Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The future that never was


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Bot

UM-Bot

    News, media and articles

  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • Beep Boop

Posted 09 March 2009 - 09:59 AM


William B Stoecker: Some of us are old enough to remember the nineteen fifties, when people still believed in something called the Wonderful World of the Future.An avid science fiction reader, I could hardly wait for that wonderful world of teardrop-shaped cars with gas turbine engines, electric monorails, and immaculate cities with futuristic architecture. Atomic power, we were promised, would be too cheap to meter, living standards would be luxurious, and the work week short. All of this would be a reality by the far future time, of, say, 1975. Some engineers and professional science writers, who should have known better, even maintained that technological progress was exponential, that each year we progressed at a faster and faster rate, and long before the end of the twentieth century we would have cures for virtually all diseases, including the aging process, access to unlimited safe, cheap, and non-polluting energy, and interstellar space flight. Even as late as the Apollo Moon landings, NASA officials confidently predicted manned flights to Mars by the nineteen eighties. Controlled hydrogen fusion was just around the corner.
    
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

This is an official comment thread for a main site news story, article or video.
Please keep comments civil and on topic.
Thank you.

#2    AmbientSoul

AmbientSoul

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Joined:19 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:chicago

  • Your thoughts mould reality. We live inside God's mind. We are one.

Posted 09 March 2009 - 10:57 AM

great article... one can only imagine the suppressed technologies and ideas that could have revolutionized modern life and thought.
Its too bad men like Tesla are never given proper credit.

Who is John Galt?

#3    Ashyne

Ashyne

    Atheist & Skeptic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 09 March 2009 - 02:04 PM

The only future is Steam Punk.

~He who makes a beast of himself removes himself from the pain of being human~

#4    jbondo

jbondo

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:behind you

Posted 09 March 2009 - 04:20 PM

Unfortunately the majority is suckered by science. I mean if people can be herded to subway and conditioned to believe they make a good sub, imagine what kind of clout a scientist has. Of course it is somewhat of a catch 22. If they don't make it up as they go along and trick the masses into swallowing all the BS then they'd lose their funding and we all know that liberals don't like real work, especially when they have a sweet research gig.

In other news: The media suddenly realizes that Obama uses teleprompters for everything (unlike presidents of the past). You mean all those mesmerizing speeches didn't flow off his golden tongue like a messianic river? I can't hear you, I can't hear you, la, la, la, la (holding fingers in ears).


#5    Wintermute

Wintermute

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:07 Feb 2006

Posted 09 March 2009 - 09:48 PM

I teach science fiction literature at the college level; I refer to this sort of phenomenon as an "obsolete future"  original.gif

And in sci-fi, the future becomes obsolete almost every day.


#6    Oen Anderson

Oen Anderson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montana

  • We are all individuals and we are all special in our own unique way which really makes us quite ordinary!

Posted 11 March 2009 - 03:31 AM

Quote

- Post removed -

I think some of you are being to hard on Mr. Stoecker.  He has many valid points, which if you were not brain washed at the elite run universities you might be able to see.  But some people can be blinded by their education.  Things fifth graders learn today are totally different from what they were taught twenty years ago.  I was told not to be afraid of people with cancer because it wasn't contagious, which we now know is not true, in fact most cancers are caused by viruses.  It seems we have become to smart for our own good, or as I have said before, humans arn't really very smart at all.  They are very cleaver, but as a whole, not very smart.  If avenues that should be explored are ignored, that is ignorance.  I think a good case for technological suppression is the Tucker automobile.  More effort was brought to bear to stop that car from being mass produced than it would have taken to compete with it.  Someone didn't want their apple cart upset.  We need to turn over more apple carts to dump the rotten apples out and start over.


#7    OldTimeRadio

OldTimeRadio

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,527 posts
  • Joined:30 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Posted 11 March 2009 - 07:40 AM

"....long before the end of the twentieth century we would have cures for virtually all diseases...."

     My own physician informed me a year or so back that "the 'I'm sorry, but you only have six months to live'  malignancies of the 1950s and 1960s now have a prognosis of 11 to 20 years.

     "And," he went on, "the next great advances in treatment are coming in three or four years, at most, rather than 11 to 20."

    Personally, I'd call that progress.


