Tag Archives: alternative science

The Biocentric Universe

My pal Geez ought to appreciate this one:

Biomedical researcher Robert Lanza has been on the frontier of cloning and stem cell studies for more than a decade, so he’s well-acclimated to controversy. But his book “Biocentrism” is generating controversy on a different plane by arguing that our consciousness plays a central role in creating the cosmos.

“By treating space and time as physical things, science picks a completely wrong starting point for understanding the world,” Lanza declares.

Any claim that space and time aren’t cold, hard, physical things has to raise an eyebrow. Some of the reactions to Lanza’s ideas, first set forth two years ago in an essay for The American Scholar, brand them as “pseudo-scientific philosophical claptrap” or “no better than any religion.”

Lanza admits that the reviews haven’t all been glowing, particularly among some physicists. “Their response has been much how you’d expect priests to respond to stem cell research,” he told me Monday.

Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza’s view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.

“So what Lanza says in this book is not new,” Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University, said in a book review. “Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do not say it – or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private – furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!”

True, what Lanza says is certainly not new, the Hindus and Zen Buddhists have been teaching this for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

It just took the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to verify it, supposedly.

When you read the ‘Biocentrism’ article, it does make sense, Lanza doesn’t deluge you with high-sounding technical or philosopical terms that belittles the reader.

I can see why physicists claim Lanza is speaking from the Land of Woo though, it’s hard to imagine a Universe that just wouldn’t exist if there weren’t ‘observers’ making it exist. It goes against certain variations of Copernicanism that claim that humans aren’t privileged observers of the Universe (mediocrity principle).

Is Lanza claiming we are creating reality as we go along and it would cease to exist if humans suddenly became extinct?

Or if there were no humans to observe the Universe, the Wheel would continue to turn?

The universe in your head

Biocentrism

Hat tip

……………………………………………..

An Alternative Universe

A Clockwork Moon?

One of the most outstanding indications of a deliberate design actually lies a short way out in space, with our nearest neighbor, the Moon. The Moon is about 240,000 miles from the Earth on average. Its diameter is 2160 miles, and it subtends an angle of 0.527 degrees, on average, as seen from the Earth. That’s about the apparent size of a dime seen from 6 feet away.

The Sun is about 93 million miles away, and about 865,000 miles in diameter. Its average apparent diameter, seen from the Earth, is 0.533 degrees. Compare that to the Moon’s 0.527 degrees. They’re essentially the same, 0.53 degrees across. That’s why a total solar eclipse is possible: The Moon is precisely the right apparent size. Put another way, the Moon is at precisely the right distance from the Earth, on average, to totally eclipse the Sun.

The Moon, the experts say with the absolute confidence of exacting research and extensive calculations, was blasted out of the Earth itself, very early in the history of Earth’s development. The Moon is still receding from the Earth, very slowly, they say. So it wasn’t always at just the right distance to totally eclipse the Sun, as it is now. This makes it even more astounding that, just by chance, after nearly 4.5 billion years of slow recession from the Earth, it should be at just the right distance from the Earth, throughout the recorded history of man (the last 6,000 years or so), to so precisely match the Sun in the sky, and figure so prominently in ancient man’s religiously-held beliefs.

Furthermore, the Moon goes through phases, from new to full and back again, every month. (That’s why we call it a “month”; it’s a “moonth” – “moon’s” – period, get it? Well, I bet 20% of you do.) These phases mimic the progression of a total eclipse, and underscore the total eclipse as the single recognizable theme of the Moon’s design. Because that’s what this “cosmic coincidence” obviously is, a deliberate design, made with deliberate intent: To emphasize, and memorialize, the total eclipse – as a once-upon-a-time catastrophic extinguishing of the Sun’s light by another body, perhaps. When the Sun “died”, as the world’s myths in fact claimed. That’s why the eclipse was universally feared, up to modern times. (In the Norse myths, at Ragnarok the Sun was overtaken and eaten by a “wolf”; in the Greek, the Sun’s chariot was driven out of its accustomed path by Phaethon, the Sun god’s son, who was hurled down to destruction – and in both accounts, the surface of the Earth was largely burned up.)

