sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
(my bold)
OK, end of discussion then. False and totally unsupported assertions really aren't very interesting.
Null Physics anyone?
- Thread starter Stir
- Start date
OK, end of discussion then. False and totally unsupported assertions really aren't very interesting.
MainframeX
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 52
Hey, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not trying to make you look bad by countering your opinion but I am entitled to mine opinion.
I did lookup some other sources to support my claims to string theories "unverifiableness". Wikipedia under the classification of "theory" states the following:
en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Theory
"Currently unverifiable theories
The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future."
Though I'd take Wikipedia with a grain of salt as well so consider the following:
www[dot]google[dot]ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMI_enCA306CA306&q="string+theory"+unverifiable&btnG=Search&meta=
And the only reason I said "I know" is because I've worked with string theory.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Don't worry, you're not capable of making me look bad.
First of all, "currently unverifiable" is completely different from "untestable and thus unverifiable and concludes with no predictable results", which is what you said. That's called shifting the goal posts.
Second, the wiki is wrong for several reasons.
- every new theory is not verified when it is proposed - how could it be, if it's a new theory? So when it's first proposed it's always "currently unverifiable".
- string theory is not really one theory - it's a collection of theories - and some of those are verifiable as soon as the LHC starts up, which will be soon, and some others are verifiable using cosmological data right now.
- the Popperian definition of scientific theory, which is probably the best one, is not that at theory be verifiable, it's that a theory be falsifiable. All versions of string theory could be falsified tomorrow, in quite a few different ways.
- no theory can every be truly "verified" - one can have very high confidence in it, but it can never be proven. In fact if any theory was every truly proven it would no longer be falsifiable, and hence not science.
Anyway, this discussion is completely off topic in this thread. If you want to continue it, start a new thread and quote these posts. Otherwise it should stop, as it violates the rules of this board.
Last edited:
MainframeX
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 52
In order for string theory or any scientific theory to be "falsifiable" or "verifiable" it must be "testable" and for it to be testable it must conclude with "predictions" either mathematically or experimentally (both relating to physical context) so that the predictions can be proven false or positive. It isn't that hard.
What?! The LHC is testing predictions in the Standard Model (one specifically is the Higgs boson) not string theory predictions of which none exist. There is only one test, if they decide to run it or observe (or can observe it) that can possibly disprove string theory based on some imaginary, poor, choppy string theory mathematics and interpretations of this math. If the LHC detects short-lived "mini black holes" then maybe it will hold some merit, but honestly I think its doomed on this claim. I think its an publicity effort in order to be involved somehow with the multi-million dollar LHC project. My opinion string theory is dead and I for one have gone elsewhere in search for my answers to existence. I hold much more promise in my own theories than string theory (www[dot]gpofr[dot]com) because you can at least test them and the math is more compelling...no it's not a theory of everything but in my opinion it unites charge with mass essentially quantum physics with Newtonian, Einsteinian physics at a very fundamental level (at least the math shows this very simplistically that a 12 year old can easily understand it) which string theory has never done with any mathematics to prove it, but you don't have to take my word for it and it is just a "theory". I research physics for the shear pleasure of it and I do get very passionate about it. I do respect the string theories mathematical contributions and work of doctors Smolin and Kaku and even that of Mr. Witt (once I get to reading it). I actually don't think anyone is wrong in the approach to deciphering physics and strongly advocate different perspectives, but what I am strongly against are institutions favoring one theory over another especially if the "favoured" theory has run 40 years untested. Statistically perhaps I'm not as well informed as you, or perhaps I'm putting to much emphasis in relation to my own personal experiences with string theory and my own knowledge of the scientific market.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I agree with sol: This is a really old thread on a totally different topic.
Please start a new thread.
You are a new member and so may have to wait a bit before you can do so.
Please do not waste your money on Witt's crackpot book.
See this review of “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt from a professional physicist: http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html
Also see my review at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html
The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include:
- Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
- Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
- A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
- Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
- Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.
ETA
I also had a look at www[dot]gpofr[dot]com. All I had to do is look at the first few pages to see that it is a usual crackpot web site (even worse than Witt's book!).
and the more obviously crackpot bits from its list of concepts:
But perhaps I am wrong. I am sure that you can point me to a list of peer-reviewed papers by the author on his theory
!
Last edited:
Harper Collins author Dr. Melvin Morse defends Null Physics
FYI:
Here is a recent review by author Dr. Melvin Morse. He also posted some comments about Randi. If you want to read another viewpoint, I recommend his web site.
Sara
OUR UNDISCOVERED UNIVERSE BY TERENCE WITT
BOOK REVIEW BY MELVIN L MORSE MD FAAP
SPIRITUALSCIENTIFIC.COM
Just when you thought you were starting to understand quantum physics, here comes Terence Witt with Our Undiscovered Universe in which he challenges virtually all the accepted assumptions underlying our current perception of reality. Terence Witt’s Universe is infinite, timeless (no beginning and no end), with no Big Bang, no accelerating galaxies away from the center, and no sub-sub atomic particles such as quarks. Instead, he postulates that the Universe consists of nothing! This is why he calls his theory “Null Physics”. But not just empty space, not that kind of nothing. Terence Witt’s view of the Universe is that is consists entirely of curved space, gravity, and energy forming a complex balance of matter and anti-matter, energy and dark energy, all adding up to nothing at all.
I love this sort of book as it forces scientists to re-examine their most cherished assumptions. As a physician-consciousness researcher, I have used the quantum non-local reality physical reality model as the best fit to understand our current scientific concepts of consciousness. However, Witt’s book forces all of us to re-examine everything that we believe to be real. I am not qualified to do the math needed to critically evaluate his book, but my best guess is that ultimately he will be proven wrong. He is so thoughtful and thought provoking, however, that the book is well worth it for the hours of discussion it has provoked between me, my wife, and friends.
