Before presenting some illustrations that give ample evidence as to how you are being deceived, a brief summary is in order. This summary covers some salient observations and claims from the previous chapter.
(i) Remember, a scientific group (A) accepts without verification cause and effect and self-evident statements. Yet, another group of scientists (B) may not accept the same cause and effect or self-evident statements and may even accept statements that contradict some of those accepted by (A). If this latter occurs, then the two collections of such statements can't be mixed together if rational thinking is to be maintained.
(ii) Even though it may not be obvious to you, many modern scientific descriptions are composed of positive statements - statements that tend to force a reader to infer that all aspects of the description are true in reality when this is usually not the case.
(iii) Suppose that there is an alternative hypothesis D to a scientific hypothesis H. If, using the speculation process (S), hypotheses D and H imply logically the exact same verified laboratory experiments, then hypotheses D and H have NO scientific truth value. Whether or not you accept hypothesis D or H as "true in reality" is NOT a question answerable by the scientific method. You can only make such a determination by considerations exterior to the scientific laboratory.
(iv) You can infer from statements made by some very outspoken scientists that they believe that Nature only follows patterns that are similar to those produced by human thought, and everything that exists in reality is describable in a human language.
(v) Some authorities claim that there is no other possible scientific description than their chosen hypothesis H, and there is no other scientific language in which to write an appropriate hypothesis accept that to which they subscribe.
I now come to the most destructive technique of all - a technique that lies at the very heart of the matter.
(vi) Some scientists and scientifically orientated organizations select speculative descriptions that, when mixed with your personal philosophy, produce an irrational or inconsistent collection.I've already given you examples of observations (i), (iv) and (v), but a few more certainly won't hurt my case. Most of what follows in this chapter is concerned with cosmological theories, (i.e. a theoretical study of how our universe develops with respect to time), with a brief side excursion into the realm of subatomic physics. As you'll see, it's ironic that I wrote the first draught of this chapter during the month of April 1990, the month during which the Space Shuttle is to launch into earth orbit the much discussed Hubble Space Telescope.
You might go back and review the 1932 statement by Max Planck, where he claimed that mankind can't describe all of Nature's processes, and compare this with the implications that the following examples force upon a reader's mind. Many of these illustrations clearly verify (ii) as I'll point out. [I do hope that what follows in this small section isn't difficult for you to comprehend. This section includes this book's only sojourn into the micro-world. But, if necessary, you won't miss very much if you jumped to the next section.]
In case you thought that modern science is only interested in the material universe and the invisible immaterial is related to theological studies, consider the following statement.
"The most fascinating applications of our rules are, however, not to any material substance but to immaterial fields, the excitations of which appear to us as elementary particles." [15, p. 154]Thus, some sort of immaterial stuff is excited and out pops, instantaneously I suppose, the material particles that comprise all the matter you can perceive. Of course, you can't perceive this immaterial stuff. Indeed, you dare not ask the quantum field theorists if these fields are composed of more fundamental constituents. They would, and have, laughed at such a question. They claim that these fields are fundamental and shouldn't be further analyzed using the language of their or any other theory. However, do these field theorists consider these invisible matter fields to exist in reality or are they but auxiliary concepts, necessary to predict and are not real? Do they truly believe that their mental capacities are such that their theory yields a complete description for a Natural process? Let's find out.
"The picture of the world we have finally reached is the following: Some 10 or 20 qualitatively different quantum fields exist. Each fills the whole of space and has its own particular properties. There is nothing else except these fields; the whole of the material universe is built of them." [6, p. 21]I don't believe it's necessary to analyze Dyson's statement at length. He uses wording that implies reality although such an implication need not be the case, and other aspects of his statement verify (v). If this isn't totally clear to you, consider the following from the journal Science.
"The world of electrons, protons, and all the rest does exist out there even if we do not observe it, and it behaves exactly as Quantum Mechanics tells us it does." This quotation makes it "perfectly clear" that you are to accept what these authorities write, the "us" in the above statement. These invisible things all exist in reality, you should not think otherwise, it's claimed.
