THOTH A Catastrophics Newsletter VOL V, No 9 Aug 15, 2001 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS IT'S A NEW UNIVERSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mel Acheson INTERSECT 2001: CONFERENCE SPECIAL, PART III . . . .Ian Tresman STUDENT VIEWPOINT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bobby Moretti SUMMING UP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ian Tresman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< IT'S A NEW UNIVERSE by Mel Acheson When discussing theories, it's always prudent to keep in mind where they come from. Especially when dealing with currently popular theories, it's good to remember GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. Logic (and math is just a kind of logic) only guarantees that the assumptions you start with will be preserved in what you end with. No matter how much you chase them around a computer, assumptions will never change into facts. It's also prudent to keep in mind that proof never discovered anything. No matter how accurately you measure, no matter how many significant figures you calculate, no matter how many results you predict, it's only verification. Verification has its uses, but it will never get you over the next hill. The track record of a theory only tells you where it's been. Verification is not reliability. No amount of confirmation will provide assurance that a different idea with a different viewpoint on the facts won't explain things better. As long as you don't look over the fence, everything will seem familiar. Keep in mind the conceptual fence of science pretty much encloses only our experience on the surface of the Earth for the last 300 years. Every theory that's currently fashionable in every science has been devised without taking plasma into account. This dog bites twice. First, plasma doesn't behave the way physicists expect from standard theory. Second, 99% of the universe is composed of plasma. We should therefore expect currently accepted theories to explain no more than 1% of the phenomena in the universe. I urge you not to be timid in your skepticism of currently accepted theories. I urge you not to be reluctant to reject currently accepted theories. Be courageous in your speculations and radical in your innovations. We face a new and unexplored universe. ~Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com ********************************************************** INTERSECT 2001: CONFERENCE SPECIAL, PART III By Ian Tressman Monday Morning: 8:30 Rupert Sheldrake: Morphic Fields and Resonances 9:30 Mel Acheson: Verbal Vignette 9:35 Wal Thornhill: The Electric Universe: How and Why it Works 10:30 Don Scott: Electric Currents in Space 11:15 Dave Talbott: Plasma Phenomenon in the Polar Configuration [Note: items in square brackets are mine. - Ian] RUPERT SHELDRAKE told us that science is radically incomplete, for example, in two fields: (1) Formative Causation (2) The Extended Mind. Rupert proposes that there are morphic fields and morphic resonance which shape, form and order not only biological systems, but perhaps even planetary systems and galaxies. A Morphic Field exists around a form (molecule, animal, social group, etc) and organizes its characteristic structure and patterns of activity. It is the morphic field that underlie the form and behavior at all levels of complexity, and includes morphogenetic, behavioral, social, cultural, and mental fields. Morphic fields are shaped and stabilized by morphic resonance. Morphic Resonance is the influence of previous structures of activity on subsequent similar structures of activity organized by morphic fields. Through morphic resonance, formative causal influences pass through or across both space and time. These influences are assumed not to fall off with distance in space or time, and they come only from the past. In general, science can be approached in one of two ways: (1) reductionism (2) holism. Reductionism is the doctrine that more complex phenomena can be reduced to less complex ones; for example, in biology, it is the belief that all the phenomena of life can ultimately be understood in terms of chemistry and physics. Holism is the doctrine that wholes are more than the sum of their parts. A cell, for example, divides randomly, this indeterminism occurring at all levels of nature. In practice, it is restricted by the whole and works probabilistically. Morphogenesis is the coming into being of form. Standard theory suggests that more form comes from less, for example, all cells have DNA which influences the formation of different cells. In contrast, morphogenesis envisions hierarchies of morphic fields which affect not only individual cells, but also organs, organisms, communities of organisms, etc. As an example, Rupert used the way fish swim or birds fly in formation, rapidly changing direction without ever bumping into each other. Research and funding today typically goes into genetics... Rupert commented that there was hardly a biologist left who could recognize a plant! Onto regeneration: bits of flatworm and willow trees can grow back into new forms. Likewise, magnetism and holograms have the property of fields: breaking a magnet into two pieces generates two magnets, and each piece of a broken hologram contains the whole image. Newt eyes will regenerate if their lens is removed, and they do this in a different way than the lens was originally formed in an embryo. [e.g. details