The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy (Second Edition)

The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy (Second Edition)

by Mark C. McCutcheon

NOOK Book(eBook)

$13.00
View All Available Formats & Editions

Available on Compatible NOOK Devices and the free NOOK Apps.
WANT A NOOK?  Explore Now
LEND ME® See Details

Product Details

BN ID: 2940014972352
Publisher: Universal-Publishers
Publication date: 07/19/2012
Sold by: Barnes & Noble
Format: NOOK Book
Pages: 465
File size: 1 MB

About the Author

Mark McCutcheon is a Canadian-born Electrical Engineer and science enthusiast who has always remained keenly aware that there are many mysteries and unanswered questions in our inherited science legacy - an awareness that has culminated in The Final Theory.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy 4 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 48 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
It is true that the theories of Newton, Einstein, Bohr, etc are only models that provide a generalized mathematical description of the natural processes like gravitation, electrical/magnetic forces and others and that many of those theories are anti-intuitive and strange, the most notorious in this aspect being the Quantum Theory. They do not explain the why or the cause ¿ and indeed this is not the role of science proper. For a good philosophical overview see Quantum Philosophy, Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science by Roland Omnes. This book's basic theory is that there is only one fundamental elementary particle-the expanding electron and various groupings of electrons form the elementary particles of conventional science (quarks, protons, neutrons and all the others and their antiparticles). On this basis all the other phenomena are explained, like gravity due to expanding atoms. The elementary expanding electron ¿ a subatomic realm of the micro-world, is described in terms from the macro-world like round, bouncing, elastic, full or empty etc. This might be maybe a basis for a mediocre science-fiction book, but this is certainly no science. No wonder that not one serious scientist degraded himself to comment on this book, and the overall response in the scientific community is of total ignorance. If you even only consider this book seriously you might as well embrace the religious view of a supreme being(s) that made it all. Save your money and denote it to your nearest Church, Mosque, Synagogue or other Shrine.
Guest More than 1 year ago
In this theory the rain doesn't fall, the earth expands outwards as does all matter, doubling every 19 minutes. An interesting idea but his lack of understanding of basic physics leads one to believe it is all just fantasy. Let's look at some examples. 1. He's an electrical engineer and says all matter is composed stricly of uncharged electrons. This is pathetic if he was a chemist he would no doubt prefer the periodic table. However in neither case would he have valid license to preach physics at least not without learning some as we'll see below. 2. He says 'warp speed' is physically possible as there is no limit to light speed or anything else. He's well schooled in Startrek but not physics. He says the Michelson-Morley experiment that shows light goes the same speed longitudinally as well as laterally with the earth's rotation ignores the momentum of the earth. However it is the earth's speed that was specifically taken into account to judge if it adds to the light speed and it does not. The author does not know that the 'Lorentz length contraction factor' is not in doubt for high speeds to equate reference frames to low speeds. The only debate is whether it is Einstein's relativity with time slowing or Lorentz's actual contraction against a fixed space background (ether or now a quantum foam). Both are still popular and because the author's theory cannot account for it his theory is already falsified. He argues time can't differ at high speeds because everything is relative (known as the 'twin paradox') but there is no such symmetry during accelerations. So despite his 4 page attack on some of Einstein's calculations where he slips in a fixed speed of light 'by slight of hand' it is he who does not understand physics. Einstein is vindicated (in independently discovering the length contraction factor and originating the time dilation factor) by experimental proof, not arithmatic. 3. Nearly all of his attacks on modern physics are based on the argument that force fields contradict the law of conservation of energy. He then proceeds to declare there is no such law in describing his own theory! He also says the only proper measure of energy is kinetic. This would create more mysteries than it resolves including the conservation law which no one has been able to violate! Let's see him do it with a proper definition. 4. He completely misunderstands the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the overall increase of entropy of the universe, i.e. the 'winding down of the universe'. He says things heat up as much as they cool down and there is also continuous order/disorder cycles, such as sugar crystals forming when a water solution evapourates. However entropy is not a proper measure of disorder. The overall entropy in his example does increase when entropy is properly described as a measure of the dispersal of heat energy. 5. He says that the universe is infinite, space appears dark because our eyes are weak and the universe may be a computer. He doesn't tell us who might have built it or why there is so much randomness and redundancies. He says stars form spontaneously and there was no Big Bang but he fails to explain so many consistencies with it, such as the 2.7K degrees backgound microwave radiation, isotropy and galaxies in all directions (the true birth mechanism of stars under gravitation). He argues that all experimental evidence contrary to his theory is flawed. It's difficult to reason with a person who argues 'everyone else is wrong' and 'define everything my way!' In short beware of specialists in other fields proclaiming they have discovered new physics and publishing books with no index, glossary, footnotes or bibliography. 'Visionary' he is not though he may well be an expert in marketing (false conjectures)!
