EU DEBATES, instead of a Conference

[Lloyd]

- Last year I was given the assignment here of starting discussion about a possible E.U. Conference for this summer. After a few months I had to bow out, but the Conference idea doesn't seem to have panned out. I guess few can afford to travel any more, so why don't we start having E.U. debates online? Debates can be even more educational than conferences, wouldn't you say? I mean if they involve our most knowledgeable people.
- So how about replying here http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... ?f=5&t=835 to let everyone know what topics you'd prefer to see debated and who you'd like to see doing the debating?
- Here's where I propose that the first debate takes place: http://linc.lefora.com/2008/07/08/debate-1. It's set up to start a practice debate, but can be edited to change to a real debate. You don't need to register or sign in, if you like, but can just start posting. You'll need to use a letter or handle if you don't want to be anonymous.

[moses]

I'm 9.5 hours + GMT. A USA night time would be OK.
The concept has merit.
Mo

[2012]

Good idea. Of course, compared to a conference, we will miss out on the dinner, the sightseeing, and making friends but as to the information content, this could be as good if not better

[tesla]

Hi Lloyd,
The idea is a good one except it will only work for those who live in a time zone close to yours if you want to run them in real time. I am in Sydney Australia, so if you run the debates in the evening, for those in the time zone here, it will be the middle of a working day!

Tesla

[Divinity]

Sounds like a really good idea to me. Should time get in the way of our debates/discussions? I think, given enough patience/understanding, we could handle it. Yes, it would be much more enjoyable to hire the 5 star Conference Room of a hotel in Monte Carlo but hey, it's the company that counts, haha.

Divinity

[Lloyd]

- Glad to hear the enthusiasm.
- It won't work until we can persuade some of our experts to agree to debate. Some won't want to debate via their keyboards, but probably some won't mind that. In fact, there are advantages to debating in writing. For one thing we'd have an immediate transcript. Who wants to help persuade our experts to debate?
- Time zones would be hard to handle, but not impossible. Weekends would probably work best. Since each debate would have just 2 main debaters, the time could be worked out between them. I worked with a group of about 7 last year with members across the U.S., 2 in W. Europe and one in Nepal and we managed to find workable times for discussions.
- I thought we could start by having debates among our experts and then later set up similar debates between our experts and outside experts. How does that sound?
- It seems that it should work well to have debate teams. Team members could help their expert think of arguments and supply some of the references to evidence. Anyone who's interested could be on either team. Right? The experts' team members could communicate with their experts on separate forum threads. Maybe each expert should have a screener for all the team members, if there's too many messages for the experts to read quickly.
- Debate rules would need to be agreed on. Each main debater could open with a 200 to 2,000 word argument. Then each could take up to ten minutes to answer each other. Maybe they could say ---OVER---, to indicate when they're finished with each answer.
- What specific topics seem most worth debating? What do you think of the following?
1. iron sun
2. aether
3. charge
4. quasars
5. Dave Thompson's APM
6. Upriver's aetherometry
7. Sansbury's subtrons

[tholden]

The major topic should be traction.

I notice Dave Smith in a thread involving Julian Jaynes' theories:

As most are aware, the discussion of religion and politics above what's required to discuss their relationship to EU theory is discouraged on the Thunderbolts forum.

Here's the problem... The way I see it, the EU idea is not going anywhere under present circumstances and is likely to simply fizzle out and die. If all the idea ever involves is people jumping up and down and making noise in academic circles, then the Ellenbergers, Joshua Schroeders, Shermers, Sagans, and all the rest are just as good at jumping up and down and making noise as we are, and they hold the high ground in terms of funding, position, media access and everything else and that's before you even factor Wikipedia into it.

For an idea to go anywhere in the world, it has to have traction, i.e. impact on the real world one way or other. If you rule out politics and religion apriori, you have to ask what that leaves. Psychiatrists say that the three basic drives for (adult) humans are food, sleep, and sex.

Thus if you were to try to make a list of areas in life in which to try to make some sort of an impact, you would start with politics, religion, sleep, food, and sex, and then try to add major areas of societal endeavor and you might end up with a list like:

Politics
Religion
Sleep
Food (agriculture)
Sex
Transportation
Computers and Electronics
Entertainment
Real Estate and Construction
Energy
Other Business/Industry
Media

And you'd likely could come up with a few other things to use as categories as well, but you need to choose one or two items from such a list as target areas in which to make some sort of a splash which was big enough that the world at large would have to sit up and take notice. It would have to be something which EU ideas and nothing else could add something to the picture of in a decisive manner. The most obvious areas to me would involve energy and environmentalism, but that's just me. Issues of transportation and energy of course cannot be separated very much from politics.

[smartart]

My grasp of this is is a bit shakey. I gather the idea is to all be online together - hence the time-zone comments?
Personally I prefer to read concise comment at leasure and then compose comment in the same vein.

