OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Anyone seen this book?

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm

I'm tempted to get it. I find it hard that this guy so easily explains away so many theories that we accept as science. I'm sure that's exactly what he wants me to think....

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

why not get it and read it... IT can only make you think.

Which is a good thing

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

I'm reading the first chapter, which is available Online for free and I have a few observations:

The Geometric Orbit Equation he makes such a big deal of is actually Kepler's Third Law in disguise.

In his brief discussion of an alternative "rock-and-spring" model on page 44, as far as static orbits are concerned there is no difference at all between that and the "rock-and-string" model.

On page 56, the "mysterious" issues of equal acceleration independent of mass and absence of stress on the object are resolved very simply by the facts that gravitational force is proportional to the object's mass, and the force is not applied to any particular part of the object. The only reason other forces do not exhibit these characteristics is that their strength is independent of mass.

He completely ignores the fact that Newtonian Gravitation is a unifying theory for all of the other equations he deals with in the chapter.

He almost completely ignores the fact that Newtonian Gravitation is no longer the model of gravity generally accepted as correct - General Relativity is. Newtonian Gravitation is still taught only because it is much simpler than relativity and gives negligible error in all cases that most people will ever have to use it for.

The power source/energy tracking device that he points out is missing is, IIRC, present as the mass of the object(s) in question. When you lift something up, you increase its mass by a very small amount. When it drops, it's mass decreases.

His analogies using people in place of various objects are flawed in that a person is a very complex and inefficient organism and is constantly expending energy in ways not strictly necessary to do work.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

'When you lift something up, you increase its mass by a very small amount. When it drops, it's mass decreases.'

Could you provide some back-up for that, please? Very interesting.

If you do buy it, keep lots of notes and cross-reference everything.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

My good friend once named such kind of books as SciBi - Scientifical Bible, because both Bible and "Yet another theory of everything" books pretend that they have all answers. Cheap reading.

edit: author's attacks on Newton theory of gravity are amusing, it seems he have never heard of general relativity, Minkowsky-Riemann space and world lines http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Please refrain from Ad Hominem attacks. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

He also repeatedly claims that the "twin paradox" and the atomic clock experiment relating to the effect of time dilation is logically faulty because movement is relative. However, in standard science, it is not movement that is responsible for the time dilation effect but acceleration.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

That's a valid point, but one can't help but notice and comment on the observation that the author's behavior is very similar to that of a snake-oil salesman. "Buy this book and all will be revealed!" His free preview chapter supposedly pokes holes in standard science, but stops just short of revealing how his final theory resolves the problems.

If he were really serious about scientific inquiry, he should have made the essential theory itself freely available.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Interesting. The common assumption I've always encountered is that the closer one gets to light speed, the slower time goes.

What's a good 'physics for dummies' book?

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

I don't remember where I heard or read or inferred that, and I can't find any solid support for it on google. The closest thing I've found is this with a short paragraph about whether "gravitational energy" acts as a source of gravity and no definite conclusion. Now that I think about it, it would be nearly impossible to test that because the difference in mass is so tiny. It makes sense to me, but I can't back it up.

That chapter also ignores the fact that Newton's law of gravity has far fewer restrictions on when it is valid than any other theory or equation dealing with the same phenomena except general relativity. IMO it's a bunch of pseudo-scientific bunk.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Probably you meant that there's possibility of slight difference between gravitational and inertial masses. IIRC it's based on the definition that full energy E = mc^2 + K + W, there K - kinetic energy, and W - potential energy in the gravitational field, so higher module of W (closer to gravitating mass) means lower E (and smaller mass), since W is negative.
Actually t'= t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). There's nothing about acceleration here. Accelerating frames are matter of special relativity. Also twin paradox can be solved in special relativity only (edit: sorry not special, but general relativity in both cases).

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

If you're looking for a book that deals with "science as a whole, in a new way" I would try A New Kind of Science
by Stephen Wolfram. Well respected, intriguing, cool.

See:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...00720?v=glance

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Actually, our bodies are incredibly efficient, especially when compared to any machine we've built. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Ah yes, you are right. I was thinking about the wrong thing. Let me try again: the author's contention that the relativity of motion (which is true) makes time dilation logically suspect is wrong because of the symmetry of time dilation while the twin paradox effect is actually an example of non-symmetry.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

http://www.drunkduck.com/Number_85/?i=348721

Beleive me, that's very relavent.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

I was hoping this was a thread about Fitzpatrick's War.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

The author says, "As we all know, perpetual motion machines are impossible,..." and gives the example that if you drop an object dropped into a tunnel through the Earth it would oscillate back and forth endlessly, saying that this result violates the laws of physics.

It does not. Perpetual motion machines are, in fact, possible if all friction is eliminated. Dropping an object into a tunnel through the earth will oscillate endlessly if there were no air inside the tunnel to create friction. If there is some air in the tunnel, the object's energy would be gradually lost as heat and the oscillation would decay and eventually stop, as expected.

It does not require the expenditure of energy to hold an object still in one place! You don't need a constant energy source to keep a fridge magnet stuck to the fridge or have a heavy object resting on a table. The object doesn't move because all the forces on the object are in balance and cancel each other out.

A light beam shining through glass will slow down and it does speed up again once it exits the glass. Why does it speed up again when it exits the glass? That's a good question, and I don't know why. I'm very curious as to what the reason is. But I think the reason a block of glass will heat up when light is shined though it is because the glass is imperfect and not completely transparent. Part of the light is absorbed and turned to heat. So not all the light emerges from the other side.

Regarding the Twin Paradox Thought Experiment: Hmm, I never thought of that paradox! I would very much like to know how to resolve this paradox.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

It doesn't actually slow down, it just refracts within the glass and appears distored...

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Excuse me, but if I push on a block of wood and you push on a block of wood and we both have equal strength, given your arguement, neither of us would be expending energy. However, I think in half an hour you would say otherwise, no mater how balanced the forces are. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Erm... the difference is that the refridgerator expends 0 energy to hold the magnet in place. The point was that not _all_ stationary objects require energy to remain stationary. Certainly, you can waste energy on an object that doesn't move in the end, but that is not the same thing. When pushing a block that isn't moving, you are not transfering any energy to it. The force you apply is not enough to overcome the counterforces involved, so no work is done on the block. As a result, its energy does not change. You have used energy, but that is for an entirely different reason. It requires a constant source of energy to keep your muscles contracted.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

But what's keeping the block from moving?

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

The total net force on the block is 0. The force of gravity is balanced by the "normal force" that the ground applies back to the block (equal magnitude but exactly opposing direction). The force that person A exerts on the block is exactly the same in magnitude as the force that person B exerts on the block, but in the opposite direction. Note that Force = Mass X Acceleration. If there is no net force, there is no acceleration, thus no change in velocity. Since the initial velocity of the block was 0, it remains 0.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

I submit that the persons squeezing from either end are not directly opposing each other, but are each contracting the block miniscully(sp?), causing it's molecular bonds to contract into a slightly uncomfortable range and exert a countering force.

And even if that's complete blather, my point still stands, that force cannot be exerted without energy.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

If light has mass and goes at lightspeed, how come we're not all squished?
Best answer I can think of is that light ignores that rule and simply exerts force according to it's mass. What that might mean, I don't know.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

It's been a while since I've taken physics but ....
Light has 0 rest mass, and thus 0 rest energy. However, it travels at the speed of light. The equation for the energy (mass, energy; essentially the same thing in modern physics) of an object is something like E = sqrt(1/(1-(v^2/c^2)))mc^2. For light, m = 0, but v = c. The equation then translates to
E = sqrt(1/(1-(c^2/c^2)))(0)c^2
= sqrt(1/(1-1))(0)
= sqrt(1/0)(0)
= (1/0)(0)
= (0/0)
Which is mathamatically undefined. However, the universe comes up with an answer! It's a particular constant over the wavelength of the light, for any given photon (there's something similar for the inertia of the photon). Fortunately, it's a VERY SMALL constant, so it takes a LOT of photons to have any measureable impact when they hit you.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

If light has 0 rest mass and 0 mass from lightspeed, how can it have any mass at all?

