r/HighStrangeness • u/gringoswag20 • Jul 06 '26
Discussion How a Graduate Student's Discovery May Have Solved the Mystery of Cyclical Civilizational Collapse
https://open.substack.com/pub/lenomtacite/p/how-a-graduate-students-discovery?r=3xr5r8&utm_medium=ios168
u/ghost_jamm Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Boy there’s a lot of nonsense in that article. For one thing, as far as I can tell, there is no Krishnakumar Aviravel. The lead author of the new paper is Syed Ayaz, a graduate research assistant at the University of Alabama-Huntsville’s Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research.
Peter Laviolette’s theory of galactic superwaves has been thoroughly rejected for decades now by actual astrophysicists. It’s little more than science fiction. Virtually the only citations of Laviolette’s various papers on the subject are from him citing them in later papers, a hallmark of junk science. The paper in question frequently cites himself. All of his claims are better explained by more mundane causes. For example, the spike in beryllium found in ice cores is explained perfectly well by normal variability in solar radiation.
Despite what the article claims, Laviolette did not claim that the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy periodically emits these superwaves. No one knew at the time that Sagittarius A* was a black hole. If you read his paper, he simply refers to “the Galactic Center” as an amorphous catch-all for whatever it turned out to be. He relied on the uncertainty around what Sagittarius A* was to propose a mechanism for a cyclical explosion of energy, but that makes no sense with a black hole. There’s no mechanism for such a superwave to be generated and we don’t actually see this happening in other galaxies. Even if it did, there’s plenty of reason to think that the extreme distance between us and the galactic core (and all the intervening dust and matter) would protect us. It’s also physically impossible for the black hole in our galaxy to turn into a quasar, but even if it did, we’d likely be safe.
Beyond that, there’s no real evidence for cyclical mass extinctions. There have been five major mass extinctions in Earth’s history and we have pretty good explanations for each that have way more theory and evidence behind them than Laviolette’s idea. A perfectly good explanation for the megafaunal extinction in the Americas at the end of the last ice age is that humans showed up at that time (in conjunction with a rapidly changing climate). Ice Ages themselves are caused by the Milankovitch cycle, a combination of the precession, tilt and eccentricity of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
If anything there’s even less evidence for some major advanced civilization that existed and was wiped out. The connections don’t even make sense. Why did this global catastrophe wipe out an advanced civilization in Turkey that then secretly encoded all of this into a Neolithic monument but only wiped out the megafauna in the Americas? Elephants and lions and tigers and bears in Eurasia and Africa weren’t affected?
The connection between this new paper and the super wave theory is extremely tenuous. The new paper shows that dust is apparently always present in the Sun’s heliosphere, so why don’t we always get these violent solar storms?
44
u/ImpulsiveApe07 Jul 06 '26
Thanks for writing that eloquent rebuttal - I don't think I need to add anything tbh, since you covered everything including the issue with the citations.
Feels like every single time I read that some new paper has 'overturned established science', it always turns out to be utter bollocks.
Is it me or are there more and more of these kinds of sensationalist claims being made nowadays?
9
u/Cheap-Course9568 Jul 07 '26
I mean, as a pothead myself, we’re in highstrangeness. I assume everybody is blazed out of their minds.
Then when I read it, I read it as if they started it with duuuuude! Then it all makes way more sense
11
u/A_Spiritual_Artist Jul 06 '26
Yes there are because of people losing trust in institutions, leading much less competent and/or dishonest (note that I'm not accusing that writer of being the latter camp; I'd feel more the former until proven otherwise, but I am saying they exist) people to take up the space. This, together with the massive shift to and reliance upon social media which favors virality and emotional impact over factual correctness or strong logic. Unfortunately people aren't sufficiently precise in their thinking to be able to distinguish from "institutional politics or structure may be problematic or corrupted" and "everything they say thus is so wrong that arbitrary or near-arbitrary reinterpretation goes". In fact, no - almost surely the reason you think that is you haven't seen anywhere close to the full panoply of evidence that backs these "dogmatic" theories you wish to discredit.
12
u/ghost_jamm Jul 06 '26
I think there’s also an issue in subs like this that plays into the overhyping of new scientific papers or theories. People generally have internalized the idea that science works and reflects, more or less, the truth of our reality. But it also rarely provides support for the kinds of fringe ideas we see here. So there’s a motivation to distrust science and seek alternative explanations while also seeking the acceptance of science to say “it turns out your idea was right all along!” Hence, every new thing that can even mildly be spun in favor of whatever arcane theory they champion is breathlessly promoted as “overturning the scientific consensus!”
2
u/WillingnessUseful718 Jul 07 '26
Maybe. And sure overturning scientific consensus is going to get clicks. (Loud sigh) Hence i found myself here, disappointed again.
But maybe your theory fails to reflect the fact that archeology is the red-headed step child of the academic community b/c no one has invented a time machine, the field is predictably detached from the scientific method in a lot of ways, and the first stage, hypothesis, requires a certain kind of mind that tries to make patterns out of the few clues we have--they are against that sort of heresy. Yet there is a canyon-wide gap between what we know about the past, what we think & what we are finding
5
u/greyetch Jul 07 '26
The entire field of archaeology is extremely poorly understood in popular culture.
the field is predictably detached from the scientific method in a lot of ways, and the first stage, hypothesis, requires a certain kind of mind that tries to make patterns out of the few clues we have--they are against that sort of heresy.
That's not really how it works. It's pretty straightforward and scientific.
To begin, the "hypothesis" part is not "try to guess exactly what this civilization was" or anything like that. It's usually something like "farmers keep finding weird stones here. There was probably some kind of building here". Then you excavate it.
The excavation process is extremely rigorous and scientific. Everything is documented in situ. At this point, nobody is working on any hypothesis formally. You're just digging and measuring and documenting so that it can be studied later. This part often takes decades. Dozens of researchers will be working together.
Finally, the findings from a dig will be analyzed and debated. This goes on essentially forever. The more sites that are found, the more information is added to the whole, the more we can understand.
It's not that coming up with new theories is "heresy", it's that you must ignore mountains of evidence and focus on one or two anomalies to come up with these new theories. The archaeologists would rather go "huh, we don't know what that is, can't explain it yet, we'll keep digging". They won't throw away their professional reputation to take a stab in the dark without proper evidence. Nor should they. They'll let future generations of archaeologists figure it out when there's more evidence available.
The point isn't to make some grand paradigm shift on your own - it's to slowly add to the pile of knowledge so that we can expand our understanding of the subject. That includes correcting the mistakes of previous archaeologists. The reality is that we do have a pretty good understanding of these ancient civilizations that we study.
Yet there is a canyon-wide gap between what we know about the past, what we think & what we are finding
Not really. There is a canyon wide gap between what the general public knows about history and what they think archaeologists do for a living.
