theory -book has been a best seller, so there's no point in admitting he's wrong. He makes a lot of money with the book.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Larty wrote: evil religion

Larty wrote:
evil religion wrote:

It looks like he is one of those idiots who is too stupid to realise his own stupidity.

I think not. I believe he understands the flaws of his theory and reasoning. At some point, The Final Theory -book has been a best seller, so there's no point in admitting he's wrong. He makes a lot of money with the book.

This is, of course, the other possability he is just a bullshit artist making some coin out of people gullible enough to buy his bullshit book.