Space, because WTF earth.

[NoXion]

So, low current plasma filaments, connect planets to each other and to stars, stars to stars, galaxies to galaxies, galaxy clusters to galaxy clusters, but it's most certainly nothing at all like a circuit.

That's for the Electric Universe proponents to establish. What experiments have they done? What observations have they carried out? Where are their papers resulting from these observations and experiments?

Come on mate, you must be able to see that "it looks like a circuit, therefore it is" is a weak and fallacious argument to make.

Furthermore, the existence of currents in space is not sufficient to establish EU claims that stars are not driven by stellar fusion. That's a very big claim that needs far more substantive support beyond "these unrelated phenomena look similar".

And the galactic current sheet, has nothing at all to do with any kind of current or electromagnetic forces what so ever? Stars forming in the Z pinch of giant filaments, but obviously total bollocks.

Without verifiable evidence gathered from observations, then yes it is bollocks.

So, all spooky dark matter, which that no matter how hard they look, can never find. Even though electromagnetic forces are well documented, you can even see the helical shapes over vast distances. (best way for...what to travel?)

Dark matter has been found, its gravitational influence on other types of matter is why we even know it's there in the first place. We just don't know what it's made of, because it doesn't emit any light or particles.

Again, a superficial visual similarity is insufficient to establish an underlying physical similarity. The spiral shapes of galaxies are because of density waves as the stars orbit the galactic centre, nothing to do with electromagnetism.

keep trying, you've given nothing real in return. Just refuting without actual reasoning.

Where are the papers published in reputable scientific journals to support the Electric Universe idea? There aren't any. That alone should be enough to tell you that it's garbage.

Now, I'm getting pissed and doing gardening. Toodles. I'll check back to see if you can find me someone with actual credentials.

How about the vast majority of the astrophysics community across the world? Are they qualified enough in your eyes?

 

[xes]

You''re the one who said things like 'they've written no papers' I provide you with a list of published papers from the main proponent of the theory (and yes, it is just that, a theory) you then say that it doesn't matter how many papers someone has written, they can still be insane. So what you are saying is, even if I were to provide you with many papers as I can, you will refute each and every one by saying 'it doesn't matter how many papers they write, they're still all insane' with a lofty waft, so to speak. Even though your first premise is false. (and then you accuse ME of arguing like a flat earther )

So, what is the actual point. You have zero interest in actually sticking to the parameters you yourself set. So why should I?

And of course lots of astronomers know what they're looking at, very clever people. Doesn't mean that all of their interpretations are right. And that is all most of our observations are.

 

[NoXion]

You''re the one who said things like 'they've written no papers' I provide you with a list of published papers from the main proponent of the theory (and yes, it is just that, a theory)

Peratt is a proponent of plasma cosmology, which is different from the Electric Universe idea promoted by the Thunderbolts Project. Plasma cosmology was once a legitimate field of study, but has been largely discarded by the astrophysics community at large, because it doesn't match observations as well as those theories based on Einsteinian gravitation and baryonic physics.

I had a look at the Thunderbolts Project website, and I couldn't find any indication that Peratt is involved with Electric Universe ideas, beyond being mentioned on the Thunderbolts website. It looks to me like the work of a fringe but otherwise fairly respectable scientist is being used by the Thunderbolts lot in an attempt to bolster their own nonsense.

Also, the latest article from the list you provided was published in 2015. Going five years without publishing anything in fields as fast-moving as cosmology or astrophysics is very unusual. What has he been doing since?

you then say that it doesn't matter how many papers someone has written, they can still be insane.

The word I used was "crank", not "insane". A crank is "a person with strange or unusual beliefs". You don't have to be insane to have strange or unusual beliefs.

So what you are saying is, even if I were to provide you with many papers as I can, you will refute each and every one by saying 'it doesn't matter how many papers they write, they're still all insane' with a lofty waft, so to speak. Even though your first premise is false. (and then you accuse ME of arguing like a flat earther )

You linked to papers, alright. For plasma cosmology. I asked for papers published in reputable journals regarding the Electric Universe idea.

