Parallel Dimension and Ideal Future

[rocket art]

Hi, I'm a newbie here. I'm into art but am also a physics enthusiast. I would like to share my new philosophical view that I would initially call as "Rocket Theory". Although, being into art, I took effort into finally translating my painting into math, in which I will be sharing here. Hopefully we discuss these in languages we both could understand, as I tend to perceive ideas visually. Hopefully, new ideas are welcome in this website and hoping to have openminded exchange of ideas regarding my thread.

 

I perceive that to define our existing Present universe (E=mc^2), there is the need to incorporate 3 more dimensional 'realities.' But these must be perceived from the observer's viewpoint within the Singularity, where past, present and future gets blurred. We will follow 4 perceived realities that interlink one with another, and to perceive these other three parts are necessary to define one part (our Present existing physical universe).

 

The first is what I would term as Ideal Past, wherein it incorporated our classics, myths, legends, glories that we put into our memory. This reality is implosive, centripetal, that’s why I will have it in squareroot. The pattern of Ideal Past will be:

 

E=mass times square root of c^2

 

The Ideal Past will constitute the rest mass of the Present E=mc^2 which is expansive, centrifugal by nature. The patterns of the Ideal Past is necessary to create our Present. Our Present is the E=mc^2, where:

 

E = mass times c(rest mass) times c(observer-relative)

 

Then the third reality, in which we are about to enter, will be the Ideal Future, which, like the Ideal Past, is implosive, centripetal in nature. Here I will assign a third powerful unit, c alpha=Awareness and the observer now becomes aware. The “c” in E=mc^2 relative to the observer is now differentiated. We may be an observer who is “unaware”, or an observer who is “aware”. Such makes a big difference and should be considered. The Awareness is acquired after the knowledge from the Ideal Past is revealed, extracted from Present, then transported as quantified knowledge for the Ideal Future. Being implosive, centripetal, the pattern of Ideal Future will be:

 

E = mass times cuberoot of c(rest mass) times c alpha(Awareness) times c (observer-relative-Aware).

 

Then, we will proceed to what I term as the Parallel Present, which is the parallel dimension to our Present, and it is also centrifugal, expansive in nature. The equation for Parallel Present will also be E=mc^2, but this time incorporating with it the powerful 3rd force of Awareness and the Ideal Future becoming its rest mass (cuberoot of c^3), and eventually integrated as new data for the Parallel Present:

 

E=mass times c(rest mass from Ideal Future cuberoot c^3) times c (observer-relative-Aware)

 

The Parallel Present, similarly as the Present, both being centrifugal, expansive dimensions, are like catalysts for the expansion of our Universe.

 

 

The new c alpha (Awareness) is powerful enough to transform the Future we are about to enter, into an Ideal one. And when such time comes, the Aware Ones (us being 'aware') would be highly able to propel such energy into technologies as interstellar and interdimensional, or time travel, free energy, ESP with our highly Evolved Consciousness by then.

 

The actual Ideal Future would by then be E=mc^3. This profound addition c alpha=Awareness would most likely manifest physically with one's evolution like additional strand DNA, extra sensory perception, highly advanced technology, etc. This is the era of Ideal Future, in which we are about to enter when we choose to.

 

Actually, it first started as my painting (used as avatar), until eventually I prodded myself to translate it tangibly through this. You may see my visual presentation of the theory at my 360.yahoo homepage when clicking my username.

 

This is also consistent with my 'rocket philosophy' that 'Consciousness is the source of gravity', in which I also posted in another forum 3 years ago (I conceptualized last 2000 in a chatroom). This is also posted in my homepage blog.

[alan2here]

Are you a Spiritulist?

[rocket art]

Hi, are you inquiring if I'm into spiritualism, like communing with ghosts, etc.?

 

Nope.

I'm curious though, why you asked it.

 

I'm not religious but I believe in Spirituality, i.e. Evolution of Consciousness.

 

I also tend to think independently.

[alan2here]

Spiritulism is a Religon.

 

This thread would be better suted to the Speculations or the Philosophy & Religion Forums.

[rocket art]

If the ghost phenomenon can be explained, will you still consider it as speculation?

