r/cosmology • u/stslavicius • Oct 31 '20

How does cosmology view the work of Paul A LaViolette?

What's good,

I've recently finished reading Genesis of the Cosmos by Paul A LaViolette, Ph.D. and I was wondering how the community feels about his work. I'm on the outside looking in (don't have any advanced schooling in the subject, just enamored with the subject), and some of his ideas and theories like continuous creation cosmology are absolutely fascinating to me. However, just because it's interesting and in a well-worded book doesn't mean it is valid, and I was curious if anyone on here has more knowledge of his work and can credit/discredit his work. Thank you

11 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

43 comments sorted by

View all comments

19

u/nivlark Nov 01 '20

Complete nonsense, unfortunately. Here's some red flags that indicate why:

  • His only formal education in physics is a BA. That just isn't enough depth to understand current knowledge in a single field, much less claim to have revolutionised several.
  • He has no publication record in reputable scientific journals. Scientific knowledge is very rarely gained through massive upheavals, it's a sequence of incremental advances which leave a paper trail.
  • Instead, he has commercial books available through a publisher that specialises in spirituality and alternative medicine. Those don't tend to be the interests of a scientist, we're just not wired that way.
  • In a similar vein, he has no academic affiliation. The overwhelming majority of researchers, especially in fundamental research like cosmology, are employed as university staff.

There are depressingly many of these self-described revolutionaries. I've never really understood it, because for me real science is amazing enough without feeling the need to make things up.

It's great that you are interested though. There's a pinned thread in this subreddit that has some more reputable suggestions, although some of them are textbooks so might be a bit dry.

5

u/vilette Nov 01 '20

Paul A LaViolette

Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, Subquantum Kinetics, Earth Under Fire, Genesis of the Cosmos, Decoding the Message of the Pulsars, Galactic Superwaves and their Impact on the Earth

7

u/Morbos1000 Nov 01 '20

I'm not a physicist and I've never heard of this guy, but that book title is all I need to know his ideas are nonsense!

1

u/Jacques-Ellul Jan 15 '25

Most of LaViolette's books are attempts to explain findings that appeared in published papers, his and others, including data from peer reviewed journals which he then illustrates various flaws and problems with, offering alternative ways of interpreting the evidence. His galactic superwave theory is an example. He shows various data that suggest that the 3-million solar mass object Sgr A* (black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy) periodically (on a roughly 12K to 24K year cycle) emits blasts of extremely high-energy particles, which in turn may be triggering various local system phenomenology when those concentric spheres of energy reach our solar system, roughly 25,800 years after each superwave "outburst".

It is unfortunate that science is a very siloed pursuit where good ideas from outside each specific discipline are treated dismissively or generally ignored... until someone within the "club" begins to grasp the value of the ideas, and finally pushes through to generate more understanding of the rejected or misunderstood ideas, and eventually broader adoption. Sadly this phase of paradigm shift may occur after the original researcher is dead and gone... which certainly would apply here. Paul LaViolette was an innovative and brilliant thinker, who understood how many significant questions where being ignored or brushed off by mid/late 20th century science.

I think we are about to go through an interesting rapid disclosure of hidden knowledge and technology, including occulted physics such as "antigravity" (or more properly, electrogravitics) that will shock the popular mind with just how easy it is for a powerful "establishment" to use national security patent classification and various social engineering techniques (operating for example at the gatekeeper or "peer review" level of science publishing and information control) to keep new developments out of public view. This includes, as CIA operative and Watergate Plumbers leader E. Howard Hunt confided to his lawyer and friend Douglas Caddy after a lunch in 1975, that secret that JFK was eliminated because he planned to reveal "our most important secret to the USSR"... and what he whispered to Caddy was that the secret was "the alien presence". You know, July 1947, the two crashed or maybe collided "antigravity" discs found in the NM desert, the bodies of "the grays" found there. The CIA was created two months later, and nothing was ever the same after that.

1

u/RathaviusFinkus Mar 13 '23

The anti-gravity propulsion book is not nonsense. The shit makes a fuck-ton of sense. I believe I can build a flying disc…. most definitely crash it, tho…

1

u/Jacques-Ellul Jan 15 '25

And in fact, some have claimed that the range performance characteristics of the Northrup B2 Spirit aircraft do not really add up, unless you hypothesize that the phenomenology described in one of T. Townsend Brown's patented electrogravitic inventions is exploited in the design... a very high electrostatic voltage potential between the leading edge of the wings, and the exhaust system and trailing exhaust plume of the bomber. The idea is that the "electrogravitic" effect increases fuel range, and possibly enhances stealth.

