the Editor of The Virtual Times
Indeed, orthodoxy has a black record with respect to energy. When Mayer advanced the conservation of energy law, orthodoxy hounded him unmercifully. He was universally ridiculed as the very epitome of a fool. He lost his job and suffered a nervous breakdown. Then years later toward the end of his life, scientists came to accept the conservation of energy as a most useful tool that dramatically simplified much of their analyses. So then science began to laud Mayer. There are a thousand other such examples; suffice it to say that "big science" is a bureaucracy and a "bell-shaped distribution curve" just like any other large group of people. Some scientists are near-angels. Others are near-devils. The vast majority are neither, but are just ordinary persons doing a special kind of job. In the scientific bureaucracy, however, the manipulative scientists scurry, slash, and manipulate their way toward the top. So the leadership of any big bureaucracy __ including the scientific bureaucracy __ is always rife with such near-scalawags and power-hungry individuals. Scientists are not exceptions to the same human weaknesses that we all evidence. If you really want to see jealousy, backbiting, and fierce "back-room dealing" and power-struggling, just get into a university research environment! But because the "power merchants" of any bureaucracy always fiercely resist any challenge to their position or superiority, big science has always fiercely resisted anything truly revolutionary. And today they also enlist the power of the state to enforce their dictums. We will devote one of our future columns to pointing out some glaring examples of persecution of independent researchers by big science. It is an area that all unorthodox researchers should be well-aware of. The world of science does not run by sweet reason and lofty ideals; that is just the dogma. It runs strictly by "who's going to be the big monkey," just like everything else. Primate dominance is still a dictum of the functioning of all bureaucratic human systems.The free energy researchers are not working on the so-called "perpetual motion machine," where a closed system is erroneously stated to produce more output than must be put into it to operate it. That old saw is actually a red herring that dogmatic scientists use to vilify free energy researchers. It is a lie that they have also successfully sold to the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of modern physics already knows that there does not exist a single closed system in the universe, anywhere. In particular, every physical system is continuously "open" to the violent exchange of energy with the surrounding vacuum. It's just that most systems are in local equilibrium in these flow exchanges, except for minuscule gating accomplished for such things as the Lamb shift, etc.
By analogy it's something like this. The free energy researcher is standing by the banks of a mighty, rushing river with breathtaking falls, turbulent areas, etc. Big Science is begrudgingly admitting that, yes, there is a river there, but it is an insane delusion to think that you can tap that energy. The free energy researcher is saying that, well, if I can build a gating sluice a little distance upstream, perhaps I can divert a small portion of the river's flow downstream to my waterwheel, and power my mill. The orthodox scientist then vilifies the free energy researcher for even having such a heretical thought. In fact, says the orthodox researcher, any fool can see that the laws of nature force the river's flow to stay firmly in its banks, because it is a closed system, and Moses brought that law down off the mountain with him on a special stone tablet. Then he adds all the other smug remarks such as, "If it could be done, then we at MIT and Harvard and Caltech would already have done it!" So until the orthodox scientist develops a little less dogma and a little more common sense, and learns the difference between a scientific discussion and a dogfight, the free energy researcher can hardly communicate with him.
|
|
Comments may be sent to the Editor of The Virtual Times |