| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mike3" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2005 05:51:18 PM |
| Object: |
"The Final Theory" |
Hi.
I saw a book called "The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific
Legacy". Can you post a complete, staged disproof of this? That means
you can't just say "oh, his credentials are bad" -- that's not a
refutation, just an ad hominem. By a disproof, I mean an actual
rebuttal picking apart every argument and refuting it with valid,
logical counterarguments and evidence.
Because current theories are incomplete, such as Quantum Mechanics'
discordancy with General Relavitiy, you should at least CONSIDER some
alternatives. Even if this particular theory, the one in this book,
proves to be wrong, at least you would've CONSIDERED that an
alternative explanation MIGHT exist.
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Final Theory" |
20 Jan 2005 04:43:49 PM |
|
|
"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105919478.848477.162900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Hi.
I saw a book called "The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific
Legacy". Can you post a complete, staged disproof of this? That
means
you can't just say "oh, his credentials are bad" -- that's not a
refutation, just an ad hominem. By a disproof, I mean an actual
rebuttal picking apart every argument and refuting it with valid,
logical counterarguments and evidence.
Because current theories are incomplete, such as Quantum Mechanics'
discordancy with General Relavitiy, you should at least CONSIDER
some
alternatives.
Alternatives are under serious consideration. By physicists, not
Kooks.
Even if this particular theory, the one in this book,
proves to be wrong,
If it had any merit, the author would either have given at least one
seminar on the topic at one of the Universities anywhere in the world
where physics is taken seriously, or it would have been published in a
professional journal.
at least you would've CONSIDERED that an
alternative explanation MIGHT exist.
Alternatives are under continuous, serious consideration. By
physicists, not kooks. Have you ever in your life opened any issue of
any of the internationally accepted professional physics journals?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Final Theory" |
24 Jan 2005 09:15:05 AM |
|
|
In message <1105919478.848477.162900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> writes
Hi.
I saw a book called "The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific
Legacy". Can you post a complete, staged disproof of this?
McCutcheon's sock puppets are back.
<yawn>
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Final Theory" |
16 Jan 2005 07:02:57 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2005, mike3 wrote:
Hi.
I saw a book called "The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific
Legacy". Can you post a complete, staged disproof of this? That means
you can't just say "oh, his credentials are bad" -- that's not a
refutation, just an ad hominem. By a disproof, I mean an actual
rebuttal picking apart every argument and refuting it with valid,
logical counterarguments and evidence.
That's not really how science works. If scientists were required to put
out point by point refutations of every "theory" proposed, they wouldn't
have time to do anything else. Are producers required to give a page by
page critique of every script given to them, no matter how bad?
It's the job of the proposer to explain exactly how his theory works,
how it fits current observations better than current theories, and then
defend it against criticism if and when others become interested. That's
not just how "outsiders" break in, that's how scientists treat each other.
Because current theories are incomplete, such as Quantum Mechanics'
discordancy with General Relavitiy, you should at least CONSIDER some
alternatives. Even if this particular theory, the one in this book,
proves to be wrong, at least you would've CONSIDERED that an
alternative explanation MIGHT exist.
Ever read some papers on pheno or theory? There are physicists that spend
day in and day out trying to think of new theories, models, etc. and work out
the testable consequences. Other physicists spend all the energy trying
to come up with ways of testing theories both new and accepted, hoping to
discover something that no one else knew before.
You don't need to tell physicists that they need to think about alternate
explanations any more than you need to tell a minister to consider God
might exist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Final Theory" |
16 Jan 2005 07:36:49 PM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
I saw a book called "The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific
Legacy".
I saw one called "The Bible." It was empirical crap despite the many
bindings avaiable. Physical reality is not labile toward focus
groups' votes.
Can you post a complete, staged disproof of this?
It's *****. Care to defend the bible?
That means
you can't just say "oh, his credentials are bad" -- that's not a
refutation, just an ad hominem. By a disproof, I mean an actual
rebuttal picking apart every argument and refuting it with valid,
logical counterarguments and evidence.
Because current theories are incomplete, such as Quantum Mechanics'
discordancy with General Relavitiy, you should at least CONSIDER some
alternatives.