So, what is the actual point. You have zero interest in actually sticking to the parameters you yourself set. So why should I?

The point is that posting videos from the Thunderbolts Project is irrelevant to this subforum, unless we're discussing pseudoscience.

And of course lots of astronomers know what they're looking at, very clever people. Doesn't mean that all of their interpretations are right. And that is all most of our observations are.

Observations can be used to validate predictions made by theory. That's how the planet Neptune was found; someone did the mathematics, predicted where to find the planet, and when other people looked for it using that prediction to guide them, there it was. No interpretation necessary.

 

[xes]

Plenty of the plasma cosmology and electric universe theories do away with dark matter too. It's not needed.

As they are both emerging theories*, I kind of link them both together. They both run along a similar direction, albeit with different ideas. But they are both very similar. And the 2 films Symbols of an Alien Sky, and Thunderbolts of the Gods, are pretty much the same films using the same ideas and images. edit and both just borrow from Peratt I thought he was more involved as his name pops up in connection so much. (but you are right in that Peratt is not connected to the Thunderbolts lot, just looked though their stuff, I was bloody sure I'd seen his stuff on there. I guess I watch lots of stuff that melds together, my apologies)

*and as I don't fully understand much of what I watch, but get hints of it. Maybe they're not as linked as I'd thought.

 

[xes]

A reply to Professor Dave showing why his points are wrong using only peer reviewed science.

 

[xes]

Dave responded to that video, and the response to his response is here

 

[Signal 11]

Well it's a great shock to find that the conspiraloon making these videos is also a climate change denier.

Love the way he "debunks" the claim that he's not a scientist by mentioning his economics degree.

It's getting better but still not reaching the heights of the all time classic Solar: The Gas Model Crumbles!

 

[NoXion]

As they are both emerging theories*, I kind of link them both together.

*and as I don't fully understand much of what I watch, but get hints of it. Maybe they're not as linked as I'd thought.

Why? Plasma cosmology has been found wanting, that's the opposite of emerging. An emerging theory would be publishing more papers with each passing year, not less. Compare this and this and look at the difference. Note the paucity of recently-published articles most relevant to plasma cosmology. Meanwhile, recent observations of gravitational waves predicted by the theory of General Relativity (which would have to be wrong if plasma cosmology is true), at the LIGO facility have produced a relative profusion of articles.

Furthermore, one must keep in mind the source. Take for instance the list you provided. It's basically a social networking service for scientists, where they can share their work. Which means that it itself is not a peer-reviewed reputable journal. Fine, but what what about the articles themselves? Well, I missed it when I first looked at the link, but the first twelve entries on that list of publications are actually chapters from his book, published in 2015.

The first article which mentions a publication refers to the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Sciences, which is actually an annual conference held by the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society. Which is funny, because that branch of the IEEE doesn't just do conferences, but they also publish a number of peer-reviewed journals. Journals like the Transactions on Plasma Science, in which Peratt conspicuously did not publish the article in question.

Note that IEEE is an organisation concerned with engineering, not science. Engineers are not scientists. They are trained to bring forth new things through invention, not discovery. Which probably explains how Peratt was able to publish his article (or possibly give a lecture?) at a conference of engineers without anyone looking too amiss at it.

This is for plasma cosmology, a model that had some promise to begin with, but was superseded by later observations. The Electric Universe idea is even worse; it contains within it claims that are outright contradicted by known science, such as pretty much anything that Velikovsky wrote about.

They both run along a similar direction, albeit with different ideas. But they are both very similar.

