Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Jack comments on No One Knows What Science Doesn't Know - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 25 October 2007 11:47PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (107)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jack 12 February 2010 02:50:37AM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: byrnema 12 February 2010 03:03:34AM 1 point [-]

I liked Ali's review best. She wrote,

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.

Comment author: dclayh 12 February 2010 03:06:03AM 9 points [-]

You jump into the air -> Earth expands -> voila, now you're touching the Earth again.

Comment author: Jack 12 February 2010 03:22:04AM 0 points [-]

Bwahahahaha. Alright. I see it. Thanks. :-)

Comment author: JGWeissman 12 February 2010 03:22:58AM 1 point [-]

But what does this theory say about orbits? or escape velocity?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 February 2010 06:42:35AM 3 points [-]

"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.

Comment author: Polymeron 01 May 2011 10:15:21AM 0 points [-]

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!