My last blog entry was a review of Paul Laviolette's video talk on antigravity technology and the theoretical physics behind it. In this blog entry, I'm reviewing his book 'Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion'. I'm pleased to say that it is an excellent book. Many books on the subjects of UFO technology, free energy and secret space programmes are often light on solid theory and therefore hard to believe but Dr Laviolette's book is thick with quality physics and solid experimental evidence. 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:
Here is a very interesting video of a presentation by the physicist Paul Laviolette on the subject of alternative physics theories, Townsend Brown, electro-gravitics and related matters. Dr Laviolette speaks slowly in the video, which can take some getting used to, but everything he says is worth thinking about, so if you factor in the time needed to think about what he’s saying, the talk goes very quickly!
Most of the time, when people talk about UFOs or Unidentified Flying Objects, they tend to fall into two main camps. Some parties declare that UFOs are a delusion, 'swamp gas', 'venus', weather balloons or some other item that would be found out within ten minutes of close inspection. Other parties immediately produce wildly fantastic explanations and theories as to UFOs purpose and origin, also without good supporting evidence. Both attitudes are understandable but don't help us develop a better, accurate knowledge of what's actually going on.
By comparison, Paul R. Hill, a very experienced aeronautical engineer with an excellent grasp of physics and engineering concepts, decided to approach the matter of UFO's in a very different way. He adopted the following strategy.
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...
One of the problems of investigating the topic of UFOs is that there is an awful lot of woefully unscientific material out there on that subject. It's not a lot of fun watching videos or reading books that seem, at first glance, to be a possible treasure trove of valuable information, only to find that they are stating facts that are physically impossible, even when one accepts that mainstream science is on the wrong path regarding many important aspects of reality and ourselves.
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! :-)
Here's another good video from Dean Radin, who is a senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Science over in the United States. I reviewed another video presented by him recently in which he explains the scientific evidence that show how our minds influence events at the quantum level, which underpins physical reality. This video covers similar, related material, including a very accessible explanation of our understanding of reality. Specifically, Radin explains how the material constituents of our reality don't give rise to our minds but that our minds give rise to the material constituent of our physical reality.
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:
This week, the excellent website Brainpickings has published an article about the eminent British scientist Michael Faraday. On May 6, 1854, Faraday delivered a lecture at the Royal Institution on the subject of “mental discipline,” later included in his volume Experimental Researches In Chemistry And Physics. Here's what he said:
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.
This week, the New Scientist magazine gave me a big compliment by making my latest letter to them their Editor’s letter of the week. Here it is:
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...