at http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Sheldrake.html] So what are morphogenetic fields? There are three schools of thought: (a) That morphogenetic fields are heuristic devices, that is, a conceptual ideas, but a physical mechanism will eventually be found; (b) That morphogenetic fields can be mathematically modeled with field equations define their operation. This school of thought includes attractors as defined by Rene Thom in his catastrophe theory; (c) That morphogenetic fields represent a new concept, not yet understood, whose properties have yet to be determined. Definition (c) is the school of thought supported by Sheldrake. Proteins molecules have the potential to twist into many shapes (conformers), many of which are at the same energy minimum (the multiple minima problem), and yet the protein is active in only one particular form; Sheldrake suggested that a morphogenic field is at play here too. In the brain, there are "brain fields" which may explain how schools of fish behave as one; their lateral line organ has been suggested as the cause, but in experiment it has been cut without loss of such behavior. Other impressive group behavior includes termites and termite mounds which take years to build, even though individual termites only live a few months. Eugene Marais placed a steel plate through the center of a termite mound, destroyed part of the mound, and found the termite rebuilt it nearly perfectly, with corridors meeting at the same place on both sides of the steel plate [see article: Extended Mind, Power, & Prayer: Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious Part III, at http://www.sheldrake.org/articles/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default &id=43&ww=1&full=1&view_records=1] Rupert suggest that genes are responsible for making proteins and chemicals, etc., but not for the particular form taken by individual cells. As an analogy, he said that if you remove a transistor from a TV set, the sound may stop, but this does not mean that the transistor alone produced the television program. Morphic resonance influences how subsequent forms are produced. There are two approaches (a) Eternity (b) Evolutionary. Eternity (from the Greek) implies shapes, maths, timely principals of change, but is never changing. Evolutionary implies that everything changes. In Sheldrake's opinion, the Big Bang theory has made physics evolutionary! An example of evolutionary morphic resonance involves the formation of new crystals for the first time. It predicts that after a crystal has been formed the first time, it should get easier to produce because the morphic field creates a memory of the process. And indeed, this is what is observed. The standard model suggests this is due to their being microscopic crystals contaminating future crystalisations; but this often happens in new laboratories (where it is suggested that the crystal contamination is carried on the beards of chemists!). Additional, new crystalisations should be more stable that much older ones, so one would expect their melting points to increase over time. Rupert researched a series of data reference books and found that this is true -- newer books report a linear rise in melting temperatures for synthetic compounds. For comparison, he found that occur in nature -- that is, have been around for long periods of time -- so not show a similar change of melting point. As lab rats learn to solve a maze, it should become easier for subsequent rats to solve it, even if they are based in different labs in different countries. Sheldrake reported the results of one test; The first time the experiment was performed, rats made about 200 mistakes, reducing this down to about 40 in subsequent runs. In an identical experiment in another lab in another country, the rats made only about 40 mistakes on the first run. Similar experiments, show that crossword puzzles are easier to complete once some people have solved it first. And likewise with IQ test over the years, something called the Flynn Effect [e.g. see http://plaza.v-wave.com/delajara/] Jungian Collective memories would be explained by being due to resonances with oneself in the past. And hence there would also be parallels with twins who exhibit paranormal behavior. Rupert suggested that new plasma forms, such as that found in neon tubes, could also be expected to exhibit "unusual/more stable" behavior. [I looked over at Tony Peratt, and saw that he was nodding in agreement]. ******************* WAL THORNHILL reminded us that Einstein felt that there was a lack of completeness with quantum mechanics. A holistic approach to the Electric Universe is (a) Hierarchical (b) the source of the electric power is currently beyond detectors (c) is a common simple electric model (d) Stars are not isolated in their environment (e) Weather systems on stars and planets have an electrical input. Space plasma can be neutral or charged, and have electric currents and magnetic fields. They form filaments that radiate energy. Kristian Birkeland placed a magnetized sphere representing the Earth (a "terrella") inside a vacuum chamber and directed electrons towards it, and saw that were steered by the magnetic field to the vicinity of the terrella's magnetic poles. From this he concluded that the aurorae were powered electrically from space. [More on the terrella experiment at http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whaur1.html] Space