NASA and Government Discuss EU

[junglelord]

Yeah thats correct. NASA Space Weather has taken hold and for the last four years, the powers that be have gotten together to discuss, not black holes, not dark energy, not dark matter, but THE EU....

2010 marks the 4th year in a row that policymakers, researchers, legislators and reporters have gathered in Washington DC to share ideas about space weather. This year, forum organizers plan to sharpen the focus on critical infrastructure protection. The ultimate goal is to improve the nation’s ability to prepare, mitigate, and respond to potentially devastating space weather events.

"I believe we're on the threshold of a new era in which space weather can be as influential in our daily lives as ordinary terrestrial weather." Fisher concludes. "We take this very seriously indeed."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... 4jun_swef/

Space weather is all about ELECTRICITY, not gravity, not dark matter, not dark energy.
Do not ever think they do not know the truth, they just do not TEACH the truth, but they know....

[nick c]

I am not encouraged by these developments, nowhere in the article do I see the words "Electric Universe." In fact, the only use of the E word is in reference to satellites at risk of damage from "electrical surges." Mainstream (including NASA) continues to resort to the use of euphemisms, such as bow shock, solar wind, etc. "Space weather" is just more of the same.
What we have here is the addressing of the practical necessities of dealing with technical issues of the Electric Universe without any theoretical concessions.
These people just don't get it.

Nick

[Anaconda]

nick c,

True enough in regards to the euphemisms, but do you really expect a big announcement of "Electric Universe rules" at this kind of conference? Or even a sudden change of nomemclature?

But the technical guys know what's going on...it's plasma, free electrons & ions, an electrified environment. That's why it fries electronics

And, if the "big guys" ask questions with even a mild sophistication, the technical guys will tell them what's going on...by explaining the dynamics of plasma...

Judging by the inertia in the scientific community, the nomenclature will be the last thing that changes, all the while the reality of the physical relationships in space which are dominated by electromagnetism will gradually sink in

On a serious note, Electric Universe, as a label will always have a hard time in scientific circles as long as its leaders are associated with such things as the "Saturn theory" which have little or no basis in scientific evidence, yet seem to dominate their perspective to the point of being willing to down grade other perspectives that contradict their pet, Saturn theory

[junglelord]

Nick, their highlevel meetings are all about the EU. Read between the lines my friend.

[davesmith_au]

On a serious note, Electric Universe, as a label will always have a hard time in scientific circles as long as its leaders are associated with such things as the "Saturn theory" which have little or no basis in scientific evidence, yet seem to dominate their perspective to the point of being willing to down grade other perspectives that contradict their pet, Saturn theory

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. It was a forensic examination of available evidence which led to the Saturn theory, not the other way around. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

We now return you to the topic of the thread...

Cheers, Dave.

[ElecGeekMom]

Language shows heritage.

They may well start talking about the electrical properties that the EU highlights, but they will probably use divergent terms for them, just to avoid appearing like they got the ideas from someone who is not part of their authority structure.

I submit that their top priority is not "truth, above all", but "avoid harming our fellows, at all costs".

I also suspect that they do not want to make the science quite so accessible as we know it could be.

[nick c]

JL,
I have read the article, and there is no need to read between the lines as there is nothing there to read!
Nasa engineers and technicians do not care about theory, they have a job to do, and dealing with the realities of electric current power surges is a practical necessity. The theoreticians remain devoted to the same theories.

their highlevel meetings are all about the EU

Well, unless you are a 'fly on the wall' at one of those meetings, I do not know how you can make such a declaration. From what I can see, the people in those closed door meetings still subscribe to the same theories that are being criticised by the EU. Nothing has changed, to the people in those closed door meetings: the Sun is still a thermonuclear furnace, an enormous black hole at the center powers the galaxy, dark matter, big bang...etc etc etc.

That being said, it would be great if you are correct and change is imminent. But, I would not get your hopes up! The history of science has shown us that paradigm change is a slow process.

Nick

[nick c]

Anaconda,

True enough in regards to the euphemisms, but do you really expect a big announcement of "Electric Universe rules" at this kind of conference? Or even a sudden change of nomemclature?

After reading my post, why would you think that I expect a big announcement? I think that my post says, of course, I do not! Mainstream's use of euphemisms is symptomatic of a deeper problem. The fact that they continue to use those expressions shows that the problem is still there.

Your suggestion that the EU abandon it's analyses of myth in favor of your conception of what "science" should be, shows an underlying misunderstanding of the "big picture." Discovery is not limited to a perspective given by an over reliance on precise measurements and mathematical 'proofs' to the exclusion of a set of observations. Especially when it is considered that conclusions derived from those measurements and proofs have implied and restricting a priori assumptions. The stories passed down from our ancestors constitute a set of observations. Those stories are a subjective interpretation of external events, the nature of those events can be extracted through a comparative (forensic) anlysis.
The EU is what it is, the evidence is being presented and debated. Abandoning the foundations of the EU so that it can receive 'approval' from mainstream is not an option, imhop.
I am confident that future discoveries are going to lend support to the EU, probably in ways that we cannot foresee.
Some ideas just will not "go away".... historic planetary catastrophism is one of these.
...but I digress as that is not the topic of this thread.

