UFOs: A failure to communicate

If UFOs are depicted in primitive petroglyphs and the stories in the Hebrew Bible are authentic [The Ezekiel vision and the Elias episode for instance], the message inherent to those early sightings remains cryptic.



AmerIndian myths and accounts of UFOs (or things similar to them) are still without clarity. The message, if there was one, was obscure and is still obscure.



The alleged Alexander [The Great] sighting(s) and Constantine’s “cross in the sky” epiphany, despite the accrued Christian context, were devoid of a clear message.



And the Middle Ages battles of UFOs seen in the skies left nothing to explain what that was all about.



In the modern era (of UFOs), starting with the airship occurrences of the 1890s up through the 1947 raft of flying saucer sightings and into the year 2008, UFOs (and their progenitors, if any) have provided no message to humankind, no decipherable message anyway.



The absence of any message – and UFOs have had ample opportunity to leave a message if the things wanted to – is significant.

Like God, after the Torah, and Jesus, in the New Testament, who spoke in parables, UFOs have been obscurant. Why?



If alien beings pilot UFOs (or some of them), they’ve had enough time to understand the human mind-structure, and ability to communicate or receive communication.

The hypotheses by some “ufologists” that UFOs have left messages, via symbols or symbolic behavior, is just flaky, unless UFOs, like God, are playing a game of some kind with humanity.



But because so many years have gone by, eons actually, the game of UFOs (and God) has worn thin, to the point that human beings don’t or shouldn’t care.

If there is a message being proffered by UFOs, we humans are either too stupid to get it or the message is a garbled mess, by insane creatures, a message that can’t be deciphered because it is totally irrational (like the message of the Creator).



Or there has been no message to be gleaned. UFOs just can’t communicate, or are as confounded by us we are of them, and choose to remain mute.

Either way, it’s a sum-zero situation, with no winners…..

UFOs: A Reason to Party?

A Canadian film-maker who likes UFOs takes umbrage with our idea that he and his cronies diminish the seriousness of UFOs by using them as a front for beer-drinking and womanizing.

Most ufologists think some UFO phenomena are serious matters, even going so far in some quarters to say they represent an apocalyptic omen.

Other UFO blokes (us included) think that UFOs are a benign (thus far), unknown intrusion of several phenomena, one of which may be serious (an alien presence of some kind).

Science eschews UFOs because the field has been, since day one, infected by crazies who have tried to use UFOs (sometimes successfully, as in the case of George Adamski) to augment their ego-needs.

Serious “ufologists” have distanced themselves form the crazies but there is a renewed effort, by the Canadian film-maker and his pals, to re-invigorate the nonsense element within the UFO community.

The recent release of some British government UFO files has created an environment that might generate a sensible interest by the public and media in the UFO phenomena.

But that sensible interest will be undercut by those who use UFOs as a pretext to act silly and be cavalier, all the time pretending to be investigating UFOs seriously.

The 1950s created an atmosphere of looniness about flying saucers, but with the alleged abduction of Betty and Barney Hill, UFOs took on a sinister aspect.

UFOs have a patina of eeriness about them that is more than subliminal, even though nothing untoward about UFOs has been proven, in the scientific or military sense.

But UFOs may contain a serious threat to humanity, or not. We just don’t know.

Yet, UFO aficionados who use the phenomena as an excuse to get wasted and traverse the world as playboys and playwomen do an injustice to those who want science and media, even the public, to give UFOs a bit more concern than has happened since the contactee days.

The party-people diminish UFO study as their ballyhooed shenanigans give continued credence to others that UFOs are the bailiwick of the fringe, and not anything that should be taken seriously.

So our plaint that the film-maker is subverting ufology, and the investigators he has shilled into his fun-loving approach to UFOs, is only that: a plaint.

The film-maker can have all the fun he wants, but let’s not use his tomfoolery as a template for ufology or UFO research.

Life is short, and partying is okay, if one is a hedonist or epicurean.

But for those who think there’s something serious going on, within the human condition, and that UFOs may be a part of that, then the UFO happy-crowd should be ignored or avoided.

UFO wackos

Here are representatives of the current UFO community:



Does anyone wonder why science and media don’t take the phenomenon seriously?

Mike Heiser's Blog

Mike Heiser is PhD who deals with Semitic religions usually, but he also has an interest, surprisingly, in UFOs.

Check out his new blog:

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/UFOReligions

God’s not quite immortal remains

As the writer using Shakespeare’s name has it in Hamlet, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” there is, indeed, more things, and here’s one of them:

Following Teilhard de Chardin’s thesis that reality (the Universe) is the mystical but physical body of Christ (and therefore God), we conclude that Dark Energy is the remnant of God’s demise, the decaying elements of God’s “body” and Dark Matter the remnants of Jesus/Christ’s “body.”



The total corruption of God’s and Christ’s remains will take millennia as physicists conjecture when they theorize about the end of the Universe.

But Dark Energy and Dark Matter “prove” for pantheistic agnostics the death of God (and Christ thereby too).

When the demi-urge (demiurgos), acting as creative agent for the Ineffable, produced the Earth and the creatures on it, there wasn’t an evolutionary plan that incorporated human beings. (The demi-urge may be equated with the Evil face of God as enumerated in Jung’s concept of the Quaternity.)



The great lizard/birds, dinosaurs, ruled the Earth for millions of years until a natural or purposeful catastrophe occurred and mammalia arose, culminating in apes and then man.

The short period of man’s (accidental?) transcendence was beset by the early demise of the demi-urge (as noted in our previous post) and is now threatened by the death of the Ineffable God (and Christ), evidenced by the discovery of God’s (and Christ’s) remains:
Dark Energy (and Dark Matter).



If there was (or is) a purpose for life, that purpose is meaningless now, and theologians and physicists move into an abstract forensic that is academic, and nothing more.