As to the idea that some of these subatomic things need only be auxiliary in character, Lorentz isn't the only eminent scientist that has taken this stand. Nobel prize winner Bohr also thought so with respect to a certain infinite series that appears in Quantum Mechanics. Bohr advocates a general Quantum Mechanics philosophy that rejects any physical meaning for this mathematical series. If Bohr was to be your thesis advisor, you would need to conform to his personal philosophy of science. Here are some other Bohr rules for "scientific" investigation as they are described by quantum theorist Bohm. These rules verify (v).
"No rational concept of the details of the [atomic] process can ever be obtained . . . one is no longer able to describe or even to think about any well-defined connections between phenomena at a given time and those at an earlier time . . . . We have no way to express precisely the quantities and properties that might define the modes of being of individual micro-objects." [2, p. 16]One more illustration of how pervasive are the descriptive methods of Quantum Mechanics - methods that exhibit all of the claimed (i) - (vi), although I won't illustrate them all in this book. As previously pointed out, there are other theories for the micro-world that are distinctly different from Quantum Mechanics, including one of my own, and predict some, if not all, of the same laboratory results. Significant is the fact that certain procedures have been utilized within Quantum Mechanics that again tend to force upon you philosophical implications.
As an example, consider one of the assumed particles called a neutrino. Did you know that this particle was introduced since within certain laboratory experiments parts of the theory were NOT verified? Indeed, under these particular scenarios you would have a choice of either assuming that energy, momentum, and other quantum theory concepts were not conserved (i.e. sums of these individual quantities are not constant) or inventing a particle to "carry" the proper missing quantities so that you could assume that all such quantities are conserved under all scenarios . Since this is an invisible world, you still wouldn't know whether under such conditions these quantities are conserved or there exists some particle that carries these missing quantities. Notice that the use of "particle language" tends to force an individual to picture such an object as a material entity and accept it as actually existing in reality.
Although, as pointed out by Bohm, the question might be meaningless within the language of Quantum Mechanics, outside of that language, you might ask, " If the quantities are missing, then where have they gone?" One aspect of my new and startling discoveries is that there, indeed, may be a place where these missing quantities have gone. An in depth discussion of this must await another time. All that I wish to show you can be accomplished through simple illustrations from the world you can perceive partially when you gaze up on a cloudless night and encounter the beauty of the starry firmament.
You might not appreciate the following significant illustration of exactly how your mind is being controlled - how you are being purposely limited in your allowable mental choices - since you might not believe in the personal philosophy discussed. This, however, is intended to be an illustration of these deceptive practices; practices that can be applied to any personal philosophy, no matter what it may be. I use what follows only because it's so prevalent within much of the world today; and, moreover, I haven't had enough time to investigate the influences these practices are having upon other less familiar belief-systems. I'll show you how to spot the heinous methods that are attempting to destroy your free-well. And, really, I've no choice except to expose these fraudulent processes. Why, you may ask, must I expose them?
The literal meaning of the term "science" is "knowledge." Now "knowledge" means "fact." Thus, I'm supposed to present to you fact; that is things that are true in reality. Beginning in 1978, a mathematical theory was created. Though I'm now rewriting this entire theory so it's more easily accessible to a wider audience, the availability of this mathematical theory was announced in 1981. Sitting on my desk, to my immediate right, is the book published in 1986, "Mathematics for Mathematical Philosophy, Revision I," which yields these mathematical facts. I can't deny these facts. I could ignore them, but then I wouldn't be a scientist. So, I've no choice if I'm to continue to ply my profession. Why is mathematics important within modern science? Although the term "must" in the next quotation is probably not the case, Timothy Ferris does indicate the usefulness of mathematics relative to logical rigor.
