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, 296 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

    The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
    Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 @ 19:48:25 GMT by vlad

    General "Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors." - Brian Martin, "Stamping Out Dissent"


    Science is in a state of crisis. Where free inquiry, natural curiosity and open-minded discussion and consideration of new ideas should reign, a new orthodoxy has emerged. This 'new inquisition', as it has been called by Robert Anton Wilson[2] consists not of cardinals and popes, but of the editors and reviewers of scientific journals, of leading authorities and self-appointed "skeptics", and last but not least of corporations and governments that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, and it is just as effective in suppressing unorthodox ideas as the original. The scientists in the editorial boards of journals who decide which research is fit to be published, and which is not, the scientists at the patent office who decide what feats nature allows human technology to perform, and which ones it does not, and the scientists in governmental agencies who decide what proposals to fund, and not to fund, either truly believe that they are in complete knowledge of all the fundamental laws of nature, or they purposely suppress certain discoveries that threaten the scientific prestige of individuals or institutions, or economic interests. Research that indicates that an accepted theory is incomplete, severely flawed, or completely mistaken, will be rejected on the grounds that it "contradicts the laws of nature", and therefore has to be the result of sloppiness or fraud. At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that theory overrides evidence.

    In true science, theory always surrenders to the primacy of evidence. If observations are made that, after careful verification and theoretical analysis, are found to be inconsistent with a theory, than that theory has to go - no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is, or how prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it.

    But in current mainstream science, the opposite occurs with disturbing regularity. Anomalous evidence is first ignored, then ridiculed, and if that fails, its author attacked. Scientific conferences will not admit it to be presented, scientific journals will refuse to publish it, and fellow scientists know better than to express solidarity with an unorthodox colleague. In today's scientific world, the cards are just stacked too heavily against true scientific breakthroughs. Too many careers are at stake, too many vested interests are involved for any truly revolutionary advancement in science to take place any more. All too often, scientific truth is determined by the authority of experts and textbooks, not by logic and reason.

    Referring to the fin de siecle "end of science" mentality and the scientific revolutions following it, Robert G. Jahn writes in 20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections[3]:

    "As we enter the 21st century, science seems poised to execute a similar evolutionary cycle of advancement of their comprehension and relevance. We are opening with a steadily growing backlog of demonstrable physical, biological and psychological anomalies (..) most of which seem incontrovertibly correlated with properties and processes of the human mind, in ways for which our preceding 20th century scientific paradigm has no rational explanations. (..)

    Thus, at the dawn of the 21st century, we again find an elite, smugly contented scientific establishment, but one now endowed with far more public authority and respect than that of the prior version. A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure for research, development, construction, production, education and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true merit. It is an establishment that is largely consumed with refinements and deployments of mid-20th century science, rather than with creative advancement of fundamental understanding of the most profound and seminal aspects of its trade. Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genres of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed."

    In his debut editorial as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Henry H. Bauer gives a similarly bleak assessment of the state of modern science[4]:

    "Mainstream orthodoxy routinely resists novelties that later become accepted. Throughout the 20th century there are examples: Bretz's Spokane flood, McClintock's recognition of "jumping genes", Mitchell's insights into biological energy mechanisms, Woese's Archaea, and McCully's homocysteine. Only late in the 20th century did science reluctantly grant that acupuncture can have some analgesic effect, that ball lightning exists, that the kraken is not myth but the real giant squid, that it is not foolish to look for intelligent life outside the Earth, that 5000-year-old megaliths incorporate substantial knowledge of astronomy, that human beings inhabited the Americas long before the days of the Clovis culture, and that living systems can sense not only electrical but also magnetic fields. Indeed, it may well be that the suppression of unorthodox views in science is on the increase rather than in decline. In Prometheus Bound (1994), John Ziman has outlined how science changed during the 20th century: traditionally (since perhaps the 17th century) a relatively disinterested knowledge-seeking activity, science progressively became handmaiden to industry and government, and its direction of research is increasingly influenced by vested interests and self-interested bureaucracies, including bureaucracies supposedly established to promote good science such as the National Academies, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. Parkinson's Law, it may be, applies to science as to other human activities: no sooner has an organization become successfully established than it is by that token already an obsolescent nuisance."

