EU's own crisis: getting the attention of the wrong people.

[GenesisAria]

With my growing exposure to the Electromagnetic Universe model, it's definitely become very clear that there's a severe underlying issue with how it's presenting itself and getting recognized.

At the moment, EU is developing fine doing it's own thing, however no paradigms are going to be shifted this way, and it's recognition won't grow at all, until it reaches a critical mass of complete undeniability. I see lots of mentions of how the standard model advocates fail to see this or that, or that warnings were made about whatever and fell on deaf ears. When i look at this it seems more like EU is doing a lot of talking to itself, instead of talking to the people who need to hear these things. Public figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson have job descriptions of educating the population and political interests to the necessity of the sciences, even if his knowledge is flawed by his peers. EU needs it's own 'Neil deGrasse', or everyone to mutually help fill the role.

As is standard for being in the western world spotlight, your dirty laundry will always get hung to show, it's unavoidable. The next thing to do is work out how to respond to this. A direct war of details won't get anywhere. How you win against a dirty enemy like so is to win over it's subjects by being the better choice. You have to win the hearts and interests of people, but not by using epic tales that rival the standard creation models and damage the philosophy of relying on direct empirical evidence.

A lot of the theories that EU presents carry a lot of factual weight and make a lot of practical sense, and these are the aspects that need emphasis. Ideas that are more stretching, like the Saturn Myth, need to be side notes of what the model could possibly mean in the big picture. The bullying by the system can understandably generate some cynicism, but it should not resort to calling the standard models absolute embarrassing failures. The standard models are not complete bull, bull would only get so far. The conclusions that inevitably lead to the standard models are just as understandable as the conclusions that lead to EU. We're all looking at the same stars, that's a fact, they won't magically change shape because of one belief or another, as the only thing that changes is how we interpret what we're looking at and whether that can lead to new understandings.


So, we're at an impasse. There is a dilemma of how EU presents itself, and some thinking into how it can improved should happen. What can we do or suggest to help improve the way EU carries itself to gain more beneficial attention?

A suggestion of mine would be to change approach. Rather than holding EU on a pedestal and putting the standard model down, making it look the fool for directly opposing what so many people agree upon (In the old days, even if you're right, you're a fool to oppose the church without being prepared to face the consequences.), it should be compared to standard models fairly while simply clarifying why the EU version makes more sense, and where the issues are that the mainstream physicists are actively facing - the "baffling" stuff. Hell i even suggest showing some math from plasma physics and electrical engineering sometimes that would represent the structures as the the standard models use gravitational math and so on; a little fanservice so that the mathematicians can compare as well. This would strengthen the notion that there is indeed multiple perspectives of interpreting and explaining something. Also, don't expect people to know things about what you're explaining, you gotta address the basics all the time, and emphasize conjectures people take for granted, even down to simple things like what is an automatic deduction and the kinds of things people assume... like the idea of there being only one explanation (of course never with belittling language). The simple question: "have you ever thought about ___?"
I already intend to give the gift of EU to all who read my work of fiction when it's published.

[Steve Smith]

It's all well and good to say that "EU needs this or that" when your exposure to it is recent. It fails to recognize that those who are involved and interested have been so for over 50 years, in several cases. Saturn Theory is just as much a part of the Electric Universe as any other, with a number of manifestations that are under investigation. One's personal taste in regard to what should or should not be presented is fine, but it is simply that: your own personal taste.

Your characterization of "epic tales that rival the standard creation models and damage the philosophy of relying on direct empirical evidence" is nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of the people I work with on a daily basis.

[GenesisAria]

Uh, this isn't a matter of my tastes, and that kind response is part of the problem. The Saturn Myth sounds completely crazy and makes no bloody sense until you understand ALL of the general functions of an electric universe, AND it's evidence is largely within a field of archaeology and so on which is not very solid proof even if it makes sense. Von Daniken says that looks like a ufo, Talbot says it looks like a planet that was close. To the public eye there is no distinction as to which is more valid.

With more understanding of EU (don't underestimate my understanding of it just because i've only been at it a couple months), i can only start to glimpse the plausibility of such a planetary formation. I can completely stand behind planetary electrical scarring and a rocky sun with a shining aurora for a photosphere, that stuff structurally makes sense in the field of physics. But going beyond that is falling closer to conjecture like big bang and such: a conclusion based on a collection of data. I'm not saying it's complete bull and whatever, the fact is, it's a bad public ambassador, and attracts the kinds of people into myths and legends. This is counterproductive if you want to reestablish a paradigm of experimental science over simulation.

And so what if they've been into it for 50 years? Many discoveries have happened more than 100 years ago and still aren't recognized. The reason for this is because of human psychology and the sociological status of civilization. The masses don't have any particular reason to seek out EU, and only those who just happen to stumble across it or were introduced by an insider.

