Just to add my bit.
(I didn't read all the other comments from the previous discussion, so
I'm probably repeating.)
"Why is it thatwe have two explanations for the same effect <gravity>
in our science today,"
well GR won, so that makes it one explanation
"In fact, there is very little math and only loose references to these
<the four fundamental> forces"
which may be somewhat forgiven if it is a new theory, but then how can
he be so sure it really works? It's obvious he hasn't compared it
numerically with all the experiments that have been done.
"Newton's Theory of Gravity is undoubtedly one of the most universally
recognized and accepted theories in all of science."
um, GR won. Newton's theory is taught as a starting point, but doesn't
count in today's "standard model".
He then goes on to rederive Newton's equations, but based on a
"geometrical" viewpoint, which he regards as much better. And there he
finishes! He seems to think that by rederiving Newton's equations, he
has solved gravity. Where did GR go? He implies it is all a mistake
and unnecessary! So apparently all you GR people can give up and go
back to Newton's equations. Only I guess now they should be called
McCutcheon's Equations.
There are too many other things he says:
"Today, largely as a result of the scientific acceptance of Newtonian
gravity, we have grown accustomed to the idea of unexplained forces
reaching across empty space to affect objects at a distance in some
equally unexplained manner."
no comment
"Newton's Gravitational Force Violates the Law of Conservation Of
Energy"
no comment
He says the work function is wrong, because you can get tired pushing
on an object without moving it. This is a question for biologists, not
physicists.
etc.
I get the impression his big idea is that "matter expands". And this
explains gravity because the ground expands up to meet you. So it
looks like you are falling. You don't notice the change in size,
because everything is expanding including you, so the proportions are
the same.
However, this doesn't explain circular orbits, and doesn't explain
torsion balance experiments.
I certainly am not going to buy the book.
But I have a point of my own to make: Have you noticed that this site
is covered in sponsorship links to "the final theory", "I create
reality", and other whacko sites? That's a bit ironic don't you
think??? I can feel even as I post this, that it will be used as
advertising space for the Final Theory.
It's a bit like having a skeptic site sponsored by astrologers.
BR
.
|
