Recovered: Our Orphaned Solar System

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 9:12 pm
Post subject:
OP="Pfhoenix"

The neighborhood was already on its way to going, which is why I spoke up - to hopefully open people's eyes to the pit they're already half in.

Ego is not the problem here. I do not pretend to know everything; I do not pretend that I am infallible. I do not, conversely, say something without thinking it through.

The real problem lays in your claim of "intolerance of difference". It's not as if you claimed that apples are great and I disagree. We're not talking about some simple difference of personal opinion here. We're talking about Science - something based on cold logic and reason; observation of reality and induction of rules there from. If you think my disagreeing with you is due to intolerance on my part, then you have completely failed to understand what it was I was saying. Just because you think that anything can be possible doesn't make it so. My not having an "open enough mind" in your eyes does not negate the facts and evidence that speak volumes against what flights of fancy you hold.

If the best you can do to aid the public awareness of the EU model is by pushing tolerance of different models, then you have equally failed to understand the EU model, why it is so important, and what sets it apart from the other models being pushed. It will be people like you that will ultimately undermine any effort by serious minded people to bring the EU model to a more widely recognized position as a model of authenticity.
_________________
"Wisdom is Knowledge tempered through Experience." - Me
"Abstract math seems to be the lubricant for hammering square pegs into round holes." - Unknown

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 10:12 pm
Post subject: Re: BS abounds
OP="arc-us"

What would really be interesting, and of actual useful discussion value, would be looking at the internal plasma process by which a gas giant or star would build up a plasma body ejecta without ejecting it externally.

Good point, and an excellent thread for the Electric Universe topic.

Another interesting topic would be - assuming that life on Earth did start inside a gas giant, what do you think the effect on societal development would have been on mankind if Earth had stayed there? Look at the diversity of life, the sheer numbers of species, in prehistory, and look at the numbers now. Mass extinctions have happened over relatively very short spans of time. The history of such events can be counted on one hand, and the life that rebounds is *always* less numerous. Perhaps the radiation that leads to evolutionary changes in a species was more prevalent in the past. What would the effects of being in such a space environment (inside a gas giant) have on space travel development? There'd be no moon to go after, after all. What about the development of plasma technology? Would the ambient electrical environment on Earth be so significantly different as to hinder or help the discoveries of electricity and magnetism?

All excellent questions. But, I perceive the same mistake being propagated here that our orthodox astronomers and astrophysicists are making when they ignore and discount catastophism and continue to perceive and formulate a universe built on uniformitarian principles. These questions are formulated by a mind (I'm not accusing *your* mind specifically, I mean the general state of humanity's consciousness) that is viewing itself and the universe in the same way uniformitarians view the universe as being basically static across a scale of time that is endless to them. To me, these types of questions would be meaningless to an entirely different form of mind that would exist in an entirely different EM environment. But they are extremly good questions from humanity's current state of mind. And I could offer more particulars in answer to each of the questions from my point of view, but why if it's only to be pointless fodder for further invective? Because I already know your opinion of my POV. Yes, much of it - most, whatever - is *entirely* speculative and "un-scientific" (most certainly for those defining science in the manner you have) - hence why this crackpot, for one, posts his hippie-love (?) tripe in a forum appropriately labelled "Mad."

You and I both know, Pfhoenix, we are likely never to see eye-to-eye on this. So I'm not sure I'm understanding why you'd even want to engage myself or others about it. If my presence and expression of viewpoint is an embarassment to yourself and EU'ians in general and the Thunderbolt Team as you state or certainly imply, then - if you haven't already done so - I think you should appeal to them directly and have all the nonsense deleted. Honestly, and I mean this from my heart (whether or not you recognize any such entity as "heart and soul" apart from the blood-and-guts function level of reflexive meat pumping blood throughout a more or less vegative system), but I do mean that I will take no offense to it whatsoever.

Otherwise, why not just post your valid points of discussion as above, absent the protest or indictment of others' points of view? I mean, to me, it is a bit reminiscent of "ScienceApologist's"(sp?) tactics on the Wiki EU article.