It is clear, well organized and simply written. It is often funny. You don’t need to be a mathematician to understand his basic concepts. He presents a broad comprehensive theory of reality which incorporates subatomic reality, ordinary reality, and the latest understandings of astronomy and cosmology. He has great lines such as describing modern physicists as being so astonished by their experimental findings that they have become “infused with a hysterical mysticism”.
He does a great job of summarizing the basic principles of quantum physics in one of the best and succinct presentations I have read for the non-physicist. He accurately points out the many flaws in the current scientific model and he nicely outlines the mainstream understanding of the difficulties in creating a coherent unified theory of reality given the constraints of the current paradigm. Let’s face it, there is plenty of room within modern theoretical physics for Witt’s Null Physics, given that many no longer feel the Big Bang is a viable theory and mainstream physicists state the Universe is made mostly of “dark energy” and “dark matter” and that we have no idea what they are.
His critics are legion, yet mainly consist of anonymous chat room “experts” and graduate level physicists who have not read his book. The substance of their criticism consists mainly of repetitively chanting “crack pot, crack pot” over and over again. Sort of a Lord of Flies meets the Internet gone really really bad. As Harold Bloom points out in The Lucifer Principle, “the most insubstantial things we call ideas . .can lead to the basest cruelties.” I have reviewed the websites of Witt’s critics and understand their concerns. These primarily young men are in the process of establishing themselves within their fields. It takes a sense of confidence and maturity to read Witt’s book which most people are going to completely disagree with. By challenging our basic beliefs, Witt forces a healthy re-examination of the fundamental assumptions of modern physics and a greater understanding of whatever model of reality we ultimately end up with.
I have written peer reviewed articles with theoretical physicists, and I showed the book to them. They hemmed and hawed, and muttered ridiculous, and yet ended with a healthy respect for what Witt is trying to accomplish. One internationally recognized theoretical physicist told me that “he is totally wrong, really doesn’t get it at all. However, if he is right, he is on the right track, I would work on his math, some of it needs complete revisions, but for a first effort, not bad, not bad at all.” It is telling that he declined me to allow his name to be used, given the controversy the book has created. Scientific American has recently decided to refuse Witt’s advertisements for his book, a sad commentary of the power of the current Scientific Fundamentalist movement (see side bar). No one wants to offend them or they too will have to suffer an Internet onslaught of chanting science drones.
As a scientist who challenged the medical model of consciousness by documenting the near death experiences of children, I will always have a soft spot for intelligent outsiders who dare to take on the scientific status quo. My theories of consciousness are now well accepted enough that they have been replicated by other scientists, and published in the American Medical Association Medical Journals, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The United Nations recently launched a multi-medical center study of near death experiences, yet 25 years ago I was also dismissed as a crackpot.
Ultimately, I am not sure if Mr. Witt’s theories will stand the test of time. It is not my field, and stranger things have happened in the history of science. However, I do know I learned a lot from reading his book, and it stimulated me to rethink my own theories of reality.
FYI:
Here is a recent review by author Dr. Melvin Morse. He also posted some comments about Randi. If you want to read another viewpoint, I recommend his web site.
Sara
OUR UNDISCOVERED UNIVERSE BY TERENCE WITT
BOOK REVIEW BY MELVIN L MORSE MD FAAP
SPIRITUALSCIENTIFIC.COM
Just when you thought you were starting to understand quantum physics, here comes Terence Witt with Our Undiscovered Universe in which he challenges virtually all the accepted assumptions underlying our current perception of reality. Terence Witt’s Universe is infinite, timeless (no beginning and no end), with no Big Bang, no accelerating galaxies away from the center, and no sub-sub atomic particles such as quarks. Instead, he postulates that the Universe consists of nothing! This is why he calls his theory “Null Physics”. But not just empty space, not that kind of nothing. Terence Witt’s view of the Universe is that is consists entirely of curved space, gravity, and energy forming a complex balance of matter and anti-matter, energy and dark energy, all adding up to nothing at all.
I love this sort of book as it forces scientists to re-examine their most cherished assumptions. As a physician-consciousness researcher, I have used the quantum non-local reality physical reality model as the best fit to understand our current scientific concepts of consciousness. However, Witt’s book forces all of us to re-examine everything that we believe to be real. I am not qualified to do the math needed to critically evaluate his book, but my best guess is that ultimately he will be proven wrong. He is so thoughtful and thought provoking, however, that the book is well worth it for the hours of discussion it has provoked between me, my wife, and friends.
It is clear, well organized and simply written. It is often funny. You don’t need to be a mathematician to understand his basic concepts. He presents a broad comprehensive theory of reality which incorporates subatomic reality, ordinary reality, and the latest understandings of astronomy and cosmology. He has great lines such as describing modern physicists as being so astonished by their experimental findings that they have become “infused with a hysterical mysticism”.
He does a great job of summarizing the basic principles of quantum physics in one of the best and succinct presentations I have read for the non-physicist. He accurately points out the many flaws in the current scientific model and he nicely outlines the mainstream understanding of the difficulties in creating a coherent unified theory of reality given the constraints of the current paradigm. Let’s face it, there is plenty of room within modern theoretical physics for Witt’s Null Physics, given that many no longer feel the Big Bang is a viable theory and mainstream physicists state the Universe is made mostly of “dark energy” and “dark matter” and that we have no idea what they are.
His critics are legion, yet mainly consist of anonymous chat room “experts” and graduate level physicists who have not read his book. The substance of their criticism consists mainly of repetitively chanting “crack pot, crack pot” over and over again. Sort of a Lord of Flies meets the Internet gone really really bad. As Harold Bloom points out in The Lucifer Principle, “the most insubstantial things we call ideas . .can lead to the basest cruelties.” I have reviewed the websites of Witt’s critics and understand their concerns. These primarily young men are in the process of establishing themselves within their fields. It takes a sense of confidence and maturity to read Witt’s book which most people are going to completely disagree with. By challenging our basic beliefs, Witt forces a healthy re-examination of the fundamental assumptions of modern physics and a greater understanding of whatever model of reality we ultimately end up with.