And the 2 films Symbols of an Alien Sky, and Thunderbolts of the Gods, are pretty much the same films using the same ideas and images. (but you are right in that Peratt is not connected to the Thunderbolts lot, just looked though their stuff, I was bloody sure I'd seen his stuff on there. I guess I watch lots of stuff that melds together, my apologies)

I certainly think there are people out there (e.g. Ben Davidson AKA Suspicious0bservers) who like to confuse the two, because it gives their ideas a thin veneer of legitimacy. But leaning on plasma cosmology in order to prop up the Electric Universe idea gives no more real scientific credibility than would be given by leaning on other ideas that have since been shown to be wrong, like the idea of the luminiferous aether.

I will take a look at the videos later, but given the performance given by Mr Davidson in response to Dave, I can't say I'm expecting much.

 

[xes]

after watching all 4 videos, they both seem a little up themselves.

 

[xes]

Well it's a great shock to find that the conspiraloon making these videos is also a climate change denier.

Love the way he "debunks" the claim that he's not a scientist by mentioning his economics degree.

It's getting better but still not reaching the heights of the all time classic Solar: The Gas Model Crumbles!

He's not a climate change denier, he has quite a few videos on it, I guess he has a different idea on the mechanisms of it and has been talking about solar forcing for years before it was included in the climate model.

He doesn't debunk it, I think he was saying that he's never made the claim.

3rd point, I guess that's him with his EU/PC perspective.

You'd have to take it up with him TBH, I can't really speak for him.

 

[NoXion]

after watching all 4 videos, they both seem a little up themselves.

Newton was total cunt. He basically tried to destroy and erase fellow intellectual Robert Hooke's scientific reputation. Newton's equations are nevertheless still accurate.

I'm not interested in personalities. I'm here for the science.

 

[Signal 11]

He's not a climate change denier

Yes he is.

 

[xes]

Newton was total cunt. He basically tried to destroy and erase fellow intellectual Robert Hooke's scientific reputation. Newton's equations are nevertheless still accurate.

I'm not interested in personalities. I'm here for the science.

I'm here for science too, but I like it to be served with a large side of pondering. I don't really like it when it's all neat and wrapped up.

When it comes to that Davidson bloke, I've been watching his videos on and off for years. (got well sketchy of him when he crowd funded a massive mobile observatory, when he's apparently from a very rich family) But I do like space science and stuff and he presents it in a bright and sparkly way, and keeps it interesting. (I bet his solar catastrophe cycle series would enrage you, I enjoyed it ) Anyways... I'm a bit stoned and rambing, so bear with me cos I've lost my trail already.

So, in his video today, from 2 mins, he's taking papers and sort of hinting at their further bolstering his ideas. (he does this quite a lot)


Just how wrong is he? I mean he talks with confidence about something he seems to know about. I mean, I would even begin to consider myself an armchair scientist (like Dave mentions of his more avid and rabid followers) and I've tried to read some of what he cites, often I don't see what he sees, but I put that down to my lack of understanding rather than his misrepresentation.

 

[xes]

Yes he is.

He's saying it's going to get colder, not warmer. That's still climate change.

 

[Signal 11]

Fuck off you know very well what's meant by "climate change denier".

 

[xes]

Fuck off you know very well what's meant by "climate change denier".

Quite clearly not, I thought it ment people who denied that there was any change to our climate happening, regardless of all the evidence.

He has a few pops at those who only use solar radiance and ignore all of the other climate factors, which humanity has up until this point, bore the blame for.

(not entirely sure why I'm defending him btw)

 

[Signal 11]

He has a few pops at those who only use solar radiance

A few of the deniers do that.

The experts do not. They are very clear that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of the warming and that human activity is the cause of the increase in CO2 and that it will be a serious problem for us if we don't stop doing it..

The loon in the video denies all that. That's what's meant by "climate change denier".

 

[xes]

A few of the deniers do that.

The experts do not. They are very clear that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of the warming and that human activity is the cause of the increase in CO2 and that it will be a serious problem for us if we don't stop doing it..

