Public recognition of the Theory of the Electric Universe

[Brigit Bara]

I will now provide a third example of stark contrast, or what is really total incompatibility, between the science behind UN "sustainability" policies, and the science of the Electric Universe: the possibility of discovering and using new sources of energy.


The recent Rio+20 Sustainable Development Conference was “the most significant environmental conference in history,” according to the United Nations. In a 288 page draft version for "The Future We Want," we find this statement:

"We urge countries to strictly apply the precautionary approach to any technologies that might imply a serious risk for the environment or human society...including nuclear energy and nanotechnology....To avoid irreversible and long-term damage from untested technologies, create an independent technology assessment and monitoring body at the UN."

Whearas acceptable, ie sustainable, forms of energy in the draft are the following: solar, wind, biomass, and hydro. In fact, the UN considers it a "right" of all people to have energy from "sustainable" "renewable" sources!


In order to understand how problematic this UN policy really is, we need simply to become familiar with the term, "precautionary approach."

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm....

In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement.

In essence, this not only allows policy makers to halt any technological developments that might bring "risk" to the public, but it actually requires them to restrict technology. And it is "for the public good."


Is this the future envisioned for the role of science, and for future scientific discoveries, in the Electric Universe?

[Brigit Bara]

Here is the deep philosophical and physical animosity between the science of the Electric Universe and the science which is used by the UN:

The calculation of enviornmental risk is not science. Science is not risk calculation.

The founder of empirical science, Sir Francis Bacon wrote:

Again there is another great and powerful cause why the sciences have made but little progress, which is this. It is not possible to run a course aright when the goal itself has not been rightly placed. Now the true and lawful goal of the sciences is none other than this: that human life be endowed with new discoveries and powers.

The goal of science, then, is to add deeper appreciation, new powers, and new discoveries to human life.

What the UN is doing is masquerading as science, claiming to take careful measurements of ice caps, water supplies, molecules in the atmosphere, etc., and in turn to use these measurements to create numerical models and predict shortage. This then is utilized in the sustainability policies to calculate risk and the result is that it removes and obscures new discoveries, and takes power away from human life.

That is not science.

In the Electric Universe, nearly every branch of science awaits its Galileo, its Cuvier. Nearly nothing is understood well because the electric force has been ignored. The advancements to be made in every area of science hold promise of delight, appreciation, new discoveries, and new powers. On the subject of energy especially,

Clean nuclear power is available from resonant catalytic nuclear systems. Higher energy is available from resonant catalytic chemical systems than in the usual chemical reactions.

Also, recall what has been said about Randall Mills' discovery and patent of the process of lowering the state of hydrogen and obtaining energy and hydrinos:

From an Electric Universe perspective Mills’ process makes sense. Electron orbits are simply resonant states in which the transfer of energy between each electron and the nucleus sums to zero over each orbit. It seems that Mills has been able to drop the electron to a new stable orbit closer to the nucleus by resonant catalysis using atoms of a heavy metal, which has myriad resonances. Ketterle’s objection that hydrogen has “had time enough to find its ground state” is irrelevant because we are not talking about isolated hydrogen atoms. It is merely an assumption to define a ground state of hydrogen until we have observed the behavior of hydrogen in all possible environments and under all possible conditions.

Bohr and those who followed him simply adopted the “principle of impotence” in defining the “ground state” of the hydrogen atom. It is no basis for emphatic denial of Randell Mills’ work.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/its-time-for-change/

And this is why the Electric Universe ultimately has no affinity with the United Nations. I hope that the statements above about new energy sources are more than just secondary tenets of the Electric Universe, but are primary and essential in their meaning: that science is not calculation of environmental risk and enforcement of the principle of impotence, but is the persuit of empirical knowledge by free people which adds new appreciation, discoveries and powers to human life.

[Phorce]

The Theory of the Electric Universe is all new to me, and after some weeks of investigating the matter through books and internet sites, I'm pretty much convinced that at least some unrecognised fundamental truth about the Universe resides within this alternative cosmology...

Hi pepe, I just discovered your post. I regard the current problems with honesty in science as more of a sociological problem. We are just emerging from possibly one of the greatest upheavals in human history. The Twentieth Century. We have a lot of problems in society. For example I am currently reading The Loss of the Good Authority by Tom Pitt-Aikens and Alice Thomas Ellis. They argue that two world wars have a had a generational effect on child rearing due to a loss of benevolent authority figures and role models in society due to the numbers of people lost and damaged in those wars. There are also other factors. So these controversies in Science, I would say, have to be looked at in their proper context. Saying all that, there is much hope and healing going on. Much will change in the next 10, 20, 30 years.

One work that I am finding invaluable is the book Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo. It covers another field but has in-depth case studies of the kind of debates you are trying to find. Many of these were scientific exchanges and debates over fossilised human remains that took place before the Theory of Evolution took hold (much as Dark Matter cosmology has). I know there have been recorded historical open debates in the plasma cosmology field as well. I'm not sure if there is a work covering those. But the sociology/philosophy and history of science will take you to the right places. For example Paul Feyerabend writes about the actual detailed historical scientific cases in his book Farewell to Reason which are often quite revealing in that they usually did not happen the way that many modern scientists describe them as happening.

Another things is that it's all very well asking for open debates. But it has to come from both sides. In my experience EU people (or whatever "alternative" science) ask for those debates and can sometimes fail to respect and take seriously the other sides theories. In this case that would be Dark Matter (gravity based) cosmology that EU advocates can be so sure is wrong that they fail to take THOSE theories as seriously as EU theories. Easier said than done .

Lastly someone mentioned the fact that there are many more discoveries being made every day. This reminded me of something in yet another field (its so important to have a cross discipline approach here). Breakthrough Technologies ...

(think of the below describing EU theory)

What is a breakthrough?



S-Curve Pattern of Technology RevolutionFigure adapted from Innovation, the Attacker’s Advantage, R. Foster, 1986. Image credit: NASA.

A breakthrough is when the performance limits of an existing device or method are exceeded by a new, different device or method. The key word: different.

As technology evolves, a given device or method will reach a point when it can no longer be improved. At this point it has reached the limits of its underlying physical principles. To exceed this performance limit, a totally different device or method with different underlying physical principles is required. Examples:

The limits of sailing ships were exceeded with steam ships.
The speed limits of propeller aircraft were exceeded by jet aircraft
The altitude limits of aircraft were exceeded by rockets
The travel limits of rockets will be exceeded by... (to be determined)

The S-Curve figure illustrates both the evolution of a given technology, and the breakthrough event when a new, superior technology becomes viable. For a given technology, the evolution is as follows: Initial efforts result in little advancement and then the technology becomes successful. This success point, at the lower knee of the curve, is where the technology has finally demonstrated its utility. After this point significant progress and improvements are made as several embodiments are produced and the technology becomes widely established.

So in many ways there in fact many established examples out there of how all this is playing out.