Public recognition of the Theory of the Electric Universe

[pepe]

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, and definitely convinced that it can supplement and improve the generally accepted understanding of the Universe. I have no specialized training in either electrical engineering or astrophysics or astronomy, and my judgement can only be superficial, but as a representative of the broader community of people very interested in science and a scientific cosmology, I really need the two sides, conventional 20th century cosmologists and EU/PC scientists, to meet and listen and thoroughly go through the different topics together in a friendly manner, respecting each other's views, because somewhere inside each persons belief there's a genuine reason for that belief, and it may be a mistake or an ignorant assumption or a vain hope that misdirected a person's mind, but, almost without exception, that person was not conscious of the wrong turns their mind took. So there really is no good reason not to offer one's best in trying to help the other side get the point and, likewise, in getting their point, if they have any (but one has to listen to be able to assess this ). We who are not experts really need the top experts to have a real dialogue and to be ourselves witnesses to that dialogue, unless, against historical probability, they get to a shared view. Now, I know many of the top Electric Universe scientists also wants to have such a dialogue, and I think they do make this a high priority. So I think it's really very-very odd that I can't find one single level discussion of the Electric Universe,walked through carefully and conscientiously, by a mainstream top scientist. If it exists somewhere - and this is really the purpose of this post - could some of you please point me to it? I'm quite sure I'd be just one of a whole forest of people deeply grateful, so much so, that we may even start a forest fire of enlightenment and demand for truth. Kindly, but desperately, Pepe

[CTJG 1986]

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, and definitely convinced that it can supplement and improve the generally accepted understanding of the Universe.

Well first off welcome to the forums, it's good to see new people coming around with some enthusiasm for EU/PC or alternative views(aka an open mind) in general.

I have no specialized training in either electrical engineering or astrophysics or astronomy, and my judgement can only be superficial, but as a representative of the broader community of people very interested in science and a scientific cosmology, I really need the two sides, conventional 20th century cosmologists and EU/PC scientists, to meet and listen and thoroughly go through the different topics together in a friendly manner, respecting each other's views, ...

That is something pretty much everyone here has desired for a very long time, but as you go on to mention you won't find it anywhere I am aware of.

It's not from a lack of effort on the part of EU/PC or other alternative theorists, that's for sure. Even when some 'mainstream' individuals who take the effort to come to this forum to make challenges and such they tend to run out of time or become too busy when challenged to direct debate with EU theorists.(see the issues with 'Neried')

The problem is that standard model cosmologists and other mainstream theorists today are programmed to not see an honest search for scientific truth and understanding shared by all of us but rather to see the whole system as a giant competition, like a big ball game - their team vs. our team(alternative theorists).

But these days with the mounting evidence and new 'shocking' discoveries seemingly every week that punch more and more holes in their already flimsy theories in many areas it seems 'our team' is bigger and badder than ever and 'their team' is afraid to even take the field to play the game with a direct debate out of fear of the beating their standard models and theories are guaranteed to take, win or lose.

A system designed to maintain the status-quo does not appreciate the intellectual honesty in that.

The only way they may allow a debate would be if they had complete control over all debate platforms and processes and moderation and such, and in that case history shows rarely do they provide a truly honest and open debate as such.

If you think you could convince some standard theorists to have a direct, open and honest debate with no strings attached then please do us all a favor and give it a try, but many have failed before you at that unfortunately.

Cheers,
Jonny

[Lloyd]

* The West seems to have the most indoctrinated scientists in the world and has the most controlled media and education system. Other parts of the world seem to be much more unbiased, such as Russia, India etc. So those areas are probably much more promising for getting a proper debate or discussion.
* The AAAS had a kangaroo court symposium to try Velikovsky for heresy back in 1974. It was a media circus. The only honest medium that covered it was probably Talbott's Pensee' magazine. Issue #7 was the one. I think Margaret Mead, who was the president of the AAAS then wanted to uproot Velikovsky's claim that Venus' heat was due to Venus being a young planet, because she supported the CO2 caused global warming theory and probably wanted scientists to think of CO2 as the cause of Venus' heat, and thus likewise the cause of Earth's warming.
* The NPA has a lot of scientist members who seem to be rather unbiased, or at least NPA as a whole is unbiased. The EU team are members of the NPA. To join it, see http://worldnpa.org/.
* It's doubtful if the West can return to real science without first supporting decentralism in governments, media and education systems. So far, nothing seems very promising for ending such centralization of control in the West. There are still some teachers who would probably welcome unbiased debate, but I don't know that that would have any impact on [future] scientists or society.

[sjw40364]

Welcome! And with that happy note it's the last you'll probably find if you join us "crackpots" here at the EU/Plasma theories.

As CTJG 1986 and Lloyd has told you discourse is not for lack of trying. Donald Scott has spoke at NASA and perhaps it has done some good in the long run. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/ ... phere.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/ ... hnews.html

Apparently we still have quite a few orthodox ideas to upend.

Most of us try to bring out the viewpoint, but you will find It is quite difficult when you can discuss Dark Matter and Black Holes, but when you mention Plasma or electricity the tone turns hostile, and if you persist, eventually be banned from most discussion sites.

So don't expect an easy ride, but I think as you have seen that the data supports the EU/Plasma theories quite well, and more and more with each new discovery since the space age. So for me it's an easy choice of trying to keep reaching out, but I am running out of sites.

[sjw40364]

The NASA video is really a good stepping stone for EU. Sadly we have tried to tell them what the underlying force is that dominates the belts, and it seems NASA may be slowly coming around. Goodbye to the old rules indeed!!

[pepe]

Thank you, all 3, for your willingness to help. The old pioneers of EU, I heard, did for many years not worry about lack openness, as they thought the weight of the evidence would eventually open people's minds. After 10-20 years they, I heard aswell, had to admit they had been wrong, the leading scientific establishment only became more hermetic. But I think you're right, the mounting of evidence is currently accelerating like never before, and there is after all good reason to be optimistic. In the end, I believe, truth will prevail.

I will try to find some Eastern scientists' discussion sites.

And see what happens around NASA.

Thanks a lot. Maybe you'll hear from me soon. Pepe

[orrery]

Don Scott's book 'The Electric Sky' should be your best book.
Eric Lerner's book 'The Big Bang Never Happened' is vintage but still good.
Lyndon Ashmore's 'Big Bang Blasted' isn't bad either. The list goes on and on.
I am a huge fan of Ari Brynjolfsson's PlasmaRedshift.org
You can get Lerner's book as well as Halton Arp's 'Seeing Red' at scribd.com and Lerner's documentary 'Cosmology Quest' is up on YouTube.

[sjw40364]

Don Scott's book 'The Electric Sky' should be your best book.
Eric Lerner's book 'The Big Bang Never Happened' is vintage but still good.
Lyndon Ashmore's 'Big Bang Blasted' isn't bad either. The list goes on and on.
I am a huge fan of Ari Brynjolfsson's PlasmaRedshift.org
You can get Lerner's book as well as Halton Arp's 'Seeing Red' at scribd.com and Lerner's documentary 'Cosmology Quest' is up on YouTube.

Also quite a lot of information is available on youtube at the Thunderbolt Project. They have several good videos there.

[pepe]

Some of the material you suggest I have already studied, some I will no doubt look into soon. And the Tesla-quote intrigued me - I don't recall Scott mentioning Tesla in The Electric Sky. Still, I'm wondering, if it would be possible to find a mainstream cosmologist debating lucidly and learnedly with a plasma cosmologist, listening to his arguments, taking them on board, and responding to them fully, not just assuming to know the full scope of them, but being careful to not miss the point. This would give us a greater chance to assess for ourselves the flaws of the different ideas. But I'm also wondering and pondering this: Is it so that every time a mainstream scientist has done just that, did he then, without exception, end up convinced about the superiority of PC and EU-theory over conventional 20th century cosmology? In which case, almost by definition, such mainstream scientist does not exist, because after only a few hours or days of actually listening they turn to the other side, never again able to be mainstream. Still, if this were the case, there would still be a chance to find the records of such conversion, even if the search for it would be comparable to the search for a missing link - The Missing Link Of The Listening Mainstream Cosmologist

??????????????????

[Brigit Bara]

With no Board of Directors, no CEO, and no commercial status, we are free to operate without the bindings which inevitably result from the undue influence of “vested interests” and as such our group is largely autonomous and voluntary."

In reading the "about" section on the thunderbolts.info website, I was encouraged to know that while seeking many venues to raise awareness of Electric Unviverse scientific work, and making many new contacts with scientists from all the branches of study, the Electric Universe maintains its independence and autonomy.

Any important changes in this respect, I hope, would be openly stated and the necessary adjustments to the about page would I hope be edited, so that there is clarity and authenticity in this important area.

Any connection to actions and groups within the United Nations I think would qualify as the "influence of vested interests."

The "use of science and art for public good," and the actions by government organizations such as the UN to determine "public good" are subjects everyone may differ on. However, the political nature of the actions the UN hopes to take to promote "sustainability" and to avert so-called anthropogenic global warming most certainly do represent vested interests, no matter which side of the equasion you find yourself on in those questions.

I hope that any connections with the UN, or any of its agencies, would be fully disclosed. But the reason for this request and plea is that it would provoke very clear thought and statements and possibly through the process allow an oportunity to re-think the advisablility of becoming involved with such a vested interest as the UN and its AGW/sustainablility efforts.

[Brigit Bara]

There are several reasons why openness and full disclosure about any connections with the United Nations by thunderbolts.info/Electric Universe should be considered. One has already been discussed, and that is that the Electric Universe has stated that it is not beholden to any "undue influence by vested interests." Arguably, the United Nations is one of the largest vested interests on the globe.


The second compelling reason for the Electric Universe to fully disclose its present connections with the UN, its agencies, and its departments, is that the UN is a major force behind promoting two major science-based policies which have profound implications for every area of human life. The first is the mitigation of anthropogenic global warming, and the second involves sustainability efforts. Sustainability as a scientific and political goal simply put means that scientific experts use peer-reviewed studies to determine the limits of natural resources, and make recommendations to politicians who persue policies to centrally manage these natural resources "for the public good." The question then becomes, "Which science?" Which science is used as inputs for sustainability policies?


The science used as inputs for much of the sustainability policies promoted by the United Nations is not in any way consonant with the science of the Electric Universe, and in most cases demonstrably contradicts the primary and secodary scientific tenets of the Electric Universe. I will provide three important examples:


1. water shortage models;

2. oil as a limited fossil fuel and as a dangerous source of carbon dioxide; and

3. the potential use and development of new energy sources based on the physics of the Electric Universe, which include cold fusion and other intelligent manipulation of atomic configurations using electricity.

[Brigit Bara]

Water Models Predicting Shortages

Scientists advising the UN claim the current uses of water by farmers is "unsustainable."

Groundwater Depletion Is Detected From Space

IRVINE, Calif. — Scientists have been using small variations in the Earth’s gravity to identify trouble spots around the globe where people are making unsustainable demands on groundwater, one of the planet’s main sources of fresh water.

They found problems in places as disparate as North Africa, northern India, northeastern China and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley in California, heartland of that state’s $30 billion agricultural industry.

Jay S. Famiglietti, director of the University of California’s Center for Hydrologic Modeling here, said the center’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, known as Grace, relies on the interplay of two nine-year-old twin satellites that monitor each other while orbiting the Earth, thereby producing some of the most precise data ever on the planet’s gravitational variations. The results are redefining the field of hydrology, which itself has grown more critical as climate change and population growth draw down the world’s fresh water supplies.

There are a multitude of problems with the data, the equipment, and the theoretical assumptions used to understand water levels in aquifers, and therefore outcomes and policies based on this science is worthless. It also happens to contradict or at least completely exclude Electric Universe theory regarding the variety of responses of the earth to its space environment.

1. The satellites used are 9 years old and are well beyond their stated useful lifetimes. By this time instruments have been compromised by many bombardments of charged particles from the sun and space and the instruments can not be expected to have anywhere near the precision claimed in the article.

2. The satellites have in the course of their mission lowered considerably, by as much as 400 meters. The readings between the twin satellites will have been affected by the varying conditions in the upper atmosphere, and the densities and therefore drags in these latitudes are not well understood.
http://lws-trt.gsfc.nasa.gov/trt04_Crowley.pdf

3. There are other variables which may effect aquifer levels. In Electric Universe theory, possible relationships between solar activity and geomagnetic field strengths and underground movements in the earth such as earthquakes and volcanoes exist. One precurser to earthquakes is sudden changes in water tables, as seen in wells. The work ahead in discovering the relatively instantaneous variations in water levels in response to electrical solar storms will be an area in which the Electric Universe can make another valuable contribution to all mankind. This is the way forward, not the regulatory persecution of growers who provide the inexpensive rice on which so many lives depend.

[CTJG 1986]

@Brigit Bara - I myself have no direct involvement by any means with the Thunderbolts Project or any of it's team members and thus can not say with 100% certainty that they have no involvement, collaboration or other endeavors involving the United Nations on any particular issue.

However, in regards to climate change and it's highly debatable causes I highly doubt that the TB team has any involvement with the U.N's IPCC outlook on climate change.

A review of some of the TPOD's, Holoscience pages and other related materials and websites will show that the primary tenets of the EU Theory if not disprove at least call into serious doubt any existing anthropogenic theory as to the cause of climate change.

A few examples from TPOD's in the arhcive:

"Martian Global Warming" - http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... arming.htm

The scientists say that the warming is similar to that of the Earth over roughly the same period. This possibility, in turn, could have major ramifications for the “global warming” issue. Since there is no evidence of living organisms contributing to temperature changes on Mars, current observations and measurements raise the distinct possibility that natural phenomena, largely overlooked in the “global warming” debate, could be contributing to rapid changes in planetary climates. ...

