Null physics

[skwinty]

Any one have any comments wrt Terry Witt's Null Physics book advertised in various astronomy mags.
It is getting trashed as crackpot on the JREF forum.

[renormalised]

I've seen it advertised, but I haven't read it.

[Paul Hatchman]

And rightly so in my humble opinion. I have not ready the book, but have studied the material on his site. Frankly I find many of his claims about physicists highly insulting.

See: and

This is no way comes even close to describing any of the scientists I know, have listened to, or have (briefly) collaborated with. They would give their eye teeth for actual solutions to oustanding problems and are working hard to find them. As to conservative, take a look at what people like John Webb are doing at UNSW, looking for changes in fundamental constants (like the speed of light) over the lifetime of the universe. This is way out the main stream physics & cosmology, but his work is real, serious science.

As to Witt's theories, it is not like these have not been investigated by other's, but discarded for various reasons. A review the existing literature would, I think, be beneficial.

In summary: There are many ways to do science, but hawking a book in astronomy magazines is not one of them.

[renormalised]

The problem is, Paul, that when someone comes up with something out of left field they usually get castigated by the scientific community for being wrong, or crackpots, frauds etc. Science can be an awfully conservative and myopic field to find oneself in. When vested self interests, big money and academic reputations are at stake, the knives truly do come out. By and large, though, most scientists are a pretty congenial mob and willing to be open minded, privately. It's just that most will not go out on a limb to stake their reputations on something entirely new....unless they've got some backing from somewhere or from someone.

That's not to say I support Witt's assumptions, but as I said previously, I haven't read any of his material so I'll reserve judgment till later.

[Chippy]

Yes, I totally agree with this. It doesn't mean that new ideas can't come from the existing establishment - but many times new or radical discoveries and theories have been ridiculed by a majority of the scientific community (incorrectly) to great effect. Eventually the scientific community wakes up, and the person responsible generally gets the credit - but it can be a very long time coming. It has actually served to alienate many great scientists from their fields over the years. Chandresakar was a classic example - Eddington strongly rejected his work (on white dwarf limits), and the rest of the scientific community followed suit. It pretty much forced him out of the field for about 40 years from memory. He remained in physics - but not astrophysics.

[Paul Hatchman]

Hi renormalised,

All I can say is, based on my experience, I disagree. By looking through the astronomical literature, you will find many "out of left field" ideas presented every year. Some of these may work out but the majority do not. It can take many many years of very hard work to sort out the wheat from the chaff. It is one thing to say "look at my great new idea", and totally another to do the level if research, build the appropriate models and simulations, take measurements and design experiments to support those ideas.

I'm not saying there is no discrimination, science is a human endeavour after all. But I think to suggest that "When vested self interests, big money and academic reputations are at stake, the knives truly do come out" is over the top. Historical examples?

Cheers,

Paul

[Paul Hatchman]

You mean the Chandrasekhar who won the Nobel prize for physics for work on the structure and evolution of stars?

He was never "forced out". You are absolutely correct that the Chandrasekhar limit was not accepted within the wider astronomical community for decades, largely because of Eddington's objections. However in this matter Chandrasekhar had some big supporters including Bohr and Pauli helping to argue his case. He worked his entire career in the field of astronomy at the University of Chicago and a quick search of the Astronomical Abstract database, lists close to 200 books/papers authored by him.

So I don't think he's a particularly good example. I also suspect that it would be harder for another Eddington-like character to hold so much sway over the astronomical community these days. Science has moved on a long way from the "boys club" culture of the British Royal Society.

[sjastro]

The only example I can think of where the "Boys Club" prevailed in relatively recent times was the flak over Alfred Wegener's Theory of Continental Drift.

Wegener was a meteorologist and by intruding into an unrelated scientific field did disturb many egos.