"Scientific theories must be logical. They must be expressed in terms of mathematics, the most rigorous logical system known." [11, p. 57]What I discuss in this section is relative to (iii) and (vi) above. In the last part of this book, I'll explain, as best as I can and in a step-by-step manner, the discovery and meaning of this mathematically generated model. This model has a long name that I abbreviate by the symbols MA; and, according to Ferris, it must be a scientific model since it corresponds to a mathematical theory. This MA-model is an alternative D mentioned in (iii) to most of the cosmological theories that have appeared in the scientific literature since 1948 and, especially, those paramount today.
Remember this is only an illustration. I'll now pop the big philosophical question. Does your personal philosophy include a belief in a Deity and does it state that this Deity created the universe in which we dwell? If you don't believe in such an entity, this illustration will still apply. For in this latter case, it would apply to your personal choice if you lived in certain counties in the middle east (Iran and others) or even certain areas within the United States. The same methods are being applied in these regions in an attempt to force individuals to believe in a universe creating Deity. It's simply my lack of information, at this time, that prevents me from fully demonstrating this. I sincerely wish you to have an absolute choice in such matters. I don't want any of these deceptive tactics to be used to persuade you to accept a personal philosophy. Please, keep this in mind as I proceed.
The attack upon the concept of a Deity created universe began many years ago. Let's go back for a moment to Feuerback. He claimed, without any proof, that such a belief is not rational. He claimed, it wasn't logical; it did not follow human reasoning processes.
"[T]here is no way of explaining the thousands and thousands of contradictions, perplexities, difficulties and inconsistencies in which religious belief involves us, . . . . [12, p. 23]Engels tells us that he and Marx took over Feuerback's concepts more than any another philosopher [29, p. 70, 71, 214 ] and Marx, again without proof, repeated this contention when he wrote:
"Christianity cannot be reconciled with reason because 'secular' [scientific] and 'spiritual' reason contradict each other." [29, p.23]These ideas were echoed by such philosophers as George Santayana who calls the concept of a Deity created universe the "grand contradiction." [32, p. 159]
Now, it was (is?) required by Soviet writers of popular accounts of scientific theories that they select only those theories that would lead to a contradiction whenever these theories are added to a personal philosophy that implies the belief in a Deity created universe.
"[T]he Party considers it its obligation to wage a systematic ideological struggle against the unscientific religious outlook . . . . The Party ceaselessly reminds us that scientific atheist propaganda must be used in popular explanations of the achievements in astronomy, biology, . . . and other sciences which vindicate the material conception of nature and society." [29 (1960 ed.)]Indeed, it was required that Soviet popular expositions of the achievements of science "must" be presented in such a manner that the content would contradict any supernatural Deity concept.
Well, these methods of not acknowledging that there exists a viable scientific alternative to a theory, constantly repeating statements as if they are fact, and selecting theories with a content that is inconsistent with your personal philosophy are not peculiar to particular political systems. Article I in chapter 1 is a prime example within your daily newspaper. Here are some more examples where eminent authors using positive statements attempt to force you to accept Deity contradicting theories.
With respect to her interpretation of the Big Bang theory, humanist Mirian Allen deFord writes:
"In other words, there is nothing in existence except random, fortuitous forces which eventually - . . . - bring together consonant elements from which under favorable circumstances, galaxies, planetary systems, bacteria and human beings gradually issue and evolve." [25, p. 81]One more very direct quotation reveals the intent of humanists in general. H. J. Eysenck states:
"Thus the first part of my definition of Humanism would involve a stress on the use of reason in dealing with inanimate nature . . . . This inevitably involves the rejection of revealed religion . . . . All Humanists are agreed that religion is not based on reason . . . . To me, the word reason in this respect implies science. Science is the embodiment of rational attempts to solve problems posed by nature . . . . [25, p. 82-92]Notwithstanding all of these comments, statements such as "the universe is Deity created" have never been shown to be irrational when they are part of a major theological model. The inconsistency occurs when you add such theological beliefs to some scientific theory. In the next section, I present to you explicit proof that, at this very moment, the intent of many scientists, journalists and other individuals is to suppress the truth and present to you pure speculative theories as fact. And these theories are specifically selected so that they will contradict a personal philosophy such as belief in a Deity created universe. Again, I remind you that if you don't believe in such a Deity created universe, then the same methods can be, and in some cases are being, used to distort the truth and also control your free-will choice.
As you stand outside on a starry night and look up, you perceive a portion of the radiation that scientists claim is streaming forth from the universe, in general, and flooding the earth with its influences. Not only is there electromagnetic radiation at various perceived and invisible wave lengths but, also, various types of particles continually bombard our earthly home. Personally, I don't need these scientific descriptions to appreciate the beauty and wonder of it all. Maybe you do, but I don't.
As a boy of fourteen, I had only heard of some very general comments as to how this all came about, "In the beginning, God . . . . " I thought that there must be more to this than just that. Moreover, I was a budding scientist. I worked part-time for the Maryland Academy of Sciences and directed people's attention to the wonders of the universe as I knew them. I showed visitors to the Academy many of these wonders through the Academy's telescopes located, at that time, on the roof of the Pratt Library in Baltimore. I tried to study the Special and General Theories of Relativity in order to better comprehend how all of this might have come about. Unfortunately, my lack of scientific experience hindered my understanding. I wondered, however, could the human mind ever devise a comprehensible theory that would give a more detailed description for various mechanisms that might have produced what I perceived on those starry nights many years ago.
In 1948, Gamow wrote in Vol. 162 on page 680 of the journal Nature:
[Our universe's] "evolutionary development, which must have started a few thousand million years ago from a homogeneous state of extremely high density and temperature."And with this began the cosmologies called Big Bang theories and, in particular, the standard model for how our universe came into being.
Please note the wording of the Gamow quotation. There is no if-ands-or-buts about his description. This thing "must" have happened this way. Let me mention that, since the 1930s, it has been known that a "properly" composed theoretical description should not have content that leads to its being accepted as true in reality. The idea of what the term "true" means requires an extension of the discipline language itself and belongs to a more philosophical discussion. However, modern descriptions, such as Gamow's and thousands of others, now include additional wording in order to influence the reader to accept the reality of the description. (Stronger and stronger positive statements in action.) By-the-way, these additional terms are totally unnecessary for the description to contradict your personal philosophy; they appear to be used purposely to influence your thinking as strongly and as quickly as possible.
I'm not going into a long dissertation as to the mechanisms associated with the standard model nor its numerous variations. It's enough to quote from Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg. [Please notice the wording.]
"In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on earth, starting from a definite center and spreading out to engulf more and more of the circumambient air, but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all of space from the beginning, with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle." [40, p. 2]All of space means, in this context, a possibly infinite quantity or a finite quantity of any "size." And, interestingly enough, in Weinberg's standard model this explosion happened instantaneously "everywhere." As the theory goes, this Big Bang is supposed to have happened some 15 billion years ago, where a year is the year-measure of time as we perceive it today. Attempts at gathering the data, that some claim is significant for such cosmological theories, has led to the multi-billion dollar Hubble Space Telescope project. [Your tax money at work and being partially wasted.]
I note that as I was writing the first draught of this paragraph, it was announced that the Space Shuttle launch designed to put the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit was scrubbed and delayed a few weeks. The Hubble Space Telescope has a lot to do with these deceitful practices I'm exposing. Every time I looked at a TV news program during the first attempt to put this group of instruments into orbit, all I heard about was how this instrument will "look back in time almost 15 billion years to the very beginning of the universe." How it will verify completely a Big Bang theory which apparently most of the scientists working on the project already hold as true in reality. If hundreds of highly trained elite say it's so, then it must be so - right?
