For the brainiacs who think they understand cuz they were

[HysteryDiagnosis]

told so in high school, graduate school and beyond. So much for the wildly touted "scientific theories and laws" which I recognized years ago to be flawed beyond belief with just a high school education.




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

Here is another related mystery: Bounce a light-beam between
two parallel mirrors at a slight angle so that the beam bounces
along the mirrors in a zig-zag pattern. How many bounces
will it take before the light beam loses energy and slows down
appreciably? 1000 bounces? 10,000? Of course, we know that
the light beam will never slow down no matter how many times
it bounces back and forth, despite the well-established fact that
light imparts a small momentum punch when it bounces off
objects (the principle behind solar sails). So, how does a single
beam of light impart countless momentum punches as it zig-
zags between the mirrors, yet still manage to emerge afterward
at the same unchanging speed of light? According to today's
science this is an impossible energy-for-free event.

[Ready4Change]

1. May more knowledgable people correct me.

But I love these types of puzzles.

I think, if there is a transfer of energy when the beam of light is reflected, the the beam itself would lose intensity. It wouldn't travel slower. It would just be less bright. It might express that as a spectrum shift, but I'm already way out on my limb of understanding.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Think about it..... light slows down in a bucket 'o water..... then

speeds up coming out the other side, you should really take a look at that page, it will spin your head around more than once, to call it interesting is a major understatement. I will purchase this book.

[Salviati]

8. Please do not buy this book...

There are plenty of mind bending physics books out there for the lay reader, I'd hate to have you waste your money on one that is filled with garbage. (As a hint, any book that claims to knock the foundations out from under all of modern science is probably a bunch of hooey.) A fabulous book that investigates some of the more modern approaches to physics is an update to the classic Flatland, called Flatterland, that goes through a lot of the developments of the last century of physics and mathematics in the guise of a fun little story.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. Reviews at Amazon are pretty encouraging.... I will check it

out, and thank you for that pointer.

The reviews for The Final Theory are pretty amazing as well.... 4 star, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5,... hope I didn't put too many fives but that is how they ran pretty much.... example:

The Final Theory is an amazing book! How did McCutcheon come up with these ideas - and in a such a harmonious way as he continues to present his theory?

I was completely absorbed with his clear and simple, yet concise presentation of these principles which any normal intellect can comprehend. It is written in simple, yet clearly descriptive language for the everyday person, but also in that which physicists can also appreciate because of its well thought-out and challenging arguments.

As the title states, The Final Theory basically deals with expansion (of the universe), but is not equatable with the popular concept which has been in vogue for quite some time. Final Theory deals with expansion of matter on all levels, both quantum and cosmologically.

Final Theory calls into question the basic postulates, assumptions and oversignts of Newtonian mechanics as being a good working model that has served us well, but is now being called into question in its foundations as science advances in the world. He also mentions Einsteinian Relativity Theory, while recognizing that Einstein threw more light upon the subject, but made it much too complicated.

McCutcheon seeks to maintain the Conservation of Energy Principle which has long been accepted by the scientific community, and has not been called into question even by few (if any) of the present-day advocates of vacuum or ZPE energy extraction transfer research, (though many perceive this to be the case.) McCutcheon apparently does not delve deeper into the nature of the atom in this treatise so to attempt to explain why the atom has the propensity or characteristic to continuously expand, except that this is only the nature of it and which helps to identify it as such.

To my mind, this is the clearest and and most logical explanation of the physical world that I have encountered - the first treatise describing the physical realm which the logic process of the human mind can understand with much consistency - and that without mysterious time and space warps, black holes, hyper-dimensions (except perhaps the relative dimensions inside and outside of the atom as Final Theory investigates.)

McCutcheon's Expansion Theory presents a novel idea of an expanding universe in such a way which in actuality seems to end up as a contracting or shrinking universe (in our present day experience of it.) as space is continuously being filled with atoms (matter). This can be visualized as analogous to a compressed aerosol can that sprays expanding foam. The atoms (matter) inside the can are tightly compressed together (held in this state by the shell of the can.) When the pressure is released, the atoms expand into the outer space - in our practical case, the atmosphere, where they have grown in size only - not mass - with a corresponding increase in the distance (space) between them. The atoms are now relatively far apart as compared when inside the can (except for a different dimension scale within the can or atom)This (outside-of the-atom condition) is the present state of the universe. Now the atoms continue to expand while they are outside the can, but now, as the atoms continue to expand, instead of the distance or space continuing to increase between the atoms, it now begins to decrease (relative to all objects in this universe outside the can) Some reviewers have mentioned that this would finally bring all objects or matter together, but this is not so according to Final Theory; but objects only come together when they are not in orbit (or vastly too far away)-and this is a common observation that we make in our solar system and beyond - And as Final Theory points out, observers, or we (who are composed of atoms) can only detect or perceive that all matter in our realm has the same (dimensions), but that the intervening space is decreasing - But this space or distance beween matter is only decreasing when matter is actually being expanded together, as in the effects of what we call gravity, when we observe objects falling to earth or heavenly bodies colliding with one another.