Dr. Huffman isn’t the only person to bring up the theory that our Moon may be artificial. Dr. Noel Huntley, a scientist devoted to the study of Fortean subjects, wrote four years ago the Moon might be a very ancient space vessel and suggesting that it might have a connection to the ancient Sumerian’s Nibiru/Anunnaki legends.

Can the Moon be artificial, thus proving the existence of a very ancient human or alien culture and confirming the theory of the Biological Universe?

Or is it more New Age hogwash in a different wrapper?

The Clockwork Moon Science Ignores

Hat tip

………………………………………

More dark matter mysticism?

Stars born in that early period were so hot and dense that they lived for a mere 100,000 years, consuming their hydrogen and fusing it into helium and other heavier elements. According to a recent announcement from the Paris Institute for Astrophysics, however, some of those early stars might actually still exist within our own Milky Way galaxy. The preserving factor? Dark matter might have dampened stellar fusion to such minimal activity that the aging process of those stars was suspended and they stopped evolving.

The original stars are known as population III stars and, as the press release states, many of them could have formed within vast clouds of dark matter that preserved them for a practical eternity. According to Gianfranco Bertone of the Paris Institute: “These stars can be frozen for timescales longer than the age of the universe.”

If dark matter particles called Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS) are made from heavier versions of normal matter, they might be drawn down to stellar cores through gravitational attraction. The dark matter could then act like other thermonuclear phenomena and undergo violent collisions with normal particles, emitting radiation and elementary fragments that appear to be based on conventional theories of stellar evolution. Dark matter would put a halt to nuclear fusion and “freeze” the star in its aging process for hundreds of thousands of years. Once the dark matter was burned up the star would then go back to fusing hydrogen into helium as prevailing theories assert.

Indeed, dark matter might have the ability to bring dead stars back to life. If a white dwarf (the supposed husk of a yellow star like the Sun) entered a dense dark matter cloud, it might actually begin to burn dark matter and start to shine as if it were a white star. Some researchers suggest they could become many times brighter than before.

Building a theory on another theory and relying on the conclusions of one speculation to prop up the conclusions of another is tantamount to science fiction. In the case of “dark matter burners” and stars almost as old as the universe we are dealing with a step-by-step descent into sheer irony.

Since dark matter is unseen and undetectable and has been inferred from mathematical manipulations, could it be that something else is taking place? From the perspective of the Electric Universe theory galaxies and stars are all driven by electric currents flowing through dusty plasma.

Astrophysics during the past 40 years or so has suffered from the lack of sufficient funding necessary to carry out empirical observations needed for verification of hypotheses. So instead mathematical modeling became prevalent, because it is cheaper than building particle accelerators and telescopes.

And this is the result; far out mathematics that few people can decipher and invention of imaginary entities necessary to make some equations make sense.

Hopefully when the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and improvements in telescope software become available, some hard empirical data will either answer some questions.

Or ask new ones.

Frozen in the Dark

……………………………………….

“Failed” black-holes = gamma-ray bursts?

gammarayburst_keck1

Gamma-ray bursts are the most massive explosions in the universe since the Big Bang, and yet scientists still know relatively little about them. Dark bursts, such as the one in the center of the artist’s rendering above, remain especially mysterious.

New research published last week on the arXiv website, and not yet peer reviewed, suggests that gamma-ray bursts may be the result of a strange effect that can stop a black hole from forming.

The current thinking is any star more than three times the size of the sun will eventually collapse into a black hole. But Ilya Rozen of the P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow thinks a phase change of matter into a very different form creates a vacuum in an imploding star that results in a burning wall he predicts would stop a black hole from forming and emit powerful gamma-ray bursts.

