What are the science flaws in Mark McCutcheon's final theory?

[kernelpenguin]

There's this one guy, an amateur physicist by the name of Mark McCutcheon, who has written yet another one of those "theory of everything" books. The difference between this guy and most others is that he lists a lot of "science flaws" on his homepage and he takes on everything from Newton's gravity to quantum physics, often mixing and matching the two.

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/2/index.htm

That's his "Science Flaws" article. Reading that, I've come to the conclusion that he is either a very confused person or a true genius, who tries to communicate too many ideas at the same time and ends up mixing them all together.

Anyway, go read that much at least. He even debunks Einstein a few times there, offers an interesting view of the twin paradox, (I am not a physicist and I haven't even properly studied the theory of relativity, but his explanation seems very fishy and doesn't take into account the rest frame, or so it seems to me) points out a few curious things (how the four forces of nature don't seem to do any work) and even points out serious flaws in Einstein's maths.

Anyway, it's a fun read and although a large part of it seems to be bull, it made me think about a few things. So if anyone feels like pointing out his flaws, that'd be nice :)

Oh and he said he has calculated the universal constants using his theory :)

 

[Gza]

Some of it was interesting, and some of it was just garbage. I think I remember the author being on this forum a few months ago trying to promote the book, and explain his views, but he had a tough time trying to convince mostly everyone (me included). His lack of understanding of the definitions of basic concepts such as work, and how orbits work lead me to question his knowledge of physics. I believe he should have a fundamental knowledge if he is trying to refute it.

 

[Overdose]

Didnt know wu-tang members posted on here! lol

 

[Overdose]

Good link though, and i found myself nodding away to a lot of it, i liked this bit particularly...

Scientifically impossible theories that violate our common sense and our fundamental laws of physics are the hallmark of bad science and do not belong in
our scientific beliefs. There is nothing wrong with creating useful working models to help us to think about our world while we continue searching, but our legacy of working models has been mistaken for true knowledge and understanding.

 

[jazzkiller34]

His lack of understanding of the definitions of basic concepts such as work, and how orbits work lead me to question his knowledge of physics. I believe he should have a fundamental knowledge if he is trying to refute it.

i may be wrong, but i think that that is the point of his book. to try and put forth a new theory that is completely different from anything else out there. trying to debunk the author with arguments like, "well anyone who knows basic physics can see that he is wrong" is missing the point as he is saying that the basic concepts are wrong. while his theory may be the stupidest theory ever put on paper, he does make arguments that make sense to a lay person. and even theories that make sense to physicists have many flaws, so why is one more right than the other?

 

[megashawn]

I know people who debunk all of science by merely stating how poor they are at predicting the weather. Of course, then they go cook something in the microwave and watch television. But science is useless, and wrong, to certain ppl.

My expieriances have shown such are generally religous, and do not want to accept the paradox of holding there beliefs and accepting science.

 

[Gza]

i may be wrong, but i think that that is the point of his book. to try and put forth a new theory that is completely different from anything else out there. trying to debunk the author with arguments like, "well anyone who knows basic physics can see that he is wrong" is missing the point as he is saying that the basic concepts are wrong. while his theory may be the stupidest theory ever put on paper, he does make arguments that make sense to a lay person. and even theories that make sense to physicists have many flaws, so why is one more right than the other?

Creating an argument that makes sense to a layperson isn't all that difficult in my opinion. Reading the rave reviews on amazon.com about the latest book written by a physicist for the layperson that contains almost nothing but speculation, yet receives such positive press should confirm this. I have actually gotten a chance to read a chapter where he attempts to explain how objects can orbit each other under the premise of indefinate expansion, and was not at the least impressed. He couldn't seem to show exactly how it is possible for orbits to exist with his theory, so he simply swept the whole matter under the rug by attacking the work-energy theorem (since he didn't understand what the significance of work is, something you can ask any introductory physics student).

 

[mididoctors]

Anyway, it's a fun read and although a large part of it seems to be bull, it made me think about a few things. So if anyone feels like pointing out his flaws, that'd be nice :)

Oh and he said he has calculated the universal constants using his theory :)

from the website

two ideas both have the same fundamental flaw

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. As we all know, it 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 is not glued to the fridge -- it is held by magnetic
energy. And, as both our science and our common sense tell
us, such an expenditure of energy requires that a power source
be drawn upon to support this 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 holds itself or other objects against 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 at
all since the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if
you plug this into the Work Function.

edit: same goes for this

Q: How do heavy objects rest on a table without
its molecules giving way, collapsing the table?

A: Science has no viable explanation for this today. This
mystery is similar to the mystery of the fridge magnet. Atomic
bonds are said to result from electromagnetic energy attracting
and holding atoms together. Yet, there is no denying that
tremendous ongoing energy expenditure is required to hold the
structure of a table together under the weight of a heavy
object. Where does this energy come from? How quickly does
this subatomic power source drain as it expends all this
energy? Today's science has no explanation for this everyday
occurrence, so such questions are never discussed.