I have written peer reviewed articles with theoretical physicists, and I showed the book to them. They hemmed and hawed, and muttered ridiculous, and yet ended with a healthy respect for what Witt is trying to accomplish. One internationally recognized theoretical physicist told me that “he is totally wrong, really doesn’t get it at all. However, if he is right, he is on the right track, I would work on his math, some of it needs complete revisions, but for a first effort, not bad, not bad at all.” It is telling that he declined me to allow his name to be used, given the controversy the book has created. Scientific American has recently decided to refuse Witt’s advertisements for his book, a sad commentary of the power of the current Scientific Fundamentalist movement (see side bar). No one wants to offend them or they too will have to suffer an Internet onslaught of chanting science drones.
As a scientist who challenged the medical model of consciousness by documenting the near death experiences of children, I will always have a soft spot for intelligent outsiders who dare to take on the scientific status quo. My theories of consciousness are now well accepted enough that they have been replicated by other scientists, and published in the American Medical Association Medical Journals, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The United Nations recently launched a multi-medical center study of near death experiences, yet 25 years ago I was also dismissed as a crackpot.
Ultimately, I am not sure if Mr. Witt’s theories will stand the test of time. It is not my field, and stranger things have happened in the history of science. However, I do know I learned a lot from reading his book, and it stimulated me to rethink my own theories of reality.
Last edited:
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Yet another account created solely to shill for Witt's cranky nonsense.... but nice of you to let us know the credibility of the reviewer:
'Nuff said.
Other reviews
Here is another from Kirkus Discoveries:
Witt, Terence
A bold and controversial new book of physics theory by biomedical engineer and businessman Witt.
Our Undiscovered Universe opens with a quote from Galileo: “In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” In this case, the “authority” is theconsensus of the modern scientific community and the “single individual” is Witt, who has worked for years to develop “a complete answer to the riddle of our existence.” His theory is called “Null Physics,” and Witt labors to lay its foundations bare, collecting—across some 400-plus handsomely designed pages—a panoply
of complex proofs, tables, exhaustive indices and a handful of gorgeous reproductions of Hubble images, courtesy of NASA. The author’s primary dispute is with the “irredeemably wrong” theory of the Big Bang, held by most scientists to be a relatively sound account of how our universe was born. He also advances an “entirely new scientific paradigm,” the centerpiece of Null Physics. “The Null Axiom” can be described simply: “Existence sums to non-existence, so nonexistence is composed of existence.” The book makes much
of the axiom, which becomes the core of a “unified cosmology.” Hence the “Null”—for Witt, the universe can “only make sense by viewing it as the inevitable and omnipresent substructure of nothingness.” (Correspondingly, the Big Bang must be incorrect, since “nothingness does not transform itself into reality.”) The problem is that while the author snipes frequently
at “arrogant” professional physicists, the author rarely engages their work. There is, for instance, only a rudimentary discussion of quantum mechanics. Eventually, Witt retreats to his own theorems, which he has declined to submit to academic journals for vetting. Still, Our Undiscovered Universe is a brave book, if not exactly an airtight one. The author challenges the status quo—not such an easy thing to do—and his work here is accessible to both the professional and the layman.
A well-written, provocative re-imagining of the world as it was, is and will be.
Another from a reader at Midwest Book Review:
Our Undiscovered Universe: Introducing Null Physics, The Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality
Terrence Witt
Aridian Publishing Corporation Melbourne
9780978593131 $59.00
I have been interested in physics for most of my adult life because I believe a deep understanding of physics will reveal how the universe works. Since it is, by definition, the hardest of the hard sciences, I have been and continue to be intrigued by certain enigmas in physics which physicists still don't understand.
Wave particle duality is just one example. If you set up an experiment to prove that photons behave as waves then that's the way they behave. If you set it up to prove that photons are discreet particles, then they behave as discreet particles. But it is impossible to set up an experiment that proves they are both particles and waves-simultaneously. The way you choose to set up the experiment determines the result.
The same is true for electrons, which unlike photons, have mass.
Physics attempts to deal with truly fundamental questions like:
Why does the universe exist?
Where did it come from?
What is it made of at the smallest level?
In Our Undiscovered Universe, Terence Witt identifies these as prime questions while pointing out that "they are questions children ask and never get good answers to."
Given my peculiar intellectual bent, on reading that, I was hooked.
Moving on to cosmology he asks equally penetrating questions. "If the universe began in an expansion 13.7 billion years ago, then:"
What caused it?
What existed before the beginning?
Where did all the universe's material come from?
Why did the event happen when it did; does time predate the Big Bang?
More hooks.
Witt is not a physicist, nor am I. He's an engineer and the founder and former CEO of Witt Biomedical Corporation. During Witt's tenure his corporation became the gold standard for cardiac hemodymamic software. I knew that because I spent most of my adult life managing departments of diagnostic imaging in hospitals ranging in size from 120 to 1200 beds. I also taught x-ray and radium physics to students of radiologic technology.
Terence Witt's background was yet another hook.
The first axiom in the book is: EXISTENCE SUMS TO NONEXISTENCE
It means everything came from nothing.
Witt uses mathematics to demonstrate the significance and validity of his axioms, theorems and hypotheses. Unfortunately, I don't have the mathematical chops to follow the equations past high school level algebra. Fortunately, I've been reading about physics for so long that I had little trouble following his narrative exposition.
The book is not for the faint of heart. It is for people with an intense interest in physics and cosmology and who are intrigued by the bulleted questions listed above.
Some of his conclusions are:
There never was a Big Bang
The Universe is not expanding
The Hubble red shift has nothing to do with universal expansion
The universe has always been here and always will be
I found it an exhilarating read; difficult but well worth the effort. After reading it I spent some time online to get a feel for what the established physics/cosmology community thinks of Null Physics.
I can't remember encountering such frank and derisive vitriol. Just Google Null Physics or Terrence Witt and you'll see what I mean. My search using Null Physics yielded 2,620,000 hits. The majority of the ones I read were negative.