The loon in the video denies all that. That's what's meant by "climate change denier".

Particle forcing is now included in the CMIP6 as a climate change factor, so did he have a point? And there's more to climate change that C02 levels I'm sure.

 

[NoXion]

I'm here for science too, but I like it to be served with a large side of pondering. I don't really like it when it's all neat and wrapped up.

Science is not "all wrapped up" though. There's a list of unsolved problems in physics alone (never mind other fields) that scientists are actively working on to solve. If science was all wrapped up, then every scientist would be out of a job, and they'd have to re-train as engineers or something. Since answering one question tends to generate at least two more, I don't think this will be happening any time soon.

When it comes to that Davidson bloke, I've been watching his videos on and off for years. (got well sketchy of him when he crowd funded a massive mobile observatory, when he's apparently from a very rich family) But I do like space science and stuff and he presents it in a bright and sparkly way, and keeps it interesting. (I bet his solar catastrophe cycle series would enrage you, I enjoyed it ) Anyways... I'm a bit stoned and rambing, so bear with me cos I've lost my trail already.

I totally grok your thirst for speculation. That's why I highly enjoy YouTube channels like the following:

Science and Futurism with Isaac Arthur - This dude has a BSc in Physics, and provides fairly detailed explanations of concepts relating to subjects such as the Fermi Paradox (the universe is big and old, so where are all the aliens?), speculative engineering, space travel, interplanetary and interstellar settlement, terraforming, the potential development of human civilisation along the Kardashev scale, the impact of potential future technologies like fusion power (hint: very cheap energy),

John Michael Godier and his Event Horizon channel - A science fiction author, he regularly posts videos on his personal channel about exoplanets (just think that only a few decades ago we had no idea how common planets outside the Solar system might be, turns out they're everywhere), the possibility of alien life in the Solar system and beyond, SETI and what kind of alien messages we might receive, Event Horizon is the channel on which he hosts interviews with astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and other scientists, involving more detailed dives into topics compared to his personal channel.

PBS Space Time - Even though I find a fair amount of the relativity and quantum mechanics stuff hard to follow, this is an excellent channel for communicating advanced concepts in astrophysics and cosmology. What does physics say about wormholes, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and more?

Kurzgesagt - Short and sweet videos, easy to understand while also covering some pretty complicated topics. Obviously they can only go over such topics in the most basic and superficial fashion, but I find their videos to be a good stepping stone towards further understanding. Not as physics-focused as the rest of the channels that I have mentioned so far, which provides variety.

Anton Petrov - This guy covers recent discoveries in general space science. I sometimes think his video titles can be a little bit on the click-baity side, but the content is well worth watching. He uses programs like Universe Sandbox and Space Engine as a visual aid in discussing the topics he covers.

These are my favourite channels that talk about science and a little bit more besides. Obviously I'm a total space nerd so there's a bias in this selection.

So, in his video today, from 2 mins, he's taking papers and sort of hinting at their further bolstering his ideas. (he does this quite a lot)


Just how wrong is he? I mean he talks with confidence about something he seems to know about. I mean, I would even begin to consider myself an armchair scientist (like Dave mentions of his more avid and rabid followers) and I've tried to read some of what he cites, often I don't see what he sees, but I put that down to my lack of understanding rather than his misrepresentation.

Well, the first thing that struck me about the video was the website he referred to, SpaceWeatherNews.com. Turns out that when I went to there to look, I found this exact video right there on the front page. So right off the bat he's referring to his own website, not a legitimate website for news about what's going on in space.

 

[xes]

Science is not "all wrapped up" though. There's a list of unsolved problems in physics alone (never mind other fields) that scientists are actively working on to solve. If science was all wrapped up, then every scientist would be out of a job, and they'd have to re-train as engineers or something. Since answering one questions tends to generate at least two more, I don't think this will be happening any time soon.