Guest More than 1 year ago
Merely stating that others are wrong as a basis for proving a theory doesn't make the theory correct, but this is what the author tries throughout this book. When questioned about flaws or deficient concepts (especially about orbits), the author merely points out in eloquent scientific sounding gobbledegook that the reader is unable to visualize the solution. It is not true that lay people embrace it and physicists reject it. I'm a lay person and reject the theory as extremely flawed from the 2nd chapter on.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Without getting verbose: Book was well writen grammatically, but the content was oversimplified and in some cases not correct. For example: the author relied on the fact of a straight line when in reality we know in nature there is no such thing. A straight line is a mathematical construct only. If we can't get past this point, how are we to deal with much more complexity?
Guest More than 1 year ago
In just 417 pages, McCutcheon makes a very ambitious attempt at taking an alternative theory and using it to describe the nature of the universe and all the particles within it. During this process, he attempts to solve some of the big unanswered questions that have arisen in previous physics. He also makes similar claims relating to flaws in previous physics, not all of which seem justified. Although Mark McCutcheon¿s Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy is a fascinating read, the ideas presented in this book do not qualify it as science but more to the nature of speculation. McCutcheon grasp of science is revealed right from the start as he remarkably fails to understand the concept of the work function. Gravity does not need a power source to spend enormous amount of energy for the earth to sustain the moon in orbit. By elementary definition, no work is done by the earth on the moon; hence it requires no power source. Then the author adopts the conservation of energy as his credo, forgetting that this law is derived from the work function, the very same concept that he had just struck down. After this elementary failure on his part, he goes on criticizing Newton¿s law of gravity, which has no validity in view of his earlier error in logic. What this book needs is a rethinking of its own ideas.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Touting his expanding electron, Mark's main objection to traditional Standard Theory physics is that the power source for gravity and other forces is not named. Does Mark name the power source that causes his electrons to expand? Absolutely not. One must just take his expanding electrons on faith to be the literal truth of the universe. I assert that this book is a spoof of physics, a parody of the TOE's floating around. A close reader will realize that it is intended as a text by a science fiction writer. This character, we'll call him Mark, presents gobs of new ideas, but none of them constitute new laws of physics. The writer of THE FINAL THEORY, preferring not to write in the first person, which would be more direct and open, constructs an inanimate character (ala Abbot's FLATLAND) he should have called Mr. Expansion Theory. Mr. E Theory has an answer for everything. Mr. E. Theory has the Pope's infallibility. The pattern that permeates his book, is, first reject current terminology, then throw in a similar term that relates to expanding electrons. Mark appeared to have labored under the foolish apprehension that if he changed the word 'gravity' to 'expanding electron' then something in the physical world would also change. Nothing did. Buy the book and find out!
Guest More than 1 year ago
The author makes a valiant attempt to argue that every physicist, from Newton through Einstein to the present, was wrong. Unfortunately, it is clear from reading a sample chapter that he is confused about basic concepts. He has confused force and energy. He claims that Newton's law of gravity violates the conservation of energy. This is incorrect, and if it were correct, how would so many thousands of physicists have missed it over the past three hundred years? These and other errors are at the pre-freshman physics level. Read this book if you want to, but a better idea is something like Feynman's ``Lectures on Physics''.
Guest More than 1 year ago
McCutcheon is quite simply, completely wrong. McCutcheon's complete lack of understanding of physical phenomena is painfully apparent as one reads through this. Much of his effort is expended attacking his own false precepts of the natural world. His chapter on gravity reveals his lack of knowledge of the true difference between Newtonian and Einstein's gravity, and his attacks on Einstein's special relativity are baseless and flat-out wrong. His 'correction' to Newton's theory is downright hilarious, and his gripes with common household electronics (ie lightbulbs) are equally ridiculous. He certainly does not understand what these more advnaced ideas (warped space-time, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity) are attempting to accomplish, and why they are needed. This represents a serious disservice to the general public, and seems to be happening at a time when really great things are happening in the physical sciences. A theory is not incorrect just because every Tom, Dick and Harry can't fully understand it. Physicists spend their entire lives studying these ideas, and if they are not readily accessible to the layman, too bad! That's not to say many don't do a fantastic job of explaining their ideas (Greene, Sagan, Hawking, Kaku). I've been studying physics for 8 years now, and the common 'myths' 'debunked' in this book were assigned as homework problems in my freshman physics class. If you are curious about what's happening in modern physics, almost any other book will provide a better service.
