| If you challenge relativity or quantum, you are not a scientist! |
- Therefore, if you utter that Mathematical Physics is unscientific, Rennie instantly disintegrates you with his credibility
ray guns. Rennie has such a distorted view of the scientific spirit that you wonder who ever elected him to lead an
alleged scientific magazine. He doesn't believe in dissent and leaves no room for alternate opinions. He was
thoroughly brainwashed in college to believe that the establishment is always right, and looks upon new ideas as a
threat to the traditions he was brought up in. Rennie is saying that if you attack the foundations of contemporary
science in any way, shape, or form, you are a fraud. And he will make sure you don’t die a martyr.
Well I guess that does it for me! There is little room for me to say more. The powers that be have concluded that
Science is healthy, so they won't allow the doctor to perform major surgery. If you want to publish and be a part
of Science, you will only be allowed to 'take an aspirin and call me in the morning.' Contemporary ‘science’ allows
you to make only minor tweaks. The establishment vehemently opposes revolution because it threatens the
religion and the livelihood of those in power.
Me, on the other hand… I propose revolution. I say that the entire system needs to be overhauled! I argue that
traditional, ‘well-established science’ (e.g., Euclidean and Hilbertean Geometry, Newtonian 'physics', General
Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc.) is unscientific. I argue that the scientific method itself is misconceived by
the idiots who now occupy positions of power. I argue that relativity, quantum, and string theories are religions.
No I'll take that back. Relativity, quantum and string theories are absolute garbage. I argue that the lamebrains of
Paleontology, Archeology, Ecology, and Economics have reached erroneous conclusions with respect to crucial
questions in their fields of expertise. Rennie’s dictum summarily denies me my day in court. In his view, I have no
right to speak because I am too radical. I begin my introduction by saying that all of Science is completely wrong
and, to him, this is simply inconceivable and unacceptable at this late stage in the game.
Of course, 99.99% of humanity might agree with Rennie. ‘Bill, you must be a raving lunatic -- a crank -- if you are
questioning all of science at this late hour in the game. Where have you been all these years?’
I don't need to use my own words to defend myself. I will use the statements of people from the establishment,
people a little more prominent than me. Celebrities. That's what people like Rennie have been conditioned to
respect. Borrowing statements from the establishment is crucial because authority is everything to a m
athematician. If ever you win a Nobel Prize, you can say anything about anything and the relativists of the world
will just nod. You recognize a relativist because the first thing he asks you is "What are your credentials?" He
doesn't care to listen to your theory. He just wants to know who you are. If big names like Einstein or Bohr said
something, a relativist doesn't even question the statement, not to mention if the word comes from an Olympic
Medalist:
That's what the mathematicians respect. They respect what a bunch of bozos worldwide have decided through
a show of hands. If the judges award you a tin medal, you now have 'certified knowledge'.
Hopefully, Rennie will pair the following statements made by 'scientific' celebrities with his criteria.
- " This concept [FTL] is a staple of the science fiction genre, and is also the subject of
ongoing scientific study."
[FTL is part of Science? So what’s the difference between Mathematical Physics and fantasy?]
" This is one of the frustrating aspects of science. Science tends to be wonderful at
answering how the universe works, but is much less successful at answering why
it works the way it does." [6]
[Why do you suppose this is so?Could it be that you're not doing Science? Science is about
understanding, not about describing! Any idiot can describe! And that's all that the mathematical
physicists have been doing for hundreds of years!]
" I think I can safely say that no-one understands quantum mechanics… Do not keep
asking yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, but how can it be like that?… Nobody
knows how it can be like that... the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the
harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually
work. So theoretical physics has given up on that."
Richard Feynman
[Just believe it blindly like we did with the old religion, huh Rick? But don't worry! I think
von Neumann's got an answer...]
" In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."
John von Neumann
[Veeeery scientific! Awesome!]
" The universe is one immense entity composed of miniscule elements… We now
want to turn our attention to the universe on the microscopic level, and in this world
quantum physics reigns supreme…Here once again, as with relativity, common sense
is deceiving…It will take us into situations that surpass even the craziest science
fiction… [Whoa is me!] However, by a mathematical process whose logic leaves little
to be desired, it is possible to calculate results with extraordinary precision. That alone
justifies the theory " (pp. 94-95, 104)
[Aaaah! Thank Goodness! I feel much better now!]
" There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the
task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about
nature."
Niels Bohr
[So Physics is just a description without any understanding?]
" No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical."
Niels Bohr
[So let’s just continue to be illogical, Niels, and only consider quantum and relativity.]
| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
John Rennie is another arrogant fellow of the establishment who thinks he knows it all. Rennie is a visible character because
he uses his pulpit as editor-in-chief of Scientific American to influence the opinions of the masses. Certainly, I agree with a lot
of his views on religion, but that is not the issue here. The theme is personal attacks against opponents, especially by
frustrated, irresponsible individuals in positions of power who think they have nothing more to learn. These decision-makers
stand in the way of progress because they block communication. They prevent papers that challenge their religion from being
published. Then they add insult to injury by creating a circus atmosphere. In this sense Rennie is no different than Baez.
Rennie proposes at least two standards to ridicule the competition, and it is his strategy of deliberately distorting the lessons
of history that bothers me:
" The paradoxical nature of the present situation in physics consists in the fact that
the logic, the intellect, of the scientist functions successfully where his imagination
is powerless."
