spiritualscientific.com Blog

A Humble Correction

Specifically, Terrence Witt did not qualify as a “crack pot.” He passed the same test Melvin passed. After some research, we realized that he has been under attack by underqualified critics. One of them said he didn’t pass that test, but then we checked it out for ourselves and it was not the same result we found. The book seems to me every bit as good as any of the best theories out there.

When we said the book was hilarious, we did not intend to put that in the same category as the other people’s comments as hilarious. When we laugh, it is because of the irony of the universe and such as that, we never laugh “at” people as in their shortcomings. That’s the best I can say to explain that comment. We really think the book is great.

Melvin is more qualified to write a review of this book than anyone else we’ve seen write a review of it. Most of them haven’t even read the book! Others are simply graduate students or whatever, with usernames like “bloggernose” or something like that. Melvin is a Doctor, Professor, Scientist, FAAP… Anyway, I guess I am irritated that people can be so immature.
Melvin is going to write an article in the forum section of our website. Also watch for his comment, I think he will like to add something to this post.

A little more about Null Physics

Well, I’ve learned that a lot of people claim that Witt is a “crack pot.” I can’t figure out why though, it seems the only people who comment are people who haven’t actually read the book, or can’t do the math anyway. I am not sure what to think myself. The math is a bit complex, and the book seems a little ambiguous, but who knows, it could be a great theory that needed to get published before working out all the details. It certainly is thought provoking and I don’t believe that my ideas based on it are wrong if he is. I just keep thinking what if that was us? Well at least I don’t use any complex, confusing math figures. According to Discovery Magazine, Melvin is a respectible alternative scientist. He took a test on the website that the author of null physics did not pass.

Now, today I saw an article in the Washington Post (Wednesday, December 17th, pg A15) about Dark Energy. At first Melvin read it to me and I thought it was saying that dark energy was supposed to cause a “big rip.” After the hysterical laughter subsided I read it myself. It says it will NOT cause a “big rip,” meaning dark energy will not tear everything apart. Apparently it is supposed to just separate everything. I can’t help but shake my head. This stuff about dark energy sounds like the way people talked about the earth being in the center of the universe, or that it was flat. I understand, it is hard to figure out, I really don’t have any better ideas, but it just strikes me funny. My own guess is that dark energy is the real source of gravity. I think of gravity, if it were two dimensional, it would be like bowling balls on a waterbed. According to their weight they would sink deeper and pull more things in to them. I think the waterbed is the dark energy. Without it, the bowling balls would be sitting on a hard floor.

Let’s hear what you think of that! I love your comments.

Nothingness? Or a balance of everything?

First I want to mention I’ve added a comment on “Our Super Neural Networks.” Thanks for all your comments!

Lately my husband has been reading a book called “Our Undiscovered Universe, Introduction to Null Physics” by Terence Witt. I can’t quote it, because I’m not reading it, I’m just going by what he says it says.

So he says in the book he claims that the Universe is Nothing. I said, does he mean nothingness? Or not anything? Turns out there has actually been a discussion about it in the book. Melvin started to explain it and I can’t say it really stuck with me, but that’s because (this is what happens so often) while he was talking I drew my own conclusion already. Well he says that they have been able to create matter, but there is always an anti-matter with it. They say that all matter has an equal anti-matter somewhere, which makes everything “null.” What I decided is that it is not nothing, but everything. A balance of everything, or a medium. It’s like amniotic fluid, or a perfect room temperature. When it’s perfectly balanced, you can’t feel it.

This is why I think the Tao is right on. The philosophy of Tao refers to a balance between Heaven and Earth. The nothing being the everything. Like the most important part of a tea cup is the empty part. It’s in that nothing, or everything, where all possibilities exist. You can put anything you want in the empty part of the cup.

Another thing that fits is “Top-Down causation.” What science used to follow was “Bottom-Up causation.” Meaning we used to think that the root of things is as small as the molecule, or the tiniest thing we have found yet. Then we go up, like then comes the cell, then the organs, then the body, then… there’s a gap then between that and the spirit and the Universe and God. Top-Down causation begins with God. It all makes sense when you begin there. Then God created the Universe, our spirit is part of the Universe. Then out of the universe comes this reality, and then we need a brain to experience it. Then from there we need the 5 senses to feed the brain. And then comes the materials to make it all up. And so on. It took a little bit to get my head around this new paradigm, but now it makes total sense to me. The universe is the medium which all things come from.

So that is my thoughts for today, and watch for the comments, I’m going to ask the real scientist (Melvin) for his opinion.