Electric Universe?

[sharpstuff]

Electric Universe?

My purpose in starting this thread is to sincerely discuss this notion.

I believe this subject has been alluded to in other posts on this forum, also bearing in mind that we are not necessarily discussing fakery but vested interests in a common model (to perpetrate other fakery?) of the universe.

As with my ‘medical’ posts, this has been an interest for over sixty years for me and about one of which I have written hundreds of words in books, essays, poetry and other artistic pursuits.

I would deem it a favour not to include tens of YouTube videos and scores of books/articles which few people would read.

There are some very good brains (attached, I assume to less-than-CGIsim- bodies) on this forum and I would value their and others’ opinions.

I am not looking for ‘academic’ literature of any kind because I have absorbed a great deal of that for over half a ‘century’ but personal observations/thoughts/feelings from those who have studied or contemplated such things.

I am well aware of the Thunderbolts project

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

and apart from the fact that, as I believe Simon Shack has said that they should keep themselves out of NASA’s rear orifice (with which I totally agree), they have a great many notions to their credit.

PART ONE

To begin, is difficult. Try to bear with me.

One must begin with the concept of a language.

Language is a means of communication between in (my view at least) both flora and fauna or anything else one might imagine.

Human language is most often associated with speech (that is, sounds) which can be written in symbols (written pictographs) and may be interpreted from such and the two blended into a ‘see/hear’. The blind cannot see the written words, of course, not the deaf hear the words…

Those who are devoid of both of these faculties will have their own interpretation of their universe/world and their own interpretation of it.

For those of us who have one or other or both (at whatever level of awareness), we need to understand the language that we use. We also need to explore the origins of our particular language, including the variations between geographical areas and the myriad factors that create our particular ‘lingo’ from past interpretations of human experiences. Thus are Latin and Greek major contributions to most common ‘Western’ languages (for example).

Thus, in all things, we must define what we mean in any particular circumstance. The fact that we may communicate (in some way or other!) on this forum is a miracle. That we disagree in any way upon an item, or subject, or even personality is a consequence of our uniqueness as individuals and our interpretation of the language used, how it is used and the intent behind it. That intent is a personal matter about which we could all record volumes of our lives as they came to us at a particular time or place.

Our definitions of words/sounds/pictures are therefore limited to those from a ‘dictionary’ or ‘encyclopaedia’ or others who define words for us and which we extract our own ‘truths’.

Defining, is something that is very difficult. Many (if not most) ‘things’ cannot be defined to satisfy anybody.

In terms of General Semantics, defining what we assume is an ‘object’ (for example a table…which is a ‘noun’ according to grammar in the English language) is impossible without invoking other ‘nouns’. Whatever you say it ‘is’, it is not. Thus in describing a ‘table’ (for example) we invoke the fact that it is a ‘flat piece of wood with usually four legs’….and so forth and at each ‘noun or name’ we invoke even more definitions for each noun. Thus we remain in a quagmire of definitions, each meaning something different from possibly everybody else.

However, in discussing a particular subject, we must try to define what we are discussing so that we may hope to draw our own thoughts upon the matter.

[I can give a reference to this General Semantics if you wish. The particular book I have in mind (and a printed version I have in my library) changed my life many years ago. I read it when I worked at the Science Research Council in the late 1960’s (but had later to find a copy through a book-finders.]

PART TWO may follow if there is sufficient interest.

The main, initial question is therefore:

Do we exist in a plasma/electro-magnetic universe?

In the first instance, answers on a digital post-card, if you would/could.

Well be.

[arc300]

Postcard:

Dear Mr. Stuff,

I, too, have had a life-long curiosity about language, and a half-life-long interest in non-uniformitarian theories of the origins of our earth etc., so I was very pleased to come across this:
Language and Causality at http://saturniancosmology.org/lang.php

I'm sure you'll find at least some of it very thought provoking.

Yours,
arc300

[Painterman]

Something that's oft struck me odd is how the craters on the Moon are so uniformly circular. If these craters are the result of "rocks from space" inbound randomly from every which way, wouldn't we expect most of the impact zones to show asymmetry about the "vertical" axis - i.e. the axis normal to the lunar surface at that location?

Yet what we actual observe on the Moon are innumerable craters nearly all of which are circular, as if the "rocks from space" that impacted there coincidentally all came in straight downward to leave nicely symmetrical craters.

