Dr Raymond Moody is a well-known writer on the subject of NDEs. Dr Kenneth Ring's book Heading towards Omega is also a very good source of information on this matter. I also recommend Dr Pim Van Lommel's book Consciousness Beyond Life. Van Lommel's book has been unique, in my experience, because he is a cardiac surgeon. During a six-month period, he meticulously recorded medical information about his patients. Each time one of his patients had a Near Death Experience, he was able to combine that person's experience and their medical information during the time that they were clinically dead. Van Lommel shows in his book that this combination of evidence confirms that many people who have had Near Death Experiences did not fantasise these realms because their brains were low on oxygen. In fact, for many of them, there was no oxygen being pumped to their brains at all, since their hearts had stopped many minutes earlier. If all consciousness experience comes from our functioning brains, then those people should not have experienced anything at all, three minutes or more after their hearts' stopped, and yet they did.
Dr Alexander focusses on two things in the book; firstly that he had a spiritual experience, similar to many NDE experiences, and secondly that they could not have been created by his brain, as it was in a state of almost complete inaction, due to the bacteria's damage. The book isn't too long, but it gets its message across very well. I definitely recommend to anyone interested in the subject and also anyone who is unsure what NDE's are, but keen to learn more about the subject.
the University of Southampton ecostory sustainability radio drama prize. Note that the scripts aren't available to read, and I don't have any material to pass on at the moment, but I'll keep everyone posted if it ends up being published or broadcast.
Unfortunately, there seems to be big problems with us all switching to renewable-powered cars. For starters, we'd have to build a whole load of new cars and scrap the existing ones. Secondly, if they were battery-powered, we'd have to make a lot of batteries, which aren't environmentally friendly. We might instead try to use hydrogen-powered cars but if we did that, we'd have to construct hydrogen storage tanks and pumps at all our petrol stations… or at least, that's the commonly held belief. But what if we could simply convert normal, gasoline or petrol-powered cars to run on hydrogen? That is the subject of the following video. It has an annoyingly deceptive title, 'car that runs on water' when in fact it runs on hydrogen created from water using electrolysis, but it's still well worth watching.
The video stars Bob Lazar. He came to fame in UFO circles after talking openly about his work at Area 51, and his experiences working on 'flying saucers' or UFOs. People in the UFO community are divided about Bob's testimony. Some think it is correct and others think he is supply false testimony, to confuse and discredit the whole subject. My personal feeling, over the years, is that Bob is a clever, sincere and brave man, but I am sceptical that some of the information he has passed on is correct, not through his own duplicity, but because he was fed false information by people at Area 51. Lazar's reported description of element 115 and its use in advanced anti-gravity ships is, I think, a complete red-herring. It has been created to disguise the fact, as explained by Eric Laithwaite, Nikola Tesla, Paul LaViolette, Thomas Townsend-Brown, John Searle and others, that charge distribution and circular motion in a metal body is enough to generate a gravitational effect. The theoretical underpinning for this phenomenon is described in Dr LaViolette's book, sub quantum kinetics.
This 'create confusion' tactic was were developed in the Second World War by the Allies, and probably earlier. More recently, it has been used in the matter of UFOs, aliens, exotic technology etc. Back in the 1940's, those wartime classified departments realised that just hiding something was too simple an approach. Instead, it was better to hide important material but also to create false material. In this way, any investigators searching for the truth would think they'd found something.They'd finish their work, satisfied, but in fact they'd been duped and they were actually worse off than before.
Returning to the matter of adapting a car to run on hydrogen, Bob Lazar shows that this isn't a difficult process. He has already adapted his Corvette to run on hydrogen, which he creates overnight with an electrolysis unit using mains water and a solar-power array. Unfortunately, there's a catch; Bob explains in the video that a special hydride, a chemical, is needed in the storage process. This hydride has been marked classified by the U.S. government and can't be bought. Lazar got around this problem by making the hydride himself.
How accurate are Lazar's claims? Is it practically achievable to alter a car to run on hydrogen? I don't know but it's definitely worth investigating. This is the first time I've heard of someone adapting a normal, petrol or gasoline-powered car to run on hydrogen but, in principle, it should be do-able. A car's engine is simply a metal case containing set of cavities in which a fuel is burnt. The expansion of the gases created by the burning pushes a piston around, thereby turning the car's wheels. Hydrogen should work just as well as petrol, as they're both chemicals being oxidised. I can imagine all sorts of technical issues but in principle, it's a sound idea.
