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 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 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! :-)
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.Read More...
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.
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.
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.
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 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...
The date that Sweatman (and Collins) think the Vulture Stone is marking is 10,900 BC. This is a very important date because it is the date of the Younger Dryas Impact Event, when a cloud of meteorites is said to have hit the Earth, causing massive wildfires and a sudden cooling of our planet, which extended our ice-age another thousand years-or-so, before its final, catastrophic ending in 9,650 BC.
I recently wrote an article explaining how the Great Sphinx could also be a physical marker of the Younger Dryas Impact Event. The Great Sphinx was probably a Great Lion originally, and its positioning, in relation to celestial alignment, indicates that it was built to mark the date 10,900 BC, the dawning of the Age of Leo. It therefore seems that at least one ancient civilisation wanted to tell us how important 10,900 BC was in the history of our species and that of Earth. If the Younger Dryas Impact theory is correct, this is understandable, as that ancient date was when a global, cataclysmic event occurred. Read More...
Here is a very-well-produced documentary by the Gaia YouTube channel, describing Schoch’s theory:
After explaining Schoch’s theory, the programme-makers then put forward the idea that the Great Sphinx was originally a lion, and that the human was created later, carved out of the existing animal’s head. This seems a very reasonable idea; the current human head is clearly out of proportion to the rest of the sculpture and looks to have been a later modification.
The programme makers then point out that the sculpture is aligned to point directly at the constellation of Leo at the Spring Equinox in the zodiacal Age of Leo, around twelve-and-a-half thousand years ago. Unfortunately, the programme does then drift into some speculation, with talk of portals and channelled messages from aliens etc. All of this is possible but there is no solid evidence to back it up, and so it is of no use when creating a scientific theory.
Fortunately, other scientific evidence from our past, when combined with Schoch’s theory, can create a new theory of the Sphinx’s purpose. As with the other theories on my website, such as the Great Pyramid and 2787 BC, the Sirius Red Controversy, the Greek Myths and the Ark of the Covenant, I’m going to combine solid scientific evidence and logic to create a possible solution to the mystery of the Sphinx. Here goes…
I’ve encountered the Hindu belief in the Yugas before but I didn’t study it because of several views I had at that time:
1) In the West, we’re always told that our history is one of development from nothing and that it will simply go on forever in a positive direction. This is drilled into us in our school lessons, in media articles predicting the future, in our politicians and scientists’ speeches, in our science-fiction, etc. It’s a tempting and plausible viewpoint.
2) I could see no indication that there was anything on Earth or in the cosmos that would drive the cycle of destruction and rebirth described in the Yugas. Our human race will certainly go through cycles of self-inflicted boom and bust but these, I thought, most likely won’t be total destruction and they won’t follow a regular pattern. Natural disasters that devastate us also won’t follow a regular pattern but be random events. History tells us that this happened in our past, so our future should unroll in the same way.
3) The time spans described in the Yugas are huge. To quote Wikipedia, ‘Most interpreters of vedic scriptures, as Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami and his recent disciple Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada believe that Earth is currently in Kali Yuga and lasts 432,000 years.’ Nearly half a million years is a very long time, too long to feel that its changes are imminent or recent.
4) I could see no reason to believe that, from the ashes of a massive destruction, a new race of humans would emerge that were physically, mentally and spiritually superior to the humans living before that destruction. It would seem more likely that the survivors would be worse, not better.
The above four points, put together, seem to make a convincing case that the Yugas, a cycle of destruction and rebirth, of a slow disintegration of qualities in humanity that is only halted by a massive, global catastrophe, is a ludicrous idea.
But my more recent research has made me think again. The reason for this can be explained in the following steps: Read More...
Dr LaViolette postulates that our galaxy's centre does not contain black holes, as per the current civilian scientific view, but instead contains extremely active stars that periodically burst out vast waves of particles and energy. This theory is explained in detail in his book Earth Under Fire. He explains that the reason our planet has a precessional cycle of roughly 26,000 years is because these periodic bursts occur every 26,000 years, and to a smaller extent in simple fractions of that time, and these bursts have entrained our planets precession movement, like someone periodically pushing or pulling on a spinning top to encourage it to oscillate with a certain frequency. 26,000 years might seem like a long gap between pulls but, for example, if the age of our solar system was a year, it would be a pull every three seconds.
According to Dr LaViolette, this periodic 'flick' that entrains our planet's precessional cycle, known to the Ancient Greeks as a Great Year, occurs through a gravity wave. The periodic, massive energy burst from the centre of our galaxy contains both a high-energy particle component, a high-energy electromagnetic radiation component and an intense gravity wave. As he explains in his book, Earth Under Fire, we received such a blast about 12,800 years, half a precessional cycle ago. This blast brought disastrous conditions to our planet, including a bombardment of meteorites and vast amounts of black, interstellar dust pushed into the inner part of our solar system, dust that is usually kept away by the solar wind. He believes that this event is synonymous with the Younger Dryas Impact event and it brought a period of abrupt cooling to our planet, lasting a thousand years, before our ice-age cataclysmically ended about 9,800 years ago. Read More...
