Null Physics anyone?

[ben m]

please post the ratio of free hydrogen to ionized hydrogen in free space at the top of your post.

Huh? In what field of inquiry "knowing the ratio of HI to HII" the flag of a good scientist? It's not terribly well measured; it varies enormously spatially and over time; the physics governing it is extremely complicated; it doesn't have some interesting conservation law behind it. And you didn't even specify it well---by "free" do you mean "neutral atomic"? By "free space" do you mean not counting stars, or not counting galaxies, or not counting clusters? Your questions strikes me as something akin to asking a geologist to post "the average vapor pressure of the world fossil fuel reserves".

Anyway, <sigh>, averaged over all H in the universe HI is something like 1%. If you care about some other average consult Fukugita & Peebles 2004.

Now, if you found something in the book which you think is right, which you want to compare to something in mainstream physics which you think is wrong, please go ahead and start the conversation. But if I tell you I disagree---which I'm likely to, having read the book and found nothing at all in this category---will that qualify as a "whiners and complainers fest"?

 

[BFM]

Your review

Good reading, didn't quite finish it entirely, however, I would like you to clarify some of the statement you make in your cosmology sections. Your logic seems to be poorly supported in this excerpt. (i have highlighted the parts which irked my logic meter)

"#Lyman-alpha forest.
If you look at the spectrum of light from a distant galaxy then there are absorption lines from the Lyman alpha transition of neutral hydrogen in the clouds between us and the galaxy. Redshift (or even Terence Witt's "lumetic decay") means that the absorption lines happen at different wavelengths corresponding to each cloud and appear at different positions in the spectrum. This is the Lyman-alpha forest. The Gunn-Peterson trough appears when the forest gets so dense that there is no spectrum. The forest shows that there is little neutral hydrogen nearby and that the density of neutral hydrogen increases with distance (and so into the past). The result is that the intergalactic medium (IGM) is at least partially neutral at a redshift of z above 6. This is an indication of the reionization of the IGM between 150 million and one billion years after the Big Bang (at a redshift 6 < z < 20) due to the formation of galaxies.
# IGM neutral hydrogen.
This is an addition to the last point. Galaxies emit ionizing radiation (light) that converts neutral hydrogen in the IGM into ionized hydrogen. This means that in Terence Witt's cosmology there cannot be any neutral hydrogen in the IGM because there is an infinite amount of time for an eternal universe to ionize the hydrogen. Astronomers have detected neutral hydrogen in the IGM and so null cosmology is wrong."

That is a bold statement, as the null cosmology theory has a mechanism to achieve a balance between both states. I am not saying Mr. Witt's math is 100% accurate, however, with refinement, his mechanisms could prove useful. I.E. Why does that balance exist?

 

[BFM]

Sorry for the confusion

the last post was direct to reality checks review. sorry if I made that unclear
now @Ben M.

As far as conflicts and disagreement go, I can handle conflict, you will get no "flaming" out of me. I only seek to ward of the pointless banter.

I really would like to discuss some of the stated mechanisms mr. witt uses. The reason I asked about the Ionized hydrogen ratios was to have a starting point. What would be an appropriate mechanism to achieve a balance in free space, ie not being burned? I only ask this, because I have never seen lightning in space, assuming an localized density would support it.

 

[Reality Check]

Good reading, didn't quite finish it entirely, however, I would like you to clarify some of the statement you make in your cosmology sections. Your logic seems to be poorly supported in this excerpt. (i have highlighted the parts which irked my logic meter)

"#Lyman-alpha forest.
If you look at the spectrum of light from a distant galaxy then there are absorption lines from the Lyman alpha transition of neutral hydrogen in the clouds between us and the galaxy. Redshift (or even Terence Witt's "lumetic decay") means that the absorption lines happen at different wavelengths corresponding to each cloud and appear at different positions in the spectrum. This is the Lyman-alpha forest. The Gunn-Peterson trough appears when the forest gets so dense that there is no spectrum. The forest shows that there is little neutral hydrogen nearby and that the density of neutral hydrogen increases with distance (and so into the past). The result is that the intergalactic medium (IGM) is at least partially neutral at a redshift of z above 6. This is an indication of the reionization of the IGM between 150 million and one billion years after the Big Bang (at a redshift 6 < z < 20) due to the formation of galaxies.
# IGM neutral hydrogen.
This is an addition to the last point. Galaxies emit ionizing radiation (light) that converts neutral hydrogen in the IGM into ionized hydrogen. This means that in Terence Witt's cosmology there cannot be any neutral hydrogen in the IGM because there is an infinite amount of time for an eternal universe to ionize the hydrogen. Astronomers have detected neutral hydrogen in the IGM and so null cosmology is wrong."

