Interview that gets into EU.

[gocrew]

I just did an interview/discussion about my science fiction novel, Withur We. We talked about my next novel, The Preferred Observer.

It starts off mainly about libertarianism, but we get into dissident science somewhere around the 40 minute mark, and most of that is spent on the Electric Universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQJoaZHOZVE

[IgorTesla]

Electrifying

Good discussion,

[gocrew]

Thank you!

[IgorTesla]

This interview deserves more response i'd say.
Personally i think this interview qualifies to be added on the Thunderbolts homepage but sadly it seems not a lot of people have been watching it or maybe they just seen it and didn't make an effort to respond to it.
Hopefully you get more responses as it would be a loss if this interview was ommited just for the simple reason that it describes how modern science is locked down by obsolete theories ...

[gocrew]

This interview deserves more response i'd say.
Personally i think this interview qualifies to be added on the Thunderbolts homepage but sadly it seems not a lot of people have been watching it or maybe they just seen it and didn't make an effort to respond to it.
Hopefully you get more responses as it would be a loss if this interview was ommited just for the simple reason that it describes how modern science is locked down by obsolete theories ...

Thanks, Igor! I appreciate it!

Maybe we can get a little more discussion going here.

[ThunderIdeal]

i watched from 40:00

very interesting how EU was just going to be the bad guy in your fiction (establishment science) and you only became a convert after writing 19 chapters and deciding to do more research into EU

you did a reasonably good job of promoting some parts of the EU perspective

edit: i don't agree that it should be on the thunderbolts youtube channel.

it's difficult introducing people to thunderbolts material, especially if they aren't even particularly well-informed in conventional science. i tend to think that the little "space news" vids are the best.

[gocrew]

very interesting how EU was just going to be the bad guy in your fiction (establishment science) and you only became a convert after writing 19 chapters and deciding to do more research into EU.

It provided for me the very lesson I was trying to convey in my story!

you did a reasonably good job of promoting some parts of the EU perspective

I'd love to hear how I could have done better. I'm just Some Guy on the Internet self educating and, I'm sure, making my share of mistakes/omissions.

[ThunderIdeal]

as you say in the interview it's possible to talk for many hours just introducing newcomers to some of the phenomena which is perhaps better explained by EU, even without getting into the catastrophism.

i'm also just a guy and my effort would be about as reasonable as yours.

i've decided certain aspects of EU make better introductory topics but the trick is really in stringing several bits together and throwing in some of the modern findings which give each part some credibility. birkeland currents are really what ties the universe together so they're also what ties EU together. maybe start with birkeland currents scavenging mass across great distance to provide an alternative to nebular star formation and dark matter, mention the monopolar motor theory for spiral galaxies and the recent finding where a bunch of galaxies were aligned. that'll kick you off to the beads on a string star formation, mention the filaments herschel found throughout our galaxy, planetary nebula then electric stars. now you can get into our planets and comets (both good illustrators of EU particularly electric comets) or take a shot at recessional velocity and big bang with some halton arp.

[gocrew]

as you say in the interview it's possible to talk for many hours just introducing newcomers to some of the phenomena which is perhaps better explained by EU, even without getting into the catastrophism.

i'm also just a guy and my effort would be about as reasonable as yours.

i've decided certain aspects of EU make better introductory topics but the trick is really in stringing several bits together and throwing in some of the modern findings which give each part some credibility. birkeland currents are really what ties the universe together so they're also what ties EU together. maybe start with birkeland currents scavenging mass across great distance to provide an alternative to nebular star formation and dark matter, mention the monopolar motor theory for spiral galaxies and the recent finding where a bunch of galaxies were aligned. that'll kick you off to the beads on a string star formation, mention the filaments herschel found throughout our galaxy, planetary nebula then electric stars. now you can get into our planets and comets (both good illustrators of EU particularly electric comets) or take a shot at recessional velocity and big bang with some halton arp.

Different people respond to different arguments. What first caught my attention, and continues to be one of the most impressive arguments to this day, was the double flash predicted by Wal Thornhill during the Deep Impact mission.