This behaviour is very much the exception than the rule.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

I'm not necessarily speaking from an astronomical point of view, but there's plenty of examples from science in general where people who have come across a lot of opposition to their ideas. Although, Nick's example of Subramanyan Chandrasekhar is a case in point. Sir Arthur Eddington went out of his way to castigate Chandrasekhar for his ideas about electron degeneracy and white dwarfs, and being the pre-eminent scientist/astronomer of his day, everyone followed suit. Turns out that Chandrasekhar was right. Lord Rutherford said in the early 1900's that whilst he thought the structure of the atom was interesting, the chances of ever getting usable energy from it would be impossible. 22 years later, they built the first atomic pile under a football stadium at the Uni of Chicago. 3 years after that, they blew Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the outhouse with atomic bombs. Pons and Fleischmann and their "cold fusion" device. They were roundly castigated and vilified by MIT and others, who have invested billions in trying to get normal "hot" fusion to work (for 50 years, to no avail). Mind you, one of the backers of MIT happened to be Exxon-Mobile and Chevron...another conflict of interest there. Funny, how it never stopped over 600 laboratories worldwide from conducting experiments in cold fusion, with most having found the same excess of heat and nuclear byproducts, that certain others "never" found. Seems there's something going on in the experiments and even if it's not strictly nuclear, there's still something occurring that is mimicking the nuclear process.

There are quite a few others, but I can't remember them offhand. It's not only scientist...this sort of behavior occurs in all fields of study. The problem with accepted paradigms is that they become like a religion and when a new idea comes along, the voices of protest can become rather deafening and very "robust" in their response. Often to the point of being overly zealous about defending the status quo.

[renormalised]

That's precisely why he was eventually accepted. He had very strong supporters, but some don't.

[renormalised]

That's another example... I'm afraid it's not the exception.

Archeology is rife with controversies such as this. Try and argue with an Egyptologist/Archeologist that the pyramids and Sphinx are older than they accept. I have, and despite giving them the evidence showing this, it's like talking to a brick wall. Plenty of others, including other geologist like myself, have tried to explain to them why we believe the pyramids (the three at Giza, in this case) are as old as we reckon they are (based on sound and reasonable scientific grounds), but they just won't accept what we've told them. They won't even consider having those ideas tested, for fear testing might "ruin" and do damage to the monuments. That's the biggest load of crock I've ever heard. You hardly need to intrude on the structures of the monuments to get what's needed to determine their ages.

[sjastro]

Is this the theory that claims the Sphinx and Giza pyramids were constructed during a period of time when Egypt had a wetter climate say 8000-10000 years ago?

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Yes, it is. However, the only way to test to see if it's correct or not is to do the necessary study of the weathering profiles and a number of test to carry out on the monuments themselves.

This is getting off topic...better we get back on topic than have it pulled from the forum!!!:)

[Suzy_A]

There are plenty of other 'alternative' physics ideas around - I was once sent a book called "A Fresh Look at the Universe" by Geoffrey Balston.

I haven't seen Witt's 'Our Undiscovered Universe', (but have looked at his webpage) but it does sound similar to AFLatU.

AFLatU and other similar books all see to be written by people that did high-school or first year uni physics and no more. As a result, they usually have a highly distorted view of what physics is - basically high school and 1st year (and 2nd) uni physics is usually WRONG! It mostly covers classical or newtonion physics and as such is only a very rough approximation to more advanced quantum mechanics and relativity.

When you apply classical physics to the more philosophical aspects of the universe - like how and why are we here - then you just get bizzare stuff coming out. The classical case being that of Determinism, which basically states that any cause has an effect. Another way of putting this is that if we knew enough information about the Universe - the position and energy of all particles - then we could calculate everything that has happened and will happen. Or to put it another way, what will happen will happen because the pre-existing state of the Universe means that it must be so. There is no such thing as 'free will'.

This then was used as an excuse for various acts of war, invasion, genocide etc. 'We are killing them all because that is what is meant to happen'.