Atheists may find this satisfying in some way, while believers shall scoff, but we accept our “God is really dead” hypothesis as actual and nihilistically complete…

God is dead, Jesus too…

…and the Holy Spirit may be in a coma.

When did God die, and we don’t mean in the Nietzschean metaphorical sense?



God’s demise seems to have occurred shortly after Jesus/Christ’s crucifixion.

If God sacrificed himself, in the form of Jesus, to expiate His sins against mankind, as Carl Jung postulates in his "Answer to Job,” He did not recover from the experience on the Cross, even though it appears that the second nature of God, Jesus, did survive the ordeal, for a time anyway.

But Jesus seems not to have lasted much beyond the crucifixion Himself.

(We discount Saul of Tarsus’ “epiphany” where he thought Christ spoke to him when he was on the road to Damascus; that was an hysterical, psychotic reaction that Saul – St. Paul – suffered because he was actively persecuting Jews who were Christians.)



The third “person” of the Trinity, The Holy Spirit, manifested itself, overtly, for the last time in 312 A.D. when Roman Emperor Constantine had a vision of the Cross before a battle.



After 312 no element of the Godhead has been evidenced objectively. Subjective awareness of God, and Jesus, as persons’ personal savior, have been rife throughout the time period following the Roman persecutions of Christians, and continue to this day.

But nothing concrete related to the Divinity has been palpable since 312 of the Common Era.

(The appearances of Mary, the mother of Jesus, throughout history, even into our modern era – although such visitations have been rare of late – might be attributable to another phenomenon. But even if they represent or represented real Marian appearances, that doesn’t remove the perception(s) that God and Jesus are not longer “alive.”)

What is the evidence for God’s death?

The Holocaust comes to mind. And previously the Black Plague, and other natural calamities, but mostly man’s inhumanity to man, with no intervention by God, Jesus, of The Holy Spirit, not even symbolically or subliminally.



Richard Elliott Friedman suggests in his book “The Hidden Face of God” that God has merely removed Himself from interaction with mankind.

No, God is dead. It’s as simple as that.

Creation, put in motion by God, moves along under its original momentum, and can continue for some time period, but existence is winding down, and there is no ineffable being to halt the eventual terminus.

God is dead.

And we’ll take this forward, upcoming, as to how that death affects all the aspects of humanity…

Unanswered Everything

Noted here, at this blog, are all the quirks of nature and reality that go unanswered; that is, they remain unexplained.

Who really produced the Shakespeare oeuvre?



Is there a God?

What is consciousness?

Was there a Big Bang?



What are UFOs?

What is Dark Matter? Dark Energy?

What happened to Amelia Earhart?



Why did Neanderthal “man” disappear?

What is death?



Is quantum reality the real reality?

Does pi have an end?



What is the purpose of life?

And so on…

Do we have a point? Not necessarily.

Life doesn’t seem to have a point, so why should we?

To pursue the questions above is an idle pursuit of course. Socrates suggested that such pursuits are the philosophical point of human existence. But is that so?



As we go forward, we’ll be more nihilistic probably, just a bit short of Schopenhauer’s wonderfully depressive outlook, but with an epicurean stance somewhat.

And that’s all we have, right? That is if Sartre and the existentialists are correct…..

The Shakespeare Group

In determining who made up the raft of writers using the sobriquet “Shakespeare” we only have to find the following:

What contemporary/writer/colleague of William Shakespeare (who formed the Shakespeare consortium) was a devout Roman Catholic?



What writer was an insider to the Court of Elizabeth the Queen?



What writer was enamored of phantasmagoria?

Who was a master of the language?



What writer was primarily a poet?



What writer preferred Histories of his time?



What writer looked to ancient histories for his muse?

What writer was homosexual? (It wasn’t Will Shakespeare himself.)



What writer preferred male/female complications?



What writer looked to political machinations for his inspiration?



And what writer had a tendency to science, magic, or alchemy?



(The task at hand isn’t as difficult as it seems.)

The Shakespeare Mystery

Yes, Shakespeare, like the RRRGroup, was a writing consortium, consisting of major playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe, Edward DeVere, Thomas Kyd, Ben Jonson, and others.

The point of the consortium will be examined here, in ways that haven’t been tried before.

We’ll do, upcoming, a forensic examination of the writing, the lives, and the interaction of the writers who formed the group known as Shakespeare, including Shakespeare himself.

Admittedly, the idea of a Shakespeare writer who wasn’t Shakespeare himself is not new, but that several persons joined with Shakespeare to produce plays and sonnets is.

More to come….

The Insanity Gene

Lecomte du Nouy in his book “Human Destiny” hypothesizes that humans who will move evolution forward are mutants; that is, the mass of humanity is primitive (in many ways) and only those who are endowed with special sensitivities (talents, as it were) are capable of evolving the human species and civilization in a beneficial way, toward an Omega Point as Lecomte du Nouy has it.

(The Omega Point is also a feature of Teilhard de Chardin’s writings.)

The problem for humanity or the problem of humanity is that it is palpably obvious that the bulk of the human population is insane; that is, humanity, in general, is non compos mentis.

One doesn’t need detailed footnotes to show just how crazy humanity is and has been, since the Garden of Eden.

A cursory examination of history and media accounts of today provides ample incidents of insane behavior by man.

The pockets of humane actions by the du Nouy mutants do show up on occasion, but their existence does not offset the preponderance of mad activity that permeates human culture, and has always permeated human culture, even “civilization” itself.

The insanity is ingrained in humankind; it is, perhaps, the essence of humankind.

Since madness is an ephemeral thing, it can’t be found or investigated as genetic structures are able to be studied.

But it does leave tangible footprints, as Freud and others have outlined.

