It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Physics...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Has anyone read this book? ...Does this hold any truth?

www.thefinaltheory.com...


fred




posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
thanks for the link, it seems intressting.
I think ill order this and read it



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   

The Final Theory rewinds back to Newton’s time and
progresses forward, exposing the many elementary flaws
and unquestioned assumptions that have led to the
numerous disjoint and problematic theories that plague
today’s science.


If you have been waching the threads, it is what "WE" believed in all along.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I haven't read the book, but it does look very interesting. While I don't know the specific claims made in the book that attack today's science, there have been major scientific mistakes in the past. A hundred years ago, physicists thought they had solved nearly every problem that existed, and thought that there was nothing else to learn, except for a few little things like 'blackbody radiaton' that they considered unimportant. Some professors at this time actually discouraged their students from physics, believing that there was no future in it, because it had all been done. Then Max Planck came along, said that energy was quantized, and totally changed physics forever. People suddenly realized that much of what they thought they knew about physics was wrong, and we are still learning tons of things about science.

So yes, it is definitely possible that our science today also has some similar flaws. Whether or not the arguments in the book make sense, I have no idea. If nothing else, I'll bet this book will be an interesting read since it should have a lot of historical information on science, and if it has some good ideas as well, so much the better.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Okay, checking on the book and the publisher....

The book is published in a "vanity press" -- a publisher who will accept almost anything and publish it if you pay them $500. www.universal-publishers.com...

I don't see that he published any papers in scientific peer-reviewed journals.

The book was largely ignored because of problems with his theory.... it "sorta" works and he says he "sorta" explained it but that 400 pages couldn't do justice to it.
homepage.mac.com...

What he seems to be unable to deal with is that a theory has to be able to be proved by evidence... and experiments contradict his theroy... and that a theory has to predict the behavior of something. His theory doesn't correctly explain orbital mechanics (as others have pointed out in the criticisms) or relativity. In a nutshell, he equates gravity with magnetism and says "voila! Now everything works!"

There's a couple of problems with that idea, even when you consider it under the looser constraints of String Theory (where gravity and magnetism are not considered the same thing because of differences in behavior.)

There's an interesting discussion about it on this other board. The thread is closed, but you can read some good discussion of it over on the Bad Astronomy forums: www.bautforum.com...

His idea that the sun and the Earth are of different "magnetisms" (gravitational polarities) is pretty unworkable. His model would predict ONLY circular orbits for everything, and it's very obvious that orbits aren't circular. Nor would there be wobble and spin.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSurfer
thanks for the link, it seems intressting.
I think ill order this and read it


hi

that was my idea too, but i dont want to spend money on a book like this and then find out that someone with a good scientific knowlage has already read it and considerated it
a bunch of ...

If I were you i woud hold on for a while
lets see if the book is worthy...

fred



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I haven't read the book, but it does look very interesting. While I don't know the specific claims made in the book that attack today's science, there have been major scientific mistakes in the past. A hundred years ago, physicists thought they had solved nearly every problem that existed, and thought that there was nothing else to learn, except for a few little things like 'blackbody radiaton' that they considered unimportant. Some professors at this time actually discouraged their students from physics, believing that there was no future in it, because it had all been done. Then Max Planck came along, said that energy was quantized, and totally changed physics forever. People suddenly realized that much of what they thought they knew about physics was wrong, and we are still learning tons of things about science.

So yes, it is definitely possible that our science today also has some similar flaws. Whether or not the arguments in the book make sense, I have no idea. If nothing else, I'll bet this book will be an interesting read since it should have a lot of historical information on science, and if it has some good ideas as well, so much the better.


I think that too...two steps forward, one step backwards...the idea that the speed of light is the maximum speed in the universe simply doesnt fit in my mind...I don´t know why



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Okay, checking on the book and the publisher....

The book is published in a "vanity press" -- a publisher who will accept almost anything and publish it if you pay them $500. www.universal-publishers.com...

LOL ...you checked this out!


I don't see that he published any papers in scientific peer-reviewed journals.

This doesn´t surprise me, who would put the neck on the guillotine for him !

The book was largely ignored because of problems with his theory.... it "sorta" works and he says he "sorta" explained it but that 400 pages couldn't do justice to it.
homepage.mac.com...

What he seems to be unable to deal with is that a theory has to be able to be proved by evidence... and experiments contradict his theroy... and that a theory has to predict the behavior of something. His theory doesn't correctly explain orbital mechanics (as others have pointed out in the criticisms) or relativity. In a nutshell, he equates gravity with magnetism and says "voila! Now everything works!"

I see, If I remember well, Tesla had a theory like that, it was probably not the same but on Teslas gravity was a form of magnetism...

There's a couple of problems with that idea, even when you consider it under the looser constraints of String Theory (where gravity and magnetism are not considered the same thing because of differences in behavior.)

There's an interesting discussion about it on this other board. The thread is closed, but you can read some good discussion of it over on the Bad Astronomy forums: www.bautforum.com...

His idea that the sun and the Earth are of different "magnetisms" (gravitational polarities) is pretty unworkable. His model would predict ONLY circular orbits for everything, and it's very obvious that orbits aren't circular. Nor would there be wobble and spin.

I haven´t read the book, but if it is as you say, then I agree with you, instead of starting from Newtons theory and go forward he went back to the greeks...

thanks for your post


fred




[edit on 31/7/06 by derfred33]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
What really sucks about this book is that it claims to have arrived to some kind of absolute understanding of physical reality, having simultaneously put "traditional science" to shame.

I would really like to see the author trying to solve an equation in relativistic hydrodynamics or other such interesting area and produce some real results with predictive power. Or calculate the mass spectra of hadrons, or other such trivial thing. Surely with his profound knowledge he can move much further than the feeble minds of present day scientists.

Until he can do all this, I feel at ease calling him a charlatane and an idiot.

Yes, the below picture that "explains" his new understanding is an insult to my intelligence.



[edit on 31-7-2006 by Aelita]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Guys:

Check out this vid

video.google.com...

This is part 2 of a great segment about the UFO's from the NASA footage in the 90's.

Forward about 20 min into the video and there is some very scientific analysis of the very basic Einstein 3 dimensional physics and some of the "new age" quantum mechanical explanation of how these dimensional fundamentals fit together... makes alot of sense.

From the book synapsis, this looks pretty close to what you might read me thinks?


PS video is good explanation about why lightspeed is not the maximum speed of travel..


[edit on 31-7-2006 by tha stillz]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AelitaI would really like to see the author trying to solve an equation in relativistic hydrodynamics or other such interesting area and produce some real results with predictive power. Or calculate the mass spectra of hadrons, or other such trivial thing. Surely with his profound knowledge he can move much further than the feeble minds of present day scientists.


Exactly.

Or, more to the point, explain why light bends in the presence of gravity but does NOT bed in the presence of a strong magnetic field. If magnetism and gravity are related, you should see light being bent by our industrial magnets.

Furthermore, (if you follow his theory) you should see our strongest magnets also attracting NON-magnetic things. And it should not be possible to get even microgravity on a planetary body with a nonmetallic core.

In other words, there should be no gravity on the moon.

Until he can do all this, I feel at ease calling him a charlatane and an idiot.


Yes, the below picture that "explains" his new understanding is an insult to my intelligence.



For those of you who didn't click on the link, do click on the link. The author very clearly demonstrates that he hasn't been reading any physics because he offers (on the left) a "grab bag" of science ideas (and is not aware that half of what he has over there (the subatomic "stuff" and atomic "stuff") is actually under a single theoretical branch (quantum mechanics.) Nor does he understand, as Aleita says, that electric charge is a property of electricity... etc, etc.

If the man doesn't understand the concepts of the forces he's talking about, HOW can he give any sort of good answer about them?




top topics



 
0

log in

join