Is the Scientific Community suppressing alternative theories?

Over the several years that I have been a member, I have conducted several threads in the Science forums, about an alternative layman level hobby-model of the cosmology of the universe, which suggests an alternative to the standard cosmological model, Big Bang Theory (General Relativity), and alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. There is a little interest, but when it comes to the details, there is not much discussion; people become quiet.

My experience at the outside dedicated Science forums, is that there is a clear suppression of discussion of logical alternative ideas, and an aggressive effort to derail an such topic that begins to get any active traction. That is the conspiracy that I want any interested members to weigh in on.

Are the members of scientific academia, and professionals in the scientific community, being sincere? Or is there an unspoken agenda employed by those who benefit professionally by waving off logical alternatives, in favor of complex theoretical physics and related experiments that require huge investments to investigate, and that provide many of those professionals with grant money and paid positions. Is it a conspiracy, or self-interest, or both?

Yes materialistic interpretation of science is holding back other ideas from my point of view.

I am gonna tell you my view on it:

From my point of view Quantum Mechanics and the probability wave seen in the double slit experiment is connected to the concept of Synchronicity where 2 space time events are connected to each other and cause and effect sometime can be hard to decide.

Synchronicity as found in for instance 11:11 (weird number patterns appearing that cannot be explained with normal randomness so probability seem to be skewed) phenomena that many people including myself have noticed.

I think high level synchronicity is connected to meditation and can even thru synchronicity sometimes create telepathic instances. I also think that the body can be energized thru meditation/"binural beats" in a way that can be measured by science if they wanted to that would explain why people who use reiki to relax other people can manifest heat/cold/vibrations in another body without touching them.

And if science wanted to leave the material idea and really measure spirituality in the body they would and find proof of it.

I do believe in the end questioning everything without preconceived dogma will lead us to a higher level knowledge that is beyond what religions and science today make models off going to the source of "what is" no matter what it is.

You got that right OP.

I believe people do not want others to challenge what they know. So they reinforce the consensus of the time. I doubt if we will ever really know how the universe was formed. The evidence for things is structured to prove what they think is right, excluding many other alternative theories. Evidence has to be accepted to be real. Misinterpretation of evidence has been going on for a long time and some of the fundamentals from long ago need to be examined. Much of our science has been created from flawed philosophy that never really had appropriate evidence to back it in the first place.

It is actually getting a little better though, if you tried to dispute something thirty years ago nobody was listening, and there was no way to prove anything, even the things that were said to be true at the time. There was no real evidence to properly back up what they were teaching as real sometimes.

originally posted by: rickymouse
There was no real evidence to properly back up what they were teaching as real sometimes.

Worth repeating.

Too much theory and extrapolation based on very little tangible evidence. I'm loving that recent topic on an iron core at the center of an iron core in the center of the Earth. I'll 'buy in' to that one right about the time they produce sample material. LOL

Oh ... and veins of gold were deposited in rock thrown out from an exploding sun millions of light years away.

a reply to: Snarl

Funny how something needs evidence to prove it wrong when initially it had no real or applicable evidence to form the theory. Another words, to challenge something that never was real, you need to prove it is not real only using practices to create the evidence that verify their results. It doesn't matter if something is double blind or a hundred blind if you are using the same test and parameters.

Next thing to examine is whether it is even important or relevant. Does it matter how the universe was born? not really yet science thinks it is. It would be more important to cook your dinner in my mind, but you don't gain prestige or wealth from cooking some great lasagna for your dinner.

a reply to: BogieSmiles

The process of science is reductionist and critical.

a reply to: Snarl

Gold was formed from Neutron Star collisions, the vast majority of the planet's precious metals - such as gold and platinum sank towards the core when the earth was forming. In fact, there are enough precious metals in the core to cover the entire surface of Earth with a four-metre thick layer.

Precious metals are abundant in Earth's silicate mantle and it is thought it comes from a cataclysmic meteorite shower that hit Earth after the core formed. The load of meteorite gold was added to the mantle instead of being lost to the deep interior.

Gold veins are formed from geological forces by mineral deposition from hot fluids flowing through cracks deep in Earth’s crust. It has been discovered that eartquakes can make the process occur almost instantaneously which is part of why the California gold rush was possible.


here is a paper on it www.nature.com...

So in short, gold is formed from neutron stars and gold veins are formed from geological forces. All that information and much more is available through the interface portal in front of you with use of a search engine.

a reply to: Grimpachi

And the probability of impact is ... ???

I think this is definatly happening, I have talked to some who have had thier work destroyed and lab books stolen because someone doesnt like the research they may have been working on.

a reply to: Snarl

What does that have to do with it can you elaborate?

"Or is there an unspoken agenda employed by those who benefit professionally"

I have known a few people in scientific research who were told right off the bat when they were hired to not be too gung-ho in finding solutions to their line of research. They didn't want to discover any breakthroughs for what the government was paying them to discover, because their paychecks would stop coming.

