Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 263 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science


    ECW E-Cat World


    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times



    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    Scientific Doubt
    Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 @ 23:51:45 GMT by rob

    Science Bibhas R. De has written an excellent article on the inner workings of the Nobel Prize Committe that hands out the Nobel Prizes.

    It is interesting to find that the foundations - the scientific community hold on to so dearly - don't really hold up that well to scrutiny.




    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by rob

    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

    Article Rating
    Average Score: 0
    Votes: 0

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "Scientific Doubt" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: Scientific Doubt (Score: 1)
    by Koen on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 @ 00:57:23 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla
    Though I agree that the Nobel price has nothing to do with science, De's conclusion that magnetic field is equivalent to mass is wrong of course. Secondly, why should Myron Evans be the new guru of out-of-the-box thinking (as suggested by De)? Bo Lehnert only stated that the theory of classical ElectroMagnetism is still subject of much debate, and Evans is only ONE of the many researchers in this field. Evans has exaggerated greatly the importance of an hypothetical longitudinal magnetic field component in the photon: "this explains the free energy movement and gravity, and Tesla's findings, etc etc". I don't agree with Evans at all.
    Thirdly, Bo Lehnert has published his very own papers on this subject, but De does not refer to Lehnert's papers. I doubt if De has read Lehnert's papers on vacuum polarization.

    Nevertheless, De's point of view about the Nobel price committee is totally justified, if you ask me.
    The Nobel committee is totally secretive about the MOTIVATION and SUBJECTIVITY behind the selection of winners, therefore the price is absolutely meaningless. Science should be an OPEN debate. This bullshit price even means a great threat to the objectivity of science, because the importance of the work of Nobel price winners is overstated, while the scientific work of others can be ignored, and this ends the necessary scientific debate. The press pays lip service to the Nobel Committee without any understanding of scientific matters.
    De more or less proves his opinion by examining the "winning" paper on the strong force, that can be an example of "HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS".

    It is time for active debate by many out-of-the-box thinkers, since the Nobel committee has boxed in science in restrictive and bad theories. What goes around comes around.


    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.