Miles Mathis is of the opinion that the Electric Universe group known as the Thunderbolt project, is controlled opposition. He bases this on several factors, including the fact that the project isn't delivering much in terms of results. All that comes out of it is an endless stream of ramblings and rants, mixed in with some truths to make them seem legitimate. The project is a dead end that makes the official narrative look good in comparison. It's a false alternative that keeps people from finding true alternatives.
All of this may be true. However, I don't think the problem is as serious as Mathis makes it out to be. The real problem isn't the various blind alleys we find everywhere we look. The real problem is a lack of critical thinking. Spending years on end focusing on a single narrative is a waste of time regardless of which story we home in on. That's why I encourage readers of my physics to come up with their own models. People should pick and choose. They should know the essence of various theories, and they should know the experiments that either support or refute these theories.
None of this needs years of our time. All it requires is an open mind and an ability to think things through. A clear separation between theory and observation is key. Observations should not be denied unless they are shrouded in secrecy. Theories, on the other hand, should be constantly challenged. A single observation may be explained by a multiple of theories, and the informed reader knows this. A distant glow surrounding a dark center is only a black hole in mainstream physics. Plasma physics see it as a hot whirlpool of plasma. Highly regular radio signals from deep space is no proof of neutron stars. An electric model can explain this as discharges between two closely orbiting stars.
Interested readers can learn the main features of multiple theories in the space of a few years thanks to the internet. I had no trouble finding all sorts of alternative theories when I decided to look closer at the problems related to gravity with respect to Peter Woodhead's hollow Earth theory. I don't think that Woodhead was right in all his ideas, but I still prefer his hollow Earth model over solid Earth models.
I've been inspired by all sorts of ideas, many of them coming from the Thunderbolt project. If they are controlled opposition, it was no hindrance to me. I spent a few weeks looking into their stuff. I don't think it was a waste of time. I think they are wrong about gravity, but I think they're right in their claim that gravity is related to the electric force, and I'm sure capacitance has much to do with it. Their views related to gravity are in my mind a mix of good and bad ideas. It took me some time to separate the good from the bad, but I don't think I was deceived or deliberately tricked.
In the end, I stumbled onto my solution when I came across a YouTube lecture by Halton Arp shortly after having read the work of Morton Spears. Both were talking in terms of particles and particle quanta, and it dawned on me that this might be key to the puzzle. Some say that Halton Arp was controlled opposition. Many think of Morton Spears as a crank. But none of this mattered to me. They triggered some interesting thoughts from which I've developed my own theory, and I'm hopeful that my work will in turn inspire others.
The important thing to note is that no theory should be considered complete. There are errors everywhere, and we're far from having figured it all out. My theory is no exception. I'm not pretending to have figured it all out. All I've done is to show that a strict particle model ends up with results consistent with observations. There's no need for mysterious mathematical concepts.
The mainstream narrative is in this respect deceptive. We're told that pretty much everything is figured out and proven to be true. Furthermore, physics is so complicated that laymen cannot hope to ever penetrate the true significance of things. For that, we need experts.
A whole range of pretend experts are presented on TV, talking with confidence about theory as proven facts. This is deliberate deception. These so called experts are spooks. They work for the status quo who's only real concern is to keep people from thinking critically for themselves. The establishment isn't concerned about truth. Government agents may know things that they don't want others to know, but that is a secondary concern. Primary to the elite is not the suppression of truth but the suppression of critical thinking.
Similarly, I'm sure there's controlled opposition, not only in politics but in science as well. The purpose of it is to make sure that those who see through the official narrative are led into another narrative that's equally controlled by the elite. However, this only works because people aren't thinking critically about things. People are wasting their time, not so much because they're fed false narratives, as for their general intellectual laziness.
This means that we don't have to concern ourselves about the official narrative and the controlled opposition. There are bits of truth in both camps. There are also a lot of interesting ideas to be found by searching the internet. Anyone can become a critical thinker, and it's easier these days than it has been in the past. The problem isn't the elite and their control of things. Rather, it's our lazy approach to things and a general desire to be told what to think rather than to think things through for ourselves.
 |
| Thinking about stuff |
No comments:
Post a Comment