It is not a competition. Einstein was not dumb for thinking instead of experimenting, and EU is not dumb for pondering extrapolative models based on their study. The impetus is mutual: the desire to understand. However, if EU is going to say that simulating and so on is not science, it can't just turn around and make a simulation of it's own with this Saturnian hypothesis - unfortunately that's hypocritical.

EU is seen as one thing by the public, and thus it's treated as one thing. If something one person in EU says contradicts another, it creates confusion and thus rejection. The ambassadorial impression needs to be cohesive, or EU needs to stop looking like one unit.

This is not personal anything, it's an observation of the sociological implications around how poorly treated EU is. Obviously this doesn't change, and the method hasn't changed a lot, however Space News is very beneficial to the impression of EU. That is the impression EU should be trying to deliver, because it's beneficial and helps get people thinking about the nature of things.

I have a high confidence in the EU theory eventually gaining traction and helping lead humanity to the unified field and freeing our endeavours to wherever we wish to go, so don't make me out to be some outsider that is nitpicking EU.

[Steve Smith]

don't underestimate my understanding of it just because i've only been at it a couple months

The Saturn Myth sounds completely crazy and makes no bloody sense

Von Daniken says that looks like a ufo, Talbot says it looks like a planet that was close

it can't just turn around and make a simulation of it's own with this Saturnian hypothesis - unfortunately that's hypocritical.

The newbie has spoken

[GenesisAria]

That's enough ad hominem, thanks.

I came here to talk science, so let's get back to science, shall we?

This is an honest and objective concern for the public view of EU, which results in endless attacks by media claiming it to be crank theory.

People say EU has no math, humour them with some math. People say there's no experiments, show them experiments (done). People say dark ___ has been observed, show them exactly what they ACTUALLY observed and why they drew such a conclusion. People think EU doesn't need gravity, show them gravity's role in an electrified universe. People think space is an insulator, show them how it's not. etc etc. You gotta humour the populous if you want their favour.

I want to see EU better tomorrow than it is today, and i wish to do my part, no matter how small, to help make it happen.

[Zyxzevn]

The reason why I disliked the EU theory at first was because of some of their mentioning of myths and
mixing them with electrical events in the sky. It made me ignore it.

While there might be some true value in them, it is not accessible for people that just want to know
about space. The electrical erosion of mars is much more interesting.

And from this erosion, one might assume that this might be some spectacle for people in history.
Besides that, not all myths relate to electrical events, nor all myths relate to aliens either.

The EU should present more its strong points:
- there is evidence for strong electrical activity in a lot of cosmic phenomena.
- electrical activity can be responsible for creating cosmic structures, instead of gravity only.
- plasma reacts strongly to electromagnetic forces.
- the astronomy mainstream is ignorant about electromagnetic forces and often wrong.
- the mainstream is likely to be wrong about certain cosmic structures and phenomena.
- phenomena for which the mainstream have no clue, or are "surprised", have been predicted in the EU.

It should be clear:
- The influence of electromagnetism to plasma and cosmic structures can be calculated with regular math.
- Its math is complicated due to the dynamic nature of plasma and these structures.
- Its theories can be tested in laboratory and with specialized (and relatively cheap) test.
- strong electromagnetic interactions over long distances are possible with Birkeland currents.
These currents are layered and can be spotted at the magnetic poles of most planets.

The Electric Universe has some criticism on many "established" theories:
1) gravity as defined by Einstein does not seem fully correct, some "evidence" is clearly wrong.
2) redshift can be caused by interaction between light and plasma and the interstellar medium.
Stars can be nearer than they appear. There might be no inflation at all.
3) dark matter does not exist. The forces are caused by something else than gravity.
4) dark holes do not exist. The highly energetic phenomena can be caused with electrical interactions.
5) stars are born out electric forces, not just by gravity.
6) planets might not be born out of gravity only, but by other causes.
7) Comets are not snowballs.
8) mainstream models of plasma are wrong. "magnetic reconnection" is clearly wrong.

To replace the mainstream theories, the EU develops some theories:
ad 1) since gravity is not fully correct, it might have a different origin.
ad 2) Plasma redshift.
ad 3) Dark mode plasma, Birkeland currents and large scale electromagnetic fields.
ad 4) Double layers can create strong electric voltages that can be very energetic.
ad 5) Birkeland currents and electrical charge can focus matter into forming stars.
ad 6) Some Planets might have been former stars.
ad 7) Comets are caused by electrochemical erosion, which is stronger due to their orbit.
ad 8) Plasma is very dynamic, we can see it on the sun. It needs a complex dynamic model,
that is much harder to calculate.

The argument with the mainstream:
The mainstream scientists do not like most their "established" theories to be replaced.
They usually attack the weak points of the new theories, but do not realize how weak (or wrong) their
own theories are.

There is more, but this seems like a list of good points.