The net effect of such a strategy would be that the greater the media exposure of a controversial theory, the more likely that it's wrong. This situation also creates a sad side-effect; intelligent readers who only look at the most well-known theories will rapidly see that they're false and conclude the whole area is bunk, when in fact important and correct theories do exist, they're just being ignored and/or suppressed.
The series was originally known as Montauk, as the setting of the script was in Montauk, New York and nearby Long Island locations. The brothers had chosen Montauk as it had further Spielberg ties with the film Jaws, where Montauk was used for the fictional setting of Amity Island.
I find this explanation hard to believe, for Montauk Air Force Base, in the Eastern coast of the United States, was already famous among aficionados of conspiracy theories for exactly the kind of experiments that take place in the series. According to some, secret experiments took place underground there in the late Seventies that succeeded in doing all sorts of dark and very strange things.
Here's the first three paragraph:
One million years ago, in the Western Spiral Arm of the Milky Way, there was a beautiful solar system consisting of a golden sun, circled by ten majestic planets. On the system’s third planet lived a race called the Floo. They were highly advanced and had reached the stage in their development where they no longer cared about technology. Instead, they spent their days thinking deeply about about life, the universe and the very nature of existence.
After a century of thought, the Floo came to a sobering conclusion; life was fundamentally about suffering. To exist was to feel pain, cold, hurt, loneliness, heartache and misery. As the Floo were a compassionate and caring species, they were very upset at this state of affairs. They wanted to end that suffering and help all creatures enduring such torment. Eventually, after much discussion and analysis, they decided what they needed to do; kill everyone.
The Floo went over their reasoning many times, but they could see no flaw in their logic. If they truly cared about the endless suffering of all other living creatures, they should do their best to limit that suffering as much as possible, by ending all life in the universe. They therefore built ten-thousand highly-advanced, near-invulnerable machines known as the Amber Robots of Loving Death, all equipped to travel rapidly through the galaxy, annihilating all life as they went, while doing it in as caring and painless a way as possible. The Floo did accept that some living creatures might not actually want to be killed by homicidal mechanoids, and so they programmed their robots to only kill unhappy people. Unfortunately, this didn’t help much as once everyone in the galaxy had heard about the Amber Robots of Loving Death, the sight of one approaching invariably make the person concerned feel very unhappy indeed, which was exactly the wrong way to be.
One important fact that we can work out, scientifically, is how civilisation itself came into being on our planet. The official story is that hunter-gatherers in the delta areas of our planet switched from their existing way of life to a life of farming. In other words, they stopped moving around nomadically, gathering seasonal fruits, berries, nuts, eggs, tubers and hunting game. Instead ploughed the land and planted grass crops, such as rice, wheat, barley and oats. According to the official theory, this enabled them to free themselves from barbarity and the uncertainty of nomadic life, while also giving them the chance to settle, store and distribute food and thereby develop all the other aspects of civilisation; writing, pottery, religions, armies etc.
But, to put it bluntly, this official theory is stupid. No set of hunter-gatherers would ever switch from moving around nomadically, gathering the planet’s natural harvests and thereby eating a varied and rich diet, and switch to back-breaking toil to produce a mono-crop of low nutritional value. Grasses are not good food and the work required to plant, grow and harvest them is tortuous in a pre-fossil-fuel society.
The video reminds me of a famous quote from H.G.Wells:
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race."
Unfortunately, the flip side is probably true too:
"Every time I see an SUV in the high street, I think we're doomed."
I'll keep trying to move the website to an IP that I do seem to have control over. If I make any progress, I'll post the news on this blog.
For anyone who's never read anything by Dr Radin, I do recommend Real Magic. For those who have read most of his books, it's still good but be prepared for some repetition.
Agriculture is a brutal use of the natural environment to create single crops, usually ones that are carbohydrate or starch based. The clearing of land and the ploughing of the soil erodes and denudes the soil, eventually causing dustbowls, run off, desertification and other habitat collapses. Agriculture is also a system which benefits a few (the owners of the grain) and stunts everyone else (the agricultural labourers). Compared to hunter-gatherers, which have a varied and healthy diet, agricultural communities consist mostly of malnourished people crippled by their diet and the back-breaking labour of ploughing, sowing and reaping. As Jim Marrs said in one of his books, no sane humans who switch from hunter-gathering to farming; It's like going from freedom to chained slavery. The only way humans would have made the switch is if they were forced to make the switch.
I don't agree with everything Richard Manning says in the interview. For example, scientific papers in well-regarded journals have pointed out that the extensive and very specific genetic changes required to turn Homo Habilis into Homo Sapiens cannot possibly have occurred in the time-frame stated in the text books. There are only two solutions to solve that conundrum; humans have been around far, far longer than the official figures (currently 200,000 years) or they did not evolve naturally from Homo Habilis. In other words, we are a hybrid creation.
Apart from that, I fully agreed with most of what Richard said and I definitely recommend the video, although you might find it drags a little after the first half hour.
'the inventors… could hardly have asked for a better intercessor than Tutt. His vivid, level-headed and engrossing commentary is as entertaining as it is thought-provoking.'