In some ways the vitriol is understandable. Witt, after all, decided to publish and promote his work privately thus bypassing the tried and true path of refereed scientific journals.
As I've said, I'm not a physicist and my mathematical skills are poor. I am also, decidedly, not a fan of vitriol. Whether Witt is right or wrong has nothing to do with the extent to which the collective physics and cosmology community's collective noses have been bent out of shape. Only time, not vitriol will tell. Read this book.
Here is another from Kirkus Discoveries:
Witt, Terence
A bold and controversial new book of physics theory by biomedical engineer and businessman Witt.
Our Undiscovered Universe opens with a quote from Galileo: “In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” In this case, the “authority” is theconsensus of the modern scientific community and the “single individual” is Witt, who has worked for years to develop “a complete answer to the riddle of our existence.” His theory is called “Null Physics,” and Witt labors to lay its foundations bare, collecting—across some 400-plus handsomely designed pages—a panoply
of complex proofs, tables, exhaustive indices and a handful of gorgeous reproductions of Hubble images, courtesy of NASA. The author’s primary dispute is with the “irredeemably wrong” theory of the Big Bang, held by most scientists to be a relatively sound account of how our universe was born. He also advances an “entirely new scientific paradigm,” the centerpiece of Null Physics. “The Null Axiom” can be described simply: “Existence sums to non-existence, so nonexistence is composed of existence.” The book makes much
of the axiom, which becomes the core of a “unified cosmology.” Hence the “Null”—for Witt, the universe can “only make sense by viewing it as the inevitable and omnipresent substructure of nothingness.” (Correspondingly, the Big Bang must be incorrect, since “nothingness does not transform itself into reality.”) The problem is that while the author snipes frequently
at “arrogant” professional physicists, the author rarely engages their work. There is, for instance, only a rudimentary discussion of quantum mechanics. Eventually, Witt retreats to his own theorems, which he has declined to submit to academic journals for vetting. Still, Our Undiscovered Universe is a brave book, if not exactly an airtight one. The author challenges the status quo—not such an easy thing to do—and his work here is accessible to both the professional and the layman.
A well-written, provocative re-imagining of the world as it was, is and will be.
Another from a reader at Midwest Book Review:
Our Undiscovered Universe: Introducing Null Physics, The Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality
Terrence Witt
Aridian Publishing Corporation Melbourne
9780978593131 $59.00
I have been interested in physics for most of my adult life because I believe a deep understanding of physics will reveal how the universe works. Since it is, by definition, the hardest of the hard sciences, I have been and continue to be intrigued by certain enigmas in physics which physicists still don't understand.
Wave particle duality is just one example. If you set up an experiment to prove that photons behave as waves then that's the way they behave. If you set it up to prove that photons are discreet particles, then they behave as discreet particles. But it is impossible to set up an experiment that proves they are both particles and waves-simultaneously. The way you choose to set up the experiment determines the result.
The same is true for electrons, which unlike photons, have mass.
Physics attempts to deal with truly fundamental questions like:
Why does the universe exist?
Where did it come from?
What is it made of at the smallest level?
In Our Undiscovered Universe, Terence Witt identifies these as prime questions while pointing out that "they are questions children ask and never get good answers to."
Given my peculiar intellectual bent, on reading that, I was hooked.
Moving on to cosmology he asks equally penetrating questions. "If the universe began in an expansion 13.7 billion years ago, then:"
What caused it?
What existed before the beginning?
Where did all the universe's material come from?
Why did the event happen when it did; does time predate the Big Bang?
More hooks.
Witt is not a physicist, nor am I. He's an engineer and the founder and former CEO of Witt Biomedical Corporation. During Witt's tenure his corporation became the gold standard for cardiac hemodymamic software. I knew that because I spent most of my adult life managing departments of diagnostic imaging in hospitals ranging in size from 120 to 1200 beds. I also taught x-ray and radium physics to students of radiologic technology.
Terence Witt's background was yet another hook.
The first axiom in the book is: EXISTENCE SUMS TO NONEXISTENCE
It means everything came from nothing.
Witt uses mathematics to demonstrate the significance and validity of his axioms, theorems and hypotheses. Unfortunately, I don't have the mathematical chops to follow the equations past high school level algebra. Fortunately, I've been reading about physics for so long that I had little trouble following his narrative exposition.
The book is not for the faint of heart. It is for people with an intense interest in physics and cosmology and who are intrigued by the bulleted questions listed above.
Some of his conclusions are:
There never was a Big Bang
The Universe is not expanding
The Hubble red shift has nothing to do with universal expansion
The universe has always been here and always will be
I found it an exhilarating read; difficult but well worth the effort. After reading it I spent some time online to get a feel for what the established physics/cosmology community thinks of Null Physics.
I can't remember encountering such frank and derisive vitriol. Just Google Null Physics or Terrence Witt and you'll see what I mean. My search using Null Physics yielded 2,620,000 hits. The majority of the ones I read were negative.
In some ways the vitriol is understandable. Witt, after all, decided to publish and promote his work privately thus bypassing the tried and true path of refereed scientific journals.
As I've said, I'm not a physicist and my mathematical skills are poor. I am also, decidedly, not a fan of vitriol. Whether Witt is right or wrong has nothing to do with the extent to which the collective physics and cosmology community's collective noses have been bent out of shape. Only time, not vitriol will tell. Read this book.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Witt's book is the equivalent of a book by a quack doctor on how you can cure yourself of any illness using leeches, or some such. I would certainly hope medical professionals would react with vitriol to something like that (particularly if it was advertised with full-page ads in major medical journals). Why is it surprising that professional physicists react similarly?
Actually, the overwhelming reaction of the physics community has been to totally ignore it - it's just another in the endless succession of silly crackpot theories that come out many times ever year. Since bad physics is less life-threatening than bad medicine, it's OK to ignore.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
"Witt uses mathematics to demonstrate the significance and validity of his axioms, theorems and hypotheses. Unfortunately, I don't have the mathematical chops to follow the equations past high school level algebra."