The insanity may be the “image of God” that was mankind’s creative template, and we’ll be presenting views about this probability...

Homosexual gods?

We opine in The Biblical Paradigm for Homosexuality (online at http://wildesociety.homestead.com) that God (Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament) was homosexual and/or sexist; or at least His writers were.

The examples cited in our pamphlet can be supplemented by other occasions that show the inordinate “affection” that God showed toward Abraham and Moses (among others).



For instance, the homosexual jealousy of Yahweh is delineated specifically in Exodus 4:26 where Yahweh threatens to kill Moses (for reasons a bit obscure) but is thwarted by Moses’ wife, Sepphora who cut off a piece of her son’s foreskin and touched the feet of the Lord (an entity suffused with or obsessed by male genitalia as outlined in The Biblical Paradigm…).

Morton Smith discovered an unexpurgated version of the Gospel of Mark, wherein Jesus has a homosexual relationship of a significant kind with a young man as part of a secret initiation of some kind.



In his book, The Secret Gospel [of Mark], Smith presents the passages that were culled from the canonical Mark, but some have suggested that Smith, an eminent scholar, created the passages.

Whether or not that is true (and we very seriously doubt it), a passage still intact in the canonical Mark seem to confirm the idea that Jesus was enamored of a young man (Lazarus or the beloved John) who had amorous inclinations toward Jesus:

“…a certain youth followed Him, wearing a linen cloth on his bare body and when they seized him, he left the linen cloth behind and fled from them, naked. [Mark 14:51]

Why was the young man naked? Morton Smith’s “secret” Gospel of Mark presents the hypothesis of secret rites and arcane mysticism that the Gnostics attributed to Jesus and His followers, and those secret rites included a sexual initiation it seems.



The underlying homosexuality of all mythologies and religions is palpable, going back to primitive religious rites where the Phallus was prominent.



That Jesus may have been homosexual, and God (Yahweh) was also, indicates that something was and is amiss in the theological morality espoused by the Church and entrenched by Luther and those who followed in his rebellious wake.



Thus homosexuality became anathema at the public, overt level of theological consciousness because of Protestant pronouncements, but its subliminal acceptance and ritualistic display over the millennia, while perverting the natural law (sexual intercourse for the procreation of the human species), seems to be inculcated in the genetic make-up of human kind and appears to be important to the cultural advancement of civilization, which we’ll deal with in the ensuing posts here…..

There was no Big Bang

That the Universe was begot by an infinitely small singularity is absurd on the face of it.

And physicists pursuing that notion are bordering on the insane.

But this doesn’t mean that the Steady State theory is bona fide; that notion was wiped away by evidence of an expanding Universe.

But there was no Big Bang. Such an event is and was an impossibility.

Yet there is another possibility – if Einstein’s idea of space-time is correct (and it seems to be) – which is that our Universe was created by the intrusion of a parallel universe into a fissure within the fabric of space.



That is, an expanding universe, from a dimension of the Eternal Infinity breached a crack or hole in the fabric of space and brought part of the parallel universe into our area of the Eternal Infinity, which only consisted of Dark Matter and Dark Energy before the insertion of the expanding matter that we now know as our Universe.

Was the fissure a Black Hole? Or a rending that has yet to be determined or discovered?



That is where the physical sciences need to assert theory and research.

The Big Bang never happened, and the continuing hypothesizing about it is a futile waste of (Space) Time and (Dark) Energy.

Casting pearls before....

We deal with and have dealt with some obtuse professional communities and oblique efforts over the years, including media, ufology, physics science, and theology.

Of these, only the theological community remains intact as a serious intellectual enterprise.

Media (national and local), which for us consists of news media mostly, is rife with hubris, self-aggrandizement, and narcissism of a manifest kind.

But then so does the community of physical science, where theoretical physicists have co-opted the realm of Newtonian and quantum physics, replacing rumination in those arenas with self-serving, self-promoting agendas.

As for UFOs and ufology, the conundrum and its cohorts fill the valley of thought with vile, despicable actions, confused by inebriated hoaxers and ignorance so profound that the gods certainly must be flummoxed by what they wrought when they created man.

In news media, television personalities exist, not to pursue journalistic truths, but rather to enhance one’s image, salary, and self-glorification.

But even newspaper journalists are not exempt from feathering their own personal nests, even working harder to do so since newspaper staffers have been and are considered much lower on the professional scale than their TV counterparts.

Newspaper personnel have always thought they had a handle on truths and information which no one else had access to.

TV upset that applecart long ago, and blogs are putting the final nails in the print medium coffin.

Our contact with news media for many years now has determined, for us, that those in the profession of journalism are, generally, short on intellectual acumen and
aesthetic nuance of any kind. (News people haven’t a clue about the glories within liberal arts, and this includes those who write or report on the arts for their papers.)

In critiquing media, we (and others) have had to dumb down our broadsides so that those receiving them could understand the volleys for what they are and were: attacks on the superficial and banal reportage that passes for journalism nowadays.

News media, like politics (which media worships like no other human activity), is fetid, which even the rabble that media serves (and exploits) smells.

That’s why newspaper circulation is in a steep decline and television newscasts are slugging it out to maintain viewers for their devolving influence.

While ambling around the so-called UFO community the past few years, we notice that the mystery has accumulated a raft of reprobates and scoundrels like no other arcane enterprise we’re familiar with.

(Politics is scummier but that all-consuming human endeavor is hardly arcane.)

Unidentified flying objects present an interesting, even intriguing, phenomenon.

But those involved with the phenomenon – and we cite virtually everyone involved – are clinically demented, as anyone can see for themselves by visiting web-sites, blogs, and interactive forums about the elusive things once ubiquitously known as flying saucers.

