Thread: suppressing advanced sciences

Greetings forum members,

It's been a while since we've seen a film or heard anything in the news about the suppression of advanced sciences and technologies, other than of course the dangers of nuclear technology in belligerent 3rd world countries.

My question here though is this: "if it were possible, if it has been possible, for an advanced science, or should I say, an advanced application of science, to be suppressed, a technology that could undoubtedly be more intelligent and efficient in it's application to industry, yet perhaps also more dangerous and powerful, for that technology to be suppressed, we would never know right now, would we, other than perhaps the official world of science continually hitting brick-walls of research, right?"

What would be the reasons then governments would suppress advanced technologies and could it be the case today regarding applications of nuclear physics? In an extreme case, could it be possible governments would be prefer to wait for one of their "own" citizens develop an advanced application of science as opposed to taking one from a foreigner?

Most people would not know, and a few people would know of one example out of many. The only suppression of technology(or underdevelopment) i am aware of is not advanced/dangerous tech but regular tech related to alternatives to petroleum, a few people have been driving around in Toyota RAV4EV for 10 years and more than one tech company was bought up and mothballed.

I think you're right.

I think though it happens "anyway", the suppression, unless of course the evidence is too strong to support an advancement was produced by a government funded transparent learning institution.

Basically, if someone comes up with an advancement, and it wasn't nurtured through a government funded and transparent learning institution, like via University research, the chances of it being suppressed are highly likely. I am also thinking that a government will have agencies that research new ideas with the aim of encouraging their own scientists to work it out their own way as opposed to hiring some type of foreign gun to share their work with them.

What's the record though for the suppression of a good idea that actually worked so well it became known as a fundamental step forward for innovation?

"the chances of it being suppressed are highly likely"

Imo technology is not suppressed by default, its often developped further if there are short term benefits and suppressed when its deployment hurts profits(or leveraging of power) more than it generates.

Theres a lot of research done by public institutions and funds, without short term benefits but which can help indirectly down the road, in the medium term, and sometimes in the short term. There a few cases where public funded discoveries with shorter term potential ends up in private hands who turn around a profit from it, socialized costs privatized profits.

Another angle is that, for example, a research into a cancer drug that would be virtually free(low cost) is getting very little funding, while drug companies that spend almost as much on marketing as on reseach have pleaded guilty to and been show to sell drugs hyped as new(for a higher profit) that in effect are no better than older drugs that no longer cost much. In a way, we collectively pay for the pharma R&D plus pay for the marketing plus pay for the billions in profit, for drugs whose chief objective is to make money (hence virtually no reseach in low cost cures, when cancer is a multi-billion cash cow they want to milk that cow for decades rather than kill it [with a cure])

I think one argument for the suppression of certain types of otherwise successful projects is of course the "keeping things in context" argument.

For instance, take China and their 3 dams project, alongside their incredible investment in electrical cars. Doing the math, it isn't hard to see what is going to power the cars of china's future: the three damns. It will be as though indirectly all their cars are running on damn energy. NOw, if someone were to propose another form of energy in the context of their 3 dam project, they won't be listening.

And this makes me think: there is so much running at the moment in terms of energy-tech development, it is as though each nation has their master-plan already set: to find any innovative excellence seemingly born over-night is not a wise expectation in a system that thinks it already knows what it is doing and why.

Do you think cold fusion is a good candidate for suppression? I'd say that probably depends on whether you are a believer or not. Yes the link below does lead to an article about a new cold fusion breakthrough. If it could possibly be true, it would sure change the economic structure of the world and cause the shifting of winners and losers. But if proven to be true, it would also be very hard to suppress.

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...n-breakthrough

In regard to any breakthrough that doesn't provide clear equations of proof, other than video internet-posted demonstrations, it's hard to think it would be possible to replicate such demonstrations of energy generation in a way that is useful to any scientific organisation. But, with that case, I hope they have a breakthrough, but they really need to be professional about what they do any offer exact equations first, "then" offer a demonstrations based on equations, otherwise what they are peddling could be nothing more than an atomic juggling act that suits only a limited time-frame on the scale they forward.

And on this front, to actually construct a working cold-fusion device, one needs an equation that isolates atomic behaviour in a way that calculates energy-mass ratios between substrates in that thermo-chemical matrix. To achieve that, you need a solid scheme of proof, euqations that interface well with known atomic phenomena.