So the "rocks from space" theory of lunar craters is tossed out. What then instead? Well, there already is a known phenomenon by which large energies are transferred to an object in a direction perpendicular to the surface of that object, leaving symmetrical craters: namely electrical discharge, which follows the electric field lines connecting source and target, or cathode and anode. Electric field lines (a mere mathematical device, not a physical thing, by the way) always intersect a (conductive) surface at 90 degrees.

My theory then - and others may have thought of it as well, since it's kinda obvious - is that the cratering on the Moon was caused by electric discharge: that is, lightning. What caused this lightning could have been the Sun, perhaps indirectly through a high-voltage ionosphere induced around the Moon which violently discharged to the surface. Or maybe the voltage source was something else, something not easily guessed today because conditions are so different.

As for Thunderbolts, I looked in on them a few years ago and got turned off right away. For starters, they base many of their presentations on images from NASA's "deep space" probes (need I say more). Secondly, they go on fanciful digressions into New Agey woo woo - for example, their made-up grand history of the "solar system" based on "ancient mythology" which they also made up. For comparison, see the Zeitgeist film which tried a similar New Agey woo woo "ancient mythology" digression on 9/11 research.

I suspect Thunderbolts is a psyop designed to co-opt investigation into the electrical nature of whatever is out there beyond Earth's atmosphere. The sheer volume of their output (given the slow pace of innovation in the subject) alone suggests this, since an invariable trait of astroturf hijack psyops is verbosity - mostly in the form of mimicking / plagiarizing / recycling what was already there in the legitimate grassroots version, though with an added element of absurdity and misdirection - dished out with an arrogant air, as if to gullible fools who were born yesterday, by the astroturf hijackers.

[Critical Mass]

As for Thunderbolts, I looked in on them a few years ago and got turned off right away. For starters, they base many of their presentations on images from NASA's "deep space" probes (need I say more). Secondly, they go on fanciful digressions into New Agey woo woo - for example, their made-up grand history of the "solar system" based on "ancient mythology" which they also made up. For comparison, see the Zeitgeist film which tried a similar New Agey woo woo "ancient mythology" digression on 9/11 research.

Interesting observation.

Years ago I watched the Thuderbolts documentary & it too turned me away with its dive into New-age mysticism. I've never bothered looking into the subject again & have since probably associated ALL electric universe proponents with such mysticism.

This may have been a grave error on my part... akin to associating ALL "no-planers" with holograms & space beams.

[Apache]

As for Thunderbolts, I looked in on them a few years ago and got turned off right away. For starters, they base many of their presentations on images from NASA's "deep space" probes (need I say more). Secondly, they go on fanciful digressions into New Agey woo woo - for example, their made-up grand history of the "solar system" based on "ancient mythology" which they also made up.

I came to the same conclusion. They are very big promoters of Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.

I suspect Thunderbolts is a psyop designed to co-opt investigation into the electrical nature of whatever is out there beyond Earth's atmosphere.

Although Don Scott's book The Electric Sky is very interesting and doesn't touch on any of that stupid mythology twaddle about Saturn.

The sheer volume of their output (given the slow pace of innovation in the subject) alone suggests this

Yes, where do they get their money from for all those slick videos?

To answer sharpstuff's question: Yes, I think we do live in an electric universe but we know jack shit about it thanks to NASA.

If Thunderbolts are right about negative and positive electric discharge between objects in space then why wasn't there one between the lunar lander and moon?

nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-model-gives-glimpse-into-the-invisible-world-of-electric-asteroids/#.U7dDaznvaCh

On airless objects like moons and asteroids, sunlight ejects negatively charged electrons from matter, giving sunlit areas a strong positive electric charge. The solar wind is an electrically conducting gas called plasma where matter has been torn apart into electrons, which are relatively light, and positively charged ions, which are thousands of times more massive. While areas in sunlight can charge positive, areas in shadow get a strong negative charge when electrons in the solar wind rush in ahead of heavier ions to fill voids created as the solar wind flows by.

The surface of Earth is shielded from the direct effects of this activity by our planet's magnetic field, but airless objects without strong repelling magnetic fields, like small asteroids, have no protection from electrical activity in space.

Does the Moon have a strong repelling magnetic field?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_the_Moon

The Moon has an external magnetic field that is very weak in comparison to that of the Earth.

"If an astronaut is tethered to a spacecraft that is in sunlight and positively charged, and touches a negatively charged asteroid surface in shadow, there could be an unexpected current flow between the two systems upon contact. We simply can't speculate on the nature of that current without this model."

Hmmm.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/101118-science-space-full-moon-electric-charge/

"It is quite possible that electric fields induce a charge-up and subsequent discharge around a space vehicle, which could bring about serious damages to the human missions," Harada said.