plasmas also demonstrate a Z-pinch effect, heating, squeezing, and sweeping up gas and dust. This force operates at a ratio of 1/r, quickly overpowering gravitational effects. The Electric Universe builds on Tony Peratt's Plasma Universe. Looking down the barrel of a plasma focus device shows paired Birkeland current filaments. And galaxies appear to be homopolar motors (a.k.a. Faraday Disks) [see also http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/n-mach.html]. He reminds us that in Einstein's equation, e=mc^2, m equals mass and NOT matter. *********************** DON SCOTT talked about electric currents in space. He started with a scale diagram of the Solar System and nearest star, our Sun being a millimetre-sized dot, the earth some inches away, and the nearest star being at a distance of some miles. He wondered just how much gravitational force there was between two stars? It was Arthur Eddington who came up with an early model for the Sun's interior. However, the electric sun model assumes that the Sun's energy comes from outside in space. Evidence includes "Double Radio Source Associated with a Galactic Nucleus", or DRAGN, [more, including illustrations at http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/dragnparts.htm] In 1958, Alfven suggested that 'magnetic-field aligned electric fields', in structures called electric double layers, exist above the ionosphere. This differs from Ralph Juergens who had his double layers at the photosphere. In 2001, polar plumes were discovered (as per Alfven, 1986) suggesting that Alfven's model of double layers was correct; some plumes are in the dark current mode while others are in glow mode. The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram [e.g. see http://www.users.qwest.net/~dascott/HRDiagr.htm] shows temperature verses luminosity for stars near the same. Gas Giants such as Jupiter are located in the bottom right of the diagram; lightning is observed, x-rays... it is a plasma sphere in the dark current mode. On the giant star XX Triangulum, also known as HD12545 [e.g. see http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/html/im0571.html], there is a sunspot covering nearly half the star; half the photosphere appears to be arc rutting. If there is too high a voltage on a star, Don hypothesizes that the star would start mitosis-like fissioning into two spheres which, if equal-sized, would result in a 26% increase in surface area, hence the current density amp/m^2 reduces. A possible example of two equal sized offspring may be the binary pair called Y Cygni. Another fissioning process is similar to the peeling off of a grape's skin. Examples would be T Coronae, and U Geminorum in which we see a B-type blue dwarf and a G-type dwarf. The orbital period is just 4.5 hours -- the separation distance is just a few hundred thousand miles, i.e., the smaller star appears to orbit inside the corona of the larger. Hence this kind of fissioning can also give rise to small bodies. The Ancients report that some stars have changed their brightness at a rate faster than anticipated by present understanding of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. For example, in the past Sirius was reported as being redder, and FG Sagittae (HE 15) in Castor was reported as being brighter than Pollux; Capella was described by Ptolemy as a red star. Hence the position of a star on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram indicates its electrical environment, and NOT its age. The origins of novas, pulsars and binaries can be explained in electrical terms. As Hannes Alfven said: "Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century ... The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." For more, see Don Scott's Web site at: http://www.users.qwest.net/~dascott/ ******************* DAVE TALBOTT continuing his talk, this time on plasma phenomena in the Polar Configuration. He began by returning to the Egyptian ostrich feather motif and its relationship to the White Crown, as noted in a previous lecture. The details of the relationship appear to be predicted by the role of the "White Crown" formation in the Polar Configuration. The collinear system has an analogue in the universe, he said-- that of Herbig-Haro objects or jetted stars with anomalous, star-sized mass concentrations gathered along the polar axis of the jets. Dave presented a NASA illustration of a Herbig-Haro object that was surprisingly similar to his own diagrams of the Polar Configuration prior to discovery of Herbig-Haro objects. He also showed other images of linear formations in space, in seeming violation of Newtonian dynamics, but anticipated by electric or plasma models. He showed a picture of a plasma discharge and compared it to his reference "snapshot" of the polar configuration, with Venus discharging violently and the streamers radiating across the face of Saturn. He noted the general symmetry of the plasma discharge streamers, due to electrical equilibrium, and the disorderly effect of unstable streamers. Here he suggested that the disheveled "hair" of the mother goddess (Venus in her terrible aspect as lamenting goddess, Medusa with serpentine hair, etc.) signified the more unstable phase of the planetary configuration, when the streamers of Venus took on a wildly disordered appearance. The "tentacles" of various monsters appear to trace to the same appearance. Dave went on to talk about the "whirling Venus", the