How could such a person conclude Witt's theories and his book have any merit? Would his favorable conclusions be based on the nice colors used in the book? What a moron!
How could such a person conclude Witt's theories and his book have any merit? Would his favorable conclusions be based on the nice colors used in the book? What a moron!
Last edited:
You taught "radium physics" yet cannot understand that Witt's claim that a neutron is a bound state of a proton and an electron is clearly wrong? I'm struggling to believe you.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
From their web site:
So Terence Witt paid Kirkus Discoveries to do the review. What he got is what he paid for - a 2 sentence and 1 paragraph "review" from an anonymous reviewer which is a lot of quotes from the book and no critical analysis of the contents.
The second reviewer is at least honest in stating that "I'm not a physicist and my mathematical skills are poor". But his good review is then based on his understanding of the text. The problem is that Terence Witt is a good writer even when he is writing nonsense. The reviewer was thus easily fooled by Witt's snake oil.
The reviewer also did not read the book carefully, e.g. the Null Axiom is not the "first axiom in the book" - it is the only axiom in the book.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
As a mater of curiosity: Do you have any association with BRIO who are the people running the PR for Terence Witt's book. I see this person on many PR releases:
Sara Lien
BRIO
Public Relations Director
BRIO
Public Relations Director
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Hi Tubbythin: It was the reviewer at Midwest Book Review who taught "radium physics".
Saraliz might be a PR person for the advertisers of "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt.
Oops. That's true. I guess my disbelief should be aimed at the reviewer then.
Having Read the Book
And having a excellent math and science background, I can say that book was a good read, contains novel ideas, and leaves room for additional work, including proofs (mathematical and observational). It almost reminded me of reading Flatland at some point in middle school. I love the fact that it introduces into modern physics the concept of 0 aka the null. How irrational is it that bookkeepers figured it out on the Indian subcontinent several thousand years ago, but the establishment rails against it because of its author/source/method of introduction (I have also invested the time to read this entire thread, quite amusing/frightening I might add...).
I would love to pick apart some of the concepts and ideas in the book and discuss them further, without getting into a gr, sm, qcd, string, whiners and complainers fest. Please Limit this discussion to people who have HONESTLY read the book with an open mind. It took about 1 week an hr a night to digest it, and I believe that it has been one of the best investments of my time recently.
With that in mind I realize there are some mental giants roaming loose on this thread, so before you (and you know who you are) start tearing into this post, which I don't really care if you do or don't, please post the ratio of free hydrogen to ionized hydrogen in free space at the top of your post.
And having a excellent math and science background, I can say that book was a good read, contains novel ideas, and leaves room for additional work, including proofs (mathematical and observational). It almost reminded me of reading Flatland at some point in middle school. I love the fact that it introduces into modern physics the concept of 0 aka the null. How irrational is it that bookkeepers figured it out on the Indian subcontinent several thousand years ago, but the establishment rails against it because of its author/source/method of introduction (I have also invested the time to read this entire thread, quite amusing/frightening I might add...).
I would love to pick apart some of the concepts and ideas in the book and discuss them further, without getting into a gr, sm, qcd, string, whiners and complainers fest. Please Limit this discussion to people who have HONESTLY read the book with an open mind. It took about 1 week an hr a night to digest it, and I believe that it has been one of the best investments of my time recently.
With that in mind I realize there are some mental giants roaming loose on this thread, so before you (and you know who you are) start tearing into this post, which I don't really care if you do or don't, please post the ratio of free hydrogen to ionized hydrogen in free space at the top of your post.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Like you, I have read the book. I have even written a review of it.
What do you think about Terrence Witt redefining infinity (the concept of unboundedness) as a finite length?
How about his really neat derivation that a line is nothing?
Define nothing to be 0.
Define a line to be "...+0+0+0+0+...".
Add up the zeroes to give 0. Thus a line is nothing.
(ignore that fact that you have not defined how to add nothings together and are actually adding zeroes).
Last edited:
removal of reference
Consider the title of this post while reading this. I will admit that, when first approached by this idea, it seemed a little much. After taking the time to ponder it, It eventually hit me as easy to stomach. It required some mental yoga, but the idea that no 2 things are alike, means, nothing is alike. Having had logic classes, I know that one can argue the case, lets not get mired here.
So, What can you do when 2 things (i.e. nothing) are alike, you can add. So as some of our more illustrious posters admitted, that yes, his math is circular. Well that's fine. y=mx+b can when solved for zero certainly looks like 0=0 when b=0, regardless of m. A mathematical proof need only prove itself.
Mr. Check, the fundamental concept of zero is a place holder for nothing. When I said that bookkeepers in India several thousand years ago gave us this concept, it came from an accounting standpoint. The ZERO sum is a useful tool when calculating balances, IE when the miller has received nothing from his customer, the baker. Keep in mind, before this point a lot of great work had been done without in geometry, astronomy etc. I am getting off track here, but I hope we can see eye to eye here.
To further the ideas surrounding zero, or nothing as it were, lets take a look at units, efficient frontiers and limit equations. We live in a would with lots and lots of dimensions and they all have units, because that's how we like it. if you have 0 units of an object, you still have the unit measure. Look at it from at each side of the measure and you will have a relationship that can be bounded. If I were an economist, the relationship would look like an efficient frontier with an included set, and an excluded set. A limit function is a good way to describe all sets of numbers as the approach a real number, bounded by zero and that number. Consider this a good way to describe dimensionless units (What's funny is ocean salinity is one of them, in name only), as approaching a number and no relationship to another parameter.Can and will you admit an infinite amount of a dimensionless unit is smaller than the same amount of a unit with a bounded relationship?
