To respond to your most recent comment: Yes, you don't expect NASA and government to make a "big announcement", but you are missing the bigger picture as junglelord and others have commented, which is while the nomenclature wasn't used in the press release, undoubtedly the principles are being used and discussed. In my opinion, you are being unduly pessimistic and as the other commenter stated, getting hung up on language when it's the principles that are important (you seem determined to stay crouched in a corner).
In regard to using myth & symbols, correct interpretation is the key and reasonable people can disagree. In example, I agree with Dr. Anthony Peratt's High Current Z-Pinch hypothesis which relies primarily on pictographs, but also myth; Peratt's hypothesis also relies on currently available empirical observation & measurement, while for all practical purposes "Saturn theory" is restricted to myth & symbol analysis which can be problematic by reason of the various interpretations that can be drawn from the same material.
Several NASA "technicians", aka scientists, have made comments on the Thunderbolts Forum on various posts, and they defintely do subscribe to Electric Universe ideas, but perhaps not the name, itself, for the reasons I previously pointed out. These scientists do not subscribe to all the ideas expressed on this forum for sure, but they do subscribe to the basics of plasma, free electrons & ions, and electric currents in space...Birkeland currents. That's important to note when discussing NASA's acceptance of Electric Universe principles, if not language at this juncture, but give it time
And, maybe, just as important, these same scientists who have commented here on the Thunderbolts Forum, monitor the website for ideas. True scientists are always keeping track of the cutting edge of scientific understanding in their field or discipline. Likely others, "lurkers", who have never commented also monitor the Thunderbolts Forum.
Nobody subscribes to all the ideas of a particular paradigm, particularly at the onset of learning about those ideas as some concepts & specifics are more obvious and better supported by the scientific facts & evidence currently available. And some concepts or specifics have little scientific support at all, but are artifacts of the surrounding circumstances of the paradigm's development when theory was limited to a small group of pioneers. Pioneers are right about the "Big Picture", but often wrong about various details because of limited ability to engage in empirical observation & measurement, or because they were driven to the paradigm by some motivation that colors their thinking on the subject.
The NASA scientists have to apply Electric Universe principles...as you alluded to...because that's the physical reality of the overall space environment and more important, the specific electromagnetic processes & dynamics that effect Man's technology in space and here on the surface of Earth.
In this case, the money and smooth functioning of civilization in this advanced technological age which depends on technology vulnerable to space's electrodynamic environment requires that the relevant scientists must apply the principles effecting those technologies -- and those principles are completely encompassed by Electric Universe principles, whether those scientists like it or not
And partly for that reason, but mostly for the pure scientific evidence supporting Electric Universe principles, I have always been an optimist regarding the ultimate adoption of the Electric Universe paradigm by the larger scientific community.
davesmith_au wrote:At the risk of derailing the thread, I feel compelled to say that such a sweeping statement shows you're not serious at all about the topic, or you would have researched it enough not to have made such a statement.
Dave, with all due respect, I am very serious about the topic because I have participated on other forums and I have read and responded to interlocutor's arguments on other forums, where I hoisted the Electric Universe flag, and that was exactly the argument used by opponents to deride and dismiss Electric Universe principles. So, it's directly on topic of the post (which is whether "NASA and Government Discuss EU").
On the contrary, Dave, I have researched the so-called "Saturn theory" and the evidence is principly myth & symbols which are subject to various interpretations, little currently available empirical observation & evidence exists to support the hypothesis or that specific interpretation of the myths & symbols. The hypothesis is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary facts & evidence -- those simply don't exist -- yes, in my own opinion, but I'm certainly not making up any facts.
My interest is in spreading understanding & acceptance of Electric Universe principles (which I have taken concrete steps to achieve), those principles being unquestionably valid when one observes & analyzes the relevant facts & evidence, however, I have no interest in supporting ideas that in my opinion retard the overall acceptance of Electric Universe principles in the broader scientific community.
My comments in this post express my opinion in that regard.
Such is my conviction about the importance of the Electric Universe