Latin _Venus Verticordia_, and various pictographic counterparts in the ancient images of whorls, triskeleons and swastikas. These images also have a counterpart in laboratory plasma effects. Here he cited one laboratory demonstration in particular, in which the whorl-like appendages presented the precise appearance of ancient drawings. In the experiment the number of appendages changed with a change in magnetic strength. This suggests that the triskeleon form and the swastika form were distinguished only by the intensity of electrical stresses on Venus. Were the legs of the triskeleon constituted from the serpentine "hair" of the Medusa, as Dave's suggested? To make his point, Dave showed a Greek image of the Medusa head, with the three triskeleon legs emerging from the radiating hair of the goddess. Dave also discussed the labyrinth and its relationship to the swastika--the latter form often presented at the center of the labyrinth. His contention was that, in a highly active and unstable phase, the filaments of the swastika-like discharge streamers wound chaotically up the axis, taking on the appearance of a maze or tangled "knot." He compared an illustration of Birkeland Currents, as documented in the laboratory, to remarkably similar ancient images. It seems that entwining filaments were observed stretching between the planets of the Polar Configuration. An image from Ninevah, for example, shows the mythic "waters" descending from a celestial "vessel" (the goddess Venus in the Polar Configuration model), taking the classic form of the Birkeland Current. The ancient Egyptian symbol of "eternity," the Caduceus and staff of Aesculapius, were included among numerous other examples. He also showed how the entwining filaments of Birkeland Currents, as seen from the earth, could produce the precise form of the ancient Sumerian sign of the goddess Inanna, identified astronomically with Venus. He then showed artistic renditions of the "unicorn," and compared these to a three dimensional representation of the currents flowing upward from Mars. With perspective, the Birkeland Currents gave the same image as the single, twisted horn of the unicorn. Then he presented some Greek images of "lightning," with exactly the same appearance. All of the unique forms taken by "the lightning of the gods," he claimed, were discharge formations of the Polar Configuration, and no such formations are observed in our terrestrial environment today. Dave concluded his talk by suggesting that the entwining streamers of the Birkeland Currents evolved through violent, unstable phases, leading to the mythic "chain of arrows" and "ladder of heaven." These involved a stack of toroids around a central, axial spine. In the myths this form is continually associated with both the dismembered body of the chaos serpent and the "backbone of heaven." But when the system moved into polar alignment, the visual image, as seen from earth, was of a terraced mound rising atop the sphere of Mars, when the planet appeared very close to the Earth. This form, he said, was the celestial prototype for both the symbolic terraced mound and the sacred pyramid of monumental cultures. Dave ended by noting that the coming year will see some surprising revelations linking these "chain of arrows" and toroidal formations to evolving plasma configurations seen in the laboratory. ~Ian Tresman ***************************************************** 12:05 Steve Parsons: Slide Show 1:15 Bruce Lipton: Biology of the Cell 2:15 Mel Acheson: Verbal Vignette 2:20 Wal Thornhill: Electric Universe 3:20 Rupert Sheldrake: Morphic Fields 3:50 Michael Armstrong: Reflections on a Third Story STEVE PARSONS started the afternoon with a slideshow of images, starting the planet earth, and then going on a journey around the Solar System and galaxy, before returning back to Earth. ****************** BRUCE LIPTON is a cytologist (cell biologist) whose talk is on the paradigm breaking "biology of the cell". His first question, is where is the cell's "brain". According to Darwin, traits are inherited; Watson and Crick discovered the structure of the "blueprint of life" (DNA). The human genome project aims to map all the genes in human DNA which was estimated at 50-90,000 to account for the complexity in humans. But the project found only 35,000. As David Baltimore said in Nature: "The number of coding genes in the human sequence compares with 6,000 for a yeast cell, 13,000 for a fly, 18,000 for a worm and 26,000 for a plant. None of the numbers for the multicellular organisms is highly accurate because of the limitations of gene-finding programs. But unless the human genome contains a lot of genes that are opaque to our computers, it is clear that we do not gain our undoubted complexity over worms and plants by using many more genes. Understanding what does give us our complexity - our enormous behavioural repertoire, ability to produce conscious action, remarkable physical coordination(shared with other vertebrates), precisely tuned alterations in response to external variations of the environment, learning, memory. . . need I go on? remains a challenge for the future." David Baltimore, "Our Genome Unveiled", Nature vol. 409, no. 6822, pp. 814 - 816 (February 15, 2001). [In full at http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v 409/n6822/full/409814a0_fs.html] And Dr. William Haseltine, the CEO of Human Genome Sciences, says he wants a recount! [see