Null Physics anyone?

[sol invictus]

The young Michael Faraday, one of four children, having only the most basic of school educations, had to largely educate himself.[5] At fourteen he became apprenticed to a local bookbinder...

And? The fact that he was an apprentice for a while makes him a "bookbinder"? Note also that he was born in the 1700s, a rather different time.

Benjamin Franklin ....

And? After reading that, you describe him as a "politician"? He was far more than that; most relevantly he was a scientist and inventor throughout his life. Note also that he was born in the 1700s, rather a long time ago.

Gates...

And that makes him a "college student"?

What do any of these odd collection of examples have to do with Witt? If even a little bit of what Witt claims were true, all of the physics and mathematics of the last five centuries would collapse. It would be the greatest revolution in human history - it would mean everything we've done is wrong, every successful prediction of science a coincidence... Witt, unlike all the examples you gave, believes everybody else is wrong. He isn't trying to build on what came before, he's trying to replace it completely. There's a word for people that can't accept reality.

Yes i did read your post, and my examples relate to the statement in bolding

No, not really. The first two were from a time when most of human knowledge could be contained in a few books. Gates was much more a businessman than a technician. And you (as usual) seem to be unable to understand the difference between "absolute" and "strong".

Who are you appealing to with this example, ducks, must be given your quackery.

Evasion and attempt at personal attack noted. The analogy is quite exact. Try to respond to it - ducking and running isn't going to help your case.

 

[Skwinty]

And? That makes him a "bookbinder"? Note also that he was born in the 1700s, a rather different time..

He started as an apprentice to a bookbinder. He was self educated. The point is, because you dont have a degree, doesn't mean there are strong indications that you do not understand advanced concepts.

And? After reading that, you describe him as a "politician"? He was far more than that; most relevantly he was a scientist and inventor throughout his life. Note also that he was born in the 1700s, rather a long time ago..

Nothing wrong in saying he was a politician given he was a member of both Continental Congresses and the committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Franklin was one of the last true Renaissance men, excelling in politics, diplomacy, journalism and science.

And that makes him a "college student"?.

When he was in the eighth grade, the Mothers Club at the school used proceeds from Lakeside School's rummage sale to buy an ASR-33 teletype terminal and a block of computer time on a General Electric (GE) computer for the school's students.[11] Gates took an interest in programming the GE system in BASIC and was excused from math classes to pursue his interest. He wrote his first computer program on this machine: an implementation of tic-tac-toe that allowed users to play games against the computer. wiki

Hardly the traits of a business man. This side came later.
http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/other-books/hackers
This is a good book to read for info on the heroes of the computer revolution

What do any of these odd collection of examples have to do with Witt? If even a little bit of what Witt claims were true, all of the physics and mathematics of the last five centuries would collapse. It would be the greatest revolution in human history - it would mean everything we've done is wrong, every successful prediction of science a coincidence....

Nothing in particular. Thats why it was at the end of my post addressed to you.(As another part of a post address to Perpetual Student).
For someone who refuses to read his book you make a lot of asumptions about what he claims. And if you read my post, you would know that according to what I have read in the book, he does not say science is wrong. It is a gross exaggeration to say that all of the physics and mathematics of the last five centuries would collapse.

No, not really. The first two were from a time when most of human knowledge could be contained in a few books. Gates was much more a businessman than a technician. And you (as usual) seem to be unable to understand the difference between "absolute" and "strong"..

See above. Please give an example of my as usual penchant for being unable to understand the difference between absolute and strong.

Evasion and attempt at personal attack noted. The analogy is quite exact. Try to respond to it - ducking and running isn't going to help your case.

Please Sol, what am I evading. You give an example that only a moron would take seriously and then accuse me of a personal attack. The comment related to your example. When I said your quackery it related to your moonshine story. If you are saying that your moonshine story is an analogy to Witts theory, then really the issue is not worth discussing with you. And in any event, you are more than prepared to called others a quack, crank or crackpot directly, so why the sensitivity?
As for the duck and run, when have I done that?

As for "Try to respond to it - ducking and running isn't going to help your case" perhaps you should heed your own advice"

 

[Tubbythin]

He started as an apprentice to a bookbinder. He was self educated.

