Null Physics anyone?

[This is The End]

Moebus has either never posted on an internet message board before or is directly involved with sales of the book in question. Then again he may be from planet x, in which case we can't be sure of anything.

 

[TriangleMan]

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)

Prediction: Moebus is a sock of Witt. (Can I have the $1,000,000 now?)

Anyway I just hope Witt didn't put himself in heavy debt to finance this endeavour as it would be unfortunate to lose his home over this. $700k is a lot of money to spend on advertising.

 

[ben m]

Prediction: Moebus is a sock of Witt. (Can I have the $1,000,000 now?)

I mostly doubt it---why wouldn't Witt invent a sockpuppet who has actually read the book?

 

[TriangleMan]

I mostly doubt it---why wouldn't Witt invent a sockpuppet who has actually read the book?

Beats me, maybe so the poster would not be in a position to have to defend why the book is good? By not reading it one doesn't have to deal with the items and questions brought up in the first couple of pages of the thread. I had noticed that Moebus's writing style is similar to Witt's more agitated posts - liberal use of "quotations" combined with (brackets) and the odd CAPPED word. That combined with the sudden appearance of a supporter seemed odd to me. Little matter if I'm right or wrong though as Witt appears to have stepped out of the debate.

 

[Moebus]

Interesting, Ben M actually understood the intent of the post, wow.

Now, Paul, I have somewhat to say to you:
1. You should ask whether I'd read ALL the posts ... I did (but that was too much for you to endeavor, investigate, I mean).
2. That I need to get out more is a correct assessment. Seems you frequent this forum more than I do (care to take your own suggestion?).
3. Big book, impress me? No, courageous investigators impress me, hard workers impress me, EVEN CRAZY WORTHLESS IDEAS impress me because it implies someone is using their brain to think ... not necessarily headed in the correct direction, but at least ACTIVELY using what little they've got (I surmise you've quite plenty to go around ... note: Thomas Alva Edison came up with many erroneous assumptions ... but his perseverance prevailed ... but you probably think he invented the light bulb, right?)
4. I never actually said it was okay to have a big book ... merely that he undertook to spend money FIRST to propound his ideas ... if he gets any return for his efforts, well, I suppose he can join the ranks of L. Ron Hubbard.
5. You suggest that I'm defending Witt? Nonsense, I am neither defending Witt, nor debunking anyone else here. YOU made that PRESUMPTION about my intent, on your own. Those who post here are QUALIFIED to posts such comments?!? Are you insane?!? AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT?!? I don't have any means of ascertaining the qualifications of anyone on this forum; you may, I do not.
6. Abusing the language? What, missing commas, periods, dashes, spell check not working? Appear smart, like, "oh, oh, oh, PICK ME, I know!"
7. Ah, the point of my post ... it is this, that SCIENCE, like everything else, demands a certain amount of faith just to be believable. Take, for example, my belief that you actually are capable of coherent thought. I COULD BE WRONG ... prove to me otherwise, yes? EVERYTHING IS QUESTIONABLE! That, I believe, is my prerogative.
8. Silly misstatements ... that I be required to believe without demand of proof? Why, because Darwin said so? Because your teacher said so, or because your professor said so? Are you getting it yet? SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING TO YOU .. WHICH REQUIRED YOU TO BELIEVE THEM! You've been doing it since you were, what, a monkey?
9. Dude, if you think that was sarcasm ... YOU NEED TO GOT OUT MORE; no, seriously, take your jacket, go out to the local pub ... there are guys there that make more sense.
10. Attacking a person does not clarify understanding, it is merely an effort to shut them up. In which case, I trust your own tactics work well with you. What are you, the leader of the Inquisition?

OnlyTellsTruths: Planet X ... was that the one that scientists recently nixed (though they were pretty adamant it was once Pluto)? The SMARTEST thing you said was, "we can't be sure of anything." Kudos to your own self-realization; now go out and play.

TriangleMan: You implied Witt had dedication ... commenting that he spent money to put out his own opinions. Surely, that is worthy of consideration ... at least he didn't ask the government for your tax dollars to fund experiments on why humans and tomatoes are only 1 gene apart.

Ben M ... my hats off to you. You endeavored to clarify YOUR position (and, rather than attack the person; and wonder of wonders, you used reason to bring about your points - I understood your reasoning). You do not condescend to look down your nose at those who may not understand, indeed, you take the pains to explain. A thinker, indeed. I shall be looking out for your posts in the future. Thank you - I have no doubt that you are deliberate in all your endeavors. Cheers.