http://www.arn.org/docs/news/mapmissinggenome.htm] Conventionally, the cell nucleus is its "control center". But cells survive without a nucleus. Hence the nucleus is not its "brain". A cell is like a machine, but made out of proteins with some 70,000 parts! And proteins are chains of amino acids. The shape of a protein is changed by an external signal, and this cause the protein to change to a different 'conformation' (e.g. a muscle contracts). Hence a protein + signal = behaviour. T.Y. Tsong discovered that a cell can respond to an electromagnetic field (see "Deciphering the language of cells" Trends Biochem. Sci. 14: 89, 1989). [See also Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields at http://chimclin.univr.it/omc/138(E-M-1).htm] Bruce reminded us the third leading cause of death in the US is medicine. Magnetic fields can affect DNA synthesis [e.g. see http://magmac1.ec.t.kanazawa-u.ac.jp/magcap/research/dnas.html]. Cells can "read" their environment. The membrane is like a bread and butter sandwich, where lipid "sticks" make up the middle butter layer. Built into the membrane are proteins that look like olives in the bread and butter sandwich. There are two kinds of these proteins: RECEPTORS and EFFECTORS. Receptors are the cell's "sense" organs, (equivalents of eyes, ears, nose, etc.) When a receptor recognizes a signal, it responds by changing its conformation. Conventional biology says that the receptors only respond to other molecules (a reductionist approach). When the receptor protein changes its conformation, it is able to react with a specific effector protein, and it is these that carry out cell behaviors. Effector proteins may be enzymes, cytoskeletal elements(cellular equivalents of muscle and bone ) or transporters (proteins that carry electrons, protons, ions, and other specific molecules across the "bread and butter" barrier). This is how an environmental signal activates a cell's behavior. And if specific proteins are not present in the cell, effector proteins send a signal to the nucleus to request that it is generated. A definition of the cell membrane is as follows: the membrane is like a liquid crystal semiconductor with gates (receptor proteins) and channels (effector proteins). This definition is the same as that used to define a computer chip. Simply stated, the cell IS an organic computer: the "CPU" is the cell membrane, the keyboard (data entry) are the membrane receptors, the disk (memory) is the nucleus, the screen (data output) is the physical state of the cell. Receptor/effector proteins, (the units of "perception) are equivalent to computational BITS. Cells can also "rewrite" gene programs to overcome a stressful condition. These DNA changes are mutations. All mutations were thought to be "random", and could not be directed. It is now recognized that environmental stimuli can induce "adaptive" mutations which enable a cell to specifically alter its genes. Furthermore, such mutations may be mediated by an organism's perception of its environment. For example, if an organism "perceives a stress that is actually not there, the misperception can actually change the genes to accommodate the "belief". (See "The Origin of Mutants", John. Cairns, J. Overbaugh and S. Miller Nature 1988, 335:142-145) receptor=sensation=perception. Increasing awareness increases membrane area (for which fractals must be used). Hence we are NOT genetically controlled, but controlled by our energetic environment. See also www.brucelipton.com See also Bruce's interview with Laura Lee at http://www.lauralee.com/lipton.htm ************** There wasn't time for all of Mel Acheson's scheduled "Verbal Vignettes", but they (and many more) can be found at: http://www.dragonscience.com/view/vcontent.html ************* WAL THORNHILL continued his presentation, this one a little more speculative than the previous ones. Wal began by mentioning Aboriginal x-ray art [e.g. see http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Jardin/2744/painting.html] although I don't recall the context, and then went on to say that the current solar system dust model appears to be iffy. There is no such thing as a "failed star" -- brown dwarfs are the most abundant in the galaxy; they have no photosphere, planets can orbit within their "atmosphere", and such a planet would have equal energy radiating onto its surface, and hence no seasons. Brown dwarfs also show carbon in their spectra, and most would be a benign environment for life. Sedimentary layers are found even on the Moon, Mars and asteroids, perhaps from the material ejected by stars. The proto-Saturn system could have its origin outside our Solar System. It approaches the ecliptic, and as it encounters the Sun's electrical environment, the proto-Saturn system destabilizes, and it breaks apart. The Grand Canyon looks like an electrical scar. Universal energy is electrical, and if there are particles whose is speed is greater than light, then we are part of a holistic universe. See also Wal's Web site: www.holscience.com ************** RUPERT SHELDRAKE continued his talk looking at where a person's mind is located, the brain being the traditional view, though the "mind in heart" theory had been around earlier. Aristotle considered that the soul organizes form. Traditionally your perception of someone comes from the light reflects off their image, into and through your eye, onto the retina's cones and into your brain. But consider that your