I totally grok your thirst for speculation. That's why I highly enjoy YouTube channels like the following:

Science and Futurism with Isaac Arthur - This dude has a BSc in Physics, and provides fairly detailed explanations of concepts relating to subjects such as the Fermi Paradox (the universe is big and old, so where are all the aliens?), speculative engineering, space travel, interplanetary and interstellar settlement, terraforming, the potential development of human civilisation along the Kardashev scale, the impact of potential future technologies like fusion power (hint: very cheap energy),

John Michael Godier and his Event Horizon channel - A science fiction author, he regularly posts videos on his personal channel about exoplanets (just think that only a few decades ago we had no idea how common planets outside the Solar system might be, turns out they're everywhere), the possibility of alien life in the Solar system and beyond, SETI and what kind of alien messages we might receive, Event Horizon is the channel on which he hosts interviews with astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and other scientists, involving more detailed dives into topics compared to his personal channel.

PBS Space Time - Even though I find a fair amount of the relativity and quantum mechanics stuff hard to follow, this is an excellent channel for communicating advanced concepts in astrophysics and cosmology. What does physics say about wormholes, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and more?

Kurzgesagt - Short and sweet videos, easy to understand while also covering some pretty complicated topics. Obviously they can only go over such topics in the most basic and superficial fashion, but I find their videos to be a good stepping stone towards further understanding. Not as physics-focused as the rest of the channels that I have mentioned so far, which provides variety.

Anton Petrov - This guy covers recent discoveries in general space science. I sometimes think his video titles can be a little bit on the click-baity side, but the content is well worth watching. He uses programs like Universe Sandbox and Space Engine as a visual aid in discussing the topics he covers.

These are my favourite channels that talk about science and a little bit more besides. Obviously I'm a total space nerd so there's a bias in this selection.



Well, the first thing that struck me about the video was the website he referred to, SpaceWeatherNews.com. Turns out that when I went to there to look, I found this exact video right there on the front page. So right off the bat he's referring to his own website, not a legitimate website for news about what's going on in space.

Yeah it's his website, he has several websites (and much pay for content), just images of SOHO/LASCO stuff, nothing scary on the front, he always starts off with that. It's basically just links to where the images come from. (from what I remember, I checked it out long ago)

I'll check out the links you've got there

 

[Signal 11]

he has several websites (and much pay for content)

How unusual for a crackpot.

 

[xes]

I posted some of Anton Petrovs videos on the first page, been a long time fan of his videos.

But the rest of it, I dunno, falls in the realm of things that it's Ok to speculate about, and of course there's loads of unsolved stuff, each one a life time of work and study. Still a little tame for me.

 

[xes]

A few of the deniers do that.

The experts do not. They are very clear that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of the warming and that human activity is the cause of the increase in CO2 and that it will be a serious problem for us if we don't stop doing it..

The loon in the video denies all that. That's what's meant by "climate change denier

There was a video of his a while back, but he basically said that the Climate scientists have all of their math spot on. It's just they're missing the rest of the sum. It (space weather/particle forcing etc) is now included in the new climate models, he doesn't bang on about it so much.



Quite a long one though.

His 3 points are (CnP'd from the box)
DEMAND THAT NOAA AND THE IPCC:
(1) USE 'PARTICLE FORCING' AND EXPAND SOLAR DATA TO INCLUDE X-RAYS, SOLAR WIND, AND HIGH-ENERGY PROTONS.
(2) CEASE OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES LIKE ONLY SHOWING SPRING SNOW COVER, AND NOT 'COUNTING' SOLAR PHYSICISTS AS 'CLIMATE SCIENTISTS' IN THEIR "97%" ANALYSIS.
(3) STOP PRETENDING CLIMATE CHANGE BEGAN IN 1850, THERE IS ROBUST DATA GOING WELL INTO THE PAST.

Doesn't sound like somebody who is denying climate change. Point 1 is pretty much dealt with. Couldn't begin to tell you about the other 2.

