Null Physics Theory?

[Arcesious]

Yeah i admit i'm a big huge nerd, and i even get popular science and popular mechnaics magazines in my mail. I'm a christian who has a developing scientific understnading of everything, and it was all startign to make sense. but then i heard of this in one of the magazines: The Null physics Theory.

i looked it up on the internet to find that if i was to find anything out abou it, i'd have to pay a rediculous amoutn of money for the book. and i didn't think it was nesseccary to buy the book when somebody on this earth probably already knows what it's about. what i read on the books hompage was that it was new huge theory that makes the big bang and superstrign theories look incredibly stupid. (i don't even know what the superstring theory is, never heard of it)

So i'm askign you people if you know anything about what this new theory is about, because when i make my science proves christianity debate, i want to make sure i have all my bases covered, and i'm not sure if this null physics theory is goinmg to be a threat or proof to it. i'm not that smart in physcis, i'd say my understnading of it's entirety is a B+ right now.

i just want to know what this null physics theory is.

[Ray Jones]

i just want to know what this null physics theory is.

 

You might want to go the easy and cheap routes, before anything else.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

[Arcesious]

This has proved to nto be a threat or proof. i researched it soem more besides wikipedia, and it seems it is not meant to expalin relativity or the universe's origin. in fact, this thoery and book was published by an independt source, by soemone who has no degrees in the academic community, and therefore this thoery proves nothing, as everything in it has been said in many other physics books already. null hypothethis seems to be a bad way to test soemthing, and therfore in conclusion the null physics theory is null and void becasue it cannot support itself solidly, and becasue it only proves everything that has already been proved.

[John Galt]

it's not a theory yet, it's just an hypothesis. Making the distinction between "Law," "Theory," and "Hypothesis" is very important in scientific (or indeed any) discourse. Truthfully, I think most of the arguments in "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" are linguistic, and take advantage of the other side's carefully crafted, highly specialized language, which is greatly misconstrued by those who don't fully grasp what the other side is specifically saying. <= That is not a jab at anyone in particular, just an observation of mine.