Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Relativists give
Nobel Prizes to
each other

    1.0   The language of science is not Mathematics, but rather consists of definitions and images

    What the Church deplored most when Galileo’s book came out is that it was written in every-day Italian rather than in erudite
    Latin. Galileo not only bypassed the Vatican censors, but wrote in a language and style that most people could understand.
    Today, it is Galileo's successors who commit the same crime. The mathematicians have become the cardinals and bishops
    of the contemporary censorship machine, urging you to write in their abstract language of symbols so that they have a
    chance to filter your ideas before they 'pollute' the minds of the masses. The mathematical establishment has spread the
    myth that what is not peer-reviewed or has no equations is not Science.

    Therefore, what the mathematicians fear the most is exactly what I’m doing in this site: explaining physical phenomena with
    a language anyone can understand and relate to. I am not going to use the unintelligible language of abstract symbols that
    the mathematicians have developed. I am going to use images. Unlike the undefined jargon used in Mathematics, images are
    objective. You don’t need an idiot of Mathematics to tell you what you just watched with your own eyes, and you certainly
    don’t need Math to understand the plot of the movies  I’m going to show. You can make up your own mind without having
    to consult your relativistic priest. In fact, it is the other way around. What is subjective is the physical interpretation the
    lamebrains of Mathematics give their equations. The irrational conclusions of Mathematical Physics have absolutely no
    scientific basis. But as long as you believe that Mathematics is the language of Science and of Physics, you will always
    need a mathematician to hold your hand and interpret the world for you. And guess what? He will always overrule your
    intuition and common sense by bringing his authority to bear. With images, you don’t need him at all and, predictably, the
    mathematicians are not going to be amused with this suggestion.  

    What a mathematician from the establishment abhors the most are illustrations. That's why you see so few of them in the
    'scientific' literature. A mathematician didn't study years at the university to stare at a few kindergarten drawings or watch
    a movie. So he is not used to seeing things from a physical perspective. A mathematician is lost without his little v’s and
    c’s. He wants to read high level, technical language that sounds important and regurgitates and reinforces concepts he
    learned and settled at the university. It is snobbism at its worst. Those in positions of power today hate radical ideas that
    may induce them to wipe their blackboards clean. Revolution implies that all their hard work was in vain. It might even cost
    them their jobs! Surely, they ask, the knowledge accumulated since the days of the Greeks can’t be that wrong! What would
    this say about their waste of time? And money! The mathema-ticians believe that we have already settled complex topics
    such as the splitting of the atom, the duality of light, the definition of a sphere, the physical meaning of positive and negative,
    the physical nature of a field and of space. The peer reviewers no longer ask authors questions about these topics. They ask
    new authors what their credentials are. Authority acts like a product warranty, a way to ensure that the editor doesn’t waste
    valuable time reviewing crackpot theories. The peer reviewer wants to know if you went to the same seminary he did and
    whether you learned the same nonsense he learned. He wants to know if you are going to tell his readers what they have
    already been conditioned to believe. In other words, the contemporary mathematician has none of the virtues of a scientist.

    Now let's carry out a surrealistic thought experiment to reinforce my argument. The challenge for you is to see if you can
    imagine submitting a manuscript with drawings to a scientific journal and telling the peer reviewers that they're staring at a
    picture of light or of gravity. Would they ever publish your kindergarten pictures?

    But then, something is terribly wrong with the entire publication process. Certainly, you have to agree with me that, if light
    has the ability to knock electrons from polished metal and that you can stop light with your hand and generate a shadow,
    light has to be a 3-D physical entity of some sort. Therefore, you should have no objections if I attempt to illustrate this
    elusive entity for you. The peer reviewers at Science and at Nature and at the AIP mags will summarily deny you the right to
    evaluate whether such a proposal has merits. They have already determined that it is impossible to visualize this invisible
    'thing':

    " The solution of the difficulty is that the two mental pictures which experiment lead
       us to form - the one of the particles, the other of the waves - are both incomplete
       and have only the validity of analogies which are accurate only in limiting cases."

    Werner Heisenberg

    " 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

    If the mathematicians have their way, you will never ever get to see a proposal showing what light is because the
    establishment has already lost hope of visualizing the subatomic world and because the mathematicians who rule the
    world of 'science' have decreed without any justification that Math is the vehicle you should use to 'understand' the
    Universe. Pictures, they say, are for babies. That's why to this day, the mathematicians have no idea what light, a
    magnetic field, space-time, a black hole, or dark matter look like.


    2.0   The peer review mechanism

    The purpose of the peer review process should be to certify that a theory follows the scientific method   (i.e., whether the
    paper is written in a sequence of rational steps).  A reviewer should objectively check whether a theory follows from the
    premises. You should also be able to know your accusers. Thus, if a reviewer rejects your manuscript arguing that it is
    unscientific, you have a basis to sue for plagiarism if you later read your article under that juror's name in another
    magazine. Instead, the contemporary peer review process is conveniently kept secret. The logic behind this is flawed.
    There is no reason to keep the reviewers in anonymity other than for this dark inquisition board to judge the merits of
    your case (i.e., determine whether your paper conforms to the established religion). Ask yourself: if the peer review
    process really works, why are you still reading super-natural and irrational poppycock such as time travel, black holes,
    and annihilation in allegedly scientific journals and magazines such as Nature, Science, and Scientific American? You
    should be reading these fairy tales in fiction mags! Or perhaps we should rename Nature as Fantasy and Science as
    Science Fiction!