.


the creation of potential energy results in a single stored energy value that is relative to the 'resting state' of the system involved

this store degrades and energy is lost over time..

permanent magnets do lose there zip... thermodynamics and all that


the notion that energy is being continually created in some flow is a infinity... as the interval of creation is infinitesimal.. ie the energy is recreated every moment.. which means that an infinite amount of energy is created at any potential level..

if you claim that the potential remains constant because it is lost as it gains ie the object only retains PE by virtue of a flow then where does the energy go?

it would have to radiate it out somehow.. since this is a infinite flow all our energy requirements could be solved by placing something on a shelf and using the radiation coming of it to drive a turbine or something..

this is clearly bonkers..

so to resolve it we have this notion stuff is expanding... well that doesn't help as the energy of the collisions caused by this needs to be created as well by some unknown force never mind resolving how the rest of reality compensates for such a state of affairs... or even more perplexing if the nature of space and light etc etc expanded reciprocally it would negate the effect anyway...

the mistake is thinking that potential energy is being re-newed...

well its not its being lost..

work done in a energy field will create a potential energy that is degraded..

NOTE

the deceleration of the Earth's rotation is a transfer of energy to the moon so the energy loss is outward into the moon from the earth. the moon is spiraling out. gaining potential energy

the potential energy stored in a spring system or elastic will degrade... elastic after a while becomes inelastic... springs lose there springiness etc etc etc

the fridge magnetic will fall off the fridge if you wait long enough


ENERGY IS BEING LOST

this is why our arms tire because the bio mechanical "rest state" is piss poor compared to a shelf so the energy is lost quicker AND stress energies in our arm that make it a tool of flexibility come into play

a bow and arrow held by a arm is not efficient compared with storing the energy in a crossbow..

in classic mechanics we do not think of the crossbow re-newing the energy store moment to moment... the crossbow does not radiate energy if we store energy in it only to be re-newed the next moment by magic energy coming out of the bow/bowstring...


these people want to plunge us into the dark ages

the idea of circular motion requiring 'power" is a complete lack of basic understanding...

energy in a revolving system will continually to be there until it is degraded...friction etc... if we accept circular systems of rotation require a through put of energy the way our universe would work is truly bizarre

insisting that circular/wheel motion requires continuous power... such as orbits... is a failure to understand physics that is learned between the ages of 11 and 15 in most western societies.

the implication of such fundamental ignorance is startling and does not only demonstrate alack of knowledge but a lazy intellectualism that can not be bothered to think things through before committing them to publication under the pretense of "authority" for monertary gain

one may be forgiven for thinking that a energy flow is required to 'power' a orbit or circular motion if one was thinking about the issue from some position of ignorance... ie a human of limited knowledge.. but to then insist this was the truth of some paradox in current physics without trying to inform one self of the facts is a appalling crime..

even a human of moderate intelligence with no real understanding of physics should be able to deduce that circular motion does not necessitate continually energy inputs from everyday experience...

for instance if one pedals a bicycle and stops pedaling a universe that worked with this "energy flow" concept should require that the bike comes to an immediate infinite G(!) stop as no energy is being added to the system...

this is not the case as the bike rolls on for a while before stopping...

this is because the energy put into the system is lost though friction not some concept of renewal.. lot less friction in space compared to a bike wheel.. hmmm says average not well educated bloke let me think on that

citing orbital mechanics as an example of "physics is broke" because of this renewal concept is just so stupid it beggars belief

I wonder if the disseminators of this sort of rubbish may get sued for damaging peoples education and fraud thru the use of bogus credentials?

0/10 go straight to jail do not collect £200

Boris
london

 

[scott1]

I think I remember the author being on this forum a few months ago trying to promote the book, and explain his views, but he had a tough time trying to convince mostly everyone (me included).

Do you have a link to that theard.

 

[chinoquezada]

Ok...

This author is at best laughable... What he said about magnets and molecules is complete and utter bs (as explained above...)
Geez... this stuff is basic physics... Even things I'm acostumed to conceptualy test my students... The nerve on this guy to actually try to "debunk" such things...

 

[kirovman]

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 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.

I'm sure that's incorrect too...
the object oscillating would lose energy due to damping on each oscillation (a damping due to gravitational energy exchange), until it eventually remained at the centre of the gravitational mass.

edit: Just reading through all of them, and I'm getting irritated by the smarmy "A: This is impossible in today's science." when in fact, today's science has explanations for most of, if not all of his points.

 

[scott1]

stupid format

He has best crackpot format I ever seen
New Idea:Introduces a new idea for conserditon Key word Idea
Law:Reminder of a current law in physics in the starnder theory I wonder he means by current
Viltiation:Indicates a physical viltion in current secientfic belif He thinks he proved that he found a violtion in the laws of physics that physicsit have missed for hundreds of years
Error:Indicates a logical or mathmatical error in current secientfic belief He needs one on the cover of his own book

 

[Burnsys]

More about this book:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2972&page=8

He even put a link to physics forums in his website:

For those interested in responses to the mysteries presented
here from staunch followers of today's science paradigm --
followed by the author's response -- see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2972&page=8"
from a popular physics discussion forum.