Originally posted by Donoso
I find it hilarious that you act like scientists find themselves to be experts when it's the media and paranoia prone folks that label them such as
to try and prove an ad hoc point.
Which does not explain where science establishments or their power to suppress certain areas of discover or research comes from. Why have you chosen
to believe that scientist do not consider themselves to be well versed in their various fields and why do you think they will not defend the
convention they were taught in university. In fact why don't you seem to be aware of the fact that they do?
Science is all about change.
Science may be but the various government and private funded science establishments are most certainly not.
* Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
* Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
* Baird, John L. (television camera)
* Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
* Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
* Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
* Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
* Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
* Galvani (bioelectricity)
* Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
* Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
* Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
* Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
* Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
* Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
* Goethe (Land color theory)
* Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
* Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
* Lister, J (sterilizing)
* Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
* Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
* Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
* McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
* Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
* Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
* Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
* Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
* Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
* Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
* Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
* Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
* Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
* Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
* J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
* Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
* Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
* Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
* Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
* Zweig, George (quark theory)
* Ball lightning (lacking a theory, it was long dismissed as retinal afterimages)
* Catastrophism (ridicule of rapid Earth changes, asteroid mass extinctions)
* Child abuse (before 1950, doctors were mystified by "spontaneous" childhood bruising)
* Cooperation or altruism between animals (versus Evolution's required competition)
* Instantaneous meteor noises (evidence rejected because sound should be delayed by distance)
* Mind-body connection (psychoneuroimmunology, doctors ridiculed any emotional basis for disease)
* Perceptrons (later vindicated as Neural Networks)
* Permanent magnet levitation ("Levitron" shouldn't have worked)
www.amasci.com...
And that's a very short list of some of the major discoveries/breakthroughs that were held up due to the machinations of science organizations or
individuals.
It's a never ending study of how exactly the universe works.
If it's so never ending why do so many scientist spend the majority of their lives defending theories that are in the vast majority of instances just
plain wrong?
You don't think Stephen Hawking's "ego" was hurt after he proclaimed he had been all wrong about black holes?
So how often do we hear them admit they are in fact wrong and when is he going to admit to all the other mistakes he has made or supported?
What about how Einstein was dead certain that Quantum Mechanics was doomed to fail?
It HAS failed. Even Einstein got something right without having to steal the idea!.
hink Newtonian laws of gravity are obsolete because of general relativity? Newtonian laws of gravity are pretty damn accurate in certain
scales. However, they simply didn't work after a certain point.
And they do not work at certain scales because they are not really accurate or useful. Even a broken clock is right twice a day and if we manage
theories that corresponds to only certain subsets of data we should employ it as practically possible while moving on to advance or replace it.
How about the very recent and widespread acceptance of the multiverse? The general idea existed back with Sci-Fi parallel universes. Past ideas
and knowledge get expanded on and refined over the ages.
So now we have evidence for multi verses? Right.... Are we discussing science here or not?
It's ludicrous to believe that with enough empirical data to form a test that can be verified by anyone in the Scientific community they'll
say:
"Nope! Even though there's ample proof to support your hypothesis, we're going to sit this one out!"
And yet the foundation of modern electrodynamics is horribly flawed and based on acceptance of dipoles as perpetual motion machines. This obviously
does not stop the science establishment from branding those who talk about vacuum energy extraction 'perpetual motion nuts' as most of them are
either to ignorant to understand the inherent contradiction they have accepted or simply do not care to consider anything that might undermine their
standing.
You've got to be kidding! People would be jumping on the bandwagon left and right, the amount of funding one could obtain at that point would
be well enough for an extraordinary amount of investigation.
And vested interest just do not exist and combustion engines are the best solution for cars and the like! It's just fascinating what sort of
fanaticism and scorn proper indoctrinate can yield in the university trained mandarin classes.
It's almost as if you believe that every single scientist goes through a process where their brains are melded into a single drone like
state and they follow the commands of some evil overlord. That's not the case, I assure you.
Science have advanced over the centuries so clearly the indoctrination is not always effective in preventing some establishment scientist from
thinking that they are in fact supposed to advance their fields in any which way they choose.
You'll never find a more interesting discussion then at a BBQ party where the crowd is made up of physicists, biologists, and the occasional
mathematician. Not too many though, they're a'tad nuts.
]
And that only proves that they are by no means stupid and know exactly how to play the ball and keep their jobs and standing in the community and
class they have decided to serve for personal benefit. Sure most of them may not go into science knowing or understanding what will happen but what
they do not know is that did not manage to get into college or university by accident and that they are in fact the type of people the establishment
believes it can properly indoctrinate to further its ends. Those who go their by simply being oblivious are in for a rude shock the moment they arrive
at conclusions that do not suit the corporate/ruling class interest at which point all their standing and credentials are unlikely to save their
careers.
Stellar
