Nobel laureates who wasted their lives; letter to Lazar

Below we investigate a list of physics laureates who wasted their lives significantly on the Standard Model. Everyone else who received a Nobel prize in physics - got one because of experimental / work un-entrenched in Standard Model perspectives. Every one of them below inspired generations of others who also wasted their lives..

Niels Henrik David Bohr; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr
Werner Heisenberg; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger;
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger
Wolfgang Ernst Pauli; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli
Hideki Yukawa; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideki_Yukawa
Max Born; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born
Robert Hofstadter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hofstadter
Rudolf Ludwig Mössbauer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_M%C3%B6ssbauer
Lev Davidovich Landau; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Landau
Richard Phillips Feynman; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
Julian Seymour Schwinger; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Schwinger
Sin-Itiro Tomonaga; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-Itiro_Tomonaga
Murray Gell-Mann; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gell-Mann
Burton Richter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_Richter
Samuel Chao Chung Ting; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_C._C._Ting
Philip Warren Anderson; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Warren_Anderson
John Hasbrouck Van Vleck; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hasbrouck_Van_Vleck
Sheldon Lee Glashow; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Lee_Glashow
Mohammad Abdus Salam; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam
Steven Weinberg; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg
James Watson Cronin; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Logsdon_Fitch
Kenneth Geddes Wilson; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_G._Wilson
Carlo Rubbia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rubbia
Simon van der Meer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_van_der_Meer
Jerome Isaac Friedman; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Isaac_Friedman
Henry Way Kendall; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Way_Kendall
Richard Edward Taylor; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Taylor
Gerardus (Gerard) 't Hooft; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerardus_'t_Hooft
Martinus Justinus Godefriedus Veltman; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinus_J._G._Veltman
Sir Anthony James Leggett; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_James_Leggett
David Jonathan Gross; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gross
Hugh David Politzer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_David_Politzer
Frank Anthony Wilczek; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilczek
Makoto Kobayashi; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makoto_Kobayashi_(physicist)
Toshihide Maskawa; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshihide_Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoichiro_Nambu

The 39 laureates above and more can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics_by_age

Here's a good example of 'playing with illusion' Standard Model adherents perform:
"Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder proposed the existence of the force and formulated an experiment to detect it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs. The classic form of the experiment, described above, successfully demonstrated the force to within 15% of the value predicted by the theory." Taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Effect

Um.. 15% error is good results? What about using insulators? There's one word that characterizes Standard Model adherents: obstinate = "perversely adhering to an opinion.." Taken from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obstinate
(i added italics)

Why this (insane/rabid) perverse adherence to an opinion? It doesn't make any sense.. The only three things that reasonably explain it are:
1. basic human insecurity - we have a deep seated need to be free/independent
2. peer-pressure - many cases above can be attributed to enormous peer-pressure
3. some equivalent to 'demonic influence'..
The last will raise many eyebrows and force many to stop reading this essay. But my previous essays have indicated a strong demonic influence on the creation and perpetuation of the Standard Model .. Think about it. All you really need is a few key players placed strategically on the Nobel committee over time to insure Standard Model reception and predominance. 39/189, that's quite a percentage awarded to Standard Model developers.. That's about 20% .. And realistically, the strategy above works best when you select players who advocate SM principles early on such as: Bohr, Heisenberg, and Dirac. Now i'm not saying in the slightest that all the recipients above were demonically influenced.. Only that their selection as award recipients were carefully chosen to insure Standard Model predominance.. This idea presupposes key members of the Nobel committee were demonically influenced early on (not initially obviously). Perhaps it took time for Satanic forces to realize the power of influence physics would eventually yield on human masses. Since that time, physics has become a Huge spending area and 'order of elites' unparalleled in society.. In many ways, physicists have become 'priests of mysteries' (as the old Catholic priests were when they spoke the Mass in Latin). Instead of Latin, now it's physics jargon and specialized mathematics .. i've tried to make everything i've developed accessible. It means: able to be understood by the masses if presented properly (like the droplet/bubble analogy of matter/anti-matter). If you cannot make your materials accessible, you've guaranteed two things: you will control the material; the general public will never understand it. Is this the reason conventional physicists shroud their (actually easy to understand) concepts in jargon and mathematics? So they retain control of the material? Are they afraid someone will discover the truth above?

i feel i've made a fairly strong case in previous essays that the Standard Model is demonically inspired. The basic premise is this: it pushes us away from God by attempting to create a model of our universe without Her. As i said before: can you separate a mom from her baby? Can you separate the universe from God? It doesn't make any sense.. Only envious Satan would do this.. (Envious of our growing closeness to God.) No one's gonna tell me my relationship to Her.

One final note about Markus Lazar. (He's the conventional parallel of me.) Likely, he'll 'win' the Nobel prize in physics. (He kowtowed duly to conventional paradigms most especially the Higgs.) Idiotically, convention has embraced the Higgs (it'll be the Standard Model's downfall). And it's become the symbolic 'right of passage' for conventional physics theories.. If your theory can include and show dependency on Higgs, you've a serious chance at being considered (as a serious candidate for unification). So.. Even Lazar, who was an inspired engineer, who began to see the 'big picture', was forced to conform to idiotic conventionalism .. This shows the Enormous power of peer-pressure .. There's several reasons why i'll never 'win' a Nobel prize in physics: i've already rejected any in lieu of developing Iam space etc, if indeed the Nobel committee has been historically demonically manipulated - there's no chance in Hell a divinely inspired model will be recognized, and .. human beings are notoriously unforgiving. It would take a 'saint character' in the committee to recognize the true value of my contributions. It would take a 'saint character' to push recognition through committee into general acceptance. What are the chances such a saint exists (or will be) on the Nobel committee? Pretty slim i think .. So.. As i said before, it's better i focus on Arthur - rather than anything else..

Note to Markus Lazar:
Dear Markus, if you've read any of my physics writings, you found an outspoken rabid anti-SMer .. It took me years to arrive to this philosophical vantage.. i never intended to prove God exists.. i never intended to discover spacelet or temporal relativity theory.. It all presented itself after same time of serious deep consideration/investigation .. You have two basic opposing ways to win a Nobel prize in physics:
1. play the game as you have been - kiss ass and follow status quo (embrace the Higgs)
2. strike out on your own (as developed below)
.. How in Hell could i parallel develop what you've done through serious formal training and collaboration? Other than divine inspiration? Lucky guess? The likelihood of that approaches zero.. Seriously consider the divine influence factor. Markus .. please open your mind and heart to the possibility of divine connection. If you already believe in God, it shouldn't be too hard.. If you don't, please take a serious hard look at the iam conjecture .. Either way, you should find divine inspiration as a source of wisdom unparalleled. The way you can develop your own ideas without conventional Bull Shit is to 'take back' any paper written about Higgs, redevelop any paper that depends on virtual exchange,.. i'm 'guessing' you'll find a whole universe of mathematics just waiting for your utilization. Mathematics is an incredibly diverse and sophisticated entity. You're gonna tell me there's no tools whatsoever in math we could use to prove (formally develop) temporal relativity theory? Or spacelet theory without virtual exchange? Or faster-than-light charged anti-photons? (Please skim those recent developments.) If you can bend to convention (in order to be heard/recognized), consider bending toward the Truth .. Either way, you're gonna win a Nobel prize; isn't it better you win one based on reality vs insanity?