OT: The 10th Demention

[Raapys]

I read the free first chapter of The Final Theory. It does bring up alot of valid points about the flawed theories we've built today's scientific knowledge on. The first chapter just explains the errors in current theories, without offering any new ones, so I'm actually considering buying it now, to read his replacement theory.

[GuyOfDoom]

Raapys said:
It does bring up alot of valid points about the flawed theories we've built today's scientific knowledge on.

I'd be curious to know what it thinks those are.

[Raapys]

The link for the first free chapter is here.

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html

[GuyOfDoom]

The only point I get out of that chapter is exactly what anyone who's in science should know. What we know is only our best approximation with the information that we currently have.

That doesn't mean we're totally wrong, we just don't know enough yet.

[Azselendor]

GuyOfDoom said:
That doesn't mean we're totally wrong, we just don't know enough yet.

Which, in itself, is a good reason to help promote the sciences. We need to know more.

[Raapys]

I see his point, though. Much of what we "know to be true" is just based on vague and unproven theories, and these hole-riddled theories are the base for which new scientific work is done.

Sort of like putting all your already-broken eggs in a basket that's also about to break.

I'm really curious as to how he goes about explaining the universe, though. Have anyone read the full book?

[Phoenix-D]

Example 3 from the skim, and this one is REALLY amusing:

d = ½at2. Constant acceleration equation. He claims this doesn't have any relationship to gravity at all. No physical forces at all. Except, oh, a. Which is...drumroll please...acceleration due to gravity.

I can guess what his theory would be from all this: crap, and more crap. Scientific theories are used to describe the world, and they do have problems, but they aren't anywhere near as problematic as you're implying, Raapys.

[Phoenix-D]

Anything that proposes to replace -everything- sets off all sorts of alarm bells. You have to have one hell of a weight of evidence for that to work.

Well, this is fun. He's setting off the bull**** detectors left and right even discounting that (example- if protons naturally cluster in the nucleus and are stable, why the !%@ do high-proton count atoms become unstable? Example 2: he doesn't get why we don't use Einstein's theories- which is simply because at low speeds they turn into Newton's, and the effective MEANS of gravity doesn't matter, just the way it acts).