Found in my local supermarket. 'nuff said.

THE BIG PICTURE

1. We don't know how old the universe is, nor whether it has a beginning or an end. There is no evidence to support the Big Bang. Any ideas about this are pure fiction and despite preposterous amounts of money being spent to “prove” it, there is no real evidence or any way to prove the big bang ever happened. Besides, what meaning is there in it?

2. Our world and Solar System have been modified. Our Moon is not a normal or naturally occurring moon. It is much too big and does not orbit the Earth in a normal orbit compared to other moons in our own Solar System. What exactly it is remains to be discovered.

3. We are not alone. There is a constant stream of sightings of UFOs that cannot all be explained away and thanks to the plentiful supply of mobile phones with cameras there is more evidence than ever before of many somethings or someones in our skies and out in space.

Life on Earth exists in almost every type of environment – extremes of heat and cold, high and low altitudes: why would we then assume that it stops when we leave the surface of Earth? More likely life exists everywhere in forms we don't yet know of, even out in space.

4. Humans have been on Earth for a very long time. There are fossils that prove humans, or something resembling humans have been living here for millions of years. Not thousands, MILLIONS of years.

5. We are not the same as all other life on Earth. Humans have two genes fused together which all other animals have separated. There are many other biological differences that suggest we are at least partly modified from standard Earth stock. Our mental capacity is clearly limited – we can know this yet we cannot surpass some serious limits.

6. We are probably not the most advanced culture to ever exist on this planet. There is plenty of evidence of previous cultures that could create advanced technology in our past.

In various places there are examples of advanced metalwork, stone and ceramic works that prove someone was here in ages past and they were not primitives.

7. Our societies are awful and primitive. Our sciences are primitive and so bad we haven't even got a workable theory of gravity. There is evidence that suggests previous cultures had nuclear power and nuclear weapons were used in places in Earth's distant past. Mars also has suffered from nuclear explosions in its distant past. Clearly these previous cultures were no better at keeping peace amongst themselves than we are. It looks like all previous cultures were smashed either by natural or man-made catastrophes and that this has happened repeatedly on this planet.

8. We are not just meat machines. There is plenty of strong evidence that we as beings remain in existence after body death and at least some of us come back again.

In addition there is the unsettling discovery that those who are killed violently may return with traumatic physical deformations that match the way they died in their previous life.

This means that any violence caused to people in one life can continue to adversely affect them beyond the grave – the message is clearly to be good to your fellow humans.

This also suggests that this world is only a small part of some bigger reality: the main problem we then have is that we don't know why or what is the point of the whole thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here I can theorise that we are here to learn how to get on with each other nicely despite our differences, do good things for each other and so on – and this then grows into much bigger questions we must deal with as humans – morality and justice, for example:

but these are all ideas formed from this existence. The fundamental problem is that we don't know what this other existence is all about.

Some think we are just here to experience but that does not have meaning for us here since we have it regardless.

The best overall theory of existence I have is this: Life here on Earth for us is a sort of training ground. We are being trained for some other, more complex existence. This may well be only one level of a series of training “schools”.

Where are the “Teachers”? They are never seen, never heard by us. If someone gets outside of the playground limits they may clean up the mess but we will probably never hear or see it happen. We will never get to the same level of “technology” as them because that would cause trouble for the Teachers. Perhaps these are what some people call the “Men In Black”?

We might make technological or social progress but the important part of this “school” is that we must learn how to deal with things like justice, morality, inequality and suffering, thus all of these things will remain with us here on Earth since they are “baked in”.

Key to this is our limited mental capacities and our combination of both intellectual and emotional minds in the one form.

These limits are one of the crucial matters to consider: in any game, the limits are what make the game. If we have a world where people can easily read each other's minds, for example, there is little need for verbal communication and if these mental messages are always perfectly remembered there is no need for writing or physical records of any kind: as long as someone around can remember what was said all those years ago, why bother writing it down?

Complete telepathy with all life would create a situation where killing or causing pain to any other creature would cause instant pain for yourself too: this could cause many other connected beings to die at the same time. This would therefore not be terribly practical.

This is by no means the end of the story: things are far more complex than the simple sketch provided here, there are more questions than answers but it does give me a starting point.

All of the claims 1 to 8 above are supported by real evidence but I am not going to provide bibliographic references: do your own research. 

You could, of course, email me and I'll provide clues , but I'm betting that you won't, so come on, prove me wrong!

The Myth Of Magic

This is the essence of all of the grandiose claims by religious or mystic types: that they (and you too, if you pay enough!) can influence reality simply by thinking about it.

