The enigma that is Przybylski's Star

In this last year, I've been writing quite a bit about Dr Paul LaViolette's sub-quantum kinetics theory. I find it a fascinating and convincing new theoretical description of how matter forms in our universe. The theory explains a lot of enigmas and anomalies that our current, official, physical theories seem to have swept under the carpet.

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…

In fact, there is such an anomalous star. To quote from the Wikipedia page, "Przybylski's Star or HD 101065, is a rapidly oscillating Ap star that is located at a distance of roughly 355 light-years (109 parsecs) from the Sun in the southern constellation of Centaurus.In 1961, the Polish-Australian astronomer Antoni Przybylski discovered that this star had a peculiar spectrum that would not fit into the standard framework for stellar classification. Przybylski's observations indicated unusually low amounts of iron and nickel in the star's spectrum, but higher amounts of unusual elements like strontium, holmium, niobium, scandium, yttrium, caesium, neodymium, praseodymium, thorium, ytterbium, and uranium. In fact, at first Przybylski doubted that iron was present in the spectrum at all. Modern work shows that the iron-group elements are somewhat below normal in abundance, but it is clear that the lanthanides and other exotic elements are highly overabundant. Lanthanide elements are from 1000 to 10,000 times more abundant than in the Sun. As a result of these peculiar abundances this star belongs firmly in the Ap star class. Przybylski's Star also contains many different short-lived actinide elements with actinium, protactinium, neptunium, plutonium, americium, curium, berkelium, californium, and einsteinium being detected. Other radioactive elements discovered in this star include technetium and promethium."

I think it's high time 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 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 replied to that message as well. 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! :-)

Memory of water documentary

This blog entry is just to let everyone know that there is a very good documentary about the research work of Dr Benveniste and Dr Luc Montagnier on Youtube at the moment. I've written about Luc Montagnier before, when exploring the science behind homeopathy, and how the memory of water theory links to DNA's fascinating property of acting as a fractal antennae, both receiving and sending electromagnetic signals of different frequencies. Up to now, I've only encountered information about Dr Montagnier in the pages of New Scientist magazine, and so it's been great to watch a documentary in which he explains his work, his theories and what he discovered. Here it is:

As the documentary explains, Benveniste and Montagnier's work was pilloried by the scientific establishment and publicly declared to be bunk, and yet in the documentary, Montagnier proves that water does have an electromagnetic memory.


Climate Change scientists' thoughts on the future

Climate change is accelerating on Earth. Its acceleration is clear here in London, where the temperature yesterday was 22 degrees Celsius. Normally, a Mid-October day in London should be cold (around 12-14 degrees) with rain; it would be time to put on the coat and scarf and dig out a pair of gloves. Instead, it was so warm yesterday that I had to take my summer shorts out of my winter storage bag and put them back on again. This is just one more day in a year, in London, of frankly bizarre weather. After a weirdly freezing March, a drought set in in the South-East of England because a weather system stayed over Ireland and Western Scotland, funnelling warm air to the hot Arctic. That weather system, created by a virtually stationary jet-stream, left London and the South-East of England to bake for months. Although hurricanes are getting the headlines, with good reason, I think 2018's weather in England is just as ominous an event.



Big brains, baldness and a hybrid

A while back, I read a very interesting scientific paper published in the prestigious science journal Cell. The authors of the paper studied the differences in the DNA between humans, primates and rodents, all mammals but species with significantly different behaviour. The authors found that the genetic changes needed for humans to have their bigger brains, and for those brains to work, include an extensive and specialised set of genetic alterations. What's more, humans have gained all those required genetic changes in a very short time, genetically speaking.

What especially caught my eye in this paper was how often the word 'remarkable' was used. Scientific papers are almost always dry, sober reports, their authors do not want to sound emotional and flighty, and so it is illuminating that the authors saying remarkable in two particular paragraphs. Here they are:

“It has long been noted that brains of various extant and extinct primates display remarkable variation in size, organization, and behavioral output (Noback and Montagna, 1970; Armstrong and Falk, 1982; Byrne and Whiten, 1988; Matsuzawa, 2001). This is particularly true for the evolutionary lineage leading from ancestral primates to humans, in which the increase in brain size and complexity was remarkably rapid and persistent throughout the lineage (Jerison, 1973; Walker et al., 1983).” Page 1.

“It is remarkable that 17 out of the 24 primate-fast outliers [rare or exceptional genetic changes] are linked to the regulation of either brain size or behavior.”

The third ‘remarkable’ is of special significance, for it touches upon a very strange story.

According to the official line, based on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, homo sapiens (us) naturally evolved from Homo Erectus in about one million years. They in turn evolved from Homo Erectus in about one million years. Homo Erectus had a brain capacity of 850 cm³ and Homo Habilis had a brain capacity of 600 cm³. Chimpanzees have a brain capacity of up to 500 cm³. Humans, the last in line of these species, have a brain capacity of roughly 1400 cm³.

This sounds, at first glance, to be a reasonable progress of development. Bigger brains enable tool use, group coordination, planning etc. The only problem is that the odds of gaining the required genetic changes to have these big brains through natural selection, in the time described, are vanishingly small.

