What was the opine of the scientific community when antimatter was first theorized in the late 19th century? and how many years passed between the first theory and the observation of the positron?
I understand, these are not the same thing or in any way related. The point I'm making is, just because the scientific community isn't looking or researching something, does not mean it can not or does not exist.
As cold fusion events demonstrate, modern science is ruled by conformity, not the search for scientific truth. If you challenge the beliefs of your peers in the scientific community, you are not going to get published. This is how today's system of conventional "scientific Research") suppresses the emergence of new ideas and new theories that could produce true breakthroughs in our understanding of health, medicine, science and the nature of the universe.
The science that's published in medical and scientific journals today may indeed be solid science, but it in no way represents all of the good scientific research being conducted today. There are independent thinkers, scientists, pioneers and outright scientific rebels who are doing extraordinary research, yet never get published. Even worse, their research gets systematically ridiculed by the old school guardians of the scientific community. One of the most obvious examples of this is the team of Fleischmann and Pons, who are, of course, the fathers of "cold fusion," which is now better known as "low-energy nuclear reactions."
Cold fusion is still laughed at by people in the mainstream who are too ignorant to realize that cold fusion experiments are being replicated and conducted in laboratories all around the world this very minute, most notably in Japan. Low-energy nuclear reactions are quite real. These reactions, which use a palladium catalyst and heavy water, are being used to generate excess heat in laboratories as you read this. In other words, cold fusion is quite real.
If you think back to 1989 and look at the way this issue was suppressed, you realize that the credibility of cold fusion was destroyed by scientists who had career and ego investments in the theories of hot fusion. These were scientists who had published papers or invested their careers in multi-billion dollar experiments trying to generate free electricity from hot fusion. Thus, the idea that two chemists could create cold fusion with a tabletop experiment was viewed as outrageous. Rather than examining the evidence with an open mind and try to understand and replicate what was going on, they sought to destroy it.
This ego-fueled suppression of cold fusion was quite successful, to the point where, today, if you mention cold fusion to anyone who is steeped in conventional medicine or science, they will laugh at you and say, "Cold fusion is a joke, just like medical quackery." But of course, the big joke is on them, because cold fusion does indeed exist, and it has been proven time and time again.
You can see pictures of a modern cold fusion experiment running at the physics department of Purdue university at -
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/neutron/LENR.html -
The reason why cold fusion was difficult to prove back in 1989 is because, during those times, the experimenters were only able to replicate these low-energy nuclear reactions in 30 percent of the experiments. So if a laboratory ran ten experiments, they would obtain low-energy nuclear reactions in three of those ten cases. According to the hot fusion defenders, this was proof enough that cold fusion was a fraud.
Of course, it is scientific insanity to suggest that just because something happens three out of ten times, it doesn't exist at all. Three out of ten times is pretty good for an emerging science that is experimental in nature and very poorly understood. With refinement and additional experiments, that number could doubtlessly have been increased to six or seven out of ten, and perhaps eventually ten out of ten.
Nevertheless, cold fusion was discredited. Today, more than 15 years later, it remains discredited and virtually unknown in the Western world. Meanwhile, Fleischmann and Pons are busy working for private corporations who will, without a doubt, one day release industrial or consumer versions of low-energy nuclear reactors that will provide free energy to households, businesses and even entire communities at very little cost.
There are now over 400 scientific papers on cold fusion, most of which are now available at -
http://www.lenr-canr.org/ - the leading cold fusion community website. This site provides excellent reading on the history of cold fusion as well as the many challenges still being faced in this search for genuine scientific understanding.
The suppression of cold fusion is just one example of how our modern scientific community operates more like a group of high priests than seekers of genuine scientific understanding. As a result, the science we live with today only represents a small fraction of the true scientific knowledge available to mankind. Much of the good science conducted over the last hundred years has been suppressed (cold fusion is just the beginning of this story). It has largely been concealed to protect either the financial interests of certain corporations or the ego interests of certain individuals or scientific groups.
In the world of so-called "evidence-based medicine," the defenders of conventional medicine, which include the American Medical Association, medical schools and conventionally trained doctors, also want to protect their territory. They want to remain in control over all medical decisions and health-related interactions with patients. Yet, they have very few qualifications for actually doing so. For example, medical schools don't even teach basic nutrition, and doctors graduate from medical schools and residence training with practically no understanding of nutrition (see related ebook on nutrition) whatsoever. They have no real qualifications to talk to patients about disease prevention through healing foods, or to talk about how to live a healthy life through intelligent food choice. These are the basics of health, yet they are almost entirely ignored by modern medicine.
Many of the most promising healing modalities are not just ignored by conventional medicine; they are in fact ridiculed. Homeopathy comes to mind. Homeopathy is discredited simply because the defenders of conventional medicine have no understanding of the mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work. It's similar to saying that there is no such thing as infectious disease because we can't see any germs (which was once the official position of science-based medicine). Of course, once the microscope was invented, germs could be seen, and the acceptance of the scientific validity of infectious disease soon followed.
Some day, there will be instruments that can measure the vibrational nature, or what is called the "memory," of water. When those instruments are available, homeopathy will seem to be common sense, but today it is considered fringe science or quackery by the defenders of conventional medicine because they don't see how it could possibly work. They leave no room in their belief systems for the possibility that something could operate outside their current understanding. As long as there is no microscope for seeing homeopathic energy, the stodgy, egoistic defenders of evidence-based medicine will call it quackery. Of course, this is the same thinking that once called the germ theory quackery.
Anything that's based on evidence is also subject to the distortions and belief systems of old-guard scientists and doctors who currently control the intellectual topography in which this evidence is framed.
The violet wand, a Nikola Tesla invention: a handheld Tesla coil connected to a gas discharge tube intended to be applied to the skin. His invention was an electrotherapy device.
To this day, Tesla's invention is called quak medicine. While modern equipment which does exactly the same thing is used for treating nerve pain.
Anthony
