Null Physics anyone?

[sol invictus]

The one-to-one correspondence is between the decimal representations of a point in the plane and on the line. Your example points out that decimal representations of some numbers are not unique.

That was exactly my point. The proposed correspondence used the decimal representation and then claimed it was 1-1, which is isn't.

...take the decimal representations of the real numbers representing the location of a point (x, y coordinates for example) and create a unique real number by taking digits alternately from the x number's representation and the y number's representation. It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

I think the answer to my objection is probably that the set of real numbers with a non-unique decimal expansion is countable (meaning it's the same size as the integers), and therefore you can just exclude those numbers and the proof still goes through.

Dang, I could have sworn that I learned somewhere that more dimensions means you have more numbers. Neat to learn, anyway.

A simpler example is to note that there are exactly as many real numbers between 0 and 1 as there are between 0 and 2 (or any other finite interval), because multiplying or dividing by 2 is a 1-1 map. There are also as many integers as rational numbers - but there are more reals. It's weird stuff.

 

[jsfisher]

That was exactly my point. The proposed correspondence used the decimal representation and then claimed it was 1-1, which is isn't.

I think you missed a subtlety in my post. The digit-interleaving mechanism does produce a one-to-one (and onto) mapping, but not of the points in the plane to points on the line. The correspondence is for the decimal representations of the points, not the points themselves.

Even though (1.00..., 0.00...) and (0.99..., 0.00...) describe the same point, they are different decimal representations. So, they must map to different decimal representations of points on the line for the mapping to be one-to-one.

 

[sol invictus]

I think you missed a subtlety in my post. The digit-interleaving mechanism does produce a one-to-one (and onto) mapping, but not of the points in the plane to points on the line. The correspondence is for the decimal representations of the points, not the points themselves.

Sorry, I'm not getting it. This correspondence was supposed to be a 1-1 mapping from points on the plane to points on the line - not from decimal representations of points to decimal representations of points!

Again, I think the correct answer is just that the "bad" points (the ones with more than one decimal rep.) form a countable set.

The real numbers (the number line) can be put into one-to-one correcpondence with the points in a plane (or higher diemsnion equivalent) quite easily...It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

 

[Stir]

Sorry, I'm not getting it. This correspondence was supposed to be a 1-1 mapping from points on the plane to points on the line - not from decimal representations of points to decimal representations of points!

Again, I think the correct answer is just that the "bad" points (the ones with more than one decimal rep.) form a countable set.

S I: Yes you are correct that subtracting aleph zero points from an aleph one set leaves aleph one ... but the 'interleaving' argument is actually correct as has been explained. Let me come at that from a slightly different approach (which perhaps I should have included originally, but makes the argument muddier to most people): First decide on a rule on how you choose to represent "terminating rationals" (i.e. those rationals whose decimal representations reach a point beyond which there are all 0's ... or alternately all 9's). It doesn't matter which way you choose to represent them, just pick one. Once you've made this decision, the one-to-one works, and note that you haven't eliminated any points on the line or the plane, just decided on a convention on how some are represented. Hope that helps.

 

[jsfisher]

S I: Yes you are correct that subtracting aleph zero points from an aleph one set leaves aleph one ... but the 'interleaving' argument is actually correct as has been explained. Let me come at that from a slightly different approach (which perhaps I should have included originally, but makes the argument muddier to most people): First decide on a rule on how you choose to represent "terminating rationals" (i.e. those rationals whose decimal representations reach a point beyond which there are all 0's ... or alternately all 9's). It doesn't matter which way you choose to represent them, just pick one. Once you've made this decision, the one-to-one works, and note that you haven't eliminated any points on the line or the plane, just decided on a convention on how some are represented. Hope that helps.

One amusing curiosity you end up with is that the function mapping points on a plane to points on a line is, indeed, one-to-one (meaning every point in the function's domain maps to a unique point in the function's realm), but the function is not onto. There are points on a line that do not map back to a point in the plane.

