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…
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. Read More...
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! :-)
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…
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.
For example, our zodiac includes two key figures, the Scorpion and the Centaur Archer. The Scorpion’s sting-tail and the end of the Centaur Archer’s arrow stand over the centre of our galaxy. This is a very surprising coincidence considering the centre of our galaxy is invisible to us because of intervening dust clouds. LaViolette uses these facts, along with the geological record, ice core studies and the stories of indigenous peoples, to put forward the idea that, in around 12,000 BC, our planet was hit by such a wave from the centre of our galaxy. This wave of high energy particles pushed a vast amount of interstellar dust into our inner solar system, against the solar-wind which usually keeps out such dust. This vast amount of dust caused chaos on Earth and triggered the catastrophic end of our ice age.
It’s interesting to note that Dr LaViolette uses an idea in his book that I also put forward, years ago. The idea, to put it simply, is that the Book of Revelations is not about our future, as it says in its introduction, but is instead an account of a cataclysm in our ancient past. LaViolette points out that the events described in Revelations match exactly what would occur when a vast incursion of dust and disturbed comets entered our inner solar system and hit Earth.
I definitely recommend ‘Earth on Fire’. It is a bit over-wordy in places and I did skim a few pages here and there but overall, it’s a fascinating, well-researched and compelling theory.
It's available from all good bookshops and is a delight. Buy it, read it from cover to cover, laugh and be fascinated. After that, give it to someone you love, while downplaying the fact that you've actually read it first, all the way through, and pretend instead that you always had them in mind when you bought the book [Note: To do this effectively, do not read it in the bath].
This week, the researchers explained that the existence of such a planet also explained the strange tilt of our sun in relation to our known planets. This new supporting fact makes the 'Planet Nine' hypothesis (not planet ten as pluto is officially no longer a planet) much more convincing. Here's the video explaining what they've found:
The reason I'm blogging about this, apart from it being really interesting new science, is that it could be the missing piece in the strange events at the end of our last ice age. About 12,000 years ago, according to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, our planet was showered with a large number of meteorites. These meteorites caused huge wildfires, threw up a lot of soot and dust into the atmosphere and cooled the planet for many years. In my book, 'how science shows…', I point out that Plato's ancient dialogues ‘Timaeus’ and 'Critias' - the source of the legends about Atlantis - also talk about a 'declination of the bodies' in the sky and a corresponding conflagration on the Earth in very ancient times. In one passage, the Ancient Egyptian priest states:
“There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father’s chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals.”
It is likely that Planet Nine, if it does exist, is currently at the far side of its orbit, which would explain why astronomers haven't spotted it. If this is correct, then Planet Nine would have entered our solar system around 10,000 ago (approximately), the period of the Younger Dryas impact event. What's more, the arrival of a massive planet in our solar system, travelling through our Kuiper Belt, would understandably throw a lot of planetoids and asteroids out of their normal orbits. These objects could then have plunged into the inner solar system and bombarded our planet. It all fits together very well. If the evidence is correct, then the Younger Dryas Impact Event did happen in 10,000 BC and it was caused by Planet Nine's arrival in our solar system.
This theory also leads to a very strange possibility; that Zechariah Sitchin's theory about a mysterious extra planet, Nibiru, that he states is written about in the Ancient Sumerian records, may not be as far-fetched as it seems. I haven't studied his work in detail so I can't comment further, but it is another possible area of interest.
Fascinating stuff! :-)
At the beginning of the twentieth century, several astronomers noticed something odd about galaxies. When they studied the motion of remote galaxies by measuring their red shift (similar to a Doppler Shift), it seemed that all the galaxies were all moving away from us and each other. There seemed to be only one conclusion, that the universe itself was expanding. It was as if the universe was like the surface of a balloon and everything on that surface was moving away from everything else as the universe ‘inflated’.
As part of spreading awareness of the graphic novel and the ideas contained within it, I've posted an article on this website about a key piece of evidence that I unearthed while researching the story. As the title of this blog entry indicates, the key piece of evidence concerns the Great Pyramid and the year 2787 BC, when a crucial celestial event occurred. For a full explanation, do please read the article.