Guest More than 1 year ago
If you never thought physics could be funny, you haven't read this book! It starts out by rehashing the misunderstandings that amuse high school physics teachers so often, bites into Einstein's equivalence principle, then veers off into sheer goofiness. But despite the clear intention to extract laughter from a well-educated audience, the book maintains its tone throughout, taking seriously the inexplicable mysteries of, for example, refrigerator magnets. This book is sure to become a classic among the physics community.
Guest More than 1 year ago
In just a bit over 400 pages, this book sets out to reformulate modern physics. Starting with a critical look at Newton's concept of gravity, the author goes on to present an entirely different view in which gravity doesn't exist at all as a force, but as a natural consequence of ever-expanding matter. From this foundation, it rethinks much of physics and challenges our current assumptions, touching everything from the subatomic realm to galaxies. This is a bold undertaking, and a fairly well written one, at that. The book frequently pauses to point out violations and errors in conventional physics; unfortunately, many of these turn out to be a misinterpretation of physical laws and current theory. So does The Final Theory fare any better? The author seems to sincerely think so; for me, it fell on its face during an attempt to explain orbits in terms of geometric expansion. Even so, the book presents a good exercise in critical thinking, and those with a solid physics background will get some good laughs out of it.
ClintonWax on LibraryThing 22 days ago
I was worried that this book might be pseudo science but took the plunge and bought it. I have gone from one chapter to another with amazement at the theory as well as the clear consise writing as Mccutcheon takes us through a history of apparent scientific blunders which point out when and how mistakes in our current accepted science occurred, why the current theories don't fully explain underlying reasons for the theories and how they actually violate existing theories. McCucheons theories seem to work to explain these shortfailings and more. I could not find a flaw in the book after reading it 3 times. Each chapter left me more amazed than the previous and I think it is a must read for all people, layman and scientist alike. Congratulations to a very bold author - scientist who refreshingly questions everything about our existance in this universe and accepts nothing that doesn't make 100% sense. If I was to rename this book, I would call it "100% common sense science" or "Science that really makes sense". This book is a concise exploration of a totally new theory complete with sensible equations that not only seem to work, but are actually based on non magical observations. In a word "BRAVO"
BobNolin on LibraryThing 22 days ago
Interesting, this book, and not so much for what it says, especially. Here we have a book claiming to have a final, all-encompassing Theory of Everything, written by a guy with an EE degree. It is self-published. It has five-star ratings galore on Amazon, all written by folks who have never reviewed anything else on Amazon. Do some googling, and you'll find that negative reviews are quickly deleted by Amazon. All of this makes me wonder about just what is going on here: why is Amazon going out of its way to promote a self-published book? Why this book? It's all very mysterious and strange. The book itself is odd. Chapter One "debunks" Newton's theory of gravity, and reveals how little the author understands physics. (It does, however, remind me that no one really understands gravity, which is astounding, when you think about it.) Then we encounter Chapter Two, where the author presents his Big Idea, which is completely nonsensical. He offers no experimental evidence -- his "science" is all based on "common sense". I don't think he's out to make a quick buck, though I'm sure he's made a few. It's just another crackpot book by someone who feels the Establishment needs to be taken down and replaced by the will of the people. It's popularity is no doubt due to how it positions itself as an "outsider's" manifesto. It's written sort of in the Dummies style. So, if you're looking for A Final Theory for Dummies, you've found it. It's worth taking out of the library, for a few chuckles. Though it reveals more about the world of online booksellers and self-publishers than physics.