There is a meanness and psychotic etiology that should be pursued by psychiatry and/or sociologists if they want to discover the collective insanity of a large segment of human society.

The value of “ufology” and its minions, is not the evanescent “objects” and mysterious lights that persons are hallucinating about, but the malevolent thought processes of those who’ve entered the UFO realm for purposes other than a denouement of the evasive phenomenon.

Sixty concentrated years of flying disks and unidentified flying somethings-or-other have produced nothing but a surfeit of ignoramuses who feed off each other and a very limited, dull-witted segment of society.

But in science, the matter of intelligence is no better than that in ufology.

Theoretical physicists deign to pronounce on the reality, or lack thereof, of God or the gods, which is not the province if science, but of faith, and faith alone.

God can’t be addressed by science.

Even science can’t be addressed by science.

Science, ever since the actualization of quantum reality, has to step aside for the panoply of existence(s) which lie outside man’s ability to fathom.

Science can’t crack the riddle of life, or the mystery that is the Universe.

To try is to evoke the hubris of the doomed Greek heroes who meddled in “divine” machinations to their magnificent detriment.

Mankind can’t decipher the ultimate reality, whether it’s a God or a supreme natural law.

The vastness of the ultimate reality is overwhelmingly beyond man’s capacity to understand it, and those in science who think they can unravel that reality are more insane than the ufologists they demean.

Media, ufology, and science are follies engaged in by madmen, some with egotistical purposes, others with a serious chink in their mental capacities.

And for us (and others) to comment on such follies is almost as psychologically unsound as the bizarre enterprises themselves.

So, perhaps, its time to move on to more productive ventures…..such as theology or stamp collecting.

Miracles? We got no stinkin’ miracles!

A big nail in God’s coffin are all those miracles attributed to Him and His Son: the plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red (or Reed) Sea, the destruction of Jericho’s walls, the talking donkey, the water into wine, the Resurrection, et cetera, et cetera.



All the miracles of the Bible (and legend) can be explained in physical terms, strange physical terms perhaps, but explainable.

A miracle - -a real miracle - -would be something like a pyramid hovering a hundred feet in the air, or the total evaporation of the Mediterranean Sea, or the reversal of Jesus’ time-line (whereupon He avoids crucifixion).



Today, a miracle wouldn’t consist of a laying of hands and the fainting of the person upon whom those hands laid; the miracle would take the person back in time to where their frailty wasn’t a problem.

Another miracle – a real miracle – would be for a fully stocked and ready to go McDonald’s to appear, ex nihilo, in the midst of Darfur’s refugee camps.



And a visible, rational symbol or marking, displayed suddenly on the moon, for all Earthians to see, would be miraculous.



Raising a Lazarus from the dead was interesting, if he was truly dead, but Christ showing up now, as he was during His ministry (two thousand years ago), would be amazing – rather miraculous.



God needing men to write down His words doesn’t bode well for an omnipotent Being. A true God would provide His Book fully transcribed, and without grammatical or spelling errors.



(The Bible, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon apparently were not contrived by a true God, if any god at all.)

Changes in physical laws are not possible, and tweaks that seem to alter those laws are quantum artifacts, which are far from miraculous; strange perhaps but not miraculous.

No, we, and no one else, has experienced a true miracle, and that alone should indicate that if a God exists, He’s adept at sleight-of-hand and that’s about it.

The UFO Arena (minus the phenomenon itself)

Science won’t intrude on the UFO community, and science won’t surely take a gander at the UFO phenomenon, not since the tainted Condon Committee, for the United States Air Force, seemed to eschew UFOs and flying saucers in its final report of 1968.



(Wikipedia has a thorough encapsulation of the Condon Committee’s efforts here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Report )

But science is wrong by avoiding a study of UFOs, since the phenomenon offers grist for several scientific disciplines, including psychology, sociology, mythology, and even quantum physics (as we detail elsewhere).



The problem for science is that they’d have to deal with the quacks, cranks, and UFO vagrants who’ve captured the phenomenon beginning in 1947, distorting its relevance by self-aggrandizement and totally inept (amateurish) investigations – and that includes astronomer J. Allen Hynek’s foray into the UFO world (first for the Air Force’s Project Blue Book and later for his own Center for UFO Studies).



The UFO phenomenon is intriguing, and curious scientists – curiosity being the general demeanor of scientists – would normally be inclined to check out such a sporadic and circumstantial presence in the upper air.

The militaries of the world have taken notice, as have news media; the former seriously, the latter much less so.

But science, in this instance, just as it has with anything in the paranormal world, chooses to ignore or anathematize UFOs, and this because of the fanatic buffoons who’ve commandeered the phenomenon.



One can’t blame science, or scientists, from avoiding the UFO arena. What have they to gain by immersing themselves in a scrutiny of UFOs which will bring them opprobrium (as it has already for some) and ridicule?

The phenomenon doesn’t have the academic cachet that science feeds upon, and exploits for it own ends: career advancement, grant monies, recognition by peer groups, and university or corporate tenure. (The seeking of truth, nowadays, is at the bottom of many scientific goals.)

Yet, it’s the foolish ambiance that UFO arena purveys which has kept the phenomenon from a niche in the scientific pantheon.

If one looks at the investigation methods of “ufologists” (the mantle the hobbyists of the phenomenon has assumed) or the grammatical presentations of their hypotheses, one will be stunned by the lack of professionalism or even an understanding of logic and a decent methodology.



The UFO community is diverse, but doesn’t include, at any level, spokespersons who give the impression that they are learned in any discipline that might lead them to a considered approach for unraveling the UFO mystery.

(One noted “ufologist” was heard to say, during a recent UFO documentary, that some UFO circumstances collaborated [sic] each other.)

There is a pretense in “ufology” that the phenomenon has been studied or investigated seriously and professionally but any perusal of the UFO material and UFO groups extant will show otherwise, and dramatically so.