Well, on April 6, 1990, the most significant of all authorities lent his voice to convincing you that this standard model is true in reality. During the NBC evening news broadcast none other than John Chancellor, during his constitutionally protected commentary, repeated the same statements and implied that this is absolutely how the universe came into being. If NBC news says that such a theory is true, then how dare anyone say otherwise? Remember, any individual who accepts such a theory as true in reality can't accept any Creator theology that implies a contradiction; unless, of course, they wish to be confined to a mental institution.
Now the Big Bang can have some slightly different beginning scenarios. One of these, as described from the viewpoint of an external observer [whomever that may be], states that in the beginning all "matter" was concentrated in an infinitesimal volume. [How small is this?] Then, it began its outward migration and, thus, produced an unambiguous moment when time began. Some weak Creator theologies don't lead to a contradiction when combined with this particular state-of-affairs. Of importance to these theologies is the existence of a unique time for this expansion to begin. Some of these are the instantaneous "prime mover" type. This is the "wind up the clock and let it go" Deity. This Deity simply starts things off at an instant, supplies the laws and such, then has nothing else to do with its creation. So, those who believe that the origin of the universe is this infinitesimal standard model can have a weak theology if they wish. But, what does this have to do with one of my basic premises?
Did you know that even these weak theologies can't be allowed within your personal philosophy by certain scientific authorities? If it's not yet clear to you that one of the major aims of modern cosmological studies is to find theories that contradict all Creator theologies, then I now present irrefutable evidence. A significant scientific authority is willing to buck the trend and to contradict slightly John Chancellor, and all the others. He even tells us what he hopes the Hubble Space Telescope will reveal so that a modified Big Bang theory can be substituted for this infinitesimal standard model. John Maddox, editor-in-chief of the prestigious British science weekly Nature, tells us in the August 10, 1989 issue what he hopes the Hubble Space Telescope verifies. He writes that the infinitesimal Big Bang cosmology must be altered on philosophical grounds as well as for other purposes.
"In all respects save that of convenience, this view of the origin of the Universe is thoroughly unsatisfactory. For one thing, the implication is that there was an instant at which time literally began and, so, by extension, an instant before which there was no time. That in turn implies that even if the origin of the Universe may be successfully supposed to lie in the Big Bang, the origin of the Big Bang itself is not susceptible to discussion." Thus Maddox points out that, within the language of this Big Bang theory, you apparently can't describe what may have gone before. However, this is not the greatest difficulty with this particular Big Bang cosmology in his opinion. After all the title of this editorial is "Down with the Big Bang." In any form of editorial writing, the most significant portions should be placed first; and this is exactly what Maddox does.
Maddox attempts to lump all who believe in a Deity created universe into the same category as those who add the infinitesimal standard model to their theologies. Further, the Maddox argument then reveals his true intentions. Maddox claims, if all those that believe in a Deity created universe have only one scientific theory (the infinitesimal standard model) in which to retreat for solace, then lucky is the scientific world for there exist new calculations, within a portion of the Big Bang cosmology, that show that under certain circumstances such a Big Bang would not occur at a particular unique moment of time. This, of course, would contradict such a theology. Maddox appears to believe that the Hubble Space Telescope will verify that the average density of our universe is such that this modified Big Bang theory will win out over the infinitesimal standard model. As he states it: Luckily, at least where the structure of the Universe is concerned, there may not be long to wait for the answer.
The content of the Maddox argument immediately implies that if the Hubble Space Telescope is able to make such a determination, then it's necessary to accept as true in reality such a modified Big Bang theory. In which case, no individual who believes that at some unique instant of time the universe was Deity created could remain with a rational society. Maddox does not mention the fact, however, that there are other cosmologies that would do the same thing. One of these, the Plasma cosmological theory advocated by Nobel Prize winning Hannes Alfven, has no beginning at all for the universe. Your acceptance of Alfven's theory would also force you to reject any theology that includes a Deity created moment when time and our universe began. So, method (vi) becomes the primary process, in this philosophical case, that would force you to accept a modified belief-system. It appears that you would have no free choice in the matter.
