Welcome to Space News from the Electric
Universe, brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project at Thunderbolts.info.
In this series, we have recently presented reports that challenge some of
the bedrock beliefs about the history of our planet, our solar system and the
universe as a whole. When it comes to our own world, the fundamental belief system
shaping all of modern geology and astronomy is uniformitarianism or the
notion that changes in nature happen incrementally over eons of time. It's the
position of The Thunderbolts Project that evidence from increasingly fine data in
numerous specialized fields only confirms the hypothesis of recent
catastrophic events on our planet and in the inner solar system. In this episode,
Bishop Nicholas Sykes explores the question, is our history far different
from that which official science proposes? My previous videos, in this
series, have considered the serious possibility of the science of the modern
schools; being wrong in areas of cosmology and physics about such diverse topics
and phenomena as black holes, the Oort cloud, the composition and genesis of
comets, the model of magnetic reconnection, the way the sun and other
stars are powered and Einsteinian relativity including its restriction of
the speed of gravity to the supposed maximum possible speed of
electromagnetic radiation in vacuo. Science, however, is a broad subject.
Indeed, one might adduce from the above and far from exhaustive catalog of
contradictions that my colleagues and I are claiming that the whole enterprise
of science is flawed in principle. It is necessary to deny that deduction,
categorically. In my view, what we are claiming is that human intellectual and
moral error have, especially during the last 100 years,
brought about grave flaws in that intellectual structure that, in the
second decade of the 21st century, is being presented in the schools and in
the media as settled science. One basic mistake is to ignore the reality that
any science may only be regarded meaningfully as settled, and only
tentatively at that, when its various theories continue to be open to being
tested by experiment and observation. Any science theory, claiming that further
investigation into it is closed, has by that claim unsettled itself. If some
new observational or experimental discovery is considered to disturb what
was formerly regarded as settled, then the true scientific method will seek to
find further resources of observation or experimentation to investigate the issue.
Too often one perceives those in their settled science castles, pulling up the
drawbridges; as if new observations, experiments and science models must be
science's enemies, rather than having the possibilities of bringing health and
renewal to the great structure of science and science education that our
generation is called to bequeath to the future. One of the most long-standing,
such settled science castles, is that model of the earth's history that may be
referred to as Lyellian uniformitarianism. Charles Lyell, 1797 to 1875, who preceded
Charles Darwin, 1809 to 1882, and upon whose thought Darwin came to draw.
Accepting, one supposes, the Newtonian impression of a solar system that had
run like clockwork for all of history, laid down the view that whatever past
changes had ever been brought about in nature, would have been essentially no
different than what was observable in the present. And it seemed obvious that
in the present time natural changes were slow. Lyell's model of natural change, in course
of time, overtook older models of catastrophic change accepted by many
researchers and particularly by Georges Cuvier, 1769 to 1832. In more recent times,
models of punctuated evolution have been proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and others
but the conditions driving such punctuation are still assumed to have
occurred only in periods of time before humans existed. It is therefore by no
means altogether, surprising that the Electric Universe model; which envisages
catastrophic changes, not only before the advent of man or even only in man's
prehistory but actually within the historical period; has found the
drawbridges being drawn up against its advance into the halls of academia.
Catastrophe that is long ago and far away is one thing but the possibility of
catastrophe within human history is quite another. Once we accept that, who
knows what the geological clock might begin to reveal about our own history or,
indeed, suggest about the future. Notwithstanding all this, the model of
Lyellian uniformitarianism, if we are prepared to be scientific about the
matter, should, in the name of science, be subjected to fresh scrutiny. Might not
the EU model, which does encompass recent catastrophic change, be a means of
renewing the science of our current geological and evolutionary outlook? For
the science story of our own day, sticking to a centuries-old
uniformitarianism, has given us the mantra of no natural catastrophes for
billions of years. The Electric Universe account, on the other hand, tells that
such catastrophes must have occurred even within the lifespan of humanity. Let
us, at the very least, put the two accounts head-to-head,
ponder the matter and learn.
For continuous updates on Space News from the Electric Universe, stay tuned to
Thunderbolts.info