The idea of adapting existing cars to run on hydrogen is brilliant from a climate-change and environmental perspective. We don't have to trash all our existing cars and we still get clean cars that can run on renewable power. I can see that the major car manufacturers wouldn't be very interested in this, as no one's buying a new car. Also, the safety people might have a lot to say about a car that's had hydrogen tanks fitted to it, but I would say that's better that staying with fossil fuels, which are destroying our planet's climate, polluting our cities and will eventually decimate the human race. Hopefully, we'll hear more on this subject soon.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents, and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'
What scientists don't often mention to everyone else is that many experiments aren't actually repeated, once they've been published in a scientific journal. Firstly, it costs money and repeating an experiments doesn't help anyone's career. Secondly, if an established theory is based on that experiment producing certain results, then no one wants to do the experiment again because everyone 'knows' what its result will be. Even if someone actually does the experiment, and then discovers that its result doesn't fit the established theory, then they often think they just made a mistake, or back off from reporting it because they're scared of looking foolish.
It's therefore easy for scientists to fall into a disastrous trap. If a key experiment was poorly carried out, or if the interpretations of its measurements were wrong, but its results still lead to a theory becoming established, then an entire field in science can go in the wrong direction and not get back on the right path… which leads us to the title of this article, 'does the CMB exist?' I've explained in my book, The Reality Problem, that there are serious problems with the Big Bang Theory. These problems are so large that the Big Bang Theory cannot be correct and serious mistakes have been made in putting it together.
But the interpretation of the data from these two experiments could be wrong. Firstly, all galaxies may be redshifted, from our point of view, because the wavelength of the light has been elongated as it travelled such huge distances to reach us. The further it travels, the more it elongates, thus explaining the red-shift effect. Secondly, the 3K temperature that Penzias and Wilson detected may not be emitted by our entire universe, but simply from our planet. This is a perfectly reasonable idea, since our planet radiates heat. The way to check this out would be to measure the radiation in different places on our planet and especially in space. This is why the following video is very interesting:
Pierre-Marie Robitaille PhD, who makes these videos, is a skilled engineer. He is also clearly a clever guy. 'In 1998, he led the design and assembly of the world’s first Ultra High Field MRI System'. The fact that he isn't a senior astrophysicist doesn't necessarily count against him; neither was Einstein. Is he correct? I don't know for sure but I think it's extremely important that different views and theories are put forward. At the moment, organisations like CSICOP (now CSI) and RationalWiki are effectively witch-hunting any non-orthodox views, rather than explaining those theories' flaws, which is non-scientific. They'd be far more beneficial to society if they instead openly discussed the huge flaws in orthodox science, and what should be done about them.
Dr Robitaille has made many videos on topics in astrophysics. I also enjoyed the following video on the so-called 'first picture of a black hole', which filled the media for a few days. His explanation of how the physicists involved put together their picture from actual measurements is an eye-opener.
Personally, I think Dr Paul LaViolette's sub-quantum kinetics theory is a more solid explanation of the universe's creation and development than the official physics theories. Unfortunately, I think the only way we're going to be able to completely re-assess civilian physics on Earth, and find out which theory is correct, is after a major war, or the collapse of civilisation; the current, orthodox civilian views are just too entrenched. Dr LaViolette also has this view. By comparison, I think the USA military classified physics theories are probably spot-on. When you have a $500 billion dollar annual budget and the ability to hide anything you create, and the ability to classify anything any civilian creates, and you also work entirely on the basis of practical benefits, then you're bound to get ahead. It would be fascinating to get a glimpse of what the US military has created, and how their physicists understand the universe. Here's hoping…
After reading the article, I remembered that 'Climate Wars' had predicted these problems and the threat of nuclear war between Pakistan and India. I picked up the book again, now ten-years-old, and read its introduction. It seems more accurate now than it did when I read it. Here is the book's summary of 2045:
SCENARIO ONE: THE YEAR 2045
Average global temperature: 2.8 degrees Celsius higher than 1990.
Global population: 5.8 billion.
