Negative reviews of crackpottish physics books have 'disappeared' before from Amazon. See this thread.
Null Physics anyone?
- Thread starter Stir
- Start date
I was troubled by the notion that Amazon does not play fair with its reviews. I clicked Yllanes' link (Post 161), followed that thread, and went from it to others. I decided to test the situation myself. I submitted a very much deserved and strongly negative review, to see if it would be rejected.
It was, indeed, on the first submission. But the second time around, it was accepted, and is presently posted by Amazon (I can't post links yet, but if you copy and paste the following to your browswer, it will work: amazon.com/review/product/1581126018/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt_sr_1?%5Fencoding=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar).
At this point (and though knowing my limited experience is not the best guide), it's my best guess that Amazon's screeners may be a bit more critical of negative reviews (as compared to positive ones), but I doubt there's any purposeful intent to unfairly skew results. Certainly, it does not appear there is any blanket policy to reject negative reviews.
It was, indeed, on the first submission. But the second time around, it was accepted, and is presently posted by Amazon (I can't post links yet, but if you copy and paste the following to your browswer, it will work: amazon.com/review/product/1581126018/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt_sr_1?%5Fencoding=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar).
At this point (and though knowing my limited experience is not the best guide), it's my best guess that Amazon's screeners may be a bit more critical of negative reviews (as compared to positive ones), but I doubt there's any purposeful intent to unfairly skew results. Certainly, it does not appear there is any blanket policy to reject negative reviews.
Made my day
I just received my first issue of Science Illustrated and the inside front cover was the left half of a two-page spread for Witt's book. (The mag looks to be a dud.)
It immediately put me in mind of "Spatiomaterialism,' which is another "unified" theory that Overturns All Others and Explains It All (albeit more oriented to philosophy than physics).
If Witt finds criticism of his work on this thread to be dishonest, then he shouldn't have made available the excerpts from his work that he has. As far as I can tell, they are what have been trashed here, and his rebuttals to that trashing, such as they have been, told this non-physicist his dog won't hunt.
Did I miss someone ask Witt (1) why he never peer-review posted a paper on any facet of his theory; or (2) what was the response to his posting(s)?
If Einstein could do it, and Godel could do it, then is it not reasonable to expect Witt to do it?
I just received my first issue of Science Illustrated and the inside front cover was the left half of a two-page spread for Witt's book. (The mag looks to be a dud.)
It immediately put me in mind of "Spatiomaterialism,' which is another "unified" theory that Overturns All Others and Explains It All (albeit more oriented to philosophy than physics).
If Witt finds criticism of his work on this thread to be dishonest, then he shouldn't have made available the excerpts from his work that he has. As far as I can tell, they are what have been trashed here, and his rebuttals to that trashing, such as they have been, told this non-physicist his dog won't hunt.
Did I miss someone ask Witt (1) why he never peer-review posted a paper on any facet of his theory; or (2) what was the response to his posting(s)?
If Einstein could do it, and Godel could do it, then is it not reasonable to expect Witt to do it?
Here's all he said:
So, as usual, he doesn't submit to journals because they "strenuously reject" his ideas---and, in his mind, the problem can't possibly be that his ideas are wrong. Not clear whether he learned this the hard way.
So, as usual, he doesn't submit to journals because they "strenuously reject" his ideas---and, in his mind, the problem can't possibly be that his ideas are wrong. Not clear whether he learned this the hard way.
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
Welcome to the board, phil99!
I saw more null physics ads in Discover so it appears Witt has paid for multiple-months of advertising in various magazines.
I guess we should keep this thread alive, whenever anyone googles "null physics" this thread is currently #2. Anyone intrigued by the ads and doing a net search should find it.
I saw more null physics ads in Discover so it appears Witt has paid for multiple-months of advertising in various magazines.
I guess we should keep this thread alive, whenever anyone googles "null physics" this thread is currently #2. Anyone intrigued by the ads and doing a net search should find it.
There's something odd on the "author's journal", also:
According to Google, there are only a handful of people mentioning it at all---us, Bad Astronomy, a few random instances of "Anyone heard of this book?"---and I didn't see anyone "defending" it. Other than Witt himself. Are you still out there, Terry?
