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