 

A ghost (aptly called 'apparition') may be an anomalous electromagnetic (some use electromagnetic field detector) data (memory) imprisoned within the dense space-time structure of the Present dimension we're in. The structure I believe is crystalline-based of the minutest nature such that even sub-particles, even vibration, thought, time pass along with it as a necessary vehicle to conceive matter, physicality. The anomaly needs to be resolved from dense imprisonment that causes it such as injustice, attachment, etc. Passing our consciousness from the Present into the Ideal Future with the powerful Energy of c alpha (Awareness) may resolve the anomaly imprisoned within the density and hopefully propel Humanity to higher Future dimensional perspectives with higher Energy.

 

Perhaps I am being philosophical, but am not presenting some kind of religion. I have no plans of becoming a bearded, ascetic guru or savior (someone already did it thousands of years ago). You just have to save yourself. I just wanted to share my Rocket Theory (I will eventually change into into another term, after subjecting it for scrutiny here). As mentioned before, I'm an independent thinker.

 

But then I have assigned units, primarily with Einstein's E=mc^2. Although my Rocket Theory may not be found yet in your science books, the units, such as lightspeed, mass, Energy are already available where we could use as language. I encourage threaders here to put my rocket theory under meticulous scrutiny as they can, with open mindedness (not in myopic and closemindedness) and within the bounds of the language of E=mc^2. I'm into art, and to assign my painting into math, which otherwise was not (yet) my field, was personally a herculean task for me, until I found that Einstein's formula was capable of assigning language to the essence from the intangible, abstract realms from which I had managed to pluck my Theory into tangible in which you are now reading. I highly suggest we discuss scientifically with the Theory within the powerful bounds of E=mc^2 as a language to be used, so that the discussion could be understood and communcation will be better despite the differing fields between science and art that is being attempted to synchronize here.

 

My thread is still suited for this forum.

[Ragib]

rocket art, don't take everyones comments so seriously lol, if you have no evidence then hes right, go into the speculations section.

[rocket art]

"Some people are serious about having fun, I'm having fun about being serious"-rocket.

and that's another of my rocket philosophy.

 

I do have evidence, and it is even based on personal experience. However, such phenomenon may yet be too profound to those who do not have such kinds of experiences. It is inappropriate to dismiss the relevance of it merely because of the highly subjective excuse that one has no experience whatsoever about such kinds of phenomenon, when time and again there are others who have clearly experienced such events, which even science itself is yet able to explain (until I gave that hint from the previous post for you to ponder about). If someone here had personally experienced such kinds of phenomenon, then it may be appropriate for me to discuss it with him.

 

However, we can deal with a similarly intriguing, yet clearly real and evident phenomenon of E=mc^2, in which I have based my theory relative to it. This is evidence, and I will defend my theory.

[insane_alien]

its not really a theory is it? you have no evidence and i can't see much logic in it. do you even know what E=mc^2 means? and that it only reduces to that under a single specific condition?

[rocket art]

As I mentioned before, if you have experienced it yourself, then it may be appropriate for me to discuss my evident experience with you. I have even discussed the 'how', and I will be willing to share my evident experience if the other is the appropriate person to discuss with.

 

I have aired my concept based on E=mc^2 in the first post, with the expectation that readers know the basic definition of it. Please state also how you understand E=mc^2 so I could gauge how to describe further since my enhancement of it is not yet clear to you, and so as to dispel an awkward suspicion on my part as to whether the other person demanding also understands the formula, for otherwise I would not have been able to conceptualize such if the formula had not been clear to me.

[Farsight]

Sometimes I get irritated when a carefully constructed piece of reasoning like TIME EXPLAINED gets brushed off into Speculations, and other things don't.

[rocket art]

If one traces the line in my painting from Ideal Past - Singularity - Present - Singularity- Ideal Future - Singularity - Parallel Present, it follows the pattern of motion in time, and I identified the dimensions of certain time frames. Time is not being speculated in my thread but rather it is being clearly defined and assigned.

 

I have also created pattern from the Ideal Past and Ideal Present by incorporating it as centripetal by nature, hence making use of the roots to create such patterns necessary for us to conceptualize the Ideal Past by "memory" or the Ideal Future by "enivisioning". These are also being differentiated with assigned patterns by identifying them as "Ideal". We may have in our memory vast data of the past, but we extract the patterns necessary in achieving the kind of Future the we choose to envision, hence identifying the Ideals that we set our standards to.

 

Assigning the unit c alpha (Awareness) is also logical. The unit c is the largest unit one can assign in space-time dimension, and it is also constant. Einstein had incorporated the "observer" with it in E=mc^2, with the conscious observer in the realm of c^2.