Hmm, what if the gauge in which we measure intergalactic distances, red-shift of the ‘expanding’ universe is wrong?

That would mean those gamma-ray bursts might be a lot closer than we think and our theory of the gravity driven universe and black-holes could be wrong also.

Mysterious Gamma-Ray Bursts May Have Ties to Failed Black Holes

Redfern on Roswell, Thunderbolts on Aristotle

Greg of The Daily Grail interviews Nick Redfern about his book “Body Snatchers in the Desert” , the thesis being the 1947 Roswell Incident wasn’t about aliens, Project Mogul or any other cockamamee story the Air Force has dreamed up:

TDG: The standard debunking line on Roswell is now the USAF’s Project Mogul explanation (along with the tangential ‘bodies’ explanation being crash test dummies from experiments in the ’50s). Why should this explanation be rejected in favour of more ‘exotic’ theories?

NR: Well, I’m not sure that the theory outlined to me is actually that exotic. For example, of the 7 or 8 experiments I was told were undertaken in New Mexico that had a Japanese link, most were just high-altitude type experiments using very large balloon arrays, but with people on board. In other words, aside from one very rudimentary experiment that was linked with the Nuclear Energy for Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) people, everything was balloon-based and glider-based experimentation, and not anything really advanced or exotic technology-wise. So, just like Mogul ironically, these balloons themselves weren’t classified – it was what the controversial nature of what they were allegedly being used for that was classified: namely, high-altitude flights to determine various effects on the human-body. And, as one of the sources who I interviewed for the book told me: what better way to hide a classified balloon-based experiment, than by hiding it behind another classified balloon-based experiment?

Ironically, all the people I interviewed agreed with the USAF stance that Roswell involved a secret balloon flight. But it was the nature of the secret balloon activity (Mogul vs Japanese) that they disagreed upon. As for the crash-test dummies: I think even a lot of the outright skeptics were puzzled by that theory. My own view is that the “dummy” report actually only served to make people (even the media) think that something else really was being hidden.

Basically Mr. Redfern’s theory is that the US government used old Japanese prisoners of war and severely disabled folks in high-altitude balloon experiments to study the effects of near-vacuum environments on the human body.

Pretty nasty eh?

Just like the Nazis using political prisoners and persecuted people in their scientific studies.

As Redfern said in his interview, “…as one of the sources who I interviewed for the book told me: what better way to hide a classified balloon-based experiment, than by hiding it behind another classified balloon-based experiment?”

And what better way to hide such a horrendous project than behind a UFO myth?

New Roswell Revelations

_____________________

Why do mainstream scientists dismiss claims of catastrophism as a part of nature in how our Universe works and say instead everything tends toward stability?

Folks at Thunderbolts.info say it’s an Aristotelian Hangover:

In his dialogues, Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, had happily speculated about cyclical episodes of destruction both on earth and on a cosmic level. One of his main interests was to incorporate ancient traditions about a reversal of the sun, a worldwide flood or a consuming fire into models that made scientific sense. For Plato, the realm of absolute, immutable perfection was not that of the stars and planets, but lay outside the material world altogether.

His junior, Aristotle, would have none of this. Downplaying any traditions about global floods and fires, Aristotle regarded the spheres of stars and planets themselves as unalterable, immune to any form of decay or change. To such lengths would he go that even comets were removed from their place among the planets and relegated to the ‘elemental’ region below the moon, where meteors and auroras belong! If Plato had no qualms to contemplate catastrophes, Aristotle was an out-and-out uniformitarian thinker – a contrast lucidly discussed by the British historian, Peter James, among others.

Intriguingly, this change in sentiments seems to have repeated itself on a larger scale among post-medieval scholars in Europe. When Renaissance savants first rediscovered Greek literature, Platonic philosophy was all the mode, often tinged with Gnostic or Hermetic notions. During this time, the likes of William Whiston and Sir Edmond Halley felt no compunction to entertain the thought of comets precipitating the global flood of Noah or the tilting of the rotational axis.

