rkm website: http://cyberjournal.org
Several of you reported problems accessing the paper on riseup.net. I’ve uploaded a copy (slightly updated) to Google Docs, where it will be easier & faster to access. Here’s the URL:
Some of you might have gotten this message from your browser:
There is a problem with this website’s security certificate.
Perhaps there’s some kind of censorship of riseup.net going on.
Herb Kline wrote:
Many thanx for your article “Climate Variation & Its Galactic Origins”, and perhaps most particularly to the links to THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE — what a totally convincing model— what is the reaction of “main-stream” scientists? — do they ignore this alternative model? Do they actively oppose it?
Yes, the evidence, when you look at it, is incontrovertible. I’ve looked at several mainstream articles in the process of my research, and none of them made any reference to the electric model, nor did they use any of its concepts. I just now googled for ‘electric model rebuttals’ and got a couple of (unconvincing) hits from individual skeptics, but nothing with any kind of official stamp. I think in general the model is ignored, and to even mention it in a mainstream paper would be considered off-topic for ‘serious cosmologists’. It’s like with the idea of God. Someone like Dawkins offers rebuttals, but scientific papers would never mention the idea at all.
Robin Mutoid wrote:
Nice, Richard – to see you finally ‘cottoning on’ to these possibilities!I recall the days, during the ‘Climate Change due to Pollution’ hysteria – when I would write to you trying to explain this – and how ALL the other Planets in our System were in fact also ‘warming up’!Indeed – the Sun is, according to the Maya, entering it’s ‘5th World’ of higher frequency Evolution too.Stepping down and re-transforming Galactic energies and ‘light encoded packets’ of information to us, that are in turn allowing us to alter/mutate our own RNA/DNA beneficially. 🙂No Surrender,Robin.
Why would you want to alter your DNA? Do you think something is wrong with yours? I believe the most dangerous myth of all is the myth that there is something wrong with us, that we are responsible for the circumstances that oppress and enslave us. It’s basically the original-sin myth, and I say it’s downright evil, a curse put on humanity by the Abrahamic religions, which all originated in slave-based societies.
Did you know that the role of DNA has been drastically over-estimated by mainstream science? The nucleus of a cell contains the DNA, and the DNA contains information about how to build proteins. But the nucleus only builds a protein when it gets a request for a specific protein from the non-nucleus part of the cell. That’s where the action is. The whole cell takes its marching orders from signals coming from outside the cell, and it’s the outermost membrane of the cell that decides which signals to respond to.
There are so many prophecies out there that it’s hard to tell which ones to give serious attention to. There is going to be lower solar activity as we descend to the next ice age, but that will be due to lowered energy input to the Sun, not a change in the Sun itself. And it will take 10-20 thousand years to get fully into the next ice age, so I wouldn’t buy new clothes yet.
If we are to get help from mysterious sources, I think it would come in the form of a morphogenic field that shifts our consciousness, perhaps one that overpowers the original-sin conditioning.
Variations in the electrical output of the Sun affects all the planets, so we can expect them to experience warming at the same time. I had hear from you, and other sources, that other planets are heating. But that was just one data point of information; I’m never comfortable until I’ve got a model that covers all the bases.
I imagine many of you are not going to seriously consider the possibility that human-caused global warming is not a problem. I doubt if anything I say will will change that. There is a quote, however, that I’ll share.
“You’d explain to them that Einstein was wrong, and you’d explain exactly why. But all they would really want to know is ‘what have your university lecturers said about your views on this matter?’. When you would tell them that the university lecturers think that you are wrong, then you can be sure that your friends will also think that you are wrong. Your friends will have more confidence in what the authorities are saying than what you have to say, and they will not be interested in following the actual details of the argument. This in turn will be due to the fact that they themselves don’t have any confidence in their own powers of natural reasoning where it might conflict with what authority is telling them that they should be believing.”
– Frederick David Tombe, –