That is a bold statement, as the null cosmology theory has a mechanism to achieve a balance between both states. I am not saying Mr. Witt's math is 100% accurate, however, with refinement, his mechanisms could prove useful. I.E. Why does that balance exist?

What mechanism achieves "a balance between both states"?
All the recycling of matter by his unknown and unspecified mechanism (try to find put how lead is converted into hydrogen in his book) happens inside the galaxy. If there is leakage of neutral hydrogen from galaxies then his recycling fails and galaxies vanish. The conclusion is that null cosmology predicts that either galaxies do not exists or neutral hydrogen in the IGM doe not exist. Both are predictions are false.

What balance?
There is a "balance" so long as we throw away the laws of thermodynamics so that diffuse low temperature radiation can be collected in non-existent hot galactic "cores".

 

[BFM]

Reality Check

"What mechanism achieves "a balance between both states"?
All the recycling of matter by his unknown and unspecified mechanism (try to find put how lead is converted into hydrogen in his book) happens inside the galaxy. If there is leakage of neutral hydrogen from galaxies then his recycling fails and galaxies vanish. The conclusion is that null cosmology predicts that either galaxies do not exists or neutral hydrogen in the IGM doe not exist. Both are predictions are false.

What balance?
There is a "balance" so long as we throw away the laws of thermodynamics so that diffuse low temperature radiation can be collected in non-existent hot galactic "cores"."

I seem to recall his (witt) black holes eat matter. Like Unicron. Also, his digestive tract involved dropping optimus prime into molten metal. Isn't it relatively safe to say black holes can fracture atomic nuclei? I realize shifting thoughts on black holes causes a stir, but...

What would you suggest be the proper mechanism for HII. As abobe i dont see lightning in space. I would like to think that mr. witt was making an idealized case for a galaxy. Ergo, he was cutting of the crust. Why fail the entire theory then?

PS.My dad always told me crust would make my hair curly yet it didn't

 

[Reality Check]

Consider the title of this post while reading this. I will admit that, when first approached by this idea, it seemed a little much. After taking the time to ponder it, It eventually hit me as easy to stomach. It required some mental yoga, but the idea that no 2 things are alike, means, nothing is alike. Having had logic classes, I know that one can argue the case, lets not get mired here.

When no 2 things are alike then no 2 things are alike. This includes 2 nothings.

So, What can you do when 2 things (i.e. nothing) are alike, you can add. So as some of our more illustrious posters admitted, that yes, his math is circular. Well that's fine. y=mx+b can when solved for zero certainly looks like 0=0 when b=0, regardless of m. A mathematical proof need only prove itself.

You need to define "nothing", "alike" and then show mathematically that 2 nothings are alike. Then you have to define the operation of addition for alike nothings.

Mathematical proofs that use circular logic are wrong. Your example is not a proof - it is a calculation.

Mr. Check, the fundamental concept of zero is a place holder for nothing. When I said that bookkeepers in India several thousand years ago gave us this concept, it came from an accounting standpoint. The ZERO sum is a useful tool when calculating balances, IE when the miller has received nothing from his customer, the baker. Keep in mind, before this point a lot of great work had been done without in geometry, astronomy etc. I am getting off track here, but I hope we can see eye to eye here.
...snip Zero stuff...

That is right - if you have a definition for addition.
Terence Witt never defines addition in null geometry. He assumes that he can use arithmetic addition of numbers on the symbols that he in his definition of a line. But the zeros in his line are not the number zero. They are points.
By treating the zeros in his definition as numbers rather than pointshe is invalidating his definition of a "line".

Here is a another definiton for his "line":
A line is "...+X+X+X+X..." where the Xs represent geometric points and "a point has no mass, charge, or any other property, except for its position relative to other points".

Now add the X's together using ordinary arithemetic.

What about this definnition of a line:
A line is ".../0/0/0/0/..." where the zeros represent geometric points and "a point has no mass, charge, or any other property, except for its position relative to other points".

Now divide the zeros using ordinary arithemetic.

 

[BFM]

I think I found the right button. Now I am going to bed as my local time. I will reply to your reply with some Boolean operators. Hopefully that will suffice?

 

[Reality Check]

I seem to recall his (witt) black holes eat matter. Like Unicron. Also, his digestive tract involved dropping optimus prime into molten metal. Isn't it relatively safe to say black holes can fracture atomic nuclei? I realize shifting thoughts on black holes causes a stir, but...