hyperpat on LibraryThing 22 days ago
There are many items published each year that claim to totally `debunk¿ established scientific theory and offer `amazing proof¿ that their pet idea is the only `real¿ answer. All too many of these items are written by people who have no scientific or mathematical training, who don¿t know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and have no idea (or desire) to test their `ideas¿. Typically these ideas are immediately rejected out of hand by established scientists, and the authors of these ideas see this as a conspiracy or some other nefarious plot to bury their ideas. This book is a considerable cut above these types of diatribes, but unfortunately does fall into some of the same traps and does not present a definitive `new answer¿. McCutcheon starts by looking at problems with current theories ¿ a very good place to start, as there are definite problems with the current state of physics theories. He correctly points out that gravity is a very poorly understood force, and that at least on the surface it seems to violate the `Law of Conservation of Energy¿. Explanations of how this force is transmitted depend on hypothetical particles that have so far not been observed. It seems to be nearly totally unrelated to the other three forces, the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces, and theories that attempt to meld all four forces can sometimes make hash out of `common sense¿. McCutcheon goes into some detail about how the current theory of gravitation was developed, and correctly points out that invoking a mysterious attractive force between astronomical bodies is not necessary to determining proper mathematical orbit descriptions. He also follows some of Einstein¿s reasoning about the equivalence of acceleration and gravity, and shows that many of the `natural¿ physical constants are, at least to some degree, arbitrary constructs of mathematical models. All very good so far, and if nothing else this type of thinking about the basic premises of our theories should be required reading for all students of science.McCutcheon now proposes an alternative explanation for what is experienced as `gravity¿, namely that all items possessing atoms are constantly expanding at an accelerating rate, which to something being `pushed¿ on by this expansion would feel like a constant downward force, while at the same time the `space¿ between objects remains constant, not expanding itself. He goes into considerable detail to show how this one item could, would properly looked at, explain a multitude of observed facts, without the problems associated with gravity as an undefined force. Here, however, he starts to run into trouble. While he gives some of the math involved (most of which does not require any more than high school algebra to understand), he does not give complete derivations for some of the most troublesome aspects of this idea: planetary orbits and the long term effects of expanding objects crowding the universe. No attempt is made to show what happens with a constantly accelerating object over a long period of time, which a quick calculation shows would quickly approach light speed and beyond, or what size the universe would have had to have been at the beginning to achieve today¿s observations, as a single atom would have grown to 100 billion light-years across in a billion years using his calculated expansion co-efficient (and remember that his theory indicates that empty space remains constant in size). These are extreme, possibly fatal flaws in his idea. Worse, McCutcheon also falls into the trap of many amateurs trying to remake the science world: he continually makes statements to the effect that scientists are brainwashed, unwilling to look at problems with their theories, and in some cases attributes deliberate hiding of problems in mathematical derivations of current theories to some of the greatest minds in the field. This is neither necessary nor conducive to getting his idea some serious attention., nor
DJStutsman on LibraryThing 22 days ago
I am astounded that I did not discover this remarkable book sooner. Though I am not really a zealous follower of theoretical science, I have always been fascinated by the possibility that a "theory of everything" might resolve some of the fundamental mysteries of our universe.For example, although our current theory of gravity is that it is simply one of the four fundamental forces in nature, it is clear that we have little understanding of the physical foundations of gravity; that is why we have all the divergent hypotheses being put forward: gravity waves, gravity particles, warping of space-time, etc. Plus, there is a good argument that the earth's gravity, as is is modeled in Newtonian terms, does in fact do real work in "pulling" objects (though this is rarely openly acknowledged), including the moon, from an otherwise straight-line motion and into a circular orbit; doing this for millions of years with no known energy source to power this work. That concern is often obscured by what seems to me a bogus use of the "work function." Where does the energy come from to divert the moon, or any orbiting object, from its straight-line momentum? And if we go with relativity theory, why do objects in space create a warping of "space-time"? Isn't that just an ad hoc theoretical position to hide the gaps of knowledge without offering any real explanatory value?This book addresses these and so many other stubborn gaps and contradictions in current theory.There is much to recommend this book. It provides a unique alternative to today's inadequate jumble of theories. It provides a theory that might well completely unify our understanding of basic physical phenomena. Although it might be argued that to call this theory the "final theory" is premature, and I agree that that is so, the claim is (to my surprise) actually plausible once you reflect carefully the ideas presented.Of course skepticism is always in order in any aspect of theory construction. But skepticism is a two edged sword. It is just as foolish to "will to believe" the status quo as it is to be a naive true believer of a new theory. Open mindedness does not mean that everything that comes along is plausible. But it does mean that new ideas are considered with sincerity and not dismissed or ridiculed simply because they are startling or because they completely overturn our current understanding. The ideas in The Final Theory are quite revolutionary and startling. But it is not surprising that an idea to make sense of what is now so mysterious would indeed to be revolutionary and startling.As with any revolutionary new theory this theory will likely be fiercely resisted by many who have invested their careers and reputations in the current array of theoretical approaches. But I believe that there will inevitably be serious consideration of this theory by very qualified scientists. It will take time before we will see much evidence of it, however. Scientists must be very cautious. They have families to support, just as the rest of us. To prematurely voice support for a theory this revolutionary will be a great risk to both aspiring and established scientists. This theory is far more fundamentally revolutionary than the new theories we see every few years in cosmology.The book is extremely well written. The concepts are carefully explained, often with the aid of helpful diagrams, so that the reader can easily grasp the concepts. I often have trouble with advanced mathematical treatments, but in this book the mathematics is tightly argued but easily comprehended even by the mathematically impaired. The author has put in a considerable effort to help the reader understand every step of the reasoning process and the evidence marshalled to support the theory.I have commuicated with the author and I am convinced of his complete sincerity and his deep thirst for understanding. He seems to be the kind of person who I most admire for his curiosity, his integrity, and his courgage.If y
userjjs on LibraryThing 22 days ago
There is widespread belief that physics has essentially figured out the universe, yet if you take a good close look, the head-scratching, arguing camps, mysteries, paradoxes, and wild theories are everywhere (witness Dark Energy, Dark Matter, 11-Dimensional Superstrings, Quantum paradoxes, Relativity mysteries, etc.). Billions of dollars have been spent constructing experiments trying to prove historical theories that are now considered fact, yet whose fatal flaws are plain to see with just a little logic and modest critical analysis, all because there was no better alternative at the time and now we're locked in and heavily invested in them. The Final Theory takes a good hard look at this legacy and clearly exposes the fundamental reasons why all this is happening -- and would probably continue endlessly without this book, while providing solid new answers that have great potential to stop this insanity in its tracks.The best way I could describe this new perspective is that it is a very far-reaching application of Einstein's equivalence principle, where the gravity we feel on the ground is indistinguishable from being continually accelerated upward in an elevator in deep space, only the theory takes this idea far more literally and goes way further than Einstein or anyone else ever took it, leading to the expansion of matter on all levels, both the atomic level and the sub-atomic level. The book is written in plain, clear and descriptive language that is accessible to everyone, with intriguing and challenging scientific discussions on nearly every page. For me this is by far the most viable and comprehensive explanation of the physical world I have ever encountered -- and ever expect to in my lifetime, frankly, which is why I treasure this find so much.The first half of the book completely re-explains common physical events such as our weight on the ground, falling objects, orbits in our solar system, as well as grander issues such as inter-stellar travel and galactic and universe structure and formation -- all according to this new principle. And all of this is done with reference to actual measurements, experiences, observations and space missions, showing a far more sensible physics than Newton's proposal of an endless unpowered attracting force or Einstein's abstract warped space-time. The second half deals with energy in all its forms (light, electricity, magnetism, sub-atomic forces, etc.) and all the implications in view of this new principle, dealing also with Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and more along the way, still with the same clarity and straightforward approach as in the first half. By the end of the book, an entirely new and fully unified scientific view of everything is fully uncovered, all based on the same singular physics principle throughout, and with a depth and breadth that has never appeared anywhere yet that I'm aware of.Judged both on its grounding in solid scientific principles and on Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest sensible explanation is usually the correct one, McCutcheon's Expansion Theory far outshines today's current theory in my opinion. If something seems needlessly, chronically and increasingly filled with mysteries, paradoxes and complexities, that is usually a strong indication that we should start looking elsewhere for answers, and this book gives a powerful new direction in which to look. Thankfully, I am now free of the same old repeated party lines I see every time I walk past the science magazine racks or see yet another documentary on our 'strange and incomprehensible universe'. Turns out it's just our odd theories that make it appear strange and incomprehensible when observations are repeatedly and singularly filtered through them and fed to us with no alternative viewpoint, hammering home the belief that our theories must be right and our universe must be a very bizzare place; yet it's actually a rather simple and beautiful place when se