    The peer review system has developed into a method for censuring those who disagree with the physical interpretations
    derived from the equations of Mathematical Physics. I could care less if the equations of General Relativity describe the
    orbit of Mercury. This is a description. Fine! So what? A description alone does not constitute Science. Anyone can
    describe without understanding anything! Let's now move on to the physical interpretation, which is what the entire
    effort was for. Let's make sense of what the equations describe. What does it all mean? Does it mean that space is a
    physical object such as a canvas and that the Sun weighs this trampoline 'downwards' so that Mercury may roll around
    the roulette known as a gravity well? These are clearly two different issues. The equations are quantitative descriptions.
    If we support these descriptions with supernatural and irrational explanations, what do we really understand? What is
    the value of such nonsense? A scientific theory is a rational explanation. This means that you should be able to make a
    movie of it and show it to the crowd. Only then does every juror see the same thing. We can only visualize images. We
    cannot make a movie of abstract concepts such as energy, force, field, mass, and time. None of these words can serve
    as proper subject matter of Science. The true scientist has no choice but to explain the Universe in terms of physical
    objects. The contemporary world of science works in reverse. The peer reviewers of 'Physics' will not approve a
    manuscript that does not explain a physical phenomenon with at least one of these ridiculous words.
We have reviewed your submission,
Bill. Now we will give you our verdict.


    " And who can doubt that it will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are
       compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and
       subject them to the whim of others? When people devoid of whatsoever competence are made
       judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please?" [1]

    " I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity
       of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University?" [2]

    " It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to
       conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new
       order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
       the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This
       coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly
       from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long
       experience of them." [3]

    3.0   The Nobel prize

    Have you ever watched a beauty contest? The gorgeous girl is crowned Miss whatever, she cries, and walks with a bouquet
    of flowers down the aisle. All the lights are on her. She's a celebrity. Soon contracts and money will flow in her direction.
    That's the reason she's crying. They are tears of unrestrained joy.

    Science has become a beauty pageant. The contestants don't parade in bikinis. They stroll down the stage in smokings. And
    they don't get a bunch of flowers. They get gold medals... you know... like a runner at the Olympics.  

    A little over a hundred years ago, in order to promote scientific ingenuity, Alfred Nobel created the prestigious fund that carries
    his name. The purpose of the prize is still to reward:

    " those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit
       on mankind..." [4]

    One of these blue ribbons is granted to:

    " the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention
       within the field of physics" [5]

    It's called meritocracy, or something like that. A fellow invents or discovers something and a group of anonymous peers
    decides whether his contribution to knowledge is more far-reaching than yours. With an invention, things are more or less
    objective. If you invent a toothbrush and he invents the time tunnel, most people would probably name him most valuable
    player (MVP). With theory -- i.e., and explanation for how or why a phenomenon of nature works the way it does -- we get
    into very fuzzy territory. You say light consists of waves and can explain some phenomena. He says light consists of
    particles and can explain others. It turns out that a plurality within the secret panel likes the particle idea better. So he gets
    the prize. Does this mean that light consists of particles? Or does the fact he won say more about politics and religion and
    cronyism?

    Of course, as happens in all such well-intended enterprises, things get out of hand very quickly. The review process is
    gradually dominated by a group of like-minded people who, inadvertently perhaps, work to preserve their religion. And
    that's the status quo today with Nobel's noble prize. Don't expect to get the prize if you trash relativity or quantum. There's
    simply no way the hundreds of relativists and mechanics who form 100% of the guild will vote for you. If you want to be
    president, you can't begin your speech by saying that all your constituents are a bunch of idiots.

    For a while, Nobel's medal was tops and had no rivals, mainly because of the amount of money involved. Researchers
    and theorists forgot about science and just wanted to strike it rich. For this, they needed to polish up skills other than
    inventiveness. You had to learn how to twist some arms the gentle way. You needed to use diplomacy and persuade
    your peers to vote for you in the next election. Maybe you buy one of them a beer and make some candid 'suggestions.'  

    Well, things didn't stay like that for long. Predictably, as it happened with beauty contests, other entrepreneurs realized
    that this gold rush was not such a bad idea and began to set up their own franchises. So many of them exist today that
    they have become meaningless. One particular one -- the Templeton Prize -- is an interesting case. It functions something
    like the Razzie Award for worst picture or Blackwell's 10 worst dressed women. It is given by an ultra religious foundation
    to those who 'research':

    " various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions of
       divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity." [6]

    I figured that the monks at the Templeton Monastery must have worked overtime to come up with that one-liner. Now doesn't
    that say everything about prizes?

    The Nobel and Templeton Prizes don't enrich Science. Gold medals only cheapen it. They are given to people who play the
    game the 'right' way. The authentic scientist doesn't do research or publish a paper to win a prize. He does it to learn and
    exchange ideas.
Noble peer reviewers during a break
Our motto: "We will approve your manuscript for publication
as long as it conforms to 'well-established' standards
(wink, wink; nudge, nudge)"

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008