It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul LaViolette Is So Far Ahead Of His Time It's Scary!

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Caroline13456

A bit more info on spontaneous continuous creation nuts and bolts...

Subquantum Kinetics
(a nontechnical summary)

Subquantum kinetics is a novel microphysics paradigm that incorporates concepts developed in the fields of system theory and nonequilibrium thermodynamics. One of its distinctive features is that it begins at the subquantum level for its point of departure. By comparison, conventional physics and most alternative physics theories begin with mathematically quantified observations of physical phenomena at the quantum and macrophysical level and attempt to deduce physical theories based on those observations. Since the conventional approach must take into account numerous experimental observations, the end result is a fragmented and often contradictory set of theories which must later be sewn together with mathematical acrobatics. Such “unified field theories” more closely resemble a patchwork quilt than a contiguous fabric.

Instead of beginning with physical observations, subquantum kinetics begins by postulating a set of well-ordered reaction processes that are proposed to take place at the subquantum level. Collectively, these reaction processes compose what is termed the transmuting ether, an active substrate that is quite different from the passive mechanical ethers considered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It further proposes that the concentrations of the substrates composing this ether are the energy potential fields that form the basis of all matter and energy in our universe. The operation of these ether reactions causes wave-like field gradients (spatial concentration patterns) to emerge and form the observable quantum level structures and physical phenomena (e.g., subatomic particles with mass, charge, spin, and force field effects and electromagnetic waves).

So, subquantum kinetics: a) begins with a mathematical model of subquantum processes; b) it then computer simulates this model to generate quantum level phenomena; and c) it compares the model’s simulated results to actual observations. The model’s mathematical parameters are then “fine-tuned” so that its simulated results accurately reflect experimental observation, thereby making the model a realistic representation of the physical world. Because, it begins with a single reaction system model as its point of departure for describing essentially all observable physical phenomena, subquantum kinetics qualifies as a unified theory. By comparison, conventional physics begins with many theories conceived independently from one another and later attempts to “sew” these together. But the result is far from unified, being instead a self-contradictory aglomeration.

In choosing an adequate model to represent subquantum process, subquantum kinetics turns to the macroscopic natural world, to theories describing how certain reaction systems spontaneously evolve well-ordered wave patterns. This self-organization phenomenon, for example, is seen in the Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction, a chemical reaction first discovered in 1958. Slowly moving concentration fronts called chemical waves, or “reaction-diffusion waves,” can be discerned when a dye indicator is added to this reacting solution.

Wave patterns and wave motion may also be produced mechanically, as is commonly experienced in the movement of water waves or in the vibrations of a violin string. Early physical theories, in fact, proposed mechanical ether models in an attempt to describe phenomena such as light wave propagation. However, such models lead to very different assumptions about primary creation. a mechanical universe could not arise spontaneously, instead requiring the miraculous injection of an initiating energy impulse inexplicably arising out of a state of non-existence. Such mechanical models are inadequate for the approach outlined here which postulates an orderly and explicable process of creation.

Subquantum kinetics was partly inspired from work done on a reaction kinetic model known as the Brusselator. This two-variable model holds the distinction in the field of reaction-kinetics of being an archetypal reaction-kinetic oscillator comparable in simplicity to the simple harmonic oscillator of wave mechanics. That is, it is the simplest reaction system known to produce wave patterns that have well-defined wavelength properties. To arrive at a model that produces a physically realistic simulation of quantum structures, the Brusselator must be modified into the three-variable reaction system known as Model G. Hence in proposing Model G as a descriptor of the subquantum processes that generate physical order, subquantum kinetics takes concepts that have been developed in the well-established field of nonlinear chemical kinetics and applies them to the domain of microphysics.

The subquantum kinetics paradigm avoids many of the pitfalls of conventional physics and astronomy theories and interprets physical phenomena in a distinctively different manner. A listing of the numerous problems of the conventional paradigm and how subquantum kinetics resolves them is presented in the following tables.

SQK




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Caroline13456
a reply to: Caroline13456

A bit more info on spontaneous continuous creation nuts and bolts...

