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    what is not peer-reviewed or has no equations is not Science.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.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 05/21/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
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.
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)"