Science would have to start from scratch to avoid the miscreant accretions that have accumulated around UFO episodes, many of which are, in their original form, scientifically interesting, to say the least.

Can science retake the phenomenon, and give it credibility? Perhaps. But science would have to work around the ufological vultures who won’t give up their hobby easily. UFO mavens are dogged about their avocation; fanatic, as we’ve said.



Is a workaround worthwhile? Maybe. Since UFOs are rife with attributes that may not pay off in material dividends, but could pay off in ways that are much more beneficial, to the human mythos and civilization, even if they (UFOs) end up being nothing more than a projection of mentally deficient persons, which is what the UFO arena consists of pretty much right now.

N.B. Log on to a web-site, UFO UpDates at http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/latest/ for examples of the oppugnations mentioned above.

The Great Maw of Blogging

The seeming infinite panoply of blogs are easily comprehended, and dealt with, by visitors only seeking those that are of interest to them. That’s easily done.

But what about the comments that many blogs receive from their visitors?

Those comments are archetypally evanescent, in every way.

The time wasted in commenting by normally intelligent persons, or somewhat sensate persons – we discount the anonymous commentators who represent mental scum – is monumental; the material generated evaporates faster than ice in the Mojave.



But for some oblique reason, persons will spend valuable minutes of their lives, spewing forth opinion, rant, and sometimes valuable asides, but it is all in vain. And that the comment-makers don’t understand this is baffling, in a psycho-social sense.

This blogging syndrome is even rife at Seed magazine’s Science Blogs venue, which we’ve touted here. (The blogs are fine; it’s the comments which are transitory and often useless, in a very real sense.)



Science Blogs is an arena where highly intelligent and intellectual persons ruminate about issues in science and peripherally related matters.

If comments there are virtually useless, you can imagine how vacuous comments are at other blogs.

(Media has taken to incorporating comments and opinions of the great unwashed and have, by so doing, destroyed what little credibility media once had.)

Blogs will, ultimately, enter the abyss of nothingness that Sartre indicated would overtake humanity at some future time. (That abyss is almost upon us, if one scrutinizes the lacunae of intelligence that permeates the blogosphere and media, news media, as it exists today.)



The fad of blogging, like that of e-mail (which is being replaced by social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook, for teens and other cognoscenti), will terminate in a few years surely, and all the crud and dissolute ramblings, along with the few erudite posterings, will enter the limbo sate of the internet; the postings won’t become extinct, but they will be fossilized for all intents and purposes.

So why do we continue to blog, casting pearls before swine generally? And why do some continue to comment, even when they are overwhelmingly ignored or have their comments relegated to the internet dustbin?



Everyone needs existential validation. That’s why the mob congregates around the networks’ morning news shows (Today and GMA). Being seen on television confirms one’s existence, and now blogs and responses to them do the same thing, only more easily.

Acting thoughtful, by responding to blog posts, makes one appear to comprehend life and the vicissitudes of the blogosphere.



But it’s all folly, and human beings are nothing if not foolish, as Shakespeare, and others, have prominently noted.

So, we go on blogging, and some will continue to provide vapid, inane responses, and out of all this shall come certitude perhaps, or more evidence of human madness.

Where’s Waldo? (Or how science escapes INTO reality)

The CERN particle accelerator is poised to allow physicists (and other scientists) to probe the most fundamental building blocks of nature, the absolute infinitesimal reality of quantum particles.



To what purpose however?

When biochemists and medial researchers dig into DNA and genetic structure, they do so with the intent of discovering what malformations cause cancers and other diseases that plague humankind.



Their means goes to a beneficial end.

But particle physicists? What do they get with their inordinate curiosity about the structure of elemental particles?



That is, when all is said and done, how is mankind, civilization, advanced or helped by their potential discernment of the bases for reality?

One science gets beneath gluons and subterranean quarks, what does that do, in practical way, to further evolution?



The monies being spent to get the CERN accelerator/lab up and running represent an obscenity when one considers how many persons in the world are without food, or the basic necessities of life.

Sure, wars are spending much more than what’s being thrown into the CERN basket, but wars are initiated by maniacs, not supposed intellectuals.



The psychiatric mechanism that explains this behavioral quirk is called an escape INTO to reality (not an escape FROM reality).

Persons, and in this instance, scientists of the highest caliber, who shirk the reality in which they find themselves – this Earthly vale – do so because they can’t cope with the horrific human condition that pervades and prevails here on Earth.



(The Mars-probers are equally disturbed.)

The CERN contingent propagandizes, as have scientists of every generation, that they are seeking the origin of the creation. That may be so, but what happen when they discover that origin, as if CERN will be the vehicle by which that happens?

Discovering the ultimate iota or iotae doesn’t do anything for the advancement of life here, or anywhere.



Yes, curiosity, scientific curiosity even, is the promulgator of CERN (and other diffuse explorations). And those involved are not committing moral or ethical crimes, unless one posits that there are sins of omission at work in the CERN objective.

Quantum physics shows us that reality is goofy. Deconstructing quantum particles may or may not make that reality less goofy.



But if CERN does get to the heart of reality, what do we have? A clue to the Creator? A pattern that explains nature once and for all? An abyss that tells us that we’re part of a random insanity from which there is no escape?

Yes, CERN is an obsession for some. For the rest of us, it’s a psychologically induced scientific boondoggle.

And for mankind? CERN is nothing more than a search for Waldo, without the charm of that pursuit.

It doesn't compute....

Sure, evolution explains the physical advance, even the mental advance of human beings, along side the physical changes and slightly increasing mental abilities of the animal kingdom (the fauna) and, yes, the plant kingdom (the flora).

