why we don't want the mainstream on our side

[celeste]

I may be alone in this opinion, but I hope the mainstream doesn't accept the EU model anytime soon. I hope many of them are not even aware that there IS an "EU" model. I know it is frustrating; when you have a nugget of truth, you want to share it with the world. It's even more frustrating when you see the mainstream getting huge amounts of funding for dark matter detectors, and other nonsense. To top it off, we see shows on T.V., where the mainstream spews their ideas of curved space-time,black holes, etc.,to a public who is honestly interested in learning the truth about our universe.
The thing is, the mainstream is doing most of the observing right now. They have the scopes,antennae, satellites, etc. Do you want them to know what they are looking for?
Let's see what they did to themselves. Everyone in the mainstream is aware of the theory of black holes, and now we have "observations" of black holes everywhere. Stellar mass black holes, with stars orbiting them, and super-massive black holes at the center of galaxies. They "know" there is dark matter out there, and now we have maps of the dark matter distribution around galaxies, and clusters of galaxies.
So what I fear, is that the mainstream does accept the Electric Universe. Rest assured, they will confirm every idea we have. Even the ones that are wrong.
I, myself, would not be impressed if the mainstream went looking for current filaments, and then found current filaments. What I do like seeing, is that when the mainstream "knows" that gasses are shaped by shockwaves, it still finds that "local gas clouds in the sun's neighborhood, seem to have a filamentary structure". No force fitting of data to the model there.
In psychology,they go to great lengths to set up double blind experiments. We don't realize just how lucky we are.
Observers who don't know what they are seeing, and are forced to just get better and better pictures. Now we can do some science!

[D_Archer]

media is corrupt, that would be enough reason.

Regards.
Daniel

[303vegas]

Hi Cileste. I know where you're coming from there, it's a tricky line isn't it? On the one hand you want everyone in the mainstream to realise that they've been going in the wrong direction, particularly the more self assured and smug elements (it will be lovely to see them sweat and squirm when being asked where all the money went - it's nice to fantasize!) On the other hand you don't want them to leap on the EU and claim it all for their own. A slow, creeping infusion of EU will suffice until it becomes apparent that there's too much of it for the orthodoxy to ignore. Infiltration is usually the best tactic. We need to get 'our people' in there by stealth.

[StevenJay]

I, for one, have grown weary of the us-versus-them school of thought. It's been my experience that the energy expended fighting/competing with that which one is not in alignment with, could be put to better use actually pursuing that which one is in alignment with.

In other words, "Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!"

[Solar]

Huh?

What on earth would prompt “black hole physics” (an oxymoron) to side with EU/PC? I doubt that such a thing could happen. Even when the “Universe’s Highest Electric Current” (presumptuous, yes I know) was supposedly found they STILL blamed (or co-opted) a “black hole” as the generative source:

The team thinks magnetic fields from a colossal black hole at the galaxy's core are generating the current, which is powerful enough to light up the jet and drive it through interstellar gases out to a distance of about 150,000 light years (arxiv.org/abs/1106.1397). New Scientist

Their version of cosmic filaments aren’t from electric currents but “dark matter filaments” instead. They also willy-nilly insert “black holes” at their leisure into any and all of Nature’s works where ever and whenever they see fit to do so on a whim with neither rhyme nor reason:

Little Black Holes: Dark matter and Ball Lightning

Heck, even entire universes can be “born in a black hole”. They’re not going to sacrifice all of the knowledge and the exotic explanatory POWAH! of such a large scale psychosis to pursue … “science” now would they? After all these years, I don't think their adherents would like that.

[celeste]

Solar,
So I take it you won't be attending the Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss presentation this year? I'd go for the entertainment value. Here is a link on last year's presentation:
http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/64 ... -asu-4-feb
Notice the mission of Dawkins (and Krauss too), "is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering." Evidence based understanding, not superstition.
Then read on "Krauss's latest book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing, explains the scientific advances that provide insight into how the universe formed. Krauss tackles the age-old assumption that something cannot arise from nothing by arguing that not only can something arise from nothing, but something will always arise from nothing."
Superstition? Bad. Something will always arise from nothing? Good.
You see why I get a kick out of these guys?

[Solar]

Now Celeste: You know as well as I do that we’d be escorted out for snickering in their pews!

The “science” of today is peculiar. I don’t think the concept of an independent thought or independent research exists within its confines: and who’s minding the mint?

A Barrage Of Legal Threats Shuts Down Whistleblower Site, Science Fraud

I’ve seen chats like the one you’ve linked on YouTube; they’re pretty painful but apparently there is a fan base for it. Things can get pretty ugly when ‘the mainstream’ doesn’t like alternative ideas and labels them “pseudoscience”. Look at what happened here this past month:

Open for discussion: Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake from TEDxWhitechapel

The crossed out section of that TED Blog is what a ‘hidden panel’ of “scientist” and/or “TEDstaff” accused R. Sheldrake of supposedly engaging in. The talks of both Hancock and Sheldrake were pulled from TED’s YouTube channel and now adorn back pages for supposed continuing debate. TED’s motto: “Ideas Worth Spreading” - supposedly.

The motto of the hidden panel of obviously mainstream “scientist”: ‘Not those ideas’.

If you listen to R. Sheldrake’s talk he basically refers to several scientific ideas as ‘delusions’ and I’m guessing that ‘They’, the hidden panel of “scientist” didn’t like that because its TRUE! If you read their accusations and his response you realize that not a one of them researched neither Sheldrake’s nor Hancock’s work. They just labeled it “pseudoscience”, tossed up some faux rationale, and canned it. TED’s in hot water for censoring while they keep trying to say that they are not censoring since they have rendered no apology and haven't restored the talks. All “mainstream” inspired; aren’t ‘They’ wonderful?

So now, Krauss and/or Dawkins (never heard of that chap) are going to try to “enlighten” on the age old Philosophical dilemma for which far older works have rendered more enchanting prose regarding “Nothingness” when “science” has psychologically separated itself from Philosophy?

Yes, I’m already laughing.

[orrery]

One problem with that celeste:

They get all of the toys and perfectly good tax money and instruments are wasted on fools.

[Infinion]

A different perspective:

Don't get the 'mainstream' to accept the EU model, don't even try. Continue real science that follows scientific method without theological convictions and it will be the public that loses faith (no pun intended) in the mainstream model. They will be the ones to decide which model they want their taxpayer money being poured (or spilled) into.

In the meantime, remain as a small entity like the EU has been. Maintain and improve on the thunderbolts project's ability to collude with EU proponents. Our small community is large enough to support necessary scientific endeavors like the SAFIRE project. The purpose of these projects should not be for recognition. Recognition should be a byproduct of the EU's continued success at modeling and predicting behavior on all scales of nature. The purpose of the EU's endeavors should be to forge a new scientific body whose goal is to replace the mainstream and drive our society out of this dark age in science.

It is obvious that some proponents will individually desire recognition for their ideas and experiments, this is also unavoidable. Many things in the EU could have an enormous impact on our society. But what will keep us from following the path that mainstream science did? Understand both sides of human nature (in science): to be recognized by society and to explore the nature of the universe. Put scientific truth on the highest and most desirable pedestal that our future generations will willingly strive toward (along side?) and show them where pre-conceived notions and unphysical assertions of theories leads truth to.

[magicjava]

http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/64 ... -asu-4-feb
Notice the mission of Dawkins (and Krauss too), "is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering." Evidence based understanding, not superstition.

Here's an example of "evidence based understanding in Darwinian evolution from Carolina.com's online eduction supplies: Inquiries in Science: Simulating the Darwinian Theory Kit

Would-be Darwins get plenty of evidence based tools for learning about how life evolves, such as:

• Dice
• Pack of Evolution Cards
• Blue, yellow, and white pom poms
• wooden sticks
• sand

Compare this to their Genetic Construction Kit molecular biology kit, where students actually create a new strain of viable bacteria. And no, Neo-Darwinism and molecular biology are not the same thing.

Darwin's theory of evolution has never been demonstrated to have any more capabilities than the practice of breeder's selection upon which it was based. It is a story.

Molecular biology, on the other hand, can demonstrate how heredity works[1], demonstrate non-Darwinian changes in organisms such as changes that have no intermediate creatures and therefore leave no intermediates in the fossil record [2] and viruses changing DNA in a way that not only suits their needs, but changes how the the host creature reproduces. [3] That is science.

Sorry for this little off-topic outburst, but Dawkins really ticks me off. He constantly pushes this weak Darwinian junk, insults people for believing in God, and pushes his psuedo-science meme theory on anyone who will listen. I'm an athiest and on behalf of athiests everywhere I appologize to the world for that obnoxious ass of a human being.
------------
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26devo.html
[3] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... y-viruses/

[Rosphere]

I may be alone in this opinion, but I hope the mainstream doesn't accept the EU model anytime soon. ...

I appreciate your point of view. It was fun to entertain that thought for awhile.

However, the incidental EU findings of today's instruments would be dwarfed by data of instrumentation tuned especially to measure EU events. This next-gen' of EU instrumentation, (land, sea, air, & space probes,) may also incidentally find a brand new layer of worthy scientific inquiry.

I do hope that the rotten apple cart has passed it's tipping point.

[Blue Progressive]

Sorry, Celeste, but I have very little idea of what you're saying. You'll have to make yourself more clear.

[Blue Progressive]

Magicjava,

I also am an atheist and agree with you on Dawkins. Like most mainstreamers he's a fanatic, a choleric, and a hypocrite. Mainstream science is based on crackpottery; it's 2 basic principles are the Popperian, antirational, absolute-skeptical view that we can't know anything, and the dogmatic-skeptical, anti-rational view that the mainstream is always right, when most of it is based on known fallacies--the 2, of course, are contradictory and hypocritical.

[Alphane]

I have a conspiracy theory regarding the mainstream's attitude towards EU.

I don't think it's possible that every elite scientist is unaware of EU or unable to publicly support it. I wonder if a large number of highly placed people aren't well aware of the failure of mainstream science, especially of astronomy. They are not necessarily research scientists, but they would be pulling the funding and publicity strings, keeping the public in the dark on EU in order to unleash it at a later date when the powers that be who are planning global government finally decide to 'save' everybody from the war, social chaos and intellectual confusion fostered throughout the last century.

This would occur on various levels - health, mythology, astronomy, finance, spirituality, everything will be reformed in order to create an irresistible Utopian vision. Order out of chaos, science out of stupidity.

And if you don't want a part of these global reforms, if you resist and still wan't to believe in black holes and dirty snowballs, massive fleets of plasma-drive spacecraft and advanced plasma weapon wielding super-soldiers will emerge from underground bunkers where Wal Thornhill and David Talbot and others have been secretly working for years, sharing knowledge and developing practical applications of EU, selling out the human race by collaborating with our new Alien overlords in return for life extending implants and positions of power and influence in the EU World Order.

[Genius Gone Insane]

^As ridiculous as this speculation sounds, if it is true, it would explain a lot. The first half of this comment is certainly worth considering. Not sure I am worried about EU guys gunning people down with plasma guns though.