So, I guess my question would be relevant to whether or not governments would restrict public access to any such equations of proof proposing any such research ventures and associated new technologies? Can a government do that? Is it not the domain of the people to vote what's best for them? Or, is that the downfall of democracy? Or worse still, should it be the responsibility of democracies to have agencies that are required to keep sensitive data out of the public eye until a time it is deemed safe? Or, as a last resort, in by-passing politics, is this why we need sovereign constitutions and associated sovereigns that by-pass the democratic process in knowing the potential infallibility of democracies with new technologies and ideas?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

So, I guess my question would be relevant to whether or not governments would restrict public access to any such equations of proof proposing any such research ventures and associated new technologies? Can a government do that? Is it not the domain of the people to vote what's best for them? Or, is that the downfall of democracy? Or worse still, should it be the responsibility of democracies to have agencies that are required to keep sensitive data out of the public eye until a time it is deemed safe? Or, as a last resort, in by-passing politics, is this why we need sovereign constitutions and associated sovereigns that by-pass the democratic process in knowing the potential infallibility of democracies with new technologies and ideas?

I'm sure most people find the cold fusion issue to be very suspect. So I could imagine any government thinking it could very easily discredit this issue and then control any information related to it, and nobody would be the wiser. But then conspiracy theories are made with this kind of stuff and might actually aid the government in question, by the controversial confusion it causes.

This is an issue that if true would be the single biggest Earth changing event sense man discovered how to use fire. It's the kind of hot potato movies are made out of. Everybody wants it to be true, but nobody is quite ready to believe it.

Agencies in democracies with hold information but don't inform the leaders and then use terms such as plausible deniability as a reason why.

The Saint: Elisabeth Shu and Val Kilmer. About the very thing. 1997 or therebaouts.


As I said, I hope they're right. I think my point though that the "best" way, the "right" way, to forward a new technology that actually works is to forward the equations and theory "first". Only then should one start to doubt governments and their people when they reject equations and theory that adds up.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

As I said, I hope they're right. I think my point though that the "best" way, the "right" way, to forward a new technology that actually works is to forward the equations and theory "first". Only then should one start to doubt governments and their people when they reject equations and theory that adds up.

Yes I believe you are right. It's not even very time consuming to post your findings on the Internet. However, these people were turned down by the patents office. I believe they didn't know enough about why the process worked to make a reasonable patent application, so they were turned down. So once again they are making claims about something they don't understand. I can see why they wouldn't want to publish on the Internet, it's damned embarrassing at the very least and if they aren't lying, not having a patent is the same as giving it away for free. Can you imagine anybody giving cold fusion to the rest of the world free of charge? Okay I'll concede there might be a few people that would do it. What I would like to know is how could anybody leak this info before they were ready?

You know, what you say reminds me so much of the Roswell "thing" and the much hyped "Area-51". If, "if", the US Government have in their possession alien technology they have researched to the point of replication, understandably if would be very embarrassing for them to release to the public techs of which they have no scientific explanation for. Is it in their guard to say "we got lucky"? But in the case you present regarding cold-fusion, they seem to be doing exactly what the US government would appear not to do in the case of back-engineering alien technology (if that ever is the case).

But the case for the US government back-engineering alien technology while pursuing a good explanation of that science is a little weak, because there is almost no evidence other than paranoia to suggest or point to the fact the US government is looking for outside-the-square expalantions of space-time to give an angle on whatever technology they might have.

The older I get, the more I am thinking that Roswell is pie in the sky case. It was nothing. It's aside the fact of the actual existence of aliens. If anything, it's a myth that has been perpetrated by those thinking it would be in the US best interests to convice the rest of the world they have some nasty pieces of alien equipment at their disposal. It's propaganda, because the story doesn't add up to a "can-do" process of doing something intelligent, like explaining scientifically, what they presumably have in their possession, clearly though without corrupting their own contemporary understanding of physics, but merely adding to it.

I hope this cold-fusion case can help make the process run a little better, of political management of new ideas.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

You know, what you say reminds me so much of the Roswell "thing" and the much hyped "Area-51". If, "if", the US Government have in their possession alien technology they have researched to the point of replication, understandably if would be very embarrassing for them to release to the public techs of which they have no scientific explanation for. Is it in their guard to say "we got lucky"? But in the case you present regarding cold-fusion, they seem to be doing exactly what the US government would appear not to do in the case of back-engineering alien technology (if that ever is the case).

But the case for the US government back-engineering alien technology while pursuing a good explanation of that science is a little weak, because there is almost no evidence other than paranoia to suggest or point to the fact the US government is looking for outside-the-square expalantions of space-time to give an angle on whatever technology they might have.

