The Fianl Theory

[bazbsg]

Does anyone know anything about this theory? I've read what's on his web page. It's mostly saying that everything we think we know is wrong. I'd like to read what he has to say. But I don't feel like plunking down $30 when he hasn't given enough of a clue as to what his theory is.

[piersdad]

If we try to hold these two magnets together against this repelling force our muscles will tire as we continuously expend energy, this part of the first chapter shows a misconception.

-- unless you create movement there is no energy applied-- clamp tthe two magnets together and they will stay that way forever no energy in no energy out.


leaving mysteries such as the apparently endless energy emanating from within a simple permanent magnet

duh 'energy' he means attraction

the first chapter is full of the sort of thing that the leader of some religious cult would say to convince people to believe.


"Light slows as it passes through water or glass, causing it to bend, but how can it return to light-speed on its own once it exits?"

a quote from a reader who read the book.

with out reading the book but from readers comments i would say it would be interesting but as some of his concepts are flawed it is more a religious spiel that a serious scientific advance
so whats you view

[bazbsg]

Thanks for adding the link (and getting it right even with my mispelling). I had it and meant to include it, but forgot.

I agree from reading the chapter that he sounds like he has an ax to grind more so than a theory to present. But to be fair, I guess he doesn't want to give away his secret for free. He probably thinks that bashing the current science will make people more interested to hear his theory. I don't know.

I agree with your disagreement with his understanding of energy. But it's easy to see how a lay person could be persuaded.

I have read Tom Van Flandern's book. He had an interesting theory that gravity was caused by some unknown particles pushing on masses from all directions. The reason two masses are attracted to each other "gravitationally" is because they are in each other's shadow, so the net push is towards the mass causing the shadow. The density of the particles is such that over smaller distances, gravity is what we calculate it to be, but over long distances, it drops off more quickly. Therefore, he doesn't need dark matter to explain the rotation of galaxies. Something like that. He didn't have the math in the book to prove his claims and I didn't try to check it on my own. Some of his claims sounded reasonable and some didn't, but the book was interesting.

I'm curious if the Final Theory is anything like Van Flandern's theories and if it would be an interesting read.

[StarLab]

Forget it. I've already discussed in countless other UT strings that TheFinalTheory is full of crap. Don't bother with it - it's a waste of money.

[ChromeStar]

Hey

Is the link ment to go to microsoft.com?

[piersdad]

my opinion also starlab.
the link should go to the book review but it seems broken
i just put in 'final theory' in google and it got top billing
however i will try again as ther top link had the wrong addy(im a newby but this
this link worked

[bazbsg]

TheFinalTheory is full of crap

I appreciate the judgment Starlab, but could you go the extra mile and give me a clue what it's all about? That's the information I was trying to get.

The original link was something like

Coincidentally, I was catching up on reading the articles from the emails and the final theory came up as an ad on one of the stories.

[antoniseb]

On a pretty regular basis, someone posts a question about "The Final Theory" and we all say it's junk. While I imagine that you BillB, came upon this honestly and are not shilling for the publisher, I have gone back and removed the URLs to this website, as I don't want to provide more advertising to it.

If these URL's were precious to you, I apologise.

[piersdad]

appreciate your moderating antoiseb
yes the less adverts they get the less bull they can spread

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by piersdad@Feb 20 2005, 05:27 PM
the less adverts they get the less bull they can spread
I see now that they are one of the paying advertisers for UT...
Well, I'm still keeping the forum clean.

[gavwvin]

yes- one of the google ad's at the top I got was for the final theory book! (not intentionally I know, google just dishes 'em out)

Anyway I found this bit rather amusing:

"A big-picture overview rethinking the many observations
currently attributed to Newton's gravitational force, such
as falling objects"

[bazbsg]

I have nothing to do with the publisher. If I did, I would probably be able to read the book for free and decide for myself. If you look carefully, you see that I forgot to include a link on the original post and when I explained why someone else's link was broken, I didn't use a complete and correct link; I only intend to show that the double http:// was the problem.