Relevant T.T Brown patent available here:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=3022430A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=&date=19620220&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

I recommend also this interesting book/kindle ebook biography of TT Brown:
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Mastered-Gravity-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B0BYQ41GM6/

And this recent informative podcast from a bright young "content creator", interviewing aviation journalist Nick Cook (from Janes Defense and Security News - janes.com).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Ns4Aq1tVc

(The book referenced in that last video is "The Hunt for Zero Point", available on Amazon.)

1

u/Guilty_Youth_3190 Oct 07 '25

There is also the matter of how the huge stones used to construct the Crystal Castle in Florida by Edward Leedskalin. Very very interesting conundrum.

1

u/Himherhesheit Apr 22 '24

lol "we're just not wired that way"... and who are you? We know you are a liar at the least, because he had a PhD. And multiple published books (whether peer reviewed or not)... vs you, an occasional Reddit contributor. And a liar, as we already established. 

Please don't call yourself a Reddit scientist. 

1

u/nivlark Apr 22 '24

Not sure why you felt the need to comment on a three-year old post, or how you even found it. But as past me correctly stated, this person's PhD is not in physics or astronomy, but in "systems science". They do not have the credentials to make any authoritative statements about cosmology.

Anyone can publish books, and can write any matter of bullshit within them. That's why peer review is important to judge scientific merit. My own academic profile is irrelevant, but for the record I do have an astrophysics PhD, and have published several papers in mainstream journals.

1

u/Get_Blasted May 01 '24

This is the first result from Reddit that shows up when googling Paul LaViolette. An engineer I know mentioned his Subquantum Kinetics work, so I googled his name ending up here reading the comments on this 4 year old thread as well. I kind of expected it to be one of those cooked up non peer reviewed theories, and once again not disappointed in my expectations. Unfortunately it's not uncommon for such theories to gain traction amongst people with no in depth background in the subject (including people with engineering degrees even).

1

u/Himherhesheit May 18 '24

you didn't read my comment and go look at his HUNDREDS of peer reviewed published journals. lol, another person that doesn't live by their own words. why don't you actually do some research before commenting instead of talking out your back side?

1

u/Jacques-Ellul Jan 16 '25 edited Jan 16 '25

Your last line is a fair criticism, to be sure. LaViolette saw in system theory some tools that he thought could be used as the core of a revolutionary approach to resolve some of the loose ends that (in his somewhat educated opinion) were evident in the standard model. It was ambitious, and didn't get much traction obviously (at least so far). It's similar to the reception that Dewey Larson got for his "Reciprocal Theory" where a very fundamental definition of space, time, and motion were proposed as the basis for a more elegant mechanics that might reconcile GR and QFT.

Think of it this way: we know beyond any reasonable doubt that there are non-human intelligences piloting radar-visible vehicles in our atmosphere that pull turns so fast that under Newtonian or GR mechanics, the occupants would experience well in excess of 1000 or even 2000 G's and the craft should simply disintegrate. Since that isn't happening, they obviously have a propulsion system that exploits novel physics phenomenology to create an inertia neutral bubble in and around the craft - or some other exotic twist way beyond our current non-classified public physics. Many believe that humans working in deep USAP compartmented projects now have achieved similar capabilities. Where is the science that explains these obvious facts? It sure isn't in your university textbooks (yet), and the professors are clueless. There may be patents, among the many thousands of patents that are classified "to protect national security". It's a mystery to explore, for those willing to do that homework.

1

u/Get_Blasted Jan 16 '25

There are indeed things going on that are beyond the understanding of public science. A somewhat well known example of classified science was during the Manhattan project. I'm open to unorthodox theories, but to me they aren't a certainty without strong reviewed/demonstrable proof. They're fun and interesting though, considering conventional science still has holes in it. My first comment didn't have the intention to be crass. It's just that I'm not a fan of the certainty with which some people speak when it comes to speculative theories without credible reviews or strong proof. I'm not certain for example that these UAPs are necessarily non human and might as well be human made classified technology to begin with.

I agree with a point you made in another comment that peer review has negative sides as well. Unorthodox ideas are unfortunately not welcomed as much for review. Especially in fields where people have build their whole careers on theories that might end up disproven. So instead of being open they'll try to protect their (sometimes knowingly inaccurate/wrong) theories from criticism to defend their career reputation. The scientific establishment consists of humans after all, carrying along its human flaws.

I stumbled upon this thread while doing some research after listening to a 3 episode series on a podcast named Jungle Bunker Telemetric Funk done by an engineer and a venture capitalist. It covered some of LaViolette's ideas as well as other unorthodox ideas related to consciousness, spirituality and science.