This is generally the principle of expansion that pervades all the concepts of the Expansion Theory as McCutcheon deals with and applies this concept to the basic known phenomenon of nature - including gravity, orbits (of matter) - inertia and momentum, electricity, magnetism, atomic or quantum concepts and many more....

Is the vast universe such a weird and mysterious place as present science and many physicists would seem to lead us to believe? - Or after all, is it really so simple, at least in its basic concepts, and as we often discover in our daily experience as humans, when any mystery is finally revealed and the secret is made known, we all exclaim "how simple that is - why didn't I think of it!"

As man is no doubt, at least in some sense, endowed by his Creator both in the natural and spiritual realm to be capable of, and that perhaps in God's Will mankind will be given to further penetrate unto those mysteries that have hitherto been hidden in ages past, but is now (and of long time) being made known in both Providence and Grace.

Five stars to Mark McCutcheon and to those who helped and supported him in the preparation and presentation of this insightful theory for the world of scientists and laymen alike.

O. Allen Bailey

[Beelzebud]

11. Seconded. Watch the Elegant Universe series for FREE from PBS.

All 3 hours for FREE, and they talk about many of the things that website claims "most scientists ignore".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Enjoy.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. But hey..... thank the heck out of you!!!! I love being amazed

as a child is amazed when they run into seeming contradictions and mysterious findings for the first time.... I need to brew some popcorn and pop some Guinness :)

[Beelzebud]

15. You'll love it. :)

It's a very good series.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

16. I wish you would check this out as well..... this sort of thing

filled my mind as a child, I kid you not, not to this degree of sophistication naturally, but the basic premise that moving magnetic fields are capable of "magic".... or so it would seem.

http://www.searleffect.com/free/russianseg/russianseg.htm
All the results we obtained are extremely unusual and require some theoretical explanation. Unfortunately, the interpretation of results within the framework of the conventional physical theory cannot explain all the observed phenomena besides the change of weight. It is possible to interpret the change of weight either as a local change of gravitational force or as an antigravity force repelling its own field. Direct experiment, confirming the presence of a draft force was not performed, but in any case both interpretations of the weight change do not correspond to the modern physics paradigm. A reconsideration of the standard theory of gravitation is possible if we take into consideration space-time curvature. For example, the Kerr metric usually represents the field exterior to an axially symmetric rotating body and distinguishes between positive and negative spin directions as well as forward and backward time directions <8>. An examination of the physical vacuum as a source of these phenomena may also lend itself to better interpretation since the Maxwell stress-energy tensor in the vicinity of the converter undergoes a complex evolution.

From the modern physics position, electrification and luminescence of the converter's magnetic system in the near zone is not completely clear. The phenomenon of the magnetic and thermal "walls" may be connected with Alphen's magnetic-sound waves raised in near zone in magnetized plasma induced by a variable magnetic field of a rotating rotor <9>. The energy exchange between ambient air molecules and the converter may be occurring. At the present time we can not give an exact description of the interactions mechanism and transformation of energy, but without a relativistic we are completely unable to give a physically substantial theory of these phenomena.

In conclusion, we emphasize that issues of the biological influence effects and especially of the variations of real time stream effects, which must be taking place in an operative zone of the converter, were not considered at all. These issues are extremely important and absolutely unexplored; though there are some mentions of J.R.R.Searl about healing action of the SEG's radiation. Our own experience allows us to make only cautious assumption that the short-term stay (dozen minutes) in a working zone of the converter with the fixed output power of 6 kW remains without observed consequences for those exposed. The present paper is only a beginning.

[KyuzoGator]

2. My physics teacher was talking about Grand Unified Theory 10+ yrs ago.

Some people out there "get it."

[Salviati]

3. hoo-boy...

Even in that small excerpt, there's a glaring error that can be corrected with any intro physics textbook...

momentum of a photon = (planck's constant)/(wavelength)

So as the photon imparts momentum to the solar sail, it is reflected with a longer wavelength than it came in with, as seen by a stationary observer. So the photon will become increasingly red shifted as it undergoes more and more bounces, giving up it's energy to the reflecting mirrors, but always travelling at c.


This is so bad that in the famous words of Wolfgang Pauli, it's not even wrong.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. When does it wind down to a standstill.... or when does it cease

to be, how red shifted can it get before it evaporates into the great void.