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

The basic energy equation:
E = sqrt(1/(1-(v^2/c^2)))mc^2.
Forget the mc^2 part for a moment, and focus on the stuff inside the sqrt
1/(1-(v^2/c^2))
Now, for light, v = c. So, we get, in the innermost set of parentheses,
c^2/c^2
which is, of course, 1.
So, we replace the innermost parenthesis with the result, and get
1/(1-1)
inside the sqrt. 1-1 = 0, so when we make that replacement, we get
1/0
which, other than being an odd comic, is mathamatically undefined. However, we do know that in the equation
y = 1/x, as x approaches 0, y approaches infinity. So, if we replace 1/0 with infinity, we get infinity inside the square root.
sqrt(infinity)
as the sqrt of infinity is still infinity, we can drop the sqrt function entierly, and the energy equation then becomes
E = infinity*mc^2
As m represents the rest mass, it's 0. If we make that replacement:
E = infinity*0*c^2.
In math, infinity * 0 isn't defined, and the c^2 isn't germain to this conversation (if you like, we can say the 0 eats it up and doesn't notice). The universe, however, makes it's own definitions, and comes up with a result for light contigent on the wavelength of the photon in question. However, that answer only applies when the photon is traveling at the speed of light. Plug any lower real velocity in there (well, any real velocity between c and -c, not inclusive of the endpoints), and the sqrt function comes up with a real answer, and the m=0 eats up everything, leaving a big fat 0 for E.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

I think I sorta got it.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Light does slow down through different mediums. If I recall correctly, light travels quite a bit slower through water than it does through a vacuum. Or it might be faster, I'm not sure. (If I'm totally wrong on this point, please correct me, but it seems to be what I remember from physics Last year). Therefore, the only thing that can exceed the speed of light, is light itself (depending on the medium) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Yep, light can even be "stopped".

Scientists Bring Light to Full Stop, Hold It, Then Send It on Its Way

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Slowed light is virtual phenomenon. Once photon from light ray collides with atoms of medium it transfers its energy to atom and disappears, but atom goes to hugher energy state. After some time atom re-emits photon with similar wavelenght in the same (if medium has no lens ability) or different direction and then atom goes back to initial energy state. This effect will occur many times until photon leaves meduim. Since cycle of "absorbtion-reemission" is not instant, it gives effect of "slowed light".

edit: note, that it's a very primitive explanation which assumes that photon bahaves itself as a particle. But in real world it also behave itself as a wave. And things become slightly more complicated. But the principle remains the same.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

If you'd like an Online resource The Motion Mountain is pretty famous and well respected.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Since it brings up that 'if it only moves halfway' arguement, I'm as skeptical about it as I am about the other book.

That supposed quandry has been solved numerous times. It only moves halfway if you only look at half the time. It imposes an artificial restriction on a natural phonomenon and then claims that the natural phonomenon must follow this artificial restriction and therefore this natural canot phonomenon occur. How are we to get rid of this quandary? Same way a rational person solves all arguements involving arrows and turtles.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Good explanation. Keep up the physics lessons!

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Ok, that makes sense. Based on your explanation, the speed of light in a vacuum is the "fastest" light can travel through any known medium, since there is virtually nothing to "slow" the light wave/particle. Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum is the "fastest" anything can travel, as far as we know (disregarding certain quantum effects if my memory serves me well). I always knew that light behaved (under certain circumstances) as a particle and/or a wave. However, what significance does this have?

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Wave properties of light are responsible for things such as diffraction, interference and other physical phenomenons.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Sorry, I think I was too sarcastic here.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

The "Speed of light" numbers are really "The speed of light in a vaccuum" speeds. Strangely there are certian particles that can travel faster than the speed of light when this light is slowed by going through glass or air. This is one reason why Cherenkov detectors work.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Ah right, neutrinos and neutrino detectors would be what you're referring to. Neat little things aren't they?

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

Faster than speed of light in medium. But particles causing Cherenkov radiation (like hi-energy proton) move slower than speed of light in vacuum anyway. So this is pseudo-FTL movement.

Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
 

For other pseudo-FTL phenomenons you can read articles:
a. Mugnai, D., Ranfagni, A. & Ruggeri, R. "Observation of superluminal behaviors in wave propagation" Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4830 (2000)
b. L.J.Wang, A.Kuzmich и A.Dogariu "Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation" Nature 406, 277 - 279 (2000)

I call it pseudo-FTL, because you can't use these effects for information transmission, let alone matter transmission.