Welcome to the Thunderbolts.info
podcast for March 4th 2016.
If you've been following the work of The
Thunderbolts Project™ for some time
you've become aware of some very different
concepts about how the universe works.
A lot of the theories of
the standard cosmology
which include invisible
hypothetical phenomena or entities
such as black holes and dark matter are not
included in the Electric Universe theory
and one of the things that the Electric
Universe sees very differently
than mainstream astronomy is the hypothesis
of something called a neutron star.
Now scientists observe in deep space these
regularly periodic pulsing signals of energy
which they call pulsars.
It was back in the 1960's that scientists first
detected this kind of pulsing radio signal.
And for a time they
actually believed
the source might be an
extraterrestrial intelligence.
But in response to this discovery the
hypothesis of a neutron star was invented.
This is the idea that the material
left over from a supernova explosion
of a massive star will
collapse gravitationally
and it forms a very small
and incredibly dense star
which is mostly composed of
tightly packed neutrons.
And supposedly a
rotating neutron star
is a source of these regular
pulses of radio waves.
Well on our series Space News
from the Electric Universe
we have discussed a
number of discoveries
that in effect falsified the
neutron star hypothesis.
In fact it happens that the most-viewed Space
News we've posted is a report entitled:
"Impossible neutron
star shatters theory".
This was a story about a
so-called neutron star
that supposedly shines with the
brightness of 10 million Suns.
Because this video has received
close to 200,000 views
and it's gotten the attention of a number
of advocates of standard cosmology
it has also received the
most intense backlash
of negative comments of
any Space News to date.
A lot of these comments
are pure ad hominem
and that's not entirely surprising given
that it is the YouTube comments section.
So one of the guests featured in this video
was our friend and colleague Dr. Tom Wilson
and recently we offer Tom the
opportunity to formulate a reply
to some of the comments that
have been posted on this video
and I think this is good
because there are a lot of misconceptions
about the Electric Universe
that we see on the internet and it wouldn't
be possible for the Thunderbirds Project™
to offer a direct rebuttal
to each misrepresentation.
So I'm going to play for you now the
statement that Tom has recorded,
so we can tell you in his
own words his thoughts
on some of the reactions we've seen
in response to his Space News report.
One of the comments to the
video we're discussing
asked about the meeting
of Technology Executive.
Basically, I define that as someone
who looks after tens of millions
or hundreds of millions of dollars
of product sales and development.
That's certainly true in my case
but I also have a science background and
an interest in the psychology of science.
But I tend to come at this whole
debate as essentially a business guy.
In business you need to
be ruthlessly rational.
It always comes down to results
- If some idea is not yielding
results, you scrap it
and you move on to whatever
does get you results.
And I'm not afraid
of crackpot ideas.
It's happened that the most
crackpot ideas can change markets,
redefine the way people interact with
the world and make lots of money.
So I am inherently, by
training and by inclination,
very open to crazy ideas if they
can be shown to yield results.
Remember, it's all about
getting results, period.
So let me put this whole discussion
into the form of a story.
Maybe people can relate to it, it might
help defuse the emotions a little bit,
say for argument's sake,
business manager has a product,
software, hardware, doesn't matter
really, a product is a product.
But he's got himself a problem.
The problem is, he gets complaints
every week, sometimes daily
about how the user manual for the product has
not predicted the way the product works.
It's doing all these things that the user
manual says should be clearly impossible.
He's got himself something
called the buggy product.
In this case, based on
the ongoing reports
of the product's apparently
impossible behavior it's very buggy.
Now, in his business he has to issue
something called errata sheets.
These errata sheets describe what
are called workarounds for the bug.
Workarounds say things like don't use
the product under these conditions
or the product's behavior
cannot be guaranteed etcetera.
Now the team who has been responsible
for the documentation of the product,
call them Team A, are issuing errata
sheets and workarounds constantly.
He keeps getting reports across his desk and
the increasing list of bugs being identified,
customer complaints about their
dissatisfaction in the product and
the stream of errata sheets piling
up so much that the list of errata
is getting bigger than
the user manual itself.
It's not good and
it has to change.
So he calls in Team A to
find out what's going on.
Now team A is a
bunch of nice guys,
so huge team and they practically
fill all of the conference room.
They're earnest and
passionable of what they do
and in some cases they're
very distinguished.
But they're also very theoretical, they
live in a world of mathematical models
and computer simulations and also
tend to be a bit high-strung.
Regardless, he values
their contribution
and knows they can generate
some pretty interesting ideas.