It is almost like saying the number of points on a line exceeds the number of points in a plane, but such is the nature of the various infinities.

 

[T-Diddy]

Disclosure: I am not trained in advanced physics. My training/degrees are in the fields of mechanical engineering (solid mechanics, fluid mechanics and heat transfer) and nuclear [reactor] physics – not the theoretical stuff discussed earlier. Oh, and I have a high school diploma, which is just about all I needed in my quest to debunk TW… Anyway, this is my first post here; I saw TW’s ad, now appearing in Popular Science, and couldn’t resist looking it up, which ultimately led me here.

Although this thread has mostly been devoted to debunking TW’s theories in the realm of advanced physics, I think you’ve sold yourselves short on how easy it is to prove him wrong and reduce his arguments to utter rubbish. Let’s explore the simplest premises that are available from his book, shall we? To quote from his website:

SURFACE BOUNDARIES
In general, any (N+1)-dimensional space can have an N-dimensional surface subject to the following related criteria:
Ψ THEOREM 2.9 - CLOSURE BOUNDARY {Ψ2.4, Ψ2.8}
(A) ANY (N+1)-DIMENSIONAL REGION CAN BE BOUNDED BY AN INFINITELY
THIN N-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE
(B) THE MAXIMUM DIMENSION AN INFINITELY THIN N-DIMENSIONAL
SURFACE CAN BOUND IS (N+1)
A circle is bounded by an infinitely thin line; a sphere is bounded by an infinitely thin area.
Similarly, a line is too dimensionally small to form a spherical boundary. In reference to our
universe, no boundaries of any kind exist along its three spatial dimensions. This means space is not a bounded interior region; it is a bounding surface.

Let’s start with the first sentence. It begins clearly enough, because any N+1 dimensional space can, in fact, contain an N dimensional surface (provided you don’t bound the N+1 surface to be too small). Unfortunately, his logic heads south by the end of the sentence. The statement made at the beginning of the sentence is not subject to any additional criteria; that is to say, an N+1 dimensional surface can ALWAYS accommodate an N dimensional surface. TW’s theorem, regardless of whether it is true, is proposed to support a flawed premise (and conclusion, but we’ll get to that later).

Now, to look at theorem 2.9 (A) – Can any N+1 dimensional surface be bounded by an infinitely thin N dimensional surface? Short answer: No.

There are four available examples in classical physics: 0-to-1 dimensional bounding up through 3-to-4 dimensional bounding. TW discusses two examples: using a line to bound a circle and a shell to bound a sphere. However, a circle (defined in Euclidean geometry as the sum of all points equidistant from a single point – not a line) cannot be circumscribed by a 1-dimentional object (line). By virtue of bending the line, it is no longer 1-dimensional: it is now 2-dimensional. Similarly, a sphere shell, although of zero thickness, is still a 3-dimensional object (if you doubt it, look up the formula: it requires inputs in 3 dimensions).

Lest anyone suggest that the above argument is semantic, let’s look at the two cases TW doesn’t explore. Is a 1-dimensional object (line) bounded by a 0-dimensional object (point)? Clearly not. At a minimum, at least two points are required to bound a line (segment). This is an important distinction, because theorem 2.9 (B) and the conclusions that proceed from it require the bounding object to be singular. Similarly, a 4-dimensional object (3D w/ time component) cannot be bounded by a 3D object. Perhaps a 4D object could be said to be bounded by a 3D object at the beginning of the specified time and by another 3D object at the end of the specified time (really the same object at two different times), but by no means does the “3D” object bound the “4D” version.

Based on this, it naturally follows that theorem 2.9 (B) cannot be true because it is premised on 2.9 (A). All further assertions based on these theorems are also wrong.

In summary, TW has, for no valid reason, taken 50% of the available examples and via improper geometric definition has created a false theorem. This theorem (2.9 (A)) is used to justify another theorem (2.9 (B)). This theorem is used to draw the conclusion that the universe, but virtue of extending infinitely in 3D, cannot be bounded and thus must be a bounding surface by virtue of 2.9 (B).

