NASA and Government Discuss EU

[junglelord]

I take each EU premis on its own merit.....but to me, the term EU is not inclusive with anything other then EU.
It is not inclusive of the Saturn Theory, or Thunderbolts, it is in my mind more again to saying PU. I know that we then get the purist who subdivide b/t EU, PU. I do not make any such distinction between even these camps.

I take the Saturn Theory is a evolution of other work, namely Talbotts.
I take the Thunderbolts as a evolution of Walls work.
I think the EU is paradigm that could lead to all sorts of new ideas and understandings...such as ST or TB.
But for now, the term EU, to me, IS JUST ABOUT A UNIVERSE THAT IS ELECTRIC PLASMA.
Not a new stance on anything but that for starters. People are slow you know. Telling them gravity is not in control is often all their minds can handle, if they can handle that!

I meant that the univese is operating under electric parameters, nothing less, nothing more.
That was the intent of the thread. Sorry for any confusion my thread title imposed on the thoughts and minds of members. So like I originally stated, the powers that be know that any technology in space is going to have to factor in something much more important then gravity if they want to stay functional...that thing, my dear friends, is what we all believe in, charge seperation in space. I think we can safely say that Professor Lewin of MIT was wrong at the end of lecture one....there is massive charge seperation in space, space is not neutral as Lewin states and teaches all his MIT graduates....so imagine that the MIT trained person has been taught and believes that space is neutral and contrary to all common sense (as professor lewin so aptly states) is not electric but controlled by gravity, hence supporting the fairy tales of modern cosmology.

We can use this as simple PROOF that indeed charge seperation is a huge issue and one that is common sense....forget the beyond common sense, that alone should have set bells ringing for students.

[StefanR]

I agree with on the charge separation, D., but I also think there is a lot of new research in just the direction that has been discussed on this Forum. And it is wonderful to see that with projects such as Cassini very nice insights are made and that more and more the reasearch into plasma-weathering on different solar-system bodies is taking place.
In my opinion a too much emphasis on us and them, mainstream or eu, is not such a good thing to entertain too long and a focus more on the actual research taking place and the implications for EU is much more in place. It is not a fight it is a process, it is a process in motion with only one goal, understanding. Some things or ideas will have to be dropped and some adopted, nothing is set in stone or should be a static kind of doctrine. That would be just what Big Science is being accused of.
Having said that, I do feel I also have to say that Anaconda had some salient points and he has worded those well, in my opinion. If critical thinking or skepticism has to be suspended to accept an idea, I might as well go get a subscribtion to the NewScientist. As a smart man once said, invest in loss.

Ps. Journalism isn't science itself. And often what is portrayed in science articles in popular science media, doesn't reflect what is actually said in the research article itself. Always go to the source.

[starbiter]

Junglelord wrote

[...]

I take each EU premis on its own merit.....but to me, the term EU is not inclusive with anything other then EU.
It is not inclusive of the Saturn Theory, or Thunderbolts, it is in my mind more again to saying PU. I know that we then get the purist who subdivide b/t EU, PU. I do not make any such distinction between even these camps.



Me

The Electric Universe web site was in existence 10 years before you [JL] were aware of it, i believe. EU was defined by Wal Thornhill.


The Electric Universe web site [holoscience.com] clearly states EU is a combination of plasma science and legend. The legend part is described in Worlds in Collision. Not Saturn Theory. Saturn Theory was proposed by Rockenbach and Velikovsky. But it's not mentioned on the EU web site. WiC is mentioned. We are instructed by Wal Thornhill to have extraordinary confidence in the eyewitness accounts of our ancestors. To ignore legend is your option, but without legend it's not EU, IMHO.

Saturnian System breakup occurred long before the events described in WiC. After surviving something as devastating as the events described in WiC, the Saturnian breakup would cease to be the focus of the survivors. If the events attributed to Venus were repeated today, or focus would not be Exodus. We would record the new experiences, not something from thousands of years ago.

To ignore legend on this forum is inappropriate, again, IMHO.

