A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

And what about the role of the media? Where adequate money and resources are available, highly polished and
very convincing visual presentations of how our universe is said to work have been produced. This is actually a
form of information poison! These beguiling visual wonders are most often presented as educational television
documentaries, narrated by big names in science who temporarily find themselves in the public limelight, or by
famous people from the film industry who do not need to seek the public’s attention, they just get it. Impressively
effective productions they may be, but we need to see them as just that and dealing with fiction, and that some
of them are riddled with words and phrases that turn out to be blindly adopted metaphors that we accept as part
of normal speech, such as with … “the black hole in our finances” or "the whole thing has gone supernova"!
Conveniently in addition, and ironically, we support the super-duper ideas about gravity because of our everyday
experience of it. To our minds it is the magical, invisible force that we just accept is there as the dominant one
because it lets us have a normal day by keeping our tea in our cups, our cars on the road and our feet on the
ground. We are so accepting of the effects of good old gravity in our lives that when a well known persona
promotes the gravity based ideas of the Standard Model, we just accept that what we are being told is correct,
after all, is it not more convenient to assign an explanation for difficult stuff to something we cannot see? And
it is definitely ironic that these amazing documentaries would be so much more wonderful, educational and
relevant if the public were to experience them based around the electrical and plasma science theories that I and
many others believe are really at the heart of the matter.
Electric Universe supporters and their efforts to bring good information to the attention of open-minded science
and the broader public are at a distinct disadvantage here, for funds and resources to promote the EU model
currently only come from the contributions of private individuals, rather than from any guaranteed source that is
supported by public taxation, as is typically the case with mainstream astro-science. Nothing major in this world
seems to change without the prospect of making money off it, and the commercial interests that have grown
up around servicing Standard Model theory research are unfortunately substantial in the extreme. Cambridge
University’s biologist and author Dr Rupert Sheldrake suggested that 1% of today’s scientific research funding
should be diverted to those who have convincing theories developed outside mainstream science. This funding
would be allocated by a board of decision makers consisting of a mix of broad experience rather than all being
from science. 1% does not sound like much but in real terms it is an awful lot of money that could make a very
big impact. Even though this proposal seemed fair in the eyes of many, it has been pretty much ignored, and I
would suggest this has been because it is seen a threat to the status quo.
Considering this book in broad terms, I am prepared for my words to be viewed by some within the ‘gravity
community’ to be non-science and possibly non-sense. Well, some of them would say that, wouldn’t they?! To
my mind the onus would be on those people to do the work to write the book that describes and justifies their
own view in opposition and not just a narrow one handed down to them that they have spent little time thinking
about. If anyone did embark on that task then it would be useful for them to keep in mind that the single most
172 | A final word