What would you suggest be the proper mechanism for HII. As abobe i dont see lightning in space. I would like to think that mr. witt was making an idealized case for a galaxy. Ergo, he was cutting of the crust. Why fail the entire theory then?

PS.My dad always told me crust would make my hair curly yet it didn't

Black holes never "fracture atomic nuclei". They compress them into a very small volume and never let them go.
Terrence Witt's core are not black holes. He supplies no mechanism to "fracture atomic nuclei".
His cores do not exist. If they did then we would see the one in the center of the Milky Way. We would see stars vanishing into it. We have observed the center of the Milky Way closely for a couple of decades now and seen neither a cor or vanishing stars.

Why do you expect to see lightning in space?
Neutral hydrogen is ionized by light (electromagnetic radiation or photons). The proper mechanism for HII is the ionization of HI by light.

What is a Unicron?

 

[Reality Check]

I think I found the right button. Now I am going to bed as my local time. I will reply to your reply with some Boolean operators. Hopefully that will suffice?

We are addressing Terance Witt's crackpot book. Feel free to throw your own Boolean logic at whatever you want. But that will not have anything to do with his book.

P.S. You missied this question:
What do you think about Terrence Witt redefining infinity (the concept of unboundedness) as a finite length?

 

[BFM]

one last reply. unicron, transformers, the movie, from the 80's??? no more science tonight.

 

[ben m]

Isn't it relatively safe to say black holes can fracture atomic nuclei? I realize shifting thoughts on black holes causes a stir, but...

No, it's not safe to say that. And Witt is not even just saying that. Witt is saying that black holes suck up both (a) heavy atoms and (b) some sort of microwave-powered energetic electron current, turn it into protons with 100% efficiency, and eject the protons (and only the protons) quietly back out into intergalactic space, at a rate equal to the entire galactic luminosity.

I would like to think that mr. witt was making an idealized case for a galaxy.

In the "black holes break up nuclei" thing, Witt was stating what he thought to be a necessary condition for his entire cosmology model---the whole model is the claim that starlight gets recycled and used for fission. That was not an aesthetic detail to be massaged later, it was one of the keystones.

Why fail the entire theory then?

If you think there is a part worth keeping, please explain it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Witt's mathematics is just plain silly and wrong! His cosmology contradicts long established (through countless experiments) physics. His logic is hopelessly flawed. Consequently, his book is worthless!

 

[ben m]

What would be an appropriate mechanism to achieve a balance in free space, ie not being burned? I only ask this, because I have never seen lightning in space, assuming an localized density would support it.

Just read this and realized that it didn't make any sense.

What evidence do you have that there the HI/HII ratio is in any sort of balance? It certainly wasn't in "balance" during the CMB transition and the reionization transition; there's no reason to believe it's in balance now.

This ratio doesn't have anything to do with either burning or with lightning.

 

[BFM]

We are addressing Terance Witt's crackpot book. Feel free to throw your own Boolean logic at whatever you want. But that will not have anything to do with his book.

P.S. You missied this question:
What do you think about Terrence Witt redefining infinity (the concept of unboundedness) as a finite length?

Well, here goes comes the pitch. Boolean logic is a quite powerful tool, and can by brute force, display the words you are reading. I would suggest reading /wiki/Boolean_logic and than make bold mathematical statements discounting that I need to define nothing, and prove addition. The math is simple, however, in a physicist toolbox, the concept of zero is missing. Take absolute zero. Have you ever seen it? you can get damn close, but a nice limit equation has a nice fit and excludes the possibilty, so does all practical theory. Therefor ZERO is not in your included set.

I am going to go eat dinner. I will be back.

 

[BFM]

Just read this and realized that it didn't make any sense.

What evidence do you have that there the HI/HII ratio is in any sort of balance? It certainly wasn't in "balance" during the CMB transition and the reionization transition; there's no reason to believe it's in balance now.

This ratio doesn't have anything to do with either burning or with lightning.

The statement was not designed to make sense but promote thought. Ionized hydrogen exists free in our universe, just look at what the voyager missions are running into right now in the termination shock of our little solar system. My point is that you and I have never seen evidence that the hii has accumulated to the point to free electron discharged, like you might have in a battery. however the slow buildup of hii, by your admitted mechanisms, would eventually lead to such a scenario. If you have 2 states of 1 element, a good question to ask is why is the ratio such?

 

[BFM]

No, it's not safe to say that. And Witt is not even just saying that. Witt is saying that black holes suck up both (a) heavy atoms and (b) some sort of microwave-powered energetic electron current, turn it into protons with 100% efficiency, and eject the protons (and only the protons) quietly back out into intergalactic space, at a rate equal to the entire galactic luminosity.