Namaste,
Arc-us
_________________
The moment of recognizing what cannot be thought is the moment of recognizing who you are. It is a moment of the mind's surrender to silence. -- Gangaji

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 10:36 pm
Post subject:
OP="arc-us"

The neighborhood was already on its way to going, which is why I spoke up - to hopefully open people's eyes to the pit they're already half in.

Ego is not the problem here. I do not pretend to know everything; I do not pretend that I am infallible. I do not, conversely, say something without thinking it through.

The real problem lays in your claim of "intolerance of difference". It's not as if you claimed that apples are great and I disagree. We're not talking about some simple difference of personal opinion here. We're talking about Science - something based on cold logic and reason; observation of reality and induction of rules there from. If you think my disagreeing with you is due to intolerance on my part, then you have completely failed to understand what it was I was saying. Just because you think that anything can be possible doesn't make it so. My not having an "open enough mind" in your eyes does not negate the facts and evidence that speak volumes against what flights of fancy you hold.

If the best you can do to aid the public awareness of the EU model is by pushing tolerance of different models, then you have equally failed to understand the EU model, why it is so important, and what sets it apart from the other models being pushed. It will be people like you that will ultimately undermine any effort by serious minded people to bring the EU model to a more widely recognized position as a model of authenticity.

I apologize if I gave the impression in using the term "ego" that I was implying you were a know-it-all or some such. Not my intent. To me ego purely signifies who we literally think we are, not what we know, and certainly not who we really are, but I've gone into my own opinions on that elsewhere. Not that I think you'd be interested nor in attempt to engage you further on it.

But you see, I think it is, indeed, a simple matter of intolerance of difference. And, for me, it might be summarized by how you define science above. As you have summarily characterized my viewpoint as crackpot etc I would see yours as one that commonly divorces *yourself* from the experience of the observation of the physical universe. That you discount your true essence in the involvement of what you apparently can only validate through "objective" measurement and quantification. I am *not* trying to make you wrong in any of this. I also saw it similarly once upon a time.

However, I no longer see the merit in comprehending the universe as a thing somehow separate and different than our own true nature. But I know you see where this is going to go if continued - into the realm of mind, soul, and spirit. And I assume this would be anathema to how you see the physical universe.

Why does mind, soul, spirit seem to be such an embarrassment to modern materialist scientists? Because it can't be objectified and measured? Is that all? Then I suggest that is sad in a way because that viewpoint requires that you subtract the essence of humanity, the essence of his mind, from all observation. Yes, indeed, what cold, hard facts you are left with.

What is there to be ashamed of in talking "fantasy" about what may have been and what may be? Just how serious is it?

So, yes, I see an intolerance of difference. Because you somehow see science as divorced from the embarrassment of ourselves, or aspects of ourselves that should not be talked about in "serious" discussion. I don't see the merit in conceiving science as some separate entity in and of itself, completely cut off from philosophy, music and other arts, psychology, et al.

Concerning SVP - I have not studied all their material, I don't particularly agree with all that I have read and seen from it. But it doesn't *embarrass* me to consider what they may have to offer in terms of viewpoint and information. I mean, who am I to make judgments about who or what they *are* in an accusatory or adversarial manner? And so, I would ask the same of you. Really, now. Are you simply desirous of having us "crackpots" just disappear to save you the embarrassment of having to shoot us all yourself? That's the general "tone" of your postings that comes across to me.

Anyway, I don't have any more to say about it. My respects to you and your point of view, if not to the manner with which you choose to express it.

Namaste,
Arc-us
_________________
The moment of recognizing what cannot be thought is the moment of recognizing who you are. It is a moment of the mind's surrender to silence. -- Gangaji

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:10 am
Post subject:
OP="Pfhoenix"

Your appeals to emotion are particularly bothersome. Humanity's consciousness? Who I think I am? Who else might I be? Plato would be proud, as would Kant and Hegel, the two philosophers directly responsible for the mindset that led to the Nazis in power in Germany.