 

[NoXion]

Yeah it's his website, he has several websites (and much pay for content),

You don't find it suspicious that somebody with no scientific training or experience is selling something that actual scientists would rather give out freely?

just images of SOHO/LASCO stuff, nothing scary on the front, he always starts off with that. It's basically just links to where the images come from. (from what I remember, I checked it out long ago)

I find it suspicious that he refers to his own website. Why do this? It's a kind of thing that's alien to good science. It shouldn't be about promoting your brand.

Watching further...

I can't understand the commentary he gives over the animations with the false colour images of the Sun. It just sounds like gibberish to me.

Now he's talking about earthquakes. No explanation as to how they're related. What point is he making? He's talking about "blot echoes"(?). Googling the term, I find his blog as the first result, along with a number of results for QuakeWatch, which is another one of his websites. An actual term in seismology would turn up something like a Wiki article or a university page or something. More intellectual cud-chewing.

Fuck, barely more than a minute has gone by. At this rate I'll be here all damn night.

I posted some of Anton Petrovs videos on the first page, been a long time fan of his videos.

But the rest of it, I dunno, falls in the realm of things that it's Ok to speculate about, and of course there's loads of unsolved stuff, each one a life time of work and study. Still a little tame for me.

What do you mean by "OK to speculate about"? Speculation has a place in science, but it must be grounded in what is already known.

Also, people like this Ben Davidson guy go much further than speculation. He speaks with authority, but what is that authority based on? Slickly presented videos on YouTube? Lectures at Electric Universe conferences? Certainly not his professional qualifications, which are in the wrong field. Of course you don't need qualifications to practice science, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't actually ever do any science at all. Has he even tried to publish his results from any observations and/or experiments in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, in the correct field?

I'm not sure how one could describe mysteries like "where the fuck are all the aliens?" to be tame. They strike right at the heart of deep questions like the origin of life.

 

[xes]

earth blot echos is a term he coined, he sees storms on earth sort of similar to sun spots. A blot echo is (this is from memory) a bit of a storm which is in relation to something going on with a sun spot, and like a sun spot CME, the earth spot also erupts, but you get an earthquake. There is apparently now a Chinese satellite measuring this. (he goes on about it enough, along with a student who won some prize with his earth spots thingy)

He has a disaster prediction ap you can buy and re-buy over and over if you so desire.

I'm over the whole aliens thing, I know they're there
Stuff like that doesn't bend my head enough. I do like things about other dimensions and realities, but more along the lines of how to get there. Been trying to use the CIA way*, I already had the program they used for their experiments downloaded before I knew it was what they'd used to go into the abyss, but I've got a short attention span and it's a full blown 6 month course, got the means to test it, but I keep finding excuses not to.

*they've got a write up on how it works, not if it works, now that's a head frazzling read.
The program they used was Robert Monroe's 'The Gateway Experience'

 

[Signal 11]

He's saying it's going to get colder, not warmer.

Doesn't sound like somebody who is denying climate change.

He's saying that it will get colder no matter what we do. i.e. he's denying that CO2 is the cause of the warming. That's the very lamest level of climate change denial.

Do you agree with him?

 

[NoXion]

earth blot echos is a term he coined, he sees storms on earth sort of similar to sun spots. A blot echo is (this is from memory) a bit of a storm which is in relation to something going on with a sun spot, and like a sun spot CME, the earth spot also erupts, but you get an earthquake. There is apparently now a Chinese satellite measuring this. (he goes on about it enough, along with a student who won some prize with his earth spots thingy)

And somehow the thousands of other scientists working in the fields of seismology and helioseismology have failed to notice the connection? Yet this guy has supposedly figured out a whole new kind of physics just by looking at the same NOAA reports that those same scientists have access to? Do you not see the problem here?

He has a disaster prediction ap you can buy and re-buy over and over if you so desire.