Witt's claim to be a visiting faculty at Florida Tech, of which I was skeptical, is apparently true. Although you won't find FIT promoting him on their web page. Weird.
According to Google, there are only a handful of people mentioning it at all---us, Bad Astronomy, a few random instances of "Anyone heard of this book?"---and I didn't see anyone "defending" it. Other than Witt himself. Are you still out there, Terry?
Witt's claim to be a visiting faculty at Florida Tech, of which I was skeptical, is apparently true. Although you won't find FIT promoting him on their web page. Weird.
thubbathubba
Student
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 25
View from the lurkers gallery
I Googeloped over to this thread after doing a couble-take to the NullPhysics add in Discover Magazine yesterday. Ironically, it's the one with Einstein on the cover (Herr Doktor Einstein the patent clerk, not Fred Einstein the mail clerk), so I was in the mood to see if perhaps the second coming had finally came. When I saw James Randi on the banner of this site I knew THAT wasn't going to happen; rather, I was in for some good old-fashioned debunking.
I read this whole thread, understood the majority of the sentences without numbers or coefficients (and took the others on faith), and must say, as a casual Googeloper into this forum, you guys do not disappoint. I laughed, I cried (well, I stayed up to late and my eyes started watering from some strain), it MOVED me. Monty-Python references interspersed with gluons, leptons, and peons... what's not to love?
Although I am utterly unqualified to judge outcomes based upon the scientific arguments, the rhetorical quality has been pretty lopsided. With the of Mr. Witt himself, who left all his chips on the table when he retired from the game (with the grace of the gifted marketer he seems to be, I should interject), no one else has shown any kind of hand.
My qualification is in word-logic, not numbers-logic. Curiosity draws me to the sciences, but because unlike the Einsteins of the world Attention Deficit Disorder reduces me to a dilettante because it is not paired with mathematical intuition (so, naturally, I am a lawyer.) I often fantasize about stumbling upon a philosophical paradigm that supplants the bizzaro-world of quantum physics, which seems to describe a universe appart from the one I navigate. Unlike some people, however, this fantasy does not animate my life (so far...)
My experience with this sort of thing is in confronting Holocaust-deniers years ago on the old alt.revisionism newsgroup (where my sometimes formidable but usually evil opponents eroded my soul), and more recently debating evolution-Deniers on the web (where my sometimes kind-hearted but always soft-minded opponents eroded my intellect). The one thing I can say that distinguishes this Null Physics thread from those I've participated in is that the denier-sites usually had someone from 'the other side' capable of carrying their torch. That does not appear to be the case here.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Mr. Witt himself, even those who claim to have read the book do not seem able to mount any kind of defense against the compelling criticism several of you posed. And - NO - the "you-cannot-comment-until-you-read-the-whole-thing" argument is no defense: one need not devour the whole turkey to know it's been undercooked; the first bite'll usually do (and probably better spat out than spend the night on the John.) It's worth noting, too, that this argument is a favorite of Creationists who - with no sense of irony - often charged that I have not studied the entire Bible sufficient to crticize particular doctrinal elements derived from it, while they themselves faithfully parroted false criticisms of Biology, Geology, Physics (woo-hoo!) and various other scientific disciplines to which they remained wilfully (and proudly!) ignorant.
To add my piece to this forum (as one of the popular science consumers the targeted by "Null Physics" book), I offer the following brief observations, and my apologies that these may borrow or outright steal from the comments of others:
- Mr. Witt's apparent fluence in the language of physics neither credits nor discredits him; but speaking Latin is not what qualified Martin Luther to pin his manifesto to the cathedral door.
- If Mr. Witt's revolutionary paradigm is an outgrowth of science (as opposed to, say, theology), then how can his theory purport to answer the ultimate "why?" of the universe, while leaving the so many lowly "how?" details to be filled-in later? (His answer to this, of course, was 'pay-your-money-and-read-the-book,' yet he offers not so much as a scientific abstract let alone a detailed synopsis of his theory.)
- The preface of his book is provided at his website. It begins with a quote from Galileo Galilei: "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." If the 5 pages of prefaratory apologia following this quote portend the humility of Mr. Witt's scientific reasoning, then he does not understand the true implications of Galileo's words.
