2) The intelligence and entropy conundrum of Maxwell's demon.
3) The existence of aliens conundrum of Fermi's Paradox.
4) The paradox of Laplace's Demon.
5) Olber's Paradox, which is 'if the universe in infinite, why is the sky dark?'
Jim also adds in a few relativity paradoxes and a statistical paradox (the game show goats and car problem).
First off, I must point out that I'm a big fan of popular science books; I find the good ones fascinating and they're a great way to learn about our universe, and so even though I was aware of Jim's approach to major topics, I still wanted to read the book because I was looking forward to reading his explanation of fascinating matters. To be clear, Jim is a fervent Scientific Materialist. In other words, he will not allow the possibility that minds or spirits can exist independently of physical things. For him and other Scientific Materialists, who dominated mainstream science, all 'thought' and 'life' is simply an illusory phenomena that comes about by the action of physical mechanisms. Read More...
What does this say about my vivid dream? So far, it would seem that the dream was just a dream. Some readers might point out that I had the dream a year-and-a-half ago and that the timing of a volcanic eruption is chaotic in nature. In other words, that small shifts over time in weather systems, acting upon each other, could alter when a destruction occurs; the so-called 'Butterfly Effect'. This would mean that the time of an eruption is fundamentally unknowable, even using psi-awareness, until close to when it actually happens. I don't know if that's true. Personally, I am defaulting to a conservative viewpoint. Unless new evidence arises, I'm concluding that my dream wasn't prescient.
Unfortunately, I don't think this lets us off the hook in terms of the likelihood of a future disaster. Climate change now seems unstoppable, according to all the scientific evidence. We should definitely therefore be planning how we're going to survive on an inhospitable Earth. We need to start constructing protective environments for ourselves and our crops, not necessarily to survive in immediately, but part of a long-term development of our survival strategy.
There is also the big issue of the Celestial Bombardment Theory. As I've explained in my Gobekli Tepi article, as well as in my Predictions of the Future article and as part of my review of Dr LaViolette's book 'Earth Under Fire' and my article on the Sphinx, there is an awful lot of evidence to indicate that the centre of our galaxy produces a wave of gravity, energy and matter every 12,900 years. This gravity-energy-matter wave has entrained the axial precession of our planet, which is why disasters are inextricably linked with our zodiacal ages. It's why our ancient civilisation seem to have made a huge effort to warn us that disaster strikes at the beginning of the ages of Leo and Aquarius and as the musical states, 'this is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius'.
Unlike the tentative periodic comet theory, this periodic gravity-energy-matter burst theory is causally linked with celestial precession. These periodic gravity bursts from the centre of our galaxy have entrained our planet's axial movement and so it's natural that the disasters occur at specific points in our planet's axial movement, specifically the two points are when our planet's axis is facing in line, either forwards or backwards, with the source of the gravity-energy waves. These are the stable node points which aren't disrupted by the gravity wave's passage.
Graham Hancock, in his recent Magicians of the Gods book, gives a different set of ancient evidence, but it comes to same conclusion, that the celestial disaster will occur between 1960 and 2040. In addition, my translation of the Mesopotamian legend, as stated in the Gobekli Tepe article, states that the disaster will occur during Polaris's closest approach to the Celestial North Pole, which occurs during this century.
Therefore, even if my vivid dream was just a dream, we've got big problems coming our way. Even if that celestial cataclysm never arrives in this century, we will still be suffering climate-change Apocalypse by 2100, if not much sooner. I have a strong suspicion that powerful groups have known this outcome for a long time and they've been preparing for it since 1959, for a variety of reasons, but I'm pretty sure they're not going to be inviting the rest of us into their shelters. We will therefore almost certainly have to survive this collapse as individuals or in small groups. If we don't, we're probably going to leave the Earth to neo-nazis, religious zealots and selfish billionaires who have made plans. Nuts! Time, I think, for us to do some prepping.
I think it's also worth noting what Graham Hancock hasn't put in his book. Most importantly, Hancock is completely committed to the idea that the Younger Dryas Impact Event was caused by a periodic comet, akin to Halley's Comet. He mentions the Taurids and how our solar system's movement around our galactic centre brings us into regions of dense material, which trigger cometary events.
The problem with this periodic comet theory, which Hancock doesn't mention in his book, is that our ancestors clearly told us that the catastrophes that befall Earth, including the Younger Dryas Impact event, are fundamentally connected to celestial precession. Hancock's book makes this clear, as he talks extensively about the predictions engraved in Gobekli Tepi, something I've also written about. Therefore, the cataclysms our planet receives should therefore be causally linked to celestial precession; they should not just be a strange and astonishing coincidence. It's certainly possible that a periodic comet bombardment would precisely match the same periodicity as the precession of Earth's axis, but it's extremely unlikely.
