Everything you know is wrong.

[MikeW]

I just hope this new explanations will be easier to understand than the current ones...

Well, I think it *might* be. I say this as someone who has never really been able to grasp what "electricity" IS, exactly. I mean, does anyone really understand what "flowing electrons" ARE for heaven's sake?

What's interesting about the EU theory is that the laws that govern it are applicable across vast scales -- from the sub-atomic to the intergalactic. So, if it is true, it should enable us to understand, predict, and in some instances, control law-conforming events across those scales. It points, for example, to the possibility that there is abundant free energy throughout the universe.

They're making rather a big deal out of the ESA's Rosetta Mission which is scheduled to land on the surface of Comet 67P/C-G sometime next year.

[DreamMaker]

Woah. Mind-blown.

[Hardheaded1]

Thanks for the thread. I opened it with some trepidation that it might be a plug for What the Bleep! A first date once ended badly when I was forced to watch it. It is awful propaganda for metaphysical beliefs. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499596/

I'd challenge the assumption that we "believe" in the theories of the universe and physics. Like most all of science, it is evolving, and we understand the theories as we have been taught them. For my own part, I've never believed in the power of gravity to hold together the universe. Instead, I've understood that it is the foundation of how astrophysicists create complex models, opine on dark matter, and build components of their elaborate systems.

If we all learn tomorrow that it is completely wrong, it won't rattle me one bit. I know humans, and I understand humanity. I'm interested in science, very interested, but I don't rely on it as a matter of trust or belief. I use the basic assumptions to contextualize my world, but it doesn't preclude illogical belief in events or forces that would appear to contravene scientific theory.

A decade or more back when there was the hype about the supposed cold fusion success, I found it exciting, not disturbing.

It is great to live in a day in which the scientific method has become the norm for subjecting claims about observable phenomena. If the Electric Universe theory holds water, it will pass the necessary gates of peer review, despite centuries-old bias. I'm eager to see how it plays out. As even small children see the resemblance between atoms and solar systems, molecules and galaxies, it doesn't seem a stretch in the least to believe electric forces apply to both.

[MikeW]

Thank you, Hardheaded1 for your thoughtful reply. I agree that strictly speaking "belief" isn't the right word for scientifically established theories. I'm going to quickly toss in here that I'm not a scientist or even close. My background is predominantly in the fine arts, philosophy and metaphysics. I've spent a large portion of my life involved in these areas of interest.

What ties them together for me is my interest in "consciousness" -- (whatever that may turn out to be) -- that goes back to very early experiences in my childhood. For example, one night while falling asleep (don't recall exactly how old I was, 9, 10, 11ish) I found myself startled awake seeing car headlights rushing toward me. I awoke with a fright, elevated heart rate and all that and then, realizing this had "only" been a dream, I was left wondering -- how is it that in that hypnogogic state I "see" light that is experienced as "real" -- sufficiently so to scare the crap out of me? I didn't have an answer to that but it led to my experimenting (unsuccessfully) with observing the moment I pass from normal waking consciousness into the sleep state. It was an interesting exercise from which I learned some interesting things about myself.

Fast forward through decades of various experiences (including my late-teen, young-adult experimentation with psychedelics) and I find myself reading a book (unfortunately the actual book, title and author now lost to me) where a physicist states, "The light physics studies is not the light we see." The light we see is a neuro-physiological response to external stimuli, not strictly a property of physical light.

So, when I use the word "believe," I'm using it in the generic sense of operating under an assumption that we know and understand something that we may not. In this context, we "believe" that we see the world around us. You "believe" you are you, reading these words, seeing the device in front of you that displays them, within the context of the room you're sitting in, and so on.

The reality is a bit different. It isn't that there is no 'external world', only that our perception of it is mediated by our human neurophysiology. The world we "see" (or experience through any of our senses) is an extremely elaborate composite representation that is, at base, a construct -- a model.

I'm trying to keep this brief but if you're interested in this subject there is one book (perhaps now a bit dated) that I can recommend: Brain, Symbol and Experience, Charles D. Laughlin, et al. This is not easy reading, BTW, but a cross-disiplenary approach to the question "what is 'consciousness'?"

I'm interested in the EU model because it is a paradigm that is challenging the established gravity based model. IF it is valid, it challenges our understanding of not only the nature of the universe but, more closely, the history not only of our solar system but of the evolution of humanity on Earth. The proponents of the EU model emphasize that much of ancient mythology is related to electric events within our solar system -- specifically the 'capture' of new planets by the sun's gravitational field.

I'm really at a loss to say much about this as I see "mythology" as something akin to a rorschach onto which we can project whatever presumptions we may have. However, there are certain universal (global, cross cultural) mythological themes that defy easy explanation. The EU model presents a radically different perspective on the history of our solar system though a reinterpretation of these universal mythological themes. Again, I'm not proposing these interpretations are accurate -- only that they are interesting and, if found to be more accurate than the current scientific model, will radically alter our understanding not only of celestial history, but human history.

If you find this of interest, you might want to watch this 1hr+ presentation. I especially recommend it to someone like DreamMaker who has an interest in astrology:

[Bookworm]

Thanks for the links Mike. I'm watching Symbols Of An Alien Sky right now on youtube.

I hope the Rosetta Mission survives it's studies of Comet 67P/C-G as it's meant to be moving on to Ceres after that. That coincides with the arrival of the New Horizons Mission to Pluto and Charon next year. Interesting times as we will finally get a close up look at two Dwarf Planets!

EDIT: Mixed my missions up, sorry - It's the Dawn Mission to Vesta that's moving on to Ceres :redface:

[Rareboy]

This is going to be a shock for all those who think the universe revolves around them.

Burn the heretics.

[MikeMercury]

This is a quote from the greatest scientist of our time, Richard Feynman
"You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here . . . I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me."

At any one time scientists can only interpret the nature of the universe and all that's in it from the observations they make using all of their sophisticated equipment. As this equipment becomes more sophisticated and they see things differently then old "truths" are dispelled and new "truths" come into being.

Another interesting theory is that we are living in a virtual universe which is actually a programme running on a computer, much like the film "The Matrix". This has been argued very well by Nick Bostrom who claims that this is a significant possibility.

[DreamMaker]

Mike, I already like you

[Hardheaded1]

This is a quote from the greatest scientist of our time, Richard Feynman

"You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here . . . I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me.".

Interestingly, this could have easily been spoken by a mystic, a Fundamentalist, a Jewish rabbi, a Catholic scholar, an atheist, or a pope, as easily as a scientist. I like.

[spilovn]

the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing

~ Socrates