f119
| 19 |
|---|
...Before the war of 39-45, when a review refused to publish a work, the person who made this decision was known and therefore took this responsibility. Their attitude could be publicly denounced. The referee system subjects the scientist to a system against which he ultimately has no recourse.
COSMOGONIA
Journal of Cosmology
and Theoretical Physics
rue de l'Agora
Euboea
58340 Macedonia
Editor-in-Chief:
Prof. Aristotle
Mr. Nicolas Copernicus
Rue du Vieux Moulin, 7
2304 Gdansk
Poland.
Euboea, 30 October 381 BC
Reference: D-5703
Dear Sir,
I have read your article "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" with the greatest attention and interest.
Your model is attractive,
but alas, absurd.
As everyone knows, objects can only move if a force is exerted on them.
Moreover, obviously,
heavy objects are more sensitive to forces than light objects.
Do a simple experiment: drop a stone and a feather.
The stone falls to the ground faster.
Base your work on simple, observable facts.
If the Earth moved, as you claim, it would be subject to a force.
Because nothing moves in the universe without being subject to a force.
Therefore, we humans would also be immersed in this force field.
Everything that moves on its surface would also be affected by it, including ourselves.
As we are lighter, the Earth would move away and we would remain in place like fools.
.....
I am sorry, but I must reject your article.
Prof. Aristotle
Editor-in-Chief
COSMOLOGIA
International Journal
of Astronomy and
Cosmology
Uraniborg
26120 Denmark
Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Tycho Brahe.
Mr. Nicolas Copernicus
Rue du Vieux Moulin, 7
2304 Gdansk
Poland.
Uraniborg, 6 February 1590
Reference: A-4428
...........
Dear Sir,
....
I have read your article "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" with the greatest attention and interest.
....
This idea of a moving Earth is not new, but has never withstood analysis.
If the Earth revolved around the Sun, then nearby stars would present an apparent movement relative to the background of the sky,
compared to distant stars, by the effect of parallax.
Stars that belong to our celestial dome, which we now know quite well and whose stars are millions of leagues away from us.
These are not all at the same distance, as you are no doubt aware, the fainter ones being obviously the farthest.
Take a simple image. Place your finger in front of your nose. Close one eye, then the other.
Your finger will appear differently against the background.
As for your eye, it would simply represent two diametrically opposite positions of the Earth on this circular orbit that you imagine.
But look at the sky. The stars are motionless, regardless of the day of the year.
No one has ever been able to detect the slightest deformation of the constellations.
Therefore, you must face the evidence: your model of a moving Earth does not hold.
.....The movement of the planets, which has been the subject of numerous studies for four centuries, is now well known.
See in particular: C. Ptolemy, Almagest, Elements of Mathematical Composition, doctoral thesis (231 AD) at the chapter "Planetary Epicyclic Movements", page 77.
This work is certainly in the library of your university, where all these things are clearly explained.
.........
I am sorry, but we are obliged to reject your article.
Prof. Tycho Brahe
Editor-in-Chief
...Editors are masters after God in their journals. There is no higher authority, no law. The system is customary. The world of research has neither a Lord Chancellor nor a Supreme Court. In the French system, the generalization of decision-making by committees, particularly for recruitment and promotions, under the pretext of democratic functioning, has proven, according to Souriau, worse than the mandarin system, so despised before 1968.
...A researcher with a novel idea is by definition "non-standard", marginal. Otherwise, it is just a science bureaucrat.
...Although de Gaulle said "we can find researchers who search, but we have to search for those who find," recruitment by the CNRS and the University focuses on "profile," on integration into the general effort, on agreement with existing research programs, to avoid "scattering and dispersion of funds." But innovation and standardization do not go together.
...Pure, fundamental research is neglected in favor of applied research, which generates profits. Therefore, brilliant and creative minds tend to turn away from the first, unless they accept from the start that their career takes the form of an apostolate.
...Entering the world of research is, for a young person, an increasingly difficult endeavor. The average age of entry into the CNRS, for example, is thirty years old. The progression is problematic. Any marginalization or excess of innovation immediately causes a career blockage and difficulty, or even an impossibility, to publish the results of work. On the contrary, a mediocre researcher, who knows how to skillfully play the review system, can endlessly decline minor works and accumulate publications, thus giving the illusion of intense research activity. Also, "capacity to manage" is rewarded rather than the ability to initiate research. The vast majority of research activity has become a vast bureaucracy.
...When a young researcher, or a candidate researcher (since now many years will pass before he can stabilize in this profession) becomes aware of this situation, he is faced with two choices:
-
Either he decides to persist in non-standard ideas, therefore disturbing, or even a source of a powerful "socio-immunological" reaction. Then he will have to pay a high price, this choice possibly completely blocking his access to a position.
-
Or he decides to conform, realizing that the system does not require him to create truly new things. He will therefore accept self-censorship. Over time, this mechanism of self-censorship will quickly become unconscious. Many young researchers are thus sterilized.
...According to Souriau, this phenomenon is the main cause of the sterility of the scientific world for nearly half a century.
...Until a very recent date, the researcher had even no means of expression. Indeed, popular science magazines, which flood their readers with "discoveries," which are most often just new technological advances, therefore applications of an already old fundamental set, are part of the system. The general public is flooded with pseudo-events.
...I cite an example. Recently, a widely circulated magazine had on its front page "The mystery of gamma-ray bursts finally solved." One would have expected, therefore, the presentation of an explanatory model. It was not the case.
The news was simply the beginning of a link between the phenomenon and the location of a possible source.
../../../bons_commande/bon_global.htm
Sommaire article Sommaire Science Page d'Accueil
Number of consultations of this page since July 1st, 2004** :