In practical terms there is just too much 'good stuff happening' to read what is already posted!

Finally: I take this opportunity to thank and applaud the effort that goes into my email updates. I never cease to marvel at the scholarship and dedication - equal in measure to the content.

THE AETHER intrigues me. I have a feeling it will pull a lot of threads (strings?) together.

I was reading Velikovsky in the 50s. Delighted to be here with you all. Thanks Lloyd. Barrie

[Lloyd]

- Barrie, the 2 main debaters would be online at the same time. Their teams would also be there at the same time. Readers could drop in any time.
- The 2 main debaters could decide how long they want to debate, maybe 1 or 2 hours. They can also decide whether to resume the debate on a later date.
- Who volunteers to debate, or to ask knowledgeable people to debate?
- I'm thinking of starting a debate thread on one or more of the other boards here.

[Lloyd]

- THolden, is that Ted?
- I agree about "traction" or I'd call it effectiveness, I think.
- Are you talking about coming up with alternative energy to replace oil? I've heard that there's actually an abundance of oil, but the upper class wants to reduce the world's population, especially of darker skinned people, so they're making up the hype about global warming and about the oil shortage.
- I think nuclear energy is already a good alternative to oil anyway, but they also are said to have been behind the anti-nuclear movement.
- If there are no openings for E.U. in the mainstream media, we may be stuck with keeping E.U. alive until the mainstream collapses. Economic collapse appears to be well under way, so we may get our opening any year now.
- Maybe the best technology we could develop would be for lifting spacecraft off the Earth and into space. Or would nuclear energy also be able to handle that efficiently?
- Chris seems to be working on communicating with Tesla technology buffs. Isn't that a good prospect?

[tholden]

- THolden, is that Ted?

I thought it was obvious...

- I agree about "traction" or I'd call it effectiveness, I think.
- Are you talking about coming up with alternative energy to replace oil? I've heard that there's actually an abundance of oil, but the upper class wants to reduce the world's population, especially of darker skinned people, so they're making up the hype about global warming and about the oil shortage...

You're immune or something? I mean when I say things like that people come unglued like they'd never heard it before.

To my thinking the conspiracy theory you want for eliminating the Hamitic races involves DDT. One version of a conspiracy theory involving oil would be this:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php? ... s&id=27329

but the supposed victims are just republicans, who nobody feels sorry for.

- I think nuclear energy is already a good alternative to oil anyway, but they also are said to have been behind the anti-nuclear movement...
... Chris seems to be working on communicating with Tesla technology buffs. Isn't that a good prospect?

Nuclear energy can be used to generate electricity, I don't see a future for reactors in vehicles. If there's to be any future in electric vehicles I think it has to come with super capacitors and not batteries; try doing a few google searches on 'EEStore' and 'zen motors', that one might could change the world. You'd still need nuclear reactors or something beyond what we have now to generate the electricity for it. Problem is, the environmentalists have tried to shut down pretty much every sort of energy program for the last 40 years, even windmills which they claim kills too many birds.

I should have included aerospace and biomed categories in the list above, but anything which could salvage the EU idea would have to involve money in large quantities and issues which affect people's lives. The most obvious possibility to my thinking would be to convince the automotive and energy worlds that EU and neo-catastrophism hold the key to defeating the idea of man-made global warming, but time might be running out on that one. Apparently nobody's seen any sunspots this year and the last time that happened was in the 1600s just prior to the little ice age. Two years from now the idea of any sort of global warming might be a colossal joke.

The view of stars which assume they are thermonuclear engines does not lead anybody to think they might heat up and cool down periodically even though the evidence indicates that to be the case, but the EU DOES provide a rational for the observed behavior.

[tholden]

Again the possibility of traction for EU ideas....

http://tinyurl.com/6drvy4

The EPA’s Blueprint for Disaster
A new regulatory regime from our environmental bureaucrats would grind the economy to a halt.

By Phil Kerpen

Opponents of massive new energy taxes and regulations breathed a small sigh of relief last month when the Lieberman-Warner climate-tax bill went down in flames on the Senate floor. Even 10 Democrats broke from the party line and voted against it, writing that they would have opposed the bill on final passage. Unfortunately, power-mad bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency remain undaunted.

The EPA is expected today to release a document that blueprints a dizzying array of greenhouse-gas regulatory programs under dozens of different provisions of the 1970 Clean Air Act. The document, called an “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” will formally begin the process of implementing restrictions more draconian than those in the Lieberman-Warner bill — all without a single vote of Congress.

A 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA opened the door to this mischief, although that ruling was limited to motor-vehicle regulation. The EPA blueprint, judging by various leaked versions, goes far beyond that. At more than 200 pages, along with an appendix of more than 800 pages, it is a radical plan for reordering the entire U.S. economy.

