How to change public Opinion?

[skittl3s17]

I'm sure there is already a thread covering this but I can't find it. Admins feel free to move the post there and delete this thread if there is.


so. After watching hours upon hours of space news videos/watching EU conferences. I'm convinced the electric universe is on the right track. (to say the least. I've only been aware of the EU theroy for about a week. so i'm new)
and it raises a lot of Really interesting questions.

These questions need to be thrown at the public. It's time.

so I took it upon myself to start talking to people about this. This is profound stuff. space isn't a perfect vacuum?! the sun isn't dying! I began spreading the word of the EU far and wide. (to like 5 co-workers and a few friends)

"wow. this is neat" I'd say. "this theory says that the universe is a giant vat of positive and negatively charged matter, spinning around. conducting electricity in space!. oh and it explains mythology!"

and of course that was met with the only thing a "sensible" person would say. "ummmm. what? whatever nonsense you are talking about is a pseudo-science, it's like flat earth, Reality is sad. get used to it"
(except my friends who smoke weed, no problem convincing them)

There was instant resistance to the mere consideration that "gravity might not be the force that is dictating activity in space"
and wow. people get visibly angry and start frothing at the mouth when you say "blackholes don't exist, they are a mathematical construct"

I realized I will never be able to TELL anyone anything.
you can't shout truth from the rooftops and expect people to care.
I had one particular friend who I shared video after video. providing timestamps so they could skip the "boring" stuff.
it was met with "im only 5 minutes in, and I have 14 tabs open explaining why this is wrong"


here is an excerpt from the conversation (in regards to electrical scarring on mars, being repeated with an arc welder/making electrical blisters to explain Olympus Mons)

Him:
i just think they are making conclusions based on the result desired versus evidence presented
steve smith even says it at one point

Me:
so lab experiments don't reflect things on a different scale?

Him:
absolutely not
this is one of the core confusions of macro evolution versus micro
if you are performing an experiment, you have to have conditions that are similar to the outcome, and you are NOT supposed to create conditions to arrive an an outcome


Everything I threw at him. was met with "not possible" or "wrong way of doing science" "doesn't count" "other factors they haven't considered" (I should mention he assumes he's an expert on all things. even things he's never heard of)
So I realized that to change people's minds. I must rethink my strategy.


I asked myself
How can I persuade my close minded friend, and by extension close minded people the world over?

well. how did I convince myself?

I have watched probably 20+ hours of videos on this. so i'm convinced.
(plus seeing lichtenberg fractals/lightning patters all over the place in nature: in human veins, nerves, the basic shape of plants/trees, roots, heck. even some woodgrain looks like an electromagnetic field, and when you apply force to most anything, the cracks that form resemble lightning, like in cracked concrete, which makes me ask basic questions, why do cracks form that way? why do trees/roots grow that way? wtf is energy anyway? why do seeds grow in the first place?)


But asking people to watch 20 hours of really dry scientific videos is a tall order considering most people don't really give a crap about space to begin with. (unless it's star wars)
Side note: star wars could totally work in the EU, "the force" is electromagnetism, lightsabers/blasters are charged plasma, light speed is a ship in a scaled up natural particle accelerator. It happened a long time ago, in a glaxy far far away. etc. whatever, it's fun to think about.

and they have to watch 20 hours of video with an open mind.
so that's out.

it also turns out that when discussing "science" you can't bring up anything that our ancestors said. because "we are so advanced" and they were so primitive
so when trying to convince people. we CAN'T bring up mythology. (at first)


so. what are the fastest ways to convey this information without sounding batshit crazy to the average person. how do we make it not boring?
What can we bring up? and how long are peoples attention spans? and how do we not make people feel "wrong" or bad.
because no one likes to admit they are wrong. I mean, people have fought to death to defend things they believe to be true.

how can we say "the math is correct, but it's totally inaccurate, it's like the superposition of the scientific field, you wouldn't understand"
How do we make them feel "ok" about having a Paradigm shift? How do we make it "not anybody's fault"
which I think comes from explaining how math got started in the first place, and how it got to where it is today.
a fun, simple, logical history of the origin of math and where it went wrong.


So what do we do?

My thoughts:

so how about a 10 minute video?
a highlight reel if you will. filled with links to the full length "boring" video explaining it.

what would be in said video?

no mythology.
focus on the admitted problems, by the accredited scientific institutions. (e.g. Neil degrass tyson saying we don't know what gravity is, "whatever hit the moon of tethys should have destroyed it, - pop science (or whoever) just show the overwhelming. articles, interviews...."impossible thing discovered" "scientists baffled" "this doesn't match our models" etc.
because if they knew what they doing, they could explain it perfectly.
like how they can with classical physics.

we need to show that science is flawed. and that all this stuff was from the turn of the century or before.
written before electricity was really around. look at how medicine has evolved, technology. our understanding of electricity. but cosmology hasn't evolved at all. the theories haven't changed in 100 years.
new evidence is ignored/misinterpreted

how the fields are scattered. and how no one is an "expert" in usually more than one field.