Incidentally, this conclusion doesn’t mean anything, and doesn’t even make sense. Although wrong, it seems to be the cornerstone for many more of TW’s theories to come (try reading the next few paragraphs that follow these theorems – they all rely on it heavily). Thus, we can state that null physics is indeed, null (and void).

Alternative method of disproving TW:

Theorem 2.9(B) requires the N dimensional object to be infinitely thin in the N-1 dimension. For example, a shell (or, for TW, plane) circumscribing a sphere has no thickness. However, when using 2.9 (B) to draw conclusions about “universal closure,” the universe is presumed to be infinitely large in 3 dimensions, not infinitely small in any dimension. TW has conveniently inverted the use of infinity here in a fashion that is not logically supported, and is thus invalid.

Second Alternative method:

Let’s offer a “true” version of 2.9(A) – namely, that any N+1 dimensional object can be bounded by a finite number of N dimensional objects. (For geometric (up to 3D) objects, the number required is N+2, but this doesn’t necessarily translate to time.) From this, a “true” version of 2.9(B) would be that only N dimensional surfaces can be used to bound an N+1 dimensional surface (i.e., lines cannot be used to circumscribe a sphere – only planes). Realistically, it should be N or N+1 dimensions, because an N+1 dimension object can be contained in a larger N+1 dimension object, but this is irrelevant to this particular argument.

Hmm, let’s apply this to the universe. The 3D universe can bind the 4D universe (i.e., there is a beginning to the universe, and presumably and end as well). Why can’t the 4D universe be binding a 5D universe? Or a 5D universe bind a 6D? In fact, there is no reason that the universe cannot extend into infinite dimensions using this train of logic. It thus follows that the “universal closure constant” (whatever the heck that is) is not 4, as stated by TW, but infinity. The term is one of TW’s invention for all I know, so I doubt it means anything (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), but isn’t it a lot more plausible that a “closure constant” for an infinite object is infinity vice 4? Maybe I should write a book about it. Would anybody pay me $59 for it (I’ll make sure to throw in some nice, glossy graphs and everything!)?

 

[ben m]

Maybe I should write a book about it. Would anybody pay me $59 for it (I’ll make sure to throw in some nice, glossy graphs and everything!)?

I couldn't help looking it up: Witt must have paid a total of $230,000 for full-page ads in Smithsonian and Popular Science. That made me gasp, then made me laugh.

Did he advertise anywhere else?

Ooh, Discover and SciAm. That's another $60K each.

 

[Schneibster]

Disclosure: I am not trained in advanced physics. My training/degrees are in the fields of mechanical engineering (solid mechanics, fluid mechanics and heat transfer) and nuclear [reactor] physics – not the theoretical stuff discussed earlier. Oh, and I have a high school diploma, which is just about all I needed in my quest to debunk TW… Anyway, this is my first post here; I saw TW’s ad, now appearing in Popular Science, and couldn’t resist looking it up, which ultimately led me here.

Although this thread has mostly been devoted to debunking TW’s theories in the realm of advanced physics, I think you’ve sold yourselves short on how easy it is to prove him wrong and reduce his arguments to utter rubbish. Let’s explore the simplest premises that are available from his book, shall we?

A man after my own heart. You really should have the green grin after that; I note you put it at the end of the post and commend you for restraint.

 

[T-Diddy]

Ben's post on cost got me to thinking about how much TW has sunk into this (this post probably makes me a terrible person, but for the sake of scientific progress, I feel I must make it ):

Sorry about the screwy form for the hyperlinks: I haven't made enough posts yet to be allowed to paste them in my posts.

