The Final Theory
- Thread starter Phoenix
- Start date
The Final Theory
Hmm.. not sure what to say
I don't think the author really knows what he is talking about. It's kind of like he has takien everything that is hard to picture out of physics. He claims General Relativity is "mysterious and unexplained" which is ofcourse not true. It's hard to understand, I agree on that, but that doesn't make it full of flaws.
For example, the author ask something like "What is "four-dimensional space-time" and why would the mere presence of matter warp it?". Well thats what the relativity theory shows and this guy clearly hasn't understood the basics of Einsteins famous equations.
Another thing is this:
That's just ridiculous. Chemistry has easy answers to this. When water goes from liquid to firm (not sure of the correct term in english, what i mean is ice ) the molecules reorganize in a way that gives it lower denisty, therefore the ice takes more place than liquid water. My kid brother, who is 17 years old, can explain that and make a proper model on paper explainig it.
Anyhow, I don't think I'll buy it even though I'm sure the author has alot of points that makes sense aswell
Hmm.. not sure what to say
I don't think the author really knows what he is talking about. It's kind of like he has takien everything that is hard to picture out of physics. He claims General Relativity is "mysterious and unexplained" which is ofcourse not true. It's hard to understand, I agree on that, but that doesn't make it full of flaws.
For example, the author ask something like "What is "four-dimensional space-time" and why would the mere presence of matter warp it?". Well thats what the relativity theory shows and this guy clearly hasn't understood the basics of Einsteins famous equations.
Another thing is this:
That's just ridiculous. Chemistry has easy answers to this. When water goes from liquid to firm (not sure of the correct term in english, what i mean is ice
) the molecules reorganize in a way that gives it lower denisty, therefore the ice takes more place than liquid water. My kid brother, who is 17 years old, can explain that and make a proper model on paper explainig it.Anyhow, I don't think I'll buy it even though I'm sure the author has alot of points that makes sense aswell
StarLord
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,187
The Final Theory
Thats scary, if he cant figure out that "freezing" water from a liquid to a SOLID (thats the word you were looking for my friend) is a 180degree movement from boiling and then to a vapor, that still has energy input of cold as opposed to the energy of heat. Water has some very special properties, what surprises me is not much study has been done on it when the temperature of 98 degrees is reached. IMHO that specific temp of water bears serious study as water has amazing abilities then.
Thats scary, if he cant figure out that "freezing" water from a liquid to a SOLID (thats the word you were looking for my friend) is a 180degree movement from boiling and then to a vapor, that still has energy input of cold as opposed to the energy of heat. Water has some very special properties, what surprises me is not much study has been done on it when the temperature of 98 degrees is reached. IMHO that specific temp of water bears serious study as water has amazing abilities then.
The Final Theory
Here's your answer:
<!--QuoteBegin-Phoenix@Jul 15 2004, 11:30 PM
In my opinion, "The Final Theory" is broken at its foundation, and demonstrates some curious misunderstandings of standard theory. But Mark McCutcheon's opinion is different, and the other two people on his mailing list seem to agree with him for the most part. So maybe it's just me.
The great advantage of a wildly unconventional theory is that critics can be dismissed as being narrow minded or too infected by conventional thinking. I'm sure those traps do exist, to some extent. It's important to remember, though, that the novelty of an idea does not in itself make it any more correct.
[/quote]
Originally posted by Ralan+Sep 5 2004, 03:07 PM--><div class='quotemain'>Ioog; I'm surprised at you for being so close-minded; science needs people who think outside the boundaries, and besides that, you were the first to admit you were 'one in need to be taught physics'.
I notice you posted this before your little fiasco with bonemachine. Surely you noticed that when he complained about the lack of mature understanding in your theories, it was only the same as you saying this person 'really doesn't know what he is talking about'? Despite the fact that Mark McCutcheon did years of in depth research for The Final Theory?
Sorry for the motherly scolding
[/b]
Here's your answer:
<!--QuoteBegin-Phoenix@Jul 15 2004, 11:30 PM
In my opinion, "The Final Theory" is broken at its foundation, and demonstrates some curious misunderstandings of standard theory. But Mark McCutcheon's opinion is different, and the other two people on his mailing list seem to agree with him for the most part. So maybe it's just me.
The great advantage of a wildly unconventional theory is that critics can be dismissed as being narrow minded or too infected by conventional thinking. I'm sure those traps do exist, to some extent. It's important to remember, though, that the novelty of an idea does not in itself make it any more correct.
[/quote]
StarLord
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,187
The Final Theory
That would be more of an opinion and supposition, than a answer.
That would be more of an opinion and supposition, than a answer.