[Salviati]

7. forever...

it will never "evaporate" it just continues to bounce back and forth forever, but each time it transfers less and less energy to the mirror it's reflecting off of. It's as if each time it bounces, it gives up some fraction of it's energy. The energy of the photon will constantly be decreasing, but will never reach zero

(assuming perfectly reflective mirrors of course, if they don't reflect 100%, then the beam of light will slowly dim as photons are randomly (but obeying the laws of statistical mechanics) absorbed)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. Wild.... simply wild.... whooda thunkit??? n/t

[Beelzebud]

6. That example is not an "energy for free event"...

You have to have a power source to create the beam of light. remove that power source, and the light stops bouncing. There is no 'free energy' there at all. It's called a flashlight battery. For there to be an "energy free event", or "zero point" effect, the beams would have to continue bouncing even after the power source for the light was removed.

And just so you know. Modern physics deals with many of those questions that page says "are often ignored, justified away or even completely overlooked today". That simply isn't true. Look up M-Theory and tell me it isn't dealing with most of those questions directly...

[Ready4Change]

13. Sorry.

Take a flashlight outside tonight. Point it upwards. Flick it on for a brief second, then immediately off.

You've just sent a pulse of light on a long, long journey. As you walk back inside your house those photons are still travelling outwards at 12 million miles a minute. Before you reach your door they've shot past the Moon. Go inside, sit down and watch TV. When the commercial break is over the light of your flashlight has reached the distance of the sun (1 AU.) But, since you did this at night, your light has gone in the opposite direction and is now 2 AUs from the sun and still going.

This does have limits. Your flashlight beam is pretty weak. It was dimmed (scattered) some on its way out of our atmosphere. Maybe totally blocked, if there was an overcast of clouds. If not, then it will get scattered still as it travels through space, due to dust and bits of junk out there, because even space isn't TOTALLY empty. Plus, most flashlight beams aren't very narrow. They spread out. When you spread the light of 2 D cells miles and miles wide, its hardly perceptible.

However, at least in theory, those photons are still out there, racing along on the course you set for them. Ever shine a light in the sky as a kid? Your legacy lives on.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. I believe there will come a day soon, when tapping zero point

energy will be a commonplace occurrence. As a child, I played with magnets for hours and hours wondering how they did what they did... I "knew" they could be manipulated in such a way as to cause them to "run" by themselves. I still believe this, and I feel that they can tap into the 4th dimensional energy, or zero point energy if you will and bring a little bit of it "here" where we can certainly use it. Google for the Searle Effect.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. From Wikipedia:

As most of us know, Wikipedia is becoming a favorite venue for various physics cranks to propound and promote their pseudo-scientific theories. For example, a well-known crackpot named Mark McCutcheon recently published a book called "The Final Theory" in which he claims that all of modern science is a fraud, and that gravity is actually due to the continual expansion of the Earth and all other matter. He then came to Wikipedia and created an article on his "Expansion Theory", heavily quoting his own book on the subject. After a protracted edit war, this individual's self-promotional original research was finally removed from Wikipedia. This is an illustration of how the Wikipedia policies are actually effective in the long run at weeding out self-promoting pseudo-science crackpots. There are many other examples of similar crank pseudo-science articles that have been weeded out. But the process is not pretty. It typically requires one or more individual(s) who are at least somewhat knowledgeable in the actual scientific field, and who are also familiar with the ways of science cranks, and who will persistently correct, challenge, and revert the seemingly endless pseudo-scientific drivel that a dedicated crackpot can generate.

From a Harvard physicist's weblog:

It is truly simple to rule out some of the silliest theories proposed by crackpots. For example, Mark McCutcheon argues that there exists no universal force of gravity and Newton's unification of the terrestrial gravity with the celestial gravity was a misconception. However, the apparent existence of NASA (something that most kids can see on TV) that is able to calculate and control the trajectory of their shuttles - for whom both terrestrial gravity as well as celestial gravity is important - should be enough for a person with IQ above 55 (and above 4 years of age) to figure out that something must be wrong with McCutcheon's theory. The crackpots often ignore a majority of the phenomena that are clearly relevant for their theories and they don't care.

And the example of the light beam is utter fucking NONSENSE; the speed of light is a universal constant. Do you know what 'universal constant' means?

Bad, wrong, and completely erroneous pseudoscientific twaddle. The fact that it's well-reviewed on Amazon only means there are a lot of ignorant people out there. (Oh, and fun fact: HUNDREDS of ONE-STAR reviews of this worthless book, by people who actually have an understanding of the subjects covered, have been REMOVED by Amazon, apparently at the author's request.)

Bad pseudo-science that only people who have no understanding of science are going to be taken in by.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

18. only people who have no understanding of science are going to be taken

Count me in on that one... so just how constant..... IS CONSTANT anyhoo???

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/universal_constant_not.html?1142005
Physical constants are one of the cornerstones of physics – sacred numbers which we know to be fixed – but what if some of these constants are changing? Speaking at the Institute of Physics conference Physics 2005, Dr Michael Murphy of Cambridge University will discuss the "fine structure constant" – one of the critical numbers in the universe which seems to be precisely tuned for life to exist – and suggest that it might not be constant after all.

Dr Murphy has used the largest optical telescope in the world, the Keck telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, to study light from distant quasars. This light has been travelling across the universe for billions of years, and seems to show that the fine structure constant, often known as "alpha", may be varying over time.

The fine structure constant governs the electromagnetic force which holds all atoms and molecules together. Scientists have known for many years that if its value was slightly different, life could not exist. Only the very tiniest changes over time could be tolerated, and most scientists believe that alpha today is the same as it always has been.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. No claim that it's proven...

and thus far, at least, the accepted constants ARE known to be constant on all observable scales and in all observed parts of the universe.

If you want to read something SERIOUS on the subject, I suggest this, for a start:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691024170/103-9928913-9229432?v=glance&n=283155

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. I will read that.... but I bumped into this and I am quite startled

to think that the rate of expansion of the universe could outrun the speed of light and block some galaxies from our view cuz the light simply could not keep up with it (the expansion of space)


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html
"The problem is that funny things happen in general relativity which appear to violate special relativity (nothing traveling faster than the speed of light and all that).

"Let's go back to Hubble's observation that distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us, and the more distant the galaxy, the faster it appears to move away. The constant of proportionality in that relationship is known as Hubble's constant.

"One seemingly paradoxical consequence of Hubble's observation is that galaxies sufficiently far away will be receding from us at a velocity faster than the speed of light. This distance is called the Hubble radius, and is commonly referred to as the horizon in analogy with a black hole horizon.

"In terms of special relativity, Hubble's law appears to be a paradox. But in general relativity we interpret the apparent recession as being due to space expanding (the old raisins in a rising fruit loaf analogy). The galaxies themselves are not moving through space (at least not very much), but the space itself is growing so they appear to be moving apart. There is nothing in special or general relativity to prevent this apparent velocity from exceeding the speed of light. No faster-than-light signals can be sent via this mechanism, and it does not lead to any paradoxes.

[Ready4Change]

22. My thoughts on that.

Mind you, I'm no physicist, so I don't know the low down math on all this. (Maybe I did sleep in a Holiday Inn?)

- Distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us faster than near galaxies.

- The more distant a galaxy, the older it's light must be.

- The older the light, the younger the universe was when that light was emitted by that galaxy.

So, to me, OF COURSE older galaxies will seem to be moving faster. The light that is reaching us was emitted from a time closer to the original big bang. EVERYTHING was moving faster. Our universe is older now, and gravity has had more time to slow things down from their post Big Bang explosion speeds.

To me, when we are looking at those distant galaxies, it's like we're old people, looking at films of ourselves as fast running teenagers. Dang I was quick.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

25. So..... if C is a constant, and I nail a laser on the front of a

train capable of 1/2 C, get way out in front of it, and let it speed towards me first at 100 mph, then at 1/2 C over and over again, I will experience several flavors of light even though the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Interesting beyond words.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

21. My next door neighbor has that and I did struggle through it

about 10 years ago..... mind boggling doesn't even scratch the surface.

[BrewerJohn]

23. Let me just address the nonsense in your quoted snippet

First, energy is not at all related to speed for a photon. Photons can have any
energy despite the fact that they all travel at c in a vacuum.
That's a basic result of special relativity. You don't even need quantum mechanics
to measure that the energy density of a light beam varies with the wavelength,
for the same intensity beam, while the speed is constant. Next, there is an energy transfer
in every collision of a photon with matter. The catch is that an object like
a mirror is so massive compared to the photon's energy that the energy it picks
up in one reflection is very tiny, even though the photon has its
momentum reversed. This is worked out using conservation of energy and of
momentum in every beginning relativistic physics class.

An author who manages to get so much wrong that is easily checked in a single
paragraph is not going to convince me that their book has any value.

[johnaries]

24. How do you know that it will never slow down?

If the mass of a photon is so small that it can't be measured by modern instruments, then obviously any "slowdown" created by a transfer of momentum is also too small to measure. Further, since a photon is basically energy and energy is interchangeable, why does the loss of energy have to be velocity? As another poster stated, it could result in a loss of intensity.

Simply because we can't measure any loss of energy doesn't mean a loss of energy doesn't occur.