 

[Moebus]

Why the book is good? Hmmm, don't recall having said that. I think I commended the man for "having A book." Which implies a publisher. But, hey, repeat a lie often enough and, even I might start believing you. But, oh what does it matter if YOU'RE WRONG OR RIGHT?!? I was in Thailand for a symposium once, the driver kept saying "mai pen rai (it doesn't matter)," to our inquiry ... why were we going 8 hours the other way?

 

[Taffer]

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).

I cannot begin to tell you how wrong the bolded is.

 

[Moebus]

Yay, a taker.

Please begin ... and, to help you start, you can use Darwin's own words; and, then proceed to Mendel's experiments - it should be sufficient to debunk me.

 

[Taffer]

Please begin ... and, to help you start, you can use Darwin's own words; and, then proceed to Mendel's experiments - it should be sufficient to debunk me.

I'm sorry, are you serious?

Every entry level geneticist checks certain predictions made by evolutionary theory.

 

[ben m]

Please begin ... and, to help you start, you can use Darwin's own words; and, then proceed to Mendel's experiments - it should be sufficient to debunk me.

In other words, "Please begin ... and let me walk you into the DASTARDLY LOGICAL TRAP I thought up during homeroom. Mwa ha ha ha!"

Why don't you look through the vast databases of previous attempts to debunk evolution, at http://www.talkorigins.org/, where someone has almost certainly mentioned your objection, and someone else has almost certainly written a nice little essay in response. If you still have a question afterwards, come back and start a new thread---this thread, IIRC, was about "null physics".

(Also: a quick Amazon search will confirm that mainstream biologists have written much bigger books than creationists. I think that means we win.)

 

[Paul]

Now, Paul, I have somewhat to say to you:

Somewhat?

1. You should ask whether I'd read ALL the posts ... I did (but that was too much for you to endeavor, investigate, I mean).

As you claimed to have joined the forum, then come across this thread, then found it necessary to comment, I took the position that you would have familiarised yourself with the discussion first - a courtesy to you.

3. Big book, impress me? No,

Yet you seem to be impressed by the number of pages a given idea takes to expound.

EVEN CRAZY WORTHLESS IDEAS impress me because it implies someone is using their brain to think

Crazy and worthless kind of implies that they're not using their brain in a particlarly effective manner.

4. I never actually said it was okay to have a big book

'400+ pages of hard work' ... 'I'd settle for 200 pages' ... '150 pages he worked on HIMSELF'​

All these in one post seems to indicate the size of the book is important to you.

merely that he undertook to spend money FIRST to propound his ideas

The amount of money spent, in this case a seemingly huge amount, has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the work.

5. You suggest that I'm defending Witt? Nonsense, I am neither defending Witt, nor debunking anyone else here.

You are taking a de facto position in favour of Witt by berating those in opposition and praising his dedication and hard work.

Those who post here are QUALIFIED to posts such comments?!? Are you insane?!? AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT?!? I don't have any means of ascertaining the qualifications of anyone on this forum

Why don't you ask why some feel qualified to criticise Witt, instead of having a teenage tantrum?

6. Abusing the language? What, missing commas, periods, dashes, spell check not working? Appear smart, like, "oh, oh, oh, PICK ME, I know!"

Actually, I was think more of the misuse of words which people sometimes believe will make them appear intelligent.

8. Silly misstatements

Yes

that I be required to believe without demand of proof?

No, that you deliberately went from beaks to fishes and legs to apes.

Why, because Darwin said so? Because your teacher said so, or because your professor said so? Are you getting it yet? SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING TO YOU .. WHICH REQUIRED YOU TO BELIEVE THEM!

Have you personally verified any scientific theories? If not, you cannot believe in medicine, heavier-than-air flight, nuclear power, gravity or computers.

You've been doing it since you were, what, a monkey?

Personally, I can't remember all of the last 5-8 million years, but I believe that I was never actually a monkey.

9. Dude, if you think that was sarcasm ... YOU NEED TO GOT OUT MORE

Well, it was sarcasm, I don't have to think it was.

10. Attacking a person does not clarify understanding, it is merely an effort to shut them up. In which case, I trust your own tactics work well with you.

Someone like you would never stoop so low...

What are you, the leader of the Inquisition?

Yes, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[T-Diddy]

Two things for Moebus:

1--> Witt published the book himself. Don't believe me? Go to his website and look at the publisher (Aridian Publishing Corporation). Now go to google and type that in. Notice there is only one result - the null physics website. That's because it's the name he published it under (himself).

2--> You're really critical of people using excerpts from his book to prove him wrong. I issue you a challenge. Please refer to post #126 above, wherein I thoroughly debunk his most basic premises and show his logic is terrible in general. If you can prove my debunking wrong (really, not just a dot the i's and cross the t's thing), I will concede we shouldn't judge him. However, Witt posted enough of his book online to prove he is a crackpot using those concepts he included.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. God knows I need a good laugh.