Since the final collapse of the European Union in 2036, under the stress of mass migration from the southern to the northern members, the reconfigured Northern Union (France, Benelux, Germany, Scandinavia, Poland and the old Habsburg domains in central Europe) has succeeded in closing its borders to any further refugees from the famine-stricken Mediterranean countries. Italy, south of Rome, has been largely overrun by refugees from even harder-hit North African countries and is no longer part of an organised state, but Spain, Padania (northern Italy) and Turkey have all acquired nuclear weapons and are seeking (with little success) to enforce food sharing on the better-fed countries of northern Europe. Britain, which has managed to make itself just about self-sufficient in food by dint of a great national effort, has withdrawn from the continent and shelters behind its enhanced nuclear deterrent.
Russia, the greatest beneficiary of climate change in terms of food production, is the undisputed great power of Asia. However, the reunification of China after the chaos of the 2020s and 2030s poses a renewed threat to its Siberian borders, for even the much reduced Chinese population of eight hundred million is unable to feed itself from the country's increasingly arid farmland, which was devastated by the decline of rainfall over the North Chinese plain and the collapse of the major river systems.
Southern India is re-emerging as a major regional power, but what used to be northern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh remain swept by famine and anarchy, due to the collapse of the flow in the glacier-fed Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers and the increasingly frequent failure of the monsoon. Japan, like Britain, has withdrawn from its continent and is an island of relative prosperity bristling with nuclear weapons. The population of the Islamic Republic of Arabia, which had risen to forty-million, fell by half in five years after the exhaustion of the giant Ghawar oil field in 2020, and has since halved again due to the exorbitant price of what little food remains available for import from any source.
Uganda's population, 5 million at independence in 1962, reached no million in 2030 before falling back to 30 million, and the majority of the survivors are severely malnourished. Brazil and Argentina still manage to feed themselves, but Mexico has been expelled from the North American Free Trade Area, leaving the United States and Canada with just enough food and water to maintain at least a shadow of their former lifestyles. The Wall along the U.S.—Mexican border is still holding.
Human greenhouse-gas emissions temporarily peaked in 2032, at 47 per cent higher than 1990, due largely to the dwindling oil supply and the Chinese Civil War. However, the release of thousands of megatons of methane and carbon dioxide from the melting permafrost in Arctic Canada, Alaska and Siberia has totally overwhelmed human emissions cuts, and the process has slid beyond human ability to control. The combined total of human and `neo-natural' greenhouse-gas emissions continues to rise rapidly, and the average global temperature at the end of the century is predicted to be 8 or 9 degrees Celsius higher than 1990.
The above description does seem more likely than when I read it, five years ago.
For example, Britain's drift into becoming a right-wing, fortress island nation with a disintegrating democracy is well under way. There is even talk at the moment of our duplicitous and amoral Prime Minster invoking the Civil and Contingencies Act, a form of martial law, to make sure that we leave the European Union. He recently suspended Parliament, talked of anyone who disagreed with Brexit as a traitor and generally stoked hostility and division. Also, the construction of the Mexico Wall is accelerating, greater numbers of African refugees are attempting to enter the EU, and meeting with increasing hostility, particularly in Italy. Southern Europe is suffering terrible droughts and forest fires. The only problems I can see in the introduction that aren't already under way are those in China. This may be due to intelligent long-term planning by that country, or simply control of the research into those areas; it's hard to tell. Overall, the trends described in the book are pretty much spot-on.
Many readers may think that the predictions described in 'Climate Wars' are extreme; they may prefer to think that there'll only be a gradual change in our condition on this planet. Unfortunately, history tells us that this is a common mistake. Many people invariably think that sudden, worsening changes will never occur. For example, the prospect of Donald Trump becoming president of the United States was regarded as ridiculous by many people, six months before he did become President. The prospect of a Second World War was regarded as unthinkable by many people in Europe in 1934. Five years later, it was fully underway. People tend to disbelieve that something bad will come soon, often because they don't want it to happen, or because they don't like change. Alternatively, they don't believe the dark prediction because they have an overly-flattering view of human-nature.