    In many cases of anomalous evidence that inconveniences establishment science, simple denial of publication suffices to suppress the anomaly. Sometimes, however, renegade scientists manage to capture the attention of the general public, pleading their case to a larger audience that has no vested interest in the validity of the established theories. When that happens, and significant interests are at stake, the scientific establishment will turn nasty, resorting to misrepresentation or outright falsification of evidence...

    Read the whole article at: www.suppressedscience.net



    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 General
    · News by vlad

    Most read story about General:
    Z machine melts diamond to puddle

    Article Rating
    Average Score: 4.33
    Votes: 3

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics" | Login/Create an Account | 12 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    And media is kept on a leash... (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, March 27, 2004 @ 22:48:40 GMT
    It is all to obvious that the media is perpetuating this suppression. I've tried to notify media regarding several interesting scientific discoveries, several times, just to be met by silence. Quite disturbing it is.


    The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics (Score: 1)
    by bodebliss on Sunday, March 28, 2004 @ 02:43:02 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://picoscience.8m.com/
    The way I've seen science work is:
    they have many more ways to get their work in front of other researchers then we think.

    I say in front of other researchers because that is how science funtions . A scientists work(discovery,et al) is not recognized until it is duplicated at research facilities around the world.

    Now if your a researcher who is going for patentability and you have something . Your not going to let out your secrets to everyone in the world, your not going to go straight to the public. You are going to first disseminate to small groups of investors. If you can't get the cash you need this way. You might yell about the ability to get your message out, but it's about raising money amongst competing ideas. The researcher may not how the best contacts. The money people may not have the best reseachers.

    This is at times a passionate excersize , but boils down to what the market will bear.

    Hear real scientist speak about their ongoing work:


    Re: The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics (Score: 1)
    by ElectroDynaCat on Sunday, March 28, 2004 @ 10:10:07 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Lets not forget the massive investment made by government into the research facilities, sometimes made by political special interests. Hot fusion and high energy particle research are two areas that are rife with the machinations of scullduggery to get the work into a certain Senators' or Congressmans' district, and to pursue lines of research that will economically benefit certain contractors that have favored status with those representatives. As far as the immediate benefits of the results of that research, the record is not clear.
    So far the 30 billion spent on hot fusion haven't resulted in the production of a milliwatt of excess energy.
    The money spent running high energy particle physics experiments are adding to knowledge in a very tiny realm, but as far as the practical application of this knowledge to everyday human problems of energy production, there is no foreseeable benefit.
    Just recently it was announced that after spending about 1 billion dollars and taking one trillion pictures of particle collisions, we may have discovered the Higgs boson. Unfortunately the characteristics of this particle turned out to refute most of the theories that promoted its discovery. I would suppose that the High Energy community will want another billion dollars to study why the first theory was wrong.
    I find nothing wrong with basic research into the structure of matter, but there are other problems more pressing at this time that need the funding and brainpower that is being taken up by these research projects. How can we make solar cells cheaper and more efficent? Can we make power from the ocean more practical? Can we get an automobile to travel 100 miles on a gallon of gas? Is there a better way to store hydrogen? The Higgs boson does not play a part in any of these questions, and it may be that in pursuing these other avenues of research, we may stumble onto answers to questions we have not yet been smart enough to ask.

    The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics (Score: 1)
    by bodebliss on Sunday, March 28, 2004 @ 21:21:29 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://picoscience.8m.com/
    You know, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells never went to the moon, or traveled in time, but to read their books, you'd think they had, or it was possible, or that the future, through technological advancement, would be wonderful. This set generations on the path to glorious discoveries. Some envisioned , some not. It made young children yearn to be scientists, and to dream big dreams. They laid the cornerstones of all that you now see. What will future generations do. Where will tomorrow's big dreamers get their inspirations to sail uncharted seas. Why right here, my friends. Maybe there is not a complete rainbow at the end of our journey to free energy, but if their is a piece we should endeavor to look for it, and maybe the real conspiracy is how we imbue our resolve to continue our search. We may not find the "Fountain Of Youth" , but Florida is a prize in it's own right.

    Bode Bliss

    Checkout this fountain of future youth:



    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.