2) The intelligence and entropy conundrum of Maxwell's demon.
3) The existence of aliens conundrum of Fermi's Paradox.
4) The paradox of Laplace's Demon.
5) Olber's Paradox, which is 'if the universe in infinite, why is the sky dark?'
Jim also adds in a few relativity paradoxes and a statistical paradox (the game show goats and car problem).
First off, I must point out that I'm a big fan of popular science books; I find the good ones fascinating and they're a great way to learn about our universe, and so even though I was aware of Jim's approach to major topics, I still wanted to read the book because I was looking forward to reading his explanation of fascinating matters. To be clear, Jim is a fervent Scientific Materialist. In other words, he will not allow the possibility that minds or spirits can exist independently of physical things. For him and other Scientific Materialists, who dominated mainstream science, all 'thought' and 'life' is simply an illusory phenomena that comes about by the action of physical mechanisms. Read More...
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! :-)
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...
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...
Dr Laviolette is qualified and experienced as a physicist and engineer and shows it with his in-depth descriptions in the book of sub-quantum kinetics, an alternative theoretical description of the fundamental behaviour of reality. On the science direct website, there is an article by Laviolette describing this theory, entitled 'The Cosmic Ether: Introduction to Subquantum Kinetics'. The abstract reads:Read More...
1) Assume that UFOs are real devices but are not defying the laws of physics, that they are functioning machines, albeit advanced ones.
2) Collate observations on UFOs, especially observations carried out by skilled personnel, such as military observers and engineers.
3) Use the collated information to identify patterns of behaviour by the UFOs, their emissions (radiation etc), their weight (ground imprints) and any and all factual evidence that can be used to deduce the mode of their operation.
By doing this, Paul Hill came up with fascinating and scientifically sound possibilities as to how the UFOs operate and whether or not it is feasible for those craft to have come from planets around other stars. Read More...
Fortunately, there are some people who are interested in the field of UFOs, mind over matter, spirits and other officially 'crank' topics, who do have a solid scientific understanding. One of them is Dr Tom Valone. Below is a talk he gave at the X-Conference a few years back on the subject of advanced propulsion systems, UFOs and what their flight behaviour (as far as can be observed) may be telling us about what is possible in terms of interstellar transportation.
During the talk, Dr Valone touches on a physics matter that has intrigued me for many years. He explains that the perceived ability of some unidentified flying craft to execute high-speed, right-angle turns indicates that their designers have developed technology that reduces or negates inertial mass. Dr Valone points out in his talk that it may be possible to reduce inertial mass by creating a very-high-voltage electromagnetic environment. Traditionally, inertial mass and gravitational mass for an object are assumed to always stay the same - this is known as the Equivalence Principle - but this assumption may be flawed. In certain exotic systems, involving high voltages, the inertial mass, possibly created by the object's interaction with the vacuum energy field, could be reduced.
Interestingly, I explored this possibility in an article a few years ago but not with regard to UFOs. Instead, I postulated that stars, being high-voltage, high-pressure, high-temperature plasma balls, may have a much lower inertial mass than their gravitational mass. This would explain why stars orbit the centres of their galaxies much faster than they should, a phenomenon that has caused mainstream physics to conclude that the universe is full of dark matter. I'll try and mention this interesting idea to Dr Valone; he may find it fascinating! :-)
In this video, as well as the previous video I've blogged about, Radin ponders why the scientific establishment adamantly refuses to accept the consequences of such a huge amount of experimental evidence, along with the conclusions made by many esteemed scientists over the last century. He notes that the New York Times recently went so far as to warn people not to even entertain the conclusions of an upcoming science paper, even before it was published, because it broke the established paradigm.
It's a very important question; how can all this consistent and repeatable evidence be ignored? One reason is financial. Those at the top of the money-tree in science decide what the scientific establishment believe and disbelieves. That small elite at the financial summits hold the purse strings and the vast majority of scientists tow the dogmatic line because they have bills to pay and they want to progress in their careers. A few scientists may risk their reputation and careers to put forward theories that are against the official line but they are few in number and so can easily be marginalised and excluded from the journals and senior posts. Our scientific establishment certainly does include many principled and brilliant scientists but, because it is a hierarchical, financial organisation, it is cursed to follow the wishes and personal agendas of its financial overlords. As for what their agendas are, and why they're so keen to block a mind-first understanding of reality, that's a topic for another article.
Secondly, there's also a huge problem known as the herd effect. On that matter, I'll leave you with the classic Candid Camera sequence from the 1950's:
Among those points of self-education which take up the form of mental discipline, there is one of great importance, and, moreover, difficult to deal with, because it involves an internal conflict, and equally touches our vanity and our ease. It consists in the tendency to deceive ourselves regarding all we wish for, and the necessity of resistance to these desires. It is impossible for any one who has not been constrained, by the course of his occupation and thoughts, to a habit of continual self-correction, to be aware of the amount of error in relation to judgment arising from this tendency. The force of the temptation which urges us to seek for such evidence and appearances as are in favour of our desires, and to disregard those which oppose them, is wonderfully great. In this respect we are all, more or less, active promoters of error. In place of practising wholesome self-abnegation, we ever make the wish the father to the thought: we receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us; whereas the very reverse is required by every dictate of common sense.
Your article 'Why do we move forward in time?" (Issue 3037, 5th Sept 2015, pg34) makes it clear that physics has no clear answer as to why time passes. The article reminded me of an ancient Zen Koan. Two monks were watching a flag flapping in the wind. One said to the other, "The flag is moving." The other replied, "The wind is moving." A Zen master, walking nearby, overheard them. He said, "It is not the flag nor the wind that is moving but your minds." The idea that our minds experience the four-dimensional 'landscape' of physical reality in a chosen time direction would explain the phenomenon of time passing without violating any physics. Perhaps the Zen master was right philosophically and scientifically?
The article concerned was one of a series of articles in the New Scientist that week (issue 3037) about aspects of physics that non one had yet solved. The tricky nature of time is definitely one of these big conundrums. We all experience time flowing; we do things, one after the other, day after day. Around us clocks tick and cars drive and birds fly etc. We can't seem to stop or alter this flow of time. We can't make time stand still. It can certainly sometimes seem as if time is flowing more slowly than at other times. For example, waiting to go into an exam can seem to last forever, but while you're doing the exam, time can seem to scream by. I remember once starting a strategy board game, then becoming completely engrossed and then looking up and finding out that two hours had gone by, as if in a flash. Read More...