Subquantum Kinetics
(a nontechnical summary)

Subquantum kinetics is a novel microphysics paradigm that incorporates concepts developed in the fields of system theory and nonequilibrium thermodynamics. One of its distinctive features is that it begins at the subquantum level for its point of departure.
Point of departure from what? Reality.

LaViolette not only has his own woo ideas, but he promotes obvious woo garbage from other sources so if you're seeking entertainment fiction, he's a good source, but if you're seeking truth, he's not. This explains why his "Secrets of Antigravity" book contains absolutely confirmed bunk:

SECRETS OF ANTI-GRAVITY DEBUNKED 2009 Dec 27 from Brian McDermott

I recently purchased a book from you that you have been promoting on your website, entitled “Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion,” by one Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D. May I say at the outset, that I am mystified as to how anyone could possibly have a Ph.D. and write such a book.

I scrolled down the contents page, and was absolutely gob-smacked to find a chapter there, Chapter 10 on Page 296, on what the author called “The Searl Effect.” I thought the author would be calling Searl to heel for misleading the public with his absolute nonsense; but, upon reading the chapter, I found that he went on waxing lyrical, singing the praises of the “Searl” machine....

He spoke of how his first “generator” took off on its own accord, glowing, and went up and bounced against the ceiling, the second one flew off into space, and he lost it – it never came back! The next one he made also took off and did the same thing, and it went up and flew over Denmark, and he had to contact some “amateur radio operators” over there and instruct them to send up some signals to it, which then turned it around and brought it back home, safe and sound! I asked him how he knew it was over Denmark, and he couldn’t answer that. I asked him how he knew who to contact amongst the amateur radio operators in Denmark, and he couldn’t answer that either. I asked him what frequencies he told them to transmit, he couldn’t answer that either. I asked him how they could transmit signals to a “saucer” that didn’t have any radio receivers or controls in it, and no steering gear or navigation equipment (I am a commercial pilot and former flying instructor also), he couldn’t answer that either. I could immediately tell that he was making up his stories as he spoke. Nothing made sense....

I was absolutely flabbergasted how someone could carry on like John Searl did, trying to con money out of people. I am even more flabbergasted how someone with a PhD could write about him the way he has in this book. He hasn’t done any homework whatsoever. It is simply an outrageous compilation of plagiarism, to sell a book. Had I known that he had written up Searl, Townsend Brown, et al in the book, I never would have purchased it. It’s A CON!
It's too long to post the whole thing but if you read the whole article and still think that Searl isn't a con-man and that LaViolette isn't also a con-man for promoting another con-man, nothing anybody says will probably make any difference to someone who chooses to believe such obvious nonsense.
edit on 23-2-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Some people are very good at inventing their own brand of "science", but only the maths and scientific method can prove their validity.

LaViolette rehashes the old (and debunked) "tired light" hypothesis, and a Google search for his name brings up the "Sphinx Stargate", mentioning that "using the Sphinx as one of the keys, Paul LaViolette has discovered a message hidden in the zodiac constellations, that warns us of a possible future cataclysm." And you expect us to take him seriously? Sounds like New Age woo-woo.

It looks like LaViolette is in the same boat as Hoagland and Haramein, offering snake oil to those who don't understand mainstream science, or somehow feel disillusioned with it.
edit on 23-2-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Yeah, I mean I am really out-there and open for almost everything, but when you have to invent that many assumptions and your own personalised categories to order them: you're probably wrong.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Caroline13456



Earlier this year Professor Stephen Hawking shocked physicists by saying 'there are no black holes'. In a paper published online, Professor Hawking instead argues there are 'grey holes'


You are misunderstanding Dr. Hawking's analogies. He is not denying the existence of the 'objects' we call 'black holes'. He is just saying that they are not really black.

The "black hole" name came from the fact that once something crosses the event horizon it cannot come out again, even light. We call things that absorb all light "black". However, Hawking and some Russian collegues showed that actually black holes do "emit" radiation, and therefore "glow". "Hawking Radiation" is not knew, it was being taught in Freshman Physics classes many years ago.