It is quite easy to show however, using quantum mechanics that all this is not so - that cause and effect are not so closely related (especially on an atomic and cosmological scale) and that free can exist.

Anyway, back to the matter in hand, AFLatU basically was a mis-application of limited Newtoniam physics to cosmology.

As I said, I haven't seen OUU, but quite probably it is something similar.

Not to say that he IS wrong. He might be right, but I doubt it. When Einstein first published the papers on SR and GR, and when Heaviside published his work on the ionosphere, "Maxwell's" equations, induction theory of transmission lines, when Chandrasekhar did his work, the Establishment may have said it was rubbish, but there were instantly open minded people who did have the necessary mathematics and physics to understand that they were right, and it wasn't long before the new paradigm took hold.

[renormalised]

All true, but it also follows on that the new paradigm is not necessarily correct either. It's just a pity that most scientist don't see that, or if they do, refuse to acknowledge this in favour of the more comfortable position.

[sjastro]

That's why GR and Quantum Mechanics should be studied as Maths subjects:).
I remember at Uni that 3rd year Physics students were encouraged to take up Maths units for Quantum Mechanics and GR in order to really understand the theory.

Steven

[renormalised]

They're not wrong....just incomplete. There's a huge difference.

[Suzy_A]

What's not wrong? Classical Physics?

Classical Physics is wrong! But it is a good approximation for the macroscopic world - for things with a mass of 0.000001 kg to 10,000,000,000 kg and that travel at 0.000001 m/s to 100,000,000 m/s in time frames of 0.000001 s to 100,000,000 s. Once outside these boundries, the faults of Classical Physics starts to break down and are readily observable. Actually they are apparent well within these boundries, if you know where to look. Look at a blue sky and look at the 'floaters' and the diffraction effects. Easily explained by quantum mechanics. Impossible by classical physics.

Of course Quantum and Relativity are also wrong - but not as wrong as CP. Q and R are both 'right' within their respective boundries, but fail outside and also need to be reconsiled with each other. But so far no one has come up with a 'Grand Unified Theory' that is better. String Theory was a good attempt, but has inherent faults that are greater than those of Q and R.

[renormalised]

You still don't understand, and what you said proves yourself otherwise. They're not wrong, just incomplete. To be wrong, they would by definition have no validity whatsoever. They would be wrong in all cases if that were true. Since they plainly are not, they therefore cannot be wrong...only incomplete.

[Paul Hatchman]

But not *everyone* did, that is the point. For every ego out there, there are hundreds of up and comers looking to make their mark. They will do the experiments, or the follow up work, or whatever is required to put the theory on a firm footing.

That is really not the same thing is it? Making bold pronouncements from an early and incomplete understanding of a physical phenomenon is different to the supposed suppressing of new ideas to maintain an orthodoxy.

Wow! Just WOW! If I understand what you are saying, you are accusing hundreds if not thousands of scientists of deliberate fraud. Are you serious? The physicists I know, live quite modestly and earn far, far less than they could in private industry. And 600 laboratories? There must be a whole raft of papers published on these experiments. Where are they?

I suggest, if you have not done so already, that you read up on how hard it is to actually measure this alleged "cold fusion" effect. It basically relies measuring any heat increase after eliminating any other possible forms of energy entering the experiment and does not measure any "fusion" directly. It is a very hard thing to do correctly, even under the most carefully controlled conditions and mistakes in the experiment will lead to positive, rather than negative results.

Cheers,

Paul

[Karls48]

Paul, can you please explain what makes scientist different from for example – politicians, bankers or car salesman?

[Suzy_A]

Sorry, but I disagree. CP IS wrong AND incomplete. But I am not saying that it does not have validity. What I said is that it is a USEFUL approximation for most occurances. The Lorentzian Transformation (which is a part of Special Relativity) states that t = t0/(1-v2/c2)^0.5, where t is the appratent time, t0 is the time at rest, v is the velocity and c is the velocity of light in a vacuum. On the other hand, Classical Physics states that t = t0.