Respectfully, michael steinbacher

[junglelord]

I am not sure, but does Wal own the term EU?
Jut wondered if it had been registered or something.
I imagine the term must have a copyright because of the book I own.
That term can mean many things.
Just because I am posting on this website does not mean I have the same definition of EU as Wal.
I think Wal is right on the money with his work. However I happen to take the term EU as just that, a term, not a definition. The main thing that term means to me is charge seperation in space.
No offense to Wal or the term EU especially a copyright. PS everyone should own the book EU.
Respectfully
Dean

[Jarvamundo]

I tend to think any new paradigm in understanding would not necessarily be required to account for prehistory, but that it does indeed have a coherrent explanation across disciplines and history... to me adds credit... and makes sense.

At the end of the day, Velikovsky (based on his analysis of historical evidence) asked Einstein to go look for Jupiter radio waves, it's all online, one can read the actual letter. This event alone provides that historical analysis can assist, at the very least, in development of testable hypothesis. Add to this, venus temperatures and other predictions. Was he 100% correct on everything? No... Did historical analysis aid in testable hypothesis development? Emphatically Yes!

This is where it can be dangerous to exclude or ignore historical study from the paradigm, and where it appears to me, some areas of mainstream may have ignored a few really good ideas. Even when you thunder down a highway, you still glance at the mirrors occasionally.

JL is spot on, charge separation is key. Lewin's MIT comments are a little bizarre, i really enjoy his lecture style, whether he knows it or not that wonder lecture series of his is a credit to the understanding of EU.

All areas of study with EU are innately intertwined and cross-discipline. To me EU is beyond celestial events 'out there', it is inclusive of all that is 'down here'.

One can pick an area of study or scale that interests them, and a coherent story is available both up an down scales, and back and forward in history. One only needs to view the forum titles to see this pop out. I know of no other astronomy site that discusses biology, i know of no biology site that discusses electric comets, i know of no other site where p-n semiconductors are discussed next to bio-cell surfaces and plasma coronal mass ejections, in the one thread! I know of no other site where a cross-disciplined pool of talent discusses openly like this.

The interdisciplinary approach is the strength of this science.

“From the smallest particle to the largest galactic formation, a web of electrical circuitry connects and unifies all of nature, organizing galaxies, energizing stars, giving birth to planets and, on our own world, controlling weather and animating biological organisms. There are no isolated islands in an electric universe”.

Hat tip to team TB. I'm hooked.

[jacmac]

Hello all,
I would like to offer some small "facts" in support of junglelord's position.
These facts are to be found on the NASA SDO site here http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
There are many facts that the EU community would not agree with, however there are some that illustrate our discussion.

Fact: Space weather is caused by charged particles and their motions

Fact: The ionization of our atmosphere by Space Weather affects radio communications and GPS navigation

Fact: Electric currents high above the surface can cause ground induced currents that disrupt power transmission and degrade pipelines

Fact: Studying how the Sun's variability affects the Earth requires identifying the sources and timescales of the solar variability and measuring the response.

Fact: Short-term variations are also related to the magnetic field. Flares and coronal mass ejections are examples of rapid solar variations.

Somewhere I recently learned about the three phases that a new idea goes thru before general acceptance.
First it is completely ignored, then strongly ridiculed, then "we knew this all along".
I suggest that some people are entering the third phase; the ideas will be adopted with minimal use of the correct terms and almost no recognition of where these ideas have come from. (yes ElecGeekMom)
I also think the acknowledgement of the true nature of our Sun will be the most significant turning point, and the place to watch for the fastest changes as junglelord has seen them happening.

Over and out,
Jack

[webolife]

I suppose that JL has overstated his optimism about NASA's acceptance of the EU.
However it takes centuries sometimes to shift a paradigm. Not too many years ago we were taught that there is no significant effect of electricity in space [or at astronomical distances]. Then scientists began to admit that plasma comprises 99+% of the matter of the universe. Now we have "space" and "weather" put together in a single term. I knew there was a scientific revolution afoot in the area of the gravitation paradigm before I ever heard of EU [5+ years ago], and I think that we are having a good effect through this forum. There will always be political battles, all the more since mega$$ are tied to the current fads. Paranoia about the lack of good science education in the US a few decades ago forced colleges and textbook publishers to disseminate volumes of info about the standard models... these folks feel they have a lot invested in EU-ers being wrong. But such paranoia cannot withstand the surge of factual evidence that supports the electric universe hypothesis. I am a skeptic about Saturn/Kronos mythology myself. But I hold out for corroborative evidence rather than judge/condemn it [or any alternative theory] outright. Maybe the best thing I can do as a science teacher is to model that attitude before my students.

