booberfish.com booberfish.com

Just so you all know, the book The Final Theory is a load of crap.

It’s quite poorly written for one thing, like an infommercial for diet pills. The entire first 30 pages that I read, I think, could have been condensed into six.

Well, the thing that really got me was when the guy started talking about how gravity is all a sham and it’s a completly ficticious force. He says it doesn’t make sense that scientists use both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity, which conflict with each other, and so both have to be wrong. Gravity travels instantaneously, etc…. this guy has obviously missed a lot of key things in this field…

Well anyway, the point is, don’t bother reading it! Or, read it, and then read something more reputable, comprehensive, and accurate. At the very least, ask questions.

Random FAQ Comments (5)

5 Responses to “Final Theory”

  1. [...] It seems that whenever I start talking about physics, philosophy, cosmology, or related subjects the Google AdBot decides it would be a good time to push out ads for the book called The Final Theory. I’ve read the sample material on their website and said what I thought about it before, but it bears repeating: it’s complete nonsense. [...]

  2. oscar delgado says:

    Poorly written? your writing is really poor, I tell you that. I have seen some poor reviews of this book before, and they all sound the same: a lot of derision and mocking comments. Nothing substantial. Are you an expert on this field? I know that some professor hired people to write bad reviews in their blogs! what a pity for science. I wonder if you are one of them. One advice I give you is this: always keep your mind open and be more analytical and do not dismiss any idea until proven false. This guy said that the gravity on the hidden side of the moon should be different from the one facing the earth. That is one test that could be made in the near future. Why don’t you wait until this measurement is made and then we can dismiss his ideas.

  3. GP says:

    You accuse me of “derision and mocking comments”, and then make fun of my writing and claim I must have been paid to write a bad review? This is hardly the beginning of an intelligent critique.

    I am not an expert on gravitation but I do study it and the rest of physics, so I know more than most people. Gravity on the far side of the moon being different from the near side is not a unique prediction. Even Newtonian gravity would predict that, just on the basis of being further away from the Earth! Is the effect supposed to be much greater than either Newtonian gravity or General Relativity (GR) predicts, but still too small to have been observed already? If so, then maybe you have something.

    My criticism lies mainly in that his conclusions to not follow from his premises. Yes, Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are not compatible in all situations, but that doesn’t mean that they’re both wrong! Newtonian gravity can be considered to be a weak-field approximation of GR, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    Even more damaging to his argument is that he basis it on claims like gravity travels instantaneously (violating the law that no information can travel faster than speed c), which are false to begin with! False premises can not logically lead to true conclusions.

    To be interesting and worth study, a new theory like this either has to make new predictions or resolve a problem which cannot be resolved. Unless you give more specific information and references, I don’t know of any new predictions this book makes, nor has the book made a good case that there are any problems at all with the current formulation of gravity. Yes, there are problems with GR (quantization for example), but it doesn’t look like The Final Theory even tries to address them.

  4. Daniel says:

    if you had indeed read past page thirty you would have the interesting stuff happens starting from page 54.

    “I’ve read the sample material on their website and said what I thought about it before, but it bears repeating: it’s complete nonsense.”

    How can you expect any one to take you seriously if you admit you never even read the book! As someone who has read the book, i must say that starting at page 54 when he is done criticizing newton and gets on with his own definitive theory, the text is extremely well written and reads like a dream.

    “dont look at it and it will go away”
    This is no kind of behavior for a scientist or someone claiming to be scientifically inclined.

    “Even more damaging to his argument is that he basis it on claims like gravity travels instantaneously”
    He never made that claim, read the book.

    “To be interesting and worth study, a new theory like this either has to make new predictions or resolve a problem which cannot be resolved.”
    He makes several new predictions, seriously, read the book.

  5. GP says:

    It’s the old paradox of needing to buy something to review it, but by buying it you are implicitly supporting it. I only read the first part because that was what was provided on the website, and from that I certainly do not want to pay for the rest. This was discussed in the post linked to above, including a comment about how I would read the book and provide a more fully informed critique of it if it was available to me. (I will check local library catalogues again, just in case.)

    I admit that writing “don’t look at it and it will go away” was not smart, since though it was meant more in jest, I realise that it could have been interpreted as you have done. The content of the post makes it more clear that I really would like to examine these alternative theories in detail (or at least that was my intention).

    It doesn’t matter that I haven’t read all of The Final Theory because in what I have read he makes claims that are incorrect, so even if there is some sense to his theory his claims that it is superior to the standard theories is undermined by his evident lack of understanding of them. You say he did not make the example false claim I mentioned—if this is the case, then the text has been changed since I originally read it two years ago. I vaguely remember another passage that talked about how absurd it was that you could push forever against a large object and if you were not able to move it, a physicist would say you have done no work despite the fact that you are exhausted at the end. This also seems to be a superficial understanding of the subject—no mechanical work is put into moving the object but energy is spent in other ways. It seemed like the author assumed that the physicist’s measure of measure of work was supposed to encompass all forms of work done, not just the mechanical work of moving the object. But hey, maybe either I’m remembering it incorrectly or those passages have been changed too.

    Regarding new predictions, the discussion above shows that one example of a new prediction which was given was nothing of the kind. I am not aware of others, but you are right in that as far as I know there are. Nonetheless, this does not add to the credibility of the theory.

Leave a Reply