 

However, I have differentiated the "observer" in my Rocket Theory. Either the observer may be 'aware', or the observer may be 'unaware'. There is a very big difference to this. This 'Awareness' had enabled humanity to evolve from living in caves to working in highrise towers, and creating complex civilizations.

 

Awareness is a powerful unit and must be assigned with the new unit I termed as c alpha wherein, ultimately in the Ideal Future shall propel Humanity to Evolve in Consciousness and such profound development (E=mc^3) be manifested even physically, environmentally manifesting as enhanced human capability and as advanced civilizations.

 

Yet certain facets of 'Awareness' may be secretly hidden, supressed or forgotten like treasure buried deep in the once glorious Ideal Past that us in the Present are not 'aware' of. This is crucial, for there may be a scenario wherein our unawareness may eventually lead to bleak future as microchipped slaves for the few elite who knew the secret and have the resources that the vast majority are unaware of.

 

Or, we may choose to be 'aware', and create pattern for our own destiny, envisioning a free and Ideal Future gained from knowledge with the powerful presence of Awareness as guide and pattern in achieving it, starting with the Parallel Present decision to be 'aware', from an otherwise unaware Present that we may be in right now.

 

This is a logical presentation as to the practicality of the Theory, and this is crucial for the Future survival of a free Humanity.

[swansont]

I do have evidence, and it is even based on personal experience.

 

Scientific evidence is the kind not based on personal experience. It has to be objective. i.e. anybody has to be able to experience it.

[rocket art]

What is more relevant is for evidence to be 'relative' to human phenomenon, but not subjective. It is often noticed that the concept of objectivity had oftentimes been used for subjective motives. Insisting only on 'objectivity' is in itself highly subjective for it shows a bias only to such, and disregarding other concepts, such as the empirical, sense experience aspect, and relativity to human phenomenon.

 

If everything were to be solved objectively, then it would seem logical to eliminate the majority of the population for draining the planet's limited resources, when in fact it is the highly objective systems manipulated to the objectives of greed oriented mechanisms that had been the culprit and had caused such gravely imbalanced distribution of wealth.

 

p.s.

were you referring to a paranormal experience? anybody may experience it, for it pertains to energy. The anomaly may be on the differing incompatible frequencies or lowering of vibrations. I'm not much into the technicalities of it, but surely there are those appropriate individuals who could describe it (especially in the countries behind the previous iron curtain as they were far advanced in metaphysics research than the west).

[alan2here]

Please be more clear, you seem to be using a pee-soup of words many of which it is clear you don't understand. If you are trying to sugest that you have achived apparently metaphysical effects such as remote viewing though meditation on antother method please just say so.

 

All this has notining to do with Relativity, somone move this thread to the relgion forum. They will be happy to discuss this as a religion in the same way we will be happy to discuss it as a science.

 

I know people are desprate to be lied to and with the fall of religion comes a rise in spiritulism, metaphysics, aura readings, remote healing, fairy energy and the such. I am pleased the evedently more educated west is still being sceptical.

 

There is much we don't understand in science, please help not hinder us

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23706

Come back when you have seen it all. I am happy to admit I am completly wrong when you give compelling reproduceable coherent evedence.

[rocket art]

I'm curious as to what statement had caused my thread to be put to the speculations forum. My first 6 statements had been consistent with my theory. I guess it was due to the last statement on how I perceived 'objectivity', especially pertaining to prevailing systems. But it cannot be denied that many in humanity had perceived it as such, not necessarily blaming the industriousnes of the western people in general, but to a devious force probing much deeper behind it and taking advantage of it and well meaning intentions. If we need to resolve what's good for our planet, this needs to be addressed honestly.

 

As for western skepticism, perhaps the analogy of the full cup is the most I could reply for the moment. How can new views be poured if the cup is yet full of bias to the obsolete ones? But then I do not discount western reasoning, it is part of humanity's strength in the same manner as eastern intuition awaits for their enlightenment to strengthen us for future challenges, but to perceive that reasoning alone monopolizes truth is a mistake that need not be compromised either.

 

I would prefer that intuition be defined as 'knowledge at cellular level', rather than the conventional description which is erroneous as it merely defined educated guess but not intuition.

 

Regarding knowledge at the cellular level you may wish to listen to this lecture by Drumvalo that shows you do have such 'knowledge' even while you're still in mitosis level:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8673723312620286523&q=sacred+geometry

If his blunt statement about extraterrestrials might shock you, please refer to this vid on Disclosure Project presented with evidence by officials from the US military, FBI, CIA but had been supressed by puppet corporate media from circulating:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166743665260900218&q=disclosure+project

 

Eventually I will also be expressing evidences, there's just the needed for language where both sides could understand each other.

 

Unlike puppet corporate media continually bombarding your tv, you are not being lied to here, you are just not being aware that there is truth far beyond the limits of logic and reasoning that you are yet to comprehend and experience, and it is now necessary to be aware of it in order to enable us Humanity to face the great challenge of the Future in front of us. Keeping ourselves unaware and closeminded to such views is a risk that we cannot afford.

 

This is crucial and the threat that thrives on continued ignorance to knowledge, that otherwise would equip us from its devious grip, must be resolved by being more aware and vigilant and to keep us free.

[swansont]

I'm curious as to what statement had caused my thread to be put to the speculations forum.

 

All of them, pretty much. I mean, if you have to ask, then one pretty much has to conclude that your grasp of what is scientific and what isn't needs some work.

[swansont]

What is more relevant is for evidence to be 'relative' to human phenomenon, but not subjective. It is often noticed that the concept of objectivity had oftentimes been used for subjective motives. Insisting only on 'objectivity' is in itself highly subjective for it shows a bias only to such, and disregarding other concepts, such as the empirical, sense experience aspect, and relativity to human phenomenon.

 

If everything were to be solved objectively, then it would seem logical to eliminate the majority of the population for draining the planet's limited resources, when in fact it is the highly objective systems manipulated to the objectives of greed oriented mechanisms that had been the culprit and had caused such gravely imbalanced distribution of wealth.

 

Non sequitur. Science doesn't cover everything. There are many lines of thought that can go into a decision that are neither scientific nor rational, or have implications that lie outside of those areas. People make decisions based on superstition, religion and politics, for example.

 

p.s.

were you referring to a paranormal experience? anybody may experience it, for it pertains to energy. The anomaly may be on the differing incompatible frequencies or lowering of vibrations. I'm not much into the technicalities of it, but surely there are those appropriate individuals who could describe it (especially in the countries behind the previous iron curtain as they were far advanced in metaphysics research than the west).

 

Why is it, then, that whenever scientists actually test for phenomena, they never read anything on their instruments? If it is something that a person can experience but no instrument can, that is by definition subjective data.

 

 

metaphysics isn't science.

[rocket art]

All of them, pretty much. I mean, if you have to ask, then one pretty much has to conclude that your grasp of what is scientific and what isn't needs some work.

 

That's a sweeping generalization. I have been consistent even with Einstein's formula. I can defend my Theory with the units of his formula and I am not speculating. However, it is obvious that not all in the scientific community could grasp the profoundness of his formula, for even I had recently discovered after contemplating a herculean task of translating my abstract painting into a tangible position.

 

However I find it necessary to inform additional positions in what I termed as 'rocket philosophies'** because such are yet found in any conventional science books. The views I have been presenting in this thread and on other threads is consistent with my philosophies so as to keep my views from stagnating with mainstream scientific views. Although eventually time will come when it will lead them to such positions as they probe deeper:

 

** "Consciousness is the source of gravity" -rocket. The insistence on the fictitious graviton will just render the science community stagnant. It is in this position that enabled my theory in peeking through the Singularity as Conscious Energy.

 

** "Since matter cannot exceed lightspeed, it duplicates instead when subjected beyond it" -rocket. That should be the basis of the Everette-Wheeler-Graham Theory, MWI.

 

** My "Rocket Theory" (I plan to change it to "Free People's Theory" when it finally stands unscathed with the fiery test, and it still remains consistent) is more sensible than the solipsism of Omega Point Theory (which sounded more like another new religion that worships the self), for I am not referring to the "I" but to Consciousness. It will be sensible even when the era finally occurs as Earth Humanity advances and discovers sentient life forms beyond our planet.

[rocket art]

Non sequitur. Science doesn't cover everything. There are many lines of thought that can go into a decision that are neither scientific nor rational, or have implications that lie outside of those areas. People make decisions based on superstition, religion and politics, for example.

 

You may not put superstition side by side with religion or politics. Besides it's all subjective based on the limited objective data that your paradigms had mustered. What if, as knowledge progresses, animism will finally be justified and the erroneous ideology of materialism that had been foundations of civilizations and politics (by the way, these already crumbled)and causes of much injustice and strife will render it to be illusionary (at such a cost).

 

I define logic as a very important tool, but I do not define it as institution.

 

In the light of recent events occuring nowadays, materialistic ideologies that define it as the latter may be aptly dunked into the 20th century superstition trash bin. And I say that "Materialism is the opium of science" - rocket.

 

 

 

Why is it, then, that whenever scientists actually test for phenomena, they never read anything on their instruments? If it is something that a person can experience but no instrument can, that is by definition subjective data.

 

metaphysics isn't science.

 

That's most probably because the instruments are not yet that advanced, or are yet to follow the patterns natural to such phenomenon (but they do use electromagnetic detectors to detect such anomaly). You cannot also discount the numerous experiences of witnesses to such phenomenon (me included). Even until recently Zero Point technologies had opened up for US patents when previously such 'free energy' technologies had been supressed and its inventors humiliated, poisoned, or their laboratories ransacked.

 

By the way, if you read the book "Secret life of Plants" a Japanese scientist was able to connect his device to a cactus and translate the data as audible signals that enabled the cactus to literary 'count' addition answers. They were able to do it when the guy finally thought of having his wife communicate with the cactus because it would not 'respond' to him.

 

Of course such realities will sound absurd, ridiculous to conventional paradigms especially among western science community because for a long time it had been manipulated to parametric sets of belief systems that relegates it to logic bias conditioning that detaches the western science (as if it seems too technical and dead) from the Living Realities and from Human Phenomenon. Such implications had resulted to controlled mechanism of unequal wealth distribution, medical approaches that deviates from natural metabolism but instead rely on side effects of chemicals to address the problem (although the effort of such individuals who have contributed much to medical miracles should be appreciated, I'm differentiating them from the agenda of profit oriented huge pharmaceutical corporations), pollution emitting technologies and other things that merely mirror the arrogance and folly of a few entrenched people that threaten the rest of Humanity.

 

And again, I am not speculating.

[swansont]

You may not put superstition side by side with religion or politics.

 

Why not? People don't make decisions based on superstition? Nobody has a lucky shirt/pair of socks/whatever?

 

That's most probably because the instruments are not yet that advanced, or are yet to follow the patterns natural to such phenomenon (but they do use electromagnetic detectors to detect such anomaly). You cannot also discount the numerous experiences of witnesses to such phenomenon (me included). Even until recently Zero Point technologies had opened up for US patents when previously such 'free energy' technologies had been supressed and its inventors humiliated, poisoned, or their laboratories ransacked.

 

I can discount them. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Instruments routinely detect phenomena that humans can't. What reproducible phenomena can humans detect that instruments can't?

 

"Free energy" schemes are a dime-a-dozen scams. Not one has ever been demonstrated to be valid. (and the burden of proof is on the inventor to show the free energy. They never seem to pass this hurdle)

 

And again, I am not speculating.

 

Semantics. Your conviction of your material is not at issue. It's not science. What quantifiable predictions do you make? What tests can be done that could falsify them? Without these, it's speculation.

[rocket art]

Why not? People don't make decisions based on superstition? Nobody has a lucky shirt/pair of socks/whatever?

 

Right. Do include materialism with it.

 

 

 

I can discount them. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Instruments routinely detect phenomena that humans can't. What reproducible phenomena can humans detect that instruments can't?

 

I'm curious how you could discount them when you do not have experience to such. But I'm curious though how some experience I had will elicit from your observations. I'd consider that later.

 

"Free energy" schemes are a dime-a-dozen scams. Not one has ever been demonstrated to be valid. (and the burden of proof is on the inventor to show the free energy. They never seem to pass this hurdle)

 

Some are scams, some aren't. The american inventor on water to drive car was poisoned to death. In our country there are two inventors of it I can count. The other one showed on local tv how his car was fueled by water and accelerated it towards a steep road. He was also imprisoned, fortunately the Japanses supported his talent and he's instrumetnal with their new concept cars that run on water. Tesla, insisting on ether in which his mediocre contemporaries just couldn't match his genius that they ostracized him, and Edison kept on electrocuting animals and an elephant to demonstrate the danger of his invention, not to mention his factory mysteriously burned (the suspect was some glutton named Morgan) and his documents seized by the US of A govt. at the time of his death. So was the scientist who discovered orgone who died in prison and his book burned by the FBI. And many more, including my inventor friend who had been deliberately kept delayed. But the culprits can never stop it, their podiums will soon crumble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMPW8pCCKtU

 

 

 

 

Semantics. Your conviction of your material is not at issue. It's not science. What quantifiable predictions do you make? What tests can be done that could falsify them? Without these, it's speculation.

