At the recent Thunderbolts Project conference in Phoenix Arizona,
members of the Electric Universe community joined to explore new paths of discovery.
A featured speaker at the conference was Ben Davidson,
the founder of the online research community Suspicious0bservers,
which focuses on space weather including the Earth-Sun connection.
Recently, Ben co-authored the paper published in a peer-reviewed journal
on the Sun's role in earthquakes.
Today we asked Ben to share his thoughts on the most promising lines
of Investigation for the Electric Universe theory, today and in the future.
In terms of what we're going to need to keep alive, that's sort of already out there;
the first thing that comes to mind is the work by Dave Talbott and Wal Thornhill
on the past, the history of our Solar System and our planet specifically,
being a little different than what is thought of in the mainstream.
In addition to the evidence; both, you know, geological,
and I suppose you'd call it anecdotal although I tend to put
a little bit more weight on the words of our ancestors
especially when they thought it was important enough to carve into stone.
There's a plenty of evidence to sort of say the topic merits
pushing forward into the future and as we have gone into the future we have seen
mainstream science sort of creeping closer to this idea as well.
Not just with the potential for there to be,
you know, significant electrical events with these interactions between
planets and whether or not they think of that as electromagnetic
or plasma or however they're seeing it;
there also is a lot of new evidence coming out that our Solar System
has not always looked like this and it was once actually quite chaotic and
it's getting to the point now where the mainstream science is saying that
the same thing happened as, you know, Dave Talbot, Wal Thornhill
as all of our ancestors and the only difference is,
mainstream says it happened millions and millions of years ago
and we're left with the question of; okay well,
why did our ancestors claim to watch it happen and why do they know what happened?
So I think that when you're looking at things to bring forward,
things to make sure do not get lost into the past as the community makes this transition.
That's probably the first thing that comes to my mind is the evidence
because it is in physical form, both in the stories that we have and in the rocks
and mainstream science appears to be slowly but surely trending in that direction.
In terms of where to take these things into the future; in terms of new,
sort of new ideas that are really viable and show a lot of promise.
The work showing the relationship between the Sun and the Earth
and whether that's earthquakes, whether that's weather, whether that's volcanoes,
is quite robust and it is getting more so by the day.
This offers some of the best and most verifiable evidence
and therefore is one of the things that the rest of the world
can kind of get their heads around as being actually real
and when you're talking about things as practical as the weather, as earthquakes,
you really see a pathway for this to be something that
really kind of gets the world excited about the Electric Universe community.
When it comes to bringing this information to somebody new,
specifically to somebody who knows a little bit about this stuff
or maybe is even in a, in one of these positions at NASA or at NOAA or, you know,
somewhere else where they might be able to actually do something with this information.
It's very, it's very difficult and I find that a lot of people find it difficult
because there's a resistance to the topic of, hey maybe we don't have all the answers,
there's a general resistance to change, always,
but I have found that you can really sort of make a good argument
and really get the ball rolling if it is not a conversation that has that tone of,
sort of, you are holding an animosity towards what's mainstream.
It helps to plant ideas rather than anything else and so,
for example, suggesting that; hey did you see that
this event happened on the Sun and the exact same thing happened on Earth, and
this guy on the internet showed that that happened 4 or 5 times, you know,
over the past 10 years, that was pretty interesting, what did you think about that?
You know, that sort of opens the door and, you know; if they haven't seen it,
maybe they'll be curious but that's very different from saying,
hey by the way you know this science you guys are working with it's wrong,
you guys need to listen to this other guy talking about this and that.
You know it's hard to actually formulate an argument
and convince anyone of anything these days,
especially if you're going against what their views are entrenched in their head.
But in terms of what it actually takes to get somebody on board with these things;
you have to find a way to spark their curiosity
and then get them to just start watching the Sun
or if you want to talk about how to get them interested in something like
the history of our Solar System and the history of our Planet,
you know, bring up; hey do you guys think it's interesting that
we have this barrage of new papers coming out, talking about
how the Solar System was once a chaotic place and how Earth
may have been closer to the Sun and there may have been a pile-up in the inner system
and Neptune and Uranus changed places and Saturn couldn't have formed
where it formed, you know, where it is now and you know,
say hey isn't that interesting that this is kind of what the ancients described.
You get their brains thinking about some of these things
in a kind non-confrontational way and that's really, all you can do is open the door
because the last thing people seem to be receptive to
is having information crammed down their throats.
As the Electric Universe community grows,
new members discuss many competing ideas and concepts.
Is it important that Electric Universe proponents agree on a single cohesive theory?
There are some positives and negatives to developing
one cohesive electric universe theory; the positives of course go back to,
you know, how difficult it is to actually explain in this conversation after
you've gone to the difficulty of actually even starting this conversation which isn't always easy,
that you know one of the benefits of having such a, 'okay we're all on the same page',
type thing is that they would sort of be, I don't want to call it a party line,
but that's an easy way to to describe what it is that most people will understand.
There will be sort of this general idea of; this is what we think is right,
this is why we think it's right, here are the points where I think mainstream science
needs to sort of come together with the Electric Universe here, things like that.
The other positives would be that it would deliver a good amount of focus
to the vastly increasing number of individuals who are getting involved
and doing their own studies and doing their own experiments
and doing their own thought projects and things like that,
it would really help give some focus and really help to,
what it would do is it would give focus to the ever increasing human resource side of things.
However that may also, you know, present us with challenges as well;
what happens if there's, you know, new information that comes out
that directly challenges one of the points that, you know,
some might consider the dogma of the electric universe?
Is there going to be a resistance to changing our long-standing beliefs and paradigms,
just like the mainstream has, just like we complain about with the mainstream
and so that would certainly present a challenge to us,
creating that extra focus is one of the things in the world that I think has
let the relationship between Earth and Sun go unnoticed for so long
because it was the hyper-specialization that stopped somebody from watching the Sun
and the earthquakes and the weather, diligently every day.
You don't have time if you're an expert in that field,
you just gotta focus on the one thing and so there are positives and negatives to this
and, you know, it's tough to say how that would go.
It's certainly a worthwhile endeavor to at least survey what is out there
and if you can't create that, that one narrative, maybe at least create a narrative
where we say alright, most people agree on these points,
here are some aspects where there's some disagreement among us'
and I think something like that would be extraordinarily valuable.
One of the most interesting things that you begin to see
when you look at the Earth and the Sun every single day
is that there is more than just a connection between them,
a 'cause-and-effect' sort of thing, but it might actually be more than that.
There are many many times, most times when this relationship is evident
and something happening on the Sun and something happens on Earth
but there is more than a, you know, an insignificant portion of these events
where the Earth actually does something first and then something happens on the Sun
and it's the kind of thing that's repeatable,
it's not as common as seeing it with the Sun first
but it is certainly repeatable and the interaction between these spheres;
whether that's the moons and the planets, the planets and the stars,
the planets and each other or the solar systems and whatever is at the center of the galaxy,
or perhaps a binary star that they have their own relationship with.
What we see in terms of these relationships
may actually not be so much of a cause-and-effect as it might be a concurrent symptom.
These events and others like it really get one into the mindset that; hey,
there's something underlying all of these processes that seem to kick them off and
sort of create activity and instability vs stability and calm.
Right now the best thing we have is to monitor the Sun and then monitor the Earth.
However if we could monitor the center of the Galaxy or the Great Attractor
or the resonance of the Laniakea Galactic Cluster structures,
something I think would jump out and say;
wait a minute, there's some larger controlling force.