PHarvey on LibraryThing 22 days ago
This book is very compelling. When I was reading it, I really wanted to believe it. After reading it, I knew I had to investigate the opinions of both physicists and non-physicists to gain a more objective view of The Final Theory. I hope I can now use my knowledge to give a fair review of the book.The reason that this book is so great (and the reason I give it 5 stars) is that it is extremely thought provoking and ambitious. The ideas in this book are a great source of inspiration for intelligent and creative people. Mark McCutcheon has made a tremendous effort and deserves a place in history, even though he has been harsh in his dismissal of previous physicists.In just 417 pages, McCutcheon makes a very ambitious attempt at taking an alternative theory and using it to describe the nature of the universe and all the particles within it. During this process, he attempts to solve some of the big unanswered questions that have arisen in previous physics. He also makes similar claims relating to flaws in previous physics, not all of which seem justified. The Final Theory is just the beginning of a possible theory of everything, and needs to be expanded on to fully explain some of the important observations that scientists have made in the past.While the majority of people will really enjoy The Final Theory, some people will be unable to accept that all of the physics they learned in school could be wrong, or perhaps they will misinterpret the shortcomings of the book as proof of The Final Theory's inconceivability. It is a mistake to dismiss The Final Theory just because it does not yet match up to standard theory (which is backed by decades of supporting experiments and observations). However, it is also a mistake to immediately believe everything in The Final Theory. There is no question that it is a brilliant book, but it pays to be skeptical, just as McCutcheon has been skeptical of standard theory!
Theoretix on LibraryThing 22 days ago
This original work addresses many complex issues on how using the scientific method can go wrong. The author identifies a) the background on how scientific theories originate, and b) influences that promote, sidetrack or arrest scientific progress.Although the author may talk, for instance, about gravity and uses mathematical formulas, the reader never feels intimidated by this information. The author's style brings up the issues from different points of view making it easy for the reader to finally understand the issues. Such an approach has also been effective in addressing opponents' critiques and the historical paradoxes that are introduced un-/intentionally.Many readers who begin by reading what the critics have written on "The Final Theory," before actual reading the original book itself, get easily side-tracked by the many misrepresented views and evaluations. Most readers have had only a highschool or college level exposure to science, and have had a heavy doze of what the media presents (e.g., Discovery Channel, National Geographic, etc.) This is a very limited perspective and source on key issues upon which our modern civilization is established. Such 'background' education and information must be re-examined if not challenged, and the "Final Theory" is an excellent work that helps not only bring perspective and balanced solutions, but also exercises the readers' critical faculties.
useredv on LibraryThing 22 days ago
McCutcheon's book, which is iconoclastic and even heretical, is incredibly thought-provoking. I consider this one of the best popular science books I have read in that regard.I could not help but think about Mordehai Milgrom, another challenger of standard gravitational theories, while reading McCutcheon's book. I built my review on a modest comparison of McCutcheon and Milgrom. Milgrom is a professor of physics at the Weizmann Institute in Israel. Bear with me to the end, and I hope you'll find the comparison useful in evaluating criticism of McCutcheon.McCutcheon and Milgrom are examples of people who rejected the "invent a new particle" approach that is characteristic of modern physics. McCutcheon covers so many holes in Standard Theory that I cannot list them all here, but a few are: Olber's paradox; some problems with Red Shift; waste heat in superconductivity; raw mistakes in Einstein's math (one of which McCutcheon walks the reader through in detail); cases where Relativity Theory is contradicted, for example in the performance of real spacecraft; problems with the interpretation of experiments testing Einstein's Relativity; the expansion of ice; permanent magnets; and as I said, too many more to list.Note that McCutcheon is just as critical of Quantum Theory as he is of Einstein and Newton.Neither McCutcheon's Expansion Theory, nor Milgrom's theory, known as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), derive from kooky thought experiments. Both men are trying to explain real, intractable problems in Standard Theory. In Milgrom's case, he started with the rotational speeds of stars in spiral galaxies. Here's a quote from the Discover Magazine, August 2006 report on Milgrom, that could just as easily be applied to McCutcheon. Regarding galactic rotation, the article's author says: "Why don't the outer stars move more slowly than the inner ones? When confronting such a choice, scientists have only a few options: Question the data, question the theory, or invent something new...astronomers assumed the existence of a halo of dark matter around every spiral galaxy...the dark matter tugged on the stars, cranking up their speeds... The choice was reasonable, but it was still a choice."And, "Even though dark matter has eluded all attempts at detection, most cosmologists are convinced it must be out there. Without it, there's no explanation for much of what they see in the cosmos.""It was a solution Milgrom could not accept."Of course go and look these things up, Reader, but please--please!