[Pi sees]

From where I stand, the qualities that work against the EU/PC are the same qualities that make it so attractive as a scientific paradigm in the first place.

Mainstream physics is a huge well-funded politicized behemoth with a lot of PR support, a lot of influence with governments and in universities, a lot of reliance on weird/sensationalist/obfuscating mathematical concepts, and a LOT of psychology of previous investment and groupthink. Mainstream physics is basically a runaway freight train with a bunch of circle-jerking mathematically savvy con-men in the drivers' seat. EU/PC on the other hand has comparatively few resources to devote to PR, little influence with governments and in universities, a reliance on both empirical testing and complex - but not particularly weird or sensationalist - mathematics, and a genuinely scientific attitude of open mindedness and independence of thought which causes it to embrace a diversity of ideas and approaches.

Long story short, EU/PC doesn't stand a chance of ascendancy over mainstream physics so long as the current cultural and political status quo persists. The best things the EU/PC community can do for now is to 1) bide its time by continuing to observe, experiment and develop its body of knowledge, and 2) establish a core set of ideas upon which all members believe and to use its limited PR sources to educate the public about these core ideas as well as the existence (and worthiness) of non-core ideas held by various members.

[D_Archer]

...stream physics is a huge well-funded politicized behemoth with a lot of PR support, a lot of influence with governments and in univer...

I think Pi sees got to the crux of the matter here, politicized.

I like that you GenesisAria is interested in EU and seem to understand a lot of it on first notice, but what you are asking for is for EU to enter into 'politics'. But this is the first thing they (we) should never do, EU is free thought, ie natural philosophy. Politics is the antithesis to that, it destroys thinking. I do not want politics in my science.

EU will remain a free bastion of thought and this includes the myths of the ancients. It is up for grabs for anyone interested to add to its knowledge, the paradigm is that of truth, however crazy it may sound, it must be said, and people will either accept it or not.

Regards,
Daniel

[GenesisAria]

I like that you GenesisAria is interested in EU and seem to understand a lot of it on first notice, but what you are asking for is for EU to enter into 'politics'. But this is the first thing they (we) should never do, EU is free thought, ie natural philosophy. Politics is the antithesis to that, it destroys thinking. I do not want politics in my science.

EU will remain a free bastion of thought and this includes the myths of the ancients. It is up for grabs for anyone interested to add to its knowledge, the paradigm is that of truth, however crazy it may sound, it must be said, and people will either accept it or not.

Being the Buddha of science is great at all, but it's never going to expand or get more done with it's current mass. I'm not saying to enter into politics, i mean appeal to the public, the average joe curious mind, deliver them something irresistable. The politics are the politics, if anything they're more of an ends than a means, if the social structure changes at the low level, the political stage will eventually change as well. To grow and get more minds in on the endeavour, and promote pure science to everyone, the voice must be heard. Never playing the game of win the hearts and minds with speeches or whatever, just be a big booming voice of undeniable truth.

As i've said and Zyxzevn highlighted as well, it's unusual elements that are outside of comfort zone and hard to accept and deterrent factors. Strengths and truths ought to be emphasized, and as i said as well, humour people, talk the voice of reason instead of just outright slapping everyone saying that the mainstream scientists are completely wrong (and stupid - this is how "wrong" comes across to the public and therefore demeaning them for believing what the scientists believe) because they believe in dark whatevers. There needs to be some respect for people's unintentional ignorance, or they'll just retaliate, it's basic psychological defence...

[Pi sees]

I'm not saying to enter into politics, i mean appeal to the public, the average joe curious mind, deliver them something irresistable.

How do you do this without entering into politics and PRopaganda (two sides of the same coin, imo)?

Never playing the game of win the hearts and minds with speeches or whatever, just be a big booming voice of undeniable truth.

People don't want undeniable truth, they want engaging stories. Religion is inherently predisposed to cater to this cognitive bias, while science is inherently predisposed to run counter to it. Hence, mainstream "science" has taken on many of the trappings of religion, from the dogmatism to the absurd theology-like speculations to the creationism of The Big Bang.

There needs to be some respect for people's unintentional ignorance, or they'll just retaliate, it's basic psychological defence...

These are the same laypeople who have made considerable investments either directly (e.g. buying books from famous physicists, taking science classes) or indirectly (e.g. tax dollars being used to fund big expensive experimental facilities) in the mainstream paradigm. Even if you do respect their unintentional ignorance, the are NOT going to like being told that they have been monumentally had by equation-cloaked Emperors for the last 100 years.

[GenesisAria]

People don't want undeniable truth, they want engaging stories. Religion is inherently predisposed to cater to this cognitive bias, while science is inherently predisposed to run counter to it. Hence, mainstream "science" has taken on many of the trappings of religion, from the dogmatism to the absurd theology-like speculations to the creationism of The Big Bang.