Now, if you were to question a reputable cosmologist, I'm sure that such a scientist would admit that portions, if not all, of the beginning scenario of such a Big Bang may be overthrown by new interpretations of Hubble Space Telescope data. Certainly, Maddox would like this to be the case. After all, "The Big Band is only a theory!" You're informed that there is yet another driving force behind such studies. You're told that scientists believe that "someday" these various theories will converge to The Origins Theory that fits all the data and to which all of science will subscribe. From present analysis, such a theory would also be required to eliminate all Creator theologies, and this Origins description will be declared as scientifically "true in reality." Indeed, don't you feel that it might be a little difficult for cosmologists who create such theories to have a personal philosophy that would contradict their own creation?
I mention again that all of this is by way of illustration. If you don't believe in a Deity created universe, then the exact same method could be applied in an attempt to force you to alter your belief-system. It all depends upon what a particular society accepts, or is forced through ignorance to accept, as true in reality.
I have one more piece of evidence. A very large and influential scientific organization has actually stated that its members want to change the way everyone, and especially children, think. For years, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has worked upon its "Project 2061: Science for All Americans." In certain instances, the project report indicates that science teachers should not teach science "fact," but they should teach "mental frameworks." This is they should teach specific ways we should be allowed to think about science. Let me quote a portion of what the panel report on Biological Sciences envisions. I've added the emphasis so that I can discuss these portions.
"Earth abounds in a diversity of living creatures, which all interact to some degree. Each type shares properties common to all life, and yet each is different, as a consequence of millions of years of chance evolutionary events. Identifying the differences and tracing their origins provides the mental framework for comprehending the place we humans have in the biosphere, as well as our present impact on it."Notice that the italicized language in this quotation is totally specific. It states that this is how things have happened - period. Certainly the last few words in this quotation are very commendable in content. The bold portion tells us how the proper mental framework is produced. But, it's claimed, that it's the italicized portion that has produced the differences. Thus the mental framework that must be accepted is the concept of "chance evolution." Yes, the "magic" words have been used, chance and evolution. As you'll see, this italicized statement has no scientific truth value for the same reason that the line diagram in the almanac used by John in section 1.4 has no truth value. Aren't the words and phases in this quotation cleverly selected?
Such scientific theories as the Big Bang and chance evolution entail a grandiose view of human intelligence. Their foundation is based upon the belief that the human mind is able to describe in a human language and, by such descriptions, comprehend the mechanisms, assuming chance is a mechanism, through which our universe and biological life came into being. It's "self-evident" that scientists are attempting to create a universe that mirrors, or is imitating, human mental and linguistic processes.
For the past twelve years, I've been like a "voice crying in the wilderness." My education and experience gives me the authority to speak out on these matters. But those most influenced by such speculation - you - have not heard my plea. My dear fellow scientists, journalists, theologians and all of you that read this, the fact of the matter is that no data collected by such an instrument as the Hubble Space Telescope can yield information that will allow for any refined scientific description for the origins of our universe. All theories that attempt any mechanistic description for such beginnings most have no scientific truth value. All such descriptions must always, and I mean always, remain pure speculation. Any one is as good, or as bad, as any other.
Can this last claim be scientifically, rather than philosophically, established? Yes, as has been shown , if you accept mathematics as a scientific tool.
As I continue to lead you into understanding the impact of the forthcoming startling results, you should appreciate the fact that these findings give you the perfect right to select a special alternative to these scientific "in the far past" origin theories. From the viewpoint of the (S) speculation process, you can start with this special alternative D and obtain all of the predictions P that might tend to verified almost any theory. Yet, this alternative is distinct from all such mechanistic theories and, in many cases, allows you to select a description for the origins of our universe that does not contradict your personal belief-system. However, you would need to find some other personal way to convince yourself that your general belief-system is "true in reality" since such a determination can't come from observing the electromagnetic or particle radiation bombarding the earth and interpreting this data in terms of these various theories. Let's repeat that. This special alternative shows that whether or not such scientific theories are true in reality can't be known through such scientific methods.