Discover Magazine –full page, color ad: $52,700 (one-time) – 2 pages = $105,400 (discovermagazine<dot>com/media-kit/rates-specs/advertising-rates)

Smithsonian Magazine – Spread, color ad: $238,000 (smithsonianmag<dot>com/advertising/rates.html)

Popular Science – full page, color ad: $109,316 – 2 pages = $218,632 (popsci<dot>com/popsci/mediakits/2007mediakit.pdf)

Scientific American – full page, color ad: $67,400 (one time) – 2 pages = $134,800 (sciam<dot>com/mediakit/print/index.cfm?section=adrates)

Total Advertising Cost (to-date): $696,832

Based on visits to two online publishers (Lulu.com and instantpublisher.com, the first two that pop us as sponsored links on Google), the books could cost as little as $27 or as much as $85 per copy, depending on the printing options (particularly, the number of color pages).

We know he’s charging $59.00 a copy. Assuming that he got the books delivered for $29.00 a copy, that’s $30 gross per copy. At that rate, he only needs to sell 23,228 copies to break even.

I hope he got a discount from some of those magazines…

 

[ben m]

Total Advertising Cost (to-date): $696,832

That's depressing. Let's see---things you can do with $700,000:

If you gave it to MIT: http://giving.mit.edu/ways/naming/list.html

Fully endowed undergraduate scholarship: $500,000
Partially funded endowed scholarship: $50,000 and up
Fully endowed Presidential Fellowship: $1 million
Fully endowed graduate fellowship—tuition plus stipend, two semesters: $1 million
Partially funded endowed fellowship: $250,000 and up
UROP (Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program)—and other research funds
Named research fund (general): $50,000
Named UROP fund: $50,000 to $235,000
One-year UROP: $235,000
Summer (only) UROP: $135,000
Two-semester UROP: $100,000
One-semester UROP: $50,000

Full professorship: $3 million
Career development professorship: $2 million
Named renovated large classroom: $300,000
Named renovated seminar room: $80,000
Named library information resources fund: $25,000


(sigh). Mr. Witt, you wanted your name on the lips of scientists everywhere. I dare say that endowing the Witt Postdoctoral Fellowship, two Witt Rooms, or the Witt Research Funds would have gotten you a lot closer (and produced a lot more science) than blowing it on your book.

What did you get for your $700,000? A few hundred book sales, a blog post, and a JREF thread?

 

[T-Diddy]

I'm very hesitant to post this one, because now I'm sure you'll all think I'm horrible. I emailed my "anti-proof" above to TW's email he set up for reviews. However, I did warn him that if he replied, I would lampoon him to no end, so I actually don't feel bad about it. He responded thus:

Dear Thomas:

This is not a forum. This email is intended for people who have actually read the book, and it is clear by your comments that you have not, or else you would know why the closure constant is limited to 4 dimensions (among other things). Our excerpts are small, incomplete samples used to provoke curiosity, not provide complete derivations or descriptions of the underlying concepts. If you do in fact have degrees as listed, you ought to be able to afford a $60 book, which you could then read and make informed comments.

FYI, “Our Undiscovered Universe” has been reviewed by tenured professors in astrophysics, mathematics, and physics, and such reviews will be available soon at NULLPHYSICS.COM. No errors have been found in either the derivations, supporting evidence or calculations, although a couple of the reviewers would like even more evidence than has been presented in the book, since the Big Bang is such entrenched dogma. This additional evidence will become available when the predictions made by Null Physics are tested.

We’re not sure why many physics hobbyists feel so threatened by a thoughtful challenge to the current paradigms, but the religious zeal with which we have been attacked has at least been entertaining.

Sincerely,
The Null Physics Team

I responded by offering to perform a full review if he provided me a copy for free.

 

[EvanE]

I guess I must at least thank Terry Witt for leading me to this forum which I found when I Googled 'null physics' to see what it was about after seeing a 2 page spread in the latest Popular Science. And what a great forum I have found it be thus far.

