Needless to say, none of this ever happened. Of course, there has been some progress; automobile engines are a little more efficient and less polluting, tires are less prone to failure, materials technology has advanced considerably, and computer and electronic technology has advanced quite rapidly. And social ills and political decisions (like our failure to invest in nuclear power plants) are hardly the fault of engineers and scientists. But we still age at the same rate, and blind and paralyzed people continue to suffer, and the "war" on cancer has been an expensive failure. Cars still use the old internal combustion engine. Billions of dollars have been spent on controlled hydrogen fusion research, and after well over five decades of effort, the highly paid hot fusion researchers have yet to create a sustained fusion reaction or come anywhere near the break even point where their ridiculously expensive contraptions could produce as much energy as is put into them. Even many of the researchers admit that it may take another fifty years to make hot fusion an economical power source. Some decades ago recombinant DNA technology was developed, and seemed to hold out the bright promise of vastly more productive agriculture, or perhaps even crops that could be grown in sea water. None of this has happened, but we have had (coincidence?) a whole host of new diseases and more deadly forms of old diseases: legionnaire's disease, toxic shock syndrome, flesh eating bacteria, herpes, aids, ebola virus, etc. Even computer and automation technology, in the absence of corresponding advances in other areas, serves mainly to increase unemployment.
Meanwhile, a host of promising technologies have been abandoned, ignored, and underfunded, and in some cases almost certainly actively suppressed. Rigid airships were not developed after the Hindenburg disaster, even though they can take advantage of economies of scale, and, with modern technological improvements, fill a niche in transportation. Much the same happened with autogyros, the original short take off and landing aircraft. More recently, in 1989, two lowly chemists in Utah developed so called cold fusion, creating on a shoe string budget something the hot fusion boys (who promptly ridiculed Fleischman and Pons, the inventors) have yet to do. The excess energy developed has been verified by numerous other researchers, and, in 2002, Mosier-Boss and Szpak, researchers at the US Navy Space and Naval Warfare Center in San Diego began researching cold fusion, and, in 2006, found evidence that it produced neutrons, a finding verified by two other teams. Stanford Research Institute has verified the excess energy production in over fifty experiments. Some researchers claim that the energy can be produced using ordinary, cheap light water rather than the expensive heavy water, or deuterium oxide, previously used. Only a few researchers have detected neutrons or found evidence of helium production, and no one has detected gamma radiation, so many conventional scientists, finding this to be inexplicable, have ridiculed the whole idea, saying, in effect, that if they can't understand it, it cannot be real. This is mind boggling arrogance. So we have wasted two priceless decades and still don't know if this underfunded technology can ever be an economical large scale power source, or even what is really going on in the cold fusion reactors.
It is the same sad story with other technologies that have never been developed. There is evidence that some cancers are caused, at least in part, by viruses and even microbial infections, but this evidence is largely ignored by the status quo elite. It is known that simple heat can shrink many tumors, and also can be used to treat colds and flues, but almost nothing has been done in the way of further research. Townsend Brown and others have demonstrated what appears to be gravity control (and possibly "free" energy) and have mostly been ignored. Other researchers have claimed to have developed better cancer treatments, new energy technologies, and various other discoveries, but are routinely ridiculed or ignored. Shouldn't some of these ideas at least be looked at open mindedly?
And is the problem only with applied technology, or is there some deeper problem at the heart of modern science? For years physicists have struggled to reconcile quantum gravity and relativistic gravity with various Grand Unified Theories. Relativity and quantum mechanics are the twin pillars of modern physics, and quantum mechanics, at least, has proven highly predictive, leading to the development of lasers and solid state electronics. Yet the two theories do not quite "mesh," and attempts to reconcile them with ever more complex and incomprehensible (even to many physicists) theories have been unsuccessful. String theory was supposed to do the trick, but is already being replaced by membrane theory, which has yet to be proven.The farthest galaxies seem to be receding at a rate faster than predicted. The speed of galactic rotation seems to require the existence of dark matter and even dark energy, but no one has a clue as to what these might be. Even a well known phenomenon like the Earth's magnetic field is a complete mystery, despite the arrogant habit of media scientists of claiming that it is produced by "currents" in the Earth's core. As I pointed out in my book, there is absolutely no evidence to support this; a poorly conceived hypotheis is being falsely presented as an established fact. Add dishonesty to arrogance. No one knows why Earth's magnetic poles are offset from the axis of rotation, or why they wander about, or why, periodically, they die out and reform with reversed polarity. Earth has a nickel-iron core, yet the Sun (hydrogen plasma core), Jupiter (metallic hydrogen), neutron stars, and black holes all have magnetic fields. All of these objects also have angular momentum. Might I suggest a simple idea that might explain at least some of this? If the Earth had a net negative charge (and why not?) it would have the field we observe. But science is increasingly not open to new ideas.