--don't find a few facts in wikipedia, or opinions in a chat forum about McCutcheon and the issues mentioned above, and try to dismiss them based on those. McCutcheon's book covers dozens of unexplained phenomena or paradoxes in Standard Theory beyond the issue of gravity. Likewise, Mordehai Milgrom and his colleague Jacob Bekenstein have published a number of papers filled with much more data than my obtuse scribbles offer here.McCutcheon's theory of gravity is intriguing as a mental exercise; it's so counter-intuitive on several points that it feels like a real accomplishment to get one's wits around it. His revision of momentum was the hardest part for me to accept. Keep in mind that I'm talking about understanding it, not necessarily believing it. It's not abstruse, like Einstein's Relativity theories, just counter-intuitive (like Einstein's Relativity theories).Both Milgrom and McCutcheon had trouble getting published--McCutcheon so much so that he had to self-publish. Milgrom says, "I went back and looked at the history of science and saw this happens again and again. The marketplace can only handle so many heretical ideas at one time." This reminds me of Thomas Kuhn's paradigmatic view of science, which says that all science develops from assumptions. The normal cycle is for "revolutionary" science to replace the old assumptions with new ones, which gradually replace the old paradigms and become the basis of new, "normal" science. It also puts
WMaartens on LibraryThing 22 days ago
What an absolutely mind-bending book. You can believe what you like, but this book will give you a totally different perspective on physics. By just changing my frame of reference and applying what McCutcheon said helped me to understand certain physical problems better. You do not have to agree with what he says, but it will make you think and see the world in a new light. This book is recommended for anybody with an open mind.The Final Theory looks at the really tough questions of physics! What is gravity? What is a photon? The wave-particle duality, etc. But more important it really tries to explain these physical phenomenon and not just describe them like physics do!
JordanNovak on LibraryThing 22 days ago
I purchased and read The Final Theory after finding the author's website and reading the first chapter that is provided there. This first chapter explains why the author began his search for a Theory of Everything as he locates and explains flaws and contradictions that are found all over Standard Theory. After I saw how clear-cut and unmistakable those errors were, I had to read this book just to see what other ideas were created by a mind capable of breaking past the limitations of Standard Theory.Since I read The Final Theory, I haven't been able to stop contemplating the implications and abilities of the new theory. The author does an excellent job of explaining the concepts of the new theory and opening the door for your mind to escape from the limitations, contradictions, and complexities that has become Standard Theory. You will begin seeing the world and universe from a much more natural and extensive view.This book opens the door to understanding all of the forces of nature, from magnetism and electricity to gravity and the forces that are referred to as strong and weak nuclear forces in Standard Theory. Everything is set together in one all-encompasing and easy to understand idea that has infinite applications.You will spend about a week reading this book, and you will spend the rest of your life extending your understanding of the principle to cover every imanigable phenomena of nature.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Guest More than 1 year ago
You need several things before you pick this book up: 1) a healthily sceptical attitude to anything calling itself a 'final theory' 2) an open mind, that enjoys being 'boggled' 3) a willingness to have your world turned upside down If you can manage this, you're in for an absolute treat. This book is based on a concept that is as elegantly simple as it is extraordinary. It's bold, beautiful, myth-shattering and above all it will challenge one of the most fundamental assumptions you hold. Whether you exit the book a convert to the theory or not is irrelevant. McCutcheon is the first to point out that like any theory his is designed to make you think for yourself - to examine in the light of your own basic common sense some of the things in scientific standard theory that have for too long been worshipped as sacred cows that are beyond question by mere mortals. I loved it - every word on every page. I started the book a cynic of mythical proportions, and finished it thinking 'no way it can't be that simple'. A year on and I can't find single viable objection. I try. I tell other people, and ask them to find the flaw. I'll keep trying. That's the point of the McCutcheon's challenge to the scientific powers-that-be: PROVE me wrong. I think the most telling criticism of the book is the complete absence of 'official' response. That silence from the 'experts' speaks volumes ... but don't listen to me - go judge for yourself.