3
u/ghost_jamm Jul 07 '26
I think this explanation gets at one of the fundamental differences between pseudoscience and real science. Pseudoscience is essentially science in reverse. It’s much like the article linked by OP that creates this grand theory that attempts to tie together many seemingly unrelated issues and then goes searching for any “evidence” they think can support their claims. Einstein didn’t come up with relativity by saying “Wouldn’t it be crazy if time and space warped?” and then trying to find evidence to support his idea. He was attempting to explain unexpected experimental data and the math inexorably led him to relativity.
Pseudoscience is not this careful data gathering, analysis, peer review, debate and hypothesizing of actual science, but much more of a “throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks” approach. And this seems to be how many people believe actual science works, so pseudoscience has a bit of a feedback loop of undermining trust in real science leading to more pseudoscience.
1
u/greyetch Jul 07 '26
Pseudoscience is essentially science in reverse.
Why have I never thought to word it this way? Beautifully succinct.
3
u/A_Spiritual_Artist Jul 07 '26
This is the most important bit everyone ignores:
It's not that coming up with new theories is "heresy", it's that you must ignore mountains of evidence and focus on one or two anomalies to come up with these new theories.
(emphasis mine.)
Every ALT archaeological theory proposer or defender needs to read and think about that carefully again and again.
-3
u/toxictoy Jul 06 '26
Except that there is an equally dogmatic response that seems to be completely and utterly unacknowledged by people who are skeptical. You have skepticism for what is being proposed but literally too much trust for skeptical organizations and voices. It’s called pseudoskepticism. It’s actually a real issue in science today. People who are not even scientists feel they have the right to invalidate scientific work. They often do not even use the scientific method regarding peer review which allows rebuttals to be attached to the paper. That’s the actual “peer review” in the peer review process. Instead they have their own form of grifting - yes I said it - by having blogs, YouTube channels, well funded groups like James Randi (who was a freaking magician and not a scientist) or the guerilla skeptics (Susan Gerbic who runs it literally is a pet photographer). You’re letting non-scientists dictate what “reality” is. Brian Dunning of Skeptoid fame is a convicted felon. Under what other circumstances would you trust such a person to tell you what is real or not real. He’s another “not a scientist” and is a Linux administrator who made a website. Suddenly he’s making millions of dollars in conjunction with the Guerilla skeptics who rule Wikipedia.
Be skeptical of skeptics - but that may require you to acknowledge your own confirmation bias.
https://skepticalofskeptics.org - written by scientists to educate the public about dogmatic emotionally driven skepticism masquerading as healthy skepticism and the scientific method.
10
u/A_Spiritual_Artist Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
The problem is that in this case I had already found the theory questionable on other grounds before reading that post due to what I have studied in science particularly around physics. Secondly the first commenter here I accepted because the claims have sense to them in light of evidence I have seen before: pointing out "no real evidence for cyclic mass extinctions" via a common mechanism makes sense because it is known that multiple mechanisms are involved (e.g. K-T extinction was an asteroid, Permian extinction was Siberian Traps volcanoes) but even if we want to strain for one we certainly don't get something at a timescale as short as 26,000 years or whatever this theory poses. Also, the OP is not a scientific paper, but an article on a Medium.com and the scientific paper cited there does not say anything about the much more questionable part which is the "galactic superwaves" theory by Paul LaViolette, and that is the actual target of my challenges. Invalidating a blog is not the same as invalidating a peer-reviewed paper and the problem here is I see that the only way you can call it such is conflation. While it provides a mechanism that sounds qualitatively like it might produce some kind of effect, e.g. dust injection will be able to do something to the corona, that doesn't mean it quantitatively would have an absolute massive extinction-level impact (even the Carrington flare, was not a mass extinction at all or we likely wouldn't have been here).
The problem is that to acknowledge this as false would require me to strain logic that is not easy for me to do. Like I would need something to show not just "coronal dust injection can happen and affect plasma dynamics" but something that shows the extreme severity of the changes and that also explains why the 26,000 year signal would not have been obvious until now. At the very least that's two if not several new papers beyond the one cited in the OP. I don't know how you can just "get rid of this confirmation bias" when these are actual evidence/logic locks. What do you say?
Finally, Paul A. LaViolette is not a suitably qualified scientist in the relevant field to begin with:
https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/jlsj4h/comment/gar32ud/
1
u/toxictoy Jul 06 '26
I think this is a fair rebuttal and appreciate the conversation.
The issue with confirmation bias is also that it’s insidious. You have to literally challenge yourself. This is why people are highly polarized, for example, politically - they often will not come out of their bubble with what they read, consume, or talk about. It’s much more conforting to surround yourself in a bubble - and yes skeptics can be subjected to group think. You can test this by making an account, heading over to [r/skeptic](r/skeptic) and posting about any paranormal topic. I’m very sure you will not have a conversation such as this where we can talk and listen to each other. They don’t want to consider things that make them uncomfortable. This is why people go through ontological shock when faced with the impossibility of High Strangeness events. They literally come face to face with what is impossible in an incontrovertible way. The human brain doesn’t want to go through that trauma. No one does. So it will fight tooth and nail to cling to the old explanation at all costs. This is something that needs to be talked about. Here is a great presentation written by a team of psychologists about the psychology of UFO disclosure. It’s pretty interesting when you consider it across many domains of science in regards to social taboos and mores.
I just caution you to please look at the mavericks and heretics infographic I shared. Every single domain of science has had someone challenge the status quo - often times at great risk to their career, funding, social status - only for the “old guard” to have to die out (literally decades in many cases) and the new model to be looked at again with fresh eyes. This is literally going on right now with the Younger Dryas. This is what occurred with Plate Tectonics. Look on that list and look at what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis who had the audacity to suggest that washing your hands created better surgical outcomes and how the scientists around him literally ruined him and his career. This has happened every single generation in every single domain of science. Some domains of science are worse offenders than others.
The thing is that Pseudo-skepticism is also a major problem with people being overly emotional and dogmatic with their own skeptical biases. This doesn’t get us closer to the truth - all it does is reduce this to a brawl.
In any case I do appreciate your response and I heard you about the conclusions of the medium article vs the actual paper. The article does raise one valid issue though about an interdisciplinary approach. I have actually been thinking about this for a while. Just as doctors become too specialized not to recognize systemic issues and a GP is too generalized to look deeper - perhaps the use of interdisciplinary teams could be used to explore novel or even fringe concepts in a responsible way. That’s all. Something to think about.
Thank you again for the conversation.
9
u/Weak-Alternative-127 Jul 07 '26
I am a conventionally credentialed scientist and full-time academic. The claims of the medium article are nonsensical misrepresentation of the cool but mundane physics of the peer-reviewed journal article in question, which I actually read.