The posts here have been very enlightening, although most of the physics stuff is well over my head. I am a psychology major and thus studied psychological research and statistical methods. But regardless of the science, whether psychology or physics, the process of gaining acceptance to get to a theory is the same. That being peer review, which allows for others to check out and critique the data and if it clears that then begin replication to validate a hypothesis. The audacity of this individual to think he can sit on some idea for 30 years and then spring it upon the masses and expect them to shell out 60 bucks to learn about it is preposterous. Not a single reputable scientist would behave in such a manner. When this 'null' idea struck him way back when, he should have submitted it for peer review. If it gets rejected, then go back to the drawing board to try at it again if you are so sure it is the answer. This is how science works. Start small and build on established parameters.

But apparently Mr. Witt thinks you must start big, with 'why the universe is here' and work backwards or some such. I reject such a premise all together. It practically borders on faith, much like creationists have a preconceived notion and then try to fit science around it. Wrong. Not how science works. Empiricism comes before philosophy when seeking objective answers.

From the amount Mr. Witt has spent on these ads, it seems he is either trying to make money off this, or he is a megalomaniac. Basically, he thinks his idea is so special that he can just bypass the entire science community and bring forth his truths to the magazine reading science-ish masses (most of whom, like myself, wouldn't have any idea how to check his work). Why can't he let those 'stuck in the string theory box' hacks have a shot at his work? Because they would overturn it in about 5 minutes probably. Heck, I would be intimidated by a guy like Edward Witten (who knows a thing or two about physics and geometry) looking at my work too. But that is who new ideas must stand up to if they are to be validated.

 

[DocTwisted]

Ok, I found this thread, like EvanE above me, after googling the topic because of seeing the two-page ad in Popular Science for the book.

While not someone who got very far in his science classes (though extremely far in his literature classes), I think the difference between SM Physics and Null Physics boils down like this:

Standard Model Physics was created and refined over multiple lifetimes by both scientists and mathematicians who took as precise measurements as they knew how to, recorded the data, and found the patterns within so that they could predict, say, how far a baseball thrown at an initial speed of 75 mph would go before the first bounce if it started a height of 1.5 meters above the ground, given a flat surface to travel over and standard earth gravity and air pressure. The key to the verification of all findings in this system's methods were repeatable, verifiable results. There's tons of peer review of all findings, and whole libraries of publicly available information on the laws, theories, and the what, how, and when of the SM.

Null Physics has been written by one man working for a number of years, not by taking measurements but by starting with a (not publicly stated, but presumably somewhere in the book) philosophical standpoint on why the universe exists, and somehow using that to create a number of new theories, so far with no verification (and in some cases, apparently direct contradiction of measurements taken by scientists), no peer review, and the only publishing done so far is one hardcover book that must be purchased (and is doubtlessly copyrighted to prevent purchasers from making the information in the book "spoilered" online). There are some suggested experiments and their predicted results in an appendix of the book (according to the author's postings here), and promised future peer reviews.

How's that sound? Please feel free to correct me if I'm saying something wrong here.

 

[sol invictus]

That's an accurate summary.

One thing that may not be obvious is how many such people there are around. Professional physicists (particularly those that work on elementary particles or cosmology) hear from people like this regularly. Maybe once every month an email will come in from some crackpot with a theory of everything. Often the email is sent to an entire department or research group. These theories usually have certain characteristics in common - they were developed by an individual working in isolation, never by someone with a solid grounding in physics, and they replace all that came before them with something much superior. Typically the only reason their greatness hasn't been acknowledged is a conspiracy by the establishment to suppress them.

Slightly less often one of these theories will be self-published in book form. I actually have a small collection of such books (which are sometimes mailed to or left lying around physics departments). The only thing that makes this one remarkable is how much money was spent advertising it.

I suspect there is a specific psychological illness (one which can be present in varying degrees) that leads to this. Megalomania isn't a bad word for it, but it's rather more specific than that. It's a little sad, but mostly harmless. Stephen Wolfram, for example, may suffer from a mild form of it (see A New Kind of Science, particularly the first page of the notes). Occasionally it actually rises to the level of dangerous. Some of the more disturbed of these individuals have become violent - there was one case many years ago where the administrator (not even a professor) in a physics department was shot. So it's not entirely a laughing matter.