All through space, matter and antimatter particle pairs 'pop' into existence all the time. Normally, they recombine and annihilate each other almost immediately, so the average density at any particular spacial location remains constant on average. However near the event horizon, one member of the matter and antimatter particle pairs might just be 'trapped' by the black hole while the other happens to escape. In this way, the black hole can be said to be emitting radiation - so not "black"; "grey" maybe. This result does not eliminate the event horizon nor provide for radiation, once trapped, to escape; in fact it depends on it.

What Hawking is now suggesting is not that the Event Horizen does not exist, but that perhaps it is not as 'fixed' as we might have thought; perhaps it changes shape according to quantum dynamics with in the black hole. His suggestion is an attempt to solve the dilemma between General Relativity and Quantum Dynamics about what is actually happening at the event horizon and just beyond: a peaceful transition until gravitation pulls you apart (relativity) or firewall driven by the maelstrom of the anti-Hawking radiation (Quantum Dynamics). I just made the term "anti Hawking Radiation" up, I use it to refer to the member of the pair that gets trapped. Hawking's suggestion has not gained general acceptance yet (AFAIK).

A fair summary of the issue is reported here: No Black Holes? More Like Grey Holes, Says Hawking

edit on 23/2/2015 by rnaa because: spelling



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
Some people are very good at inventing their own brand of "science", but only the maths and scientific method can prove their validity.

I think some scientists think differently and don't self filter like the vast majority. They are important to break up the herd mentality that so often takes over humans. Lumping someone in with cranks because you find one thing he believes wrong sure seems superficial. I prefer to consider each idea on it's merit.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Dude, C'mon... It's right next to the Kanooter Valve.... That's 1st year stuff...

I think if I could understand half of it my mind would be blown.....

Wind with iron particles blowing out from Black Holes in every direction, like Solar Wind from Sol... A Black Hole whose gravity is so strong that not even light can escape it... Same Black Hole right? Or is this a new Black Hole... oh yeah... yep... mind blown



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky



I think some scientists think differently and don't self filter like the vast majority. They are important to break up the herd mentality that so often takes over humans. Lumping someone in with cranks because you find one thing he believes wrong sure seems superficial. I prefer to consider each idea on it's merit.


That is, superficially, a very noble attitude. After all, where would we be without hackers?

ON the other hand, the ability to "consider each idea on it's merit" depends on YOU having the ability to evaluate "each idea" from the point of expertise. Common sense is expertise enough for a lot of things, but not in the outer reaches of science like Quantum Dynamics and Cosmology.

You just aren't equipped to make that consideration. Common sense is, however, plenty good enough to recognize the mumbo-jumbo of a pseudo-science charlatan in action - you really just need a good BS-meter.

Good BS-meters don't just happen, you need to practice with them, exercise them, get to know them intimately, make them part of your very being.

Here's a good place to start reacquainting yourself with your own BS-meter: What is Pseudoscience?

And this from good ol' Martin Gardner: Hermits and Cranks: Lessons from Martin Gardner on Recognizing Pseudoscientists



How can we tell if someone is a scientific crank? Gardner offers this advice: (1) "First and most important of these traits is that cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues." Cranks typically do not understand how the scientific process operates—that they need to try out their ideas on colleagues, attend conferences and publish their hypotheses in peer-reviewed journals before announcing to the world their startling discovery. Of course, when you explain this to them they say that their ideas are too radical for the conservative scientific establishment to accept. (2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:

(1) He considers himself a genius. (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads....(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work....(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein....(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.


(Emphasis mine to point out two of the obvious traits operating with LaViolette).
edit on 23/2/2015 by rnaa because: Quote from Martin Gardner



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa
Yes I think noeltrotsky makes a good point, and one which appears to be particularly valid with a number of Nobel prize winners. I think the reason for this is the very same "out of the box" thinking that turned out to be right and won them the Nobel prize also causes them to think out of the box on other topics also and not every out of the box idea turns out to be right...most are not. So it's certainly wise to evaluate each idea from a Nobel prize winner on its own merits, for example.