In conclusion, I think that 'Climate Wars' is very much a realistic assessment. This is not a great surprise, partly because a lot of its source material was military predictions. The world events of the last ten years, as far as I can tell, have fallen closely in line with its predictions. I therefore think that its long-term predictions are likely to occur. On that topic, I've recently written about the critical need for all of us to begin building very large habitats for our long-term survival on this planet and my motivation to do this has not waned. I'll continue to write on that matter in the foreseeable future.
Part 1: Problems and Solutions
Problem #1: The Life-Entropy Problem
Problem #2: Maxwell’s Demon
Problem #3: Boltzmann’s Well-Ordered Universe Problem
Problem #4: The Big Bang and the Law of Conservation of Energy
Problem #5: The Baryon Asymmetry Problem
Problem #6: The Fine Tuning Problem
Problem #7: Human Psychology
Problem #8: The Observer Problem
Problem #9: Schrödinger’s Cat
Problem #10: Wigner’s Friend
Solution #1: Minds create reality
Problem #11: Laplace’s Demon
Solution #2: Reality is a crazy recording.
Part 2: Evidence
Part 3: Meaning
Why are we alive?
What happens after death?
Readers who have already read my earlier popular-science book, 'How Science shows that almost everything important we've been told is wrong' (I'm so pleased I've chosen a shorter title for this new book) may still enjoy this new book. I've made an effort to explain the quantum physics parts of it in a clearer way, or as much as one can. I've also tried to focus on the key physics and reality topics in this book, and their spiritual and scientific consequences, and not gone off in other directions.
The reason I'm giving this book away for free is because I think it needs to be read by as many people as possible; I think its ideas would help us greatly as a thinking species. I'm also giving this book away because it's not that long a book. In the future, if there's sufficient interest, I may write a longer version and sell that one but that's only a future possibility at the moment.
Anyway, here's the book for download.
The Guardian newspaper has written an article about this new report, which is very useful as it gives us some comments from the authors, as well as others in the field, and we don't have to pay to read it (unlike the science article itself, which is pay-to-view, even though it should be in the public domain… grrr). The article includes the comment:
“We have never seen anything like this in the 24 years we have studied the supermassive black hole,” said Andrea Ghez, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a senior author of the research. “It’s usually a pretty quiet, wimpy black hole on a diet. We don’t know what is driving this big feast.”
This isn't the only confusion about Sagittarius A*. There is another stellar object near Sagittarius A*, which is known as G2. Astronomers aren't clear what G2 is; some say it's a gas cloud, others say it's a star. The problem is that recently, G2 drifted very close to Sagittarius A*. It should have been mashed, or stretched out as it entered the gravity well of that huge, stellar object, except that it wasn't, it moved past seemingly unscathed. It would seem that the Sagittarius A* black hole, as the astrophysics have identified it, isn't behaving like a black hole. (For the record, some readers might be confused at how a black hole could be confused with a star, but because huge amounts of dust and gas block our view of the centre of our galaxy, it isn't easy to see what's there)
The official physics description of Sagittarius A* therefore seems to be a mess but there is another physics theory which explains its current behaviour very clearly. Dr Paul LaViolette thinks that Einstein's Relativity is wrong, that there is an ether and that our universe is continually being seeded by new matter, especially where concentrations of matter already exist. His theories are fascinating, logical and solve many existing physics problems, some of which I discuss in my book 'How science shows…' I heartily recommend his book Subquantum Kinetics. It's not an easy read and requires some understanding of physics principles, but it's hugely thought-provoking.
Dr LaViolette explains that the centre of our galaxy doesn't contain black holes, since black holes can't exist (which would explain why physicists still can't resolve Einstein's Relativity and Quantum Physics when it comes to black holes). Instead, our galaxy's centre contains huge hyperon stars, which are made of vast amounts of matter. Since new matter is being formed at the centre of these stars, continually, they will inevitably get bigger and more exotic, like Przybylski's Star, until they eventually explode, emitting vast amounts of matter and energy in the process. According to Dr LaViolette's calculations, there is a huge burst from the centre of our galaxy every 12,800 years. This burst is so large that it sends out a wave of energy, matter and dust, outwards, throughout the Milky Way, affecting all star-systems on the way. The gravity wave that accompanies this burst is so strong that it has entrained the axial spin of our planet. This is why our planet's precessional cycle (the time take for the axis of our planet to go around in a circle) is exactly twice the time between eruptions because our planet has been entrained to align on its N/S, then S/N orientation with the centre of the galaxy at each eruption event. As Dr LaViolette explains in his book Earth Under Fire, the last time we were hit by this wave, and thereby bombarded by meteorite and swamped with cosmic dust, was approximately 12,800 years ago, when the Younger Dryas Impact Event occurred.
