[opportunity (OP)]

Is that why politics likes to keep all the best scientific ideas under wraps?


In history, its usually the religious factions that kept a hold on science.... right?

[Bored chemist]

Is that why politics likes to keep all the best scientific ideas under wraps?

Like what?

[opportunity (OP)]

Like the obvious. Stealth technology. Is the world a game of faith or a way to prove Disneyland right?

[opportunity (OP)]

When I say Disneyland, I refer to our tendency to agree with the storyline of something the church is not involved in.

[Bored chemist]

None of that made much sense.

[opportunity (OP)]

If Science can do A + B = C, and there's a lot of equations there over time, yet most of us don't have the time to do that math because we're mom and dad "capitalists" who don't need to know how everything works..... no one wants to be made a fool of, right?


How good is your grip on science compared to everything else?

[Bored chemist]

I get paid to do science.
None of what you have posted makes much sense.

[opportunity (OP)]

You've given your own game away.

What makes sense to you is what you get paid for.

Anything I say is going to destroy that, because I'm not your employer right now.

What I say though shouldn't be "that bad".....yet an idea to consider.....

It seems to me you are at the verge of "all or nothing"?

[opportunity (OP)]

If science theory isn't all or nothing, what is it doing?


As an independent theorist, who funds his own research, you have to be all-in....after many failures....

[Bored chemist]

None of that made much sense.

[opportunity (OP)]

Being true to the topic, are we being political? No. Are we being a step ahead? No. So your answer is no? Somehow I think you're more interested in "yes", right?

[opportunity (OP)]

I'm trying to walk again after years of abuse on my ankles:

My point is, science is a process, a means to an end that has to be deinfed as a "prize" that makes it worthwhile.....otherwise, why?

[Kryptid]

Bored Chemist is right, your sentences are difficult to understand. This seems to be a chronic problem. You should try to word them more carefully.

Stealth technology was kept a secret because of the military advantage it provided.

[opportunity (OP)]

Bored Chemist is right, your sentences are difficult to understand. This seems to be a chronic problem. You should try to word them more carefully.

Stealth technology was kept a secret because of the military advantage it provided.

Posting a question as a "new theory" is an oxymoron on its own....if its a new theory, as a question there's a lot of uncertainty on two fronts.


My point is, and you made it well also, if the cutting edge of science is in fact related to stealth technology, how easy is it to speak about cutting edge science?

[opportunity (OP)]

...if I can add..., "cutting edge science that works, has tech applications we have yet to realise".

[opportunity (OP)]

Many of the great discoveries of last century in science as technology came through in the context of the veil of war, in that it was some time before the public realised how in fact the science behind something worked. Einstein presented his ideas as theories, and many sought ways to prove or disprove his theories. Can that type of "new theory" process work again today, or are we so very protective of taking a technological advantage that the best scientific ideas are closely guarded secrets until a domination of the technological applications of that new science can be established first before released to the public?

[opportunity (OP)]

So, regarding my topic, if science can be a step ahead, we would know about the theory first, and if it can't its because of people and politics preventing that from happening owing to security concerns and those tech issues.

[opportunity (OP)]

Centuries ago it was about faith, whether a science accorded with a belief system, a way of managing the people peacefully. In the absence of faith today, there's the idea of Disneyland. I'm not suggesting that faith and Disneyland are the same thing, I'm suggesting that there are blocks that keep science, real science, at bay. And if that is true, what does anyone think about that?

[opportunity (OP)]

To provide my angle here, I think the time of trying to be first with a technology to dominate by keeping the science a secret is over. If anything, the amount of work an agency could put into developing a science and technology, to then present an apparent "lead" will always be counter-productive owing to people adapting "very" quickly in this new communication-immediate world, and back-engineering. In fact, evidence exists that economies that try to be the fastest and first to develop a technology always suffer financially for their efforts....because those efforts are always quickly superseded by savvy back-engineering.

[opportunity (OP)]

I really think science should be like football.

I think in the future all the new ideas in science on the new gravity-understood platform will be.....it will be a transparent game of rules and playing within those rules, the world over, for our own safety, to prevent global conflict.