/home/bill/Projects/NPA - physics/140324 NPA Membership meeting.txt Open meeting to discuss NPA membership ***************************** Howell's comments : Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: It may be far faster and easier to simply form a new association, and drop the NPA. There are two key questions that immediately come to mind : 1. The name "Natural Philosophy Alliance" is a great title, and many people will continue to revisit it from past familiarity, even if it totally changes. 2. Ownership and control issues related to past papers, presentations, conferences - However, if the NPA wasn't a legal corporation, do these still effectively belong to the contributors? Does the "separate" World Science Database actually contain all that? So is David de Hilster own it? Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: Are Barry Springer and ?Newman? of the Electric Universe group? Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: I am a member of the NPA and a $contributor$ (they don't really have memberships) to the EU group. They are both great fun, but I find they are very different. The NPA is exceptional in being able to listen and discuss different viewpoints. It would be shocking (electrifying?, OK, lousy pun) to have either mindset take over the other. Different beast, a blend of which may lose both. Howell, Bill - Alberta to David de Hilster: I really agree with what you are saying about tolerance for ideas and perspectives! This I see in the NPA, which I have raely seen anywhere else, in any activity, field. I think it is a property of the way that Greg and David think, and more importantly, act in keeping the door open, and respecting presenters. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: It's strange, but perhaps "democracy" holds more risk than functioning as a "coffee house" as in the past. Shades of ?Fareed Zhakaria's? the "Future of Freedom". As an example, perhaps the Electric Universe could not be what it is as a more open organisation. Also similar are trends to privatize public corporations. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: We cannot be afraid of being seen as "crackpots". It is the nature of being non-conformist. A slander by many is a badge of honor to a few. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: Good point, John. But after a career in and around science, and a hobby-science enthusiast now, not a few of the NPA papers compare extremely favourably to much if not all of the mainstream. The ability to challenge flaws and alternative interpretations greatly surpasses the mainstream. The NPA isn't mainstream, doesn't function like mainstream, and many papers wouldn't meet mainstream science criteria. That can be a great strength, and the work shows that. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: That's a sad comment, John. Perhaps valid to you, but to me you have perhaps missed the whole point. But that's fine - hopefully you can still get benefit from the disussions and contacts in the NPA. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: I am less worried about what happens to the legal or organisational "NPA", than I am about which way the people who have organised, driven, and supported it (David, Greg, and others, many of whom I am unaware of). I'll go with the people more than an organisational entity. Usually we look at organsiations as being long-term stable, but sometimes key people are more so. Great work, great facilitation, Greg and David. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: Good comment, Anton, but I didn't join the NPA on the basis of what others think of it. I don't care what they thought then or now. I do care how things operate, and that I can still listen to a huge diversity of thought-provoking ideas that challenge my own background and beliefs. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: Oops, Greg I am the guy who comes just to listen! (mostly webcasts - I can't afford the travel to conferences regularly). Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: Oops, Greg I am the guy who comes just to listen! (mostly webcasts - I can't afford the travel to conferences regularly). **************************** Others comments that caught my eye Greg Volk - about 60? regulars in NPA, conferences of 60 are the historical norm. Barry Springer has presented, did attend regularly for a while. Bill Lucas - Interested in preserving the NPA - productive for ongoing science. Want to resolve differences between the various parties. Harry Ricker - We are missing the other side's view. **************************** Full chat stream Al Schrader to Everyone: Greg is an excellent host Paulina to Everyone: In context, he wants to set up premium members and lower members. Does Greg agree with the premium members? Would they be the only ones who vote? Paulina to Everyone: Have Greg and Dave agreed to creating premium members? Paulina to Everyone: Please answer the question. Richard Jesch to Everyone: Once the "Who is a member?" issue is sorted out then the issue of what is a quorum can derail an election. If you can't assemble a quorum there can be no election. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: I agree with Glenn. Greg - do you recall what Barry did with the Rules. He has already determined who is a member. Anton Vrba to Everyone: only paid up members have voting rights Paulina to Everyone: Have Greg and Dave agreed to creating premium members? Richard Jesch to Everyone: How did Barry Springer get on the board? Why can't we get him replaced by the same way? Lou LaFollette to Everyone: There are a lot of problems with the By Laws Paulina to Everyone: Have Greg and Dave agreed to creating premium members? Al Schrader to Everyone: Premium beer is a success Anton Vrba to Everyone: By-Laws need to change Al Schrader to Everyone: How did CERN get $10 billion ? Al Schrader to Everyone: KSC is hiring IT people Paulina to Everyone: The 501c3 introduces a lot of regulations and it allows them to use the lawyers who specialize in 501c3. Anton Vrba to Everyone: David - you are 100% correct no election has been promised! Paulina to Everyone: They have already announced their intentions to create premium members; it is likely that they will grant voting rights to those members only. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Agreed, David. Anton Vrba to Everyone: Since about 2 minutes ago I am the proud owner of the domains newnpa.com and newnpa.org :) Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: It may be far faster and easier to simply form a new association, and drop the NPA. There are two key questions that immediately come to mind : 1. The name "Natural Philosophy Alliance" is a great title, and many people will continue to revisit it from past familiarity, even if it totally changes. 2. Ownership and control issues related to past papers, presentations, conferences - However, if the NPA wasn't a legal corporation, do these still effectively belong to the contributors? Does the "separate" World Science Database actually contain all that? So is David de Hilster own it? Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: Are Barry Springer and ?Newman? of the Electric Universe group? Paulina to Everyone: Yes. Our PAL Asija to Everyone: Unfortunately Landlord Tenant Law does not and will not apply to NPA Tenanats on this slide. Paulina to Everyone: And you may notice that they are not non profit. They are INCORPORATED. Anton Vrba to Everyone: read the NPA by-laws and you will note that the board controls everything, all what is being said here falls on deaf ears Paulina to Everyone: EU is trademarked. Apparently they do not want their content stolen. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: The EU wants to steal our assets ie the data base Paulina to Everyone: Their base is extremely wild. The NPA emphasises empirical science, where EU has a lot John to Everyone: Should the Directorate be an Anti-Relativists? Joe Bova to Everyone: I am ignorant of the philosphy of the EU, but I do know that groups that have a "consensus" position tend to not tolerate dissidents. To that end, i have seen very subtle and subversive attempts to silence those who believe differently. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Historically, the NPA has honored Relativists as well as anti relativists Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: I am a member of the NPA and a $contributor$ (they don't really have memberships) to the EU group. They are both great fun, but I find they are very different. The NPA is exceptional in being able to listen and discuss different viewpoints. It would be shocking (electrifying?, OK, lousy pun) to have either mindset take over the other. Different beast, a blend of which may lose both. John to Everyone: Neil Tyson says the philosophy is irrelevant in physical science! Paulina to Everyone: ufos, chemtrails, crystal skulls, extreme environmentalism, remote viewing, etc. Joe Bova to Everyone: Philosophy is CENTRAL to science. One's world view dictates how data will be interpreted. John to Everyone: One's world view does not have to depend on physical science. Joe Bova to Everyone: I would completely disagree. Preconcieved notion alwasy color our understanding and intterpretation. THere is no getting away from that. I could provide lots of examplesm but this is not the time or place Richard Jesch to Everyone: John Chapell would agree John to Everyone: Rigorous means that the the theory or idea can stand up or withstand mathematical and expermential scrunitity! Saying Relativity is wrong is not rigorous! Anton Vrba to Everyone: SR does not withstabd rigerous mathematics Paulina to Everyone: If you have a choice between nonprofit status, and owning what you create, along with member participation, which would it be? Anton Vrba to Everyone: owning what you create is my choice Joe Bova to Everyone: Neither does the derivation of Einsteins coefficients which are fundamental to understanding the standard model of atomic transitions. Howell, Bill - Alberta to David de Hilster: I really agree with what you are saying about tolerance for ideas and perspectives! This I see in the NPA, which I have raely seen anywhere else, in any activity, field. I think it is a property of the way that Greg and David think, and more importantly, act in keeping the door open, and respecting presenters. Joe Bova to Everyone: I need to go, domestic duties. However, I state here for the record that I'm totally in favor of membership elections, a re-writing of the by laws which need to be approved by the members. THank you and bye Paulina to Everyone: Bye Joe. (: John to Everyone: David there is some contradiction here. You want the NPA to function as a mainstream physics organization, but without the rules that the mainstream uses to determine the value of one's "Physics Work"! This seems like an impossible task. State that you are the organization that attracts crackpots, then the organization will be accepted as such by the mainstream. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: It's strange, but perhaps "democracy" holds more risk than functioning as a "coffee house" as in the past. Shades of ?Fareed Zhakaria's? the "Future of Freedom". As an example, perhaps the Electric Universe could not be what it is as a more open organisation. Also similar are trends to privatize public corporations. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: We cannot be afraid of being seen as "crackpots". It is the nature of being non-conformist. A slander by many is a badge of honor to a few. John to Everyone: Bill, that is what I am saying; embrace your role and accept it. But pretendig to be some form of physics organization, that produces work similar to mainstream work! John to Everyone: Is not good, for ream memberships. John to Everyone: Good. God does not want you mucking up his work, like you are trying to do in physics. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: Good point, John. But after a career in and around science, and a hobby-science enthusiast now, not a few of the NPA papers compare extremely favourably to much if not all of the mainstream. The ability to challenge flaws and alternative interpretations greatly surpasses the mainstream. The NPA isn't mainstream, doesn't function like mainstream, and many papers wouldn't meet mainstream science criteria. That can be a great strength, and the work shows that. John to Everyone: Yes. Bill, then tell David and Greg, to stop pretending the organization to be other than a crack pot organization. Peter Sujak to Everyone: The mainstream science criteria are for 2000 year the same , to be conform with the creation principle Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: That's a sad comment, John. Perhaps valid to you, but to me you have perhaps missed the whole point. But that's fine - hopefully you can still get benefit from the disussions and contacts in the NPA. Peter Sujak to Everyone: Big bang and Higs are order of manistream power similar like Ptolemay 2000 years ago John to Everyone: The platform is to become an "Anti-Relativits" organization. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: John - You are incorrect. We have many Relativists who are members. The publications specifically state that pro and anti Relativity are accepted. The point is that Mainstream will not tolerate dissent from the dogma. John to Everyone: Goal #1. Take over physical science. Goal #2 Replace mainstream ideas with our own ideas. Goal #3 make the world see that our form of science is the best. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: John - Again, your misunderstand. Your view is incorrect. Nick Percival to Everyone: I don't think my mic works in Fuze so I'll have to restrict comments to short text msgs. Paulina to Everyone: I would like to compliment the creative energy and risk taking Dave has in trying the movie venue! David de Hilster to Everyone: Call in Nick Paulina to Everyone: And the website building! David de Hilster to Everyone: There is a phone number Paulina to Everyone: Risk takers are important! Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Harry - They have stated their goals in the By Laws. Nick Percival to Everyone: I think past actions of Barry and Jim REQUIRE that they be removed from the board. In the future, it will be more about platforms. David de Hilster to Everyone: (201) 479-4595 John to Everyone: NPA Goals; Goal #1. Take over physical science. Goal #2 Replace mainstream ideas with our own ideas. Goal #3 make the world see that our form of science is the best. Paulina to Everyone: But you also are facing 501c3 lawyers. David de Hilster to Everyone: I have ideas about how to get our stuff really noticed from the ground up. David de Hilster to Everyone: I have ideas but right now I'm not enthused about being these days. John to Everyone: David, enthused about being what? David de Hilster to Everyone: I have ideas but it is not the time. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: I am less worried about what happens to the legal or organisational "NPA", than I am about which way the people who have organised, driven, and supported it (David, Greg, and others, many of whom I am unaware of). I'll go with the people more than an organisational entity. Usually we look at organsiations as being long-term stable, but sometimes key people are more so. Great work, great facilitation, Greg and David. Peter Sujak to Everyone: Why NPA was not presented at APS march meeteing 2014 at Denver where 10 000 physicist participates and about ten organiations has his boots like womens in physics, sdudents ... Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Agreed, Bill Paulina to Everyone: There is also feedback in the chat! (: John to Everyone: Start a new organization - NPCA - Natural Philisophy Crack-Pots Association. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Anton, that is part of the strategy of the hostile take-over of the NPA. The NPA is showing remarkable strength. Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: Good comment, Anton, but I didn't join the NPA on the basis of what others think of it. I don't care what they thought then or now. I do care how things operate, and that I can still listen to a huge diversity of thought-provoking ideas that challenge my own background and beliefs. Paulina to Everyone: The EU will bring in a lot of the soft sciences, globalists, new agers, and popular bizarre stuff on youtube. Paulina to Everyone: That is their choice, but the NPA should allow for just empirical science, without religious requirements. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Greg - I am working on a theory. I am just not ready to present. I don't think that we need listeners. Osvaldo Domann to Everyone: Thank you Greg and David, a very clarifying conference. Paulina to Everyone: Applause applause. Would love to hear Lou's input and presentation, soon. Dionysios G. Raftopoulos to Everyone: Thanks David and Greg. Paulina to Everyone: Can Bill Lucas speak for a moment? Lou LaFollette to Everyone: I second Paulina Howell, Bill - Alberta to Everyone: Thanks, David! Paulina to Everyone: Dr Lucas, do you agree with creating premium membership? Glenn Baxter to Everyone: Good question! Paulina to Everyone: So it is an EU take over. Paulina to Everyone: I think it is better to have an alternative to "alternative science." Paulina to Everyone: Does he agree Paulina to Everyone: with having a premium membership? enddoc