OT:Tempted to get this book

[rdouglass]

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....

[tesco samoa]

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

Which is a good thing

[douglas]

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.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

'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.

[Aiken]

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

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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

[deccan]

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.

[deccan]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Please refrain from Ad Hominem attacks. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

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.

[douglas]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
'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.

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.

[Aiken]

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.

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.

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).