Philosophy and History of Science 

A barrier is the lack of knowledge of economists and people in general about the history of science and how science develops. It may surprise people that few professional economists know much about physics or its history. It is outside their field of training.

Making the assumption that physics develops by paradigm changes every 80 or so years requires an understanding of what a physics paradigm is. Few people understand the general philosophy of science underlying this assumption. Relatively few people have even read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. This work is partly based on that.

Since no well known philosopher of science has ever written about 80 year intervals between physics revolutions, it takes a leap of understanding and in a sense, going out on a limb that others will probably try to cut. But few people have ever studied the history of science enough to recognize the paradigm pattern.

The Cold Fusion Field

Another barrier is the lack of general knowledge about the field of cold fusion and other generally not accepted work and about the discovered anomalies themselves. Professional economists know little current research in the field of physics or about cold fusion and plasmoids.

Cold fusion researchers in general don’t care much about economic theory. So there isn’t really an audience who can appreciate this theory. Among professionally trained physical scientists, the peer pressure is against acceptance of these ideas and discoveries. The whole field was labeled a hoax 20 years ago by some media spokespeople and many top academic physicists.

Plasmoids and cold fusion phenomena are new and old. They’ve always existed, but only due to the development of quantum mechanics has these phenomena been studied as thoroughly. However, few people even know they exist. 

If you want to learn more about the field, the LENR-CANR Library, Cold Fusion Times, and the ISCMNS page are good website sources of information.

Evidence to Think About

This theory is 20 years old, and based on the prior timing, I predicted 20 years ago that technological acceleration would start about the year 2000 (it started in 1998 or 1999) and that a financial crash like the 1929 crash would happen in 2009 or so (it happened in 2008). See my old articles and information I put online 20 years ago.

Another prediction is that there will be a long economic depression throughout this decade of the 2010s if this theory is right. I think the theory is right, but the trillions of dollars in bank lending, derivatives, and money creation since 2008 temporarily kept the stock market inflated. It will probably slump now in 2012.

Economics and the Economy

The real unemployment rate in the leading industrialized areas of the world is very high now. Leading media spokespeople keep saying that the recession is over and never call these times a depression, but the real evidence points to a depressionary period.

Economists in general don’t understand the economic situation. There isn’t a generally accepted theory of economic depressions. In 2007, few people wrote that a financial crisis that could cause a depression was going to happen. Those who did like Schiff and Celente are ignored.

Among professional economists, the “long-wave” or Kondratiev cycle isn’t accepted. There is a general belief that technological change doesn’t really have much to do with scientific advancement or unemployment.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>