And the whole evolutionary track, particularly slow and not so deliberate – consider the dinosaurs – throws a chink in the armor of the Intelligent Designer.



The piecemeal pattern of evolution is hardly intelligent, but that’s obvious to Darwinists, and the creationists, and neo-creationists, have to accept, at some point, that the whole of creation was conceived by haphazard natural selection or a procrastinating Creator.

The universe, with its infinite longevity, is also a product of chaotic physical laws – not Newtonian laws, but meta-quantum laws – or the plans of an addled Creator.

But that’s not the point here exactly.

Avatars, such as Moses, Ankhenaton, Lao-Tze, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith et alia, all brought soppy bromides to their audiences; they brought nothing of a technical or quasi-technical nature – nothing that would advance or help humankind survive materialistically or practically.



The gods who supposedly proffered information to prophets or their alleged progeny were highly deficient in the physical laws of the universe or refused to divulge those laws for some obtuse reason.

And the promises of an impending paradisiacal Eden never materialized, and still haven’t arrived. (See Jesus dictum that his generation wouldn’t pass away before the things he promised would come to pass: Mark 13:30.)



So what is the program? Is procrastination as much a part of nature as it is for the gods? What’s the end-game? Is there one?

Neither evolution nor an Intelligent Designer, or even a Supreme Being, appears to have a conscious, well-thought out plan for humans or the Universe.

It just doesn’t compute….

The Science blogs at Seed magazine’s web-site

Seed Magazine (online at http://www.seedmagazine.com) is an erudite periodical covering science, in all of its diversity.



The magazine also hosts invited blogs at its web-site (above), and those blogs are, generally, interesting and often volatile, especially by way of comments they accrue.

(Click on the left side of the web-site, where Bloggers is entitled, to find the panoply of blogs Seed endorses.)

What’s intriguing is that many of the blogs have a sexual ambiance about them, subliminal usually, but blatant more often that one might expect from the presumed stuffy academics who make up the large proportion of bloggers that Seed likes.



Some of the blogs have sexual innuendo that is vulgar, some bloggers are desirous of making contact with like souls, and some Seed bloggers are just exhibitionists.

But the blogs posts are always vibrant, and edifying; the comments even more so.

Here are some of our favorite Seed blogs - -we haven’t scoured all of them yet:

Thoughts From Kansas

A Blog Around the Clock

Chaotic Utopia

Developing Intelligence

The Daily Transcript

The Loom

Adventures in Ethics and Science

Afarensis

Commonground

Pharyngula

Page 3.14

Good Math, Bad Math

Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

Respectful Insolence

Stranger Fruit

Dynamics of Cats

Aardvarcheology

So if you’re intellectually inclined, want to broaden your science outlook and/or acumen, or just want to indulge in sly sex (occasionally!), check out the bloggers at seedmagazine.com.

You’ll come away smarter than you are now, and orgasmicly fulfilled perhaps.

The Blogosphere as Quantum

Nothing resembles quantum artifacts so much as does the blogging universe.

Schrodinger’s “alive or dead cat” scenario, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, and Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation apply as much to blogging and the blogosphere as it does to “quantum reality.”







Let us explain….

A blog doesn’t really exist until it is measured (observed), but even then the measurement doesn’t guarantee that the blog is alive. It may be dead, depending upon the kind of measurement (observation) that it gets – the “approval factor.”



The proper measurement of a blog will keep it alive, in existence, for a period of time that varies with the momentum of the blog (where it’s going, its intent) or the exact location of the blog (its content within the blog universe).



If, for example, a blog is frivolous in a mundane or unfunny way, that content won’t be measured (or observed) meaningful enough to keep it in existence.



If the intention of the blog is unclear, any measurement (observation) will be transitory and the blog will atrophy before it obtains actual existence; the time period of its transitory existence will be, for all practical purposes, nil.

When a camera (still or video) is brought into a room of persons, the dynamics within the room change appreciably.



The camera as observer or measurer alters the events in the room just as a measurement of quanta (or observation of Schrodinger’s cat) alters the quanta (or keeps the cat alive or kills it).



Blogs are as ubiquitous as quantum artifacts, and most are just as invisible.

However, a blog with atomic consequence will interact with other blogs, locally, and in the blogosphere, non-locally, sometimes instantaneously, sometimes after an insignificant duration; but either way, a palpable blog will interact.



Blogs that are without measurable substance do not exist, not in real terms. They may come into being but are so inconsequential that one can say they do not exist and did not exist.



Thus, if one wants to have or produce a blog that has some kind of quantum shelf-life, they must make sure that the blog is measured (or observed) and that measurement (observation) continues, unabated.



This is tough. Quantum reality is short-lived. But in the context of a living blogosphere, one blog (or many) can survive if it (or they) have enough substance to produce a nuclear reaction; that is, such blogs will persist forever (in quantum terms) unless someone or something deactivates them.



Measurement (observation) of such blogs is secondary to their perpetuality. Atomic blogs cannot be destroyed by mere measurement. It takes a self-induced action to kill such blogs, or a massive influx of obtuse or negative observations from other blogs in the blogosphere to undo atomic blogs.



Nonetheless, blogs, and the blogosphere itself, are always subject to the vicissitudes of quantum measurement, uncertainty, and the Copenhagen Interpretation: the potentiality of life (or death).

Leonard Susskind is mostly right

Theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind, in his wonderful book, The Cosmic Landscape [Little, Brown and Company, NY, 2006] insists that “The Laws of Physics” (and their accoutrements) can explain creation on Earth and the Universe’s origin pretty much also, although mysteries remain (and will remain it seems).



Physicists are loath to see an intelligence behind the reality that we experience.

But the Laws of Physics didn’t arrive ex nihilo. Mathematics didn’t either.