And if they did make any big discoveries, that they would not be telling anyone about it.

This obviously doesn't always happen in every research lab and university, but it has happened and still is.

a reply to: Grimpachi

What I'm saying is that there is some stuff, that for all intents and purposes, is unknowable. We wind up with 'flavor of the century' theories to the detriment of all others ... what I interpret to be the pretense of this thread.

a reply to: Snarl

There is no doubt that there are unknowable things, however there are a great deal of knowable things that are easy to find out from the products of science and technology like computers and internet.

a reply to: BogieSmiles

science is about real world demonstration - internet imagineering will never be able to compete

there's nothing scientist like more than proving other scientists wrong - it's the best way to make a name for yourself

a reply to: BogieSmiles

It is called self censoring and protecting one's careers

a reply to: BogieSmiles

Science is little different than the area of religion. What it wants to believe is sacred and the rest is beneath contempt. There is no better topic to illustrate that manner of using "science" as a put down weapon than with the UFO question. We have no better example of that methodology than in the person of Carl Sagan. For decades, he beat up on advocates of the UFO phenomena by hauling out narrow, but quite logical, scientific reasoning to deny what thousands and thousand of everyday people and equipment had witnessed or captured in some record of data. Basically, we were told time and time again to believe him and the rest of his scientific cronies that UFOs were not real phenomena a therefore we were either wrong, mistaken, liers, or worse, crazies.

It is my belief that that one single, gigantic lie about ETs being in our midsts has fueled wave after compounding wave of fraudulent, conspiratory acts that are the hallmark of how government operates upon its citizenry today. It has betrayed our trust in so many ways that the average US citizen that keeps tabs on the actions and antics of government today is wary of TPTB and has little faith in the entire system. To argue that they were protecting us from a larger, horrible to some, truth is not a valid reason to cause the corruption of the basic true meaning of Science and our trust in the entire, related, system.

a reply to: BogieSmiles

Long story short, yes.

Well this makes me think of things like... the length of the Copernican revolution... things like the Vatican officially recognizing Galileo's work in 1993...

I know that is science versus religion but I think the same battles persist in the scientific/academic community itself over some things - I don't have any evidence just ma' feelings. I like to think that scientists are more likely to let go of things.

If it happens in one place, one time, it can happen in another place, another time - when people build entire lives and reputations on science I think it can have the potential to lead to the same rigidity. It's what reminds me of the same problem in religion that possibly plagues certain areas of science - ego investment.

Cheesy but the Men in Black line via agent K comes to mind "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Who knows what some know now that won't become established for years to come.

a reply to: BogieSmiles

I would venture to say what you are experiencing goes far past the field of science and into the mainstream of everyday life.

I think it has much to do with the "crabs in a barrel" view of how crabs, and humans, will pull each other down in an advance to help themselves (and at their own demise).

And, honestly, it occurs here as well on ATS. There is a certain faction here who will throw the old "We've already PROVEN this is impossble!" book at you the moment you dare breathe a word of something other than the party line openly in public forum. I've noticed that often this kind of action takes place in the overlap of the forums of "science" and those of UFO's. Something of an coincidence, no?

a reply to: BogieSmiles

I think that it depends on the science, but in every aspect, there is always that loathsome self-interest that comes along with scientific inquiry--but often, rightly so. These scientists often spend years, decades, or even lifetimes on one topic, so it's not surprising that they will do nearly anything to support the time, effort, and dedication involved.

But, this is where things go wrong, because with an underlying self-interest, there often creates a bias to want to prove a hypothesis correct, or to second-guess and sometimes skew data in order for it to fall in line with predictions. The AGW climate 'scientists' come to mind in that regard, as do GMO 'scientists' and the like. And behind all of that, there is a race for funding for new research and experiments (generally, a lot of it is tax dollars), lobbyists trying to alter laws and policies (and get said tax dollars), and the third parties behind it all that make millions and millions of dollars.

Some of the things are, IMO, conspiracies to keep certain scientific inquiries quelled that contradict the "accepted" point of view, and others I think are just that some of the contradictions don't hold up to initial scrutiny and aren't pursued further by very many people.

Either way, though, I think science has been poisoned by a mixture of greed, politics, and conspiracies, and is a bastard of what it once was--at least in the way that it is used on polarizing, ideological debates.

ETA: Take this new thread, for example, that has a link to a LiveScience story that links undersea volcanic activity to warming of the planet, not AGW, and shows that the whole of earth is a cyclical machine where one thing causes another and another and another over time. But do you think studies like this cause AGW researchers to comtemplate other possibilites, or do they just keep on truckin' while more and more research is starting to point away from man being an attributable cause of earth's warming and cooling cycles?