What it means is that there is time-dialation for a object moving with respect to an observer at t0 at a velcity v.

At 10 metres a second past a multinova, the time dialation is about 0.000000000000055%, which is not really that noticable. But at 299,500,000 m/s it is about 2265%, which would be quite noticable.

A similar transformation exists for length and an inverse one for mass.

But of course not much on earth travels at speeds close to c - unless its in a cyclotron or a high energy (eg therapy) x-ray machine, in which case it is relevent.

But on a cosmological scale, these relativistic velocities, masses and lengths are relevent and so relativity and quantum does make a difference. A good example was the failure of classical physics in accounting for the procession of Mercury, but which was easily explained by Einstein.

Classical Physics is wrong - but still very, very useful.

As for Paul's comment that "The physicists I know, live quite modestly and earn far, far less than they could in private industry.", yes that's right. As a nuclear medicine physicist that does dosimetry for radiotherapy (and if I get it wrong I kill someone - but haven't done that yet....), I earn about 1/5 to 1/10 what someone earns digging holes at a WA minesite.

[renormalised]

Yes I have read the articles on cold fusion. I know how hard it is to measure and such....plus you've taken what I said out of context by leaving out some of what I have said. Notice I qualified my statements by saying that even if it's not strictly a nuclear process, then something is doing a great job of mimicking some of the nuclear process. What that is, we don't know but it's not grounds to do what they did to Pons and Fleischmann. Regardless of what they claimed. A true scientist, even one highly skeptical about the claims, would hold their tongue until they've exhausted all possible experiments and outcomes. Which those at MIT and some other institutes didn't. And no, I didn't accuse them of deliberate fraud, myself. However it's come to light that their conduct in the matter has had a lot left to be desired. Plus, it's not thousands of physicists....just those involved with the "hot fusion" lobby and those institutes which have a vested interest in funding for such work.

Go and type cold fusion into Google and you'll see what's been happening. Even wikipedia has an interesting article on cold fusion.

Scientist are people, Paul. If their livelyhoods and such are threatened by something new, which maybe somewhat way out there (in this case), then they'll do anything to protect themselves, their reputations and the status quo. Ultimately, it's not about whether Pons, Fleischmann or anyone else is either right or wrong, it's about the conduct of those people who should know better, especially if they hold the principles of science and the scientific method true to their cause.

[Suzy_A]

I'll give my opinion on that - greed basically, for power or money.

Of course not all scientists are alturistic either.

I'm in an association that consists largely of scientists and engineers. There are basically two groups - those that do science/engineering for the love of knowledge or because they believe that it is the right thing to do and they can help society - most of these people are involved in renewable energy, medical physics/engineering, astronomy etc. They typically earn $50 - 70K with post-grad qualifications and 10 years experience.

Then there are those that work in the mines as geologists, petrophysicists, geophysicists, mining engineers etc. They typically earn $50 - 70K straight out of uni with a BSc, and $150 - $250K with 10 years. (An unqualified hole-digger in WA gets $100 - $400K).

Many politicians, and most bankers and used-car salespeople are there for money or power. If they had to work for $20 an hour, they would'nt.

Many scientists (and many other types of people as well) are in it for what they can give. Many other people - bankers and car-salesman, are in it for what they can get.

Another comment on cold fusion via the Pons and Fleishmann method - if it worked how they said it would, they would be dead from the neutron radiation.

[renormalised]

Susan, no need to explain lorentzian transforms and such to me, I do know a bit about GR/SR and Quantum Theory:)

However, you still don't see what I'm saying....although I suspect it's nothing more than how we interpret what we mean by wrong and incomplete that's the problem here. There's nothing wrong with Classical Physics....it just doesn't fully explain what we've come to know about the laws which govern reality. It's an approximation, just as SR/GR and Quantum Theory are nothing more than approximations of what is actually occurring. We may think we know all there is to know, or feel we know a great deal, but I'm pretty much on solid ground when I say that we're only just started to understand the nature of existence. We haven't even touched on things, yet...even with much of the stuff we think we know something about.