 

[TriangleMan]

TriangleMan: You implied Witt had dedication ... commenting that he spent money to put out his own opinions.

No, unless your definition of 'dedication' is 'someone who throws money away needlessly'.

Surely, that is worthy of consideration

Not particularly, it's more a sign of being dogmatic. Full page ads noting a previously unknown revolution in physics is a definite yellow flag signifying crankdom. That's why the moment I saw the ad I went to JREF to see if there was a thread.

On other boards I've dealt with or witnessed threads with many a crank who self-published a book of their nonsense. Witt is not special with the exception that he spent a lot more money on it. My only hope is that he did not put assets such as his house at risk for this.

... at least he didn't ask the government for your tax dollars to fund experiments on why humans and tomatoes are only 1 gene apart.

Bolding mine. Check my location. And I do support research money going to experimentation and research, even if it's for tomato gene sequencing.

 

[Schneibster]

What, we got little kids coming on here with opinions about 400 page physics books now?

<sniff sniff> I thinks I smells a sock-puppet.

 

[roSSman]

Since I'm new here myself, I'm not clear on whether a sock-puppet is the mere pretense of a different person (e.g., Moebus is Witt undercover) or a genuinely different person, who's put up to the task of making the posts, by an underlying character (e.g., Moebus is Witt's kid).

Regardless of applicable "sock" terminology, I don't believe Moebus is Witt. Putting any substantive faults aside, Witt's posts exhibited a level of emotional and rhetorical maturity that's patently lacking in those done by Moebus -- which, obviously, drip with juvenile patterns (no offense intended).

The situation does raise an interesting question. Given Moebus' giveaway of the fact his perspective is biased by theism, I find myself wondering whether Witt may himself be in a similar position. It's no secret theists usually dislike the Big Bang. If I recall correctly from its promo literature, Witt's book purports to prove there twarnt no such thing.

Hmmm.

Perhaps (in Witt's book) we're dealing with a deeply-disguised cousin to Of Pandas and People. Maybe Witt didn't even spend his own money. It does not stretch credulity to think the John Templeton Foundation (among others) may have been happy to foot the bill.

It would put a whole added varnish on the thing, wouldn't it?

Assuming Witt is still monitoring this thread, I pose this question: Did your work, Mr. Witt, have any secondary, pro-theism agenda?

 

[JohnLisbeth]

I just discovered this thread yesterday. The funniest posts are those that talk about how much it has cost Terry Witt to publish and advertise his book. If you’ll Google “Witt Biomedical”, “Philips” and “sale” you’ll find that Terry started his own company in 1990, built it into the leader in its field and sold it last year to Phillips for $165,000,000.
Talk about the American dream……

I’ve known Terry since 1997 and I can tell you that he had no money worries even before the sale.

Now, you may ask, does any of this qualify him as a top-rank mathematician and cosmologist?
Nope. But I think it’s safe to assume that anyone who can earn a couple of hundred million bucks that quickly (or at all!!) is very intelligent, very organized and very determined. The image of some loser crackpot who mortgaged his house or got funding from some religious group to publish a book is simply the result of ignorance.

I’m not a mathematician, just a computer geek approaching retirement. I’ll be interested to see how qualified individuals who actually read the book will respond.

John

 

[Paul]

I’m not a mathematician, just a computer geek approaching retirement. I’ll be interested to see how qualified individuals who actually read the book will respond.

If you had read the thread, instead of just posting to tell us how rich your friend is, you would know that qualified individuals have already responded.

If Mr Witt is so obscenely wealthy, why does he need to hawk his ideas around to the layman in an expensive book?

 

[roSSman]

Witt's business and financial success fits to a tee with the very sympathetic (and half-praising) description of a crackpot mind, as provided by ben m in Post #140 (a description I'd already intended to thank him for, since I have significant crackpot tendencies of my own).

 

[T-Diddy]

$165 Mil? Now I know why he waited until after the sale to publish his book. Incidentally, if he's rich he's a complete jerk for charging $59 for the book and not giving it to the world.

Laughter, after all, is the best medicine.

 

[ben m]

The other thing that puzzled me initially is, why isn't the book for sale on Amazon? I don't think "cutting out the middleman" is usually a good sales strategy in the book world. Not for lack of a publisher---Amazon, Powell's, etc., list lots of self-published and POD books. Then I realized: Amazon allows reviews and comments. Witt didn't want people to see comments on the book before buying it. I could be wrong, but I can't think of another explanation.