Subscribe!Today while checking on my website I saw an ad that caught my eye. It may even still be there. It was advertising a book, "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon with the claim "The best selling book our scientists hope you never read. Find out why!" As a scientist myself, I had to check this out.
And as a scientist, I do hope you never read this book, at least not before you gain a solid understanding of current scientific theory. While I haven't read the entire book, I did begin reading the first chapter (available for free if you click on the ad). I didn't get very far before I realized the author does not have a deep understanding of the laws he's trying to critique.
In the first chapter, McCutcheon makes the claim that Newton's theory of gravity violates a fundamental law of physics. He also claims that Newton's theory simply models gravity, but does not explain it. This claim is valid, but the claim that it violates other physical laws is untrue.
The physical law that Newton's theory of gravity supposedly violates is the "Law of Conservation of Energy". McCutcheon claims that the moon "would fly past the Earth and off into space if not forcefully constrained by gravity to circle the Earth, according to Newton's theory. Yet, this tremendous continual effort expended by Earth's gravitational field is not considered to diminish the strength of this field at all, millennium after millennium." I'm not exactly sure where to begin, but the statements in the book are misleading. I will offer a brief explanation that McCutcheon either does not comprehend or has intentionally left out of his book.
The Earth does create a gravitional field that pulls the moon toward it. Likewise, the moon creates a gravitional field that pulls the Earth toward it. The force between the objects is proportional to both masses. As McCutcheon stated, Newton did not explain the source of gravity, simply that it exists and the force is proportional to mass and distance. The modern explanation that mass bends the space around it does offer a source for gravity. This explanation requires no continous expenditure of energy. However, this does not yet get to the key flaw in his argument.
McCutcheon used a car analogy to claim that the Law of Conservation of Energy must be violated in Newton's theory of gravity. When a car increases its speed, it is accelerating. The engine is converting the potential energy of its fuel into kinetic energy, thus the Law of Conservation of Energy is obeyed. Now, if the vehicle is turned in a circle there is a force acting to change it's intial direction, and the car is undergoing centripetal acceleration. However, there is no energy required to maintain this constant diversion. Imagine twirling a yo-yo around your head. In the absence of friction and air resistance, the yo-yo would forever twirl. Gravity can be viewed as the string that ties the moon to the Earth. Adding friction and and air resistance simply causes the yo-yo (and Earth) to slow. To put it another way, gravity is a force, energy is force through a distance.
Imagine pushing on a wall with all your might. You push and push, but the wall does not give. You have exerted alot of force and your body converted alot of energy. However, the wall pushed back, but did not convert any energy. The force it exerted was due to the potential energy inherit in its structure. Potential energy does not change unless converted to another form. This view is the proper one to describe the moon revolving around the Earth. The potential energy is what keeps the moon orbiting, potential energy created by gravity. No constant source supplying energy to the system is necessary as the potential energy remains stored in it.
The biggest mistake McCutcheon made was in assuming that all types of acceleration require an energy conversion. However, such a basic misunderstanding of scientific principles serves to discredit his entire book, in the first chapter nonetheless. If you'd like to see some of the mistakes people can make when they only think they fully understand something, then go for this book. If you'd like to learn some science, though, find a more credible source.