Two people mentioned that UT has had this topic discussed before. But I did a Google search of UT and only turned up my post. I guess all references to this have been deleted??? I've only been contributing to this site since November, so if all references were removed before then, I'd have no way of knowing. I did browse the site first to look for the answer before posting the question.

I posted an honest question about an alternative theory in a forum called Alternative Theories on a site where the participants seem to be willing to discuss any accepted or proposed (non-religious) theory. I posted my question on a site where I thought I would get an answer. Did I break any forum rule? Do alternative theories have to be proven correct before they can be discussed? I see plenty of misconceptions and incorrect statements being discussed on this site. Even if this one is also wrong or even crap, it doesn't mean I am wrong to be curious about it. I like to form my own opinions; I suspect most readers here are the same way. Unless someone takes a moment to answer my question, my only two choices are to support this "crap" theory by buying the book or to no longer be curious.

[piersdad]

when i read the introduction it was aimed at making me curious ,
and i was, till it started to repeat the same thing as is done in any spurious con.
How ever when he mentioned that bit about magnetic repulsion and if his concept of work being done and no movement then i have to put him in the seriously deluded class.
If he has built up any theory about the two quotes i mentioned befor then i have to conclude he is in the class of person that tries to make a perpetual motion engine

as i read the readers comments i saw a pattern i have seen many times befor in the replies in support of some obviously spurious device.

[Svemir]

It's easy to see for an expirienced reader that the book is about making a money.
And that guy apparently does that.
Reading first 2 chapters :
The language is quite simple but repetiting itself, all what he wanted to say could easily be written on 1 page. It's a characteristic for non-scientific books thus, it can be compered to the religous books.
Don't spend your money on the book.

[GOURDHEAD]

"Light slows as it passes through water or glass, causing it to bend, but how can it return to light-speed on its own once it exits?" Is it more accurate to describe the photons as taking a longer path through the refracting medium thus only appearing to have slowed down?

[rahuldandekar]

"If we try to hold these two magnets together against this repelling force our muscles will tire as we continuously expend energy"

This is due to our body muscles' peculiar way of waorking. They work in turns, so we will feel that we have done work even if , according to physics, we haven't.

[gavwvin]

Yes He makes a fuss about "according to current theories, when you push a bouler you do no work"- this is surely down to a difference in the definition of work. No work is done in the physics sense (W=Fs) but it is hard work in the general laymans use of the word "work".

[Hermes]

QUOTE
"Light slows as it passes through water or glass, causing it to bend, but how can it return to light-speed on its own once it exits?"


The photon gets absorbed and emitted numerous times as it traverses the
medium, hence the slow down is in fact the time taken to be absorbed and re-emitted. Every emission is at the speed of light, hence when the photon leaves the water it is travelling at the speed of light

[The Near-Sighted Astronomer]

Hey folks nice forum.

Personally I think its healthy to discuss any idea - no matter how wacky - as long as it sharpens your own understanding of the nature of a thing.



"Light slows as it passes through water or glass, causing it to bend, but how can it return to light-speed on its own once it exits?"


Here's my "alternative theory":

Light doesn't really exist as "individual photons" as it transits the vacuum of space. It moves as a "wavefront" based on the idea of propagation through the space-time continuum. "Individual photons" come into existence during an "absorption-event". This occurs when quantum factors related to electrons (shielding the nucleus of an atom) are excited as a wavefront possessed of the proper oscillatory frequency stimulates an electron to change an orbital state.

To better understand all this you might want to explore Thomas Young's "double-slit" experiment of the early 1800's. In a variant on this experiment a single photon is seen to take two separate paths as it propagates through a pair of slits and is projected against a detector - such as a phtographic plate. The resulting detection shows interference caused by a single photon on its own wavefront!