In previous articles on this website, I've explained that there seems to ancient warnings that another catastrophic stellar event is imminent. The ancient site at Gobleki Tepi is one example. Another is an ancient Mesopotamian legend. Dr LaViolette's theories give a scientific explanation as to why we've been given these warnings. Worryingly, the evidence reported in this week's science paper on the increasing activity of Sagittarius A* fully supports the idea that the massive objects at the centre of our galaxy are getting ready to explode. At the end of the guardian article, the author writes:
The black hole is about 26,000 light years from Earth and poses no danger to our planet.
Unfortunately, this may be completely untrue. What we may be seeing is more akin to the rumblings of a volcano, shortly before it erupts. If Dr LaViolette's theories are correct, and Sag A* does explode (or in fact has exploded, considering the light is 26,000 years old), then we'll soon get the wave of light, dust and energy from that massive, stellar eruption. Its source might be 26,000 light-years distant to us, but the gravity-energy wave would be directly behind the light we're seeing now. It's a grim prospect; the last time we were hit, it was the end of civilisation.
In many ways, it doesn't matter if a person is taking hallucinogens, or not. Our body, in particular our pineal gland, is perfectly capable of manufacturing a whole host of tryptamines. It produces serotonin and melatonin regularly, to enable us to be awake and to sleep and dream.There's no doubt it can produce DMT (di-methyl-tryptamine) and other potent hallucinogens if it feels in the mood. Meditation, yoga, focussed mental effort and other practices can stimulate our pineal gland to produce these exotic tryptamines without any need to ingest anything. Nevertheless, Terence's experiences seem to have given him a deep understanding of identity, ego, spirituality and the nature of reality. Definitely recommended.
Air conditioning, not surprisingly, is therefore a disaster when it comes to climate change. Not only are fossil fuels being consumed to power these air-conditioners but air-conditioners are also net heat generators. All the heat they remove from a room is simply pumped out the window, along with the waste heat created by running the motor and pump. Cities therefore become doubly hot in heatwaves, as the ambient heat, magnified by concrete, tarmac and glass, is boosted by the air-con heat output. It could all be so different. All we need to do is change how our buildings are designed and a lot of our heat problems could go away. The ground under our feet is always around four degrees in temperate, summer or winter. This is how ground-source heat pumps generate power. We therefore don't even need refrigerators if we live in a house; keeping food in a hole in the ground, one that is protected and insulated and easy to clean, can do the job. We're destroying our environment not because of necessities, but because of luxuries.
Instead, as the video explains, if one dedicates oneself to striving towards positive goals, and when one reaches them one immediately strives towards the next positive goal, then one will be living a life that has meaning and one's moments of real happiness will increase. This path is invariably difficult, as it's running entirely against the easier, and very popular path of hierarchical servitude and short-lived hedonistic pleasures. This path of pursuing meaningful and challenging goals also usually confers little social status upon oneself, but its difficulty only increases the sense of achievement and the deep happiness it can bring.
Returning to the video, during the short interview, Mate talks about such matters. He also touches upon the anti-semitism accusations in the British Labour Party and Russian interference in the U.S. election.
I've watched several video interviews with Dr Maté in recent weeks and I've found him to be intelligent, compassionate, perceptive and objective. His views on trauma, addiction and compassion are well worth reading/listening to. Enjoy!
I think there is another, more topical issue to deal with. Traditionally, the general population have been plied with drugs, distractions and shiny baubles to keep them from focussing on the liberties being taken by their rulers (or more specifically, the liberties removed from them by their rulers).
More recently, there has been a new development; climate change has entered the scene. I think our rulers (as in those who wield the actual power, rather than our political leaders) have been making a concerted effort to drug us, make us ill, distract us and make us fight amongst ourselves so that we don't pay attention to our impending peril from climate change. Those same rulers have been working industriously for sixty years to protect themselves from climate change, with the plan of leaving the rest of us to fry. The last thing they want is for us to get together and seize the reins and change things so that many, ordinary people can survive, rather than a privileged few. But that's only my personal view and isn't connected to the video, which I do recommend. Enjoy! :-)
'The study, carried out in France, is the first substantial piece of research to find a specific association between sugar and cancer.'