Guest More than 1 year ago
In this book McCutcheon confuses the terms work, energy, power and force in an attempt to draw the reader into his argument that all current physics is based on flawed logic. He repeatedly complains that scientists have continually misapplied the ¿work function¿ to get around these ¿flaws¿. You may want to try looking up the work function ¿ it has nothing to do with the situations he describes (such as men pushing rocks). He¿s actually talking about the work equation. This is not just playing with words ¿ he¿s supposed to be an authority and should at least know the correct scientific definitions (as well as how to apply them correctly!). Worse than the consistent inaccuracies presented in this book is the downright dishonesty. For example, he takes Einstein¿s argument that Newtonian gravity breaks the speed of light limit and presents it as his own (conveniently forgetting at this point to mention Einstein¿s solution, i.e. general relativity). Instead of Newtonian gravitation (which is ¿flawed¿ because scientists can give no cause for it) McCutcheon gives us a more common sense theory based on continually expanding atoms (a phenomenon for which he gives no cause). For a theory to be final it must be consistent. McCutcheon claims that objects of different masses will not fall at the same rate (as Galileo found) but only nearly the same rate. He gives no experimental proof of this (unlike Galileo). He claims that planets moving away from an expanding sun at a certain rate will appear to move in circular orbits. He gives no mathematical proof of this (unlike Newton). For a theory to be final it must be complete. If you want a good review of physics, including its shortcomings, Feynman¿s popular books are a good starting point. These cover many of the ¿flaws¿ McCutcheon claims to have ¿discovered¿, without missing out the explanations and replacing them with crackpot ideas.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This is the first alternate science book I have ever encountered to be worthy of my time and serious consideration, not only the time it took to read it, but the many hours I have spent contemplating its ideas and implications ever since. Let me see if I can sum things up as objectively as possible ... The Writing The book was apparently written by a first-time author (an engineer/physicist) who simply felt he had something significant to say (with the background to do so with a high degree of competence) as such, it is surprisingly well written. The presentation and writing style are clear, straightforward and well organized, with liberal diagrams and section-identifying icons throughout, making its potentially difficult subject matter accessible to a wider audience than many of the popular science books I have seen. To my mind this book is more along the lines of a foundational work of solid classical science in the spirit of Copernicus, Galileo, or Newton rather than the more abstract, speculative works of thinkers from the past century, such as Einstein, Hawking or Greene. Having said this, it does have a somewhat unpolished feel that would have benefited from one final editorial revision before publication in my opinion, but then literary style is not the main point of this particular book. The Subject Matter There are many popular science books on the topic of an ultimate Theory Of Everything that would finally and solidly explain our world, but this is the first mainstream science book to make the audacious claim that it actually IS that ultimate theory and not merely another book discussing the possibility (or lack thereof). When my chuckling finally ended after first reading its claim I couldn't deny that I was still left sitting there staring at a science bestseller that claimed to contain the ultimate understanding of our physical world. An Internet search wasn't any more helpful in dismissing it as I discovered lots of buzz and controversy about it, but almost exclusively in the form of embarrassing misunderstandings and misrepresentations of both today's science and mere points from the book's website from people who hadn't actually read the book, drowning out those who had. Not much help. This left me even more intrigued why were there only empty attacks but no solid rational counterpoints to this new theory that stood up to serious analysis, what was the need for such heated defensiveness of today's presumably solidly established science, and why was there such a stir about a book that, by all rights, should be easy to dismiss or ignore as just another nutty theory? All of this prompted me to get the book on the basis that its claim to the actual Theory Of Everything seemed to be difficult to solidly refute while apparently striking very close to the heart of today's science, which might at least prove to be an entertaining read and a worthwhile mental exercise if nothing else. And the verdict after reading it? Much to my amazement I found it to be far more than that. The Final Theory is actually the first book or theory that I have found anywhere which I can honestly say does lay claim to a totally viable Theory Of Everything, in the true spirit of that quest. By that I mean ... 1) it is a complete, self-consistent new scientific paradigm based on one single unifying principle throughout, 2) it fully addresses and applies to all known areas of observation, experiment, and current science, and 3) it solves many of the issues that we are increasingly being told we must accept as deep, unsolvable mysteries of our apparently bizarre universe -- that according to today's science, which is the very reason the search for such an ultimate explanatory theory exists in the first place. All of this is a definite first, in my experience, and amounts to a very impressive piece of work. But is it science? The Science Is it science? Well, considering that this book claims to offer an entirely new science paradig