Welcome to the Thunderbolts.info podcast for March 4th 2016.
If you've been following the work of The Thunderbolts Project™ for some time
you've become aware of some very different concepts about how the universe works.
A lot of the theories of the standard cosmology
which include invisible hypothetical phenomena or entities
such as black holes and dark matter are not included in the Electric Universe theory
and one of the things that the Electric Universe sees very differently
than mainstream astronomy is the hypothesis of something called a neutron star.
Now scientists observe in deep space these regularly periodic pulsing signals of energy
which they call pulsars.
It was back in the 1960's that scientists first detected this kind of pulsing radio signal.
And for a time they actually believed
the source might be an extraterrestrial intelligence.
But in response to this discovery the hypothesis of a neutron star was invented.
This is the idea that the material left over from a supernova explosion
of a massive star will collapse gravitationally
and it forms a very small and incredibly dense star
which is mostly composed of tightly packed neutrons.
And supposedly a rotating neutron star
is a source of these regular pulses of radio waves.
Well on our series Space News from the Electric Universe
we have discussed a number of discoveries
that in effect falsified the neutron star hypothesis.
In fact it happens that the most-viewed Space News we've posted is a report entitled:
"Impossible neutron star shatters theory".
This was a story about a so-called neutron star
that supposedly shines with the brightness of 10 million Suns.
Because this video has received close to 200,000 views
and it's gotten the attention of a number of advocates of standard cosmology
it has also received the most intense backlash
of negative comments of any Space News to date.
A lot of these comments are pure ad hominem
and that's not entirely surprising given that it is the YouTube comments section.
So one of the guests featured in this video was our friend and colleague Dr. Tom Wilson
and recently we offer Tom the opportunity to formulate a reply
to some of the comments that have been posted on this video
and I think this is good
because there are a lot of misconceptions about the Electric Universe
that we see on the internet and it wouldn't be possible for the Thunderbirds Project™
to offer a direct rebuttal to each misrepresentation.
So I'm going to play for you now the statement that Tom has recorded,
so we can tell you in his own words his thoughts
on some of the reactions we've seen in response to his Space News report.
One of the comments to the video we're discussing
asked about the meeting of Technology Executive.
Basically, I define that as someone who looks after tens of millions
or hundreds of millions of dollars of product sales and development.
That's certainly true in my case
but I also have a science background and an interest in the psychology of science.
But I tend to come at this whole debate as essentially a business guy.
In business you need to be ruthlessly rational.
It always comes down to results
- If some idea is not yielding results, you scrap it
and you move on to whatever does get you results.
And I'm not afraid of crackpot ideas.
It's happened that the most crackpot ideas can change markets,
redefine the way people interact with the world and make lots of money.
So I am inherently, by training and by inclination,
very open to crazy ideas if they can be shown to yield results.
Remember, it's all about getting results, period.
So let me put this whole discussion into the form of a story.
Maybe people can relate to it, it might help defuse the emotions a little bit,
say for argument's sake, business manager has a product,
software, hardware, doesn't matter really, a product is a product.
But he's got himself a problem.
The problem is, he gets complaints every week, sometimes daily
about how the user manual for the product has not predicted the way the product works.
It's doing all these things that the user manual says should be clearly impossible.
He's got himself something called the buggy product.
In this case, based on the ongoing reports
of the product's apparently impossible behavior it's very buggy.
Now, in his business he has to issue something called errata sheets.
These errata sheets describe what are called workarounds for the bug.
Workarounds say things like don't use the product under these conditions
or the product's behavior cannot be guaranteed etcetera.
Now the team who has been responsible for the documentation of the product,
call them Team A, are issuing errata sheets and workarounds constantly.
He keeps getting reports across his desk and the increasing list of bugs being identified,
customer complaints about their dissatisfaction in the product and
the stream of errata sheets piling up so much that the list of errata
is getting bigger than the user manual itself.
It's not good and it has to change.
So he calls in Team A to find out what's going on.
Now team A is a bunch of nice guys,
so huge team and they practically fill all of the conference room.
They're earnest and passionable of what they do
and in some cases they're very distinguished.
But they're also very theoretical, they live in a world of mathematical models
and computer simulations and also tend to be a bit high-strung.
Regardless, he values their contribution
and knows they can generate some pretty interesting ideas.