 

I am, and always will be consistent in the basis of Einstein's formula. How then can you differentiate between an 'aware' observer and an 'unaware' observer in the space-time construction of the reality that we observe daily?

 

Such Awareness I have quantified with the largest constant unit one could assign in this physcial dimension, as the new c alpha = Awareness, I need to remind you for asking.

 

Test then how you behave at such a situation when you are aware of it, and when you are not aware of it.

 

Again, this is not speculation, and it is not mere opinion, or you may be rendered falsified in case you say there is no difference between how you behave to such a situation when you are aware, to when you are not.

[Phi for All]

Again, this is not speculation, and it is not mere opinion, or you may be rendered falsified you in case you say there is no difference between how you behave to such a situation when you are aware, to when you are not.

Please don't be offended by being put in the Speculations forum. EVERYBODY who starts a thread to lay out their "new theory" is put here. If it isn't part of accepted, peer-reviewed scientific theory, it is speculation.

 

It may prove to be a valid theory but not if all you're going to do is complain that it's not speculation. I hope you can see that new ideas *must* undergo the trial by fire that makes the scientific method so effective. This forum was created to act as an early step in running your theses past some very knowledgeable people including scientific professionals

[rocket art]

That is comforting and I appreciate your saying that. I also appreciate Swansont and those who posted for their scrutiny, provided it is an openminded discussion. I stand by my theory and have been consistent all along.

 

I also need to post this here:

The views I have been presenting in the threads are also consistent with what I term as 'rocket philosophies'** because such are yet to be found in conventional science books, and to keep my views from stagnating with mainstream scientific views. Although eventually time will finally come when it will lead them to such positions as they probe deeper:

 

** "Consciousness is the source of gravity" -rocket. The insistence on the fictitious graviton will just render the science community stagnant. It is in this position that enabled my theory to peek through the Singularity as Conscious Energy.

 

** "Since matter cannot exceed lightspeed, it duplicates instead when subjected beyond it" -rocket. That should be the basis of the Everette-Wheeler-Graham Theory, MWI.

 

** My "Rocket Theory" (plans to change it into "Free People's Theory" when it finally stands unscathed from the fiery test) is more sensible than the solipsism of Omega Point Theory (which sounded more like another new religion that worships the self), for I am not referring to the "I" but to Consciousness. It will be sensible even when the era finally occurs as Earth Humanity advances and discovers sentient life forms beyond our planet.

 

Assigning the abstract idea into a tangible painting, and again translating it into equation was a herculean task for me, that after discovering Einstein's formula was elegant and profound enough to assign values for it to be translated. I may not be a highly skilled mathematician, but I may speak using language based on Einstein's formula as I interact with individuals here for understandable communication despite the differing fields, as yours are in the scientific field while I have been in the realm of art .

[swansont]

I stand by my theory and have been consistent all along.

 

It's not a theory, using the scientific definition of that word (and around here, that's what is used). You make no testable predictions, you've stated nothing that is quantifiable and what you've proposed cannot be falsified as far as I can see. Throwing E=mc^2 into the mix does not change any of that.

[swansont]

Right. Do include materialism with it.

 

Decision-making is not all based on science, so it is not a shortcoming of science to be objective. If it's not objective, it isn't science. Superstition is an obvious example of that.

 

 

 

Some are scams, some aren't. The american inventor on water to drive car was poisoned to death. In our country there are two inventors of it I can count. The other one showed on local tv how his car was fueled by water and accelerated it towards a steep road. He was also imprisoned, fortunately the Japanses supported his talent and he's instrumetnal with their new concept cars that run on water. Tesla, insisting on ether in which his mediocre contemporaries just couldn't match his genius that they ostracized him, and Edison kept on electrocuting animals and an elephant to demonstrate the danger of his invention, not to mention his factory mysteriously burned (the suspect was some glutton named Morgan) and his documents seized by the US of A govt. at the time of his death. So was the scientist who discovered orgone who died in prison and his book burned by the FBI. And many more, including my inventor friend who had been deliberately kept delayed. But the culprits can never stop it, their podiums will soon crumble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMPW8pCCKtU

 

"Appeal to conspiracy" isn't a particularly strong argument. And YouTube isn't peer-reviewed. Burden of proof is on the proponents of zero-point.