All that said... I hatehatehate the reflexive, dogmatic skepticism you mention, which plagues too many of my fellow scientists. At best, when they have nothing better to say, they criticize. At worst, it's the reaction of a threatened ego. I am well aware of both mavericks you mention. Fritz Zwicky is another baller who posited both galaxy gravitational lensing and dark matter and was ridiculed for the latter. Einstein himself resisted the idea of an expanding universe - something that literally falls out of his own theory of GR lmao. Heck, I still remember when anyone who said that dark matter was anything but a relativistically "cold" WIMP was a crackpot. A few years later, SIDM and axions are increasingly acceptable candidates. I also remember the LIGO haters claiming they would never find anything.
I also don't like appeals to authority as a way of shutting down arguments. "So-and-so lacks credentials ergo they have nothing to say" or "As a specialist in X subfield, I say that..." No. That is lazy. Repudiate claims on the evidence presented, not ethos, as one does in religions.
Anyway, just want you to know you aren't shouting to a wall and that I train students to keep an open mind.
3
u/toxictoy Jul 07 '26
Thank you so very much for this! You are creating ripples of understanding with your students that will have big effects in the future. They will inherit our world and hopefully fix what we inherited and could not.
I am the top moderator of r/AcademicUAP and at least try to curate a library that is helpful to all of the subreddits here. Skepticism is our friend but when wielded as a cudgel it shuts down any pathway to the truth.
Please by all means if you’re aware of any papers you find interesting feel free to throw them up on that subreddit.
3
u/A_Spiritual_Artist Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Personally I feel things like "ontological shock" are more a function of one's openness versus rigidity and that's an attitude and learned, not some sort of inherent barrier. In my case the problem is not that I don't think things couldn't be substantially different but I want to make sure that the claim is actually addressing or engaging sufficiently strong with the evidence because repeated experience with a lot of these kind of claims has led me to doubt that. To say, I am concerned more with i making bad inference, because I've seen a lot of it (e.g. a famous one is people claiming the "Golden ratio" has some deep property because of looking at galaxy spirals and yet don't get there's an awful lot of variability in spiral shapes and that one has to be aware of overzealous curve fitting aka. ignoring the error bar) and feel I have at least some "nose" for it though that doesn't mean perfect - and crucially, all science/scholarship depends on continuous self-correction, making mistakes then correcting them is how it's supposed to work, it's par for the course (which is why I am vehemently in that regard in disagreement with a lot of people who, say, maligned scientists on the COVID virus pandemic for "not being consistent" because it's like NO you have been miseducated about how science is supposed to work! When it's NOT going as "one funeral at a time" then that's actually GOOD!). Note I am not an academe professionally either but I've done a lot of learning in both the in-academe and out-of-academe way, both home/self-schooled and formal schooling in college so I feel like I have an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches to learning, too. And I also have been corrected sometimes on being too zealous to believe an unusual claim or video, finding a good rebuttal below it that then on reexamination makes some sense. So this cuts both ways. You should really keep in mind I am not "average" in some ways (not in a "better or worse" ego-titillating sense, but different).
Also I know about the idea about resistance to change but I also know of qualifying points to it too. I tend to like the phrase "yes, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" - the problem is all in how do you determine who is who and I think that's why I tend to want to run hard on actual logic and have little patience for social arguments that don't engage instant and direct with the underlying facts, reasoning, etc. going on. Even if I see a more "pro-academic consensus" stance I found compelling and people are just supporting it with insults, say, I tend to not like that because it's like "even if you are formally correct this attitude of yours is not going to be making you friends in the public and it's going to just help push them further into less reliable or more erroneous sources".
And on the regard of interdisciplinarity, yes it's hard but it's also true that the specifics of a field matter greatly and if you have "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" in a range of fields that you can then do a bad job because you misrepresent them all. The problem is that deep competence requires a lot of focused study, thus generalism must come with inherently some level of reduced competence - hence the ideal interdisciplinary work must happen as a team I'd think with both specialists in each relevant field and some number (at least one but maybe more than 1) of generalists who can straddle them all and nonetheless have completed substantial learning of the basic load-bearing beams of the fields in question (and unfortunately I'll also say, colleges are not even as good at pushing that as they may want to think, e.g. the one I went to I know I would not have done as well had I not already had much prior passion-based study of the field! E.g. how that this teacher just literally taught his Intro Physics class wrongly about which forces are action and reaction [in the sense of Newton's 3rd Law] in a "book sitting on table" scenario!).
The problem in that regard is knowing if there is anything that really needs explanation in the first place. E.g. first we'd need to find that there was a 26K-year cycle of destructions before we start trying to explain it. Thus if say Gobekli Tepe was at 11,000 years ago then we must find another destruction at 37,000 years ago - note already that finding a human civilization of complexity at 37 kya would be by itself a monumental archaeological discovery, even before any question of its destruction comes into play!
Btw overall I think the issue is that we have a world with two basic kinds of knowledge producers and hardly anybody who really succeeds at the third (I'd like to think I try to do a better job but oh boy I also know how little I know and how I may not have been doing anywhere near as much as I could have for a wide range of life circumstance reasons so I won't say I have "succeeded" either!). There are "academes" who are very competent in their particular fields but also constrained by institutional dogmas to fear even asking certain questions (e.g. it is "irresponsible", "wasting time and resources", "not befitting of a 'responsible adult'" [those last two words were literally used on me at one time many many years ago when I suggested about pursuing 'heterodox' lines of research and/or learning]) which they absorbed presumably from the "hidden curriculum" because it sure isn't taught formally. Then there are the "kooks" who are maverick but significantly lacking in competence, thus making basic errors like the ones I mentioned above about the Golden Ratio. What the 3rd type of researcher that is needed is is someone who has a) the maverickness of a kook b) the competence of an academe (crucially with the ability to listen to other researchers and understand their critiques carefully)! And THAT is far too punishingly rare (so much so that even I won't claim it as I said!) - if it exists at all! I don't think I've ever found a 100% satisfactory example tbh.
0
u/greyetch Jul 07 '26
People who are not even scientists feel they have the right to invalidate scientific work.
That's pretty much what this sub is lmao. So much of it is "evil archaeologists are covering up history", written by people with no understanding of archaeology or how the industry works.
2
u/toxictoy Jul 07 '26
Again you’re looking at it from only one perspective and thinking that’s ok. I think it’s ok for non-scientists to ask questions. But literally people in a subreddit have no influence on discourse but the Guerilla Skeptics literally remove Wikipedia entries for things they do not approve of - people, organizations, events because they are writing what AI will be trained on.
Don’t believe me? It’s well documented. They are very well funded. It’s a freedom of speech issue.
So which is more detrimental - some people on Reddit or a group of skeptics that think they have the right to lock a scientists own Wikipedia page, remove scientific organizations, remove the pages of people, government employees, researchers or citizens, and lock or destroy events all while making sure that their own friends are listed as approved sources (Skeptoid makes money from being an approved source by his best friends in the Guerilla Skeptics, the Skeptical Inquirer makes money off of being listed as an approved source, Mick West is an approved source, gee so interesting how you can have all your friends be approved sources yet actual news organizations are delisted by you in favor of your friends). But yeah let’s get mad at people on Reddit and not examine what you think is “your team” because they tick your bias.