In the "black holes break up nuclei" thing, Witt was stating what he thought to be a necessary condition for his entire cosmology model---the whole model is the claim that starlight gets recycled and used for fission. That was not an aesthetic detail to be massaged later, it was one of the keystones.



If you think there is a part worth keeping, please explain it.

His white dwarf models do look interesting, and are probably worth the mental exercise. I am not the author, so therefore i can't tell you why he would suggest alternate black hole theory, gravitaitional shearing and hawking radiation debate might be another thread.....however, It would be great if he would come again to this forum to clarify.


As for the kesytone of the book, I would argue that he does address other galaxy types, albiet in no detail. This in not particularly bothersome, look at the first autos. I have ridden in a Stanley steamer, and my car is powered by a boxxer engine, both work due the expansion of gas, albeit in two very distinct ways. So don't throw out the kitchen sink.

 

[ben m]

The statement was not designed to make sense but promote thought. Ionized hydrogen exists free in our universe, just look at what the voyager missions are running into right now in the termination shock of our little solar system. My point is that you and I have never seen evidence that the hii has accumulated to the point to free electron discharged, like you might have in a battery. however the slow buildup of hii, by your admitted mechanisms, would eventually lead to such a scenario. If you have 2 states of 1 element, a good question to ask is why is the ratio such?

HII clouds are already neutral; they're a mix of free protons and free electrons with (except in very special circumstances) no charge separation at all. No charge separation, no voltage, no lightning.

Protons and electrons do not, contrary to popular belief, instantly recombine into neutral atoms; the actual observed (and theoretically understood) behavior is very complex and depends on three-body effects (an e- and and p+ to combine, and some third atom in the vicinity as a sort of catalyst). Moreover, most HII is in fact very hot, far above the ionization temperature.

 

[BFM]

Black Holes

AS an aside. I don't think at this point in this conversation we can quite hit this topic. We have started beginning of the book with the zero concept. It's not that i don't want to go there or am not prepared to discuss, but the hii / cosmology thing at the end of the book. I believe a discussion should have a natural progression, jumping around might muddy the waters to much to have a useful dialogue. I have some nice polar math that i have worked out, theory complements his work. the concept work like a sheet of paper rolled up in a tube. shrink the diameter with no overlap, you get a tail. overlap, and the paper becomes stronger.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, here goes comes the pitch. Boolean logic is a quite powerful tool, and can by brute force, display the words you are reading. I would suggest reading /wiki/Boolean_logic and than make bold mathematical statements discounting that I need to define nothing, and prove addition. The math is simple, however, in a physicist toolbox, the concept of zero is missing. Take absolute zero. Have you ever seen it? you can get damn close, but a nice limit equation has a nice fit and excludes the possibilty, so does all practical theory. Therefor ZERO is not in your included set.

I am going to go eat dinner. I will be back.

I would suggest that you read the post:

What do you think about Terrence Witt redefining infinity (the concept of unboundedness) as a finite length?

Boolean logic has nothing to do infinity.

The mathematical definition of infinity^WP is the concept of being without bounds, e.g. in calculus you have limits that tend to infinity.
Infinity is not a number. Infinity is not finite. Infinity does not have physical dimensions.

But Terrence Witt redefines infinity to be finite (he states that it has a magnitude on page 44), gives it the physical dimensions of length and treats it as a number (Infinity is NOT a number).

The "physicist toolbox" does include zero, e.g. there is zero degrees Celsius.

Boolean logic also has nothing to do with geometry.

Did you notice that:

• Terrence Witt's null geometry is not actually a geometry?
  In his "geometry" there is no such thing as length, area or volume.
• His geometry is never connected to the Euclidean geometry that we know our universe matches locally.
• Terrence Witt's null geometry is physically useless since he never defines differentiation?
  There is no velocity or acceleration in null geometry.
• The fact that null geometry is nonsensical pseudo-mathematics does not really matter because it is not used to derive his physical theories! The first 4 chapters are not used in later chapters.

 

[Reality Check]

AS an aside. I don't think at this point in this conversation we can quite hit this topic. We have started beginning of the book with the zero concept. It's not that i don't want to go there or am not prepared to discuss, but the hii / cosmology thing at the end of the book. I believe a discussion should have a natural progression, jumping around might muddy the waters to much to have a useful dialogue. I have some nice polar math that i have worked out, theory complements his work. the concept work like a sheet of paper rolled up in a tube. shrink the diameter with no overlap, you get a tail. overlap, and the paper becomes stronger.

Ok - we will ignore the first 4 chapters in his book (after all that is what he does!)

Present your math.