- [Probably a case of too much Math and too little Physics!]
" Many physics researchers do not believe in string theory but work on it anyway.
They are often intimidated intellectually by the fact that some leading string theo-
rists are undeniably geniuses, and professionally by the desire to have a job, get
grants, go to conferences and generally have an intellectual community in which
to participate."
[So now we have to believe in the idiocy known as string theory if we want to fit in
with the crowd, huh? Is this what the contemporary version of the scientific spirit
is about?]
- " The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has led physicists far
away from the simplistic materialist views that prevailed in the natural sciences
of the nineteenth century… one attempt to counter the Copenhagen interpreta-
tion is an attempt to change the philosophy without changing the physics…
a return to the ontology of materialism. They would prefer to go back to the idea
of an objective world."
Werner Heisenberg
[So let’s just blot out reality and live in the comfy, irrational, subjective world the
mathematicians have carved out for us.]
" No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you're going to
fail. There we have an example of an intelligent living being that will never know
this kind of truth about the way the world is put together. Why in the world
should we be any different? We can certainly go further than cats, but why
should it be that our brains are somehow so suited to the universe that our
brains will be able to understand the deepest workings?"
Brian Greene
[I am convinced that it is far easier to teach a cat Physics than it is to teach this
discipline to a mathematician. Between the cat and Greene, I'll place my bet on
the cat! With the cat at least you have hope that someday it will understand the
simple things.]
" The quantum ideas that so successfully describe familiar matter fail when applied
to cosmic physics. Solving the problem requires the appearance of new forces
and new particles"
[ Yeah! Let's just continue to invent new ad hoc particles to answer questions we
couldn't solve with the old particles. Let's invent dark matter or dark energy when
General Relativity runs up against a wall.]
" The quantum mechanics (QM) presented here is quite mainstream, even though
it still seems crazy to physicists, who have no choice but to accept it."
J. Higgo
[I guess you mean that authority is a good enough justification to believe Bohr and
Heisenberg.]
" It sounds crazy because here we are touching issues we are not supposed to be
touching in ordinary science. Can we be reincarnated?"
Andrei Linde
[So after hundreds of years of research, the mathematicians now are reconsidering
whether religion was right all along. Perhaps this important reincarnation stuff is
what Rennie is referring to when he says 'Science.' Then you wonder why it is
impossible to publish something worthwhile in mainstream journals such as Nature
and Science. It's people like Linde who are hogging editorial space with important
stuff such as warped space, FTL, time travel, dark matter, and flat, parallel universes! ]
"The possible existence of time machines remains an open question... the notion
of time machines seems to carry with it a serious set of problems."
[Whoa, woe is me! This time-travel stuff must be stunningly important! The idiots of
Mathematical Physics have no idea what time is. They have not even taken the trouble
to define the word. Yet they publish countless articles about time travel. And here they
won't let you publish a measly article about what light is. They call the entire charade
'doing science.']
" The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not
happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order,
which may or may not be divinely inspired." (p. 122)
Stephen Hawking
- [May be divinely inspired? If Hawking is still struggling with this issue, perhaps he
should visit his local pastor or priest an resolve his dilemma once and for all. Of
course, he may just have said this to sell books to the religious crowd, in which
case it amounts to false advertising.
I will tell it like it is: There is no room for God in Science. I don't care who gets pissed!
A person who believes in God is not a scientist and does not belong in Science. A
scientist is someone who explains, and not someone who invokes God to plug every
hole that comes up. God is not an answer. God is a question! ]
Therefore, the experts formally concede that they have no rational explanations for physical phenomena. Science
in general and Physics in particular are very sick. The establishment only offers supernatural physical interpretations
of natural phenomena, and has no clue as to how the Universe works. In this sense, Mathematical Physics is in the
same boat with Christianity. If we are to make sense of the world, Science absolutely needs a complete overhaul.
After 10,000 years of civilization and all the technology we have developed, the idiots who believe that Mathematics
has something to do with Physics cannot even explain how the Earth goes around the Sun. Most of them still believe
that God made us. Yet they have the nerve to call you a crank and make fun of your explanations.
Rennie should rub on his skin a little bit of the old scientific spirit. He has lost it completely. Meanwhile, he should be
removed as editor of Scientific American for harboring the wrong attitude towards Science.
| Okay. So what's this one in here for? |
| Being logical! |
| Relativity Inquisition Please wait to be called. |
| Recanting Bill |
| peer reviewers of the Relativity Inquisition persuading Bill to withdraw his manuscript |
" we know firsthand that anyone who even challenges Einstein is... a right-wing fundamentalist
in cahoots with the "Kansas State Board of Education." [1]
in cahoots with the "Kansas State Board of Education." [1]
| J. Rennie, Law of Credibility, The Edge (2004) |
Rennie's Law of Credibility " Scientists don't always know best about matters of science-but they're more likely to be right than the critics who make that argument." [2] [... implying without margin for error that critics aren't scientists. We're off on the wrong foot. But that's just the beginning... ] persecuted too… ain't Galileo." [4] |
Module main page: A word about four-letter words and ridicule
- Case # 1 John Baez:
A crank is someone who doesn't believe in the idiotic conclusions of Mathematical Physics
This page: Case # 2 John Rennie:
If you challenge relativity or quantum,you are not a scientist
Case # 3 Leonard Susskind:
Who the hell are you, John Horgan?
Conclusions
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008