Posts Tagged ‘Big Bang’


Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 by Aridian PR

Terence Witt continues to garner high praise from readers of Our Undiscovered Universe and its criticism of current cosmological paradigms.

The launch of has brought novices and career scientists together to discuss Null Physics cosmology. Cosmic paradigms that exist in the popular Big Bang theory are driving the need for discovery across the globe. Visitors to , the My Discovered Universe (MDU) forum, and Terence Witt’s blog are finding further evidence to challenge popular opinion with testable results in a scientific setting.

Witt is not alone in statements that the Big Bang and other theories need to be reevaluated. The My Discovered Universe (MDU) forum has been buzzing with questions and discussions about Null Physics and other findings that may contradict, complement, or collide head-on with current cosmologies.

The push for answers is not just within the growing Null Physics community, but is also in conjunction with major cosmic findings that have shaken scientist beliefs. In 2007, a giant cold spot was discovered – a hole in the universe – which conflicts with established theories such as the Big Bang. According to the July/August 2008 issue of Science Illustrated, Lawrence Rudnick, an astronomer at the University of Minnesota and head of the astronomy team responsible for discovering the cold spot, believed that the finding would drive scientists’ to reevaluate the development of the structure of the universe.

As the Big Bang theory continues to deteriorate with scientists globally, author Terence Witt continues to call for answers. “If you tell me something that isn’t entirely evident or seems a little odd, I will be asking questions,” said Witt in his blog entitled “Skepticism .” “If you tell me the universe came from a primordial fireball 13.7 billion years ago, I’m going to keep asking questions until this story makes sense.”

In the book, Our Undiscovered Universe: Introducing Null Physics, Witt introduces Null Cosmology which is diametrically opposed to the Big Bang theory. Quickly gathering interest and supporters, Null Physics is changing beliefs if not opening the door for further discovery analysis.

“The way things were put [in Our Undiscovered Universe,] is very convincing,” said Professor Ivo van der Werff, “[it] has shaken my views and faith in Big Bang cosmology.” launched on July 1. Its forum, My Discovered Universe (MDU), is quickly becoming a popular place to discuss new cosmological ideas. With the website only eight days old, the MDU forum already boasts 41 members, almost 100 topics, and more than 520 posts.

Reevaluate your cosmology at .

About Terence Witt
Terence Witt is the founder and former CEO of Witt Biomedical Corporation. He holds a BSEE from Oregon State University and lives in Florida. Our Undiscovered Universe: Introducing Null Physics is his first book. To read more about Terence Witt and his latest breakthroughs go to .

Victoria Lansdon
Public Relations Director
Aridian Publishing
(321) 773-3426

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Is the Big Bang ‘falsifiable’? (Part II)

Sunday, June 22nd, 2008 by Terence Witt

There is a catch-22 to the ‘falsifiable rule’; a large hubris-filled quagmire that has trapped so many in the past, and to which our current crop of cosmologists have fallen prey. Falsifiability is the acid test for the conceptual health of a scientific theory, but doesn’t really apply to a scientific fact. The flat Earth concept is an (unfortunately too appropriate) example of this. The idea that the Earth is approximately spherical (or at least far more spherical than it is planar) is not a theory. It is a fact, and one of the ways to recognize the difference between the two terms is to try to imagine a test for which the ‘mostly spherical Earth’ concept would fail. We could say, for instance, that the Earth is really flat with a center at some special location (say New York), but that when we travel away from it, say from New York to New Zealand, we are actually beneath its ‘real’ surface, and for some unknown reason on this part of the globe its structure is transparent and very low density. Since this explanation is (on its best day) utterly ludicrous, along with any other ‘explanations’ for why the Earth is actually flat, we correctly deduce that the Earth is to a large extent spherical, and we are held to its surface by the same force that gives it this shape, the magical force of gravity.

I’m sometimes asked if I believe in the theory of evolution. To this I respond that evolution is a theory in the same way that our basic composition of atoms is a theory. You can’t look right at it and see it happen (like seeing our beautiful mostly spherical Earth from space), but you can actually see evolution happen rapidly on a small scale with viruses and bacteria, just like an atomic force microscope will give you a glimpse of atoms. So in the same way as the term fact is often misused for nefarious purposes, so too is theory used as a label to denegrate perfectly respectable facts.

Which bring us back to the Big Bang. The most arrogant answer to our question of its falsifiability is that it is a scientific fact, and as such should not be falsifiable, any more than the mostly spherical Earth fact. Well, ahem, pardon me for asking… Since there are no strict rules for when a theory becomes a fact, there is no quick retort for this defense, other then perhaps, the time-honored ‘IS NOT!’. And unfortunately, Big Bang proponents have upped the ante by segragating (think of the many headed Hydra here) portions of the Big Bang into distinct buckets of fact and theory. Under fact we have things like the expansion of the universe and the idea that it ‘did happen!’. Under theory we have wrangling about various details, such as early galaxy and star formation. So let’s just look in the Big Bang fact bucket, and see if there’s really anything in it, at least on par with much venerated scientific facts; facts that are so solid that you could trip over them whilst descending the stairs, for instance.