The older I get, the more I am thinking that Roswell is pie in the sky case. It was nothing. It's aside the fact of the actual existence of aliens. If anything, it's a myth that has been perpetrated by those thinking it would be in the US best interests to convice the rest of the world they have some nasty pieces of alien equipment at their disposal. It's propaganda, because the story doesn't add up to a "can-do" process of doing something intelligent, like explaining scientifically, what they presumably have in their possession, clearly though without corrupting their own contemporary understanding of physics, but merely adding to it.

I hope this cold-fusion case can help make the process run a little better, of political management of new ideas.

As a group, Americans really like conspiracy theories. Although a case might be made against the U.S. government for hiding alien technology, it seems dubious at best. First you need proof that aliens have visited us and I haven't seen any myself, nor do I know anybody that has.

Consider if aliens have been here, why don't we have news pictures of them by their spaceships. Why would they play games with us after using an incredible amount of resources to get here? Anyway like any secret, if more than one person knows about it, it's not a secret anymore. Baffling distractions and disinformation won't keep the truth at bay for long.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

You know, what you say reminds me so much of the Roswell "thing" and the much hyped "Area-51". If, "if", the US Government have in their possession alien technology they have researched to the point of replication, understandably if would be very embarrassing for them to release to the public techs of which they have no scientific explanation for. Is it in their guard to say "we got lucky"? But in the case you present regarding cold-fusion, they seem to be doing exactly what the US government would appear not to do in the case of back-engineering alien technology (if that ever is the case).

But the case for the US government back-engineering alien technology while pursuing a good explanation of that science is a little weak, because there is almost no evidence other than paranoia to suggest or point to the fact the US government is looking for outside-the-square expalantions of space-time to give an angle on whatever technology they might have.

The older I get, the more I am thinking that Roswell is pie in the sky case. It was nothing. It's aside the fact of the actual existence of aliens. If anything, it's a myth that has been perpetrated by those thinking it would be in the US best interests to convice the rest of the world they have some nasty pieces of alien equipment at their disposal. It's propaganda, because the story doesn't add up to a "can-do" process of doing something intelligent, like explaining scientifically, what they presumably have in their possession, clearly though without corrupting their own contemporary understanding of physics, but merely adding to it.

I hope this cold-fusion case can help make the process run a little better, of political management of new ideas.

As a group, Americans really like conspiracy theories. Although a case might be made against the U.S. government for hiding alien technology, it seems dubious at best. First you need proof that aliens have visited us and I haven't seen any myself, nor do I know anybody that has.

Consider if aliens have been here, why don't we have news pictures of them by their spaceships. Why would they play games with us after using an incredible amount of resources to get here? Anyway like any secret, if more than one person knows about it, it's not a secret anymore. Baffling distractions and disinformation won't keep the truth at bay for long.

Yes, indeed. Not having proof of aliens is the same as not having equations of proof for cold fusion. My point precisely.

I think the real question is whether or not it is possible for those in power to suppress "dialogue" on matters that could alter huge flows of capital. The answer? Of course it is possible, it happens. Why wouldn't it happen to scientific dialogue? It would.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I think the real question is whether or not it is possible for those in power to suppress "dialogue" on matters that could alter huge flows of capital. The answer? Of course it is possible, it happens. Why wouldn't it happen to scientific dialogue? It would.

Governments do have the ability to control information by how they classify it. The trouble as I see it is who has the authority to classify information and how do they decide what information to classify. Once information has been classified higher than your pay scale it's extremely difficult to even guess at what it might be let a lone the why it was classified or even who classified it.

I know there are many people myself included that find it very hard to just take someones word that it was necessary and that's all you will ever know. I at least want to know that there are reasonable checks and balances on the people that make these decisions.

The problem today with any "next developments in science" is that they promise so very very much, to the point of the status of "all things" ability, like the much hyped "theory of all things" being the next step.

The impact such theories will have on politics, no one has bothered to even think about. Or, is this part of the problem, namely not thinking about the impact a theory can have on politics makes that theory less likely to show itself?

The problem of solving the theory of all things would seem simple once the theory is understood compared to how to deal with the tech applications of such a grand theory and of course how to deal with the theorist. For, would not the most powerful nation in the world aim to secure that theory, and theorist? Worse still, would not people look to that theorist for all types of advice of all things intellectual, if not philosophical? Basically, the hype surrounding the next step in physics is a sure way to stop it from happening. Politics, if indeed governments represent the people, is merely representing that hype in stopping such a thing from happening by whatever smothering mechanism they use to inforce order in situations that otherwise would fall out of their domain of governance.