The US went to the Moon 6 times yet failed to see any "electric field charge up and subsequent discharge"?

NASA's Explorer series of probes and the Apollo missions were the first to reveal the perplexing lunar plasma environment, hinting that electrically driven dust may be a concern to robots and humans setting down on the moon.

"We've been to the surface before and survived just fine, but we did have a number of problems with dust, among other things. And we happened to be there during very quiet plasma conditions," said Jasper Halekas, a plasma physicist at the University of California, Berkeley.

They "happened" to be there 6 times during "very quiet" plasma conditions?

"Certainly when you have big electric fields, you start to worry about damage to sensitive electronics, etc. And if those electric fields mobilize dust, that could become an additional problem." But, he said, "the truth is that we don't really know yet what relevance these kinds of studies may have for exploration. Probably the only way we will ever know for sure is to go back to the surface."

LMAO. Good luck with that guys.

[Painterman]

The US went to the Moon 6 times yet failed to see any "electric field charge up and subsequent discharge"?

Good point. I wonder if Thunderbolts has even mentioned this glaring mismatch between the Apollo tales and their own theories? Though, now that this possible omission by Thunderbolts has been caught at Cluesforum, they might "spontaneously" get around to discussing your well noted "electric field charge up and subsequent discharge" issue after all these years.

That seems to be a technique taught in The Handbook of Astroturf Psyops - namely, when someone calls attention to a suspicious behavior pattern on your part, quickly do something conspicuously inconsistent with said behavior pattern, in order to prevent the suspicion spreading.

However, this technique of theirs can easily backfire by giving us yet another telltale behavior pattern to look for as we smoke out agents of a psyop.

[Apache]

I wonder if Thunderbolts has even mentioned this glaring mismatch between the Apollo tales and their own theories?

Not as far as I know.

thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/07/08/our-electrically-scarred-moon-space-news/

The discoveries of the Apollo missions sparked debates and helped solidify new consensus theories about the Solar System’s history. In more recent years, many surprising discoveries have challenged scientists’ long held ideas about the moon’s history. Today, we begin exploring the evidence that high-energy electrical discharge events in the past have defined the lunar surface.

Why only "in the past"? What mechanism occurred that caused those discharges to cease? Well, they fill that blank in with the usual "and then a miracle occurred", which is the unsubstantiated Velikovsky Worlds in Collision theory and mythological woo-woo. The Moon is bathed in the same solar 'plasma' sheath it was subjected to in 1969 yet 6 times they 'happened' to be there during low plasma activity? The electrical activity of the sun may have been in the low part of it's 11 year cycle but that doesn't mean the plasma sheath disappeared. They can't have it both ways, but they try it on anyway.

[sharpstuff]

Dear Painterman and Apache,

I think we need to be a little careful when discussing the Thunderbolts Project, seriously. One may fall into the trap of dismissing/denigrating the whole project. I personally think this is not a correct solution to finding answers.

I have learned a lot from the site and the videos, even Velikovski's works. I started this thread to get views on an electric/plasma universe because I believe that everything we sense is a manifestation of electrical (electro-magnetic...whatever they are) activity. It is the only thing that makes sense to me because it explains a great deal.

Even so-called 'atoms' and all their theorised bits and pieces are of an electrical nature.

As for 'sysops' ( I can't stand that expression) I have no idea and do not care, quite frankly, it is not within my remit.

Quite honestly, the fact that we can get no further than a few miles up in the sky with anything (we have at present) we have no clue what it is like. As I have said before, the fact that our eyes work within the biosphere doesn't mean that they would work beyond it (or any of our others senses).

May we be a little more circumspect?

[Painterman]

I think we need to be a little careful when discussing the Thunderbolts Project, seriously. One may fall into the trap of dismissing/denigrating the whole project. I personally think this is not a correct solution to finding answers.

I agree. As often happens in organizations, there are well-intentioned people doing important work for the good of humanity there, despite the fact that upper management is pursuing a dastardly agenda of evil-doing.

I started this thread to get views on an electric/plasma universe because I believe that everything we sense is a manifestation of electrical (electro-magnetic...whatever they are) activity.

You could be right about that. Electric charge seems to be an essential part of matter. That is, I think electric charge isn't merely an extra property that sometimes "rides along" with mass. Rather, I think charge and mass are forms of the same underlying thing.

Meanwhile, light is already known to be electromagnetic.