Nick

[junglelord]

Dear Nick
You seem to "disconnect"(pun intended) the whole space weather understanding of electric current in space, because they do not use the term EU. Satellites are electric, shutting down transformers, that would be electric.
Like I said, no dark nothing, no gravity waves, blah blah blah....it is all about CURRENT, electric current.
I think it is clear that to the likes of Professor Lewin who claims in MIT lecture one, there is no charge seperation in space, well NASA and all telecommunications know otherwise. We have the same view, charge seperation, electric current surges, etc al.

That my friend is EU talk, certainly not cosmological fairytale jibberjabber.

[Anaconda]

nick c,

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.

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

[nick c]

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).

Of course you can have your opinion but your portrayal of me as 'crouching in a corner' is incorrect. Mainstream is going to have to abandon such entrenched theories such as the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Black Holes...and the rest. This is going to be difficult since it is obvious that these theories are not regarded as theories by mainstream, in practice they are regarded as fact. The dominance of physics and cosmology by mathematicians has not changed, equations are judged by their mathematical 'elegance' and not the relation to real world observations.
It is not a matter of pessimism or optimism, but rather a realistic understanding of human social behavior. The history of science teaches us that the prevailing paradigm changes slowly and can take up the span of more than one lifetime, despite the existence of more than enough evidence to have it discarded.

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.

True scientists are people and when three or more people interact you have a situation which we, with backgrounds in the social sciences, call "politics." There are reasons that they are "lurking," what do you think would happen to them if they became associated with the EU? Bad career move? "true scientist" becomes a martyr for the cause?
Yes I know that there are individuals in NASA and academia, sympathetic to various EU positions, or at least willing to give it a fair hearing...after all, Don Scott did not lecture at a NASA facility without an invitation. However, the powers that be in NASA have their informal spokespeople for the status quo, Bridgman and Nereid come to mind.
Maybe you think I am 'crouching in a corner' but I think you are quite naive if you think that the basics are going to change anytime soon.
Be prepared for a long battle, it's a marathon not a sprint.

Nick

[junglelord]

I see no need to battle, space weather has determined that electric currents are a real issue. Government is listening. We have won the battle. They do not come to determine the cause and effect of gravity waves, dark matter or energy, on satellites. That tells me volumes about what they understand...vs what they preach.

Kind of reminds me of the catholic church....ouch that hurts.

[redeye]

Kind of reminds me of the catholic church....ouch that hurts.

Hey, lay off the Catholic Church. I went to a Catholic School (don't ask, the education system in Scotland is insane) and it taught me never to trust anyone, ever.

Cheers!

[David Talbott]

A thought for Anaconda. Follow your instincts with respect to Anthony Peratt's work, while keeping in mind that Peratt himself has seen many things in the "Saturn theory" that you've not acknowledged. One value of Peratt's investigation is that it has the power to invalidate my own reconstruction of events—IF this reconstruction is fundamentally incorrect. Though he's assured me more than once that his investigation has already confirmed the fundamentals, I'll let the outcome speak for itself.

One correction, however. It is certainly true that "myths and symbols" are subject to every interpretation imaginable. But the situation reverses itself when it comes to the integrity of the archetypes. For that integrity, no prior explanation has been offered by anyone. Integrity means an interconnectedness and coherence of the whole, without contradiction. Until one sees this integrity with full clarify, he will always be susceptible to the idea that no coherent root could lie beneath the surface chaos of mythology. But that root can be proven through accepted principles of reasoning, the very principles we use all the time in judicial processes (that is, processes whose rationality rises far above the standard in the theoretical sciences today). It's for this reason that I committed to three episodes of "Alien Sky", based on earlier public presentations of selected material. I could see that three episodes would be sufficient to make the case at the required level — extraordinary evidence, proof, if you will — for the extraordinary claims.

The posture that will be most constructive here is one of suspended judgment, together with a clear eye to logical rules governing use of evidence. In the end, the presentation comes down to only two things. First, a highly specific reconstruction of formations in the ancient sky. Second, a factual summary of cultural archetypes. And that's it. Apart from the reconstruction itself, no "speculations" are included. Therefore the relationship between the model and the factual evidence (broadly acknowledged archetypes) is exceptionally direct, making the acid tests as obvious as they are inescapable. In every case, you'll only need to ask one question. If I grant the reconstructed event would I doubt that the archetype is explained? In this sense you'll not find a more direct use of evidence in any theoretical field. But the simplicity of this test is something people have to discover for themselves — by applying it. Not all have shown that inclination, but a substantial majority have, including the principals of the Thunderbolts Project and thousands more. I hope you and others wondering about the use of evidence here will apply the same test. Applied to just a few instances, the test may mean little or nothing. But applied to the archetypes as a whole, it will mean everything.

[Vek]

The Saturn theory was one that always seemed like a very detailed way of describing the ancient sky and well worth investigation. It makes a very interesting theory and without doubt closer to the truth than any mathmatical explanation given out by the mainstream but for myself; I don't yet hold on to it as an absolute, in the way I hold electric comets, electric sun, no big bang, no dark matter and no black holes ideas. It does seem obvious by any EU standard and indeed anyone who has studied history in this area that saturn has played a major roll somewhere in the scheme of things but even if the EU was accepted by NASA tomorrow, there would still be no end of debate and discussion before any nailed down facts were accepted.
That old Kronos played a hugh roll in the history of our planet, seems to be the case but just how, where and when he rolled will no doubt create an endless amount of investigation and interpretation.
Getting the mainsteam to understand that the planets can shift in their orbits in an electric field is the first and most important thing; then they can join us already enlightened ones in the arguing over how and where we rolled in the past.

Until then; keep up the good work.