If a government wants to promote the discovery of the next step in physics, they need to promote the idea first of how that information will responsibly be disseminated without ideally making a false-God out of the theorist, a false Messiah, and thus of course without making a golden-calf out of the issue, but something the world in general needs and that their governance of that next-step is the most responsible as based on their track record of governance in such matters of development. Sounds a lot, but then again, it's a big issue.

I've yet to see a Government that makes this issue as clear as crystal. But then again, Government-sponsored research agencies into next-step developments in physics would already have this as their underwriting of contractual development with the researchers/developers. That's fine, but what if the next step in physics comes from outside their control, from an outside-the-square thinker and operator? Would not the publication of the next step in physics by an outside-the-square operator be seen as a type of Wiki-leak of science? I mean, it's one thing to have knowledge of a Government, it's another thing entirely though to be a step ahead of what they want and to then have that published. Should such a free-agent theorist be allowed? Is that not the question Governments would ask? And on that note, what would any such theorist have to do to convince controlling Governments of his peaceful intentions (which of course would be the only intention available to him)?

I mean, when you think about it, Wiki-leaks would seem minor compared to the release of scientific data that any government would sacrifice an army of agents for.

Food for thought.

Personally I think the free flow of information is in the best interest of the world. However, whoever is paying for the research is the owner of the information and has the right to share or not as he sees fit.

What if the next big step is like nuclear fission, and easily weaponizable into a WMD? The only reason terrorists don't have the bomb already is because Uranium is a rare Earth element and governments have so far been very careful about how they store it so terrorists can't get it.

What if the next WMD tech isn't dependent on a rare Earth element? What if it's something an angry (and smart) teenager could build in their parents' garage?

Originally Posted by kojax

What if the next big step is like nuclear fission, and easily weaponizable into a WMD? The only reason terrorists don't have the bomb already is because Uranium is a rare Earth element and governments have so far been very careful about how they store it so terrorists can't get it.

Uranium isn't that uncommon. But Terrorist don't have mines, industry to extract or more important the industry to enrich it into weapons grade materials.

Originally Posted by kojax

What if the next big step is like nuclear fission, and easily weaponizable into a WMD? The only reason terrorists don't have the bomb already is because Uranium is a rare Earth element and governments have so far been very careful about how they store it so terrorists can't get it.

What if the next WMD tech isn't dependent on a rare Earth element? What if it's something an angry (and smart) teenager could build in their parents' garage?

Well that would be a big problem then and the guy that shared it would be guilty the first time it was used. I do draw the line at sharing dangerous information that could be used for any kind of mass harm. But thank goodness most research is of a more benign nature and I'm not opposed to sharing that. However the largest amount of research is of a proprietary nature for business and most of the owners don't want to share for the obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

What if the next big step is like nuclear fission, and easily weaponizable into a WMD? The only reason terrorists don't have the bomb already is because Uranium is a rare Earth element and governments have so far been very careful about how they store it so terrorists can't get it.

Uranium isn't that uncommon. But Terrorist don't have mines, industry to extract or more important the industry to enrich it into weapons grade materials.

Yeah, it's technically a "rare earth" element but it's not very rare. It's about half way between Copper and Silver for overall rarity. However U235 makes up only 0.72% of naturally occurring Uranium, and you need a bare minimum of 7kg of U235 to make a proper nuclear bomb (probably less for a "dirty bomb"). So, assuming an imperfect refining process (since all the processes are imperfect), you'd have to start with over 100 kg raw ore.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dances.svg.png

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Yes I believe you are right. It's not even very time consuming to post your findings on the Internet. However, these people were turned down by the patents office. I believe they didn't know enough about why the process worked to make a reasonable patent application, so they were turned down.

You aren't required to know how or why your invention works in order to obtain a patent. It is, however, required that your invention actually works. Their patent application was rejected because the patent office didn't believe that their cold fusion machine actually worked.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Yes I believe you are right. It's not even very time consuming to post your findings on the Internet. However, these people were turned down by the patents office. I believe they didn't know enough about why the process worked to make a reasonable patent application, so they were turned down.

You aren't required to know how or why your invention works in order to obtain a patent. It is, however, required that your invention actually works. Their patent application was rejected because the patent office didn't believe that their cold fusion machine actually worked.

This is what was said in the article "Based on this lack of even a theoretical basis for the device’s function, a patent application was rejected."

But other than that, I can't say I know my way around a patent office, I do appreciate your eye for detail.