"The Final Theory".

Have a great new article on a science related topic? Post it here!
Locked
JohnFP

"The Final Theory".

Post by JohnFP »

I just received a book I ordered entitled "The Final Theory".

Has anyone read it?

You can read the first chapter here.
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html
DJ Mathson

"The Final Theory".

Post by DJ Mathson »

I have not read the book, but to me it looks like pseudoscience.
Here you have a link to 85 pages of forum posts discussing the book:
http://hypography.com/forums/books-movi ... heory.html
JohnFP

"The Final Theory".

Post by JohnFP »

Pseudoscience? LOL! How can you put a label on a book without reading it?

Ok, I have not finished the book yet, and can't wait to get to the Subatomic and Light parts. But...

A few points I will underline in what I have read so far is. What is gravity? How can something exert a force on another mass but never run out of that energy? Or that energy never gets dimished? Doesn't that violate the law of conservation of energy? Scientists are trying to find Gravitrons, and other particles that may have this unlimited supply of energy that never runs out and travels faster then the speed of light. If the sun were to disappear instantly it would take minutes for us to see the light stop, but the gravity we feel from the sun would instantaneously stop. That means the energy used to hold the earth in orbit, this gravity thingy, would have to travel faster then the speed of light to stop instantaneously. Didn't Einstein stay nothing can travel faster then the speed of light? Newton added exceptions to his laws and Einstein came up with his deformation of Space Time to answer some of these questions.

Also, by some freak of nature light acts as a particle or a wave depending on how it is studdies.

Doesn't a warping of space time and the fact that there is no unified theory of light sound more like Pseudoscience, then a theory that answers all questions logically and straight forward.

It takes an open mind to come up with or even accept new theories. Newton did it, Einstein did it.

I will post some thoughts when I get to the light and subatomic parts. That indeed will be fun reading if nothing else. I have a feeling this guy is right on though. So far every unanswered question has been answered by his theory. Very imaginitive if nothing else. And it can be visually (cognitively) seen. WOW!
Dutchelm05

"The Final Theory".

Post by Dutchelm05 »

Sounds like a good read John,
When you get to the part as to why you drop a piece of toast it always lands on the buttered side down, please let us know :)
Brian Greene, of The Elegant Universe is a great book as well, that's if you don't mind a multi-dimensional universe :roll:
JohnFP

"The Final Theory".

Post by JohnFP »

LOL.

I hope I did not come off too strong on my reply to DJ. I love reading this stuff.

I may check that out Tony.

I have read the Holographic Universe and am currenly reading "The Fingerprints of the Gods" at the same time "The Final Theory".
DJ Mathson

"The Final Theory".

Post by DJ Mathson »

Pseudoscience may be too strong a word since I haven´t read the book, but still this seems to be a flawed idea. I think it is strange that someone claims to be able to give us an explanation to all phenomena in the world, and to be able to dismiss all previous theories by great physicists, but only if we buy his book... He doesn´t let us know in a single place on his website what the book is about and that he is presenting an expansion theory. All he says is that all previous theories are flawed, and if you buy his book he will let you know of a theory that isn´t.
JohnFP wrote:How can you put a label on a book without reading it?
By reading what is on the webpage for the book and what other people are writing about it. Read the post exchange I linked to above. Here is a discussion with the author. http://homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html
JohnFP wrote:If the sun were to disappear instantly it would take minutes for us to see the light stop, but the gravity we feel from the sun would instantaneously stop.
To my knowledge this is not considered to be true. Gravity is believed to propagate with the speed of light. If the sun would vanish, we would find out 8 minutes later.
JohnFP wrote:It takes an open mind to come up with or even accept new theories. Newton did it, Einstein did it.
Yes, but that doesn´t automatically make all new ideas true. Most are not. The ideas must be internally consistent and they need to be in accordance with observational or experimental data. This is what guys like Newton and Einstein try to accomplish.

Regarding the Holographic Universe by Talbot. In the last chapter of "The Art and Science of Holography - A Tribute to Emmet Leith and Yuri Denisyuk" John Caulfield makes a harsh attack on Talbot´s book and similar books talking about holographic minds, where they use defined scientific concepts loosly or incorrectly (in this case holography) and apply them on everything of their choise.

Lastly, I too would like to recommend "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" by Brian Greene. I think his popular description of the theory of relativity is one of the best I´ve read.
JohnFP

"The Final Theory".

Post by JohnFP »

I just read the most recent link you gave me and it seems those two still don't get it because they are still stuck on the idea that an object wants to continue in a straight line unless a force acts upon it. The book explains you have to throw that idea out and the natural movement of two objects past one another is orbital because they are expanding. It was hard at first to realize this but after the second time reading that chapter, I see it. The funny thing is Einstein had a issue with gravity and the idea that objects wanted to continue in a straight line also, so he worked many years developing the warping of space-time by matter. Of which I still and no one can cognitively see. The same holds true for all quantum physics. Quantum physics takes what is observered and works backward though very complicated equations to prove what was observed. This is great until it the formula reaches an obstical. Then a new force or idea needs to be invented to allow the forumula to still work.

I have read a lot of posts on this book and it's funny, I can point out many that were posed by physists that didn't even quote what he stated in the book correctly. Thus changing the whole concept of what he said. I am not saying all physists are like that but it's just as funny to see some so unwilling to accept a radical idea that they actually manipulate the presented idea subjectively so that it does not work.

Another example it the dual nature of light. I have never believed in that and I guess that is why I long for a unified theory of understanding. I do use it and have to because with holography some time we have to think of light as a paricle and sometimes we have to think of it as a wave. The whole thought that light only knows how to act light yeas away from its source based solely on how it was observed seems to defy the most basic of physics laws. Was it traveling as both a wave and particle such that it could become either based on how it was observed. Did it know when it left it source how its life was going to end, either a particle or wave so it knew in which state to leave the source? These are not questions in his book, but mine that puzzle me.

I realize I have limited advanced math and physics knowledge but I am very logical. And some things just don't make sense. Simply to say it is so because a bunch of numbers and letters on a black board prove it's so wouldn't be so hard if it always followed the same rules. But when rule breaking compensators need to be invented at every step of the way to allow the forumulas to work in every situation, I have to believe our whole understanding and our whole path of thinking may be wrong.

I will tell you that if nothing else this book points out every question I have always had with physics. All my what's, why's and how's are in it. All my, "what do you mean I just have to accept it without it ever being proved other then a formula". It's refreshing to see I am not the only one in the universe that has these same questions.

BTW, I am at the atomic part in the book and light should be coming up very soon...Can't wait...LOL!

Anyway, I would not mind sending the book to anyone whom wants to read it after I read it a second time. That is if I can't convince my sons to read it. I am not trying to talk anyone into buying or reading the book, but I personally enjoy it.
JohnFP

"The Final Theory".

Post by JohnFP »

What really gets me is it is almost widely accepted that the universe is expanding. So why is it so hard to realize, believe, forsee... the atom may too be expanding?
Locked