 

[ben m]

DocTwisted and Sol hit the major points, I think.

Perhaps one key to the apparent megalomania is that these are (often) reasonably smart people who have had reasonable success in other fields---engineering, or entrepreneurship, or medicine. Before running into QM and Relativity, they may have never before encountered something that they couldn't intuit. Therefore, they think that everything must be intuitive.

Additionally, in some fields, "starting from scratch" is a good thing. The most successful engineers and businessfolk are sometimes people who said, "Rather than incrementally improving our current cell phone contract structure, I'm going to throw it out and reinvent it with no baggage attached." So they're biased towards thinking iconoclastically---because iconoclasm sometimes works. Indeed, they're happiest thinking iconoclastically. I think that if you told Mr. Witt, "Your idea was right. To firm it up, you need to make these industry-standard theory-experiment comparisons involving form factors ...", he'd rebel against that, too: "I've invented better theory-experiment comparisons, and anyway I would prefer to leave the dirty work to you bean counters; I have to begin work on my paradigm-shifting theory of biology."

The other thing is, well, clearly they're not used to being told they are wrong. I don't picture business people sitting around in their boardrooms saying, "I'm sorry, Mr. Witt, your new product idea is wrong because you made a mathematical error in the profit calculation", or "Mr. Witt, your marketing campaign will not work because it violates several key theorems." If a marketing guy tells you that your product is a bad idea, it's not unlikely that you can take it somewhere else, polish up the presentation a bit, and make it work, then dismiss the naysayer as unimaginative. If a physicist tells you that your theory is garbage because its geometry is nonsense and it makes wrong quantum predictions---well, as soon try the same approach, you've become a crackpot.

That's my guess, anyway, as to Mr. Witt's psychology.

 

[DocTwisted]

DocTwisted and Sol hit the major points, I think.

--clipped--

The other thing is, well, clearly they're not used to being told they are wrong. I don't picture business people sitting around in their boardrooms saying, "I'm sorry, Mr. Witt, your new product idea is wrong because you made a mathematical error in the profit calculation", or "Mr. Witt, your marketing campaign will not work because it violates several key theorems." If a marketing guy tells you that your product is a bad idea, it's not unlikely that you can take it somewhere else, polish up the presentation a bit, and make it work, then dismiss the naysayer as unimaginative. If a physicist tells you that your theory is garbage because its geometry is nonsense and it makes wrong quantum predictions---well, as soon try the same approach, you've become a crackpot.

That's my guess, anyway, as to Mr. Witt's psychology.

Thank you.

I found your last paragraph rather interesting, in that it reminded me of another world where people become self-destructive because nobody is willing to tell them they're doing something wrong... that of pop culture celebrities. When everyone all around you is watching you is worshiping you as you money hand over fist, it takes some real cajones to be the one to tell them that some what they're doing to celebrate might be a very bad idea...

...do you think it might be a related kind of problem here?

 

[Moebus]

Everything requires "faith" (trust me, the color of a meson is purple).

First, I happened upon this thread - having just joined JREF - and am appalled! Mr. Witt, I commend you for having a book; though I've never read it, you undertook to cover 400+ pages of hard work to explain your position ... I can commend your dedication. The rest of you - it would behoove you to write a paper as a rebuttal (this is not only polite, but scientific - and, please, make your criticisms as concise and deliberate - I'd settle for 200 pages). As it is, I'm saddened by the Q/A method of criticism (for it is cannot properly be called such - the little tidbits offered are not in themselves viable - mere repetitions of others' work - hence, you all fail to lend credence to your own comments; since none of you are peer-reviewed ... using the same yardstick can be humbling, yes?). For myself, I trust NO MAN who can make a conclusion based on excerpts! This is absurd! Or did you? If so, you may as well know that the war in Iraq - well, that's really because they have weapons of mass destruction!