By-the-way, this last sentence also applies to any of so-called theories of human evolution.
In this section, I'll give you a brief history of some of my attempts to warn the scientific community and you of the previously illustrated gross errors in the use of the scientific method. In the next chapters, I'll begin a detailed discussion of the MA-model, its consequences, and even explain the step-by-step process that led to its discovery. Nothing will be hidden from you.
When I was about twelve years old, my parents moved to The Hopkins Apartments in Baltimore, a short distance from the campus of The Johns Hopkins University. Now and then, I would wander about the campus. In particular, as a teenager, I enjoyed observing Nature in a small park, Wyman Park, and in a stream that than run behind the University. I spent hours sitting on benches or steps at the campus contemplating the wondrous scientific events that I thought must be taking place within the university laboratories. One part of Wyman Park runs along San Martin Dr., which was one of the university's boundary lines. Some years later, with the help of a scholarship, I graduated, with honors, from Hopkins with my BA in Mathematics. More years later, the NASA created the Space Telescope Science Institute with its very impressive building at 3700 San Martin Dr. just on the far edge of the campus. This is the institute that has and well control almost every aspect of the scientific observations of the Hubble Space Telescope.
Please, I'm not arguing against the Hubble Space Telescope as a valuable scientific instrument that will surely provide useful information about our solar system and nearby objects nor any other such instrument. I'm not against the functioning of Space Telescope Science Institute for the analysis of such information. It's simply a fact that one of this telescope's apparent goals can't be achieved. I first announced this fact directly to those concerned in 1982.
As a graduate, I receive the Johns Hopkins Magazine. An important popularizing article appeared in the April 1982 issue relative to this subject. I was forced to reply immediately, via the letters section. Before the editor printed my reply, she informed me that she couldn't understand what the letter meant. Surely, I couldn't possibly disagree with the author's conclusions for everyone knew that this is how the universe began. [Mind control in action.]
However, since I was a graduate of the university, my reply would be published. I might say that since I had moved away from Baltimore in 1968, I wasn't aware of the close working relationship between the space institute and the university. The headline to my reply read Science and logic. As published in the December 1982 issue it read:
"Editor: I have just finished reading Frank H. T. Rhodes's commentary, "Homage to the Home Planet" (April 1982). I am completely astonished that Rhodes would give such a completely misleading and distorted view of what "science" is capable of establishing as fact. Throughout the commentary Rhodes makes various claims such as, "First of all, there was a cosmic origin and evolution extending back some 15 billion years, when the universe came into existence." All reputable scientists know that such statements are pure scientific speculation and can't be established by any of the canons of experimental or observational inquiry.Letters criticizing or discussing scientific articles are consider to be an important aspect of scientific publishing. But, you might ask, what was the reaction from the magazine's readership to my reply? Well, as far as I can tell, no result was evident.
I point out that members of the Institute for Mathematical Philosophy have constructed a mathematical model that employs certain recent discoveries in the discipline of mathematical logic and that establishes that statements such as those made by Rhodes are logically incorrect. The logical errors are precisely within the same logical procedures required by the canons of the "scientific method."
Robert A. Herrmann
Relative to the formal publication of my research findings, you should realize that such scientific disclosures don't appear in print until certain requirements are met. First, they are described in a "paper" by means of a discipline language and in accordance with a special writing style. Then a journal is selected and the paper sent to an editor. On the other hand, an appropriate journal is often selected first, and then the paper formally written in the journal's special style.
Whichever procedure is followed, the next step is that the editor sends the paper to what are called referees. The referees usually determine whether or not the journal selects the paper or not and, of course, this depends upon the referees' mind-set. Often the paper must be rewritten. Then it's resubmitted to the same referees for consideration. If it now passes muster and is accepted, then there's considerable time spent in the actual publication process. I had one paper that details some aspects of the mathematical structure used for the MA-model take three years before it appeared in print. The usual time frame is about one year or more for many journals.