What is truly bombastic is when such fantasy is proclaimed as “science”.

The latest version of this is the so-called observer- experiment interaction, where somehow the outcome of a precise experiment can be changed merely by someone (or something) observing it.

Here is an example:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

and also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

The experimenters claim that they placed a sensitive electron detector near to the passage of a flow of electrons and that when the detector was activated, the flow of the electrons changed its behaviour. They claim that this detector cannot influence the flow, yet it does.

How about a much simpler theory: IT DOES affect the flow when switched on.

I bring this up because it is an example of magical thinking in science – well, pseudo-science actually. This is NOT science because it is attempting to prove a faulty premise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not a “skeptic”. I am not doing this to “debunk” anyone: I am only after the truth.

There are some things that are definitely real, yet they don't have any “scientific explanation”.

The big thing to look for is the origins of the ideas. I recently discovered that the “Big bang” theory came from a Catholic Priest! Apparently he was looking for a way to reconcile his religious ideas with scientific thinking. No wonder the idea always stunk to me: where is the supporting evidence? There is NONE. The theory was NOT derived from evidence of any kind, nor did it derive from a previous theory with weaker evidence, it was just pulled out of thin air!

The point is that if any human could really affect reality directly they would be something more like a god: but not only that, the strong suspicion that such a thing was really possible would mean societies, governments, corporations and individuals would immediately start work on duplicating this power for themselves: a magical arms race. The fact that there is no power that can really do this is proven by the total lack of any evidence to support it.

I suspect that most, if not all of - the stories disguised as “science” that try to convince us that things such as “observer – experiment effects” are true are actually lies to confuse and cloud the picture of what is really going on.

It gets fools hard at work searching for this phenomenon so that they may waste years and millions looking for it.

It also allows those who have more “mundane” technologies to conceal them by claiming that such phenomena are caused by much more spectacular sources, thus keeping their technological advantage. - and that may be the real game: keeping the “secret weapons” secret while trying to get everyone else wandering around in the dark looking for magical sources for the results of far more real weapons and processes.

Is there a deliberate planned dumbing down of our science? That is a hard question to answer. I can point to some clear indicators that suggest that progress has been crippled by bureaucracy and the needs of people to collect a wage and hold a position, but that is not to say any of that was planned.

Consider the progress of a young University student: first, to get into University level physics, he or she must have already absorbed the official models and methods of science and been able to regurgitate them on demand. Then to reach further up the ladder to masters degree and beyond to become a professor, he must not only have the official views down but be able to make new and slight variations on it BUT nothing that challenges the views of his seniors or their fellows as this would be heresy. All papers must be submitted to peer review for approval and if that committee of “peers” is already decided that your idea CANNOT be true, tough luck: no funding, no commercial contracts, no degree, no job, nothing. Just take a look at what happened to Pons and Fleischmann when they tried to get official science to look at an effect that was outside of the narrow norm. I won't go into the details of it here - they were careful researchers and had no interest in deception, but that didn't count for much.

This system ensures that any idea which does not conform will not get support - and if the idea threatens any of the existing corporate bodies, it will either get absorbed or squashed: no water powered cars or never-run-flat batteries will get funding from the big boys. Don't get the idea the patent system will help here either: anything of significance will either get co-opted by the military industrial complex or you won't get a patent in the first place – or both.

It seems more likely that the social systems we have constructed cannot cope with too much progress and tend to stop all scientific and technological progress once they are established.

This is not all bad mind you, and we should note that we have recently been through a very anomalous event where the progress of microelectronics has sped forward – but this is now probably not going to continue at the same rate as before because of physical limits being reached.

The suspicion is that we are looking at a sort of progression of social units: when young and flexible, they will try anything but as they grow older and bigger they also become more conservative in their outlook until the structure becomes burdened by bureaucracy and fixed ideology. The next step would then be the collapse of the rigid structure when faced with unavoidable truths that prove the ideology false . . except that when we look at religion in the modern world it seems to mutate and adjust when new facts appear rather than collapsing outright. It took centuries for the Catholic Church to admit Copernicus was right and even now, they still exist. 

Thus I must conclude that the only way forward for those of us who want a better world and a better world-view is to do it ourselves and not even bother trying to convince the fixed minds of new ideas - make them, use them and show people that they are real and workable.

If you dare. 

I previously posted Rupert Sheldrake's Dogmas of Modern Science:  

Make no mistake, dogmas are not a good sign.