From that wiki article:

At the age of twenty, in 1812, at the end of his apprenticeship, Faraday attended lectures by the eminent English chemist Humphry Davy of the Royal Institution and Royal Society, and John Tatum, founder of the City Philosophical Society. Many tickets for these lectures were given to Faraday by William Dance (one of the founders of the Royal Philharmonic Society). Afterwards, Faraday sent Davy a three hundred page book based on notes taken during the lectures

Doesn't sound like self-education to me.

For someone who refuses to read his book you make a lot of asumptions about what he claims. And if you read my post, you would know that according to what I have read in the book, he does not say science is wrong. It is a gross exaggeration to say that all of the physics and mathematics of the last five centuries would collapse.

He basically says out understanding of nuclear physics is completely wrong!

 

[Skwinty]

From that wiki article:

Doesn't sound like self-education to me.

The same wiki,
The young Michael Faraday, one of four children, having only the most basic of school educations, had to largely educate himself.

 

[Skwinty]

He basically says out understanding of nuclear physics is completely wrong!

I dont see too much Nuclear Physics in the book. Do you?

 

[Tubbythin]

The same wiki,
The young Michael Faraday, one of four children, having only the most basic of school educations, had to largely educate himself.

He made 300 pages of lecture notes from the lectures of one of the most eminent scientists of the time!

 

[Tubbythin]

I dont see too much Nuclear Physics in the book. Do you?

He says the neutron is made of a proton and an electron!

 

[Skwinty]

He made 300 pages of lecture notes from the lectures of one of the most eminent scientists of the time!

That says a lot for the capacity of a largely self educated person with out a degree, don't you think.

Its bedtime now in South Africa. Have a busy day tomorrow.
Will check in tomorrow.

 

[Tubbythin]

That says a lot for the capacity of a largely self educated person with out a degree, don't you think.

Its bedtime now in South Africa. Have a busy day tomorrow.
Will check in tomorrow.

I made a lot more lecture notes before I had my degree than after.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Swinty:

Of course there have been many self educated contributors to science over the centuries. Twenty first century physics, however, has accumulated such a vast body of information, requiring a deep understanding of mathematics and the complex relationships associated with relativity, quantum theory, the standard model, etc. that self educated contributors (for even very minor contributions) have become non-existent. Benjamin Franklin wouldn’t have a chance today.
Is it possible that Witt is onto something? Of course yes, but I would evaluate the probability as vanishingly small. Sol invictus put it well when he(she) made the point that he would be overturning centuries of the work of incredibly talented people. Consider also that there are thousands of brilliant workers in physics throughout the world working in labs, particle accelerators, and their offices today that have not produced one iota of Witt’s ideas! How likely is it that he is onto anything? As an undergraduate student, he decided the standard models were wrong! As I said, the chances are practically zero.
I have a modest background in Mathematics and I can readily see that his “premises” are nothing more than mystical assertions of little value, which are then the foundation of conclusions reached with much misguided logic and an ignorance of experimental evidence.

 

[Tubbythin]

Is it possible that Witt is onto something? Of course yes, but I would evaluate the probability as vanishingly small.

Almost null?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Swinty:
As to the question: why does the universe exist? It appears unlikely that anyone -- physicst, theologian, philosopher -- will ever have an answer to that question that will satisfy any thinking person but himself.

 

[Reality Check]

I dont see too much Nuclear Physics in the book. Do you?

Much of parts II and III ("Physics of Energy" and "Physics of Matter") is Nuclear Physics. This incudes his statement that there are only 4 fundemental particles, that the neutron is made up a proton and electron, and all of his "core dynamics".

 

[Wangler]

He made 300 pages of lecture notes from the lectures of one of the most eminent scientists of the time!

Who cares how many lecture note pages he had?

What's important (to some) is whether he had that one special piece of paper (degree or diploma) of sufficient weight (apparently higher than high school or bachelors).

 

[Wangler]

Much of parts II and III ("Physics of Energy" and "Physics of Matter") is Nuclear Physics. This incudes his statement that there are only 4 fundemental particles, that the neutron is made up a proton and electron, and all of his "core dynamics".