Not alternatives that are empirically falsified at the starting gate,
nor those that are internally inconsistent. That leaves... none other
than what is being examined. If untentured faculty won't touch it, it
is dogshit.
Even if this particular theory, the one in this book,
proves to be wrong, at least you would've CONSIDERED that an
alternative explanation MIGHT exist.
Idiot. Do you leave bits of hard salami and cheese atop your
automobile dashboard for the elves?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Final Theory" |
20 Jan 2005 07:18:29 PM |
|
|
Al, it's spelt Buybull not bible.
When I grow-up I want to be Santa Claus, because
then I can keep all the really neat gifts and stuff
garbage down the chimney, thereby retaining the
tradition.
Santa Ken Claus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Final Theory" |
17 Jan 2005 01:46:02 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
[snip]
If untentured faculty won't touch it, it is dogshit.
Sadly, the converse is not true. Sometimes even tenured faculty
embrace dogshit.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AaronB" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Final Theory" |
16 Jan 2005 07:14:35 PM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
I saw a book called "The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific
Legacy". Can you post a complete, staged disproof of this? That means
you can't just say "oh, his credentials are bad" -- that's not a
refutation, just an ad hominem. By a disproof, I mean an actual
rebuttal picking apart every argument and refuting it with valid,
logical counterarguments and evidence.
Because current theories are incomplete, such as Quantum Mechanics'
discordancy with General Relavitiy, you should at least CONSIDER some
alternatives. Even if this particular theory, the one in this book,
proves to be wrong, at least you would've CONSIDERED that an
alternative explanation MIGHT exist.
Is that the Final Theory by Mark McKauthon or something like that? If
so, there was a comprehensive discussion of the book several months ago
about it. Short answer is, the theory doesn't hold water. Do try a
google search of this forum.
A.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Final Theory" |
17 Jan 2005 03:27:13 AM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
I saw a book called "The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific
Legacy". Can you post a complete, staged disproof of this? That means
you can't just say "oh, his credentials are bad" -- that's not a
refutation, just an ad hominem. By a disproof, I mean an actual
rebuttal picking apart every argument and refuting it with valid,
logical counterarguments and evidence.
Because current theories are incomplete, such as Quantum Mechanics'
discordancy with General Relavitiy, you should at least CONSIDER some
alternatives. Even if this particular theory, the one in this book,
proves to be wrong, at least you would've CONSIDERED that an
alternative explanation MIGHT exist.
Why do you care about the 'theory' of someone who calls the Work
Function a conspiracy and the fact there is a sin(theta) a act to
deceive science?
Why do you care about a book that displays a full ignorance of the use
of the dot product? Quote from the site:
"Even the forceful constraining of the moon in its orbit is said to
require no energy, since a modification to the Work Function gives a
zero result even if an object is in motion, as long as its motion is
perpendicular to the constraining force. Every physicist today will
claim that there is no energy expended by gravity to constrain the moon
in its orbit -- simply because the modified Work Function gives a zero
result. Again, no physicist will discuss the matter further, since this
is all they have ever been told by their instructors, who also refused
to discuss the matter, etc."
By modification he means the sin(theta) coming from the dot product. Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha
I expected to see everything in the web but a claim that dW = F dot dr
is a conspiracy was beyond my wildest imaginations.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Final Theory" |
17 Jan 2005 01:02:56 AM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
I saw a book called "The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific
Legacy". Can you post a complete, staged disproof of this? That means
you can't just say "oh, his credentials are bad" -- that's not a
refutation, just an ad hominem. By a disproof, I mean an actual
rebuttal picking apart every argument and refuting it with valid,
logical counterarguments and evidence.
Yes, we could. But that would require buying his book. So first I ask
you to prove your sincerity by giving us refutations to the material
freely available on each of these websites:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040203101549/http://www.beyond-science.com/
http://www.tompotter.us/theory.html
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartPage1.htm
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
Because current theories are incomplete, such as Quantum Mechanics'
discordancy with General Relavitiy, you should at least CONSIDER some
alternatives. Even if this particular theory, the one in this book,
proves to be wrong, at least you would've CONSIDERED that an
alternative explanation MIGHT exist.
And that's also why you're going to read all of these sites and comment
on them. Because they MIGHT be right. They MIGHT be! Darn it!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