Gravity doesn't scale down, which is proven.
why do we assume it scales up?

there is the famous .gif showing how small we are compared to the sun.
assumptions are how we got here.

and The things you guys are doing are amazing! seriously.
and you are getting ground cover.
but people like fast paced videos they can share on facebook.

Idk just wanted to get the ball rolling on how we can get this info out there.
well. you guys got the ball rolling. I want to increase the (relative) mass of it by making it go faster.

So does anyone have any suggestions/opinions on this?
I'd like to have neil degrass tyson/bill nye acknowledge the electric universe and not be able to dismiss it.



WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL... of evidence, like lawyers going to court.
except we don't have the budget, or the name. or the reach.

So how will we fight? When all we have is logic and love on our side

[Metryq]

First of all, most people are not fascinated by science. So you'll get nowhere trying to create a general campaign to change minds. I think the proverbial "man in the street" simply absorbs the superficial aspects of establishment models without any understanding of what it means, how those models were created—or more importantly, how much of what is delivered as fact is really only speculation (e.g. black holes, or neutron stars being the explanation behind pulsars).

For those who are armchair fans of science, start by breaking down establishment models first. Show them what is wrong (and why), what is speculation that they may have assumed was empirical fact, and point out the increasing use of phrases like "scientists do not fully understand" (which really means they haven't got a clue).

Books and articles by Tom Van Flandern are a good start. (He died in 2009, but his site can still be found on archive.org, look for metaresearch.org) He led me to Halton Arp and other researchers.

Only after you have put the current state of establishment astrophysics in perspective should you introduce plasma cosmology / electric universe as an alternative. The Thunderbolts documentary "The Electric Comet" is a superb starting point, and you can build from there.

Skittl3s17 wrote: written before electricity was really around.

Say what? Dear god, please know what you are talking about first before you try to sell someone else on PC/EU. Otherwise you will only make them all the more certain that you're babbling gibberish. Take a look at the recent Thunderblog on History of Electric Comet Theory by Hannes Täger. That's only a taste. Mankind has been dabbling with electricity long before we had any inkling of what it was (e.g. look up the "Bagdad battery"). As a side research, look up any books on ancient technology, such as Ancient Inventions by Peter James and Nick Thorpe. Our ancestors were not so primitive as many might believe. Exploring this avenue will give you some footing when you decide to drop mythology like Purple Dawn on your victim.

Outside of "The Electric Comet" documentary, I would recommend Donald Scott's The Electric Sky as a primer on plasma cosmology. Anyone who is at least an electronics hobbyist will get the most out of it, as such a person also understands how simple circuits like oscillators are. (If you want to dazzle your victim first, tell him about naturally occurring fission reactors—an excellent example of how human engineering is only recreating mechanisms found in nature.)

Try to avoid the mythology stuff with beginners. While I find some of that material compelling, it's the sort of thing that will shut down many would-be converts—at least until they have a foothold on some of the more "sciency" stuff.

[querious]

I asked myself
How can I persuade my close minded friend, and by extension close minded people the world over?

well. how did I convince myself?

I have watched probably 20+ hours of videos on this. so i'm convinced.
(plus seeing lichtenberg fractals/lightning patters all over the place in nature: in human veins, nerves, the basic shape of plants/trees, roots, heck. even some woodgrain looks like an electromagnetic field, and when you apply force to most anything, the cracks that form resemble lightning, like in cracked concrete, which makes me ask basic questions, why do cracks form that way? why do trees/roots grow that way? wtf is energy anyway? why do seeds grow in the first place?)


But asking people to watch 20 hours of really dry scientific videos is a tall order considering most people don't really give a crap about space to begin with. (unless it's star wars)
Side note: star wars could totally work in the EU, "the force" is electromagnetism, lightsabers/blasters are charged plasma, light speed is a ship in a scaled up natural particle accelerator. It happened a long time ago, in a glaxy far far away. etc. whatever, it's fun to think about.

and they have to watch 20 hours of video with an open mind.
so that's out.

Hey Skittles,
For years I was taken by this stuff, just like you. Just peruse my older posts for proof. Serious question for you, if you really care about convincing people...

