Good post. I had thought maybe just certain fields of science were corrupted for various reasons such as energy, global warming and evolution. With those, there are specific reasons.
During especially the last three quarters of the 20th century corruption became established as the rule in science, with physics leading all other sciences in this respect. At present physics is the most corrupt science of them all. Why has this happened? During the 19th century the physics community was small and many, if not most, of the physicists were gentlemen with independent means. Although some of them also jeered and insulted other physicists without arguing real physics, just as I have had to endure during the past ten years, and as can be seen on this thread, they did not yet succeed to block manuscripts by means of anonymous, nameless scoundrels. Nonetheless, there has been casualties, like Ludwig Boltzmann who had to suffer under the attacks of the “Energetists” in the same inane manner as I am suffering now under people like Ziggurat, Ben m, so-called “Reality Check” etc. on this thread; and under numerous similar, other second rate physicists which I name in my book.
After the Copenhagen-mafia coerced the physics community to accept their Voodoo interpretation of quantum mechanics, the stage was set. During the second world war, the necessity to have physicists became more clear: e.g. the atom bomb. Thus more physicists were trained and institutes for funding physics research became more. Competition for grant-money became more intense; and the necessity for any grouping of physicists to control a field as soon as possible became an obvious pursuit. If this means ridiculing other ideas and putting knives into the backs of your competitors, so be it. What better way to knife you opposition while remaining anonymous. If the peer review system was really intended to sift good physics from bad physics, then obviously differences in physics should be discussed by gentlemen of integrity who do not need, or want to hide like a criminal behind anonymous masks.
Energy was very early on corrupted by finance and money. A review of Tesla's life is informative in that regard. How is it that the US Supreme court did not award him the patent rights, quite obviously his, for radio and wireless until after his death in the mid-40s as just one example?
Well this is how human beings are and will always be: Self-enrichment, even to the detriment of your fellow human beings, has always been their prime purpose and will always be. If the best option for the future of the world is for a person to close down his/her business, he/she will find irrelevant arguments dressed up as “science”, not to follow the route that is best for all concerned. And the problem is that he/she will always find “useful idiots” to argue for him/her. If it is not in the interest of a grouping of physicists in control of a field to acknowledge that they have been wrong, they will do the same: And as you can see on this thread, the useful idiots are a hand a dozen.
My suspicion is you may be facing obstacles due to your discoveries being related to energy.
In my case it is even worse. The people who are opposing me are physicists who know very well that if I am correct, most of the theoretical physics that have been done since 1927, could be just pure nonsense. Do you think that all those people who are benefiting from the billions of dollars that have been wastefully spent on the Large Hadron Collider, will even consider the possibility that quantum field theory might be just hogwash? No they cannot afford to even contemplate this, since physicists will become the laughing stock of the world: Exactly what they should be at present.
Evolutionism aka Darwinism is understood by the fact it became a sort of pseudo-religion meeting psychological needs for the non-theist and matching prevailing attitudes, of the time when it came into prominence, such as progress, racism, reductionism, etc,....
This should not happen in any discipline whether you argue for Darwinism or for Creationism. These arguments should not be contaminated by any dogmatic beliefs. There are excellent reasons why Darwinism makes a lot of sense, but there also excellent arguments against some aspects of the theory of evolution. Personally I do not care whether I am a product of being created or a product of having descended from an ape. All I am trying to do is to evolve my brain not to reason like an ape, like Ziggurat and Reality Check are still doing on this thread.
Warmism is a similarly pseudo-religious phenomena but also has to do with money and power and a potential great deal of it.
It is a fact that our planet has been slowly warming up during especially the last century: The issue is whether this is just a natural cycle about which we can do nothing, or whether it is primarily caused by human activity of our increasing population on earth. I have not had the time to go into depth on these apposing arguments, and am thus not in a position to decide who is correct and who is wrong. All I know is that I will not blindly follow the self-appointed “experts” who through anonymous peer review distorts the science. Only a fool will blindly only read what the “experts” want him to read: Is that not so Reality Check?
But maybe you are correct. It's just human nature that an anonymous, clubby (closed to but a few) system is inherently flawed.
Unfortunately yes. And this is strong evidence that we did descend from apes and are doomed if we do not evolve further very quickly. The surest way to ensure that we will not make it on planet earth is to get stuck within “expert accepted” dogma; which is the route advocated by people like Reality Check.