The seeds for change were sown when Gottfried Leibniz, a cardiac Aristotelian, declared with overweening confidence that natura non facit saltus, ‘nature does not make a leap’, and worked with zeal on the theory of a great continuous ‘chain of being’ that would join all forms of life. This anti-catastrophist attitude snowballed into a movement culminating in the 19th century in the paradigms of steady evolution championed by Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin and a host of minor figures, which overshadowed any remaining catastrophists completely.

Recently, classic Darwinism has been taken to task because the “steady evolution” paradigm evidence is lacking and a more chaotic “web” of evolution seems to be what the fossil record and DNA evidence indicates.

Times are a-changin’?

An Aristotelian Hangover

_____________________

More Atlantis/Antarctica, dark matter and the electric galaxy

Part 2 of Bruce Duensing’s critique of the Atlantis/Antarctica link:

Sediments under the Ross Ice Shelf have also been analyzed in a parallel study by a specialist in glaciers from the Victoria University in New Zealand, which revealed that there is evidence the platform collapsed on a regular basis during the Pliocene when the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere were similar or slightly higher than the current ones. The research sought to identify the relationship between orbital cycles and the pattern of collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf. This pattern suggests that there was an influence of the cycles of 40,000 years in the inclination of the rotational axis of the earth during the Pliocene which led to the subsequent collapse of the ice.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html
On the other side of this coin regarding this once and future Atlantis, are the events that may have led to a large naval expeditionary force into a disastrous and ill fated rush preemptively thwarting the reconstitution of a Third Reich well hidden in retreat, within the remote last redoubt of Antarctica One could consider these anomalies of theory to be either provocative, disturbing or ludicrous. What connects these two threads is the anomaly and persistent phenomenon of UFOs which hang over the globe as perhaps a proverbial plumb bob. In this we have the intrigue associated with an interesting cast of characters associated with the anomalies of history, from Admiral Byrd to James Forrestal, as well as Martin Borman thrown in for good measure. An Atlantis of nexus as a pivot point around which this tale of mythologies revolve.

Read the rest here.

_____________________________

Some of the biggest galaxies in the early universe seem to have grown quicker than thought possible and may have bulked up on streams of gas flowing along filaments of dark matter, say researchers.

Monster galaxies have long been thought to take a long time to form, growing slowly by gobbling up smaller galaxies like a giant amoeba absorbing food.

I’m still not convinced about dark matter. Too much is taken on faith here.

Over-weight galaxies force-fed by dark matter tendrils

Hat tip to David Darling’s science site

___________________________

The galaxy electric:

electricgalaxy

According to consensus theory, the “stellar main sequence” is a chart of what happens to stars over long periods of time. No information about the electrical input or output of stars is considered when the various conventional theories are debated. By not bringing the electrical interaction of stars with their galactic environment into the picture, an entire line of investigation is never considered. Astronomers and other specialists are not mapping thecurrent flow through spacein order to determine its influence on stellar evolution. Because of that oversight, they constantly overstate the gravitational model of the cosmos.

Retired professor Dr. Don Scott wrote that the absolute brightness of a star depends on the strength of the current density impinging into its surface, along with the star’s diameter. As current density increases the star becomes hotter and brighter, glowing bluer and whiter. If the current flow into the star decreases, the star becomes red and cools down. So using magnitude and color to determine a star’s age is a false premise.

Anthony Peratt, in his particle-in-cell simulations of plasma reactions, has demonstrated that galaxies are not formed by rarified wisps of gas and dust gradually falling into their own gravity wells. His models of galactic evolution reveal that electrically conductive plasma is able to create the shapes of spiral galaxies without resorting to gravity-specific influences. Peratt’s work with high-energy electric discharges indicates that the composition of stars in galaxy evolution is due not to where they were born, but to how they were born.

I’m interested in the results of the European’s Goce satellite in which the Earth’s gravitational field is supposed to be measured.