actual perception of them is not in you brain where the image is processed, but outside of your brain and body where the person actual is! This external perception is occurs through Perceptive Fields; the mind then, reaches out to what you're look at. But is this idea testable? Consider that anecdotal evidence that some people can tell when they are being starred at from behind; women apparently experience the feeling more. Before 1990, there would have been hardly any papers on such as subject. Rupert has devised scientific experiments to test his idea, there have been tens of thousands of results recorded (a public test is running in Dutch museum), and the results are statistically significantly with odds against chance being 10^39. There has been criticisms on the experiment by CSIOPS (Committee for the Scientific Investigation for Claims of the Paranormal) [see http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html], yet Rupert believes that they have interpreted the data incorrectly. Curiously, US marines are trained not to stare at someone they are trying to attack, in case they look round. Telepathy. Cats seem to know when their owners are about to take them to a vet. One vet has even abandoned their appointment system. Dogs seem to know when their owners are about to take them for a work. So Rupert devised a "Coming Home" experiment. A dog's owner leaves the dog at home and goes out for the day. At some random time, the owner is told to come home. Two synchronized video cameras, recording both the dog and the owner, seem to show that when the owner know that they are coming home, the dog will often move towards the front door, apparently in anticipation. The experiment has been performed hundreds of times, and the results are statistically significant. Likewise, nursing mothers often start lactating ("let-downs") when their infants want to start feeding. And telephone telepathy, one of the most common forms, is when certain people, especially family members, "know" who is at the other end of a ringing phone before picking up the call. It appears that the stronger the emotional bond between the two people, the stronger the phenomenon. In Rupert's experiment with four callers where chance would expect a 25% guess rate, the results showed a 48% success rates with a sample high enough to put them a billions-to-1 against chance. Rupert concluded his talk with a video of a talking grey parrot who appeared to be able to read its owner's mind (two video cameras recording the results). More details at Rupert's Web site: http://www.sheldrake.org/ ******************* MICHAEL ARMSTRONG concluded the afternoon and the conference. He reminded us of Thomas Kuhn in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" who quoted Max Planck as saying: '... a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.' Michael suggested that there were four levels of knowledge with four levels of reliability: 1. Intrinsic knowledge: This is intuitive "hard-wired" knowledge, and includes how to apply logic, do math, and come to conclusions. 2. Experiential knowledge: This comes to us through some kind of personal experience. The two type of knowledge above are the most reliable. 3. Evidential knowledge: This is composed of personally experienced evidence which directly implies conclusions reached beyond a reasonable doubt. Since we do not experience the thing itself directly, this makes such knowledge less reliable because it involves some subjective inference and some limiting interpretation of the evidence. An example would be if we saw tyre tracks in the snow on our driveway, we would infer that a car had driven in and out. Of course it's always possible that a joker rolled a car tyre carefully up and down the driveway, even though it's unlikely. 4. Consensual knowledge: This is knowledge that others have shared that we consent to know because we trust the person or source passing on this knowledge. Consensual knowledge can be further broken down into four distinct categories: a. That based on other's experiences, their recollection, interpretation and account of that experience b. That based on other's experienced evidence, their recollection, interpretation and account of such. c. That based on other's consensual knowledge. d. That based on other's beliefs, opinions, estimations, guesses, imaginations, fantasies, falsities and misunderstandings. The latter two categories of evidential and consensual knowledge are simply and clearly less direct than the other types, and therefore intrinsically less reliable. They are also the most voluminous forms of knowledge. Michael concluded by telling us that the last 1000 years of history has tended to be catastrophic in thinking, the last 200 years being gradualism, and only the last 50 years, catastrophic again. ~Ian Tresman ***************************************************** STUDENT VIEWPOINT by Bobby Morreti I am sixteen years old, and this was my third Kronia conference. While I thoroughly enjoyed the 1997 World Conference, I was only twelve at the time, and I had a hard time understanding a good portion of the material presented there. Last summer I found out that there would be another conference in September 2000. I was so excited that on the interest survey sent to us I marked that it was a metaphysical certitude that I would be attending. The September conference blew me away. It changed my entire outlook on the world. It was so excellent