complete summary of all the aspects of the Electric Cosmos is too
extensive to fit into a single web page.
In fact, this entire
web site, with all its pages, is only a cursory introduction to
the vast implications of these ideas. Therefore, this summary page
can only list a few (not all) of the points that should be
remembered by anyone who is trying to learn about the modern view
of the Universe that is emerging. It
is my hope that if you have read through these webpages, you may
be interested in seeing a more complete description of these and
other properties of the Electric
Sky provided in my book by that name available
through the publisher and at Amazon.com. (See both links at the
bottom of this page.)
I have been asked several times recently why I think it is so
important that the Electric/Plasma Universe Theory gains general
acceptance. What difference can it possibly make to the
future of humanity? How will knowing how the cosmos operates
benefit mankind? Who cares? Of what possible practical
use is this information anyway? Why get so excited about
it? How will it help us in the future?
A blunt short answer would have been: "Posing that question is equivalent to asking, Why study astronomy in the first place?" It would have to have been asked by someone who can look at the night sky and not wonder at and about that marvelous sight.
So, let me answer it this way instead:
One of the attributes that separates the human from the animals is our yearning to know about our world and our sky - our universe - to wonder about the cosmos and have a desire to find out how it works and what is up there. Another attribute is that we do not like to be told things that are untrue and have these ideas handed down to us by people who claim to have superior knowledge and intellect. We have been told that we average humans are not capable of really understanding the cosmos - that it is inhabited by mysterious and invisible forces and entities that only impenetrably abstract mathematics can explain. We are told to just passively accept whatever the 'experts' tell us. We have become so intimidated by how complicated modern science has become (including the marvelous electronic devices made available to us by engineers and industry) that we throw up our hands and say, "You're the experts - we'll believe what ever you tell us." And they say, "That's good, because our continued funding depends on your feeling that way." What will the reaction of the taxpaying public be if and when they realize the full extent to which they are being bilked by the scientific power-structure?
Educated lay-people have abdicated their responsibility to think proactively and ask the questions that will keep science honest. It seems we would rather just lie back and believe whatever we read in "Discover" magazine and the Science Channel. If 'they' tell us black-holes and dark matter exist - so be it. The public has become enthralled by the magic show that astronomy, particle physics, and some other sciences have become. Why does every TV 'science' program have background music that is more appropriate for a sci-fi flick? And a narrator's voice that sounds like God? The public apparently enjoys the magic, mystery-tour aura of most present day science 'news-releases'. The ship of science, captained by astronomy and astrophysics, is not just steering a wobbling course - it is miles off track and it is intentionally laying down a smoke screen - implying that modern science has to be counter-intuitive and mysterious. The astronomical world badly needs a reality check. The challenges embodied in these webpages and the Electric Sky constitute just that.
The present day peer review system determines which proposed research projects get funded and which do not. It also determines what results get published and which do not. At first it seems very sensible that any scientific field should be able to keep 'quacks and crack pots' from being funded and published. However, when any given area becomes controlled by 'expert-peers' who have accepted a deductively arrived at theory, they tend to see any alternative data or proposed hypotheses as 'crack pot'. When those who steer the ship of science refuse to allow alternative hypotheses from even being discussed or investigated, let alone published, it is little wonder we are wildly off course. The general public thinks of science as always looking for new ideas. The sad truth is: it does not, certainly not in astronomy / cosmology. What it does do is constantly seek funding from friendly "peer" reviewers.
When we think about the travesty the Roman Catholic Church perpetrated against Galileo (waiting until late in the 20th century to admit it) we feel superior. WE modern folk would never ignore and suppress a scientist in that way! No? Then how about astronomer Halton Arp who was denied access to Mt. Palomar and refused publication of his work because the present day high priests of the Big Bang Power Structure found the publication of his photographs embarrassingly contradictory to their well-funded dogma? Would it not be educational to realize that we have just screwed up again - big time!
the Electric Star hypothesis is even partially correct, there is
no guarantee that the Sun will continue to shine for millions of
years as we have been assured by the experts. What
anxieties will this realization engender in a scientifically
semi-literate public? But, it may be reassuring for them
to know that Earth has much less to fear from a near collision
with an asteroid or comet than they now think. Why have
of tax payer dollars been used to support "accepted" solar
fusion models and the Big Bang myth
but none invested in any alternative ideas, however worthwhile they may be?
The fundamental challenges that are described in these pages contain the most potentially explosive ideas ever to have been issued in science. They constitute a cosmic reality check for the entire intellectual community. There is almost no field of academic endeavor that will not be affected in some way (or even overturned) by these ideas. Areas of science that refuse to honestly address these questions will become irrelevant.
Will it take another several hundred years (as it took Galileo) to gain official recognition of the validity of these challenges from those who presently occupy Fortress Science? Will it ever happen? I don't know. But does it have practical importance? You bet your pocketbook it does. The eventual outcome depends on the public's attitude - do you want the expensive magic show to continue - or do you want honest answers from science?
to Other Web Sites
Return to the home page