Hi doma,
In general, the process my education espoused was not that received wisdom is the only sort. It is that new theories are put forward all the time. And that the first thing you do with a fresh theory is to consider whether it fits the facts (rather than the theories) that we know, or that it works in any tests we can devise. If we measure the length of a piece of string after some process as 10cm long, there's no point in espousing a theory that thinks the string should have been 20cm.
This is as true for the hypothesis you espouse as for other people's ideas.
If the hypothesis fits the facts better than the existing theory espoused by others, it is likely closer to the truth. So Einstein got a little closer than Newton. Newton's laws were absolute throughout the universe. Einstein described the theory of relativity, which was partly based on the notion that light defines the speed limit within the universe. And so, for instance, we know via Einstein that gravity influences light as light passes near astronomical objects. Many physicists have measured the curve which his hypothesis predicted. Einstein 1. Newton 0.
But now Einstein is challenged because light may not be the real speed limit in the universe after all; and this means there's an opportunity out there for someone to make a better theory. That's the process as it is meant to work.
So you think you have the new theory, and it has something to do with an electric universe and a holographic principle. I know the holographic principle. It derives from physicists' speculations. I am not sure what you mean by an electric universe. We already have one: the weak and strong electro-magnetic forces are part of existing physics. I presume there is more than that, but I don't know what it is.
Okay. So now you should know my process, which works the same way as the educational one.
1. I will check the facts re bulls-eye craters, Tesla etc. If they are accurate and complete, that's a useful starting point.
2. Then I will see if the facts fit the science as I understand it. And here, as with everyone else, my knowledge is only as extensive as it is.
3. Then I will think about your theories about the electric universe and the holographic principle as best as I can discover them.
As regards your contention that elites control people through the education system: if the education system didn't welcome new ideas, I guess your idea might appear to me to have some value - if indeed I could learn who the elites are; but that's just not the way it works. Instead, the education world is full of constantly changing ideas, and, where possible, these ideas are always tested against measured facts.
So you are putting your ideas out there and they are subject to the same basic template. Is the theory any good?
So the basic foundation rests on the facts we think we know. In respect of your origins thesis: When did intelligent forms of homo sapiens emerge? The scientists' best estimate is 200,000 years ago. What are the first mines? The earliest one is in Swaziland and it was carbon-dated to 43,000 years ago. When did the Sumerian civilisation emerge? In the fourth millenium BC. These are the facts we are working with. You don't get to have your own. You are subject to the evidence, like everyone else.
Any theory of origins must conform to the facts, unless you want it to be treated as a form of mythology. We have a special category for those kinds of speculations. But if you are trying to create a theory that is something different to faith, the burden of proof is on you to show that your theory fits the facts that we know.
So far, when I have looked into your ideas on origins, it has seemed to me that they are not based on reliable facts. That's what I have taken away from them. I am not blaming you. I think you've read someone whose thesis has persuaded you. And you are determined to believe it regardless.
When I point out the errors, you don't address them or try to defend them. You move onto another contention. As if, in your mind, a theory isn't already sunk once it is implausible in the face of reality. Once a theory doesn't conform with the evidence, for me it is conversation over. New theory required.
At any rate, I think the facts matter. Because without a dependence on facts, you don't have a useable theory. And so, for instance, if your theories about physics depend on your theories about origins, then there's already a problem for me.
Has it occurred to you that it is possible that your rejection of existing knowledge and theories has something to do with not understanding them yourself? You would not be alone in not understanding them. No one understands them all. Richard Feynman, who was the originator of the theory of quantum electrodynamics, said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics (my memory of the quote).
So before you get offended that I am saying you don't understand things, I know that I also don't know everything. But I don't have the same thing going on when it comes to rejecting the architecture of knowledge. I don't have the theory that those who believe other things are brainwashed or that there is some unidentified elite controlling everything, which actually sounds paranoid to my ear.
Instead I see an educational structure which is, in fact, quite impressive on a process level. I see people having new ideas, arguing about them, testing them, coming up with new ones. I see a science that yields outputs which often make life better. And these outputs are based upon the theories you reject. The computer I am typing on is a product of a thousand different scientific theories, each of which seems to work in the real world. So I feel pretty comfortable relying on the fact that this process is a good way to approximate the truth as well as we are able. But at the end of the day, you can make a different choice.
| 
