Is the Scientific Community suppressing alternative theories?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.

I am not seeing the "maybe" or "some theory state that" in the first part of your explaination. No amount of authorities can actually have certainty that neutron stars even exist since no laboratory has ever been able to achieve the pressure needed to create "neutronium". In fact the standard models for stars and planets is just theory and not even a great one.

It's perfectly fine to propose a model, even an exotic one. But you shouldn't call the model "reality" especially with unfalsiable models. We can explain geologically how materials move, accrete and emerge, and it's still a lot of inference since we never sampled something farther than 12km from the surface and even then all the temperatures were far out of the expectations from models.

We have to be much more prudent in using words when talking about exotic cosmic theories. "Gold MAY HAVE formed from " is the way you had to express the first sentence. You may even be sure it was due to such a strange phenomenon like neutron star collision, but frakly neither you neither the entire scientific community can prove it beyond the slightest doubt.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.

None of which is about stars made of matter we can't replicate in laboratory and aren't observable in the close vicinity of our system. Even the Solar model is unreliable, go figure how reliable can be the model of a thing we don't really know what is made of.

@OP
My stance on the subject is that the "Scientific Community" gets all the blames, but is not the only player in this problem.
Yes, the academia is nothing else than a job, not even about pride as it was in the far past. Not only it is a job, but most researches are public and require immense funding.
Money+Pride is already enough to cesor most if not all alternative theories, but when the subject is energy then there are ALSO military and security concerns.

There is surely suppression, but it's not only because of the Scientific Community. To be honest I'm not even sure what this therm means. Is it the sum of all researches? is it the sum of all peer-reviewers? All academics? All people interested in science? All people involved in producing scientifi research regardless of their degree? Only PhDs?

Suppression can be done by scientific journals that validates theories and scientific committees that approves funding, so I guess that the community itself is much larger than the few who can control the flow of money to the researches.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

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?

it's amazing how quickly people who denigrate science when it contradicts their beliefs, seize upon any piece of scientific research as 'proof' when it confirms their beliefs

a reply to: BogieSmiles

It started centuries ago. Christoph August Heumann (1681–1764), who is widely considered the founder of the history of philosophy as a modern discipline, had a lot to do with it. The rules changed. Established tradition was denied the right to decide what was and what was not to be considered “philosophy”.

That authority was handed over to the human faculty of rational judgment. Now the stage was set for the guffaw factor. That factor enables any scientist to dismiss or suppress anything they don't like or understand with the simple roll of their eyes or a chuckle.

👣

a reply to: BogieSmiles

Group think. When a scientific hypothesis becomes a meme.

a reply to: aynock

I was neither using that to confirm nor deny anything, just pointing out that there is a growing body of research that counters AGW research, and the AGW research and acceptance seems to be waning. But even so, so-called "scientists" on either side will just keep on truckin', with very few ever allowing the honest research from either side to sway their focus at all.

We'll just call it scientific tunnel vision.

And I'm not denegrating science as a whole, I'm denegrating the scientists who are often proven to not being married to scientific method as much as chasing funding and approval of the "consensus."

ETA: Take, for example, a "scientist" from The Creation Museum--he tried to pass of a hat that was left in very hard, moving water in an underground mine for something like 50 years as being evidence of how quickly a fossil can form. But anyone with half a brain knows that hard-water deposits are just a crust encasing the actual object and not a fossil--and certainly not evidence of the rapid nature of fossilization.

But he'll probably never change his view on that, and he probably still calls it a fossil to this day. But he's wrong, and it's for an agenda, truth be told, money, because AIG and their Creation Museum want to spread "the word"--but for a profit, of course.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

it was a general comment rather than being directed specifically at you

obviously science isn't immune to human foibles - scientists are human after all - but this is recognised and safeguarded against by the scientific method

if there's a better method of establishing what's really going on in the world then i'm not aware of it

people are entitled to their opinions and have the right to express them obviously - but imo criticism of science should be specific, most importantly, it has to be 'scientific' to be meaningful

general statements like 'scientist are this' and 'scientists are that' don't really get us anywhere

a reply to: BogieSmiles


Scientific-minded people will (ironically) robotically suppress anything that isn't officially sanctioned by their holy men. I'm personally not into superstition at all but I don't see it as a threat 90% of the time. I don't need everyone to believe exactly the same thing I do as long as they're content to let me believe what I wish. Live and let live.