[IgorTesla]

Sorry for this (very) late response but better late then never they say

After watching it back a second time (partially) i realized there were some points that could be improved to make it more appealing to visitors.
Things that can be done to make it a more professional look are :
- Start with a short narration (like the thunderbotlsproject vids)
- Be sure your webcam is at the same heigth as your head
- use some kind of decor (e.g. : poster on the wall)
- if possible use text to identify yourself and your guest. (e.g. : Guest - J. Doe, astrophysisist)
- use background music at certain intervals.

For me it is not nescassary since i simply listen to what is told and have no need for fancy looking broadcasts. However i realise that the majority of the people are easily bored and to prevent this, the above mentioned recommendations should help out.
Although i know it can be a real pain in the *** (video editing), i do recommend you to make some visual adjustments to make it more appealing to the public. It would be a true waste of time if stuff like this fades away. espescially since the story told not only involves the EU theory but also tells a lot of indoctrination and self awareness of individuals.

Keep it going

[gocrew]

Sorry for this (very) late response but better late then never they say

After watching it back a second time (partially) i realized there were some points that could be improved to make it more appealing to visitors.
Things that can be done to make it a more professional look are :
- Start with a short narration (like the thunderbotlsproject vids)
- Be sure your webcam is at the same heigth as your head
- use some kind of decor (e.g. : poster on the wall)
- if possible use text to identify yourself and your guest. (e.g. : Guest - J. Doe, astrophysisist)
- use background music at certain intervals.

For me it is not nescassary since i simply listen to what is told and have no need for fancy looking broadcasts. However i realise that the majority of the people are easily bored and to prevent this, the above mentioned recommendations should help out.
Although i know it can be a real pain in the *** (video editing), i do recommend you to make some visual adjustments to make it more appealing to the public. It would be a true waste of time if stuff like this fades away. espescially since the story told not only involves the EU theory but also tells a lot of indoctrination and self awareness of individuals.

Keep it going

All respectable ideas, but it isn't my video. I was the one being interviewed.

[CharlesChandler]

@gocrew: I love what you said about theories needing to be conceivable, in your dismissal of String Theory. Hyperdimensionality isn't a super-sophisticated new take on reality -- it's just a broken metaphor. Space can be measured in 3 dimensions (length, height, & width). Thanks to Descartes' invention of analytic geometry, dimensions can be re-assigned to non-spatial quantities, but in order to be useful, the dimensions have to be orthogonal, which means that you can have a maximum of 3 of them. Any more than that and "dimension" is simply the wrong word to use, because you can't meaningfully represent more than 3 dimensions at a time.

As concerns String Theory, my brother asked me about it, and I explained the above to him, so that he wouldn't fret over not being able to visualize extra dimensions, 'cuz nobody can. Then I went on to say that every time the theorists found something they couldn't explain, they just created another "dimension" for it. I myself found this to be very useful in that I had already created an extra dimension of reality for the irrational behavior of my ex-wife, which could not be reconciled with any other model of reality. But there wasn't anything metaphysical about that. My brother re-watched the Discovery Channel program on String Theory, and he said that the whole thing made perfect sense to him, the way I explained it. Instead of admitting that their existing model had been falsified, they promoted the anomalies to dimensions, leaving most of the audience confused enough that it wasn't quite so obvious that they didn't know what they were talking about.

[Michael Mozina]

@gocrew: I love what you said about theories needing to be conceivable, in your dismissal of String Theory. Hyperdimensionality isn't a super-sophisticated new take on reality -- it's just a broken metaphor. Space can be measured in 3 dimensions (length, height, & width). Thanks to Descartes' invention of analytic geometry, dimensions can be re-assigned to non-spatial quantities, but in order to be useful, the dimensions have to be orthogonal, which means that you can have a maximum of 3 of them. Any more than that and "dimension" is simply the wrong word to use, because you can't meaningfully represent more than 3 dimensions at a time.