Here comes the yoga part. I can stack papers on my desk. I have signed my name THOUSANDS of times, a smooth unbroken line (i take pride in my signature), however I have never seen a line in my life. Let me go back to flatland for this one. When the square breaks out of his plane of reference to behold a sphere, how tall is the square? If he has no height, that is an unbounded dimension, aghast! When the square visits the universe of the line, they are all points, but they can get out of line! And last the lonely point, which I think I have lost. I don't believe Mr. Witt to be guilty of redefining anything heretical, he is there is a special relationship between zero and infinity that get lost in the translation.
That relationship is the basis of his "funny" math. I know it seems circular, but it works.
PS: If I have a bucket, and it full of nothing what do I have?
Consider the title of this post while reading this. I will admit that, when first approached by this idea, it seemed a little much. After taking the time to ponder it, It eventually hit me as easy to stomach. It required some mental yoga, but the idea that no 2 things are alike, means, nothing is alike. Having had logic classes, I know that one can argue the case, lets not get mired here.
So, What can you do when 2 things (i.e. nothing) are alike, you can add. So as some of our more illustrious posters admitted, that yes, his math is circular. Well that's fine. y=mx+b can when solved for zero certainly looks like 0=0 when b=0, regardless of m. A mathematical proof need only prove itself.
Mr. Check, the fundamental concept of zero is a place holder for nothing. When I said that bookkeepers in India several thousand years ago gave us this concept, it came from an accounting standpoint. The ZERO sum is a useful tool when calculating balances, IE when the miller has received nothing from his customer, the baker. Keep in mind, before this point a lot of great work had been done without in geometry, astronomy etc. I am getting off track here, but I hope we can see eye to eye here.
To further the ideas surrounding zero, or nothing as it were, lets take a look at units, efficient frontiers and limit equations. We live in a would with lots and lots of dimensions and they all have units, because that's how we like it. if you have 0 units of an object, you still have the unit measure. Look at it from at each side of the measure and you will have a relationship that can be bounded. If I were an economist, the relationship would look like an efficient frontier with an included set, and an excluded set. A limit function is a good way to describe all sets of numbers as the approach a real number, bounded by zero and that number. Consider this a good way to describe dimensionless units (What's funny is ocean salinity is one of them, in name only), as approaching a number and no relationship to another parameter.Can and will you admit an infinite amount of a dimensionless unit is smaller than the same amount of a unit with a bounded relationship?
Here comes the yoga part. I can stack papers on my desk. I have signed my name THOUSANDS of times, a smooth unbroken line (i take pride in my signature), however I have never seen a line in my life. Let me go back to flatland for this one. When the square breaks out of his plane of reference to behold a sphere, how tall is the square? If he has no height, that is an unbounded dimension, aghast! When the square visits the universe of the line, they are all points, but they can get out of line! And last the lonely point, which I think I have lost. I don't believe Mr. Witt to be guilty of redefining anything heretical, he is there is a special relationship between zero and infinity that get lost in the translation.
That relationship is the basis of his "funny" math. I know it seems circular, but it works.
PS: If I have a bucket, and it full of nothing what do I have?
Huh? In what field of inquiry "knowing the ratio of HI to HII" the flag of a good scientist? It's not terribly well measured; it varies enormously spatially and over time; the physics governing it is extremely complicated; it doesn't have some interesting conservation law behind it. And you didn't even specify it well---by "free" do you mean "neutral atomic"? By "free space" do you mean not counting stars, or not counting galaxies, or not counting clusters? Your questions strikes me as something akin to asking a geologist to post "the average vapor pressure of the world fossil fuel reserves".
Anyway, <sigh>, averaged over all H in the universe HI is something like 1%. If you care about some other average consult Fukugita & Peebles 2004.
Now, if you found something in the book which you think is right, which you want to compare to something in mainstream physics which you think is wrong, please go ahead and start the conversation. But if I tell you I disagree---which I'm likely to, having read the book and found nothing at all in this category---will that qualify as a "whiners and complainers fest"?
Your review
Good reading, didn't quite finish it entirely, however, I would like you to clarify some of the statement you make in your cosmology sections. Your logic seems to be poorly supported in this excerpt. (i have highlighted the parts which irked my logic meter)
"#Lyman-alpha forest.
If you look at the spectrum of light from a distant galaxy then there are absorption lines from the Lyman alpha transition of neutral hydrogen in the clouds between us and the galaxy. Redshift (or even Terence Witt's "lumetic decay") means that the absorption lines happen at different wavelengths corresponding to each cloud and appear at different positions in the spectrum. This is the Lyman-alpha forest. The Gunn-Peterson trough appears when the forest gets so dense that there is no spectrum. The forest shows that there is little neutral hydrogen nearby and that the density of neutral hydrogen increases with distance (and so into the past). The result is that the intergalactic medium (IGM) is at least partially neutral at a redshift of z above 6. This is an indication of the reionization of the IGM between 150 million and one billion years after the Big Bang (at a redshift 6 < z < 20) due to the formation of galaxies.
# IGM neutral hydrogen.
This is an addition to the last point. Galaxies emit ionizing radiation (light) that converts neutral hydrogen in the IGM into ionized hydrogen. This means that in Terence Witt's cosmology there cannot be any neutral hydrogen in the IGM because there is an infinite amount of time for an eternal universe to ionize the hydrogen. Astronomers have detected neutral hydrogen in the IGM and so null cosmology is wrong."
That is a bold statement, as the null cosmology theory has a mechanism to achieve a balance between both states. I am not saying Mr. Witt's math is 100% accurate, however, with refinement, his mechanisms could prove useful. I.E. Why does that balance exist?
Good reading, didn't quite finish it entirely, however, I would like you to clarify some of the statement you make in your cosmology sections. Your logic seems to be poorly supported in this excerpt. (i have highlighted the parts which irked my logic meter)
"#Lyman-alpha forest.