Not only would motor vehicles be regulated in the EPA’s new rules — and to a much greater degree than they are in new regulations coming from the Department of Transportation — so would light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about every other piece of equipment that’s got a motor in it. The new regulations in many cases could require complete equipment redesigns and operational changes.

The EPA also hopes to regulate stationary-source emissions by instituting a cap-and-trade scheme much like the massive, multi-trillion-dollar, hidden-tax-hike scam the U.S. Senate rejected last month. If unable to do that, the EPA will deliver something even worse: old-style, command-and-control regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The worst excess here is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This would require permitting for businesses and structures that emit as little as 100 tons of greenhouse gases per year. That threshold may make sense for some air pollutants. But for carbon dioxide it’s frighteningly low, and would subject millions of never-before-regulated entities to an expensive and lengthy EPA permitting process. Any building over 100,000 square feet would be pulled in, as would numerous smaller buildings that produce carbon dioxide. Small businesses, restaurants, schools, and hospitals that have commercial kitchens with gas burners would all be affected.

This permitting process would debilitate businesses across the country. It also would grind state environmental agencies and the EPA to a standstill; inundated with permit filings, they would unable to pursue many legitimate environmental protections. Meanwhile, as the permit backlog grows, all new-construction activity across the country would draw to a halt.

The EPA blueprint includes a lengthy discussion of how to avoid these outcomes. For one, the agency suggests that it can establish its own threshold for permitting. It can’t. While Congress can design a regime with thresholds that it considers appropriate, the EPA can only stretch the 1970 Clean Air Act so far. (For the record, the act’s author, John Dingell, has stated that the act should not be forced into service to regulate greenhouse gases.) Even if the major environmental groups agree to look the other way while more reasonable rules are implemented, all it takes is one environmentalist to file a lawsuit and point out how statutory language establishes thresholds for PSD regulation. That’s when the economy stops moving.

The EPA is out of control. A radical multi-trillion-dollar reordering of our economy deserves at least the participation of democratically elected legislators and accountable branches of government. Whether or not Congress chooses to establish a regime for greenhouse-gas regulation, it must immediately pass legislation to stop the EPA from implementing its devastating vision for the U.S. economy.

[Lloyd]

- I'm doing an experiment at http://linc.lefora.com/forum/category/debates/page1 where I set up threads for debates on these topics: Universe, Comets, Rilles, Craters, Saturn, Dinosaurs, Aether, Subtrons, Expanding Planetoids, Morphogenesis, Biological Transmutation, Arp's Quasars, Iron Sun, Motion. Most of them are E.U. related. I encourage anyone here to go there to add replies to any of those that you're interested in.
- Remember, you don't have to register or sign in, if you don't want to.
- I plan to invite people from Craigslist forums to come also and start debating. I welcome members here to also invite people to come there from other science-related forums etc.
- The debating will be informal initially, but I'm thinking of asking experts to agree to debate on pre-arranged dates and times.
- I think this can be very helpful for scientific progress. Maybe there should be a debate on scientific method.
- What does anyone think?

[Lloyd]

- Ted, I skimmed through your reply and I tend to agree, as far as I can tell so far. I don't know if you mentioned anything about the British imperialists and their sycophants in the U.S. and elsewhere being the dominant forces behind the EPA and the main environmental organizations, including IPCC, the global warming hoaxsters, which Margaret Thatcher started in the 70s, was all part of the effort to stop technological development in the third world, to prevent overpopulation of the people there. Cecil Rhodes and other highly influential people were known racists. Rhodes made out a number of wills in which he blatantly stated that his fortune was to go toward organizations that would promote Anglo-Saxon hegemony and would reduce population of other races, as he considered Anglo-Saxons to be the "proven" superior race, proven by their wealth and world dominance. The heirs to such racists are likely also racists, but are less open about it, and the media is better controlled now, so they can prevent the public getting negative impressions of them, except for the pesky internet, which they're also trying to gain control of. I suppose this subject could be debated at my other forum.
- Ted, I invite you to that forum at http://linc.lefora.com/forum/category/debates/page1 to debate the dinosaur issue. I devoted a thread there to that, and I hope you may have time to state your main points. I plan to invite people from the public to come and join or just read the debates soon.
- You seem to be the best expert on this issue, so I hope you may like to debate online there the best opposing expert we can find. Such a debate could be scheduled to last one or 2 hours, or whatever you both agree to. Do you think you'd like to try it? If not a formal debate, then how about informal, where you'd just reply casually at your leisure?
- By the way, one advantage online is that you can be completely anonymous, if you prefer. Some debaters would probably prefer that.
- Anyway, what do you think?

[Lloyd]

- Ted, here's a project that might validate E.U. theory. Someone mentioned a news story recently about EM Pulse weapons being able to knock out electronic circuits in a whole country, which would ruin its economy and possibly make it defenseless from attack.
- So maybe E.U. knowledge would make it possible to develop defenses against such weapons, including nuclear weapons. What do you think?
- And again what about space travel?