- If Mr. Witt's commitment is truly to science (in contrast to, say, commerce), then marketing an over-priced tome to popular science consumers (in contrast to, say, sending free copies to the popular science commentators such as the knowledgable critics on this forum) is at best a hopeless blunder.
- Mr. Witt is going to soon discover that although we consumers of popular science are attracted to radical new ideas and expect the next Einstein to arrive during our lifetime, most of us do know the difference between peer review and literary review. And we certainly are aware that charlattans are master marketers first and foremost.
I do hope that a competent defender of Null Physics shows up soon. It would be a shame to let the critical power I've witnessed here languish.
I Googeloped over to this thread after doing a couble-take to the NullPhysics add in Discover Magazine yesterday. Ironically, it's the one with Einstein on the cover (Herr Doktor Einstein the patent clerk, not Fred Einstein the mail clerk), so I was in the mood to see if perhaps the second coming had finally came. When I saw James Randi on the banner of this site I knew THAT wasn't going to happen; rather, I was in for some good old-fashioned debunking.
I read this whole thread, understood the majority of the sentences without numbers or coefficients (and took the others on faith), and must say, as a casual Googeloper into this forum, you guys do not disappoint. I laughed, I cried (well, I stayed up to late and my eyes started watering from some strain), it MOVED me. Monty-Python references interspersed with gluons, leptons, and peons... what's not to love?
Although I am utterly unqualified to judge outcomes based upon the scientific arguments, the rhetorical quality has been pretty lopsided. With the of Mr. Witt himself, who left all his chips on the table when he retired from the game (with the grace of the gifted marketer he seems to be, I should interject), no one else has shown any kind of hand.
My qualification is in word-logic, not numbers-logic. Curiosity draws me to the sciences, but because unlike the Einsteins of the world Attention Deficit Disorder reduces me to a dilettante because it is not paired with mathematical intuition (so, naturally, I am a lawyer.) I often fantasize about stumbling upon a philosophical paradigm that supplants the bizzaro-world of quantum physics, which seems to describe a universe appart from the one I navigate. Unlike some people, however, this fantasy does not animate my life (so far...)
My experience with this sort of thing is in confronting Holocaust-deniers years ago on the old alt.revisionism newsgroup (where my sometimes formidable but usually evil opponents eroded my soul), and more recently debating evolution-Deniers on the web (where my sometimes kind-hearted but always soft-minded opponents eroded my intellect). The one thing I can say that distinguishes this Null Physics thread from those I've participated in is that the denier-sites usually had someone from 'the other side' capable of carrying their torch. That does not appear to be the case here.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Mr. Witt himself, even those who claim to have read the book do not seem able to mount any kind of defense against the compelling criticism several of you posed. And - NO - the "you-cannot-comment-until-you-read-the-whole-thing" argument is no defense: one need not devour the whole turkey to know it's been undercooked; the first bite'll usually do (and probably better spat out than spend the night on the John.) It's worth noting, too, that this argument is a favorite of Creationists who - with no sense of irony - often charged that I have not studied the entire Bible sufficient to crticize particular doctrinal elements derived from it, while they themselves faithfully parroted false criticisms of Biology, Geology, Physics (woo-hoo!) and various other scientific disciplines to which they remained wilfully (and proudly!) ignorant.
To add my piece to this forum (as one of the popular science consumers the targeted by "Null Physics" book), I offer the following brief observations, and my apologies that these may borrow or outright steal from the comments of others:
- Mr. Witt's apparent fluence in the language of physics neither credits nor discredits him; but speaking Latin is not what qualified Martin Luther to pin his manifesto to the cathedral door.
- If Mr. Witt's revolutionary paradigm is an outgrowth of science (as opposed to, say, theology), then how can his theory purport to answer the ultimate "why?" of the universe, while leaving the so many lowly "how?" details to be filled-in later? (His answer to this, of course, was 'pay-your-money-and-read-the-book,' yet he offers not so much as a scientific abstract let alone a detailed synopsis of his theory.)
- The preface of his book is provided at his website. It begins with a quote from Galileo Galilei: "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." If the 5 pages of prefaratory apologia following this quote portend the humility of Mr. Witt's scientific reasoning, then he does not understand the true implications of Galileo's words.
