thorgal
26-September-2005, 11:28 AM
Hello, I am new to the forum.
I recently had my attention caught by the book 'The final theory'. I read the 1st chapter for free on the net and my curiosity made me buy it. Although I haven't finished yet, I already found many problems with the proposed explanations on heavenly motion of planets. I am actually a physicist and work on the strong force between quarks. I still have to read how expansion theory deals with subamotic physics.
Ok, things that I don't like about the book (Chap 1-2-3) :
1- constant hammering of the expansion idea as the sole explanation for everything, without in fact explaining it : why would matter expand ? If one follows the early argument of the 2D beings being in fact cross sections of 3D beings in a 2D world, that to me sounds mysterious.
2- although some arguments against Newton might be valid, I do not see any problem with Einstein's GRT as a fair description of our space-time reality. The author insists that a warped space-time is mysterious and obscur. What kind of argument is that ?? This is not scientific. For Einstein's credit, his theory is solidly based on rigorous mathematics (Riemann, Grossman, Kristoffel, Ricci, etc). Not that I fully endorse GRT but at least, GRT can be qualitatively and quantitatively tested, etc.
3- Expansion theory does not explain how the moon for ex. orbits the Earth. It explains how a path can become curved, BUT! if one sits in a frame centered on the Earth center, if one assumes that the moon passing by is moving along a straight line from the point of view of a being not affected by expansion (like a figure suggests, 3-6 I think), then I don't see how the moon's center can do more than 1/4 of a revolution. As far as I can, it will asymptotically reach 1/4 of a complete revolution without getting further. Just draw the things for yourself, you'll see what I mean.
4- The 'Geometrical Orbitic Equation' derived from Kepler's data is not a 4th uncovered equation. It can easily be derived from Kepler's 3rd law. So no need to make a fuss about this equation that is in fact not essential.
5- The fact that the proposed theory is not reviewed or even worked out deeper is suspicious to me. Before shifting paradigm, one would have to prove that this theory can not only be as good as our actual theories in describing physics phenomena but also provides quantitative and irrefutable solutions for our present physics problems that standard or accepted theories do not solve.
Conclusion : I am not against this kind of effort, but making strong claims against other theories because they contain many flaws, and being so self-confident that your proposed theory solves these flaws while in fact it does contain flaws and does not solve the problems, is not serious to me.
I like the fact that the author wrote in a language accessible to almost anyone, but he should come up with a more expert and detailed paper for convincing also experts.
I don't regret my buy, it is entertaining in itself but it is not scientific. It calls too much on people's good sense, and that, in physics, can be a big trap...
Thorgal
I recently had my attention caught by the book 'The final theory'. I read the 1st chapter for free on the net and my curiosity made me buy it. Although I haven't finished yet, I already found many problems with the proposed explanations on heavenly motion of planets. I am actually a physicist and work on the strong force between quarks. I still have to read how expansion theory deals with subamotic physics.
Ok, things that I don't like about the book (Chap 1-2-3) :
1- constant hammering of the expansion idea as the sole explanation for everything, without in fact explaining it : why would matter expand ? If one follows the early argument of the 2D beings being in fact cross sections of 3D beings in a 2D world, that to me sounds mysterious.
2- although some arguments against Newton might be valid, I do not see any problem with Einstein's GRT as a fair description of our space-time reality. The author insists that a warped space-time is mysterious and obscur. What kind of argument is that ?? This is not scientific. For Einstein's credit, his theory is solidly based on rigorous mathematics (Riemann, Grossman, Kristoffel, Ricci, etc). Not that I fully endorse GRT but at least, GRT can be qualitatively and quantitatively tested, etc.
3- Expansion theory does not explain how the moon for ex. orbits the Earth. It explains how a path can become curved, BUT! if one sits in a frame centered on the Earth center, if one assumes that the moon passing by is moving along a straight line from the point of view of a being not affected by expansion (like a figure suggests, 3-6 I think), then I don't see how the moon's center can do more than 1/4 of a revolution. As far as I can, it will asymptotically reach 1/4 of a complete revolution without getting further. Just draw the things for yourself, you'll see what I mean.
4- The 'Geometrical Orbitic Equation' derived from Kepler's data is not a 4th uncovered equation. It can easily be derived from Kepler's 3rd law. So no need to make a fuss about this equation that is in fact not essential.
5- The fact that the proposed theory is not reviewed or even worked out deeper is suspicious to me. Before shifting paradigm, one would have to prove that this theory can not only be as good as our actual theories in describing physics phenomena but also provides quantitative and irrefutable solutions for our present physics problems that standard or accepted theories do not solve.
Conclusion : I am not against this kind of effort, but making strong claims against other theories because they contain many flaws, and being so self-confident that your proposed theory solves these flaws while in fact it does contain flaws and does not solve the problems, is not serious to me.
I like the fact that the author wrote in a language accessible to almost anyone, but he should come up with a more expert and detailed paper for convincing also experts.
I don't regret my buy, it is entertaining in itself but it is not scientific. It calls too much on people's good sense, and that, in physics, can be a big trap...
Thorgal