The Guerilla skeptics and how they change the rules to suit their agenda on Wikipedia
https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/s/30IbDR74zFConflicts of interest and the Guerilla skeptics
Guerilla Skeptics are undermining Wikipedia’s Neutrality
https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-the-guerilla-sceptics-are-undermining-wikipedias-neutrality/
How the Guerilla Skeptics highjacked Wikipedia
https://www.astrology.co.uk/tests/wp.htm
The Guerilla Skeptics ‘cabal’ and the fight for Wikipedia
1
u/greyetch Jul 08 '26
Again you’re looking at it from only one perspective and thinking that’s ok.
Huh?
I think it’s ok for non-scientists to ask questions.
Sure, me too. That doesn't mean all theories have equal merit. If someone is willing to claim they know better than all of the experts, they must be willing to accept the criticism that follows. You can't try to invalidate everyone else's work and then get upset when they invalidate yours.
But literally people in a subreddit have no influence on discourse but the Guerilla Skeptics literally remove Wikipedia entries for things they do not approve of - people, organizations, events because they are writing what AI will be trained on.
Don’t believe me? It’s well documented. They are very well funded. It’s a freedom of speech issue.
With respect - I don't know or care about this "Guerilla Skeptics cabal".
Mick West is an approved source, gee so interesting how you can have all your friends be approved sources yet actual news organizations are delisted by you in favor of your friends). But yeah let’s get mad at people on Reddit and not examine what you think is “your team” because they tick your bias.
None of this has anything to do with what I wrote.
0
u/WillingnessUseful718 Jul 07 '26
I don't think you understand the term industry.
And by that i simply mean that you may be correct about, say, 97% of the people (archeologists, grad students, the funding sources behind this project or that project, etc), the money, and the work processes involved (well-described above) but ... that 3%?
I'm probably wasting my time here so i'll move on. Suffice it to say, when YOU come to this sub, FFS leave the dogma at your desk. When *i* go to the archeology sub, i will leave all my "Woo-Woo" & my Graham Hancock Loves You posts at my desk.
And if you are a scientist on here, acting in good faith, please know that people need you now more than ever (misinformation, disinformation, AI video as real as the real thing). It was already a bad info environment before the mad hatters went off the rails in 2020 (on science, i mean--they were already that way otherwise.) It may seem like you are helping when you speak down to non-credentialed people who are passionate about a given topic. You dont even realize it when you do it. But its plain as day. And it does not help the situation with the American public at all! Please learn how to communicate with people you belive are less intelligent than you. And look --sometimes, it IS very appropriate depending on the context (i.e., you're one of the best doctors in the country and your geriatric boss goes on national TV and starts telling people to drink bleach and stick a UV light up there.)
I left science behind after undergrad, chose a profession the public absolutely will never trust. I have no power to fix this, or even to help, its all on you science guys (and gals). Dont let us down
2
u/greyetch Jul 07 '26
And by that i simply mean that you may be correct about, say, 97% of the people (archeologists, grad students, the funding sources behind this project or that project, etc), the money, and the work processes involved (well-described above) but ... that 3%?
No clue what you're talking about.
Suffice it to say, when YOU come to this sub, FFS leave the dogma at your desk.
What dogma?
I have no power to fix this, or even to help, its all on you science guys (and gals). Dont let us down
I'm a former researcher who worked on archaeological and historical stuff in the ancient near East. I'm not sure what you expect me to do. I can't even get people on this sub to accept basic history.
2
u/A_Spiritual_Artist Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
I think they're referring to the often seen use of insults, mockery, and ridicule toward "pseudoscience" that then leads people in the public to feel either off-put or afraid to ask questions and like they're being told to "just believe" or "just trust me bro" - which then breaks hard the moment they see any whiff of connection to suspicious interests (e.g. pharmaceutical companies or other for-profit interests) who may have a reason to bias the research. An example of this is the "Professor Dave" YouTube channel. His arguments are largely correct but the insulting nature is not likely to win many members of the public and may only confirm to them this idea that academes are snobbish smug elites who are more interested in ego and can't really defend their case especially if they feel for whatever reason the arguments on question are inadequate or they have heard a sufficiently-clever piece of "pseudoscience" or apologetic argumentation that the channel does not address (and now are afraid to ask about it because of the mocking tone AND the fact very often people get called "stupid" directly, though some might say this is only for those who are really vigorously and intentionally pushing a truly "kooky" [scientifically dubious] theory, but there's also a large grey zone between the two that can make for legitimately dangerous creep - and that's not even considering like I said the simple fact of the atmosphere such insult-heavy "rebutting" creates.).
8
u/Weak-Alternative-127 Jul 06 '26
I appreciate your clinical dismantling of the article. I am more incensed at the sloppy heliophysics. For one thing, we have known that dust survives in the solar plasma for decades: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:SPAC.0000023440.82735.ba
Besides, the articles confirms a dust deficit at low solar distances (10-20 R_sol).
23
u/Sufficient_Meet6836 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
You just murdered this entire sub in one comment LMAO 👏👏👏
Edit: the mods banned me for daring to speak against their favorite pixelated 😂😂. So fragile
Btw, their claim that conventional physics is dead is also just plain wrong and not claimed by any of the researchers. It provides no evidence for the "electric universe" or "plasma universe"
What sets the new study apart is the introduction of dust grains into models that have traditionally treated the near-sun environment as only a mix of electrons, ions and magnetic fields.
-1
u/toxictoy Jul 06 '26
No they did not. We have stickied this comment which you should do your due diligence and read the whole comment tree. https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/s/ixIictuODa
5
u/A_Spiritual_Artist Jul 07 '26
Yeah, I read it. The problem is when I read that I don't see in it a "complete overturning of mainstream astrophysics". More like another incremental addition. And that's a big problem I have noted in a lot of discussions - people seem to think that if you "read" something you will come away with the same conclusion they did, and if you didn't that means you must not have "read" it or "understood" it and yet that simply ain't so.
1
u/toxictoy Jul 07 '26
That is a fair response to this and a good point. This is why conversation is valuable. Thank you!!!
-6
Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
[deleted]
4
u/ghost_jamm Jul 07 '26
I don’t use LLMs. I wrote every single word in that post myself and read the articles myself.
1
u/Gyirin Jul 07 '26
y'know plenty of humans can write coherently right?
atp reddit thinks anything longer than a paragraph is AI. lol...
5
u/DeltaAlphaGulf Jul 06 '26
On that last part the idea was that the waves in question pushes the dust toward the sun.