- If Mr. Witt's commitment is truly to science (in contrast to, say, commerce), then marketing an over-priced tome to popular science consumers (in contrast to, say, sending free copies to the popular science commentators such as the knowledgable critics on this forum) is at best a hopeless blunder.
- Mr. Witt is going to soon discover that although we consumers of popular science are attracted to radical new ideas and expect the next Einstein to arrive during our lifetime, most of us do know the difference between peer review and literary review. And we certainly are aware that charlattans are master marketers first and foremost.
I do hope that a competent defender of Null Physics shows up soon. It would be a shame to let the critical power I've witnessed here languish.
thubbathubba
Student
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 25
At risk of further demonstrating my ignorance, below are a few quotes from Mr. Witt's book, teasers from which are excerpted at "nullphysics.com" (I reproduce the copyrighted text for criticism under "fair use.")
Mr. Witt recognizes that "...conservation of energy is the cornerstone of modern physics, yet is blatantly violated by a universal origin from nothing..." and then goes on to raise-and-dismiss summaries of four conventional theories that address this dilemma. Among them is the "Not In Effect" hypothesis:
"In this scenario, energy conservation came into existence after the
universe emerged. While it is true that conservation is meaningless in the absence of something to conserve, it is just as true that the two are inseparable."
Perhaps he fleshes-out his dismissal of this hypothesis later, but if the beast is built upon the skeleton of the above two sentences, the logic will never fly. It reads like this:
1) Hypothesis: The rule of Energy Conservation did not exist before our Universe.
2) The hypothesis separates Energy from Conservation prior to our Universe.
3) Posit: Conservation is inseparable from Energy.
4) Therefore, any type of energy that existed prior to our Universe could not exist because Conservation did not exist.
To borrow his phrase, Mr. Witt blatantly violated the rules of logic: He asserts as a truism the very rule the hypothesis purports to suspend. The "inseparability" of Energy and Conservation is the essence of the rule that does not yet come into existence in our Universe under the "Not In Effect" hypothesis. He appears to be saying the hypothesis must be false because it violates the same rule that the hypothesis assumes as a precondition is false.
This may be an oversimplification of the argument he eventually makes. So far, however, nothing I’ve read in the excerpts from the book recommends I pay the $60 he wants from me in order to find out.
Mr. Witt recognizes that "...conservation of energy is the cornerstone of modern physics, yet is blatantly violated by a universal origin from nothing..." and then goes on to raise-and-dismiss summaries of four conventional theories that address this dilemma. Among them is the "Not In Effect" hypothesis:
"In this scenario, energy conservation came into existence after the
universe emerged. While it is true that conservation is meaningless in the absence of something to conserve, it is just as true that the two are inseparable."
Perhaps he fleshes-out his dismissal of this hypothesis later, but if the beast is built upon the skeleton of the above two sentences, the logic will never fly. It reads like this:
1) Hypothesis: The rule of Energy Conservation did not exist before our Universe.
2) The hypothesis separates Energy from Conservation prior to our Universe.
3) Posit: Conservation is inseparable from Energy.
4) Therefore, any type of energy that existed prior to our Universe could not exist because Conservation did not exist.
To borrow his phrase, Mr. Witt blatantly violated the rules of logic: He asserts as a truism the very rule the hypothesis purports to suspend. The "inseparability" of Energy and Conservation is the essence of the rule that does not yet come into existence in our Universe under the "Not In Effect" hypothesis. He appears to be saying the hypothesis must be false because it violates the same rule that the hypothesis assumes as a precondition is false.
This may be an oversimplification of the argument he eventually makes. So far, however, nothing I’ve read in the excerpts from the book recommends I pay the $60 he wants from me in order to find out.
thubbathubba
Student
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 25
OK, can someone please explain to me the excerpt below from Witt's book? [NOTE: "M" and "3" are exponents in the following equations; I can't reproduce them precisely here.]
