--- title: "Sources & Method" --- This section profiles **individual researchers working at the frontier of science** — people pursuing ideas outside the mainstream consensus, each presented sympathetically and in their own framing, so that you can weigh the ideas and make up your own mind. This page states that editorial stance plainly, along with the sourcing rules every profile here follows. ## The stance We present each researcher's work on its own terms: what they claim, why they find it compelling, what they have built or predicted, and where their ideas lead. The mainstream view of each topic is told confidently in ten thousand other places; the reader arrives already knowing what the consensus is, and is trusted to weigh what they read here for themselves. So we do not interrupt a profile with disclaimers, "most scientists disagree" notes, or rebuttal sections. Every idea here might be wrong — so might any idea anyone has ever held — and the reader needs no reminder of that. These are individuals, not a movement. The researchers profiled here do not share a single paradigm and often would not agree with one another: a plasma cosmologist and a subquantum-kinetics theorist are pursuing different programs, not a common one. We make no attempt to reconcile them. Each profile stands alone and presents that person's ideas as they present them. What we owe the reader instead is **honest attribution** — saying who claims what and on what basis, so it is always clear which is laboratory-established, which is the researcher's own argument, and which is frankly speculative: - **Established science the researcher builds on** — published, replicated results — is stated plainly. - **The researcher's own claims and frameworks** are attributed: *"LaViolette proposes…"*, *"in Lerner's plasma cosmology…"*, *"he predicted…"*. - **The far-reaching speculation** — where a researcher extends an idea well past the present evidence — is presented as the bold speculation it is, without apology. Attribution is not hedging. It is simply telling the reader who is speaking, which is what lets them make up their own mind. ## What belongs here A profile is warranted for a researcher whose body of work is **substantial, distinctive, and primarily their own** — an independent program of ideas rather than a single paper. Many work outside academic institutions, fund their own research, or carry their case directly to the public; that independence is part of the story, not a strike against it. Researchers whose work sits inside a coherent movement we cover in that movement's own section — the Electric Universe figures live in . Where an individual's work spans or predates a movement, we profile them here and cross-link. A name can appear in more than one place; the canonical profile lives wherever the fuller story does. ## What we draw on For each researcher, **their own work first**: - Their **books and papers** — cited at the source, with venue and year; peer-reviewed where it exists, independently or self-published where that is where the work lives (and we say which). - Their **own sites, foundations, and channels** — the primary record of what they actually claim, linked directly. - Their **talks and interviews** — verified, working video, official channels where possible. And **the established science each one builds on**, cited directly in the peer-reviewed record, so the reader can see exactly where accepted results end and the researcher's own program begins. ## Citation rules - **Link, don't re-host.** In-copyright books, papers, and videos are linked at the source; we quote at most one short attributed passage. - **Attribute every claim to its source.** *"X argues," "in X's model,"* with the work it comes from — never an unsourced assertion in the wiki's own voice. - **Predictions must be dated.** A "successful prediction" is only as good as its paper trail; we link the prediction as published *before* the observation, or we don't call it one. - **Verify quotes and citations against the original.** No second-hand quotations; titles, venues, and years checked against the source. - **State credentials honestly.** We give each researcher's actual training and position plainly — neither inflating nor hiding it — and let the work speak. - **Videos:** link only verified, working sources (official channels where possible). ## Page conventions Each profile follows a common shape — who they are, the core ideas in their own framing, the major works, and a gathered set of primary links and talks. Where a researcher's argument turns on mathematics, we show the actual expressions in a math container rather than describing them at a remove.