It hasn't actually taken on dogma. The frontier scientists in the mainstream are still doing science, it's just predisposed to a particular perspective that's also upheld by those writing the cheques. The dogmatism in modern science is in the middle men. Scientists find something, and then it gets publicized bad for appeal. Science and those who do science, mainstream or not, seek undeniable truth, that's why they do science. The problem is they're having a damnable time finding the truth because they're too afraid to or just can't fathom starting again from the basics. All pursuits of science will eventually reach the same end, it's a matter of how and how efficiently you get there, ignorant basis will give you a very bumpy journey towards full understanding. With all that said, EU needs to appeal to scientists and the scientific minded average person that might contribute something to EU.

These are the same laypeople who have made considerable investments either directly (e.g. buying books from famous physicists, taking science classes) or indirectly (e.g. tax dollars being used to fund big expensive experimental facilities) in the mainstream paradigm. Even if you do respect their unintentional ignorance, the are NOT going to like being told that they have been monumentally had by equation-cloaked Emperors for the last 100 years.

It's not that rock solid, funny enough, the low level social paradigm is way more progressive than the political paradigm is, and it's leading to a lot of issues all over the place. The need is not to appeal to the masses, i never said that. It needs to appeal to the people who'll do science. They're the ones who're usually more inclined to objectivity. It's not the scientist that rejects contrary theories, it's the publishers and investors that do.

For example: if you were able to get enough time to talk to Neil deGrasse and sufficiently explain the EU/PC perspective, he'd probably find it fascinating. However, the media isn't going to eat it up, because it's so radical (the public isn't that starving yet).

There is a growing hunger for better explanations for the universe, it's popping up everywhere, more and more people disliking the big bang, more and more people raising eyebrows at how Hawking is changing his black hole models every other day. There isn't the confidence in it anymore - because of all of the things that they're finding everywhere that are baffling people or supposedly impossible according to existing models.

Electric Universe has to be there and ready for when people stop believing the patchwork. It's not going to keep working forever, it's clearly degrading. When you patch something too many times, eventually you have something that's made only of patches, and that isn't going to fly. Someone is going to have to hold science up out of the ashes so that the masses don't fall into a dark ages of religious monopoly and squeeze scientists out of existence until the next scientific revolution. Now whether or not it's all going to fall apart or not is extrapolative and may not happen, but it definitely looks that way at the rate it's going. There's also a lot of economic decline, so there's that to be ready for too. Which reminds me of one concern of mine: if the Tesla Net were to get realized now, it would implode the entire global economy.

[D_Archer]

you were able to get enough time to talk to Neil deGrasse and sufficiently explain the EU/PC perspective, he'd probably find it fascinating

No, not ever. For more reasons than can be discussed on this forum. I do think with your approach you can inspire people that find actual physics and learning about the universe (nature) interesting to get parts of EU and this is already happening with the thunderbolts youtube channel, space news etc and the excellent conferences.

I just had a thought about mindsets and what kind of types there are, i will start a separate thread about this on NIAMI.

Regards,
Daniel

[comingfrom]

I'm not saying to enter into politics, i mean appeal to the public, the average joe curious mind, deliver them something irresistable.

Symbols in an Alien Sky is Part 1 of the EU trilogy on YouTube.

It's a fine production, sparks the curious mind, deliciously irresistible.
It is everything you ask for, plus some.
I'm sure it has led many "average Joes" to learn about the Electric Universe.

~Paul

[QAfReb5wr3zafawu]

Relax, the EU is in good hands. Long before we all wandered along and discovered a group of scientists who were not mesmerized by the conventional wisdom, the EU leaders were laboring to bring its observations and conceptions to public notice. It is already generations old and proceeding in leaps and bounds.
The fact is, we are not here to interfere with the progress of the EU; we are enjoying the privilege of discussing its merits or otherwise on a forum provided by those that came before us. Notwithstanding our views, they

do not necessarily reflect those of the T-Bolts Group Inc or the Thunderbolts Project (TM)

The EU will prevail simply because it is a better model of the actions and reactions occurring in the Universe. We have all enjoyed the revelations that appear to be so obvious when first encountered, either on YouTube or in print.
Now we can discuss those matters is depth; or we can argue about the politics of envy.
I vote we leave the chattering classes to do the arguing and jockeying for supremacy in the world of political sciences and, instead, revel in the joy of actually discovering and uncovering a new and potent understanding of the Electric Universe in all its glory and diversity.

[432hz]

The problem isn't a lack of an EU equivalent to a Neil DeAss Tyson, or Bill Lie the Science Fiction Guy personality, there are plenty of them out there. The issue is Neil and Bill are not actually self made men of science, they are media personalities, playing the part of scientist on television for the world to see by reading the script the writers have provided. They are nothing more than actors used to portray more falsehoods.

Its a gate keeper issue not one of the cult of personality.