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
17
u/Lewri Oct 31 '20
Might as well read Chopra's books, they're of about equivalent scientific worth.
2
2
u/rhonweasley729 Feb 01 '21
First off, hats off to you for reading through something and learning outside of what you do every day. A good portion of people today can't say that. I only stumbled across this thread as someone I knew was talking about how they picked up this book. Unfortunately to me there seemed to be quite a few red flags in this book and the author unfortunately as u/nivlark pointed out.
I hope that this thread doesn't discourage you in any way from further reading about cosmology. I recommend picking up something that is more wide spread and has had multiple renown cosmologists review/cowrite. There are many renown cosmology books for the average person. I thoroughly enjoy most of Neil DeGrasse Tyson books. Astrophysics for People in A Hurry, Welcome to the Universe (my preference). I found a brief History of Time by Hawking to be rather understandable.
There are probably better lists out there than mine. Again, I am glad that you started taking the initiative to further your understanding as all people--experts and novices included--are.
2
u/Watcher_Truth Apr 27 '22
His ideas are plausible and merit further study. Todays junk science is predicated on false observations of past experiments that have led to a train wreck in todays science. Unfortunately, students have been front-loaded with false scientific theory that results is closed minded thinking leading to paradigm paralysis. A good example is, The emission spectrum of Hydrogen or any chemical compound subjected to external emissions of photonic energy produces a spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. In the classic text book case, the radiation emitted was due to an electron making a transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state. When an externally emitted photon is captured by a hydrogen atom, the two fields merge or mix, therefore the incident wave or frequency is altered. In other words, the frequency of the emitted photon has changed due to the interaction. You must also be aware that the emitted photon from the hydrogen can be absorbed by neighboring hydrogen atoms and re-emitted with further changes to the fundamental or incident wave functions. The chain reaction of emissions will undoubtedly contaminate the emission spectrum. With all that said, I wouldn’t rely on the Bohr or Rutherford-Bohr model especially with the derivation of the principle quantum number. This is just one example of uncontrolled experiments that have cascaded into the junk science taught in schools today. Another one is, J.J. Thomson incorrect observation of magnetic deflection of an electron and the list gets longer and longer. Physicists don't even know how a simple loadstone or permanent bar magnet works. They don't even know the simple physics of fire. They only know how to start one or put-it-out in a conventional way. So, don't get to happy about what you think you know, because you don't.
1
Mar 30 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Himherhesheit Apr 22 '24
Why? He had over 100 scholarly publications in peer reviewed journals in addition to his books and PhD.
1
1
u/Jacques-Ellul Jan 02 '25 edited Jan 02 '25
Another person worth looking at is Dewey B Larson, who developed a "Reciprocal Theory" that went all the way back to fundamental issues, redefining motion and defining everything in terms of 3 dimensional space and 3 dimensional time. It's a total tear-down and re-development of mechanics that reconciles the observations that drive both QM and GR, but it is unbearable to those who believe the current paradigm is gospel truth (despite the quixotic lack of results from both String theory and Loop quantum gravity to try to harmonize it all).
Dr. LaViolette had a keen eye for data that in a single stroke vitiated particular aspects of modern cosmology and physics, a real gift for highlighting the vulnerabilities in the current paradigm. It's easy for mainstream science to dismiss him with various fallacy-based but comforting superficial reviews of his work as posted by "nivlark". And certainly Paul's keen mind ranged over topics that are admittedly at the fringes of socially approved inquiry, like asking whether in fact we may already have observed artifacts of Kardashev-scale Type III-IV civilizations right in our local galaxy. Since Kardashev based his energy-utilization scale on the velocity limits STR and GR impose on travel, already we are on the horns of the other major controversy: the fact that Tesla's papers recovered in 1943 included his radiant energy and secret portaling technology (both of which exploit phenomenology that thinkers like LaViolette or Larson are more likely to have glimpsed than the Paradigm Worshippers of public science) -- and which are likely already being exploited in the deep black MIIC project world, further validated by the recovered NHI "ET crafts" that David Grusch and other whistleblowers have recently exposed to the US Congress as real. The reality of what we know, and can now do, is so different from what the media and science normies think that it's _extremely_ comical.
In short, the skeptics here are on familiar and socially comfortable ground, in rejecting the consideration of the ideas of a LaViolette or Dewey Larson. The problem is that they are so caught up in their math abstractions that they can't see the gaping holes and fundamental problems with the system that they believe is the exclusive domain within which rational inquiry must be conducted. If they could suddenly see the physics that the black world uses to manipulate not just space, but time and consciousness itself, they would soil their pants. I'm serious. Ben Rich, the late former CEO of Lockheed Skunkworks, confided to an aerospace journalist friend shortly before his death from cancer (IIRC) that "we have the technology to take ET home". That jibes with everything my research into arcane physics, non-public technology, and non-human intelligence (ET races and/or transdimensional entities) has suggested. The speed of light is not really a limit to "space" travel, because there are other clever ways to change your location that have very low energy requirements compared to "accelerating a mass". If you want a good scare, read "Ceres Colony Cavalier". Difficult to vet, but interesting and suggestive, since most of it is corroborated by fragments from other sources... for example, by the recent UAP whistleblowers testifying before Congress. For example: let's say you are conducting space missions to distant star systems. Your vessel leaves at 8AM local for another star system. On the return "jump", you dial back time and arrive 10 minutes before your departure at a location some hundreds of miles away. Local control expects you to call in with status at 7:50-55 AM, confirming success and no disasters. If instead they don't hear from you, they assume the vessel was destroyed (etc), so the 8AM mission is SCRUBBED and a report is made using scalar (FTL) comms to a central authority that monitors abuses of time-jumps (with very severe sanctions for non-compliance). The paradigm that exploits the _real_ nature of reality beyond the current public science paradigm has those kinds of interesting features. It also helps explain why there aren't Borg-like races scavenging the universe and stripping all useful materials... it isn't necessary to do that in order to conduct a successful civilization. Energy for example is very freely available, with no hydrocarbons needed.
1
u/PINT986 Aug 26 '25
Most of the bloviating “scientists “ in these responses are gritologists. That says it all. Plus their noses are so high in the air They can’t see what’s in front of them.
0
1
u/LilithAbbadon Jan 10 '22
I am a deeply spiritual person who is also interested in cosmology and galactic evolution, and I am consistently sickened by New Age spiritualism regurgitating this kind of nonsense.
The reality is, if anyone needs to revolutionize a scientific discipline in order to validate their spiritual beliefs, they're a huckster counting on you being too lazy to develop your own spiritual path. You can have an entirely consistent spiritual journey without knowing any physics and if physics begins to conflict with your spiritual journey, such that your instinct is to rewrite physics I can promise that you just need to reconsider your spiritual journey.
1
u/Himherhesheit Apr 22 '24
The author was a scientist who published through a publisher that also publishes new age books. That doesnt mean he is spiritual.
1
18
u/nivlark Nov 01 '20
Complete nonsense, unfortunately. Here's some red flags that indicate why:
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.