Why is that the EU proponents can't agree on something as basic as to how the sun operates electrically, as opposed to nuclear fusion?

And what is YOUR favored theory of how the sun is electrically powered, based on your many hours of videos, etc?

Regards,
querious

[kodybatill]

Well one way I would explain it, is that one of the original electrical elements may have been muonic hydrogen, which is hydrogen penetrated by a disk of near infra-red inert gases like helium which themselves start with the electron of moving closer to infra-red itself - replaced by the electron neutrino of taking positrons or colors around opposites. And the Hydrogen starts with the neutron of moving closer to magnesium type elements of slowing energy down, replaced by the proton of taking electron neutrinos. This is way before matter - a time of non-physical information similar to these days. The point here of mentioning these elements - is that electricity slowing down is super hydrophillic, or attracting of water - while electricity speeding up is super hydrophobic, or repelling of water. The middle factor may be this muonic hydrogen which when the electron of the near infra-red inert gases moves closer to infra-red - causes the infra-red to slow down and so it's electrical components attracting water, but then the electron to speed up - and so nucleuses are created which mimic the electrons. Shells are made. And these speeding up electrons repel water, making even more rings. Then it is replaced in energy by an electron neutrino of taking positrons or colors around opposites - a third ring - which the relationship between proton and positron/colors around opposites, is magnetism.

The original Muonic Hydrogen may be the diagram of all forces, and knowing it's many parts, one can almost describe anything. It is not just about protons.

[ElecGeekMom]

One thing that captures my attention is when someone with an alternative theory is able to make a prediction that comes true.

In the context of the EU, I would suggest exposing them to information/videos about the recent contacts with comets. They haven't behaved like icy rocks (or rocky snowballs). The EU folks predicted what was observed, and while the conventional folks were able to get a probe to make contact with a comet, but they didn't predict how it would bounce repeatedly and fail to secure its anchors.

When I'm just starting to feed to a friend information about how so many things are electric that aren't generally framed that way, I often bring up this page ( http://weather.cod.edu/satrad/ ) and click on "National Radar Loop" and have them watch as the storm systems come into contact with the NWS radars and change their energy level.

Then I tell them anecdotes of personal observations and experiences I've had that can be explained by the behavior of wireless (or wired) electrical fields. I don't try to feed them too much at a time. But if I find a video or article that really lays out a more complete explanation of how such things work, I often send them the link as a follow-up if I think they can comprehend it.

Advertisers say that a person has to be exposed to at least 13 repetitions of a message for an event or a new concept before they will engage with it or act on it. So I try to drop tasty crumbs of stuff that might make them puzzle over it, and not necessarily do a brain-dump that will make them raise all their formal defenses and objections that they (probably) paid a lot of tuition to acquire.

I also keep a plasma ball around to illustrate how the little lightning bolts behave when you touch the ball with your finger or other objects.

I've found that I'm not the best at giving an oral explanation, and when I write, few people will read it all. So I try to say something that's short but puzzling or gives them something they can manipulate or duplicate themselves. If I can connect what I say to something they already have experience with, that's the best route.

I had an awful time getting my brother-in-law to stop his knee-jerk rejection of the concepts until I got him to sit down and watch the first introductory video on this site. After that, he opened up more to discussing the concepts.

ONE MORE THING:

I know this is getting too long...but I want to share an excerpt from a book that might shed some light on the comments about how old (young) this knowledge is. It doesn't incorporate comments about Egyptian hieroglyphics that show electrical devices, but many other sources do.

This is from a book titled "The Resonance Effect" by Carolyn McMakin, a chiropractor specializing in fibromyalgia and myofascial pain. The subtitle of the book is "How Frequency Specific Microcurrent Is Changing Medicine".

"In 1910 the Flexner Report attempted to standardize medical care and education by choosing drugs and surgery as the 'scientific' therapies of medicine and outlawing everything else. Physicians who used homeopathy, nutrition, herbs, and electromagnetic therapies would lose their license to practice, at that time granted by the American Medical Association. Sometime in 1935, the machines were put in back rooms, unused and covered up with a sheet. In 1946 Harry [Van Gelder] bought the practice, resurrected the machine, found and started using the frequencies, and the rest is history."

I know I'm jumping into the history without sufficient background, but I don't want to make this too long. Here is another paragraph;

"George [Douglas] brought Harry's list of frequencies home written on pieces of binder paper and put them in a drawer in 1981. But where did the list come from? In the early 1900s there were thousands of medical physicians and osteopaths using electromagnetic therapies to treat patients with exotic-looking machines that plugged into wall current and delivered frequencies thought to be therapeutic. There were journals like _Electromedical Digest_ and groups like the Pathometric Society and the Electromedical Society to share discoveries and publish research. It was a huge movement in the United States and England."

My point in sharing those excerpts is to say that apparently The Power That Be felt like they could prevent the general population from being able to fix their own problems if they deprived them of the use of electricity. That would leave them needing to pay big bucks for surgery and drugs, which were likely to not completely fix a problem without creating side effects or complications that would require continued visits to the doctor.

So we need to be aware that the "educated" among us have been deprived of some important tools for fixing things, but only left with incomplete solutions that are more profitable to the "priesthood". I think that helps explain the antagonistic response we usually get from people with credentials. They've been brainwashed.

[Webbman]

since public opinion is not generated by the public but rather the banking mafia through the media, the best thing you can do is ignore their offerings. It cannot be changed.

they are in the enslavement and destruction business, not the enlightenment business.

[Zyxzevn]

For the EU, I think we need computer animations to show how the theory works.
Things like birkeland currents are hard to visualize.
I like to have animations on electric-based solar flares too, because they are so
clearly electrical.

Then we can add some animations that explain the formation of stars,
show alternatives for redshift, and possible configurations of galaxies
(that explain dark matter).

Because the EU can explain dark matter (and dark energy) with
normal proven models, the EU will get some attention from people
that are fed up with all the invisible dark stuff.

In addition to animations there could be some simulations with actual calculations too.
But those require a lot of work. And for those simulations we need fast computers and
fast algorithms.

[Lucien_Beckmann]

Public Opinion ?

what is That ?

Principle-less, half-literate commercial-journalism poking around the Glory Hole

and "Convincing" people by Video-Meme ... ?

popularising phantasms for the Unenlightened ...

ehr ...

i'm not sure that there's a Point in adding decimal places to "numbers of believers" ... popularisation kills ... and so does gobbledegook (the Oligarch/Einstein and the Establishmentarian Machine/...).

Lowest Common Denominator Faithful, is that what you want ?

no, it probably isn't ...

[lw1990]

How to change public opinion?
Write a book, wait for hundreds of years (you will be dead, but if your ideas were right, they will probably be found out).

How to change public opinion fast?
Create useful applications in the real world that forces people to see there is something tangible to what your saying
Aka that hard to do bro

How to change public opinion by merely thinking hard about it and coming up with some strings of sentences that makes everyone see it your way?
Impossible, make a meme instead, more effective

[mikie1999cr]

It seems 'Dark Science' has just made another breakthrough.
They just 'proved' that they have been correct all along and have lots of new charts, graphs and stunning information returned from their modeling. Dark matter is where we thought it was. It acts like we thought it did. How do we know you might ask. We 'asked' millions of red shifted galaxies and they all agreed. Of course all of the models are based on 'gravity' and in particular weak gravity lensing. Well that proves it! I asked all the questions about hammers using a hammer. Look out nails!

Check out the new papers at this link:

https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/des-ye ... ts-papers/

[lw1990]

Ever since Mercury's precession-orbit effect made Einstein come up with general relativity and curved spacetime, physics has been in mathematically contrived fantasy land. No one really understands general relativity physics or quantum mechanics, and certainly not like they understand Newtonian physics. General relativity and quantum mechanics didn't simplify or unify physics at all, it shattered it into many different pieces, because it's wrong.

We really need a way to account for Mercury's orbit (as well as all other planets) without having to rely on General Relativity or spacetime, then we can get physics back on track. That's the only way I can see accomplishing the goal of 'changing public opinion' to get physics back in the sane world. I see curved spacetime as the initial error that poisoned the collective mind of physicists. If we replace that with something else, they should all go "aha, so the universe is mechanical and makes sense, not an alice-in-wonderland type of landscape"

[Aardwolf]

Ever since Mercury's precession-orbit effect made Einstein come up with general relativity and curved spacetime, physics has been in mathematically contrived fantasy land. No one really understands general relativity physics or quantum mechanics, and certainly not like they understand Newtonian physics. General relativity and quantum mechanics didn't simplify or unify physics at all, it shattered it into many different pieces, because it's wrong.

We really need a way to account for Mercury's orbit (as well as all other planets) without having to rely on General Relativity or spacetime, then we can get physics back on track. That's the only way I can see accomplishing the goal of 'changing public opinion' to get physics back in the sane world. I see curved spacetime as the initial error that poisoned the collective mind of physicists. If we replace that with something else, they should all go "aha, so the universe is mechanical and makes sense, not an alice-in-wonderland type of landscape"

GR's "solving" of the orbit problem was just a fudge anyway. The total perturbations caused by the solar system calculated by Newton were 531 arcsecs from an observed 574 arcsecs. Einstein knew the gap and filled it but he really should have applied his equations to all identified perturbations not just the Mercury/Sun interaction. We are now expected to believe that all the other GR effects on the rest of the solar system just cancel out.

The funny thing is it's been know for 20 years that there is still a discrepancy of about 3.54 arcsecs so Einsteins perfect "fit" no longer fits. Not that it's easy to find this discrepancy. Wiki for example used to show it but has now reverted back to a 1947 reference! Looks better to help support the dogma I guess.

The fact is that it can't be solved by Newtons or Einsteins equations for the same reason the n-body problem can't be solved; A fundamental misunderstanding of orbital mechanics.

[Younger Dryas]

Like Geology, all it takes is time and pressure: Let the authorities worry about ushering in a new Golden Age. They've been working on it for a very long time now What can you do? Be happy. Learn as much as you can, soak it all up, enjoy every minute. Thats all anyone really cares about. Build a life worthy of imitation. Remember the days of your youth, when armed with nothing but the imagination, and a natural curiosity for all things - we lived free from fear, and embarked on the greatest of adventures within the confines of our very own backyards. Good luck!

We were born before the wind
Also younger than the sun
Ere the bonnie boat was won as we sailed into the mystic
Hark, now hear the sailors cry
Smell the sea and feel the sky
Let your soul and spirit fly into the mystic
And when that foghorn blows I will be coming home
And when that foghorn blows I want to hear it
I don't have to fear it
I want to rock your gypsy soul
Just like way back in the days of old
And together we will float into the mystic
Too late to stop now

[Sovereign Slave]

Hmm, much of my professional experience is in marketing and advertising, so your question to me is quite loaded. Swaying public perception would imply intentionally exposing masses of people to a product, service, viewpoint, etc., and is generally done for monetary gain, and/or power, and/or public support or manipulation, etc. To be effective in this approach requires, like most things, proprietary knowledge, experience, money, persistent effort over time, etc etc. But your personal examples are about how to approach and persuade individuals you know, which is an entirely different matter. And in a way, this totally identifies one fundamental difference between MSAP (Main Stream AstroPhysics) and EU.

So, let’s take MSAP first. Why does MSAP exist in its present form? As a marketer, to me there is really only one obvious reason, and that’s of course because it’s shockingly profitable. Things like black holes, binary stars, neutron stars, big bang, creation mythology, etc etc are just plane sexy and sell incredibly well. These things capture attention, fire the imagination, they excite and fascinate. MSAP intentionally presents a wonderful, mysterious, even scary place where literally anything is possible. In other words, at this point, it is intentionally sensational. And the dedicated, valiant scientists are leading the way, the gatekeepers to mankind exploring and understanding this wonderful universe. Very dramatic stuff indeed, that again, sells very well.

And they’ve had decades to market/indoctrinate the masses. It’s now part and parcel of our populist culture, world-wide, and they market it in populist ways. Now that’s power, and money is attracted to power, and power is held in institutions by and large. And those leading the institutions know this very well, and utilize it, and yes, it inevitably becomes very corrupt. That’s not to say there aren’t dedicated, well meaning minions who make up the institution, but the institution leaders do the things that promote the institution, and in this case that really doesn’t have anything to directly do with truth or scientific validity, and everything to do with manipulating perception. Why can’t MSAP theories be invalidated? Why would they want to invalidate the foundations of the institution they all depend on, especially when it’s been so financially successful, literally billions upon billions of dollars? And yes, the word you may be looking for here is “fraud.”

The good news is, institutions that grow beyond their appropriate function inevitably collapse under their own weight and corruption, and I think we’re seeing that now more and more with MSAP, and EU is definitely leading the way in accelerating that. And I think the way EU is going about it is correct, by freeing minds, one mind at a time, not in mass. And that’s what you personally want to do as well I believe, I’d just suggest that you shift your focus from persuasion to simple exposure. You can’t control people’s reactions to information, which is basically what I think you may be unintentionally trying to do through persuading them the information is true and they should believe it. Go for repeated exposure over time without concern for outcome. Generally it takes 7 exposures to an advertisement before it begins to have a significant effect on a person’s consciousness. So exposure over time is very effective. Some of those exposures could be pointing out the obvious shortcomings of MSAP, then other times something specific to EU. As with any message, people accept or reject as they please, and trying to debate usually just entrenches their viewpoint.

Regardless, intentionally shifting public perception is a long process, and for EU will happen through the methodical presentation of the theory and science they present, and through people like us.