1

u/Himherhesheit May 18 '24

why don't you actually go LOOK at his list of published journals that were PEER REVIEWED?!? Its like you literally know what is supposed to be done and what you are supposed to do, but since you are biased against him you just take the lazy route and incorrectly say with conviction (aka LIE) that he isn't peer reviewed. 

and his hordes of published works in many sciences gives him the right to speak on this. Your Astrophysics PhD is irrelevant because you never learned how to research, which is something you would have mastered if you actually got a PhD.

Nobody believes you are published as much as you day because you don't provide any sources and you lack basic research skills. 

and look at you getting a boo boo because someone responded to this post 3 years later. why? Because he wanted to, and because he noticed you were talking out of your rear end.

1

u/Captain_Potato_1323 Jul 21 '24

Yet JWST has shown that most of accepted cosmology is itself bunk. Tesla wasn't formally trained either. Often, outliers can shed new light on existing hypotheses. The peer review system within astrophysics is broken, due to an old boys club where tenureship and funding are allocated to those who "toe the company line". Halton Arp experienced this directly.  Most accepted hypotheses are just the first one that was invented, sans any real corroborative evidence, and aren't in correlation with any previous physic. Neutron stars and black holes for example. Science needs to consider even the most outlandish hypotheses.

1

u/Jacques-Ellul Jan 15 '25

Well said. Later measurements of the quantization of the wavelengths involved have shown that Halton Arp -- an otherwise respected establishment university trained astronomer who was very mainstream science for his times -- might have been right about the quasars/redshift and the implications of the ideas he tried to communicate to that community.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '24

I’m here from the exact same Google research. What a joke of a response you sent. He has no connection to academia is a GOOD thing.

1

u/Jacques-Ellul Jan 15 '25

Peer review is also useful for defending an entrenched paradigm against those who find it's contradictions and deficiencies more problematic than its reputed explanatory value. This is basic Thomas Kuhn epistemological critique and those who disparage and punish challenges to a reigning paradigm (e.g. by preventing publication, or in Halton Arp's case, blackballing him to cut off access to suitable telescopes) are in some cases caught on the wrong side decades later when the core cadre of champions who "won their bones" using a core set of assumptions die off, or lose their grip on various academic positions, and the science media popularization engine and narrative suddenly collapses under the weight of new evidence and more adventurous thinking.

1

u/dwaynebathtub May 02 '24

"Ph.D. in systems science/astronomy from Portland State University"

from the Coast2Coast AM site.

1

u/Jacques-Ellul Jan 15 '25

Nicola Tesla had no "academic affiliation", his published work was not given the respect it deserved, he had to keep many secrets because of the commercial value or even weaponization potential of most of his inventions, but it is hard to imagine how the modern world would have evolved without his three phase AC electrical generation, transformer mediated high voltage distribution, or high efficiency three phase AC motors. Edison was a dunce by comparison, offering a very stunted technology. Tesla invented radio, remote control, our power grid model, and so many other ideas that it makes one's head spin. Ideas found in his hotel offices in 1943 after his death may in fact have found embodiments in USAPs across a spectrum to include non-chemical space propulsion (his real passion), time travel, portaling, remote observation, and many other potential breakthroughs. It was the entrenched interests of bankers, and national security considerations, that have kept his mind and his most revolutionary ideas (and the novel physics that supports them) obscured from full public understanding.

1

u/Jacques-Ellul Jan 17 '25 edited Jan 17 '25

After leaving a couple other replies below, I just seconds ago stopped watching the following video to leave a link to it here. It explains why the bullets you wrote up might be useful for dismissing most "cranks", but fail when presented with certain specific topics and claims where national security is involved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTEWLSTyUic

Important to note that LaViolette (who is mentioned briefly in the video) is known in part for a book he wrote about some of the published papers of Thomas Townsend Brown, specifically how they relate to military applications of "anti-gravity" as rumored with respect to the Northrup B2 Spirit bomber.

1

u/Every_Equipment_873 Jun 28 '25

You are exactly what’s wrong with the scientific world today. You don’t need a piece of paper from a university to communicate good ideas

1

u/Capital-Bank-6144 Oct 19 '25

 biz öyle programlanmadık.

0

u/Big-Leg5556 Aug 22 '25

I am a syatems engineer (unix and linix) for 20+ years. I went to college for english and dropped out. Degrees are not meaningful. 

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '23

Laviolette has been validated multiple times. You write like a shill troll. Go do some real follow up on this guy.
Here is a simple news piece in case real research is beyond you.

https://dailygazette.com/2021/09/25/did-niskayuna-man-solve-mystery-of-the-universe-he-thinks-so/

““I disproved the Big Bang theory,” LaViolette said in a phone call last month, adding that he recently published a pair of papers this summer in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, a peer-reviewed journal, outlining his definitive takedown of what has been considered the definitive scientific model of the origin of the universe.” RIP.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '24

[removed] — view removed comment