Your insistence on my "intolerance" is in complete ignorance of the facts. In fact, your entire position essentially denies any objective reality. Why are you interested in science? Do you see it as a way to explain what would otherwise be complete fantasy? Science is not the route to validity for one such as you - nothing can validate every fanciful whim you want to impose on reality.

As soon as you deny that science is about studying reality, experimenting and obtaining data on it, and formulating generalized theories on how things work, then you aren't talking about science - you're talking about religion. Religion is in the business of not looking at reality with a critical eye; religion is about theories that are supposed to make one "feel good", or at least act in a certain way. The sooner you realize this, then at the very least, the more honest you can be with yourself.

Unless you also think that truth is subjective, that somehow we can both be right about the things we disagree on. You can't be a consistent denier of reality; at some point you will invariably contradict yourself, and either you then realize your mistake from the get-go or you wave away the contradiction by rationalizing that what's right and what's wrong changes from minute to minute. If you do the latter, then you are just as wrong as the Big Bang Cosmologists that you dislike so much.

And to those who are getting tired of all this - this is ultimately for YOUR benefit. You cannot get anything out of a scientific inquiry without analyzing those results. In order to analyze any results, you have to JUDGE them. Judging things is one of the things that the human mind excels at, and it is something that *everyone* does every minute of every day. Judging things means applying your philosophy to it - do you want everyone to be right? Pretend your results mean that. Do you care more about what's actually right than what you want to be right? Use strictly logic and reason to analyze. Philosophy is the foundation of science, and to ignore it, to try to divorce science from philosophy (to avoid thinking about those hard topics, like Ethics for example), is ultimately impossible. You will always be applying your philosophy at all times.

The world isn't some "feel good" place. Reality isn't a bed of roses. It can be what you make of it, provided you keep your head out of the ground and up tall, where you can get a clear view of what's really going on. The reality around you isn't some smoke and mirrors for an alternate dimension of "real things". Get used to it.
_________________
"Wisdom is Knowledge tempered through Experience." - Me
"Abstract math seems to be the lubricant for hammering square pegs into round holes." - Unknown

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Post subject:
OP="redeye"

Who are you calling a crackpot!
Oh.......me......fair enough.
_________________
If I were an educated man then I'd be a fool!
B.Marley

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 1:16 pm
Post subject:
OP="arc-us"

Who are you calling a crackpot!
Oh.......me......fair enough.

Yeah, true enough for me, too, I guess when it comes down to it. I give.

EDIT: That cracked me up. Thanks, red. Still
_________________
The moment of recognizing what cannot be thought is the moment of recognizing who you are. It is a moment of the mind's surrender to silence. -- Gangaji

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:41 pm
Post subject: Re: BS abounds
OP="Krackonis"

"We did not have reason. Not until about 700 bc or so." By looking at some of the posts in this forum, a hard case to make about even now.

Well, not really. There is much evidence that was the case. Also there are events from around that time like "Solomons killing of the Prophets" Which says "Anyone who claims to hear the Gods needs to be put to death." Why would they make that decree?

Likely that people who started "forethought" could not longer deal with the irrational and apparently "lunatic" prophets, who still thought "the old way".

These are at least, plausible. Not trying to force any views here.
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:46 pm
Post subject:
OP="Krackonis"

While I'm at it, I also would like the EU model to be separated from the Saturnian Theory. The philosophical foundation (some mystical racial memory of a lost eden) is not solid, and while I recognize the electric processes at work that create craters and valleys like Valle Marinaris on Mars, that says nothing about the purely speculative nature of a reconstructed history of the solar system. The Saturnian Theory needs to be kept out of the cosmological model that is the EU model, and properly place strictly in a historical theory framework.

If I may interject, and not to be blunt, but EU allows you to see other disciplines in a new light.

Mythology and Relgion are now "different" with EU. That to me is at least as interesting, if not more important than EU itself.

