As I have indicated in my previous posts, based on the information that is public, it seems that John Mather’s shooting star-like celebrity trajectory abruptly stopped and took a downward turn. There is no information to indicate why. But not only has NASA downgraded him. It seems that his visibility within his own scientific milieu has diminished. So we may reasonably conclude that this has to do with his scientific sphere, and not with anything external, such as crossing some powerful people within NASA.


This scientific sphere today has two essential components: The COBE Satellite discovery which is in the past, and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) which is in the future. So whatever it is that is going on cannot have anything to do with JWST. In fact, his official status at JWST remains unchanged. I thus reach the conclusion that the decline of his celebrity stature has to do with its rise: The COBE Satellite discovery.


Now the question is this: Why is whatever is going on not taking place in the open scientific arena, according to the “scientific process”? The process – which the establishment so righteously extols – is that a scientific problem is discussed and evaluated out in the open, in meetings, conferences, scientific journals and science news journals… etc. This process took place in the case of all the past subjects that I am aware of: Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, Viktor Ninov, Jan Hendrik Schoen, Buford Price (who claimed to have discovered the magnetic monopole and then retracted the claim himself). There was another person (whose name I cannot remember) who reported having discovered a planet and then retracted. So, there are ample examples of how the establishment engaged in the scientific process – even in the case of their esteemed insider colleagues.


The scientific process takes place even when the problem is not strictly scientific. For example, when an ex-Military person (or a Military person on assignment) in charge of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory chewed out the physicists there in colorful language, a tremendous public “process” was mobilized. So strong was this process that the person ended up being reassigned. Such is the power of the establishment’s process.


The process was also mobilized when a physicist in the same lab was accused of spying.


Why then are things so hush hush in the case of John Mather?


Here is a clue: In all of the above examples, the establishment was either the judge or the aggrieved party. This time, it is their butt that is on the line. It does not behoove these openness-loving scientists to have an open scientific process.


%d bloggers like this: