Let's Do EU Research

[Lloyd]

* In the Practical Applications thread, Phyllotaxis and I have started discussing this. There's an experiment mentioned there by RJ Huntington which he said a few months ago that he planned to do this summer. But he hasn't been back to the thread and only comes to the forum rarely lately.
* Anyway, his experiment is one that anyone could try to duplicate and you might like to start a small local group to work on it.
* But, we can discuss other EU research ideas here too. The research could be for testing EU theories, or it could be for EU related technology.
* I hope Phyllo will share his ideas shortly. I suggested that we could invite seriously interested forum members to have maybe weekly discussion on a Google Document, which might be worth sharing here afterward, like I've been doing with the Electric Sun discussions.
* Anyone's input is welcome.

[Lloyd]

What Experiments Should We Promote?
* We already have some EU science experimenters. Anthony Peratt has done experiments at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and elsewhere. C. J. Ransom has done them at Vemasat Laboratories. I think Wal Thornhill has done one or more electric discharge experiments, according to his Electric Universe CD from the late 1990s. Some of these experiments have been pictured or discussed in TPODs. Some of these experiments have produced effects resembling craters on Mars and elsewhere, Martian blueberries, the Martian "volcano" Olympus Mons, galaxy formation etc.
* Gerald Pollack has done interesting experiments with partially ionized water from light exposure. Other former experimenters were Birkeland, Alfven, Bruce, Bostich and others. There are numerous others living now who've also done related work, like Santilli and Kanarev. Ed Dowdye may have done experiments too.
Proposed Experiments
* One experiment I think should be done is one similar to Birkeland's terella experiments. That might be useful for the Electric Sun discussions.
* R.J.'s experiment is another one we'll probably discuss some more.
* Does anyone else have ideas for experiments?
Live Discussions
* For anyone seriously interested in joining in live discussion of doing EU research, you're invited to meet at a Google Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O6Fdmy-Cz9cfkaUBLx8cHezJP956ykwdBDFXttddd3w/edit. You may leave a note here or there to suggest what day and time you prefer to discuss there.

[phyllotaxis]

Thank you for opening this discussion Lloyd.

The objective for many of us is to learn more about the broad spectrum of science research that we casually/loosely refer to as "Electric Universe". To do this we must
1) Study the prior works/discussions of researchers
2) design, implement, and study new experiments to prove or disprove or data feed an idea

Up until recently the lot of us could only pursue #1 with any effectiveness, as doing actual scientific work was limited by resources, location, or time available. We had to leave the decisions for what to research and how to research it to the "white-coats".

No longer.

I think there are several ways to move forward in real public research, and they can best be implemented by us, right here, right now. We no longer have to count on academia, state grants, or popular flavor science funding preferences to get EU focused experimental data.

I think the most important method for us could be Crowdfunding

This can be a very powerful way for us to accomplish many of our outstanding goals- with real experiments.
"Crowdfunding" is bigger than even many proponents realize. Now that technology has made it so seamless and transparent I think we're just barely beginning to see the scope of what it will become.

Here's a quick set of links to read if you want to get a snapshot of the methods in use now.
http://blog.scienceexchange.com/2012/05 ... e-funding/
http://www.petridish.org/
http://sciencedonors.com/
http://oikosjournal.wordpress.com/2012/ ... he-future/
http://www.opengenius.org/

All of these are specifically geared towards science research and experiment funding.
Any (or none) of these might be exactly what we need to get our stuff happening, and I'm willing to do some hard work to make that happen.

This is a very big undertaking-- I can't deny that it will take a lot of trust, communication, teamwork, and organizational dedication.
We have to put the system together, survey potential experiments, survey potential scientists/venues to conduct chosen experiments, collect and administer funding, purchasing of parts/equipment/time reservation of telescope use etc... implement the work, record the results and distribute the findings etc... and more.

But I absolutely believe that the people in this forum and many others like-minded would jump at the chance to start doing active research and development of technologies related to EU- whether it's contributing $5 towards a fund project or following along the public blueprints in your home experiment. We can do all of that now- the tools are here.


That's the idea. We do science. For really.

Questions? Thoughts? Constructive criticism?

Are you in?

[Lloyd]

* I'm still in, Phyllo. That makes two of us.
* I'll try to contact a bunch of members soon, to solicit their support.
* I'll also try to contact Wal, Don, C.J., R.J. and maybe other experimenters and ask what kinds of experiments they think should be done and if they want physical help doing any experiments and what items they would need, including funds to get some of them.
* In the meantime, what suggestions does everyone else have? And what kinds of help does anyone want to offer?
* Is Monday evening a good time to have our weekly discussion? Say 9 p.m. Eastern time? That's at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O6Fdmy-Cz9cfkaUBLx8cHezJP956ykwdBDFXttddd3w/edit.

[Lloyd]

Oliver Manuel's Reply

Thanks for the message, Lloyd.

I agree with your sentiment. But there is no use doing experiments related to EU, if EU proponents are going to insist that the results must agree with what they think they know.

The current demise of society is the unintended result of a 1945 decision to:

a.) Establish the United Nations to reduce nationalism and the threat of "nuclear fires."

b.) Obscure reality by giving research funds to scientists to promote "misinformation on"

c.) Energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of atoms [1] and stars [2].

That is exactly how world leaders led mankind away from contact with God’s beautiful, bountiful universe:

http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

To the self-destructive illusion that we can control, rather than worship and submit to Reality, God, Truth, etc.

- Oliver K. Manuel

References:

1. Hideki Yukawa, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (1946); Introduction to the Theory of Elementary Particles (1948) http://www.nndb.com/people/759/000099462

2. Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946); “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” ibid., 343-83 (1946)

PS - Please forward my message to other members of the EU team.

* I replied that some of us are open-minded and asked if he has research suggestions and I said: I agree about the wrong direction that the ruling class has taken us after WW2, but I'm trying to stick with going the right direction myself.

[phyllotaxis]

I'm in full agreement. We must pursue the truth FIRST, ABOVE ALL ELSE, and ALWAYS.

Every thing learned is a lesson. If some EU assumptions are disproven in the course of this work, it is a great thing , for it will re-focus attention on further questions that may open entirely new, as yet unimaginable revelations.
That's the whole point of practicing the scientific method. You test for results, not to get *your* results.
Anyone that is more interested in stroking their preconceptions than simply analyzing data are probably not going to pursue the best experiments.

Bravo to Mr. Manuel for making this point clear. We would all be wise to heed his advise.

Onward -

[nick c]

But there is no use doing experiments related to EU, if EU proponents are going to insist that the results must agree with what they think they know.

This statement is confusing. Of course given the "if", it is true; but what exactly is Oliver Manuel implying? It seems that this is a back handed condemnation of the EU and possibly an accusation (of some unspecified) misdeed(s). And that is the problem, there is no answer to this, because there is no specific issue to be a addressed. A negative statement like this should not be left hanging there, it needs some clarification. What exactly is being charged here?
Or am I misinterpreting the meaning? and he is saying that the EU should not, given the opportunity, behave like mainstream?

[ElecGeekMom]

I read it as just a reminder not to behave like mainstream, entrenched "science" has been behaving for too long. In other words, don't hide or disguise the results if they don't agree with our expected results.

Any result is a lesson learned. I agree with that statement.

Failure to see the expected result is an option.

[Lloyd]

* Nick, my guess is that Oliver is somewhat frustrated with members of the EU team who aren't willing to consider his own conclusions about neutronium, the iron sun theory etc. Oliver's theory includes electrical forces, just as the EU team's theory does, but he seems to regard neutronium as the source of the electrical forces, as a result of decay of neutronium into electrons and protons. I don't know if Oliver is willing to consider the EU team's conclusions any more than they are his, but in the Electric Sun Discussions thread we've been discussing all of them and we regard all of them as worth testing seriously.
First EU Research Discussion Monday Night?
* Is Monday night at 9 Eastern Time good for everyone for the discussion?
* Phyllo, I consider my own role in this as just to assist you. Are you willing to lead the effort, at least until we get the ball rolling? I don't have a lot of time, but I can contribute maybe part of one day a week. Do you have a thorough plan for how to proceed? If not, I think it'll be okay, because others will come along sooner or later to help out, I think. I have some experience with planning and can help organize a little, if needed.
* Any other volunteers?

[Lloyd]

Meet Saturday at 9 pm Eastern Time
* Phyllo says he can only meet on the weekends, so I suggested that time. So, if he agrees, we'll meet at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O6Fdmy-Cz9cfkaUBLx8cHezJP956ykwdBDFXttddd3w/edit at that time. I'll also be there Monday at 9 pm, if I don't forget, because I already told some folks that time.

[Lloyd]

* Phyllo agreed to meet at 9 pm tonight E.T. at the above Document.

A Crater Experiment Video
* This comment was left at the Google Doc 3 days ago.

I agree that hard evidence is needed to counter the rot of astrophysical non-entities and other simulated experiments. Being in UK I might be in a minority, but work in a technical training facility where equipment might be available. I strongly believe that good quality video should be used once the experiments are clearly reproducible. My example, taken from Wal's early experiments is here: http://www.wikihow.com/Etch-Your-Own-Crater. This was transposed from an original Super VHS recording. Amazingly nobody has taken me off air!
- A similar experiment should take things further, make measurements, and try low atmospheric pressure, etc. I have HD camcorder but no handy 10kV generator just yet.
- Ooh yes, we must not forget detail on how plasma discharge phenomena are (mathematically) scaled up to planet size,

[phyllotaxis]

EXACTLY the kind of direction we can all work with!

I look forward to tonight!

[phyllotaxis]

Here's a few current funds on just one of the sites I linked to above, Rockethub.

You will understand most of what you need to know about this crowd-funding thing by reading these funding options. It shows that the work is generally open to the public at every step along the way-- from conception to construction to implementation to results and conclusions.

Many of them tell and show you exactly what they're doing and what they are using to do it.
I picked a few that have family ties, or informational impact, on EU (in other words, their answers add to OUR work- I leave it to you to imagine how their discoveries could help us in our pursuits):

Using spectroscopy in ultraviolet and infrared light freq. to learn more about catastrophic variable binary star systems

The effect of water on life

Acoustic analysis of plant water transfer

New ways to publish research

Analyzing "electric life"

Electromagnetic Nerve Stimulator Prototype and analysis

Solar Seaweed: Photovoltaic and piezoelectric power

What makes fossils...fossils?

New services like Science Exchange allow deeply discounted lab, analysis, and deep-tech equipment rental for all of us.

Bottom line?
This process works, and it is a great opportunity for this community to seize upon.

Imagine what we can do!

What experiments can you suggest for study?

From your suggestions, and/or by others example, we can try and figure out if the experiment is feasible, produce-able, repeatable, and applicable. Then it's a matter of "vetting" the processes and everything having to do with the actual device(s) or focuses. Making sure we're in agreement about what the experiment is good for, what it is meant to accomplish, and how best to construct it.
Then, when it's as good and clear as it can be, we list it in these venues (or others--TBD) and advertise it in our circles and online.

We market the science. Then we hope the interest adds up to implemented experiments.

I imagine we could try and do a bunch of Tesla stuff through this architecture. I would love to recreate some of his work in this way.


Thoughts? Suggestions? Ideas?

[Lloyd]

* Phyllo, et al, how does this plan sound?

POTENTIAL EU RESEARCH PLAN
- Matthew & company plan research organization
- Invite interested TB forum members et al to join this effort
- Agree to and use efficient scientific consensus unanimous rule decision making
- Establish a wiki etc for public access to all known scientific data and knowledge
- Find and organize data optimally
- Set up or join an EU and progressive science research group
- Set up or join a workable research and development system
- List main EU tenets and other good ideas worth experimenting on
- Recruit pro and lay scientists
- Scientists specify what they need to test the ideas
- Research organization help scientists get funding
- Scientists proceed to acquire data and test ideas
- Research org evaluate and improve progress at regular intervals
- Goal: Make maximum scientific progress for humanity by developing a continually self-improving scientific research establishment that efficiently discovers scientific facts which will continually improve life for all, via improved technology and knowledge sharing.

* I think acquiring and organizing accurate data in a wiki etc is likely to be as important as doing experiments. That's what I'm most interested in myself. I have a wiki at http://askus.wikispaces.com, but I haven't attempted to compile data there yet, mainly just sources of data. But I'd like to help compile data, if I have time.
* Here are highlights from our Saturday night discussion. MD is Phyllotaxis.

MD: My goal is really to initiate the effort and find ways to popularize this line of research.
My goal remains the same as it ever is: learn more facts about science, apply them to technology and make life better.

LK: Or: we want to form a continually self-improving scientific research establishment that efficiently discovers scientific facts which will continually improve life for all, via technology and knowledge sharing.

MD: The group funding is only one part of my imagined plan here
-- I’d like to think about developing an index of “To Do” things that anyone might be able to try out at home, so they can do some garage scientist stuff as well.
- Crowdsourcing is a funding method that allows individuals or companies to tell the public what they are doing, what they want to accomplish, what it will cost, why they need it to get the result, and what they think the results could be. Then, they post the progress of the work as it is done, keeping donors/Advocates “in the loop”, so that they can be shadow partners in the science being performed. The data collected is made available to any and all, not secrets to exploit.
- Each of the sites I’ve linked to in our posts has a clear method to go about setting up and implementing a funding drive.
- Here are some links that show how these projects will work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_funding
http://www.rockethub.com/projects/scifund
http://www.petridish.org/
http://sciencedonors.com/
- After reading through these links you will realize how simple this process has become; that’s why it’s so powerful.
All you need is: a coherent idea (one that we can refine with TB forum members & others); the means to do the work; and the results made public.
- It’s crowd science, without the academic walls shutting out the open-minded.

LK: To simplify things initially, have you looked for any existing proposals that might interest our forum members that we might want to assist with in any way?

MD: The links in the second post on the “Research” thread link to existing, live projects that I look at as having tangible ties to our research in one way or another.

LK: Is funding the only way for people to participate in those projects?

MD: ARDUSAT allows anyone to put their work on its platform.
- Additionally, I could see us having a place for forum member do-it-yourselfers to gather, discuss, and implement their own experiments, both with and without direct assistance. Maybe it would be a good place for a new forum room to address? Like RJHuntington-type things.

LK: Hackerspaces does things like that, but focuses on technology, rather than experiments, I think.

MD: We could eventually have teleconference calls, or skype-ins, or Fuze meetings [like NPA does] or something; dealing with active experiments and such, we’d probably need more fluid forms of communication.
- As long as we pick reasonable, specific, and useful experiments, it will gain credibility and a strong track record for further work. It will also draw scientists who might be curious about helping in this work but had no way to do it before.
- How do we derive a “panel” of people to decide on what will be attempted? Just a vote in a thread, or some other way?

LK: I think it should be up to whoever is willing to get more involved.

MD: More specifically, as far as the technical aspects- the “hard” parts. We’ll need specialists to contribute their expertise to make sure we aren’t testing with bad aims. Does that make sense?

LK: If this is just to test EU and other theories to the satisfaction of the reading public, then experts may not be needed, other than people who are somewhat expert at reasoning etc. Right?

MD: Yes, I understand. My thought was more about deriving the way tests should be carried out-- the technical aspects and all-- for example, if we are going to buy telescope time to look at the sun, we’d want forum members with experience in that field to be a part of deciding on the nature of that experiment.

LK: I’m inclined to let the scientists who do the tests decide that.
- Some members of the EU team are already scientists and so are many forum members.

MD: I will need a list of people you think it would be good to contact
- As far as using the forum as a place to do-it-yourself, I like the idea, though there are other places online already doing that, and perhaps we could just reference them instead of trying to copy it all on TB.
- Tomorrow I will study the primary sites that deal with these types of work and figure out the pro’s and con’s. Perhaps I can come back here and post a list so it can be evaluated and we can maybe choose one based on the results. Then, all we need is an experiment to post, and it’ll be there.

MD Update:
- The RocketHub site appears on inspection to be the easiest and most straight-forward place to initiate this plan.
I investigated the various sites out there and it looks like it has few requirements and easy methods of posting projects to fund.
- Petridish requires a more formal research approach via practicing university staff/research foundations, and therefore limits our avenues of use.
OpenGenius is too new and seems unprepared to start from Go.
- The RocketHub process is simple. I signed up for an account and explored the process a bit-- anyone can do it. There are customizable variables for presenting your “pitch” in video/youtube clip form, with a detailed written explanation included on your page. There is a readily identifiable progress indicator on the project allowing people to see how funding is going at a glance, and you can keep in contact with funders via mailing list or some other way to keep them up on the work as it progresses.

----------------------------------------

The Scientific Method involves:
1. making accurate observations of subject matter;
2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted;
5. publishing the experiment;
6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.

Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1. making inaccurate observations;
2. making an untestable hypothesis;
3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.

[phyllotaxis]

Excellent work Lloyd, I think you've captured the main thrust very well.
I agree with you on the need for an R&D resource- it will add many layers of information that both researchers and advocates can use for reference and collaboration -it's a great idea.

I'm eager to continue fleshing out this effort- any people interested in contributing to this project in some way, through suggestions, volunteering, or whatever way you think might help, please contact us.
As time goes on we will have roles for just about any interest level, so no matter what your schedule, interest, or orientation you can help DO SCIENCE!