However I don't see where this applies to LaViolette. His ideas aren't just "outside the box", he's taken the box and destroyed it and basically said "there is no box" and made up something completely fictitious to replace it. This is not how science works and your citations of how to recognize him as a crank are apt.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nice to hear a bit of openness.

You guys have commented on all sorts of other stuff Laviolette talks about, but nothing about the recent findings of 'black hole' winds blowing in all directions and carrying Iron atoms. Doesn't the speed of this 'wind' cause problems for black holes 'consuming' objects?

As well, his findings in ice and 'superwave' theory linking the findings to the galactic core. Seem possible? The ice findings have a periodic repetition to them that seems to exclude random supernova causes.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nice to hear a bit of openness.

You guys have commented on all sorts of other stuff Laviolette talks about, but nothing about the recent findings of 'black hole' winds blowing in all directions and carrying Iron atoms. Doesn't the speed of this 'wind' cause problems for black holes 'consuming' objects?
No why would it? Because LaViolette says so?

Quasars are relics of the early universe and we are peering way into the past when we observe them. Because they are from the early universe they may have less angular momentum than more mature black holes which are at the core of galaxies which are the result of 2 or more galaxies merging in collisions.

So it's not really contradictory to say that Quasars might have a more spherical wind pattern and some later black hole related radiation patterns can be in jets due to higher angular momentum of the black hole accretion disk and/or of the black hole itself.

Quasars are about the size of our solar system, yet give off more energy than all the stars in the Milky way galaxy combined, perhaps 100 times more. Why would you not expect the wind from such an enormously powerful energy source to have extremely high velocity ionic winds?

I think part of the reason some people suspected they might have been directional jets from the quasars earlier is because we had a hard time grasping such high energy output from such a compact object, and by assuming jets you can say that the brightness we see isn't in all directions meaning the quasar doesn't have to be so powerful. But, others already suspected the quasar output was spherical and they really were that powerful, so now in the case of quasar PDS456 at least, we know it's probably fairly spherical output.

Telescopes give shape to furious black hole winds

NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) and ESA's (European Space Agency) XMM-Newton telescope are showing that fierce winds from a supermassive black hole blow outward in all directions—a phenomenon that had been suspected, but difficult to prove until now.
I think it's probably fair to say "a phenomenon that had been suspected" ...by SOME, because there were others that had suspected jets. Well now we know which it is for at least PDS456, and which suspicions were correct.

This abstract seems to imply the observations fit with the models of the black hole and host galaxy evolution:
Black hole feedback in the luminous quasar PDS 456

This persistent wind is expelled at relativistic speeds from the inner accretion disk, and its wide aperture suggests an effective coupling with the ambient gas. The outflow’s kinetic power larger than 10^46 ergs per second is enough to provide the feedback required by models of black hole and host galaxy coevolution.


Saying the wind from a quasar has a "wide aperture" does nothing to disprove the evidence we have of black hole jets in more mature black holes such as our own in the Milky way, since the idea of jets evolving through angular momentum resulting from galactic collisions is consistent with our models of the evolution of the universe. We still have some evidence of jets even in our own galaxy so the idea of jets isn't dead just because the winds from at least one quasar have a "wide aperture":

www.scientificamerican.com...

The Milky Way’s giant black hole, called Sagittarius A* (pronounced “Sagittarius A-star”) has long been theorized to have jets, but evidence was inconclusive. Now researchers have combined x-ray photographs of the galaxy’s center from NASA’s Chandra space telescope with radio data from the Very Large Array (VLA) observatory in New Mexico to offer the best support yet for the idea of jets from Sagittarius A*. The x-ray photos show a wispy bright line of gas that is emitting x-ray light to one side of the black hole—perhaps indicating the jet itself—and the radio observations highlight a wall of gas that scientists think is a shock front created where the jet is slamming into a cloud, snow-plowing the gas into a clump.