[Vek]

It takes centuries sometimes to shift a paradigm.

Things should move faster these days

these folks feel they have a lot invested in EU-ers being wrong. But such paranoia cannot withstand the surge of factual evidence that supports the electric universe hypothesis.

You'd think so but the way it seems now, is that they're investing in making sure it isn't seen.
The tell-lie-vision floods them with endless psychics, religion shows, ghost hunters, and tons of standard model dream scapes, posting out Stephen Hawkings as the master of the Universe. I'd never once in my life even heard of Nikola Tesla until I landed on the EU.
We're always going to find ourselves the persona non grata, as long as they're making money from hot air.
I've seen enough to be certain now, that the man behind the curtain knows fine well, what the real truth is but they don't want it out there until they have devised a way to secure any profit from it for themselves.
As has been said; they'll use a bit of slight of hand and slowly change their wording to include any EU type thing they can squeeze a penny out of but I don't see the big bang or black holes going anywhere soon. If anything they will step up the garbage at the same time as they sell us ever more expensive "free energy".
Kudos to all those here who fight the machine every step of the way.
The truth will out...
Someday

[jjohnson]

Let me chime in supporting StephanR and Jarvamundo's concepts. I came in here simply looking for a better understanding of how stars work, tired of the Elegant Universe, the Dancing Wu Li Masters and Gravity's Fatal Attraction. To me it's all driven by the existing forces that we have discovered so far (no sense inventing things until you observe them or are able to reliably infer them from lots of observations). The only two long-range forces (of the four we know about) are the gravity force and the electromagnetic force (see Hyperphysics on this).

There are places where gravity is in fact a dominant or significant force, but there are conditions under which EM is dominant. To say one force is always so insignificant that it pales in comparison is to ignore observation. Gravity appears to become really noticeable where there are lots of neutral atoms and high particle density. That generally means pretty close to stars and planets. However, I've learned here that a significant fraction ("over 99+%" - IEEE) of matter is in a plasma state, therefore charged, therefore can deliver forces which can overcome gravity in nearly every nook and cranny of the Universe. In fact, as we see, in and around stars and planets!

I did not come here with any abiding interest in or even knowledge of Saturn Theory, nor much interest in Velikovskian interpretations of things. That's just not a general field I enjoy, but I am open-minded enough to allow those ideas to exist in a plasma universe, without involving myself in them beyond that. I want to acquire knowledge so as to know how stars and galaxies work. If that knowledge helps explain space weather and terrestrial weather and ancestral myths with correlation all over our planet, that's lagniappe in my book.

We ARE in this together with the mainstream guys, except for those self-selected few who won't investigate or allow discussion of alternative ideas which they feel have been "disproved" - a very poor choice of words in scientific endeavor, but okay in math theory. They have a right to say, "show us the math", just as we have the right to say, "show us the observations". The two have to fit to make a hypothesis robust enough to stand as a theory. We are both pretty weak in our responses, IMHO, in those two regards. It's a competition among ideas, and no one has the "good idea" market cornered, believe me.

Regarding, "things should proceed faster these days" - I have observed that faster and better observations and computations have all accelerated our time expectations, but people's abilities to do certain things by themselves, on their own, such as to argue in discourse in order to agree on an idea, or in my case, to type faster and with fewer errors, simply are not accelerating. Large paradigm shifts will continue to take time. We can't see the future of EU and plasma cosmology today, any better than we could have foreseen the sudden fall of the Berlin Wall. All we can do is to engage in frank and courteous discussion among people of scientific interests and see how well we can do.

One thing that has accelerated people's becoming cognizant of things is the replacement of the printing press by the Internet. The more people whom we can interest in familiarizing themselves with and evaluating these ideas honestly, the better the chances of our success. Of course, what if that happens and the ideas are still not accepted?