Remember the GRACE satellites that were launched in 2002 that were supposed to measure Earth’s gravity? Well, not much was heard about them through the corpo-media over the years, so I did a little Google-plexing and found they were measuring ice loss in Antarctica.

I understand ice has mass, so how come that hasn’t been translated into how gravity works and addressed to the public?

Could it be because the intention all along was about building a case for “human caused” global warming and they know the current theories about gravity are bullsh*t?

I don’t know, we can make a case concerning scientific conspiracies all over the place if we want, but at the end of the day, does it bring us any closer to the truth?

The electric universe theory brings a logical discussion to an otherwise stodgy, conformist and boring subject that just might prove to be true.

Misplaced Mavericks

____________________

Life From Ceres and a Real Good Rant!

Michael Gmirkin laments in an article for Thunderbolts.Info about the habit of “framing hypotheses” in science nowadays, especially concerning one about how life on Earth might’ve been carried from the planetoid Ceres in the asteroid belt in the early solar system:

It seems that, of late, science has reverted to the habit of “framing hypotheses.” In other words, hypotheses and thought experiments are being treated as though they are not in fact unproven.

That scientists seem comfortable with accepting such flights of fancy as worthy of serious consideration is worrisome. Should not theory proceed from observation, rather than the other way around? If we frame hypotheses and then go looking for confirmatory data, will science become overly susceptible to “confirmation bias” (wherein one interprets data as being in support of one’s preconceived ideas rather than allowing the data to speak for itself, even if it is disconfirmatory)?

Whether or not peroxide-based life is or isn’t found on Ceres is perhaps less important than taking away an attitude of rational skepticism about flights of theoretical fancy. It seems like now is a ripe time to revisit Newton and return to a more empirical and less “fantastical” form of science, where observations precede the theory and theories can be falsified based upon real-world data.

One would also be tempted to insist that Ockham’s Razor be applied and that scientists be extremely wary of positing new hypothetical entities (dark matter and dark energy are prime examples) before all existing theories and entities have had their chance at providing answers to existing anomalous data (such as the plasma cosmology explanation of galaxy formation and rotation curves, which does not require the invention of dark matter).

I’ve read the article in question and I found the hypothesis wanting too, although I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a cosmologist or an astrobiologist.

The mainstream seems to have no lack of people spouting “unfalsifiable” theories as fact, like the “tinfoil” community!

A Tale of Earth Life Seeded from Ceres…

Hat Tip

_________________________________

I don’t partake of partisan politics much anymore, but I know a first class rant when I read one, this time about a person who worked at AIG and can’t understand the public’s righteous anger about bankster bail-outs:

“I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to AIG. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.” via Op-Ed Contributor — “Dear AIG, I Quit!” — NYTimes.com

Like a lot of people, I read Wednesday’s New York Times editorial by former AIG Financial Products employee Jake DeSantis, whose resignation letter basically asks us all to reconsider our anger toward the poor overworked employees of his unit.

DeSantis has a few major points. They include: 1) I had nothing to do with my boss Joe Cassano’s toxic credit default swaps portfolio, and only a handful of people in our unit did; 2) I didn’t even know anything about them; 3) I could have left AIG for a better job several times last year; 4) but I didn’t, staying out of a sense of duty to my poor, beleaguered firm, only to find out in the end that; 5) I would be betrayed by AIG senior management, who promised we would be rewarded for staying, but then went back on their word when they folded in highly cowardly fashion in the face of an angry and stupid populist mob.

I have a few responses to those points. They are 1) Bullshit; 2) bullshit; 3) bullshit, plus of course; 4) bullshit. Lastly, there is 5) Boo-Fucking-Hoo. You dog.

You have to read the full post to get the impact. The writer is a lot more eloquent in his prose that I would be, which in fact would have more expletive descriptions that his did.

But hey, I don’t write for a living either! 😆

AIG Exec Whines About Public Anger…

Hat Tip________________________________