Physics or Woo? (On “Our Undiscovered Universe” Ad)

I recently recieved my monthly dosed of the Astronomy magazine. On its back cover, there was an ad a la Expelled style. A guy is writing on the chalkboard “I believe in the big bang” and then it said, you won’t at the bottom of the picture. This was an ad for the book “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terrence Witt. That set off my skeptic alarm. There are really good evidence for the Big Bang, and this guy was saying it was false. I investigated, and yeah, the guy is full of woo. Firstly, he didn’t seem to have the necessary qualification to write stuff about cosmology. Secondly, he never published a peer reviewed research. If it would have been good, he would have already been famous. Einstein did it while he was working at a patent office, but he published it in a journal. This guy has nothing. Thirdly, from the JFREF forum, the guy gets fundamentals of the standard model and cosmology wrong. If a theory is going to overthrow another one, it must at least reduce to the existing models, just like the way special relativity coincides with Newton’s mechanic at a velocity much less than the speed of light. The most tell tale signal, though, was his conspiracy style argument, claiming scientists are all closed minded and they were all against him. That did it for me, the book is full of woo.

Oh, and look at this beauty from his book: 1^M={1^M/∞^3}∞^3
If you do the algebra, you come up with 1=1 or undefined=undefined. That makes the bloody equation meaningless. Yeah, real helpful equation to understanding the universe. *smirk in elitist manner*


3 Responses to Physics or Woo? (On “Our Undiscovered Universe” Ad)

  1. A reviewer says:

    Believe it or not, I picked up a review copy of this book and wrote a review. It’s not just the excerpts that are bad—the whole thing is.

  2. Reality Check says:

    Also see my review at
    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.

  3. ibyea says:

    Thanks, man! ^_^

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: