ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 116 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

Energy Science

Energy21

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs

KeelyNet

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.

Panacea-BOCAF

QVac_Eng

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
Alternative Energy News
KeelyNet_News
NextEnergyNews
PESWiki/News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy2000
Free_Energy
Greenglow
JLNLabs
KeelyNet
NuEnergy
OverUnity
Sarfatti_Physics
Sweet-VTA
Tapten
Tomorrow-energy
Vortex
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine
radioioAmbient

Scientific Doubt
Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 @ 00:51:45 EDT by rob

Science Bibhas R. De has written an excellent article on the inner workings of the Nobel Prize Committe that hands out the Nobel Prizes.

It is interesting to find that the foundations - the scientific community hold on to so dearly - don't really hold up that well to scrutiny.

THE PRIORY OF THE DUNGEON

 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by rob


Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Scientific Doubt" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Scientific Doubt (Score: 1)
by Koen on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 @ 01:57:23 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla
Though I agree that the Nobel price has nothing to do with science, De's conclusion that magnetic field is equivalent to mass is wrong of course. Secondly, why should Myron Evans be the new guru of out-of-the-box thinking (as suggested by De)? Bo Lehnert only stated that the theory of classical ElectroMagnetism is still subject of much debate, and Evans is only ONE of the many researchers in this field. Evans has exaggerated greatly the importance of an hypothetical longitudinal magnetic field component in the photon: "this explains the free energy movement and gravity, and Tesla's findings, etc etc". I don't agree with Evans at all.
Thirdly, Bo Lehnert has published his very own papers on this subject, but De does not refer to Lehnert's papers. I doubt if De has read Lehnert's papers on vacuum polarization.

Nevertheless, De's point of view about the Nobel price committee is totally justified, if you ask me.
The Nobel committee is totally secretive about the MOTIVATION and SUBJECTIVITY behind the selection of winners, therefore the price is absolutely meaningless. Science should be an OPEN debate. This bullshit price even means a great threat to the objectivity of science, because the importance of the work of Nobel price winners is overstated, while the scientific work of others can be ignored, and this ends the necessary scientific debate. The press pays lip service to the Nobel Committee without any understanding of scientific matters.
De more or less proves his opinion by examining the "winning" paper on the strong force, that can be an example of "HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS".

It is time for active debate by many out-of-the-box thinkers, since the Nobel committee has boxed in science in restrictive and bad theories. What goes around comes around.



 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.