So it's reasonable to think that electric charge - which is inherently bifurcated into either positive or negative instances - is the fundamental physical reality. The priests of science are concealing this, for some reason.

As for 'sysops' ( I can't stand that expression) I have no idea and do not care, quite frankly, it is not within my remit.

That's short for "system operators", a computer term that has little to do with the present topic. So yeah, let's not go there.

[Intothevoid]

Suntans are caused by the Sun, exposure to electrical welding arcs, tanning bulb lamps and radiation exposure which is nothing more than electrically charged particles. The Moon has the appearance of a half of worn out set of automotive distributor breaker points. I've often wondered if they are nothing more than a set of electrical opposing magnets, chasing each other endlessly.

[Apache]

I think we need to be a little careful when discussing the Thunderbolts Project, seriously. One may fall into the trap of dismissing/denigrating the whole project. I personally think this is not a correct solution to finding answers.

Did I dismiss/denigrate the whole project? No. I stated that Don Scott's Electric Sky was worth reading. I said yes I think the universe is electric.

I have learned a lot from the site and the videos, even Velikovski's works.

It's 'Velikovsky' and I've read his works too and I too learned a lot from Thunderbolts. You are not reading my skepticism correctly. At the same time I can dismiss who I like and Velikovsky is one of them. His aim was not to find the truth about the electric universe but to support the "events" depicted in the bible with unsubstantiated mythological fairy tales.

As for 'sysops' ( I can't stand that expression) I have no idea and do not care, quite frankly, it is not within my remit.

Psyops.

Dear sharpstuff, there is a lot you "do not care about" and dismiss in other threads, so it's ok for you to do it, but not other people? You are also making it appear as if I said that Thunderbolts is a psyop when I don't think Thunderbolts is a "psyop" at all and didn't say any such thing. I think the people who are involved with Thunderbolts are simply being misled on certain issues due to not having answers on some points of the Electric Universe theory. They have fallen into the trap of not being able to admit that they don't know and are filling in the gaps instead.

May we be a little more circumspect?

As it's your thread I will accede to your request, but don't think for one minute that it's going to stop me from questioning the "scientists" at Thunderbolts project.

[allancw]

I attended the 2015 EU conference and was even asked to speak there -- my novel Cosmic Banditos (a cult semi-hit) plus my weird sense of humor was behind the invite. In the end I declined -- I realized that they will have nothing to do with 'conspiracy theories'. They even invited Michael Shermer to speak! (I know!) Had I actually spoken I would have pissed everyone off, which I didn't want to do.

I got to know Dave Talbott and found him genuine though super naive. I could not even talk to him about NASA frauds, but, again, this is/was due to his own brand of cognitive dissonance. I was tossed out of the online forum for bringing up Apollo.

They are afraid to be lumped together with 'conspiracy' types; yes that is dumb in the extreme but I suggest we all give them a break and not toss the baby, etc. The EU has been behind many epiphanies for me, especially re the f-ing big bang and all the expanding space and GR nonsense.

A detail: Wal Thornhill predicted there would be arcing between the (whatsis) probe that supposedly collided with the comet (I'm blanking the name/details, sorry!) I too see NASA as a complete fraud but why would they 'find' and report the exact arcing that Thornhill did predict, and which, if anything, ends up an embarrassment to NASA? Given NASA's total ignoring of EU, I don't see why they would do this. NASA/JPL's treatment of Anthony Peratt after his petroglyph (etc) studies tell us that no way would NASA do anything to help EU. I don't know what to make of the comet/Thornhill prediction issue. Whaddya think?

If you need details on any of the above, I'd be glad to provide them, but I suspect you all know to what I am referring. (I'm at the end of a long day so excuse my sloppiness here...)

[allancw]

By the way, if you doubt my sincerity re NASA, here are just a few of my videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP0TQ99bMrw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tAAsyBYczs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXRXHyNFRh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV9tG2jnUzI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4PBgq8PfPQ

I'm really confused about the above issue.

allan

[aa5]

Thunderbolts looks to have some interesting posters.. but the forum owners & moderators believe in the space fairy tales and suspiciously ban posters who raise questions on those programs.

Now at first a newb internet forum reader might say - 'hey thats ok, I can just debate the space programs elsewhere on the internet.' The problem with this thinking, becomes obvious when you read other threads on Thunderbolts.

Members there raise interesting, albeit highly speculative physics theories - perfect for debate on forums. But other members jump in 'disproving' their theories based on pictures, results and alleged missions of the space programs. Since no one there can question the legitimacy of that 'evidence', it stands and bowls over the new theory.