And while Darwin’s theory defines how mankind and the Earth’s creatures developed, one has to wonder how it is that copulatory activity came to evolve in such a way that it allows most species to procreate, spurred on by the pleasurable attributes of the sexual fusion: the orgasmic thrill.



(Some species bifurcate without the interconnectiveness of a sexual union but they are in the minority among Earth’s creatures.)

The ingenious add-on to copulation (the orgasm) has to be the concoction of a wily creator or intelligence. The physical manifestation of the orgasm, where the pleasure is almost intangible, could not have arrived by natural selection; it had to be instigated by conscious contrivance.

But that aside, the elegance of mathematics, that physicists and scientists extol, did not, as we note, arrive out of nothing nor did it evolve. And the same applies to Susskind’s Laws of Physics.



The Laws and mathematics seem to have been part of the Universe at the Big Bang and before. Both are omnipresent and have been since the beginning of time – space-time too.



Maybe The Laws of Physics and the laws of mathematics are inherent aspects of the intelligence or consciousness of the Designer.

One can call the Designer God if they like. The word “God” makes it easy to discuss the possible [sic] creator of the Reality about us. (It’s much better, that God word, than Anselm’s ontological definition of God: "that than which nothing greater can be thought.")

But since Susskind (and his colleagues) repudiate a God as the progenitor of life and the Universe, we’ll accept their reticence, since we believe that God, for all practical purposes, is impersonal or ineffable (as we note elsewhere here).

One can easily substitute The Laws of Physics or Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for the word “God” or for God Itself.

(The God of the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh, is dead, or comatose, as Nietzsche metaphorically intuited, as are the gods referenced by other myths and religions, so one needn’t spend time debating that alternate reality.)



The quibble is about how physicists, such as Susskind, just can’t bring themselves to admit to a supreme intelligence responsible for all that we experience as Reality.

Even the Anthropic Principle is anathema to most in the scientific community, although it is a sensible principle on the face of it.



Nonetheless, we understand (or think we do) the hubris that keeps science from accepting a Supreme Intelligence (or God) as the underlying Principle for everything in creation.

The idea of a God is just too easy. It’s a cop-put for thoughtful persons as it posits a simple meaning for life which itself is too complex to be relegated to a First Cause and jut left there, unexplained as it were.

Science has to know what the mechanisms for Life are; how the mind of God works.

They can skip the Being and just work with the thought processes, which is an okay way to get at the truth of this existence.

Gos doesn’t matter. When everything is considered, it’s the agenda or mental machinations that matter – The Laws of Physics.



God, the real God (the God above god), can actually die, but the laws instituted by Him or It continue on, or should, unless everyhting comes to an end. (But that’s a whole other matter for discussion.)

So, we enjoy Susskind, and his ilk. The represent brilliant minds – minds not as great as the mind of God, but we can at least get in touch with Leonard Susskind.

Numb and Number

Mathematics don’t take us where we want to go – to reality, the ultimate reality actually.

Math isn’t even a means to that end, although theoretical physicists would like to think it is.

The surreal abstractions that math addresses – and this has nothing to do with the practical applications of arithmetic – mimic Plato’s “real reality” but that reality is not accessible to mankind as it (mankind) is now configured.



There is a mundane reality, the one which we all experience daily. And there is a profound or transcendental reality, which has eluded humankind since the inception of consciousness or thought.

What is the best way to get at that transcendental reality?

Early philosophers – the Greeks mostly – thought mathematical constructs were the doorway to the reality that underlies life.



Religious thinkers thought prayer and rites would take them to that underlying (or overhead) reality.

The Orientals suggested meditation and fasting to arrive at Tao or Nibbana.



Philosophers such as the scholastics (Anselm, Aquinas, et al.) down through those of the Enlightenment right on up to the modern era believed that cogitation would provide the answer(s) to what reality is.



Today, physicists and an array of peripheral scientists seek The Theory of Everything (aka reality) by mathematical theory and experimentation.

From the burial evidence of primitive man, through the Mesopotamian cultures, the
Chinese and Indian tracts, the Greek and Roman ruminations, the Christian dialogues, and so on, man has tried to fathom what the Ultimate Reality was and is.



Today, science eschews the methodologies of the past, and rightfully so. None have worked.

But are mathematical theorems, and the hypotheses or theories derived from them, any more effective. That is, are we closer to determining what reality, the Real Reality, is?



No. We’re actually further away since today’s science has created more questions than answers. The more science pursues reality the more complex it appears to be.

String theory won’t simplify the meaning of the world, just as quantum significantly confuses the issue.

What is to be done? Should we throw up our hands, in a kind of metaphysical despair, as Aquinas did when he had his vision or as Te Shan did when he had his?



The likes of physicists, such as Penrose, Susskind, Greene, Gribbin, Davies, et alia,
attempt to help us out, to help themselves out, but to no avail. They all are whistling in the dark matter.



Of course one can’t fault them for trying to decipher the mystery of the origin of the Universe or Life. That’s that Socrates encouraged us all to do.



But is math or theoretical physics the way to go about the discernment of what this life really means? Such posturings haven’t worked so far and, as noted, more questions have been raised than answered.

Nope. Math and science as we know it are just as arcane and useless as the dialectics of Aristotle or the collations of Meister Eckhart.



It’s time for a new science, one that emerges from but goes beyond Vico, and one that is able to synthesize the truths from the past with the discoveries of the present.

Otherwise we’re right back where we started, and that doesn’t help anyone….

Something happened...

Familiarity with the earliest writings and oral legends, from every culture around the globe, as delineated by such scholars as Mircea Eliade, shows commonality: gods created mankind, some even created the Earth, and others created the Universe.



The stories are not disparate, but they are diffuse, so that one cannot attribute them to one unique source.