>>>>>
From (Ψ2.8), the universe’s closure relationship can be written:
1M = (1M/∞3)(∞3)
where: Infinite largeness = Size of space = ∞3
and: Infinite smallness = Size of a point = (1M/∞3)
<<<<
I read this as a way to mathematically express the idea "The totality of the universe (1M) EQUALS the totality of the universe (1M) DIVIDED by potential infinite largeness (∞x * ∞y * ∞z), then MULTIPLIED by potential infinite smallness (∞x * ∞y * ∞z)"
Four questions I have (forgive me for being math-challenged):
1) Is not "One to the M power" simply one no matter what "M" is? Isn't 1 to any power simply 1? That certainly seems constant to me.
2) Re the equation: If you divide figure-A by figure-B, and then multiply the product by figure-B, don't you automatically get figure-A, no matter what values you plug in?
3) Doesn't the utility of this equation rely upon there being SOME theoretical difference between the two uses of the identical figure "∞3"? And if so, why is this difference not expressed somehow in the equation?
The equation appears to me to always resolve simply to 1=1, no matter the value of "M". Is this how theoretical constants like "M" are typically expressed?
Sorry I am such a neophyte.
>>>>>
From (Ψ2.8), the universe’s closure relationship can be written:
1M = (1M/∞3)(∞3)
where: Infinite largeness = Size of space = ∞3
and: Infinite smallness = Size of a point = (1M/∞3)
<<<<
I read this as a way to mathematically express the idea "The totality of the universe (1M) EQUALS the totality of the universe (1M) DIVIDED by potential infinite largeness (∞x * ∞y * ∞z), then MULTIPLIED by potential infinite smallness (∞x * ∞y * ∞z)"
Four questions I have (forgive me for being math-challenged):
1) Is not "One to the M power" simply one no matter what "M" is? Isn't 1 to any power simply 1? That certainly seems constant to me.
2) Re the equation: If you divide figure-A by figure-B, and then multiply the product by figure-B, don't you automatically get figure-A, no matter what values you plug in?
3) Doesn't the utility of this equation rely upon there being SOME theoretical difference between the two uses of the identical figure "∞3"? And if so, why is this difference not expressed somehow in the equation?
The equation appears to me to always resolve simply to 1=1, no matter the value of "M". Is this how theoretical constants like "M" are typically expressed?
Sorry I am such a neophyte.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Yes.
Yes.
My advice - stop trying to make sense of nonsense written by insane crackpots. Buy a real book on cosmology and/or fundamental physics if you're interested.
Last edited:
At least you don't lie
Now tell me again why I want to buy your self-published physics book...
thubbathubba
Student
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 25
Good advice, but I guess I'm still intrigued by the possibility that the very first equation provided on the Null Physics website is nonsense. That seems so improbable that I have to know whether it's true.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
If you'd seen as many deranged theories of everything as I have, you wouldn't be surprised at all. I've seen easily 50 different ones in the last decade, and those are just the ones that were either sent to me or left lying around (deliberately) in places where physicists might find them. This one happens to have more resources than most.
Interestingly, they all have certain characteristics in common - the authors believe that almost everyone that came before them was wrong about almost everything, they work alone with with little or no reference to anyone else, they're convinced their results are being suppressed by "the establishment", and that if only their theory could get the attention it deserves its validity would be recognized.
Last edited:
thubbathubba
Student
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 25
The sophisticated and expensive marketing program behind this book should concern everyone. Although serious science won't be threatened by it, if it remains unaddressed it could "gain traction" as the author eepcets within the crown of popular science consumers. And that's not harmless.
I've scoured the web for information about this book and its author, and beyond the official website and the printer's site, about all I find is the occassional posting by some novice like me who saw the add in a magazine and asked, "Is there anything to this Null Physics?"
JREF is so far about the only place you can find a serious discussion of any depth addressing that question. I'm a little disappointed that this thread sorta ran out of steam without Witt himself here to chum the waters.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Delete
I'd forgotten I already responded in post 56.
I'd forgotten I already responded in post 56.
Last edited:
thubbathubba
Student
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 25
But then Mr. Witt says in his website journal:
"I just wanted to drop a note to the brave souls who have attempted to defend me or my book in the various forums [...], these sad little venues are specifically not about evaluating new ideas or acknowledging theoretical physics' foundational issues."
Apparently his 'best wishes' were null.
Almo
Masterblazer
I wonder if he regrets having left a trail of discussion about it here.