I'm not sure that the New Scientist would be so positive in its view now, since Tutt's book talks extensively about inventors, scientists and engineers who developed new forms of energy creation that don't fit the official scientific view. Their creations were powered by zero-point energy (allegedly), cold fusion (allegedly), free energy from high-voltage, high-charge devices and other seemingly exotic sources. As a formerly avid reader of the New Scientist, I developed a good understanding of its trends and where science journalism in Britain generally was going. As a result, I'd be surprised if they gave the book such a positive review now.
“The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” - Genesis 2:15
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” - Genesis 3:4
Eve eats the fruit and likes what she’s eaten. She persuades Adam to eat from it. The fruit awakens them to the knowledge that they are naked. God is angry at the Serpent and Adam and Even and banishes them from the Garden.
Many, many of us read this story as children, but some of us must have thought it a bit odd. Questions that leapt into my mind were: ‘what sort of crazy god is that? What kind of a God would put two people in a garden and say ‘eat whatever you like but don’t eat from that tree ‘cos it’ll kill you,’ when, in fact, all it did was make one embarrassed about nudity? What’s more, why on earth would a supposedly compassionate god banish two people because they ate a fruit that made them not want to be starkers? To be honest, the Biblical Garden of Eden story is plain weird. It feels like a messed-up, third-hand story that suffers from a serious bout of Chinese Whispers.
It’s therefore very interesting that there exists an ancient text that gives a different and much more logically consistent version of the Garden of Eden story. The text is known as the Secret Testament of John or the Apocryphon of John. It is an ancient text, probably from the century after Christ's death. It is at least as old as the gospels of the New Testament, most of which were written at least a century after Christ's death, but unlike them, it was not chosen by Bishop Iraneus to form the New Testament. Instead, the early Roman Catholic Church tried to destroy it. Fortunately, a few copies survived.
Here’s the Apocryphon of John’s version of the Garden of Eden story: Read More...
But in fact, scientific evidence clearly shows that 'astral travel' is possible. All living creatures must exist as non-physical minds, with spirit bodies, ones that positively influence their physical bodies, because this is the only way that Life can exist. This is because Life always increases organisation in the universe. This magical phenomena is in direct opposition to entropy, which should govern all physical matter in the universe. Therefore, the only way to resolve this Life-Entropy paradox is to conclude that there is a non-physical, organising presence positively influencing all living things. Without an organising influence originating from outside physical reality, Life would collapse in the face of entropy’s disorganising effect. For more on that subject, do please check out my book, 'how science shows…' and my influence idea article. Read More...
The trigger for this update was a very interesting video on YouTube. The video explains new evidence that the Younger Dryas Impact Event, when our planet was hit by at least one size-able meteorite in 10,500 BC, really did occur. The theory has been controversial for years and attempts have been made to destroy it completely as a theory but fortunately, people are still working on it. Here's the video:
For example, most people believe that glass is a slow-moving liquid at room temperature, because medieval windows are thicker on the bottom than the top, showing that the glass has flowed down over centuries. In fact, medieval glaziers did not have flat glass, as it was blown into shape, and so they traditionally put the thicker edge at the bottom of the window. This is not a common piece of knowledge and most people believe the urban myth. If Google follows the ‘majority is correct’ approach to this fact, then they would penalise any site explaining that glass is a solid at room-temperature. As a result, it would become even more difficult for a website to explain the truth to everyone.
One side-effect of using this new toothpaste was that I was no longer brushing with fluoride, as the new toothpaste I’ve been using has no SLS or fluoride in its ingredients. I did wonder, at the time, if this might cause problems with my teeth, as fluoride is continually recommended to help avoid tooth decay. As this website article states, it's the 'super-hero of cavity fighting'. In the end, I thought it would be an interesting experiment to see how I got on without it. The years have gone and my teeth are still fine. I have no need for fillings, I have no gum problems and although my teeth aren’t perfect (they’re naturally a very pale yellow and a bit wonky), everything is fine inside my mouth. It would seem that I don't need this 'super-hero'.
Some readers might conclude that such cold weather shows that fears of global warming are unfounded, or perhaps highly exaggerated. Tragically, this latest weather phenomenon, a mass-movement of cold air south, from the Arctic, is an indication that the opposite is true.
The special reason I'm mentioning this particular video in my blog is that it reports that there is now an excavated passage in the Great Pyramid's antechamber. I had no idea that this access passage existed. The video's author reports that the passage was recently excavated, then sealed off from the public by a locked, iron-grille door. Read More...
“It’s about trust and confidence. There are people who feel that being a Freemason and a police officer is not necessarily a good idea. I find it odd that there are pockets of the organisation where a significant number of representatives are Freemasons.”
In my experience, it’s very unusual for any person in a senior role in the UK to criticise the Freemasons. Some might say that this because the Freemasons have only a minor influence in our country. Unfortunately, White’s comments indicate that a very different problem is present; that Freemasons have a very strong influence in at least one major organisation in our country. It has been common knowledge for a long time that the Freemasons are rife in Britain's police force, its judiciary, its civil service and its military. If this is correct, then Freemasons have a great deal of influence and control over the running of British society. Is this something we should be worried about? Read More...