3 responses so far ↓

• 1   whacula // Sep 3, 2008 at 7:41 pm

  I have not read Terrance Witts book, however I must say.. there have been some scathing remarks aplenty, few (if any) accolades.. its disturbing to see so many pound this fellow it reminds me of galileo and his “sentence” I personally am on the fence, while I hold a degree in physics,I would not so easily be in contempt of this one, since I find having a degree in physics does NOT quantify a special gift to be the ones to find the origins of the universe or the function thereof. Further, not having such a degree in no way dooms an individual to utter ignorance of it or the supposition of it. In my view all ideas are and should be heard, tested and accepted or rejected, dismissive behavior is itself ignorant. And that always shows true!

• 2   JJ // Sep 4, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  That’s stupid.

  It doesn’t matter what your degree is, if you come out swinging – challenging everything that educated people hold sacred, you’d better have some way to prove it. He doesn’t.

  Your argument is the same stupid argument that creationists drag out: Give every theory a chance. No. Some theories are not worth the paper they are written on. You are ignorant. You can’t tear down evolution because you don’t like it and propose unicorns created monkeys because it sounds good. A scientific theory is something tried and tested, not just a whim. Terry Witt doesn’t go out and get his book vetted properly. He needs to find other people who will read it and support it. If he can’t find ANY reputable scientist to support his book, that speaks volumes.

  I don’t bear any animosity toward any outsider who has good ideas and builds support amongst experts – but one cannot just spend money to convince people his idea is good, or try to go around the vetting system that science has set up just because he thinks he can “present his case to the people”. The PEOPLE are not trained to judge if his text has merit.

  Just like you would not expect a high school student to determine if EVOLUTION should be thrown out because some creationist says a magical guy in the sky does things, but he can’t be observed directly. It is irresponsible to put every wacky theory in front of students. They are not experts, qualified to judge the merit of a scientific work.

  So, all ideas can be heard, it’s a free country, but NOT given equal merit in a debate. Maybe a strange idea will build to be the consensus theory over decades, but that is only by convincing experts that the theory has merit and is measurable, observable and fits within the overall framework of science that we have build over centuries.

  God, when will people realize that science is not bad because it is not a democracy. Science is not up for a vote. There are theories that better explain nature, and there has been no evidence so far to convince any prominent physicists that THIS THEORY and THIS TEXTBOOK is at all equal, let alone superior to existing theories developed by people who were proven to be geniuses. For him to even suggest he is as smart as Einstein smacks of hubris.

  Ha! And you have the gall to compare him to Galileo!?!

  Garrett Lisi has a physics degree, and he’s a surfer. That would usually make him an outsider, since he didn’t pursue academics after getting his degree. Still, he has a strange idea about how to unify the forces through some special group theory. His idea is not automatically accepted, but because he has had the support of some well-known scientists, people are willing to look at his ideas and give him time to prove or disprove them. However, most scientists are still skeptical. The difference is not his credentials, it is that his theories are rigorous enough and of interest to scientists. Every reputable scientist that I have seen review Witt’s book finds it meaningless gibberish. THAT’S the DIFFERENCE! (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/ted_lisi?currentPage=all)

  Geesh! Did YOU buy his book and review it? What do you find in it that makes his theory interesting. Give us a substantial reason why we should give him more slack. All WE scientists see is someone who is rich and trying to get his theory into schools by putting up billboards all over popular science magazines. We find his methods more outrageous than his book! Let him go through the proper vetting process, and submit a paper on his “theory” to a scientific journal and get it refereed and accepted. Then it will be a REAL competing scientific theory, and not just some middle-aged engineer’s rationalization.

  I’m sorry, I don’t mean to personally insult you, but why are you defending this man unless you are somehow related to him (or him), or someone who benefits if people buy his book? Look in the back of Scientific American at the other people who try to sell woo-woo theories. They just can’t afford such big glossy ads. I can’t otherwise see anything different between their claims and Terry Witt’s.

• 3   Reality Check // Oct 11, 2008 at 12:42 am

  Ben Monreal’s review is excellent and inspired me to write my own ( http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html)

  To summerize: 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.

Leave a Comment