As concerns String Theory, my brother asked me about it, and I explained the above to him, so that he wouldn't fret over not being able to visualize extra dimensions, 'cuz nobody can. Then I went on to say that every time the theorists found something they couldn't explain, they just created another "dimension" for it. I myself found this to be very useful in that I had already created an extra dimension of reality for the irrational behavior of my ex-wife, which could not be reconciled with any other model of reality. But there wasn't anything metaphysical about that. My brother re-watched the Discovery Channel program on String Theory, and he said that the whole thing made perfect sense to him, the way I explained it. Instead of admitting that their existing model had been falsified, they promoted the anomalies to dimensions, leaving most of the audience confused enough that it wasn't quite so obvious that they didn't know what they were talking about.

It's virtually impossible for me to watch mainstream astronomy videos anymore without noting how obvious it is that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. When they aren't making up excuses for their lack of understanding anything specific about their menagerie of invisible friends in the sky, they're yammering on about a concept that Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience". They literally know almost nothing about solar atmospheric physics, and they understand even less about cosmology in general. It's all "pseudoscience with nifty, useless math".

The last major conversation that I had at JREF (now ISF) on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" was rather surreal. Not a single "resident expert" had a clue that in order to actually transfer any magnetic field energy into charged particle acceleration, the definition of magnetic reconnection, you definitely need *charged particles*! Holy Cow! Clinger went on and on for months describing ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and nobody bothered to try to correct him except me. One of the references they cited (Priest) even called their understanding of the process a "toy" understanding. For my efforts at trying to educate them, they banned me.

Not one mainstream "scientist" can even name so much as a single source of "dark energy" and that invisible monstrosity makes up the vast majority of their claim. Their long string of "dark matter" failures over the past few years demonstrates that they haven't that first clue at what energy state they might hope to find any stable forms of exotic matter, and that makes up most of the rest of their LCDM claim. They literally know absolutely nothing specific about 95 percent of their own theory, and they still model current carrying plasma using pure "pseudoscience" rather than a proven useful tool like circuit theory! Some "experts". They're utterly clueless when it comes to physics, and yet they pretend to be so "confident".

[CharlesChandler]

They literally know absolutely nothing specific about 95 percent of their own theory...

True that. I think that the next step is for them to conjecture that 120% or more of the known Universe is comprised of cold dim wits or something. Whatever them come up with, I'm sure that it will violate basic laws of physics, and they'll make it sound really fancy.

[Michael Mozina]

They literally know absolutely nothing specific about 95 percent of their own theory...

True that. I think that the next step is for them to conjecture that 120% or more of the known Universe is comprised of cold dim wits or something. Whatever them come up with, I'm sure that it will violate basic laws of physics, and they'll make it sound really fancy.

The part that I find fascinating is this:

Today we use electronic devices in everything from cell phones, TV's, cars, computers and door bells. Electrical engineering and circuit theory are "proven technologies" beyond any concept of rational "scientific doubt".

As it relates to an electrical universe, all it's functions are easily explained by those same ordinary and well understood processes that give rise to all the electronic modern conveniences of life. There's really no "mystery" as to how and why things work in space. They work in space the same way they work here on Earth.

*If* we lived in an age where the electrical nature of the universe was well understood, and well accepted, nobody in their right mind would take someone seriously that claimed that the universe was mostly made of, and controlled by "invisible/dark" forces that we've never seen in labs on Earth. They'd be laughed out of the room.

To this day the mainstream cannot understand, describe or *simulate* the coronal processes in solar physics, *in spite of the fact* that Birkeland built them a working model of how it works, including the "heat source" of the plasma around the atmosphere. Why? Because their mathematical models are based upon a form of "pseudoscience", not circuit theory as Alfven and Birkeland suggested.

LCDM proponents live in their own little make believe universe that is completely and utterly detached from reality,the real world of empirical physics and useful consumer goods. They live in a fantasy universe of their own "conjuring", and they make up their make-believe physics as they go. Already they require 4 different supernatural fudge factors to "make it work" mathematically, and none of it works physically in the lab. You'd think that would be their first clue......

We really are living in the literal "dark" ages of astronomy. I can't wait till this dark period of physics is behind us, and empirical physics takes it rightful place in the heavens.