Fortunately, Dr Paul Laviolette has shown in his book Earth Under Fire that there is a causal link between celestial precession and the bombardment of Earth by comets/asteroids. He explains that Earth's celestial precession is 2 x 12,960 years because the centre of our galaxy regularly sends out bursts of gravity, matter and energy and these bursts have entrained the spin of our planet. Along with these entraining gravity bursts come comets and asteroids, disturbed by the gravity wave, that pound our planet and cover it with interstellar dust, the 'black rain' mentioned in so many ancient stories.
The 'why' of the cometary strikes may be a point of discussion but Hancock does still state the same warning as Dr LaViolette does in his book. They both state categorically that we are due another bombardment at any moment, as we're 12,960 after the last bombardment, the Younger Dryas Impact Event. In 'Magicians of the Gods', Hancock gives a target date for this new bombardment of sometime between 1960 and 2040, based on his and others interpretation of the 'vulture stone' warning inscription at Gobekli Tepi. Dr LaViolette, in comparison, says the next bombardment and gravity-wave strike is imminent, a view he clearly stated in a recent email to me. There is also the Mesopotamian warning, stated in Gavin White's 'Babylonian Star Lore' book, that the next global cataclysm will occur when 'The Fox gnaws at the Rope of Heaven'. According to my research, the Fox is the star Polaris and the Rope of Heaven in the celestial North Pole, around which the stars rotate in our sky. Due to celestial precession, Polaris is at its closest point to the celestial North Pole at this very moment. In other words, the Fox is gnawing at the Rope of Heaven right now.
From my point of view, if my vivid dream is correct, then we won't have to wait until 2040 for the next bombardment, or even the next decade. Instead, the cataclysm is going to happen in the first few days of June, 2019. I'll only feel certain that my foreboding dream is correct if there is a major eruption/explosion in the first few days of the New Year, which the dream also predicted, but even if that eruption/explosion doesn't occur, I would still fully agree with Graham Hancock and Dr Paul LaViolette. We absolutely have to start preparing for a global cataclysm immediately.
Unfortunately, as many, many other Star Wars fans would agree, things went pretty much downhill from there. The Empire Strikes Back was a good movie. The Return Of the Jedi was so-so but after that… I'll say no more. Simon Pegg's brilliant rant about 'the Phantom Menace' in the second tv series of Spaced summed the whole thing up very well. What was particularly odd for me was that he did it in my local comic shop, 'They Walk Among Us', in Richmond upon Thames, which made his lament even better.
This blog article isn't going to be a rant about what's happened to Star Wars. Instead, here's a very good documentary about how the first production version of Star Wars was a mess, and how the film's editors, in particularly Lucas's wife Marcia, changed it into something taut, dramatic and brilliantly honed. I think there are lessons to be learned here for anyone writing any story, whether it's a screenplay, a short story or a novel, and especially for anyone writing science-fiction. Enjoy!
"In 2017 I had a dream. In the dream I was looking down on a track, like an athletics running track and I knew it was the future, stretching ahead. The track was marked with months and years. I moved along the track, feeling the time pass as marked on the track. Nothing significant happened in 2017. 2018 came along and I moved through it. Again, all was quiet but in the first few days of 2019, a large cloud of black smoke erupted. It was clearly something major but survivable. I walked through that (coughing a bit) and continued through 2019. I passed through the Spring months and then, on the first few days of June, 2019, there was an absolutely massive eruption of fine, grey ash. It felt as if the Earth had blown a hole in its side. This cloud of ash covered the track in the dream all through June and July and then, somehow, an enormous cloud of black dust, mixed with the fine ash, blanketed everything."
Being a scientifically-minded person, I don't know for sure if the events described in the dream are going to happen, I'm simply reporting the experience I had, but I think it would be an excellent test to see if the events described in the dream do come about. If they do happen as described, then it is an excellent demonstration that our minds are capable of perceiving events beyond what we pick up with our physical senses. To be honest, there isn't really any need to prove this idea, as there is vast amounts of evidence to show that our minds are capable of such feats. This website contains articles on many of those examples, while other articles on this website explain scientifically why they must be possible.
The main event described in the dream occurs in the first few days of June 2019, but there is also a significant event in the first few days of January 2019. That is only a month away. If some sort of massive eruption or explosion, producing large amounts of black smoke, does occur in that time window, then I would say that there is a greater likelihood of the far larger event in June 2019. In other words, if we get a massive explosion/eruption at the start of 2019, I'd recommend everyone start prepping as fast as they can, as they probably have only five months before everything goes cataclysmic.
