In this day and age it is impossible to publish a new scientific theory through the established media. A book publisher will not even read your manuscript unless you have first gone through the peer review process. Without a healthy dose of authority behind your submission it will remain a promise. Therefore, if you wish to challenge the establishment's version of light, gravity, the atom, electricity, magnetism, and other natural phenomena, it is next to impossible to do it all at once. You will first be required to submit a series of papers establishing a milestone in each category through official channels. One problem with this process is that it takes about two years to publish a paper! This means that if you have 50 new ideas never before considered by the establishment, it would take you about 100 years to publish them if one is founded upon another. A more formidable obstacle is religion. The peer review system is inordinately biased in favor of the religion of Mathematical Physics. Imagine submitting a paper arguing against God to a secret inquisition board comprised of 3 Christians, 2 Muslims, and 1 Buddhist. What are the chances of getting published? So now assume that you suspect the fantastic physical interpretations offered by Mathematical Physics. You submit your paper to a publisher who presents it for review to a secret panel consisting of 3 relativists, 2 mechanics, and 1 string theorist. What do you think will be your chances of publishing your article within this century? Yet I believe that this site provides sufficient evidence in support of the argument that the fundamentals of Mathematical Physics are misconstrued (e.g., point, line, distance, dimensions). You have to agree that as a minimum the establishment needs to clean up its act.
It is for this reason that I have chosen not to publish through the peer review system any more. The peer review system is not a method that scientists have invented to ensure that only scientific papers get published. It is rather a method the establishment has found to censor those who threaten the theories and research projects that are currently being funded.
This is not science at its best. This is religion at its worst.
The authentic spirit of science thrives when the valve to communication is opened: " The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life."
Albert Einstein
" The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
Julian Schwinger
Unfortunately, the 'scientific' mainstream has departed from these words of wisdom. Popular journals such as Nature and Science are not in the business of science any more. They are in the business of making money. For this they need to make their readers happy. And since most readers have been conditioned in college to believe in mainstream theories that have been around for a century, the editors censure anything that departs from these expectations. The establishment has effectively worked its way to a catch-22 situation. Readers have been conditioned to take the fantastic conclusions of Mathematical Physics for science and the journals fear disappointing their customers.
If you want to read new theories and make up your own mind about them, you certainly will not find these in the most prestigious journals. The editors of these magazines have already made up their minds for you. They tell you the same thing over and over again. That black holes have been confirmed... again.
That nature is weirder than you think and that you should set aside your intuition. That a ground-breaking study now suggests that dark matter may exist... again. That the folks at WMAP have confirmed that although space is curved, the Universe is flat... again. By the time the information reaches you, it has been thoroughly 'laundered' by the establishment. We have reached a situation today where the wolves are guarding the sheep. If things continue as they are, you will from now on and forever read about black holes, time warps, ad hoc virtual particles that pop out of nowhere, parallel universes separated from each other by nothing, and the wonders of String Theory. What do these fantasies have to do with the real world?
" Philosophers of science point out that science doesn't answer why questions, it only answers how questions. Science doesn't explain; science describes."
“Everything that we call real is made up of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
N. Bohr
“We cannot speak of atoms in ordinary language.”
W. Heisenburg
“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.”
R. Feynman
.
No comments:
Post a Comment