Then it's a failed model. That does not mean it is not a correct model; only that it fails to gain wide acceptance. Therefore, avoid evaluating or speculating about the nearness of "success". Just work on this. Drop expectations, and wait and see. Be flexible and make course corrections. Stay humble and realize that some of the ideas may not be supported by subsequent evidence that could turn up. We do not always have to think that this is a giant sports contest, or a popularity contest. As famous German-born architect Mies van der Rohe said when asked by critics about the visual interest of his designs, "I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -and so do we.

Jim

[ElecGeekMom]

It takes centuries sometimes to shift a paradigm.

Things should move faster these days

these folks feel they have a lot invested in EU-ers being wrong. But such paranoia cannot withstand the surge of factual evidence that supports the electric universe hypothesis.

You'd think so but the way it seems now, is that they're investing in making sure it isn't seen.
The tell-lie-vision floods them with endless psychics, religion shows, ghost hunters, and tons of standard model dream scapes, posting out Stephen Hawkings as the master of the Universe. I'd never once in my life even heard of Nikola Tesla until I landed on the EU.
We're always going to find ourselves the persona non grata, as long as they're making money from hot air.
I've seen enough to be certain now, that the man behind the curtain knows fine well, what the real truth is but they don't want it out there until they have devised a way to secure any profit from it for themselves. <snip>

I'll buy that!

[junglelord]

I never thought of the phase, tel-LIE-vision....thats good.

On the home front, Charge Seperation in Space is a multi billion dollar industry....something not referenced in this thunderbolts article.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... -space.htm

So while the cosmologist mouth off from their theoretical chairs about unicorns, well paid military and commercial industry, know all about charge seperation in space as does NASA and Government and I bet my bottom dollar, not a single one of them could give a flying monkey about black holes. I made a thread about two years ago on the effects of charge on satellites and that in the industry, where the hardware is made, where the technology is produced, not a single one of them talks about black holes...only black budgets.

[junglelord]

Look what I found on WIKI!

Astrophysical unipolar inductors
Unipolar inductors occur in astrophysics where a conductor rotates through a magnetic field, for example, the movement of the highly conductive plasma in a cosmic body's ionosphere through its magnetic field. In their book, Cosmical Electrodynamics, Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar write:

"Since cosmical clouds of ionized gas are generally magnetized, their motion produces induced electric fields [..] For example the motion of the magnetized interplanetary plasma produces electric fields that are essential for the production of aurora and magnetic storms" [..]
".. the rotation of a conductor in a magnetic field produces an electric field in the system at rest. This phenomenon is well known from laboratory experiments and is usually called 'homopolar ' or 'unipolar' induction. [4]
Unipolar inductors have been associated with the aurorae on Uranus,[5] binary stars,[6][7] black holes,[8][9] galaxies,[10] the Jupiter Io system,[11][12] the Moon,[13][14] the Solar Wind,[15] sunspots,[16][17] and in the Venusian magnetic tail.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

The same article mentions the work of Tesla and Steinmetz!

Nikola Tesla was interested in the Faraday disc and conducted work with homopolar generators.[2] He eventually patented an improved version of the device and his US patent ("Dynamo Electric Machine")
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id= ... &dq=406968
describes an arrangement of two parallel discs with separate, parallel shafts, joined like pulleys by a metallic belt. Each disc had a field that was the opposite of the other, so that the flow of current was from the one shaft to the disc edge, across the belt to the other disc edge and to that shaft. This would have greatly reduced the frictional losses caused by sliding contacts by allowing both electrical pickups to interface with the shafts of the two disks rather than at the shaft and a high-speed rim. Later, patents were awarded to C. P. Steinmetz and E. Thomson for their work with homopolar generators.

[Jarvamundo]

wow (Alfven astrophysical homopolar inductor on wiki)

[mharratsc]

Genius! Someone managed to sneak plasma cosmology stuff onto Wiki without Nereid erasing it!

[Nereid]

Genius! Someone managed to sneak plasma cosmology stuff onto Wiki without Nereid erasing it!

mharratsc, may I ask why you think that I, Nereid, have the ability to erase material in Wiki (I assume you mean Wikipedia)?