#8    brothers

brothers

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Joined:10 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 March 2009 - 02:34 AM

Yes. Its a great article and I remember those promises of the 50's. Makes me old to just think about it. But yes we have many new gagets and whatnots these days that we wouldn't have dreamed of in a thousand years. Now we cannot seem to live without them. I see better things in the future and hopefully I'll see some of them as well. New stem cell research looks very good and in a few years will be even better. Think of all the people it would help. That would be a miracle in and of itself. Ofcourse we will still have many of the diseases we presently have these days and just maybe a lot of them would be taken cared of. Hopefully. The ones that will notice these changes the best would be the older generation who started seeing these things develop when we didn't have too many of these changes. Now, ofcourse, the younger generation will take it all for granted and they were born into the changes. It suprises me to hear them say wow or itsn't it exciting to have these new toys. They will take it for granted. I suppose it comes with the territory. (age that is).


#9    OldTimeRadio

OldTimeRadio

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,527 posts
  • Joined:30 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Posted 13 March 2009 - 02:31 AM

According to the Futurists who created the World's Fair of 1939-1940, every home in the United States and Canada would be equipped with picture 'phones by 1960 at the very latest

     It seems our Futurists had omitted one necessary factor from their prophetic equations. They'd neglected to ascertain whether people WANTED picture 'phones.


#10    behaviour???

behaviour???

    Saru's Slave

  • Member
  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UAE

  • Its is when aspirations come in toe with destiny, are great men manifested

Posted 13 March 2009 - 05:17 PM

It is sad that these people dont get appreciation like MindFire said
Thanks
B???

Posted Image


#11    OldTimeRadio

OldTimeRadio

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,527 posts
  • Joined:30 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Posted 13 March 2009 - 09:43 PM

Copasetic on Mar 13 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

Honestly, cancer is contagious? (shakes head sadly).


     That one's been argued back and forth for decades. There's a hypothesis that many of the collective diseases categorized under the name "cancer" are caused by virii, and those have to originate somewhere and spread in some danner.



#12    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,230 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 13 March 2009 - 10:28 PM

Thread cleaned

Several posts from this thread have been removed, to those to whom this applies can we stick to comments or constructive criticism about the actual article being discussed please.


#13    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 March 2009 - 06:07 PM

OldTimeRadio on Mar 13 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

That one's been argued back and forth for decades. There's a hypothesis that many of the collective diseases categorized under the name "cancer" are caused by virii, and those have to originate somewhere and spread in some danner.


I don't even know where to start with this.

Cancer simply describes a state of replication for a cell lineage. How and why the lineage ends up this way, is the product of many different things.

Cancers aren't contagious. A virus which breaks specific cellular fail-safes can be contagious (like HPV), but those are not an exhaustive cause of cancer. No one thing is, because cells are redundant.


#14    OldTimeRadio

OldTimeRadio

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,527 posts
  • Joined:30 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:53 AM

Copasetic on Mar 15 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

I don't even know where to start with this.

Cancer simply describes a state of replication for a cell lineage. How and why the lineage ends up this way, is the product of many different things.

Cancers aren't contagious. A virus which breaks specific cellular fail-safes can be contagious (like HPV), but those are not an exhaustive cause of cancer. No one thing is, because cells are redundant.


     The theory (I did not say that I necessarily believe it) is that cancer virii (if they exist!) are relatively harmless until a weakening of the immune system permits them to activate and multiply.

     But it's worth noting that there do seem to be "cancer houses" and even "cancer                                neighborhoods" where malignancy rates far outpace statistical norms.

Edited by OldTimeRadio, 16 March 2009 - 03:01 AM.


#15    sevendaydemon

sevendaydemon

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, United Kingdom

Posted 26 June 2009 - 07:58 PM

Ahh this old chestnut.  If they were oh so very confident about the progress we would make by the 80's, and as far as the general public is aware, no such immense progress was made by that decade, that either tells us they hit a big snag, or that they did indeed do what they promised and decided there was no need for everyone to know.

And because keeping big secrets seems to be the only thing any of this world's governments can do properly, i wouldn't be surprised if we've already done half the things they were looking forward to in the previous century.

Good cannot exist without Evil, for what would a Good man be if Evil was not there to test him?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users