If you look at the spectrum of light from a distant galaxy then there are absorption lines from the Lyman alpha transition of neutral hydrogen in the clouds between us and the galaxy. Redshift (or even Terence Witt's "lumetic decay") means that the absorption lines happen at different wavelengths corresponding to each cloud and appear at different positions in the spectrum. This is the Lyman-alpha forest. The Gunn-Peterson trough appears when the forest gets so dense that there is no spectrum. The forest shows that there is little neutral hydrogen nearby and that the density of neutral hydrogen increases with distance (and so into the past). The result is that the intergalactic medium (IGM) is at least partially neutral at a redshift of z above 6. This is an indication of the reionization of the IGM between 150 million and one billion years after the Big Bang (at a redshift 6 < z < 20) due to the formation of galaxies.
# IGM neutral hydrogen.
This is an addition to the last point. Galaxies emit ionizing radiation (light) that converts neutral hydrogen in the IGM into ionized hydrogen. This means that in Terence Witt's cosmology there cannot be any neutral hydrogen in the IGM because there is an infinite amount of time for an eternal universe to ionize the hydrogen. Astronomers have detected neutral hydrogen in the IGM and so null cosmology is wrong."
That is a bold statement, as the null cosmology theory has a mechanism to achieve a balance between both states. I am not saying Mr. Witt's math is 100% accurate, however, with refinement, his mechanisms could prove useful. I.E. Why does that balance exist?
Sorry for the confusion
the last post was direct to reality checks review. sorry if I made that unclear
now @Ben M.
As far as conflicts and disagreement go, I can handle conflict, you will get no "flaming" out of me. I only seek to ward of the pointless banter.
I really would like to discuss some of the stated mechanisms mr. witt uses. The reason I asked about the Ionized hydrogen ratios was to have a starting point. What would be an appropriate mechanism to achieve a balance in free space, ie not being burned? I only ask this, because I have never seen lightning in space, assuming an localized density would support it.
the last post was direct to reality checks review. sorry if I made that unclear
now @Ben M.
As far as conflicts and disagreement go, I can handle conflict, you will get no "flaming" out of me. I only seek to ward of the pointless banter.
I really would like to discuss some of the stated mechanisms mr. witt uses. The reason I asked about the Ionized hydrogen ratios was to have a starting point. What would be an appropriate mechanism to achieve a balance in free space, ie not being burned? I only ask this, because I have never seen lightning in space, assuming an localized density would support it.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
What mechanism achieves "a balance between both states"?
All the recycling of matter by his unknown and unspecified mechanism (try to find put how lead is converted into hydrogen in his book) happens inside the galaxy. If there is leakage of neutral hydrogen from galaxies then his recycling fails and galaxies vanish. The conclusion is that null cosmology predicts that either galaxies do not exists or neutral hydrogen in the IGM doe not exist. Both are predictions are false.
What balance?
There is a "balance" so long as we throw away the laws of thermodynamics so that diffuse low temperature radiation can be collected in non-existent hot galactic "cores".
Reality Check
"What mechanism achieves "a balance between both states"?
All the recycling of matter by his unknown and unspecified mechanism (try to find put how lead is converted into hydrogen in his book) happens inside the galaxy. If there is leakage of neutral hydrogen from galaxies then his recycling fails and galaxies vanish. The conclusion is that null cosmology predicts that either galaxies do not exists or neutral hydrogen in the IGM doe not exist. Both are predictions are false.
What balance?
There is a "balance" so long as we throw away the laws of thermodynamics so that diffuse low temperature radiation can be collected in non-existent hot galactic "cores"."
I seem to recall his (witt) black holes eat matter. Like Unicron. Also, his digestive tract involved dropping optimus prime into molten metal. Isn't it relatively safe to say black holes can fracture atomic nuclei? I realize shifting thoughts on black holes causes a stir, but...
What would you suggest be the proper mechanism for HII. As abobe i dont see lightning in space. I would like to think that mr. witt was making an idealized case for a galaxy. Ergo, he was cutting of the crust. Why fail the entire theory then?
PS.My dad always told me crust would make my hair curly yet it didn't
"What mechanism achieves "a balance between both states"?
All the recycling of matter by his unknown and unspecified mechanism (try to find put how lead is converted into hydrogen in his book) happens inside the galaxy. If there is leakage of neutral hydrogen from galaxies then his recycling fails and galaxies vanish. The conclusion is that null cosmology predicts that either galaxies do not exists or neutral hydrogen in the IGM doe not exist. Both are predictions are false.
What balance?
There is a "balance" so long as we throw away the laws of thermodynamics so that diffuse low temperature radiation can be collected in non-existent hot galactic "cores"."
I seem to recall his (witt) black holes eat matter. Like Unicron. Also, his digestive tract involved dropping optimus prime into molten metal. Isn't it relatively safe to say black holes can fracture atomic nuclei? I realize shifting thoughts on black holes causes a stir, but...
What would you suggest be the proper mechanism for HII. As abobe i dont see lightning in space. I would like to think that mr. witt was making an idealized case for a galaxy. Ergo, he was cutting of the crust. Why fail the entire theory then?
PS.My dad always told me crust would make my hair curly yet it didn't
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
When no 2 things are alike then no 2 things are alike. This includes 2 nothings.
You need to define "nothing", "alike" and then show mathematically that 2 nothings are alike. Then you have to define the operation of addition for alike nothings.
Mathematical proofs that use circular logic are wrong. Your example is not a proof - it is a calculation.
That is right - if you have a definition for addition.
Terence Witt never defines addition in null geometry. He assumes that he can use arithmetic addition of numbers on the symbols that he in his definition of a line. But the zeros in his line are not the number zero. They are points.
By treating the zeros in his definition as numbers rather than pointshe is invalidating his definition of a "line".
Here is a another definiton for his "line":
A line is "...+X+X+X+X..." where the Xs represent geometric points and "a point has no mass, charge, or any other property, except for its position relative to other points".
Now add the X's together using ordinary arithemetic.
What about this definnition of a line:
A line is ".../0/0/0/0/..." where the zeros represent geometric points and "a point has no mass, charge, or any other property, except for its position relative to other points".