As for the criticism that one cannot be taken seriously because one lacks the credentials (hmmmm, I suppose a mail clerk named Einstein, or a lawyer/amateur mathematician named Fermat, ought to be outright discounted). Thus far, this forum is neither educational, nor foundational, it is - at best - rhetorical. I really am desirous of learning something of substance. Uhm, string theory! Anyone ACTUALLY SEEN (scientifically observed) ONE?!? Pray tell me - what color is it? Seems like a lot of "bs" has been propounded (oh, that's BOLD STATEMENT to you). Am I supposed to believe something BECAUSE someone said it exists? TESTABILITY is the ground by which we can determine viability. The theory of evolution is bunk ... BECAUSE it cannot be tested, hence, cannot be falsified; and, neither, can it be taken seriously (except if you REALLY want to believe it). The theory of gravity, on the other hand, CAN be tested. At best, anything that is propsed AND which cannot be tested, is not even CONJECTURE! The Taniyama-Shigemura Conjecture was testable ... having now been proven by Dr. Andrew Wiles ... it led the way to proving Fermat's Theorem (150 pages he worked on HIMSELF, and after 350 years of the best minds were stumped!). And, YES, if there is any criticism of the proof, you can bet your life it will be in the form of ANOTHER paper/book. Not mere Q/A criticism!

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Note, the following came from an actual college science book (the examples in parenthesis are mine).

1. Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white. (Every Finch I’ve ever seen has a beak) (Every man I’ve ever seen has legs)
2. Hypothesis: All swans must be white. (All Finches must have beaks) (All men must have legs)
3. Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans. (A random sample produces only Finches with beaks) (A random sample produces only men which have legs)
4. Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed." (Global research reveal that Finches always have beaks) (Global research reveal that men always have legs)
5. Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white. (Every Finch has always been beaked) (All men have always been legged)
6. Theory: All swans are white. (All Finches are fishes) (All men are apes)

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white. (The next Finch seen will be a fish) (The next man seen will be an ape)

Interesting things can happen when we leave off the proper steps required by reason, and take a - dare I say it LEAP OF FAITH?!? By the way, I'm glad to join this forum - to discuss skepticism, critical thinking (right), the paranormal (your wife's cooking), and science (so-called, because we know someone, somewhere, is doing the work for us; and all we need do, afterward, is BELIEVE them). As for me, I cannot ascertain Mr. Witt's efforts; nor can I afford the amount required to check it out. As such, I cannot comment on his work - merely on his efforts.

 

[Moebus]

If you write a book, post it on here ... that way, you'll have the joy of being the butt of the rebuttals. But, make sure you do charge $60 for your efforts ... we're not here for charity, you know.

 

[Paul]

First, I happened upon this thread - having just joined JREF

Then you should be aware of the nature of the forum.

and am appalled!

Honestly, you need to get out more.

Mr. Witt, I commend you for having a book;

So merely having a book is enough to impress you? In that case, you should be totally enamoured with L Ron Hubbard, OJ Simpson, Sergius Nilus, David Icke, David Duke and Fred Phelps.

though I've never read it

But you though you'd complain about other people not reading it.

you undertook to cover 400+ pages of hard work to explain your position

Ah, I see, it's a big book so it must be OK.

The rest of you - it would behoove you to write a paper as a rebuttal

Witt chose to self publish his book and then make ridiculous claims for it's contents; why would that deserve a 200 page scientific paper in response?

For myself, I trust NO MAN who can make a conclusion based on excerpts!

Yet based on not reading this book, and having read the opinions of people qualified to comment, you feel justified in rushing to Witt's defence.

I suppose a mail clerk named Einstein, or a lawyer/amateur mathematician named Fermat, ought to be outright discounted

You must mean Fred Einstein and Jimmy Fermat, otherwise you'd just be making yourself appear foolish.

Thus far, this forum is neither educational, nor foundational, it is - at best - rhetorical. I really am desirous of learning something of substance.

A good start would be to stop abusing the language in an attempt to appear smart, it isn't working.

The theory of evolution is bunk ... BECAUSE it cannot be tested, hence, cannot be falsified; and, neither, can it be taken seriously (except if you REALLY want to believe it).

