### Saturday, January 09, 2010

## JSH: Power in a position

One of the hardest things for me to understand has not been the math. The mathematics of the flaw in modern number theory is kind of convoluted but can be worked out and relies as its linchpin on the distributive property, so it is resolvable. The weirder thing for me has been understanding first how mathematicians could go on with the error, and now how physicists might as well, even though as a result they know their theory is wrong, and that theory doesn't work! So maybe some of them are sabotaging physics experiments like the LHC.

How could people DO such things? How could a human being decide that ignoring the truth was better than being a real physicist?

And that's where I made my mistake—to themselves they ARE still real physicists, if you see power in the title itself. Power in the position.

Consider, for the last 7 years I've been talking about this massive math error while mathematicians have continued with full prestige. If the position is what matters to you then what have you lost? Nothing. You don't need to be right.

And I now realize that IS the answer. Religion has diminished as science has dominated, and there could be people who in the past might have been priests who today are physicists or mathematicians BECAUSE of the power in the position. Nothing else.

For them then, being right is irrelevant.

Here is a telling quote I like to give from a mathematician. And it is almost in my opinion a manifesto and a declaration against me as I had been talking for a while at this point about the error and was working on getting published—but had not been published yet—before this article going by its date. Here's its opening statement:

"When is a proof?" http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_03.html

In a democratic mathematics a result that shatters the careers of the bulk of mathematicians can simply be voted away by group opinion.

And that can be the future of physics.

You may say, but no, physics has experiments. So? If the bulk of physicists tell the world that an experiment that proves the opposite of something actually proves it, what then? Who will doubt them?

If you howl against them then you are a crank or a crackpot.

Look at Dr. Halton Arp. While I don't agree with him completely as among other things I think there was a Big Bang, I think he has compelling evidence casting doubt on the standard interpretation of quasars as very distant objects, and on the belief that red shift behaves as simply as astrophysicists commonly teach. But he has been successfully pigeon-holed as a crackpot—who also has admittedly important and valid research work in other ways!!!

It could be you next.

You could have a valid experimental result which the bulk of physicists do not like because they no longer are really physicists any more but are people who see power in the position, and care less about being right than being "physicists".

The irony of the situation I find myself in is that I actually defined mathematical proof to counterattack the downplaying of it by the modern mathematical community and now my definition is on its way to becoming the world standard. I was deliberately trying to stave off their demolition of the concept of mathematical proof as a working concept into a democratic concept that played into their world of fake math.

For the moment Google search results are showing how far a group of people can be from the truth, when the power in their position becomes more important to them than actually being that position, like being real mathematicians, or real physicists.

After all, if most people think you're a physicist even if everything you have is wrong, aren't you one still?

The Google search result is a way for some of you to understand how lost your society has already become, so I give again, as you can see it all over the world. It is a way for me to demonstrate to the ENTIRE world thanks to the technology.

Search in Google: define mathematical proof

As the world's most recent major discoverer I'm in a position those who preceded me didn't have to face as they lived in worlds with religion as the dominant force so science and mathematics could develop without this particular problem.

In their world priests wanted to be priests. In mine they want to be mathematicians and physicists. Go figure.

I can dominate the world in ways like the Google search result because I'm right. But it does not matter if you do not wish to know the truth about your world. If you no longer care what makes reality.

If you only care about social position then there is no hope left for science. It will simply wither and die though it may take a while for the world to notice as this world seems to be more interested often in what people are wearing than in the value of the person underneath.

How could people DO such things? How could a human being decide that ignoring the truth was better than being a real physicist?

And that's where I made my mistake—to themselves they ARE still real physicists, if you see power in the title itself. Power in the position.

Consider, for the last 7 years I've been talking about this massive math error while mathematicians have continued with full prestige. If the position is what matters to you then what have you lost? Nothing. You don't need to be right.

And I now realize that IS the answer. Religion has diminished as science has dominated, and there could be people who in the past might have been priests who today are physicists or mathematicians BECAUSE of the power in the position. Nothing else.

For them then, being right is irrelevant.

Here is a telling quote I like to give from a mathematician. And it is almost in my opinion a manifesto and a declaration against me as I had been talking for a while at this point about the error and was working on getting published—but had not been published yet—before this article going by its date. Here's its opening statement:

What is a proof? The question has two answers. The right wing ("right-or-wrong", "rule-of-law") definition is that a proof is a logically correct argument that establishes the truth of a given statement. The left wing answer (fuzzy, democratic, and human centered) is that a proof is an argument that convinces a typical mathematician of the truth of a given statement.

While valid in an idealistic sense, the right wing definition of a proof has the problem that, except for trivial examples, it is not clear that anyone has ever seen such a thing…

"When is a proof?" http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_03.html

In a democratic mathematics a result that shatters the careers of the bulk of mathematicians can simply be voted away by group opinion.

And that can be the future of physics.

You may say, but no, physics has experiments. So? If the bulk of physicists tell the world that an experiment that proves the opposite of something actually proves it, what then? Who will doubt them?

If you howl against them then you are a crank or a crackpot.

Look at Dr. Halton Arp. While I don't agree with him completely as among other things I think there was a Big Bang, I think he has compelling evidence casting doubt on the standard interpretation of quasars as very distant objects, and on the belief that red shift behaves as simply as astrophysicists commonly teach. But he has been successfully pigeon-holed as a crackpot—who also has admittedly important and valid research work in other ways!!!

It could be you next.

You could have a valid experimental result which the bulk of physicists do not like because they no longer are really physicists any more but are people who see power in the position, and care less about being right than being "physicists".

The irony of the situation I find myself in is that I actually defined mathematical proof to counterattack the downplaying of it by the modern mathematical community and now my definition is on its way to becoming the world standard. I was deliberately trying to stave off their demolition of the concept of mathematical proof as a working concept into a democratic concept that played into their world of fake math.

For the moment Google search results are showing how far a group of people can be from the truth, when the power in their position becomes more important to them than actually being that position, like being real mathematicians, or real physicists.

After all, if most people think you're a physicist even if everything you have is wrong, aren't you one still?

The Google search result is a way for some of you to understand how lost your society has already become, so I give again, as you can see it all over the world. It is a way for me to demonstrate to the ENTIRE world thanks to the technology.

Search in Google: define mathematical proof

As the world's most recent major discoverer I'm in a position those who preceded me didn't have to face as they lived in worlds with religion as the dominant force so science and mathematics could develop without this particular problem.

In their world priests wanted to be priests. In mine they want to be mathematicians and physicists. Go figure.

I can dominate the world in ways like the Google search result because I'm right. But it does not matter if you do not wish to know the truth about your world. If you no longer care what makes reality.

If you only care about social position then there is no hope left for science. It will simply wither and die though it may take a while for the world to notice as this world seems to be more interested often in what people are wearing than in the value of the person underneath.