About pay packets. Yes, you'd earn more in some fields than in others, but I can tell now from simple experience that I would much rather be a GP or a lawyer than a geologist, considering that I could earn $140-$180K a year, with my experience (can't work due to medical problems), and either one of them can quickly get into 6 and 7 figure pay packets...far more than I could ever earn.

[renormalised]

Yes, you're right there. However something is happening and we've yet to able to explain it. Like I said before, we don't know everything and there is something happening that's mimicking some nuclear process that we don't yet understand. Just because it's hard to reproduce or measure or understand doesn't mean it can't or doesn't exist. Just means we haven't a clue about what's going on. And, probably, neither did Pons or Fleischmann.

[Paul Hatchman]

It is not not my intention to misrepresent what you are saying. I don't understand, if one one hand you are saying that a group of companies through MIT are suppressing positive cold fusion results, but on the other hand, there are 600 successful replications, how that doesn't equal a big fraudulent conspiracy. That is a lot of scientists to keep quiet. If I've misunderstood, please jump in.

So you are not claiming fraud, but just insinuating it?

I think we'll have to disagree on where the evidence points.

Totally disagree. Science thrives on the new. Most of the top physicists are tenured to their university and have jobs for life. I would agree with you that ego can get in the way, but not that their livelihoods are threatened. It is not like they get a cut of any grants they bring in. The only way I can think it would colour their judgement is that grants let them buy better, shinier toys to play with etc.

[sjastro]

I don't agree with CP, GR or QM being more right or wrong according to the observation frames.

CP is a special case for GR. Einstein's field equations for low gravitational potentials breakdown to LaPlace's equation which is a part of Newtonian theory. If it didn't GR would have been quickly relegated to the scientific dust bin.

CP is building block for GR as much as the particle/wave and blackbody radiation theory is for QM.

GUT's will operate under the same principles. They will need to breakdown to GR and QM for the macro and subatomic worlds respectively.

Regards

Steven

[Paul Hatchman]

The same difference as the between a politician and your average ice in space poster. People (except for politicians) are just people, they aren't perfect, make mistakes, have egos, desire popularity, power and influence to greater and lesser degrees.

It is not that scientist are different, but the process of science is different. Science is done in the open, with people publishing their theories and results for all to see and criticise. And believe me, that criticism can be vicious. Ideally, theories can be scrutinised to see what predictions they make and this can be followed up experiment to either confirm them or not. The process makes it is hard for an individual or group of individuals to conspire, hide or fake results, because there are many rivals out there who try to either replicate or find fault with each result or publication.

A few years ago I was following an argument about the possible discovery of a "cosmic string". What these are is not relevant here, but basically it came down to whether two close, but non-interacting galaxies were mirror images of each other. The guy proposing this had his initial papers torn to shreds by the community, but he kept persisting making more and more measurements. And in the end, his and others more precise measurements showed a key difference between the two galaxies. This criticism drove him to create better and better observations to try and prove his theory, he just turned out to be wrong.

Cheers,

Paul

[renormalised]

Paul, you did misrepresent what I said. You said I claimed they were fraudulent, when in fact I was only saying what has already been said. They're not my words, but what's been reported in the press and various articles. Which ones, I can't remember offhand so I can't quote you references. I'm afraid that tenure doesn't mean a job for life. it can be taken away just as easily as it's given, and it's happened to plenty of scientists. Especially ones who have rocked the boat, so to speak. Grants can be tied in with tenure...on a performance basis. You don't perform you don't get the grants you want, you can't teach effectively, then out you go. If a loss of grants, especially those that run to many millions of dollars and involve big projects such as nuclear fusion (or whatever), means livelyhoods and academic reputations are brought into question, those involved will and do fight with anything they can to retain those things. It's happened all too often. Even worse when institutional reputations are brought into it. Nothing worse than having your institutional reputation sullied by someone who has "stepped over the mark".