Honestly has been shoveling a ton of
money, in funding and resources their way,
and he's not entirely
happy with the results.
So they start drawing in a
lot of very pretty pictures
and some very impressive
mathematical formulations
but he has to tell them: look
it's all very well and good but
why are we seeing the
product continue to behave
in the ways the user
manual cannot predict?
Something's wrong!
Well, they proposed more funding
to get at what they would call the
root-cause of the unpredictable behavior.
They're convinced, certain even,
that they are on the right track
and just need more
time and money.
Now, just to be sure he's getting the whole
picture the manager has also invited Team B.
Team B is really
just a couple guys
who have been looking at this
problem in their spare time.
Team B though, is the engineers.
They're very practical, used to
building things that don't break.
One guy in Team B puts
up his hand and says:
look boss, I've got
this idea, I just know,
your Team A are gonna think
it's completely nuts.
But frankly, with this idea
what seems to be unpredictable
behavior in the
product, actually fits.
So they outline the premise
of their crazy idea
and Team A goes nuts
I mean emotional,
they're angry and they started abusing
these two poor guys from the Team B
who are really just
trying to help.
Now, the manager regards himself as a
good leader and he knows his people.
He knows a team A is not normally
like this, they're nice guys
that raise families they're
nice to dogs and so on.
But he also understands the
psychology of certainty and change.
He's got, on-the-job and formal, training
on human psychology under these conditions.
He has read the neuroscience research like
the SCARF model and Change Management.
They clearly show that a perceived threat
to one's certainty and social position
elicits the same neuro-chemical
response as an actual physical threat.
So he understands why Team A is
behaving the way they are, he gets it
but it's not productive and it
sure isn't going to get results.
It's all about results.
So he asks team A to pipe down and
he gets the two guys from Team B
to talk them through the
idea just a bit more.
Now he has to admit, it's
pretty crazy, improbable even
but he can't deny that what they outline,
fits with what he's seen in the field.
In addition, the basic premise of the
ideas is founded on solid engineering,
they cite research
from IEEE journals..
He knows that the guys from the
Team A have not had the training
or the opportunity to even
be aware of these journals,
it just wouldn't be part of their academic
curriculum so he doesn't blame them for that.
But while the essential math and
theory is there, for team B,
it's never really been applied
to this specific problem
and there will be a lot
of work to flush it out.
So he asked Team B what they
would need to make progress.
Now one guy of
Team B says: well,
we've only really had a chance to
sketch this out at a high level
but we think it's promising!
Tell you what: give us just one
percent of what you're paying Team A
to let us put some more work into this
and develop a more detailed model.
Then we'll be able to see more about
how valid this approach really is.
So what does the manager do?
Now, he's a business guy,
he likes to hedge his bets.
He's all about risk management
and he wisely embraces crazy ideas
as long as they yield results.
So here's what he does.
He lets team A keep doing what
they're doing but with 95% funding.
To be honest, they're not
giving him great results
but they are likely to
be plan A for some time.
And there are the errata sheets
that he has to take care of and it was
apparently not going away anytime soon.
But he also gives team B
5% of team A's funding.
Now it's more than
Team B asked for
but he tells them they're
going to get more
because he wants it done
faster than they proposed.
Time is money and he can't
tolerate a buggy product.
So let's be clear.
To succeed in any business you cannot
get emotionally attached to any idea,
any product, ever!
Nothing is certain, you must always
weigh everything on the value
of the results you
get from it, period.
Now I understand the human
psychology of change.
I've led change many
times in my career,
I've read books like those by John Kotter and
others on the process of change management.
Now, Kotter talks about how in change management
you have 3 groups of people, basically.
There is one group who
is always open to ideas
and well assesses the value of
the change based on its merits.
They will line up behind the change
and support it, if it's rational.
And there's a second group
who are on the fence.
They're reluctant but can be convinced
depending on how the whole group behaves.
Then there is the third group who
will resist change at all costs.
He would never ever enlist
group 3 to support the change.
In Change Management then, you identify
group 1 and you get them on board.
Then you look for individuals in group
2 and bring them along with you,
using the help of group 1
as internal champions.
But you completely
ignore group 3.
They will never be convinced, so you
waist zero effort on trying to do so.
Now it is interesting, the
list of comments to this video
is actually a fair mix
of these three groups.
I find that interesting.
Now all I can say is that I
believe in "What If" question.
I believe in being
open to crazy ideas
even what might be called crackpot
ideas, as long as they yield results.
I have no bias, I
just want answers.