Physicists call this behavior the "collapse of the wavefunction" and it is the basis of a huge amount of speculation regarding multiple universes (believed by some honest-to-diety scientists of renown) as well as the effect the observer has on the observed (a form of "magical power exerted by human awareness)

Keep up the speculation - its healthy!

jeff

[The Near-Sighted Astronomer]

Oh Yah,

I forgot to comment on the quote:

Wavefronts are "slowed" as they pass through refractive media. Some energy is lost due to the "jostling" of atoms (this results in heat) but once they hit
the open highway of space again they are free to propagate just as though they had never been refracted.

Why? Again a wavefront is a form of propagative disturbance of the space-time continuum. Disturb the continuum and stuff propagates...

Hopefully, Fraser will let me post the article where I explain all this some time for the general public but go ahead have a sneak preview its at:

What Really Causes Refraction? (http://astro.geekjoy.com/Universe_Today/article_3262.html)

Cheers,

jeff

[bazbsg]

What are the SI units of stress? How do photons interact with spacetime and atoms and molecules to stress them?

[Svemir]

We are little bit away from "The Final Theory".
BillB, I think those are wonderful questions for "Questions and answers".

Near-sighted, I know that discussion is going on wether a photon is a wave or particle, but A. Einstein got his Nobel prize for explaining photoelectric effect assuming a photon being a particle.
Some physicist like the idea of "pilot-wave" assosiated with every particle and responsible for double-slit experiment.
(Was it single photon or single electron?)

[The Near-Sighted Astronomer]

Single photon - and now electrons as well. In fact it appears that all low mass particles are part wave. In the Sun for instance even protons have to become a wave before hydrogen nuclei can fuse - this is essential if the the weak force is to be overcome and for the strong force to kick in.

There is nothing incompatible between the photoelectric effect and light as a "stressor" moving through the ST continuum. The photolectric effect has to do with "motivating electrons" in metals to move in a circuit. There is just not enough energy (Planks constant) in a longer wavelength red wavefront compared to green or violet to crack the whip and get them doggies moving.

Meanwhile quantum effects have to do with the actually absorption of photons out of a wave state to form a particle state and stimulate electrons to jump orbitals. In this case the mechanism is entirely different. An atom must possess electrons that that can move between very spacific orbitals and that requires very specific wavelengths that key precisely to these descrete "quantum steps" up the excitation ladder.

Stressor theory applies to the bulk hammering of atoms and molecules irrespective of quantum effects. Quantum theory applies to electron excitation within atoms. This too is a form of stressor BUT it works out in a very uniquely keyed matter.

The photoelectric effect is a stressor based on increasing the number of "free electrons" in conduction zones bound to metals. The release of free electrons is caused by "battering" an atom with enough force to dislodge electrons completely. I do not believe this has to do with any specific "quantum resonation" - any avefront say less than say 650nms in wavelength will cause an increase in the number of free electrons. This increased density of free electrons causes a current to flow which can be measured using an ammeter.

In pure quantum excitation a very specific wavelength causes an electron to make a very specific jump in energy level. This is the kind of thing we see in the spectra of stars which led to the discovery of the redshift expansion of the universe. Think of this kind of excitation as being a specific key that opens a specific lock while wavefront bombardment effects the atom (or molecule) as a whole - rather like beating down the door rather than unlocking it...

I hope this makes sense. The beauty of stressor theory is that it applies to everything from "Hi Hon, how was your day at the office?" to the propagation of light through the vacuum of space.

Theory of everything? Yes and no. It explains stuff - not quantifies it - lets leave that up to the physicists and mathematicians.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by The Near-Sighted Astronomer@Feb 22 2005, 09:11 PM
Could an admistrator clean up the above text please? (Rats I should have viewed it before posting!
You can clean it up. Click the edit button.
If that doesn't work, copy and paste it to a new one, and delete the old one.

[bazbsg]

We are little bit away from "The Final Theory".
BillB, I think those are wonderful questions for "Questions and answers".


Well nobody has bothered to answer my original question anyway. I give up on getting that. As long as we have gone off topic, I might as well challenge what is being presented.