However, I do complete understand the need to keep Saturn Theory seperate, however, It's a very big part of the whole EU experience and should be noted that Mythology is 'studiable' under this theory.

That is significantly different than me espousing 'crackpot' theories.
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:02 pm
Post subject:
OP="Pfhoenix"

I completely agree - studying classic fields (like chemistry, though perhaps a poor example as it hasn't, to my knowledge, suffered the blindsight that cosmology and astronomy has) with a new electric perspective can only be enlightening.

That being said, accepting the Saturnian Theory as a core part of the EU model will only provide a barrier to people otherwise interested in learning more about the EU model.

People, when holding deeply ingrained beliefs, can only be persuaded otherwise through consistent and regular questions and injections of the new perspective, and in very controlled doses. This precisely describes the current state of modern cosmology (i.e. the Big Bang Theory camp and its associates in quantum physics, particle physics, and astronomy). It may seem easy to you and I to look at the heavens and say "Hey, that crater has features very distinguishably similar to plasma arcing processes in a lab" - that mental leap is not one someone firmly grounded in currently accepted dogma is prepared (not incapable) to make.

The battle to bring the EU model to the proper place in scientific study will not be short, and it will not be aided by giving the antagonists an all-too-easily grabbed handhold to point and say "look, that theory claims that Earth was once inside a gas giant! how ridiculous!". It is because of this long-term view of the issue that the EU model needs to be kept in a core state.

On the flip side, mythology can be studied without the EU model in place. That you can take myths and squeeze out an EU explanation doesn't support the EU model as much as you want it to - I could come up with any fanciful explanation that covers the "facts" of the myths that, to the outside person, would seem just as reliable. You're dealing with myths that have been rewritten and reinterpreted thousands upon thousands of times by different people at different times; accepting any current version as the actual basis is the hugest leap of faith of them all. The subject matter is one that started *and ended* millenia prior. It is this reason alone that I don't care for the mythological study that goes on, and I prefer to stick with analyzing the planets we can see right now, with data we're obtaining right now, along side experiments made and verified right now.
_________________
"Wisdom is Knowledge tempered through Experience." - Me
"Abstract math seems to be the lubricant for hammering square pegs into round holes." - Unknown

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:59 pm
Post subject:
OP="Krackonis"

I completely agree - studying classic fields (like chemistry, though perhaps a poor example as it hasn't, to my knowledge, suffered the blindsight that cosmology and astronomy has) with a new electric perspective can only be enlightening.

That being said, accepting the Saturnian Theory as a core part of the EU model will only provide a barrier to people otherwise interested in learning more about the EU model.

(snip)
On the flip side, mythology can be studied without the EU model in place. That you can take myths and squeeze out an EU explanation doesn't support the EU model as much as you want it to - I could come up with any fanciful explanation that covers the "facts" of the myths that, to the outside person, would seem just as reliable. You're dealing with myths that have been rewritten and reinterpreted thousands upon thousands of times by different people at different times; accepting any current version as the actual basis is the hugest leap of faith of them all. The subject matter is one that started *and ended* millenia prior. It is this reason alone that I don't care for the mythological study that goes on, and I prefer to stick with analyzing the planets we can see right now, with data we're obtaining right now, along side experiments made and verified right now.

Admittedly, I enjoy that very much myself. I however, like to study history aswell. To account for the actions of our ancestors can only show our biasness. Which I do enjoy shedding...

That said, sometimes Mythological studies with EU provides two very important a concurrent 'proofs'. You can state an event with EU theory and you can see if it was written down by ancient man and what they 'described it' like.

I can't see this as a hinderance.

Now, some theories, creationist, mayan long counts, Nostradamus, 2012 theories, aliens in space suits visiting people don't really help EU, but ultimately, they ahve nothing to do with EU. They will be espoused in all forums as the nature of humans. I don't think that will ever change.

I recommend focusing on being earnest in your quest and don't let that kinda stuff get to you. It san sometimes bring about new ideas for your own theories that may not have been considered.