Hopefully, the French study will raise the issue of sugar and cancer. In addition, the tactic of fast food companies to supply fruit juices as a 'healthy' alternative to colas will be seen for what it is; a charade. There's nothing wrong with eating some fruit in season - you're consuming fibre with the fruit sugar, lessening its effect on the body - but drinking fruit juices needs to be seen as akin to drinking alcohol, only without the intoxication.
For anyone who needs reminding of how grim our future will be if we don't make drastic changes, here's a good short video about the ticking methane bomb.
Some readers may be concerned that beneath the video on YouTube is the comment 'RT is funded wholly or in part by the Russian Government'. This, in truth, is irrelevant, as the science in the video is factually correct, according to a vast number of scientists and my own research on the subject. I wanted to mention this because I am concerned that such an addition to the video's web-page could make some people, particularly in the West, believe that climate change is a false fact cooked up by the Russians. I wonder if the people who instigated these sorts of warnings thought about this consequence?
Our body has a Hell of a time dealing with carbohydrates and sugars. Because meals heavy with these foods causes a rapid increase in the amount of sugar in our blood, our body has to work hard to remove the sugars from our blood system. It does this by pumping out insulin, which shepherds the sugar into our cells. But our cells can only take in so much sugar, and they soon begin to close the gates to more sugar coming in. As a result, even though our pancreas has pumped out lots of insulin, the sugar hasn't left our blood system, which is bad for our body as sugar is a toxin. As a result, not only can we get diabetes, we can also get blood pressure problems, heart problems, circulation problems etc etc. Read More...
I've mentioned before in articles on Climate Change that the biggest obstacle to stopping climate change is a mental one, for every indication of success for a person in our civilised world is synonymous with having a big carbon footprint. Owning a big car, owning a big house, going on holidays abroad, owning a large dog, flying everywhere, owning lots of foreign goods, having many children, all these things are the trappings of a 'successful' life. In comparison, all the things that go with a sustainable lifestyle, cycling, second-hand clothes, mended clothes, local holidays, one child or less, no flying, all these things are synonymous with the life of a low-achiever, a loser. Greta therefore has the unenviable task of telling literally billions of people that they must live the life of a social failure, a bum, in order to hopefully save their planet.
I have always been a fan of Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, which is definitely one of my all-time favourite movies, as well as Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. They came out nearly thirty years ago but Bogus Journey is still as fun now as it was when it first appeared. Now, supposedly (unless it gets delayed again), there will finally be a third Bill and Ted movie. Here's a quick trailer from the guys:
1) Should I have children and inflict a life of hardship and climate chaos upon them? For that is what will happen to the vast majority of people in the next half-century. Fortunately, some people are openly discussing this matter and deciding not to have children. It is still a personal decision, with many difficult aspects to consider, but as long as people are thinking about it, that's progress.
2) I must still do my best to limit my negative effect on the planet for my own peace of mind. The fact that climate change is now a runaway train doesn't mean that our acts aren't important. We still have to look ourselves in the mirror everyday and I think we will all review our lives after they're over. Our personal acts are of great importance to us personally because they tell us what we are as moral and spiritual individuals. To use an analogy, there are seven billion people on our planet, so one death seems insignificant, but it's still wrong to murder someone.
3) Seven billion people are not going to survive climate change. In a century's time, our planet will only support seventy million people, or seven million people. Which few will survive? The remainder of this article tries to answer that third question. Read More...
Eric's demonstration is so simple that it's hard to imagine why this phenomenon hasn't been thoroughly investigated, but there are straightforward reasons for this.Read More...
In the final few chapters of the book, Dr Becker then switches to the matter of electromagnetic pollution, from microwaves, cathode ray tubes, overhead power lines, mobile phones and other sources of radiation. During the book, Dr Becker has explained how all cellular processes on Earth, including our own bodies, are highly sensitive to magnetic fields, including our Earth's magnetic field, and all its subtle fluctuations. In the chapters of electromagnetic pollution, he puts forward a lot of evidence that the sheer mass of electromagnetic pollution we are now receiving is definitely affecting our mental states, our fertility, our cancer growths and other serious health issues. Read More...