that I could not conceive of a better experience. I was so impressed with its quality that I felt that any other conference would be a disappointment. So when I found out that I would be able to go to the Laughlin conference, I was careful not to get my hopes up. BOY WAS I WRONG! This conference was as enjoyable, if not more, than the previous ones. You have probably read before that Rupert Sheldrake stole the show. I feel obligated to emphasize that. He was the backbone of the conference. He spoke with style and he employed the perfect amount of humor. His ideas of morphic resonance were brilliant, offering an explanation for many of the unsolved aspects of biology. I believe that his ideas offer to biology what the Saturn Model offers to mythology. They both are in fields that have become entirely reductionist. They both look past the reductionist orthodoxy and attempt to unify a broad aspect of their field that is simply ignored by the mainstream. Whether or not they turn out to be right is not the point. They both attempt to expand their respective fields instead of narrowing them. I was truly disappointed to find out that Halton Arp would not be in attendance. It was really a shame, but I hear that he was preparing for a symposium at the Max-Planck Institute on Quasars, ULIRGs, and Galaxy Clusters, the Lighthouses of the Universe. Each attendee of Intersect 2001 received a tape of Arp's lecture at the previous Kronia seminar. Tony Peratt reminded us of the evidence for cosmic electric currents, and for a plasma cosmology. Since the September conference, he has been intrigued by the Saturn Model. He showed us that he could superimpose several different petroglyphs from around the world of a wheel which he identified as a plasma penumbra. He said that he was convinced that the ancients were drawing a giant penumbra seen in the sky. He also said that, since he first learned about Kronia research last September, he had seen enough petroglyphs to make his eyes glossy (his words). Don Scott spoke of his continued work on the Electric Star hypothesis and showed us his latest work reconciling his stellar model with the HR diagram. He even told about a star that wandered along the HR diagram in the last century, something that could not happen at all in the slow, steady, (somewhat) predictable evolution expected in the fusion model of stars. One of the best parts of the conference for me was the cruise dinner. It gave me the opportunity to talk to, and actually get to know, some of the scientists. It never ceases to amaze me how approachable all of the scientists at Kronia are, even for a student like me. The greatest success of this seminar (perhaps besides introducing Rupert Sheldrake) was the Grand Canyon trip. Although it was riddled with communication errors (I hear that we left Wal stranded as we left on the bus), we all had an excellent time. On the way to the Grand Canyon, Wal spoke over the bus' microphone. He read us an article that he had found in the popular press about the many problems with the standard model for the formation of the canyon. It was an introduction to a conference of prominent geologists to try to solve the problems with their model. I seriously doubt they ever did. He then told us about the features that we should look for if the canyon were really an electrical cathode scar. He said that the river should be extremely sinuous, that there should be a number of tributary canyons that branch out from the main canyon at ninety degrees, that these should follow a branching fractal pattern, and that they would be preposterously short to explain away as tributary rivers, and that there should be a large degree of scalloping patterns formed. He said that we should be on the lookout for these patterns, and that we should make up our own minds based on what we saw, and not on our preconceived assumptions. Right after we got off the bus we saw a relief map of the canyon, and it became a no-brainer that the canyon was never carved by a river. A large group of us gathered around, and started pointing out the features that Wal told us to look out for. A woman, not part of our group, was staring at us in fascination. She gathered up the courage to ask, What do you think it was formed by, then? We showed her all the evidence for electrical scarring. She agreed with us, saying, That makes so much more sense than what I was taught. Wow! Eager to gain a convert, Michael Armstrong gave her the portal to infinite knowledge, as he called the Kronia website. I hope she looked into it. The canyon itself was incredible. Over a mile deep at its deepest, 400 miles long and eighteen miles wide at its widest point, it was impossible to explain by water erosion. It was full of electrical scallop patterns inside, and had a very sinuous sub-channel in the middle. Seeing Wal there was a special treat. He was like a kid in a candy store. If there is an Electric Universe heaven, this was as close as it comes on Earth. On the bus ride back, I had the privilege of speaking extensively with Dave Talbott. He and I discussed the possibility of forming a student wing to Kronia. I believe that some of our best supporters could be high school and college-age students. If any student is interested or anyone who knows of a student that is interested in Kronia, please contact me. -Bobby Moretti bob_moretti at yahoo.com>bob_moretti at yahoo.com ****************************************************** SUMMING