---

"Sacrifice, Delusion and Climate" - http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... limate.htm

In ancient Carthage children were sacrificed to appease the gods. The Carthaginians thought that their actions could control the gods of thunder, drought, earthquakes and volcanoes. Our modern god, science, is imbued with powers that humans believe can make us masters of our planet. Is this a mere childish arrogance similar to the Carthaginians, or do we possess the power to control or modify Earth's environment? ...

---

And a quote direct from Wal Thornhill regarding the electrical aspects of Earth's climate as quoted in the TPOD "Rainmaker" - http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... nmaker.htm

"If conventional theory fails to explain electrical storms it cannot be used to discount the results of ionization experiments. Instead, conventional theory suffers doubts about its basic plausibility. Weather experts have a limited view of the electrical nature of the Earth and its environment. The 'enormous power input' is freely available from the galaxy. That galactic electrical power drives the weather systems on all of the planets and even the Sun. So the ionization experiment is rather like the control gate in a transistor, where a small current into the control gate influences the entire power output of the transistor. This method of weather control should eventually force the critics to think again."

The EU theory and TB team in general do not support most of the foundational tenets behind the U.N IPCC's "Anthropogenic Global Warming" theory.

A number of threads have been ongoing around these forums over the years discussing the electrical aspects of climate change and their consequences to the theory(ies) behind that climate change.

A good one to start with is the thread started a long time back by our dearly departed user JungleLord now a combination of numerous similar threads entitled simply "Global Warming / Climategate" which has about 20 pages of good discussion and debate on these issues:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=4&t=4277


Cheers,
Jonny

[Brigit Bara]

Thank you Johnny. I am well aware that the chief science advisors of the Electric Universe have written about the shabby science behind AGW.

I have simply expressed the hope that any participation with the UN be discussed openly.

I have also been pointing out that the science behind "sustainability" (and therefore UN global initiatives to "use science and art for the public good") is even more abysmal than AGW science. In three essential areas it is not coherent with earth and space science of the Electric Universe.

[Brigit Bara]

The efforts by the UN to mitigate global warming by reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide from power generation, methane from cattle, and nitrous oxide from crops, are based on world wide studies by scientists and experts.


There is no scientific union, journal, publication, academic institution, or association I am aware of that has not concurred with AGW science and policies. While even the publications of the IEEE are replete with claims of AGW, the Electric Universe rejects the science and theoretical assumptions behind these studies, siting among other things the potential influence of electrical currents in the solar system causing the powerful weather events on all the planets. This is an area in which Electric Universe theory has already made brilliant contributions, and can look forward to discoveries of great beauty and usefulness.


Precisely as is the case with AGW, other global initiatives by the UN are based on scientific studies and peer reviewed papers. The "sustainability" of all aspects of human life has come under its scientific scrutiny. These studies form the basis for UN work that comes under the rubric of "sustainability" and "environmental justice."


I am simply trying to point out that most of the UN work is based on, and utilizes, scientific theories to justify and validate political, social, and economic actions.


Any connection with so large a vested interest in science would be significant for the Electric Universe.


And this being the case, every jot and title of the science behind every single global policy pursued by the UN, we would dearly hope, would be submitted to the rigor shown in rejecting AGW. Any connections with this large vested interest is truly worthy of clear communication and well-defined intentions. Perhaps we can even go so far as to say that greater caution in the case of the UN is necessary since the UN has already exhibited a distressing pattern of misuse, misapplication, and misrule in and through science itself.



But the take home point is: it can already be fully demonstrated that the science behind other UN policies is not coherent with Electric Universe earth and space science.


I discussed the faulty methodology, data, and models used to predict water shortages and restrict farming, and that their models completely exclude Electric Universe research and theories about ground water levels fluctuating in response to space weather.


For another example, in the Electric Universe, oil is not necessarily a fossil fuel.A good case has been made that oil is an abiotic hydrocarbon formed deep in the earth's crust. The assumption that it is a fossil fuel and a scarce resource may not be correct and therefore policies based on that assumption are very possibly harmful, arbitrary distortions of an essential market; the more sudden, the more harmful. Efforts to eliminate its use may simply be based on a false scientific theory about what is otherwise an inexpensive, abundant supply of energy for all people. At present, it has been estimated that the US has enough oil reserves to last over a century.


And since in the Electric Universe, there is no danger of a runaway greenhouse effect from the trace gas carbon dioxide, the efforts by the UN to sharply reduce the use of hydrocarbon fuels on that count are also another example of failed science which is incoherent with Electric Universe theory.


To become involved in methodically stripping others of abundant, inexpensive supplies of electricity and water for other reasons - this then becomes a spiritual issue. But the science does not support it.