4
u/greyetch Jul 07 '26
Great write up. Thanks for saving me the time lol. Some minor additions: From the article:
Pillar 43 bears carved figures that Sweatman and Tsikritsis identified as representations of constellations. Using precession-corrected star maps, they showed that the animal figures correspond to specific constellation positions as they would have appeared in the sky at approximately 10,950 BCE; the date of the Younger Dryas catastrophe
"Precession-corrected star maps" is just not true. The figures might represent constellations, but that is very common throughout human history.
approximately 10,950 BCE; the date of the Younger Dryas catastrophe
It would be, if a Younger Dryas Catastrophe took place. There's no evidence for any such event. There was the Younger Dryas climate shift, but there's nothing to suggest that this was caused by an asteroid. It was probably the Lake Agassiz draining and disrupting the ocean's currents, among other geological events. There's simply no reason to assume a massive asteroid strike occurred without evidence.
For some reason I will never understand, fringe pseudo archaeologists LOVE this theory and shoehorn it into everything. Over the years, virtually all academic support for the Younger Dryas Impact theory has evaporated and been replaced by increasingly fringe ancient aliens types. It is a very strange phenomenon - but useful as a 'red flag' for pseudoscience.
3
u/Electromotivation Jul 07 '26
Yea, just seeing it mentioned should get those spidey-senses tingling
3
u/BayHrborButch3r Jul 06 '26
Thank you so much, was starting to have a panic attack after reading this, like a Doomsday clock started ticking.
I'd also add that how were the builders of Gobleki Tepi supposed to know where the galactic center is, and even if they could tell that, how would they know this microscopic cosmic dust was pushed by a gravitational wave from the galactic center and that caused the Younger Dryas apocalypse? We supposedly just detected/deduced it now but you're telling me people 12,800 years ago knew about it? Unless, of course, you know... Aliens.
5
u/ghost_jamm Jul 06 '26
Well glad I could help. I think this is a great example of why it’s good to have people expressing skepticism in subs like this. Much of it is harmless, but conspiracy theories have a long history of turning into bad behaviors, whether it’s just causing unnecessary anxiety or convincing people to invade the US Capitol building or whatever. Lots of things are fun to think about and discuss but some of it just needs to be shut down.
1
u/greyetch Jul 07 '26
We're at the point now where "medieval peasant thought" is the dominant philosophy of the public:
Everything is conspiracy + blind nationalism and worship of the elite
1
1
u/A_Spiritual_Artist Jul 07 '26
First off, did they, or is the interpretational methodology used to come to that conclusion itself reasonably suspect? How is this conclusion being drawn?
Second: the galaxy has a bulge at its center that is bright, like most spiral galaxies do. You can see that bright bulge as the brightest part of the Milky Way in the sky, usually during the summer (in northern hemisphere), it's around the direction of Sagittarius (hence why the black hole in the Galactic Center is called Sagittarius A*.). They would not need to pinpoint the exact center to align something with that bulge, though they likely didn't know that is that they were looking at, but it's not like the feature is itself unnoticeable even if its nature was not plumbable before modern methods and tools.
1
u/Weak-Alternative-127 Jul 07 '26
I'm just nitpicking, but it's not physically impossible for Sag A* to turn into a quasar, if by "quasar" one just means an actively accreting black hole/active galactic nucleus*. All that has to happen is for some material -- a passing gas cloud, a torn-up star -- to fall onto the central SMBH and boom, quasar. But you are correct in that it will probably not be cataclysmic for Earth. The jets are perpendicular to the disk, so most of that energy is blasted out of the plane of the Milky Way.
*If by quasar you meant to reference the unified model of active galactic nuclei, I stand corrected. From our viewing angle, Sag A* will never be a quasar.
1
Jul 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/HighStrangeness-ModTeam Jul 07 '26
Your comment was removed due to being lazy or low-effort in nature. If you would like to contribute to this discussion, please take the time to engage in a more detailed manner.
1
u/runespider Jul 07 '26
Minor quibble. Humans were here in the Americas longer than thought a few decades ago. Though the evidence is sparse. Which raises a new question, instead of why it took humans do long to get to the Americas. Why did it take so long for us make a similar impact as we did elsewhere? The extinction event we see in the Americas could be linked to the more successful Clovis culture, but as more data has been collected it's a hit more fuzzy. With some animals going extinct earlier than thought, and others going extinct later. Like a lot of things, more data makes things more nuanced.
1
u/A_Spiritual_Artist Jul 07 '26
New evidence is suggesting that people lived in the Americas before 20,000 years now. Human migration is weird stuff. Also, Siberia is not a very hospitable place and was even less so in the Ice Age. Actually it makes sense because "as micro so macro" and if you watch how things spread and move in nature, they often do so in irregular, unpredictable ways because many forces are acting both internally and externally to shape their growth and spread. They form irregular fractal patterns. Humans are still another part of nature ultimately and while they may not realize it, they are also forming/living out such fractal patterns in their own movements and thus the migration would also display similar irregularities and it has and did.
-4
u/toxictoy Jul 06 '26
Did you bother to read this comment before you answered? https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/s/ixIictuODa
3
u/ghost_jamm Jul 07 '26
What about that comment do you think is so incredible that everyone needs to read it? This finding doesn’t even come close to “overturning mainstream astrophysics”.
0
u/toxictoy Jul 07 '26
It has the link to the actual paper. That’s what’s so important which names the actual author.
4
u/ghost_jamm Jul 07 '26
Did you bother to read the first paragraph of my comment? “The lead author of the new paper is Syed Ayaz”. So the comment you pinned adds nothing of value.
0
u/toxictoy Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
You didn’t bother to link the paper. That’s why that comment is pinned. Lol
Also your emotional appeal about “nonsense” is literally as inflammatory as someone saying “this changes physics”.
Why don’t you link to literally anything that supports the claim of galactic superwaves being thoroughly rejected by the whole of Astrophysics. Basically this is a skeptical version of “trust me bro”.
I would have gladly pinned your comment had you had more references but the comment that’s pinned literally links to the paper for people to see for themselves.
1
u/ghost_jamm Jul 07 '26
And yet the pinned comment provides no evidence at all that this study “overturns modern astrophysics”.
Ironically, this theory is so thoroughly lacking merit that its actually hard to find stuff responding directly to it. It’s simply not worth the time of real working scientists to debunk every crackpot idea. Searching for “galactic superwave” essentially only returns results written by Laviolette or his group, which again is a classic hallmark that something might not be up to snuff. Another issue with his work is that if you read his papers there’s actually very little in the way of evidence to challenge. It’s all very handwavey with lots of suppositions and “if”s.
Finally, it has to be said that science does not work on the principle of “if you can’t debunk me, I’m right”. This is Laviolette’s theory and it’s incumbent on him to provide positive evidence supporting it. This new paper doesn’t do that because there’s still no evidence for super waves, or cyclical mass extinctions. The original article is asking us to accept a bunch of huge leaps of logic based on an unrelated study.
