A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

EU theories, though profound in themselves with their implications, do not attempt to address the same array
of cosmic subjects and their associated implications that the Standard Model of the universe does. The Electric
Universe model is therefore not a replacement for the Standard Model. Its sole purpose is instead to help
provide a fresh foundation on which to build a better set of theories about our universe, for this is a subject area
that will never disappear as something for humans to wonder about. So what are we to make of the current state
of affairs?
The history of science tells us much about how we got here and why things in astro-science still persist to hold
back our genuine advancement. Apart from some lessons for the future, there remains little to gain by going
over again and again the reasons why this is so, assigning blame and attempting to hold irredeemable people
and organisations to account. Rather, I think that we, and here I have in mind a loose cooperation between openminded
scientists, academics (including philosophers) and capable lay researchers, should be attempting to go
around the monolith that has evolved by making independent efforts to understand what we already have that
is of use, broadening our scope of research and cooperation, forming interdisciplinary plans to forge ahead, and
getting on with doing just that.
While appreciating the organisational challenges in this and that access to resources, facilities and data would
be a problem, I see the way ahead involving two general areas; one of well supported, organised research by
genuine practitioners of interdisciplinary science and one that involves the evermore enlightened and capable
public who want to support this inclusive approach. Personally, I am not able to take part in the science but I
can certainly help with getting good science information out to the public arena. If looking forward with energy
and enthusiasm is therefore the thing to do, what is it that the interested lay public can do to help?
To start, I believe we need to get a little bit emotional about prevailing bad science and understand that any
motivation for bringing about change we come to feel, once possessed, cannot be denied. This motivation
would be fuel for us as our awareness opens up, our studies intensify and the buds of new knowledge begin to
break soil. At the same time we need to understand the absolute need to make up our own minds as individuals
about these things and not just thoughtlessly accept that change is needed because others say so. Therefore, for
people’s efforts to be of most use, their self-education should first involve getting to know 'what' is currently
wrong and 'why' certain things need to change.
One bottom line is that the interested public needs to talk more about these things and not just leave opinion
forming to such as those who prefer to operate as informed loners, these often being the academically capable
in science and math who believe that the person on the street has no useful part to play anyway. Accountable
scientists and their work should not be allowed to function as islands of activity. Intellectuals are often not as
‘worldly clever’ as they would like to think, and in many cases they are prone to having blind spots to things
outside their own fields, which by definition they are unaware of. There are, of course, many notable exceptions
to this, and these folks are obvious when one looks their work. (I like this article on the subject [7-1] .)
170 | A final word