Again I don't see any inconsistencies here at all in the science, but I do see LaViolette preying on people who don't know a crank when they see one. That doesn't mean we aren't learning new things, we are, but none of them prove LaViolette's crackpot ideas about genic energy or subquantum kinetics as he claims.

edit on 23-2-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

much appreciated. It's some effort but your post is helpful to understand it a bit better.

Thanks!



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   
It's interesting. But I would not put all your eggs in any theory basket to sort of say. That includes mainstream taken as fact believes, in the end you got to look at it like this. We may be able to tell something from our science and technological devices, but at the end its still looking at the ocean through a doors keyhole.

A hundred years from now its likely that a lot of things will change in our believes of the universe, and in a thousand years or how about 10 thousand years?...Lets just say considering that our current technological advances nobody would have been able to predict accurate some 200 hundred years ago. Unless your there and then witnessing it in person, really its all theories, they may be educated theories. But look at what your dealing with? Even if you wanted to take real time data, when dealing with something like the galactic center or black holes, well if you send out a probe now it may get back to you in a few hundred thousand years from now realistically, its highly likely we all and humanity will be extinct by then.

So when your dealing with things like that not only the massive scope of it all. Its like an ant trying to reach the sun. So who knows, maybe a thousand years from now we will learn that the center of the galaxy runs on pixie dust. We all make things up, and time and history has shown that in time eventually they all turn out to be not what we thought, or completely way off the marker, and thatch putting it mildly. You know what they say, the only constant is change, and that applies to science as well.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I agree 100%.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
in reply to this:

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I agree 100%.









 



what is very strange, weird... is that I had independently come to an idea of a SuperWave Theory wayyyy back in the early 1970s...kinda soon after the theoretical Black Holes were getting popularized
(1969...
which is just about the same timeframe of the nuts-&-bolts action to build the WTC twin-towers were put into action
[1969 a very 'vortice' year indeed]

my angle on a Superwave Gamma-Ray-Burst from the Galactic Core was not based on scientific knowledge as a basis, my inspiration was more of the mystical-supernatural-spiritual bent

So, the much more knowledgeable and credentialed figure (Dr LaViolette) and at least myself were both hit with the 'epiphany' which I contend is from the Collective-Conscious/Noosphere/(Cayce's)Hall-of-Records/and is pretty much distributed to a small but sizeable group of diverse individuals all over the globe ~~~ just to ensure that the civilization changing event or line-of-thinking would not get 'lost' in the crushing flow of human survival cares...

a 'superwave or death ray' comes our way !
edit on th28142477273424122015 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I quite like to read some of the woo woo produced by Paul LaViolette. I choose to have a open mind and enjoy to take in some of the information. The starburst website is interesting and worth a wonder.
As fruitcakes go Paul is a nice one. Take care all


etheric.com...






posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
Holy crap! This guy has basically proven that Black Holes don't 'eat' anything...they literally can't because the 'wind' coming out is so strong nothing could get inside!!!

quote:
" This finding challenges the conventional view that these supermassive black holes are cores energized by in falling material. Because this group acknowledges that with a wind as strong as they are seeing (1046 erg/second) it would be impossible for material to fall into the core to fuel its observed emission. "

That pretty much wipes out the theory of how Black Holes work. I don't know about his theory on where the energy is coming from...a ton more reading before I understand that.

Nice find!


It could actually prove that instead of matter falling into a BH, it instead is ejected from it.

Perhaps so-called black holes are the engines of creation...perhaps all matter is generated within them and slowly trickle out to create...well, creation.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

As we learn more about what is ejected from the center of our galaxy I'm sure the answer will get better. I do wonder at what strength the 'wind' needs to be to interfere with matter being pulled into the core. I suspect Laviolette is mistaken about this aspect of his argument after further consideration. If the center is still being 'fed' material that gravity pulls into it then Laviolette can't show energy is being 'created' at the core.

It's pretty hard to show some force is counter acting gravity pulling objects into a supermassive galactic center. That's what hold everything in our Solar system revolving around it including our Sun.

I do find the superwave theory to explain the ice findings interesting. Something rather periodic is emitting massive amounts of cosmic 'debris'. It could be the galactic core, but I don't know.







 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join