Our current European and North American lifestyles, culture and official education make it very difficult for us to believe that everything could 'be drowned in a gourd of ashes', as the Hopi People have prophesied. Everything seems pretty good and the scientists say that psi-abilities are impossible, so why pay attention to such whacky ideas? Unfortunately, as many people now have realised, the general population is being lied to an awful lot by those in power, and so to find out the truth, we have think independently and develop courage in our own convictions, even if they are ridiculed by the mainstream press. At the same time, I think it's very important to stay rational and balanced and scientific (not official dogma science but the true science pioneered by people like Wallace, Wigner, Von Neumann, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Servetus, Copernicus, Galileo and others); don't throw the baby out with the bath-water.
I'll write on this matter again in January. If there has been no eruption/explosion, then my dream may just have been a dream and we can all breathe a big sigh of relief. If an eruption/explosion does take place, then I'll certainly be writing a few more blog posts!
I think It is true that such dark scenarios are part of human nature but we have had periods in our history when there's been an admirable collective effort to reduce the glorification of violence. Post-war Britain and America made a big effort to stop dark content but unfortunately that has been eroded. It's very worrying to me now that very violent content is now becoming the default form of entertainment in mainstream culture. When I was growing up, films such as 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'Make them Die Slowly' and 'The Evil Dead' were regarded by most people as fringe entertainment for morally dubious people, but they're now staple entries in our multiplexes. I think it is a concerning development. I don't want to sound too puritanical when it comes to screen violence. For example, I thought 'Evil Dead 2' was a brilliant movie and I still do, but I've personally moved away from watching any violence, something I've blogged about in the past, and so to me, from where I'm standing now, this shift in our popular entertainment looks seriously awful.
From a social-programming perspective, flooding a society with a constant stream of dark, visceral stimulation does have its uses. Firstly, it's an addictive distraction. If everyone's too busy getting their kicks from watching an orgy of violence, they won't be thinking about other matters, such as the state of their planet, the behaviour of their ruling elite, the possibilities of human mental development and other important topics. An endless orgy of visual violence is also useful as it can train the general population to become increasing willing to be violent towards those seen as 'the enemy', or to be unconcerned when others in their society are callously violent to 'the enemy'. The far-right would certainly welcome such a cultural shift.
Because of my concerns, I decided to write my play 'the good plague'. It is set in a society whose citizens are well-behaved, industrious professionals but their society has no morals Instead, the society functions because every behaves themselves in order to comply with contractual agreements. Neighbours don't shoot each other because they both have insurance. If one shot another, the victim's insurance company would send a hit squad to kill the murderer, as this was part of the insurance coverage. In this way, everyone in the society is a law-abiding citizen, not through some moral code but out of self-interest. The biting satire is that such a callous, self-serving society can, on first view, seem indistinguishable from a supposedly moral society.
Self-interest isn't the only reason for the citizens of the society to hold off killing others. The citizens are free to kill uninsured people (nobodies in the eyes of that society) as they do not have to worry about retribution for their actions, but if they become too bloodthirsty, it will affect their character profile. Their CVs are very important to them and their psychology profile is part of their CV. If they're marked as being 'out of control', this will affect their careers. They therefore literally have to hold off killing 'nobodies' to protect their job prospects.
The play is set in one room, a 'hunting' lodge in a poor part of the city. The play's four protagonists meet up there, preparing to go out and help their society. A twist is soon revealed to the audience. The group's planned 'help' is actually hunting and killing the uninsured, 'culling' the population of 'inferior and tainted members'. One of them is doing it as a civic duty; two of the others are doing it for fun and the fourth is doing it to avoid being seen as a coward, or pacifist.
Soon, the main focus of the play is revealed, for increasing numbers of the out-group, the 'vermin' that the 'noble' citizens are trying to eradicate, have developed something that scares the death out of the 'noble' citizens; selfless love. The citizens are petrified of this plague, this spreading disease, for if they become infected with selfless love, they might give away all their money and become poor! But at the same time, some of those citizens notice what selfless love does to those who convert to it, or contract it, and realise that it offers something that their society lacks. They want to have that too. This split amongst the citizens creates conflict and death, and leads to another twist, revealed at the end.
Historical buffs may spot that the way this play unfolds reflects the way the Roman Emperors first bloodily suppressed Christianity, then switched tactics and made it an official religion.
This play is a new version of an earlier idea I had called ' the serial samaritan', with some key changes to make it work as a stage play. I also played with the idea in my graphic short story 'The Serial Samaritan', which had a dark, fantasy flavour. All in all, I think the play version works best.
As I've no expectation of selling this play to anyone, I thought I'd attach it here for anyone to download. It is still my copyright but I don't plan to charge any amateur performance if they stage it. If you like it and plan to perform it, please let me know as I'd be fascinated to hear how you got on.
