(Shem El-Jamal) The modern scientific establishment has progressed far beyond where it is said to have been at the turn of the last century. Throughout the years, there have been numerous discoveries and advancements on the theoretical and the applied side of science and development. Yet even with this notable progress, it seems that the current Western scientific establishment has missed the mark in multiple ways.
by Shem El-Jamal, July 22nd, 2018
During the twenty-first century, the public side of science brought us the inventions of the transistor, the microprocessor, antibiotics, the automobile, LEDs, smart phones, space travel and many other relatively impressive developments. These advancements in science and technology have changed the lives of countless individuals, yet at the same time, when it comes to the true capacity for scientific progress, these developments may only represent a small fraction of the true scope of scientific potential.
It may not have been that scientists themselves held any conscious intent to behave counterproductive to their own profession or the education of the general public. However, in many ways, it does appear that at some level of either science or scientific publication, there has been an active attempt to censor the true scope of scientific and technological advancement—both on and off planet.
According to research, their have been extensive clandestine efforts to suppress and maintain secrecy of the plethora of classified projects which military and corporate entities have undergone over the decades. Simply put, on a number of levels, the scientific establishment has been coerced into settling for the informational leftovers which classified projects no longer need.
According to multiple whistleblower testimonies, this establishment of secrecy has been the regular M.O. of these projects since their conception in the mid-1900s.
This secrecy has been particularly prevalent in the arena of astronomy and the discoveries therein. We may even notice the evidence of this secrecy in action when we compare the stark contrast between the scientific narratives which were promoted a decade ago to those which are being promoted now.
Related links – The Attempts at Partial Disclosure Move Forward – NASA Announces Exo-planetary Anomaly; 7 Earth-like Planets in One System
Only a decade ago, the topics of UFOs, of ETs and life on other planets, and alternative human history were all considered to be so ridiculous that virtually no scientific publication would dare touch them without having a hearty laugh. Now suddenly, all of these topics are being considered worthy of extensive study.
This is not at all ordinary within the world of scientific research, and many believe this apparent turn of focus on a proverbial dime indicates the possibility that at some level, “someone” already knew these topics were valid and substantial. However, due to the (alleged) choice by certain clandestine interests to maintain blanket secrecy, the public side of science ignored them.
We will discuss more on these subjects in a moment. Right now, let’s consult what could be considered one of the most revealing articles to be published in mainstream media in a long while. This is Business Insider with a remarkable discussion of a scientific discovery about the asteroid belt within our solar system. Per the typical rhetoric of such disclosures, the discovery is claimed to be “new.”
A study in Nature Astronomy has detailed how a group of researchers stumbled upon something remarkable in an asteroid belt — it turns out that large chunks deviating from the belt are not just rock fragments that never developed into planets; rather, they’re remnants of existing planets.
Researchers were actually investigating the asteroids in order to predict possible collisions with Earth — towards which the belt is headed — and to clarify what’s causing them to leave the belt at all, but they weren’t prepared for what they would find.
For many years, astronomers assumed that the belt, which orbits the sun between Mars and Jupiter, was simply made up of standard asteroids — but, on closer inspection, the researchers found that most of the approximately 500,000 components are slanted in shape. This means they’re of a completely different composition than previously thought.
There could originally have been at least five planets
One of the researchers involved, Stanley Dermott, spoke about the findings, saying: “We couldn’t think of any forces acting to produce that distribution. If a big asteroid is smashed up and has a high inclination, then those fragments have that same inclination.”
The scientists managed to conclude that the remains from the asteroid belt were once planets of their own, so-called “planetesimals”, estimating that there could have been been at least five.
This changes what we’d previously assumed and brings to light other theories on the formation of planets. Until now, most researchers assumed planets grew over time. However, scientist at the Southwest Research Institute David Nesvorny put forward the following theory: “It means asteroids are born big.”
Nesvorny and some of his colleagues believe that the attraction begins as soon as a circumstellar disc grows to a “siliceous” size. More and more matter creates new planets, at least in the inner solar system — in fact, this is what happened in the Earth’s formation.
“What’s needed for the formation of a planet like Earth?”
The peculiar thing is that, between Mars and Jupiter, planets struggle to develop as the forces in that area are so strong, they’re prevented from doing so. As a result, they’re left broken and end up forming part of the asteroid belt we’re familiar with today.
Other scientists point out that this theory would hold more water if we were to assume there had originally been more than five planets. What’s more, the rest of the asteroid belt would have to be investigated — not just the inner area.
Dermott and his team would like to focus on further research in this field, and possibly even extend it to other solar systems. Dermott sees this as a great opportunity: “The whole business of formation and evolution of planets and the question of ‘What do we need to form an Earth-like planet elsewhere?’ is something we can finally discuss in meaningful terms.”
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.