UP by Ian Tresman The Conference was very good. Congratulations to Michael Armstrong and Kathleen Anderson for organizing it all! The Flamingo hotel was not ideal: apparently Kronia could not sell any merchandise for lack of the appropriate permit, and attendees were not allowed to bring their own food or drink into the conference room, only that which had been bought at the hotel. The breadth of the talks was excellent, though I was disappointed that Ev Cochrane and Halton Arp were not present as billed, as their work and presentations are of the highest quality and relevance. This conference was good for a number of reasons: 1. Interdisciplinary breadth I was initially doubtful at having Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton as speakers, wondering what the relevance was. But in some ways they were the best speakers because the subject of their talks fitted in with the holistic perspective of the Electric Universe. Bruce showed as that cells are not programmed from the inside by DNA, but from outside, in response to external signals of some kinds. He also showed that the brain itself was analogous to a cell, itself being surround by a membrane, the proteins in it enabling the brain (like cells), to "tune into" external signals. Rupert suggested that this external signal was perhaps something he calls Morphic Fields, and gave examples of several experiments which seem to show that there is something out there. As an aside, another person who attended the conference was Gary Schartz, a Professor in the Departments of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona, and who runs the Human Energy Systems Laboratory. They do research into what I would call the paranormal, but what they describe as "research, education, and clinical applications that embrace these evolving shifts in science, society, and spirituality .. [and that] .. potentially explains a large array of seemingly anomalous phenomena in psychology and medicine, including homeopathy, cellular memory in transplant patients, energy healing, and survival of consciousness after death." I mention Gary because he implied that their lab has been able to record humans emitted x-rays. And if Bruce's brain and cell model can receive external signals, then perhaps mankind is more in touch with his surrounds than many people would accept. More on the Human Energy Systems Laboratory at http://www.livingenergyuniverse.com/ 2. Interdisciplinary Corroboration As a follow-on from the breadth of the talks is that they all seem to corroborate one another. For example, Bruce's model of the cell seems to be analogous to his model of the brain, which in turn appear to be analogous to the Gaia hypothesis of the Earth [see also "The Same at Every Level" at http://www.flatrock.org.nz/resources/science_and_geography/fractal_evolution.htm ] 3. Evidence I'm sure many people have found the Saturn Model compelling (the mythological evidence is overwhelming), but aspects of it difficult to reconcile. The collinear nature of the Earth-Mars- Venus-Saturn system being a case in point; the system appears to be inherently unstable, so how could it possibly have existed in our Solar System. The answers from the conference were that the polar configuration is indeed unstable. It could not have existed for long in the Solar System. Indeed, on entering the Solar System, the previous Saturnian System would have met the Sun's electrical effects (on reaching the heliopause), and this would have been the cause of the formation and dissolution of the polar configuration, as well as the electrical effects seen during its breakup (as comets are similarly affected on approaching the Sun). How would the Earth have survived outside the Solar System? Saturn would have been a brown dwarf, one of the most common objects in the Universe. There was even suggestion that collinear systems are formed by plasma currents (Birkeland currents) as exemplified by Herbig-Haro objects, some of which "consist of highly linear chains or jets", and the accretion of material in a plasma Z- pinch, where "Most models of young stars and their immediate environments incorporate magnetic fields. Magnetic fields in the collapsing, rotating cloud core are advected with the accretion flow and form an hour glass shaped B field that is pinched inward by the forming disk." [See "The Birth of Stars: Herbig-Haro Jets, Accretion and Proto-Planetary Disks", John Bally and Jon Morse, in the book Science with the Hubble Space Telescope -- II, Book Editors: P. Benvenuti, F. D. Macchetto, and E. J. Schreier, at http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ballyj.html And I am reminded that planets do appear to exist without a star (i.e. outside a solar system), see "18 Possible Planets Lacking A Central Star Discovered", AAAS, 6 Oct 2000, at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001006075617.htm as the press release said "these free floaters may pose a considerable challenge to current theories about how planets form .. They lack a central star like our sun, and they are part of a star cluster, sigma Orionis, that is no more than five million years old. (Our sun is billions of years old.) " Intersect 2001. PHOTOS As promised, I've uploaded some photos of the conference to: www.catastrophism.com/intersect2001/ ~Ian Tresman ***************************************************** PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE: http://www.kronia.com