Oh goody, more stuff to buy. Again, doesn't this kind of thing make you even the slightest bit suspicious? What does he do with the money? He's not doing experiments or buying time at observatories. He's not paying for subscriptions to journals. Science should be transparent, especially if the "scientist" in question is asking for money from the non-scientist public.

I'm over the whole aliens thing, I know they're there

There? Where? How do you know it's aliens and not something else?

Stuff like that doesn't bend my head enough. I do like things about other dimensions and realities, but more along the lines of how to get there. Been trying to use the CIA way*, I already had the program they used for their experiments downloaded before I knew it was what they'd used to go into the abyss, but I've got a short attention span and it's a full blown 6 month course, got the means to test it, but I keep finding excuses not to.

*they've got a write up on how it works, not if it works, now that's a head frazzling read.
The program they used was Robert Monroe's 'The Gateway Experience'

The CIA got into all kinds of kooky shit. That doesn't mean that any of it works. Parallel universes are suggested in the mathematics of certain physical models, but as of yet there is no actual evidence that they exist. My personal opinion is that we do live in some kind of multiverse, but that's an opinion that I don't need to pay £495(!) in order to have. It's just a hunch, and I look forward to any developments that might confirm or deny that hunch.

This Robert Monroe chap sounds like a grifter making a living off the backs of the gullible. Please tell me you didn't pay nearly half a grand for some New Age-y music which does nothing except sound nice.

 

[xes]

He's saying that it will get colder no matter what we do. i.e. he's denying that CO2 is the cause of the warming. That's the very lamest level of climate change denial.

Do you agree with him?

Ice core temperature data for the last hundred thousand years or so does say that the earth is in cold periods for much longer than is in warm periods. It's also been quite a bit warmer than it is now. Yes, C02 levels have been keeping pretty level with it as it goes along, so I would say it's an unknown.

 

[xes]

And somehow the thousands of other scientists working in the fields of seismology and helioseismology have failed to notice the connection? Yet this guy has supposedly figured out a whole new kind of physics just by looking at the same NOAA reports that those same scientists have access to? Do you not see the problem here?



Oh goody, more stuff to buy. Again, doesn't this kind of thing make you even the slightest bit suspicious? What does he do with the money? He's not doing experiments or buying time at observatories. He's not paying for subscriptions to journals. Science should be transparent, especially if the "scientist" in question is asking for money from the non-scientist public.



There? Where? How do you know it's aliens and not something else?



The CIA got into all kinds of kooky shit. That doesn't mean that any of it works. Parallel universes are suggested in the mathematics of certain physical models, but as of yet there is no actual evidence that they exist. My personal opinion is that we do live in some kind of multiverse, but that's an opinion that I don't need to pay £495(!) in order to have. It's just a hunch, and I look forward to any developments that might confirm or deny that hunch.

This Robert Monroe chap sounds like a grifter making a living off the backs of the gullible. Please tell me you didn't pay nearly half a grand for some New Age-y music which does nothing except sound nice.

Never fear, I didn't pay for shit, I never do, don't worry. I swiped it from slsk yonks ago. The write up documents how it works, not if it works. Says that they fiddled with this reality, from outside of it. Made 'events' happen. The only real downside (in the end synopsis) is that it takes too long to teach.

It's not an easy read

Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

 

[NoXion]

Never fear, I didn't pay for shit, I never do, don't worry. I swiped it from slsk yonks ago. The write up documents how it works, not if it works. Says that they fiddled with this reality, from outside of it. Made 'events' happen. The only real downside (in the end synopsis) is that it takes too long to teach.

It's not an easy read

Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

... Are you not at all interested in whether it actually works or not? Like, if there really was a publicly available technique for travelling to parallel universes, then someone would have inevitably tried it out, and if it worked, we'd all be living in a world revolutionised by inter-universal travel.

Since that's not the world we're living in, I say it's complete horseshit. What do you think?