After a careful inspection, we note that the Big Bang fact bucket is pristinely empty, because every single piece of evidence that exists for the Big Bang is, by definition, indirect. We can measure the CMB directly, but have to presume that it is relic radiation. We can measure the intergalactic redshift, but not in the lab. We can praise the few predictions the Big Bang has made, as long as we ignore the many more that it has failed (shouldn’t the universe, full of all of this matter, be decelerating right about now??). The only reason the Big Bang is considered a fact at all (or at least its basic premise) is because there is a general concensus as to the weight of a great many retrospective and circumstantial bits of evidence. This is a murder trial without a body, a murder weapon, and whose witnesses were at a great distance looking into a dark alley. So just as absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence, a large pile of weak evidence does not constitute strong evidence, and evidence does not become stronger by winning a popularity contest.

So for those who have been able to convince themselves that the Big Bang is fact, by peer pressure or justing wanting it to be so, I say two things. First, you have done a horrible disservice to the status of scientific fact, and two, I’ve got some prime Florida swampland for sale…

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Is the Big Bang ‘falsifiable’? (Part I)

Saturday, June 21st, 2008 by Terence Witt

As I have repeatedly tried to pin Big Bang proponents down with specific questions, I have noted a discouraging tendency toward obfuscation. I understand that the model is more suited toward description than having the kind of explanatory power that can tell us, for instance, why there was a Big Bang or what caused it. All I have been looking for is a precise, self-consistent set of premises. It’s like that ‘whack-a-mole’ game, where you ask one question and the answer slips away into a general relativity hole, and you ask another and the answer gets lost down the special relativity hole. So this process has led, quite naturally, to whether or not the Big Bang is actually falsifiable. In other words, is there an observation that, if made, would show the Big Bang to be false? String theory, for instance, is not currently falsifiable because it has made no predictions that are within the range of our test equipment. Many physicists shout ‘foul’, but the (art/math/philosophy) that is string theory rages on unabated. I wonder, however, whether the Big Bang is not falsifiable for an entirely different reason: are its foundational principles so malleable that it can be adjusted to any conceivable observation? Please allow me to share the discussion that led to this idea.

I had been told recently, by a few credentialed physicists (who shall remain nameless), that the galactic vortex proposed by null cosmology is simply not possible. To this I responded, excellent! You see, if there is no galactic vortex as predicted, then I can conceive of no possible way of undoing a galaxy’s fusion to create new hydrogen (for future fusion), which leads directly to the spectacular and unequivocal failure of null cosmology! In this way, null cosmology is falsifiable, as should be the case with any good physical theory. But then I responded, “if we do find this ‘impossible’ vortex, will that invalidate the Big Bang?” The answer was no; but it might cause some major adjustment to its current version of universal or galactic evolution. Then the grim reality suddenly dawned on me, and I asked a more global question:

Can you conceive of an observation that, if confirmed, would demonstrate that the Big Bang was false?

This particular discussion group could imagine no such observation.

Alas poor science, I miss you so.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]


Wednesday, June 18th, 2008 by Aridian PR

Author begins with predicting the magnitude of the core-wand motion of the Andromeda galaxy, M31

Minneapolis, MN (June 18, 2008) – Is the Big Bang theory a bust? In several recent news articles, physicists have questioned the validity of the Big Bang. Terence Witt is going one step further by applying part of his Null Physics theory, Null Cosmology, toward predicting the magnitude of vortical motion in our huge galactic neighbor, Andromeda. This prediction, an integral part of Null Cosmology’s integrated ‘Cosmic Fusion Cycle.’will cast further doubt on the Big Bang’s validity.

“Null cosmology can predict the core-ward motion of any spiral galaxy," said Witt. “I’ve published the number for the Milky Way in my book Our Undiscovered Universe , and next is Andromeda, which is larger than our own galaxy but has similar characteristics. Null Cosmology, with its ability to provide a unified, comprehensive analysis of our contemporary universe, is a very serious problem for the Big Bang."

As inspiration often comes from conversation, Witt realized the need for additional predictions while conversing with physicists participating in his My Discovered Universe forum.

“The thing I really like about the forum environment is that debate often is the catalyst for new and greater idea development. All of us on My Discovered Universe – moderators and members – are concerned with the advancement of scientific learning and application. That’s what is truly enjoyable about the discussions. They get heated up, they get spirited, but at the end of the day, we all want the same thing: We want science to move forward.”

Within the next two weeks, Witt plans to publish his prediction as a white paper on , as well as on the new My Discovered Universe (MDU) forum. All future predictions will be posted on MDU. With forum registration on a sharp and steady rise, Witt is not able to reply to every post in real-time, but will participate as often as his research activities allow.

With more new predictions to come, Null Cosmology is preparing to strongly challenge the Big Bang.

About Terence Witt
Null Physics is Terence Witt’s passion. He is the former CEO of Witt Biomedical and is a visiting scientist at Florida Institute of Technology. “Our Undiscovered Universe: Introducing Null Physics” is Witt’s first book. All the proceeds from “Our Undiscovered Universe ” will be donated to scientific research.

Victoria Lansdon
Public Relations Director
Aridian Publishing
(321) 773-3426

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Our Undiscovered Universe Blog is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).