So I suppose asking how a crank physics theory is supposed to work is like asking Lewis Carroll for proof of concept but… what exactly is the the appeal of this? I don’t even see the surface plausibility.
I think a better question would be, what does this theory say about mass? As opposed to volume and distance? How can an object be equidistant between two other equally-sized objects and be attracted to one of them more than the other?
I too have stumbled on “The Final Theory”, and was wondering what it was all about—though not enough to actually spend money on the book. Thanks for digging this up!
As for the “Expansion Theory”, it cannot explain gravitation. This idea was tried before, and it fails. Maybe if McCutcheon learned some science, then he could do some science.
So I suppose asking how a crank physics theory is supposed to work is like asking Lewis Carroll for proof of concept but… what exactly is the the appeal of this? I don’t even see the surface plausibility.
You jump into the air → Earth expands → voila, now you’re touching the Earth again.
But what does this theory say about orbits? or escape velocity?
“Shut up”
I think a better question would be, what does this theory say about mass? As opposed to volume and distance? How can an object be equidistant between two other equally-sized objects and be attracted to one of them more than the other?
It fails even as a crank theory.
I too have stumbled on “The Final Theory”, and was wondering what it was all about—though not enough to actually spend money on the book. Thanks for digging this up!
Bwahahahaha. Alright. I see it. Thanks. :-)
I liked Ali’s review best. She wrote,