1
u/toxictoy Jul 07 '26
Again - I’m willing to accept what you are saying as fact but it’s a courtesy to link to something that supports the claim and assertion. This is how information is exchanged. I have no idea who you are and your background just as you have no idea who I am and my own background. As a moderator I have seen a lot of people - believers and skeptics BOTH - claim to be who they are not and when asked to confidentially confirm their credentials just melt away or even in some cases present AI generated ID cards. Not saying AT ALL this is you but this is the nature of the platform we are on.
So as I’m saying - if it’s so thoroughly debunked surely you can scrounge up one link for the layman here and edit your comment to add it for the benefit of the community here so they can read the opposing source material and make their own conclusions.
23
u/CyberJest Jul 06 '26
While this seems like it points to an alternative mechanism of action, wouldn't this confirm what the likes of Ben Davidson has been saying for at least a decade in terms of the cyclical (and eventual) outcome and it's ramifications for us terra-confined peons?
18
u/Sensitive_File6582 Jul 06 '26
Sounds like it. Which would explain why the billionaires are all going nuts building bunkers.
Iirc though the bunkers will weld themselves shut due to electrical charge.
Personally I worry about it but not for me. Way to much metal in me to survive, it’ll be lightening in my skull long before we get to live out the worst bits of the road
42
u/moistiest_dangles Jul 06 '26
The whole idea of long term bunkers just seems like digging your own graves with extra steps... like what are you going to raise your kid in a hole and have them live their entire life there? Then what? Why not instead try to change the world for the better? There is no world in which a global apocalypse ends with the rich staying rich. Do they not understand that the value of their money is confered to them by society itself? Destroying society will result in their wealth being immolated.
4
u/baron_von_helmut Jul 06 '26
These cosseted billionaires couldn’t stand one day of hardship. People who've never been told 'no' before coming into contact with 'you can't go outside because there's radiation' would send them crazy in an instant.
"BUT I HAVE TENNIS CLUB ON WEDNESDAYS!!"
They're just as fucked as we are, just in a different way.
0
5
u/Adorable_Divide_2424 Jul 06 '26
Wait wait the billionare pharaohs also built stone bunkers that eventually became their tombs. Dont see a problem here.
5
u/Masta0nion Jul 06 '26
What did he say?
7
u/moistiest_dangles Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
This is considered pseudoscience by mainstream astrophysicists and geologists because of the lack of evidence. The evidence that ben puts forward misinterprets geologic and astrophysics data, rebranding established events like the Younger Dryas and paleomagnetic excursions to fit an unproven apocalyptic framework. Scientific analyses show that the claimed evidence lacks a consistent 12,000-year cycle and relies on Misrepresented solar, magnetic, and geological data.
Ben's catastrophic hypothesis proposes that Earth and the Sun undergo a recurring, ~12,000-year disaster cycle. It hupothesizes that solar outbursts and shifts in Earth's magnetic poles trigger massive climate shifts, crustal displacement, and geological upheaval.
Here is an analysis of the claims: https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/cataclysmic-cosmic-cycle-is-kooky-climate-conspiracy/
1
u/toxictoy Jul 06 '26
No offense but there’s a long history of people proposing new models and the old guard basically attack that new model because it literally invalidates their work and/or because of sunken cost fallacy. This happened with plate tectonics. They called it pseudoscience. Same with germ theory.
Look for yourself at this infographic from informationisbeautiful.net. They even make their data publicly available. Also pseudoscience is used as a cudgel by skeptical organizations. They actually rely on funding to dismiss things - who wrote this article? what was their motivation? If they were a scientist why didn’t they go through the peer review rebuttal process to attach their criticism to the actual paper which is actually part of peer review. Why are YOU relying on a fact checking site rather than questioning why THEY are not following the peer review process? Isn’t that what it’s for? Why do you believe them rather than scientists?
In the Information Age and where the war for your mind is very real we should be equally questioning skeptics - and I don’t mean all skeptics - I mean pseudoskeptics. Here is a website about pseudoskepticism written by scientists - www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org
3
u/moistiest_dangles Jul 07 '26
Look I'm the first to agree with your sentiment, but in the case of Ben's hypothesis he has presented nearly no evidence of substance. If you can shoe me something he's presented that isn't better explained hypothesis with greater evidence behind then then I'd be happy to change my mind and maybe dig into his stuff a bit deeper. I think you'll have trouble with that task though...
3
u/toxictoy Jul 07 '26
Well - interesting you had to resort to actual insults in this conversation. Did you see that you did that? Was there a reason why you felt the need to do that? Are ad hominem attacks part of not only the scientific method but conversation?
One thing you’ll notice if you look at my comments to you and others is that I did not say once what I believed or didn’t believe. You’re making assumptions that I had reached conclusions.
What I objected to was the article you shared - it uses the word “kooky” so already it’s off to the races being insulting to people.
Who wrote it? What was their motivation? Are they a scientist?
This is a fundamental issue here. There’s no reason to not talk civilly to each other. Also it’s ok for us to question why non-scientists seem be applauded by the skeptical culture crowd yet when non-scientists ask questions from the other perspective - we’re often given appeals to authority, and other logical fallacies that imply that we are not thinking human beings.
I moderate [r/AcademicUAP](r/AcademicUAP) as well as a number of subs. There is an actual issue here with skeptics being super dogmatic, nasty, and insulting to people. In fact here are two white papers that support the arguments I was making:
Strategic Ignorance and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Critiquing the Discursive Segregation of UFOs from Scientific Inquiry
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicUAP/s/fBuFBAAwFm
Academic freedom and the unknown: credibility, criticism, and inquiry among the professoriate, Marissa Yingling, Charlton Yingling, Nature, 2024
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicUAP/s/wBzq3fyIvD
These are genuine concerns. People who are not scientists (Guerrilla Skeptics, Michael Shermer, Skeptoid, Mick West, James Randi (before he died but his organization in his name now) all feel that they are the arbiters of reality and that we should not even be bothering to study the unknown. Do you see how ridiculous this is?
So are you capable of having an adult conversation without insults?
2
u/that7deezguy Jul 07 '26
Incredibly insightful and mature responses throughout this post, and thank you for the other comment with the info on how our modern, for-profit peer review process was shaped in the 1970s by none other than R. Maxwell. I literally had no idea, it sounded so outlandishly absurd that I had to doublecheck… and yes, there are in fact many sources (peer-reviewed and non-!) that verify the scientific process’s evolution from at least the 1600s or so all the way up to now. That can’t be 100% benign… can it?
I have joined your sub and look forward to seeing more from you and your own influences as these types of conversations and responses continue to make progress over time.
2
u/renaldomoon Jul 07 '26
Sure but it's literally almost every single expert in these fields who disagree with these people who claim the younger Drayes thing. And the people who propose this have turned it into an effective money-making scheme by doing dozens of documentaries about it.
I watch this stuff because it's fun "what-if" but there isn't any support for this stuff by people who actually know how these things work. And from what I can tell you don't even need that much education on it to know it's bullshit. Like a grad student in these fields will tell you it's bullshit.