Honestly has been shoveling a ton of money, in funding and resources their way,
and he's not entirely happy with the results.
So they start drawing in a lot of very pretty pictures
and some very impressive mathematical formulations
but he has to tell them: look it's all very well and good but
why are we seeing the product continue to behave
in the ways the user manual cannot predict?
Something's wrong!
Well, they proposed more funding
to get at what they would call the root-cause of the unpredictable behavior.
They're convinced, certain even, that they are on the right track
and just need more time and money.
Now, just to be sure he's getting the whole picture the manager has also invited Team B.
Team B is really just a couple guys
who have been looking at this problem in their spare time.
Team B though, is the engineers.
They're very practical, used to building things that don't break.
One guy in Team B puts up his hand and says:
look boss, I've got this idea, I just know,
your Team A are gonna think it's completely nuts.
But frankly, with this idea what seems to be unpredictable
behavior in the product, actually fits.
So they outline the premise of their crazy idea
and Team A goes nuts I mean emotional,
they're angry and they started abusing these two poor guys from the Team B
who are really just trying to help.
Now, the manager regards himself as a good leader and he knows his people.
He knows a team A is not normally like this, they're nice guys
that raise families they're nice to dogs and so on.
But he also understands the psychology of certainty and change.
He's got, on-the-job and formal, training on human psychology under these conditions.
He has read the neuroscience research like the SCARF model and Change Management.
They clearly show that a perceived threat to one's certainty and social position
elicits the same neuro-chemical response as an actual physical threat.
So he understands why Team A is behaving the way they are, he gets it
but it's not productive and it sure isn't going to get results.
It's all about results.
So he asks team A to pipe down and he gets the two guys from Team B
to talk them through the idea just a bit more.
Now he has to admit, it's pretty crazy, improbable even
but he can't deny that what they outline, fits with what he's seen in the field.
In addition, the basic premise of the ideas is founded on solid engineering,
they cite research from IEEE journals..
He knows that the guys from the Team A have not had the training
or the opportunity to even be aware of these journals,
it just wouldn't be part of their academic curriculum so he doesn't blame them for that.
But while the essential math and theory is there, for team B,
it's never really been applied to this specific problem
and there will be a lot of work to flush it out.
So he asked Team B what they would need to make progress.
Now one guy of Team B says: well,
we've only really had a chance to sketch this out at a high level
but we think it's promising!
Tell you what: give us just one percent of what you're paying Team A
to let us put some more work into this and develop a more detailed model.
Then we'll be able to see more about how valid this approach really is.
So what does the manager do?
Now, he's a business guy, he likes to hedge his bets.
He's all about risk management
and he wisely embraces crazy ideas as long as they yield results.
So here's what he does.
He lets team A keep doing what they're doing but with 95% funding.
To be honest, they're not giving him great results
but they are likely to be plan A for some time.
And there are the errata sheets
that he has to take care of and it was apparently not going away anytime soon.
But he also gives team B 5% of team A's funding.
Now it's more than Team B asked for
but he tells them they're going to get more
because he wants it done faster than they proposed.
Time is money and he can't tolerate a buggy product.
So let's be clear.
To succeed in any business you cannot get emotionally attached to any idea,
any product, ever!
Nothing is certain, you must always weigh everything on the value
of the results you get from it, period.
Now I understand the human psychology of change.
I've led change many times in my career,
I've read books like those by John Kotter and others on the process of change management.
Now, Kotter talks about how in change management you have 3 groups of people, basically.
There is one group who is always open to ideas
and well assesses the value of the change based on its merits.
They will line up behind the change and support it, if it's rational.
And there's a second group who are on the fence.
They're reluctant but can be convinced depending on how the whole group behaves.
Then there is the third group who will resist change at all costs.
He would never ever enlist group 3 to support the change.
In Change Management then, you identify group 1 and you get them on board.
Then you look for individuals in group 2 and bring them along with you,
using the help of group 1 as internal champions.
But you completely ignore group 3.
They will never be convinced, so you waist zero effort on trying to do so.
Now it is interesting, the list of comments to this video
is actually a fair mix of these three groups.
I find that interesting.
Now all I can say is that I believe in "What If" question.
I believe in being open to crazy ideas
even what might be called crackpot ideas, as long as they yield results.
I have no bias, I just want answers.