Now divide the zeros using ordinary arithemetic.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Black holes never "fracture atomic nuclei". They compress them into a very small volume and never let them go.
Terrence Witt's core are not black holes. He supplies no mechanism to "fracture atomic nuclei".
His cores do not exist. If they did then we would see the one in the center of the Milky Way. We would see stars vanishing into it. We have observed the center of the Milky Way closely for a couple of decades now and seen neither a cor or vanishing stars.
Why do you expect to see lightning in space?
Neutral hydrogen is ionized by light (electromagnetic radiation or photons). The proper mechanism for HII is the ionization of HI by light.
What is a Unicron?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
We are addressing Terance Witt's crackpot book. Feel free to throw your own Boolean logic at whatever you want. But that will not have anything to do with his book.
P.S. You missied this question:
What do you think about Terrence Witt redefining infinity (the concept of unboundedness) as a finite length?
No, it's not safe to say that. And Witt is not even just saying that. Witt is saying that black holes suck up both (a) heavy atoms and (b) some sort of microwave-powered energetic electron current, turn it into protons with 100% efficiency, and eject the protons (and only the protons) quietly back out into intergalactic space, at a rate equal to the entire galactic luminosity.
In the "black holes break up nuclei" thing, Witt was stating what he thought to be a necessary condition for his entire cosmology model---the whole model is the claim that starlight gets recycled and used for fission. That was not an aesthetic detail to be massaged later, it was one of the keystones.
If you think there is a part worth keeping, please explain it.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Witt's mathematics is just plain silly and wrong! His cosmology contradicts long established (through countless experiments) physics. His logic is hopelessly flawed. Consequently, his book is worthless!
Just read this and realized that it didn't make any sense.
What evidence do you have that there the HI/HII ratio is in any sort of balance? It certainly wasn't in "balance" during the CMB transition and the reionization transition; there's no reason to believe it's in balance now.
This ratio doesn't have anything to do with either burning or with lightning.
Well, here goes comes the pitch. Boolean logic is a quite powerful tool, and can by brute force, display the words you are reading. I would suggest reading /wiki/Boolean_logic and than make bold mathematical statements discounting that I need to define nothing, and prove addition. The math is simple, however, in a physicist toolbox, the concept of zero is missing. Take absolute zero. Have you ever seen it? you can get damn close, but a nice limit equation has a nice fit and excludes the possibilty, so does all practical theory. Therefor ZERO is not in your included set.
I am going to go eat dinner. I will be back.
The statement was not designed to make sense but promote thought. Ionized hydrogen exists free in our universe, just look at what the voyager missions are running into right now in the termination shock of our little solar system. My point is that you and I have never seen evidence that the hii has accumulated to the point to free electron discharged, like you might have in a battery. however the slow buildup of hii, by your admitted mechanisms, would eventually lead to such a scenario. If you have 2 states of 1 element, a good question to ask is why is the ratio such?
His white dwarf models do look interesting, and are probably worth the mental exercise. I am not the author, so therefore i can't tell you why he would suggest alternate black hole theory, gravitaitional shearing and hawking radiation debate might be another thread.....however, It would be great if he would come again to this forum to clarify.
As for the kesytone of the book, I would argue that he does address other galaxy types, albiet in no detail. This in not particularly bothersome, look at the first autos. I have ridden in a Stanley steamer, and my car is powered by a boxxer engine, both work due the expansion of gas, albeit in two very distinct ways. So don't throw out the kitchen sink.
Last edited:
HII clouds are already neutral; they're a mix of free protons and free electrons with (except in very special circumstances) no charge separation at all. No charge separation, no voltage, no lightning.
Protons and electrons do not, contrary to popular belief, instantly recombine into neutral atoms; the actual observed (and theoretically understood) behavior is very complex and depends on three-body effects (an e- and and p+ to combine, and some third atom in the vicinity as a sort of catalyst). Moreover, most HII is in fact very hot, far above the ionization temperature.
Black Holes
AS an aside. I don't think at this point in this conversation we can quite hit this topic. We have started beginning of the book with the zero concept. It's not that i don't want to go there or am not prepared to discuss, but the hii / cosmology thing at the end of the book. I believe a discussion should have a natural progression, jumping around might muddy the waters to much to have a useful dialogue. I have some nice polar math that i have worked out, theory complements his work. the concept work like a sheet of paper rolled up in a tube. shrink the diameter with no overlap, you get a tail. overlap, and the paper becomes stronger.
AS an aside. I don't think at this point in this conversation we can quite hit this topic. We have started beginning of the book with the zero concept. It's not that i don't want to go there or am not prepared to discuss, but the hii / cosmology thing at the end of the book. I believe a discussion should have a natural progression, jumping around might muddy the waters to much to have a useful dialogue. I have some nice polar math that i have worked out, theory complements his work. the concept work like a sheet of paper rolled up in a tube. shrink the diameter with no overlap, you get a tail. overlap, and the paper becomes stronger.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I would suggest that you read the post:
Boolean logic has nothing to do infinity.
The mathematical definition of infinityWP is the concept of being without bounds, e.g. in calculus you have limits that tend to infinity.
Infinity is not a number. Infinity is not finite. Infinity does not have physical dimensions.
But Terrence Witt redefines infinity to be finite (he states that it has a magnitude on page 44), gives it the physical dimensions of length and treats it as a number (Infinity is NOT a number).
The "physicist toolbox" does include zero, e.g. there is zero degrees Celsius.
Boolean logic also has nothing to do with geometry.
Did you notice that:
- Terrence Witt's null geometry is not actually a geometry?
In his "geometry" there is no such thing as length, area or volume. - His geometry is never connected to the Euclidean geometry that we know our universe matches locally.
- Terrence Witt's null geometry is physically useless since he never defines differentiation?
There is no velocity or acceleration in null geometry. - The fact that null geometry is nonsensical pseudo-mathematics does not really matter because it is not used to derive his physical theories! The first 4 chapters are not used in later chapters.