Ahh, I still remember making that same "neutron is a proton and electron" discovery when I was a kid.

I thought I had solved the universe.

 

[sol invictus]

He started as an apprentice to a bookbinder. He was self educated. The point is, because you dont have a degree, doesn't mean there are strong indications that you do not understand advanced concepts.

What an odd thing to say... not being educated in a topic is not a strong indication you don't understand it's advanced concepts?

And if you read my post, you would know that according to what I have read in the book, he does not say science is wrong. It is a gross exaggeration to say that all of the physics and mathematics of the last five centuries would collapse.

He has made many statements here and elsewhere which, were any of them true, would have the effects I described. I don't care whether he understands that - it's irrelevant.

Please Sol, what am I evading.

Addressing the analogy. What Witt is saying is as ridiculous as in my example. The only differences is that laypeople know a little more about medicine than theoretical physics, so it's easier to recognize. That's why I picked it as an example.

If you are saying that your moonshine story is an analogy to Witts theory, then really the issue is not worth discussing with you.

Very well. But ask yourself this - in a field which you know very little about, like physics, how are you going to distinguish between total nonsense and cutting edge ideas, if not by the opinions of experts?

 

[Tubbythin]

Who cares how many lecture note pages he had?

What's important (to some) is whether he had that one special piece of paper (degree or diploma) of sufficient weight (apparently higher than high school or bachelors).

My point was that Skwinty's claim that he was self-educated was rubbish, at least in the areas where his major work was done.

 

[Paulhoff]

Someone that has something to say:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/murray_gell_mann_on_beauty_and_truth_in_physics.html

Paul

 

[Wangler]

My point was that Skwinty's claim that he was self-educated was rubbish, at least in the areas where his major work was done.

Understood.

I think that for the last few decades, it has been harder and harder for one to be "self-educated", as there is so much knowledge gathered by others laying around in libraries and stuff.

Way back then, it may have been easier, but probably quite an accomplishment to be truly "self-educated".

 

[Perpetual Student]

Who cares how many lecture note pages he had?

What's important (to some) is whether he had that one special piece of paper (degree or diploma) of sufficient weight (apparently higher than high school or bachelors).

OK, since you’ve been harping on this point I’ll respond.
As a layman, I have the educational background for only a partial understanding of the most complex aspects of modern physics. I have to rely on experts to fill in the blanks. Consequently, credentials help me evaluate the likelihood that the views I get from others are worthwhile.
As one whose formal background in physics consists of only a single undergraduate courses in “twentieth century physics,” I have a respect for self education, since I have done a great deal of it myself – not only in physics but in other areas as well. Credentials do not automatically lead to wisdom and a lack thereof does not indicate ignorance.

Srinivasa Ramanajun was one of the most remarkable mathematicians of the early twentieth century. He was largely self-educated. He sent his original ideas to the greatest mathematicians in England at the time with no recognition until G. H. Hardy finally recognized his genius and sponsored his travel to England. It is a remarkable story about an incredible genius and perhaps, historically, the single most astonishing achievement for one who studied so much on his own.

But Ramanajun spent his life doing mathematics and virtually nothing else – he often failed all his subjects except mathematics. Is there any parallel with Witt? Did Witt spend his life immersed in physics? Or did he spend most of it making millions running his own company and marketing medical equipment? So, now he is spending his life marketing his book. How likely is it that he is on to something valid? He decided, as an undergraduate, that much of the foundations of twentieth century physics is wrong. How credible is that? His book has been paraded around popular science periodicals for months. Has any established physicist (one with credentials) looked at his work and said, “Ha -- this is it!” I don’t believe so -- and until that happens I have no choice but to remain very skeptical. . When Gell-Mann says, “Wow, this guy has something here,” then I’ll rethink the whole thing, and say, “How could I have been so stupid?!?”

In the meantime, I do know only enough physics to be dangerous and enough mathematics to see fundamental flaws in his thinking – all on my own. Some of his ideas are downright adolescent.

So, as I said, the likelihood that he is on to something valid is extremely small – really really small!