Perhaps you could attempt to clarify the point you are failing to make, if indeed there is one.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white. (The next Finch seen will be a fish) (The next man seen will be an ape)

Interesting things can happen when we leave off the proper steps required by reason, and take a - dare I say it LEAP OF FAITH?!?

Well, you can dare say it, but it doesn't explain what you're wittering on about; you deliberately include silly false misstatements in order to demonstrate what?

By the way, I'm glad to join this forum - to discuss skepticism, critical thinking (right),

Ooh sarcasm, aren't you clever.

As for me, I cannot ascertain Mr. Witt's efforts; nor can I afford the amount required to check it out. As such, I cannot comment on his work - merely on his efforts.

So, we are left with

'Witt good, write big book, lots of words. Me not understand words, me not read book, but people say bad things about book, they wrong. Big book, lots of words, big book good.'​

 

[ben m]

First, I happened upon this thread - having just joined JREF - and am appalled! Mr. Witt, I commend you for having a book; though I've never read it, you undertook to cover 400+ pages of hard work to explain your position ... I can commend your dedication.

Hi Moebus, welcome to the Forums. Don't mind us if we're a bit snappish sometimes. I assume, from the tone of your post, that you're (a) unfamiliar with what's expected of a modern physics theory and (b) unfamiliar with the vast number of "physics crackpots" out there.

On the topic of crackpots, I might suggest that you visit http://www.crank.net and http://homepage.mac.com/sigfpe/Physics/pots.html. The latter page lists ... what, 400 crackpots? Each one with a different, homegrown, idiosyncratic theory of physics. I would guess that 2/3rds of them have written books. Mr. Witt's general idea---"Hey, I may be an outside, but I'm smart and my thought-experiments are as valid as Einstein's"---is extraordinarily common.

On the topic of modern physics: Moebus, we've seen thousands of theories come and go. We've noticed some patterns among these theories; in many cases, we've found general proofs validating those patterns. With those patterns in mind, we're actually really quick at deciding whether a theory is workable or not. Does the theory reduce to the Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model in the appropriate limits? Does the theory break with these models in other limits? And how? Is the theory Lorentz invariant? Gauge invariant? Unitary? If not, what does it mean? How many free parameters does the theory have? And so on. We know, from experience, exactly what experiments a non-Lorentz-invariant theory will fail to describe; we know exactly what happens, in the general case, to theories which don't reduce to quantum mechanics: they can't explain the "EPR" class of experiments.

Mr. Witt's excerpts are enough to tell you that he's failed some of these tests; his responses on this forum suggest that he's uninterested in the other tests. This is quite enough to tell you that the theory is wrong. Moreover, they tell you that the author isn't likely to have some great insights in the unseen parts of his book.

This isn't poker---if you have a great hand, you show it. If Witt had a theory with the required properties, he'd say so in Excerpt #1: "My theory has properties W, X, Y, and Z which make it a good candidate for a theory of everything; in the next 400 pages I will prove these statements and elaborate." No, instead he fiddles around with word games with "infinity", spends an appendix doing trivial integrals, and draws some pictures of what he thinks nuclei look like. This is not hte behavior of a player hiding a great hand; it's the behavior of someone who doesn't know a good hand from a bad one. "Behold---I have a seven and a five! Do you want to fold now or should I show you more?"

This isn't being arbitrary or picky. Imagine if an inventor was trying to sell you a revolutionary new car---but, on querying, he wouldn't let you see it without a fee; he revealed that he had kicked all four tires and felt that this was a thorough safety test (or, wait, were those tires, or axles? or brakes? I'll let someone who knows this fancy terminology clear that up); that it was shaped quite a lot like a car, the glovebox and turn signals worked great, but that, although he was personally unable to start the engine or make it move, he was sure that such performance could be expected ... why? Because of the great success of the glovebox and turn signals, which you can see if you pay the fee.

There's nothing closed-minded about making quick judgements when little evidence is presented, if the little that is presented is bad.