DNA, fractal antennae and Sirius

Last week, I stumbled upon a science paper published in the International Journal in Radiation Biology, entitled ‘DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields’. The paper’s abstract (or concise overview) is as follows:

PURPOSE: To review the responses of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in different frequency ranges, and characterise the properties of DNA as an antenna.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined published reports of increased stress protein levels and DNA strand breaks due to EMF interactions, both of which are indicative of DNA damage. We also considered antenna properties such as electronic conduction within DNA and its compact structure in the nucleus.

RESULTS: EMF interactions with DNA are similar over a range of non-ionising frequencies, i.e., extremely low frequency (ELF) and radio frequency (RF) ranges. There are similar effects in the ionising range, but the reactions are more complex.

CONCLUSIONS: The wide frequency range of interaction with EMF is the functional characteristic of a fractal antenna, and DNA appears to possess the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self symmetry. These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA with EMF in the environment, and the DNA damage could account for increases in cancer epidemiology, as well as variations in the rate of chemical evolution in early geologic history.

In other words, the researchers found that DNA is a lot like a radio antenna, in that it can pick up electromagnetic signals, which then alter its behaviour. What’s more, DNA also has loops within loops, which means it can pick up electromagnetic signals in multiple frequencies.

Fractal antennae are used in the telecommunications industry because such a design enables an antenna to be compact and also be able to respond to multiple frequencies. Traditional antennae were usually designed, and built, to pick up a narrow range of signals, which was often all that was needed. In the modern world of complex multi-band transmission, fractal antennae are a very tempting, space-saving and multi-tasking alternative.

There are many thought-provoking potential consequences to our DNA being fractal antennae. For starters, as the above paper mentions, there are ‘published reports of increased stress protein levels and DNA strand breaks due to EMF interactions, both of which are indicative of DNA damage.’ In other words, there’s evidence that our DNA is very sensitive to e/m signals and will actually suffer damage if the wrong signals are beamed at it. There is an awful lot of radio-frequency traffic in our world today, particular from wireless or phone masts, and there’s evidence that it’s not good for biological organisms, as this science paper states. To be honest, the logical thing to do would be to develop a full understanding of radio-frequency signals on the DNA of living creatures first, and then stick up masts everywhere, but that’s clearly not happening.

There is another thought-provoking consequence to the above paper, something that no one has talked about yet, as far as I know. According to the science paper mentioned at the beginning of this article, DNA is surprisingly good at picking up RF and ELF signals and then altering its own functioning as a result. Not surprisingly, hitting DNA with crude or random RF signals of high intensity will trigger damage within the DNA. This is a lot like hitting a set of skilfully arrange tuning forks with very loud notes of random frequency. A lot of the time nothing will happen and some of the time a fork will overload and smash to bits.

But what if we knew exactly what RF signals to send? If that was the case, we could beam a host of carefully chosen RF signals at the DNA and it wouldn’t just do nothing, or break. Would it instead play like a musical instrument? Would it alter its genetic information in a specific way? Would it produce specific proteins, neurotransmitters or perhaps even viruses? Read More...

'You can't tell the people' - UFO book review

A while back, I reviewed a couple of books on possibly the most famous UFO incident in the U.K. the Rendlesham Forest incident. According to many witnesses and military memoranda released under the Freedom of Information Act, an unidentified craft of mysterious design and using even stranger technology visited the Rendlesham Forest on the edge of a U.S. Air force base in Suffolk, England in the Christmas week in 1980. It either crash-landed or crashed and then landed in those pine woods in the middle of the night, causing a major alert involving the U.S. Air Force, the Suffolk police, local villagers and others.

All the books I’ve read so far about the incident have been interesting. 'Left at East Gate' by Larry Warren, is a very interesting and personal account of the event by someone who experienced it, but it isn’t a comprehensive study, more of an autobiography. The best book on the incident, I think, is ‘You can’t tell the people’ by Georgina Bruni.

You Can’t Tell the People is a big book and there were several times when I skimmed pages. Bruni is very thorough in her investigation and clearly talks to many of the key players many times as she gathers the relevant evidence. It’s easy to lose count of the number of senior military, police and civilian figures she talks to. Eventually, it becomes obvious that certain things happened in Rendlesham Forest on the last week of 1980: Read More...

New sci-fi short story - 'Tags'

Just a quick note to say that I've added a new science-fiction short story called 'Tags' to this website. In the story, a UK professor, working in a top-secret government lab, discovers one night that the star 'Sirius', normally calm and blue-white in the sky, has somehow turned red and flaming. He's immediately called back to his lab because his bosses have discovered something else, that the star's red and flaming light is an interstellar laser beam that a civilisation on a planet around the star has fired at Earth. What's even more important is that the laser beam has carried a virus to Earth.


The story draws upon two non-fiction articles I've written and published on this website, Laser beam from Sirius and Evolution and Alien Viruses. Hope you enjoy it! :-)

Electromagnetic resonance of the Great Pyramid

Last month, a scientific paper was published in the Journal of Applied Physics that showed that the Great Pyramid concentrates and resonates electromagnetic radiation, in particular radio waves in the 250m-wavelength range. The authors, Mikhail Balezin, Kseniia V. Baryshnikova, Polina Kapitanova, and Andrey B. Evlyukhin explain in their paper that by modelling the Great Pyramid, in an albeit simplified form, they found that it naturally can 'collect and concentrate electromagnetic energy'. The image below shows the results of the modelling and how the e-m radiation intensifies within and beneath the pyramid.