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.'
Entrenched views and positions aren't the only problems facing anyone trying to overhaul a scientific field. If a field is fundamentally wrong, then it is likely that some key experiments, ones that support its main theories, were originally wrong too. Somehow, someone made a mistake with the measurements, or interpreted the measurements incorrectly. According to the principles of science, if those experiments were wrong, then scientists in that field would soon discover their error when they carried out those experiments again. This is because any experiment should be reproducible, as in anyone should be able to do that experiment and get the same result.
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…
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?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Dr Richard Feynman Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, 1965
This book is all about a problem with reality. According to Standard Science, our universe shouldn’t exist. Scientists don’t mention this fact very often but it’s true; the Official Laws of Physics that describe our universe don’t actually fit with how our universe is. If we tried to create a universe using our Official Laws of Physics, nothing would appear. If we forced our universe to follow our Official Laws of Physics, it would cease to exist.
The hopeless disconnect between Scientific Law and reality doesn’t mean that our science is entirely wrong, it’s just that our official science is seriously wrong on several fundamental issues. The scientific community already knows this. Popular science books and magazines do touch on its fundamental problems now and then. They briefly explain the issues, admit that they’re still unsolved, and then move swiftly on to safer ground.
This book isn’t going to do that. It’s going to study these Big Problems, work out why they’re so gnarly, and then show a solution to them developed by several brilliant scientists and mathematicians, many of whom won Nobel Prizes. The solution is elegant, understandable and can transform our understanding of ourselves and the universe. Part 1 of this book will explain the solution that these brilliant minds came up with, and how they discovered it. Part 2 will then look at fascinating evidence that supports that solution. Finally, Part 3 will explore what all these evidence and theories can tell us about why we are alive and here in this reality.
Some readers might wonder that if there is a solution that solves so many Big Problems in physics, and it’s been developed by Nobel Prize Winners, then shouldn’t we have heard of it? Well, yes and no. Yes, we should but no, few of us are likely to have heard of it because our scientific establishment regards the solution they came up with as heretical. This is an ironic term to use, as the word ‘heretical’ is from the Greek word hairetikos, which means ‘able to choose’. Some of these scientists have also been called idiots because of the evidence they put forward flies in the face of the official line. Such an insult is also ironic, as the word ‘idiot’ literally means ‘a person who likes being on their own’. This is because, in Ancient Greece, socialising was regarded as very important, and so anyone who spent time on their own was seen as a fool. 'Heretical idiot' is therefore exactly what a scientist should be. Scientists would do well to pay attention to the words they use, as some of them can backfire. For example, the word ‘scientist’ itself is from the root word ‘scire’, which means to separate, from which we get words such as ‘scissors’, ‘sceptic’ and ‘shit’, which is someone’s separation. Scientists’ opinions are therefore, literally… full of shit.
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.
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...
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...
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...