How long do you think someone's tenure would last there??. About as long as it takes for a positron in a synchrotron to travel a millionth of a millimetre.

Whilst tenure means a position is open for any scientist to take up, and it's generally for the term of their careers, that doesn't mean it's permanent as in written in stone.

When you mix ego with money and reputation, it's an ugly business.

[renormalised]

I beg to differ here. There's a hell of a lot of science that's done behind great veils of secrecy, cloak and dagger routines and is far from open. Even in those institutions that are supposed to be open and accountable. Plus not all scientific work is done for altruistic purposes or even in the spirit of altruism, in so far as confirming or denying theory is concerned.

I'd say you've been lucky in your dealings with the scientists you have. Most of the ones I know are good people too...my own colleagues are decent people. However, when it comes to money and reputations...egos and such, there are many who would figuratively kill someone to keep those things intact for themselves. If it meant destroying another person's career because what they were proposing was going to disadvantage them in some way, then they would do it. Science is full of politics and in many cases those within it act as if they're "high priests" of some religion.

[Paul Hatchman]

This is a bit frustrating to be honest. You are throwing out these statements without backing them up. If there are plenty, please name some. I know of none who have lost tenure for expressing unpopular ideas.Umm.. no. Again please provide an example. Revoking tenure is a tedious process and in the US at least, can be challenged through the legal system.
Again no, tenure is very difficult to get, requiring a proven publication record, obtaining grants, teaching and mentoring students. However once obtained, it can only be revoked for "cause". Misconduct etc. While universities don't publish their tenure positions, I think the wikipedia article on tenure is reasonably accurate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure)
I really think you have the wrong end of the stick on this one.

Cheers,

Paul

[Paul Hatchman]

Renormalised,

Even though we are on total opposite end of the spectrum on this issue, you've made my day, stuck at the computer, working at home much more enjoyable.

Cheers mate!

[renormalised]

So are you, so it's nothing more than a circular argument. I don't have, and I doubt even you would have, the journal articles or press statements/clippings etc, at the ready to quote from. Or even saved on your computer. If I saved everything I ever needed to quote from, say something about or use as a reference, I'd need dozens of hard drives, literally, to store it all.

Plus, I'll name two of them now...Pons and Fleischmann. They were accused of fraud, academic misconduct etc. By the same people, who it's turned out, were guilty of much the same things themselves, it appears.



Yes, you do need to perform in order to get tenure, I never said you didn't and it is open for any scientist to take up, so long as it's offered. Some have knocked it back, and I can see why. As I said, tenure can be tied in with grants performance, so you just repeated what I previously said.

Yes, a committee has to be convened in order to hear disputes with respect to tenure, but in some cases it's been more like a kangaroo court than a fair hearing. Plus, a hell of a lot of pressure can be put on a scientist, tenured or not, to tow the accepted line.

I like the fact that in the US you can defend your tenure in the courts. That takes it out of the hands of what could possibly be vested interests not necessarily fair nor partial with respect to the tenured scientist. Then if they're wrong in denying tenure, those scientist can sue the pants off those wishing to get rid of them. It should be the same here.

A good brisk discussion is always a pleasure to participate in...even if you don't agree with one another!!!. Now, that's science in it's truest form.

[Paul Hatchman]

Again unsupported, vague claim. For this to be the case, the conspiracy has to be world-wide, covering a huge number of scientists. I don't see how this can work in practice.
Vague accusation. And how do they destroy someone's career? Please provide an example. In my experience, it is other scientists who expose fraud within science.
Agree, any human enterprise is full of politics, and certainly networking among your peers is important in terms of being able to collaborate on projects, get early access to data etc. But how do you get to be a high priest with so much control? With the plethora of open journals, preprint databases etc, you can't restrict publication. With open access to vast amounts of data, you couldn't even shut someone out that way these days.

