- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderWell no one in the scientific community has been able to prove him wrong thus far. Maybe you can go for it. Go on and prove him wrong with your St. 5 and debating diploma😉
I did. It's a nut with a BA in Electrical Engineering saying that Newton, Einstein and every other scientist is wrong and HE has come up with a SINGLE, UNIFYING THEORY THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE! What would you like to talk about: what anti-psychotic meds would be most effective for his condition or why you are sooooooooooooo gullible you believe this BS??
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf you have read the book, please explain the math behind the final theory. Since I'm too cheap too buy the book and read chapter 2 I wll rely on your math expertise for a proper explanation of it.
Well no one in the scientific community has been able to prove him wrong thus far. Maybe you can go for it. Go on and prove him wrong with your St. 5 and debating diploma😉
I want to know the math behind his Final Force. And how it's mathematically superior to quantum theory.
Originally posted by frogstompSorry, but the Final Theory rejects the use of mathematical models until AFTER everything has been explained by Mr. MCCutheon. Please see the last paragraph of page 18 which spills over onto page 19. I'm willing to wager that his final, unifying principle is "Goddunnit".
If you have read the book, please explain the math behind the final theory. Since I'm too cheap too buy the book and read chapter 2 I wll rely on your math expertise for a proper explanation of it.
I want to know the math behind his Final Force. And how it's mathematically superior to quantum theory.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou have this peculiar notion that the job of real scientists is to debunk every crackpot idea that some God-botherer puts on a "Christian" website or in a book published by a Fundamentalist publishing house. They have better things to do. As do I. If you want to believe that gravity and magnetism violate the Laws of Conservation like this wackjob does, go right ahead.
Well no one in the scientific community has been able to prove him wrong thus far. Maybe you can go for it. Go on and prove him wrong with your St. 5 and debating diploma😉
Originally posted by no1marauderah yes, but the force of god defies all mathematics and science.
Sorry, but the Final Theory rejects the use of mathematical models until AFTER everything has been explained by Mr. MCCutheon. Please see the last paragraph of page 18 which spills over onto page 19. I'm willing to wager that his final, unifying principle is "Goddunnit".
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckera preliminary check on the term "work function" gives :
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/images/The_Final_Theory_--_Chapter_1.doc
"The work function is the energy required to remove an electron from the highest filled level in the Fermi distribution of a solid so that it is stationary at a point in a field-free zone just outside the solid, at absolute zero. An estimate of the work function can be obtained thermionically from Richardson's equation
I = AT 2 exp(−/kT)
where I is the thermionic current, T the absolute temperature, k is Boltzmann's constant and A is a constant having the theoretical value 120 amp cm−2 deg−2. Since A contains the reflection coefficient, which varies with temperature, observed A values usually differ from the theoretical value. too varies very slightly with temperature, but for most metals the difference between at absolute zero and at room temperature is less than experimental errors.
may also be estimated photoelectrically for metals. Einstein’s expression for the photoelectric effect is hv = e + E, where E is the kinetic energy of the ejected photoelectron. The photoelectric current J released when light of energy hv falls on the surface of a metal, for which the threshold frequency is given by hv0 = e (for then E = 0), is given by the Fowler equation
J = B(kT2).f{(hv − hv0)/kT}
where f is a universal function of (hv − hv0)/kT and B is constant provided that hv is near to hv0. "
Just how that might apply to gravity is a bit beyond my expertise.
Seriously dj , how can McCutcheon expect scientists to take him serious when he misuses terms like this one?
edit-- btw dj that formula he uses is for measuring work done on an inclined plane.