Science and technology exposed
Double Standards Anti-progress Science
According to Wiki: “William “Bill” J. Beaty is an American research engineer with a long-standing and highly ranked web page about amateur science, in particular electromagnetism, electricity and crackpot science and the advantages of not being too sceptical.”
Despite years of complaints about skeptical bias, Wiki continues to demean those who do not subscribe to an establishment brand of mainstream science and ideology. Wiki pages are continuously edited and this one about Bill Beaty is not as bad as it was previously. However the editor cannot resist phrases such as “crackpot science” and “the advantages of not being too sceptical”. I can only assume that “crackpot science” refers to alternative science, the very means by which all of our technology came into being. “The advantages of not being too sceptical” is another tool in the inventor/innovator toolbox, something the skeptics of this world seem incapable of understanding. Sceptical (skeptical) opposition to new and suppressed ideas supports censorship and by default dampens intellectual freedom, the very opposite of what they claim to be doing.
Eric P Dollard is an Internet celebrity who gives lectures on the same subjects as William J. Beaty and much more. He can be found on Youtube but there is no Wiki entry bearing his name. The only place I could find mention of Dollard on Wiki was with regard to, (would you believe), “Tractor Beams”: The Wiki page says: According to Paul LaViolette, Starburst Foundation, Schenectady, New York, Eric Dollard, and Guy Obolensky had independently conducted gravity-like beam experiments during the 1980s that had been inspired by observations reported by Nikola Tesla. Those experiments were not reported in peer reviewed journals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractor_beam
Nothing I have read suggests that Dollard was ever involved with “tractor beams” I am also unaware of any Tesla papers appearing in peer reviewed journals, even though he owned some 700 patents, the contents of which are still in use worldwide today in science, technology and in all our homes. Should we abandon our household appliances because they were not peer reviewed? I would imagine the criteria would need to be the question, ‘do they work’? Dollard is in a minority of one, as the one person who has duplicated Tesla’s Wardenclyffe experiment and made it work.
Again we see a Wiki denial of that which is not sanctioned by scientists. Gravity is a subject that has not progressed scientifically since the days of Isaac Newton and one would expect a welcome to new ideas, but sadly not. This only serves to reinforce the notion that science and by default, Wiki are disinterested in all but contemplating their own navels. Are we all supposed subscribe to the sentiment that scientists are superhuman, somehow able to think more clearly, more intelligently than the rest of us dumb plebs? It would be difficult if not impossible to prove such a notion since scientific education/qualification is, like all education, about memory and not about the ability to think clearly, “If you do the work, you get the qualification”. It is highly likely that if you enter scientific education stupid, you will leave it just as stupid – but qualified. Scientific education is designed for average intelligence just like any other and I’m not aware of any process of brain transplantation.
It may come as a surprise to some, but scientists are human just like the rest of us, yet more prone to bias, due to the investment in their education. Is it a surprise that they are more inclined to support that which is their profession and livelihood even when its wrong?
But then we return to the Wiki editors who do a not uncommon about-turn when it comes to their page on “Charles Proteus Steinmetz (April 9, 1865 – October 26, 1923) was a Prussian-born American mathematician and electrical engineer and professor at Union College. He fostered the development of alternating current that made possible the expansion of the electric power industry in the United States, formulating mathematical theories for engineers. He made ground-breaking discoveries in the understanding of hysteresis that enabled engineers to design better electromagnetic apparatus equipment including especially electric motors for use in industry.
Steimetz said: “in college they teach you why things can’t be done. I never went to college, so I do it.” One for Wiki editors to explain.
The Smithsonian loves the guy and proudly declares: Charles Proteus Steinmetz, the Wizard of Schenectady
His contributions to mathematics and electrical engineering made him one of the most beloved and instantly recognizable men of his time.
The somewhat serious problem we find here is that Steinmetz was saying exactly the same things as do William Beaty and Eric Dollard today – that physics electrical theory is hogwash. Has something changed without us being told?
Charles Steinmetz has this to say thanks to Eric Dollard who reads his books and passes it on to others: Steinmetz mentions this in his introductory book Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses. To quote, “Unfortunately, to large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated.”
Steinmetz continues, “There is obviously no more sense in thinking of the capacity current as current which charges the conductor with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor with a quantity of magnetism. But the latter conception, together with the notion of a quantity of magnetism, etc., has vanished since Faraday’s representation of the magnetic field by lines of force.”
Both Eric Dollard and Bill Beaty are saying what Steinmetz is saying, obviously not happy with the electron theory. Is Beaty a crank as Wiki would have us believe or is he telling the truth as told by Steinmetz? Wiki is unreliable when it comes to such things and the skeptics are nowhere to be found when something like this arises?