In June 1983, an extensive paper appeared under my name in the journal Natural and System. I discussed how a certain problem within the language of Quantum Mechanics - the discreteness paradox - could be solved by application of a small portion of the mathematical structure used for the MA-model. Again these disclosures were ignored by the majority of the scientific community, especially those scientists most affected by these discoveries. Scientists continued to have their less than accurate views popularized throughout the media.
In order to attack the problem more rapidly, it was decided to appeal to a specific part of the scientific community directly. So, let's see what happened in 1984 when another paper applying these methods to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics was sent to the important journal Physics Letters.  The comments from the referee indicated that he/her had no concept of what was being said. Moreover, this paper made a direct assault upon the assumption that certain micro-objects existed in reality by formally establishing the possible existence of alternative micro-objects that produce the same effects. This feature was opposite to the referee's Quantum Mechanics mind-set and, as such, was not allowed to appear in print. You see, today, scientific research and publication is not the process by which acknowledge is obtained and communicated; only selected knowledge is allowed to be communicated. Usually, such knowledge must uphold a philosophic view of reality that is exterior to the scientific method.
In recent years, some of these obstacles to publication have been overcome, and many scientific papers and monographs have been published relative to this subject matter. These have either used the mathematical structure to obtain various models or they have detailed specifically a portion of the mathematics itself. Many of these papers explain fully the consequences of the MA-model. But, once again, few scientists interested in the affected areas have acknowledged these findings. On the other hand, some of those who have recognized the significance of this research have threatened your author with all sorts of unpleasant occurrences.
It's important to note, however, that members of the scientific community who claim that my results are somehow or other in error, have made this claim based solely upon their personal beliefs and not upon any scientific evidence. My records indicate that although the complete mathematical model has been available to the scientific community for over 12 years, no one who has made this claim has actually read or studied the mathematics itself.
Now how have I attempted to warn you directly that a great mind controlling deception is being engaged in by members of the scientific community? I give two general audience talks on this subject under the sponsorship of the United States Naval Academy Speakers Bureau. Although for the past three years notices have been sent out by the Academy to numerous organizations that claim to be interested in scientific matters announcing that I was available to present this material to their members, only two such organization have requested that I give either talk. More significant, however, is that I've requested from over forty editors of major market newspapers that they assign reporters to investigate my claims and that their conclusions be reported to the newspapers' readership. All of the editors have ignored my request. How much more evidence is really necessary to show that there is, indeed, a conspiracy to control your thinking?
The scientific community has only itself to blame for any repercussions this book might produce. They have been told many times, one way or another, the same general conclusions that I'm about to reveal directly to you. The concerned scientists could have analyzed the mathematical arguments themselves; but, as stated, they have chosen to ignore them, purposely I think, in an attempt to continue this cosmological "scam." The end result of this scientific "cover-up" is that your mind is being controlled, your personal philosophy destroyed and a great deal of your tax money misappropriated.
In the next chapter, I'll "prove" that you should first development a personal belief-system, including religious concepts, not based upon some scientific theory of what might have occurred in the far past but, rather, based upon your personal experiences. You may then select, if you wish, one of the numerous scientific models that will not contradict your personal philosophy and use it as a tool for further reflective study. However, you can't know whether the origins theory you have chosen is true by use of the scientific method. There are, of course, philosophical arguments that can be used.
". . . that events in the remotest parts of space appear to obey the laws of rational thought . . . . According to it what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is anything else we know." What one can gather from these quotations is actually very obvious from our previous discussion. Science describes those behavioral aspects of Nature that are comprehensible to the human mind. Scientists use human mental processes and languages to investigate how those portions of Nature, that we perceive, change in time (i.e. how Nature develops or evolves). They try to find