A certain conservatism is necessary for science to work at all. New ideas should be thoroughly proven before we abandon old ideas. But many scientists tend to go far beyond this, and are the high priests (like Catholic priests, they refer to the rest of us as "laymen") of a new orthodoxy as intolerant as the Medieval Church. They have an entire world view, a set of assumptions they accept as axiomatic, beyond question, which exposes a big lie at the very foundation of modern science, for these people pride themselves on accepting nothing as axiomatic, but on questioning every assumption. Most scientists are atheists and believe absolutely in philosophical materialism and logical positivism. They refuse even to look at the evidence for the paranormal or ufos. Any suggestion that our species, or our civilization, might be older than the accepted age is ridiculed, and archaeologists and geologists have had their careers ruined for presenting evidence to the contrary. The Darwinian view of evolution, despite its numerous weaknesses, is the only one permitted in our schools and universities, and intelligent design, despite its numerous strengths, is not give equal time, or, indeed, any time at all. So much for free speech and academic freedom.
Science is like a tower built on a false foundation, compounded by mistakes or wrong turns later on. No wonder that technology is lagging. Understand that there is nothing at all wrong with the scientific method as preached; the problem is that, as shown above, it is not practiced. Many scientists, by their own definition, are not scientists at all. But how did all of this come about? Science as we know it today was first developed by England's Royal Society, founded in 1660. Today it gets thirty million pounds annually from the British government and is part of the British Science Council. It was founded at the same time as Freemasonry, a cult that almost certainly represents a resurfacing of the Knights Templar, first emerged. The founders of the Royal Society included Masons and astrologers and alchemists, men like Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Christopher Wren, Robert Moray, and Isaac Newton. In other words, the leaders practiced ritual magic, but scientists soon began preaching atheism and materialism. Sound familiar? That's what the global elites do today.
But not all scientists are narrow minded, arrogant, or dishonest. Increasingly, scientists and informed laymen are challenging orthodoxy and pointing out where modern phyics (not to mention evolutionary theory) may have gone wrong. Relativity and quantum mechanics rest largely on Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell built upon the earlier work of Michael Faraday to develop equations showing the relationship of electric and magnetic fields, charge, and current. He predicted that electromagnetic waves can travel through space, which was later verified by Heinrich Hertz. Maxwell's equations were supposedly written in something called quaternion algebra, but in 1884 Oliver Heaviside rewrote them in vector algebra, and reduced Maxwell's eight equations to four. Some researchers believe that this led to a subtle misunderstanding that began to lead modern physics in a wrong direction. Maxwell, by the way, was a Christian, not a materialist. Michelson and Morley in 1887 supposedly proved that the luminiferous aether, a medium theorized as the carrier of light and electromagnetism, does not exist. Reasoning that as our planet moves through the aether light would have to move at different speeds in different directions, they used an interferometer, which supposedly found no evidence of an aether. Yet Michelson himself never fully rejected the aether concept nor did Einstein, and quantum physics today postulates the existence of a sea of virtual particles, which is an aether under a different name. In addition, for relativity to work, space has to bend through time, and nothingness cannot bend. Something has to do the bending, implying a substance or structure to space...an aether. Some maverick researchers today believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed and that there is some kind of dynamic aether.
In fact, any number of people are mounting serious challenges to orthodoxy. People like Tom Bearden and Henry Moray have proposed alternatives, and Paul La Violette of the Starburst Foundation, developer of subquantum physics, has even proposed that the universe is infinite and not expanding. The idea of a finite (bounded or unbounded) universe is supposedly proven by Olber's paradox (an infinite and eternal universe would be too hot to sustain life and the night sky would be bright) and the red shift of distant galaxies supposedly proves that the universe is expanding. La Violette has developed a new version of the old steady state theories, suggesting that light loses energy and is red shifted by space itself in the low gravity regions between the galaxies, and that energy is actually produced in high gravity regions, which could explain the shortage of solar neutrinos and the anomolous high temperatures of the interiors of Earth, Jupiter, and some of the other planets. Obviously, all of these theories cannot be true; just as obviously, it is time for a change.
William B Stoecker