Null Physics

Null Physics  (http://nullphysics.com/)

 I haven’t read this yet, but was alerted to this theory’s existence thanks to full-page ads put in Smithsonian Magazine.  Then I started seeing ads pop up elsewhere, even in Scientific American, including a lavish two-page spread ironically right after Michael Shermer’s always-entertaining column on skepticism and pseudoscience.  I have no idea what the theory is about as until recently there wasn’t much technical info on the website (cleverly intended to sell more books, I presume).  Whoever he is, he’s got the dough for some amazing product placement in highly-respected science magazines.  The guy at TimeCube must be crapping in his time cube…

In interest of fairness I have to reserve judgment until I get a chance to read some of the theories.  Yes yes yes, I know — why start being fair now?  Not reading the theory didn’t stop me from being a jerk to the folks at Observer Physics.  Instead, I’d like to be a jerk by pointing out his lack of credentials, positive reviews from unbiased experts, and publications in mainstream journals.  Hell, I’ve got more physics credentials than the guy behind Null Physics, and you don’t see people reading my theories on the internet.  (Wait, don’t touch that mouse!)

Let’s apply our standard technique of rushing to smartass judgment without proper examination of the author’s life’s work.  Here are the scores:

1.  Terrible English:   Naw.  Pretty darn readable, at least judging from the website.  I bet the book will be more dry technobabble, but the website is clear and professional.  Zero out of ten.

2.  All Science Is WRONG:   Pretty epic scope to this theory — the gist
I get is that he’s trying to explain why there’s something and not nothing.  Hope that wasn’t too technical.  Attacking a very fundamental pillar of metaphysics is a nice start to his pseudoscience career — let’s see the Radial Momentum Guy try to explain the origin of the universe with his theory!  Six out of ten.

3.  Irritated, emotional language:  None that I can find, which is probably a reflection of the guy’s background in business — swatting the complaints of a bunch of testy physics professors can’t compare to defending yourself in front of your multi-million-dollar investors.  He reveals a good sense of humor in defending his theories over on a thread at James Randi’s website, where a crew of techies have it out with him for what must be one of the longest threads on any message board anywhere.  I may scoff at his theory, but I bet I’d enjoy having a beer with him.  Zero out of ten.

4.  One extremely long and ugly webpage:   Nope — once again, the guy is far too professional to tip his crackpot hand on the website.  It’s got an outdated look and feel, a little 1997-ish, but otherwise pretty standard webpage that any neighborhood church or local club would be proud with.  Zero out of ten.

5.  Completely new definitions:   I sheepishly must admit that I have no idea, since I never read any of his stuff.  Let’s charitably give him a two out of ten, mainly for the mediocre theory name “Null Physics.”  Needs work, man.  Buy me that beer I mentioned back in bullet-point 3, and I’ll draft up some snappier options.

The total?   Null!    HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH  AAAAAA-AHAHHAHAHAHAHA HAHHAHHEHHH HEHHHH  Cough.   Just kidding — eight out of 50.

>>>  Next Up:   We declare our winner!   The Battle Royal of Crackpot Physics Websites