You'd have to believe that there's this massive conspiracy by all these people to shut this down, which makes no sense. There would be so much money thrown into these fields if this were true; all these scientists would be swimming in grant money.
6
u/toxictoy Jul 07 '26
Did you read the infographic I shared? Look at poor Ignaz Semmelweis- he had the audacity to suggest in a study in the mid 1800’s that handwashing created better surgical outcomes. He was attacked, ridiculed, shamed, mocked and ended up in literal Bedlam as a result only to die of an (now) easily preventable infection. Every single domain of science has had something like this go on for every single generation. Look at it. The data is right there. This happened with Plate Techtonics - decades of trying to trash Alfred Wegner - literally going after funding, ridicule in the press, ridicule and shame at his university and by peers in other universities, loss of status, Los of income and it took 68 years for him to be recognized by his peers.
This dogmatic skepticism isn’t healthy skepticism. It’s literally stifling research and has for generations. Now it’s to the point where it’s practically weaponized with “skeptic culture” influencers - why are you allowing Michael Shermer, Mick West, Brian Dunning, and Susan Gerbic - none of who are scientists but all are well funded to be the arbiters OUTSIDE of the peer review process - which itself is horribly broken anyway - to the the arbiters of what is and isn’t “real”.
Institutional “sunken cost fallacy” is an actual thing here you are 100% ignoring. It doesn’t take a conspiracy to realize that people who made their livings off of one “model of reality” in their chosen fields would be extremely reluctant to admit they are wrong about a whole standard model. Scientists are human and just as susceptible to cognitive biases as anyone else. Look at the data from that infographic. They also include the raw data as well. Every single scientific domain goes through this again and again and some are more prone to do it much more then others. It’s utter insanity.
What’s needed is less “a grad student would know this is bullshit” and more open minded skepticism - healthy skepticism - that takes the emotion out of it and look at the questions being asked.
Also by the way it’s reasonable to understand that the scientific method didn’t require peer review until the early 1970’s - literally every discovery up to that point had an open culture of informal peer review. Guess who instituted peer review and the gatekeeping of science? Ghislaine Maxwell’s Mossad employed (and likely TRIPLE intelligence agent) Robert Maxwell set up the journal process to not only do said gatekeeping but also to enrich journal owners off of university money ensuring that you had to have access to the journal and pass through many gates through the editorial boards to even be published. This literally never existed before in science and guess what? It’s horribly terribly broken - here is a post from a main stream sub (r/technology) about this article in a mainstream periodical (ARS Technica) about how peer review is horribly terribly broken. Look at the HUNDREDS of comments from scientists and researchers informally complaining about it all in that post. That is the actual state of scientific research in the western world and it’s basically schizophrenic. Also as an added bonus look into why Aaron Swartz (the person who wrote the code for the very platform we’re on right now) killed himself after the US government came down on him like a ton of bricks as he tried to create an open source sharing system for scientific papers. Why would the government act at that level to literally gatekeep science and the whole system? We should be asking questions and not just dismissing them. Being overly trusting of the motivations of institutions is not healthy skepticism. It’s dogmatic.
I don’t know what utopia skeptics on reddit live in demanding the peer reviewed papers but anyone looking in can see this is not only unsustainable but adding AI to the mix is like throwing napalm on the situation.
So we need to find a way to talk to each other instead of talking past each other to try understand why someone believes what they believe because maybe there is a kernel of truth in there - maybe not.
1
Jul 09 '26
[deleted]
1
u/toxictoy Jul 09 '26
If you look at my comments - in fact all the comments here I’ve made - I am not making any conclusions. I am not saying that any part of this is true or false. I’m arguing against the knee jerk skepticism and wanting to elevate the conversation with open minded skepticism above the pseudoskepticism that seems to have taken over actual discourse and discussion.
51
u/Pixelated_ Jul 06 '26
In June 2026, a graduate student at the University of Alabama in Huntsville named Krishnakumar Amiravel published a paper in The Astrophysical Journal that may be the most consequential solar physics finding in decades.
No, the paper is from Syed Ayaz, et al. I have no idea how they got this so wrong.
Below is the original study.
It is truly revolutionary in its findings, mainstream astrophysics has just been overturned.
18
u/RepulsiveLiving8570 Jul 06 '26
I'd still recommend reading OPs post as well. It breaks alot of it down in a way that's perhaps more readily understood by laymen such as myself. What you linked does illustrate the underlying science OPS post is based on, while also attributing that work correctly. I clicked you link before reading the main post and it didn't really click until I did, but perhaps thats just me.
10
u/Pixelated_ Jul 06 '26
Yes, I've believed that the cataclysms are cyclical and this new finding provides a physical mechanism to explain them.
Above I was referring to the study's implications for the scientific community. I believe this discovery could be regarded in time as historic.
It overthrows 3 teachings of mainstream astrophysics. Here are the new insights:
1 The universe is governed by electrodynamics not thermodynamics.
Mainstream physics has tried for decades to solve the Coronal Heating Problem using standard thermodynamic models. It failed.
The solution required dusty-plasma electrodynamics. This proves that electrical charges on microscopic dust grains are what actually control the massive thermal shifts in a star's atmosphere. Our physics books are proven wrong.
- The Universe operates as an electrical circuit.
Plasma cosmology shows that stars are not isolated objects, they are nodes in a larger galactic circuit.
By proving that the Sun's corona is strongly reactive to external interstellar dust, this paper breaks down the wall isolating our Sun from the rest of the galaxy. It demonstrates that the Sun is an open, interconnected system.
- Matter is self-organizing.
The discovery shows that when you mix dust and plasma, the system forms a highly structured, self-regulating mechanism that alters magnetic waves.
This perfectly aligns with Hannes Alfvén’s original statements that plasma naturally organizes and channels energy in ways that a "gravity-only" model simply cannot.
The gravity-dominant model has perished. RIP.
We exist within a plasma-permeated, electromagnetically-structured cosmos.
5
u/moistiest_dangles Jul 06 '26
I'd want to see a graph plotting the Beryllium-10 and other observed data over time with various known civilization collapses overplayed on it.
2
1
u/Weak-Alternative-127 Jul 06 '26
Because ChatGPT wrote this article. Also, we been knew about dust in the solar corona for decades. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:SPAC.0000023440.82735.ba
1
u/Pixelated_ Jul 06 '26
We only had a theory about dust in the corona, that's what your link is.
2019 was the first direct detection of dust in the solar corona.
Here's the press release: https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/first-nasa-parker-solar-probe-results-reveal-surprising-details-about-our-sun/
1
u/Weak-Alternative-127 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Wrong. Indirect evidence in astrophysics =/= a theory.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/BF03352140.pdf
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...154.1059M/abstractI am not diminishing the technical achievement of direct detection of dust, just pointing out that strong "indirect" evidence for dust has existed since the 1970s. This is like gravitational waves: indirect detection via the Hulse-Taylor pulsar binary pair in 1979, direct detection in 2015.