If we follow the current, accelerating temperature changes, in fifty years time, no one will be able to survive outdoors in Australia for any significant length of time and the vast majority of its agriculture will be gone.
P.s. if anyone's interested, here are my top 828 songs (in alphabetical order). I know it's a strange number, but they're all the ones in my record collection that got a star. The funny thing is, when I play them on random selection, I still feel that there's not enough of them but that's okay. We may be screwing up our planet but some of us have produced the most wonderful music; that's something to treasure.
1999, Prince, 1999
(Don't Fear) The Reaper, Blue Öyster Cult, Don't Fear the Reaper: The Best of Blue Öyster Cult
(Nothing But) Flowers, Talking Heads, Once In A Lifetime
(Still A) Weirdo, KT Tunstall, Tiger Suit (Deluxe Edition)
2000 miles, Pretenders, Best Of
4 seasons in one day, Crowded House, Woodface
50 ways to leave your lover, Paul Simon, Best Of
59th Street bridge song, Simon and Garfunkel, Best Of
99 Red balloons, Nena, Best Of
A hard rain's a-gonna fall, Bob Dylan, The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan
A hazy shade of winter, Simon and Garfunkel, Bookends
A Little Less Conversation (JXL Radio Edit Remix), Elvis Presley, Elvis 30 #1 Hits
A little respect, Wheatus, Best Of
A message to you, Rudy, Specials. The, Best Of
Fortunately, we, as individuals, still have the freedom to do the right thing and reduce our contribution to climate change. This is good news because climate change isn’t just a collective challenge, it’s a personal challenge and we can’t escape that. We’ve come into this world and we have the freedom to make choices and those choices stay with us; we will know what we did. There will be no absolution, no priestly forgiveness if we chicken out of our obligations. If we choose to not make an effort to help save our planet, because we like fancy goods and cheap holidays abroad and a big car etc, then in the future, when we see the devastation of our planet caused by such selfish decisions, we are going to hate ourselves. No one can escape this result. Any attempts to argue that our personal efforts are irrelevant don't work. To show the truth of this, here's an example:
A colleague once said to me 'what's the point of limiting my carbon footprint, there's seven billion people on this planet, it makes no difference!' I replied, 'so it's okay then if I kill you?' He was shocked and said 'no, of course not!' I replied that according to his logic, he's only one of seven billion people, so it's irrelevant if I kill him or not. He didn’t like the argument but it’s still true. His life might seem irrelevant on a global scale, but it’s still precious to him. In the same way, our efforts to help save our planet are very important to us. Read More...
Unfortunately. I think we are now too far down the climate-catastrophe path for amusing slogans, media campaigns, political lobbying on renewables and suchlike. The tipping points have been passed and it’s clear the fossil-fuel banking system has adopted a ‘business as usual until martial law is declared’ approach.
Instead, I think we need to start planning how some of us are going to survive beyond 2100. The only communities that will survive on Earth in the next century will be ones either living underground or in domed habitats. Therefore, it is vital that we begin a process of making sure that there are domed habitats to move into. Read More...
"Although Hillman has not flown for more than 20 years as part of a personal commitment to reducing carbon emissions, he is now scornful of individual action which he describes as “as good as futile”. By the same logic, says Hillman, national action is also irrelevant “because Britain’s contribution is minute. Even if the government were to go to zero carbon it would make almost no difference.”
Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too. Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation? “I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”
2) The intelligence and entropy conundrum of Maxwell's demon.
3) The existence of aliens conundrum of Fermi's Paradox.
4) The predictability 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) to round off the list.
I am a big fan of popular science books; I find the good ones fascinating and they're a great way to learn about our universe. Unfortunately, our scientific establishment pushes a Scientific Materialist line. In other words, all 'thought' and 'life' is simply an illusory phenomena that comes about by the action of physical mechanisms.
As I've explained in many articles on this website, in particular the influence idea, as well as in my book how science shows that almost everything important we've been told is wrong, Scientific Materialism is scientifically impossible. Minds and spirits have to exist in order for living things to defy the law of entropy, for living things are constantly increasing order in the universe, when the Law of Entropy states that all physical things should become more disordered over time. 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. Read More...