For example, as I've mentioned before in articles examining the Big Bang Theory (not the TV series), the Big Bang is an impossible theory. It fails, for starters, because of several key paradoxes, such as the Baryon Asymmetry Problem and Boltzmann's Well-Ordered Universe Problem. The physics community has spent decades trying to solve these paradoxes and failed. They should, by rights, accept that the theory is fundamentally flawed.
Sub-quantum kinetics agrees that the Big Bang is an impossible theory. It shows a different situation, that our universe is in fact static in size. New matter comes into being in gravity wells created by agglomerations of existing matter. This approach does not suffer the problem of the Baryon Asymmetry Paradox, as it shows that matter is far more likely to occur than anti-matter (whereas conventional physics says they're equally likely to appear from the vacuum and should do so together).
Many physicists do not like the idea of new matter appearing in our universe. They would point out that any theory that involves the continual creation of new matter in our universe would break the rule of Conservation of Energy, but in fact that Law can only be relevant in reactions and collisions. We know that to be true because if we applied it to our entire universe, our universe could never have appeared out of nothing in the first place! Our whole universe demonstrates to us that the Conservation of Energy cannot be true at universal scales.
Sub-quantum kinetics theory of continual matter creation has many interesting consequences. One of them is that our science establishment's model of star formation is effectively back-to-front. According to Official Physics, our universe started with vast amounts of energy and gas, these coalesced under gravity, causing early, very bright stars to form. As time has gone on, these stars have aged and grown cooler, burning away the fuel they initially possessed. Because, according to Official Physics, no new matter and/or energy can have entered the universe since the Big Bang, all the stars in our universe will eventually go cold and dark, an ending known as the Heat Death of the Universe.
But sub-quantum kinetics shows that in fact the opposite is going on. Our universe started with no matter but then it began appearing, growing and seeding from initial points, causing more matter to steadily appeared within the existing gravity-wells. Gas giants formed, which then grew until they became stars. These stars got progressively larger and brighter. Some overloaded and exploded, shedding energy and matter, an event described in LaViolette's book Earth Under Fire. Others grew so large that they became quasars, super-massive stars that astronomers have detected at the centre of galaxies.
Along with this back-to-front version of stellar life-cycles, sub-quantum kinetics also describes a very different process occurring in the heart of stars. Conventional physics tells us that no elements larger than iron can be present in the heart of stars. This is because all elements larger than iron shed more energy when they break down (fission) compared to when they're formed (fusion). As a result, such larger elements will effectively 'slide back down' to iron; it is the effective limit of atomic formation in a star. This is why, according to the official theories, all elements larger than iron are only created in supernova. Therefore, if the Official Physics Theory is correct, then there should be no stable stars out there in our universe that contain any significant amounts of any element larger than iron. There would certainly be some trace amounts of larger elements in stars, but they would only be temporary and in minuscule amounts.
By comparison, sub-quantum kinetics tells us that the centre of stars are a very active area of new matter creation. This continual new input of matter and energy drives the creation of larger elements from smaller ones, akin to them being bombarded with neutrons. Atomic fission is also occurring in the centre of these stars, but there is so much fresh matter appearing that it causes a steady, net increase in atomic sizes. Eventually, the star will contain large amounts of massive atoms such as uranium, atoms so large that they are on the edge of atomic stability. Eventually, that state ends, as the star grows so large that some sort of atomic collapse occurs. In a massive atomic collapse, it transforms into a star made of collapsed matter, such as the so-called Hyperon Stars. Stars that haven't reached that point, and are still in the phase just described, of possessing large amounts of massive elements, would be rare compared to younger stars, especially at the outer edges of galaxies, but they would exist. Ironically (ahem), such stars would actually have relatively low amounts of iron as the iron within them would be constantly transmuted into larger elements by the influx of new matter.
Therefore, we can perform a simple test to check which is right, sub-quantum kinetics or the conventional, Standard Model of Physics. If we can find a stable star that contains huge atoms such as uranium, which is an impossible situation according to conventional physics, then sub-quantum physics is correct, or at least it's worthy much greater status, and Standard Physics is wrong, or at least deeply flawed. If we cannot find any such 'heavy-element' stars in our universe then Standard Physics is safe and sub-quantum kinetics should rightfully be seen as an interesting but flawed theory. Place your bets…
I think it's high time that there was a fundamental overhauling of conventional physics.
A few months ago, I passed on my research into 'Gobekli Tepe, the Fox and the End of Days' to Dr LaViolette on his website at http://etheric.com/questions-and-answers and he very kindly replied and thanked me. As he is clearly happy to correspond, I told him about Przybylski's Star as well, and how it seems to support sub-quantum kinetics. Dr LaViolette has also replied to that message. He says:
"Yes, you are right. Przybylski’s star refutes standard theory and confirms SQK. Thank you for bringing it to our attention."
Which is good news, as I'd hate to be talking about his theories and getting the science all wrong. Phew! :-)