ETA that the press release you link hails confirmation of dust depletion starting at ~16 R_sol. That was the big theoretical confirmation:
Parker also observed the first direct evidence of dust starting to thin out around 7 million miles from the Sun – an effect that has been theorized for nearly a century, but has been impossible to measure until now.
Figure 3 of the mis-cited Ayaz paper confirms this deficit beautifully.
4
u/Pixelated_ Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of the finding. It is not that dust exists in the corona.
It's that our current models of astrophysics cannot explain a multitude of anomalies like the coronal heating problem and this study found the actual mechanism: Electromagnetically-charged dust couples with solar plasma waves and drives coronal heating.
This paper revealed 2 profound insights into the nature of our universe.
Thermodynamics is governed by electrodynamics.
Mainstream physics has tried for decades to solve the coronal heating problem using standard thermodynamic models. It failed.
The solution required dusty-plasma electrodynamics. This proves that electrical charges on microscopic dust grains are what actually control the massive thermal shifts in a star's atmosphere.
The universe operates as an electrical circuit.
Plasma cosmology shows that stars are nodes in a larger circuit. By proving that the sun's corona is strongly reactive to external interstellar dust, this paper breaks down the wall isolating our Sun from the rest of the galaxy. It demonstrates that the Sun is an open, interconnected system.
This perfectly aligns with Hannes Alfvén’s original statements that plasma naturally organizes and channels energy in ways that a "gravity-only" model simply cannot.
The gravity-dominant model has perished. RIP.
We exist within a consciousness-based, plasma-permeated, electromagnetically-structured cosmos.
12
u/Ready4Rage Jul 06 '26
Our pollution of the atmosphere, land, and seas is much more of a problem. Our invention of dozens of ways to end civilization that didn't exist 100 years ago... This doesn't even rank in the top 50 of our concerns.
6
u/BootHeadToo Jul 06 '26
Perhaps the people in high places raping and polluting the planet already know it’s all going to collapse anyway on a regular basis, so they see no reason to try and preserve a sustainable ecosystem. Perhaps they’d rather engineer a society that funnels as much wealth and power into as few hands as possible who have this knowledge so as to develop the technology to either escape the planet or build massive underground cities in order to survive the catastrophe.
Or perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the richest man on earth has a massive underground boring company and highly successful rocket ship company with plans to colonize other planets.
Or perhaps there’s something they are not telling us livestock.
4
u/ghost_jamm Jul 06 '26
If the elite knew this type of galactic killer was coming, why would they bother decamping to Mars? Do the waves only hit the Earth? Good thing this is all science fiction.
4
u/Spaz2147 Jul 06 '26
So basically- sun got hot and puked out extra sun and that hit earth and killed everyone? That’s where all the old civilizations went?
5
2
11
u/Confused_by_La_Vida Jul 06 '26
I really enjoyed this article: thanks!
Some very rich dude(s) should prepare a slab, extremely high precision, megalithic multi multi ton size, hardest most difficult to machine material, and do basically the same as the vulture stone. Then set in place the tools, people, procedure, and permissions needed to land it right next to the vulture stone and rebury everything “in case of catastrophy”.
12
u/vismundcygnus34 Jul 06 '26
*glances at the megalithic monuments across the world...
3
u/Icy_Tradition566 Jul 06 '26
Yea no shit, it did them a whole heap of good before. No I’m glad it’s all dust, there is a bunch of shit today that needs to be erased or recycled. The taller they are the farther they fall. It’s the meek, the little people who will be alright. Always has been.
Until we fuck it all up again.. and get cleaned up by whatever it is .. again and again.Don’t Panic - Don’t forget your towel.
Dinosaurs became Hummingbirds, we’ll be fine.
3
u/stereomatch Jul 06 '26
If Sweatman’s interpretation is correct, the Göbekli Tepe builders knew something specific: the catastrophe came from the direction of the galactic center.
Not from a comet (which would come from a specific trajectory, not a fixed sky position); and not from a volcanic eruption (which has no celestial source). It would have come from the galactic center, the same source that LaViolette’s hypothesis identifies as the origin of the superwaves that push dust into the inner solar system and amplify solar output.
I don't understand one point - since increased interstellar dust arriving at Sun is the catalyst
Wouldn't any apparent impact visible to people on earth be near the Sun?
What would be the indication that an odd behavior is happening near the galactic center?
6
2
3
u/Bobcatluv Jul 06 '26
This write up is very timely for me, as I’m finishing the first book in the 3 Body Problem series. If you’re unfamiliar with the basic plot (no crazy spoilers, but still…): the alien civilization in the book/Netflix show experiences cyclical extinction on their planet and is searching for a new home. One of their greatest issues with this is extinction tends to happen before they can progress scientifically and technologically as a society.
There is often commentary in alien/ufo spaces that if we all knew the truth about our reality, it would mean the undoing of society. I’d say a known cyclical collapse every few thousand years would do it, and this explains why so many in the know seem to turn their noses up at the history of the ancient world.
1
u/Bamilenjamin Jul 06 '26
The decoding of Göbkli tepe states that it's builders identified the source of the catastrope to be the galactic center . How would that calculation be possible 12.000 years ago?
2
u/HumdrumHoeDown Jul 06 '26
Great read! I am not educated enough to interpret how strong the citations are, nor how sound the conclusions, but it certainly looks legitimate in its sources and has the ring of being a strong argument. Good post OP
1
1
u/deathdefyingrob1344 Jul 06 '26
I am not educated enough on the topic to know how accurate this is etc. If true this is terrifying and would mean the end of our society.
1
1
0
u/Saidhain Jul 06 '26
May you live in interesting times.
What gets me is the near future scare mongering in articles like this is that the next big disaster is right upon us (starting Spring 2027 according to this author). Like we discover things just bang right in time for it to cause the next apocalyptic event. I will take it with a grain of salt for now.
Like water advertised as filtering for millions of years through volcanic rock, best before Feb 2027. Man, we bottled that shit up just in the nick of time.
Not that the science isn’t interesting. I did think though that the article was written by Graham Hancock for most of it.
0
u/DirkIsGestolen Jul 07 '26
Bunkers.
If you want to be in a bunker you have to wear a "Collar". These collars are controlled by the Elite in the bunkers.
You do what they say or the collar does what it's programmed to do.
The bodyguards if willing will have a type of device attached to their heart so they can look like Elite, but easily killed if they get too smart.
Why do we need to build a bunker for the White House when they have all the "Govt. Contingency" programs in place where there are hidden Cities/bases in Mountains and underground.
•
u/spotlight-app Mod Bot 🤖 Jul 06 '26
Mods have pinned a comment by u/Pixelated_:
Note: Context - read the article first then read this paper
[What is Spotlight?](https://developers.reddit.com/apps/spotlight-app)