Cheers,

Paul

[renormalised]

Vague??!!. Try and enter some of the labs at LLNL, Caltech, ORNL or any one of a number of institutes and you'll find yourself out on your ear. Pick the wrong lab and you'll be held in custody for national security reasons. I think I'd define that as secret. Then you have your big pharmacy labs like Bayer, Pfizer etc. Can't say they're particularly open and accountable and there's been plenty of reports about that in the media. That's just a start.



I agree with you on one thing here. Sometimes it's other scientists who see the fraud being committed within science and try to expose it. It's easy enough to destroy anyone's career, let alone a scientist's, if you have the time and the resources (not necessarily position or power) to do so. How do you think you could do it??.

You may get out a publication or journal article with somewhat greater ease these days because of the plethora of avenues to do so, but who's going to listen?? Unless you get published in a widely accepted journal for your field of study, and in some cases a highly respected one, like Nature, A&A, AAJ, J of Geology etc, you might as well talk to a brick wall. You'll never be heard and you go nowhere, fast. Having your work published on some obscure site or in some obscure journal, means you're just catering to a few, if any, who'll be interested in what you have to say. Even then, it's no guarantee of success.

How do you get to be the "high priest" with so much control?? Case point: become the main editor and publisher of the magazine/journal and/or be part of the peer review committee on one of the journals/magazines etc. That's how you do it, and in the past, those positions have been blatantly abused. The ex editor for Nature was notorious for being biased towards certain researchers/institutes and was a stickler for scientific conservatism. He retired a number of years back, now.

[jshad84]

My opinion is that no matter what scientific field you are in there will be good science and bad science. Also, there will be ethical, reasonable, open minded researchers, and those out to make a name for themselves and take others around them down. There are enough examples out there. There are also examples of boards / organisations not standing by brilliant people who went against main stream though.

The comments about CP, GR and QM are all right and its the same as anything in physics - its all an approximation with which we can model our world, and you need to be aware of the assumptions made and if they are valid.

I think that true scientists don't really care for the money, its all about finding out more about the world we live in. I majored in both physics and geology, and ended up working for an oil company (so the money is good). I worked out the area of science I was interested in before I found out about the money. There are more important things to worry about than how much you get paid - such as the fact that for the first time in 2 weeks there has been clear nights in Sydney to get the scope out.

James

[renormalised]

Einstein once said..."knowledge is the least important thing of all, what counts the most is having an imagination"... and that is one of the great truths of any field of endeavour. All the knowledge in the world won't do you any good, except that you'll make a great "process" worker. The one's that make that heady height of greatness, such as Einstein himself, had the imagination to leap beyond the boundaries of science and it's little box of ideas. He challenged the accepted thinking of the day. Living in a paradigm is like peeking out of your window every day, but being afraid to step outside for fear of what you may find. Those with imagination aren't afraid to go outside, in many cases they run outside, and keep on running.

[Reality Check]

See this review of “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt from a professional physicist:
http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html

Also see my review at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html


The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include:
Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.Conclusion: Bad mathematics and even worse physics.

[avandonk]

We are amateurs and any knowledge that should be held as current best practice must be based on peer reviewed publications. There is room for nutters though as they can be simply dismissed if they do not fit the current paradigm. The only rational criteria is EVIDENCE that proves the current paradigm wrong! It must be self consistent and expand our current knowledge. It cannot go off on a tangent that is non provable. For example the the invisible blue teapot that orbits our planet and is responsible for the Universes existence. It must be able to be negated by experiment.

Plausibility is everywhere, you just need to be highly educated to see through the charlatans. I am heartily sick and tired of all these nutters that claim they have all the answers and have never been published.

Show me a coherent story that is self consistent at all levels and I may waste some time reading it. I have enough trouble keeping up with the peer reviewed papers.

Bert