And it alot people people believe something... Say, God built their civilization, maybe there is reason to keep handing that information down from generation to generation...
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 6:04 pm
Post subject:
OP="Pfhoenix"

I don't deny that there may very well be historical utility to studying myths and correlating their aspects. I am saying that that entire practice should not be construed as a part of the actual EU model itself.
_________________
"Wisdom is Knowledge tempered through Experience." - Me
"Abstract math seems to be the lubricant for hammering square pegs into round holes." - Unknown

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:32 pm
Post subject:
OP="arc-us"

Meandering back to the general vicinity of the topic, I was reading through the thread in this forum about magnetic reversals. A few questions for anyone that might have an interest, opinions, or ideas about it ...

1) what ramifications would a change of magnetic (not geographical) polarity of the Earth have for biological systems?

2) would chirality orientation of organic systems be affected? i.e. from memory I think, but could be off, that natural forms presently seem to favor molecular right-handedness. EDIT: Appears I recalled incorrectly - just read that apparently there is a left-handed preference in amino acids and a right-handed preference in sugars. Will have to revisit this subject as it's been a few years and I find it quite fascinating. I posit a link to DNA configuration in this context, so might not magnetic orientation be a prime area for investigation and, yah, pure speculation with regard to DNA orientation and configuration?

3) how would a reversal most likely be experienced mentally? any supposed effects on mental orientation? perceived effects on memory? (aside from the obvious potential begging for humor in these questions go start yer own thread )

4) what would the technological effects likely be, societal and cultural impacts? e.g. how would electrical, electronic, computerized equipment fare with reversed circuit polarities? or will they even "notice" due to the A/C component? Same for D/C since most internal D/C components derive their function from the A/C source? how about magnetic storage media (hard drives)? any effects on orbiting satellites? communications systems such as civil and military?

5) you don't have to agree to the premise, but for the sake of crack-pottedness supposing the essence (aka soul, spirit, etc) of physical beings in a relationship with matter is some sort of extremely high, ephemeral frequency range (resonant with and to the denser physical body forms but not necessarily in a complete identity with them), what might be the effects at this level? If you can't relate to this in any fashion or have not an inkling of what I'm bleeding driving at, that's okay - just skip it. Not interested in how it ain't that way as I'm fully familiar with that shtick.

Feel free to pick-and-choose, freeform it, whatever.

Arc-us
_________________
The moment of recognizing what cannot be thought is the moment of recognizing who you are. It is a moment of the mind's surrender to silence. -- Gangaji

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:21 pm
Post subject: magnetic reversals
OP="moses"

what ramifications would a change of magnetic (not geographical) polarity of the Earth have for biological systems?
Arc-us

Obviously depends on what caused the magnetic reversals.
If the reversals were the result of cataclysmic events then
epigenetic changes, at least, would be expected. Also if the
reversals were periodic then that periodicity would now be a
part of our genetic make-up.

Chromatin configuration effects epigenetic expression of genes,
and so could be worth investigating the magnetic effects on this.
The currents through the acupuncture meridian channels might
likely be effected by magnetic reversals, but as to a long term
effect - ?

Mo

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:20 am
Post subject: bach 2 bass ?
OP="fungus"

ORPHANED SOLAR SYSTEM ANYONE?

atrcus seemed to be suggesting that there was a connection between this and another system and that the connection suddenly ceased?

and he also said clearly that other beings

(ie alien to SOL [or perhaps alien to SATURNIA] )

intermingled with the local yokels.

And these alien archangels fell into the yokels........or just some of us....around 2700yr bp.

Am i accurate?

In the words of mccauly culkin's character 'i am hungry for more'

Anyone else?

fungus

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:38 am
Post subject: Forum...
OP="davesmith_au"

This is the New Insights and Mad Ideas thread... right?
_________________
"Once upon a time, nothing went BANG!" - 20th century mainstream Astrophysicists...
"If you are not prepared to think outside the square, you will always be confined within it..." Dave Smith.