Early man, and early societies, scattered as they were and separated not only by distances and geography, experienced incursions by entities that anthropomorphism can’t account for.

[See, particularly, Eliade’s A History of Religious Ideas, Three Volumes, University of Chicago, 1978.]

The Hebrew Bible, the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh, the Greek myths, the Vedic writings, along with later accounts by native Americans, the ideographs of the Maya, and so on all attribute creation, in toto, to gods, or “supreme beings.”



All these writings and/or remembrances have a uniformity which indicates something specific happened during the primitive stages of humanity.

Joseph Campbell’s renderings of the world’s myths don’t make the accusation that the myths represented something real, in the mundane sense certainly.



Carl Jung, however, felt that myth was an overlay of truthful events.

To argue either way is futile, we think. The creation stories that have arisen from every corner of the world, during varying times, most before the common era and many harking back from later dates to a culture’s primeval past (The Incan and Inuit societies, among others).

The “fact” is that some intrusions occurred during the formative history of mankind. That is hardly arguable. The nature of those intrusions are diverse in kind but only as far as the minutiae involved; the episodes are pretty much alike in the renditions.



Unfortunately, there are no tangible proofs that allow us to zero in on who those gods were or what their motivations, if any, were.

But they arrived. They mucked around. And here we are, millennia later, no wiser about what this existence is all about and what our real role in this existence is.

So, we move on….to an existential milieu (where everything is nothing) or we settle down to exploration of the Universe, where the answer may lie, but don’t count on it.

The Fringe

Scientists – real scientists – rightfully eschew the fringe phenomena that afflicts some of humanity: UFOs, alien abduction, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, parapsychology, ghosts, et cetera.

It’s not that the phenomena isn’t worthy of a look-see by bona fide professionals (as physicist Michio Kaku suggests); it’s that the phenomena has been corrupted by the madness, the insanity as it were, of those who’ve adopted some phenomenon or other to flesh out their morbidly dull lives.

Any scrutiny of a fringe topic, say UFOs, for example, will show that the strangeness of the thing(s) is offset by the even stranger reaction to it by a diverse group of sociopaths, expert-wannabes, narcissists, and just plain crazy people.

(Hoaxers are also a ubiquitous bane.)

Admittedly there are some serious, somewhat credentialed persons seeking answers to the phenomenon that interests them, but they dilute that seriousness by popping up in various milieux where the crazies reside.

These serious quasi-investigators can’t help but appear in and at venues where every wacko has admittance and is granted a kind of respected credibility, no matter how ridiculous their position may be.

Why would a serious scientist invest time and besmirch his or her career by associating with those who have little (if any) training or expertise about the subject matter at hand?

Jacques Vallee, a scientist with expertise in computer matters mostly, has withdrawn from the UFO debate, to study, privately, the phenomenon within what he calls The Invisible College.



But even that hasn’t tarnished his reputation as a serious scientist. The phenomenon Vallee studies subliminally is rife with baggage that doesn’t allow it to be taken seriously by anyone, other than him.

The sasquatch (bigfoot) appearances are also avoided by primate specialists. The sightings (and alleged evidence: footprints, hair, and feces) are without substance.

Even the (in)famous Patterson film has become too controversial, with accusations of fraud or hoaxing, for any primatologist to weigh in on.




And Loch Ness, which already has a plethora of admitted hoax sightings and photos, can’t be researched by marine biologists, unless they desire a short-circuited career.



But a raft of true mental defectives can best be found in the vast, and it is vast, UFO community.

A perusal of UFO books, web-sites, blogs, and other flying saucer venues (such as the Roswell “museum” in Roswell, New Mexico) will convince anyone with a smidgen of psychological acumen that the phenomenon has been encrusted by a patina of psychopathology.

Scientists with any academic respectability are wise to avoid getting down and dirty with the UFO crowd. By sinking to the mire of “ufology” – the made-up term to imbue UFOs with a false credibility – a scientist would ruin (not could ruin but would ruin) their professional lives inexorably and definitively, as was the case with Dr. James McDonald and Harvard professor John Mack (both deceased) who were castigated unmercifully by their peers.

This doesn’t mean that UFOs, Bigfoot, and Nessie are without curious elements.

It just means that they, as phenomena worthy of study, have been tainted by the maniacs who’ve glommed on to them for various reasons, which are suspect, nefarious, or psychotically induced.

So science is wise to stay away. Why would anyone with personal integrity get involved with the fringe? It just doesn’t make sense….

The [Real?] Meaning of Life

No, the question isn’t a profound one, by a long shot.

It’s a simple existential query that each person should address, but most do not.

For instance, is life meant to be enjoyed haphazardly, in the sense that one should merely indulge their senses hedonistically, as golfers, outdoor grillers, party-goers, cruise-ship mavens, and other pleasure seekers do?



Or is life meant to be contemplative, in the Socratic sense, where moderation in all things physical is seconded by intense rumination on the purpose of being?



Lecomte du Nouy, in his book Human Destiny, posits an evolutionary tendency for mankind, which has the purpose of reaching an Omega point.



We’re not sure what happens when and if the Omega point is reached, but the idea is enticing in an amorphous Thomistic way.

Aquinas thought we – mankind – were supposed to join the Godhead, as John of the New Testament gospel indicated also.

Joining, or rejoining some say, the Godhead is what life is all about many theologians tell us. But we don’t find comfort, philosophically, in the vagueness of the outcome. What happens after we join (or rejoin) the Godhead?

Do we just partake of the Buddhistic or Hindu concept Nirvana? That doesn’t strike us as satisfactory in some ways, but it intrigues if one sees passive bliss as a better “existence” than the one we now struggle with.



Is life meant to be enjoyed, emotionally, sexually, physically, sensuously, in the here and now, every moment, of every day? Most persons live life exactly that way.

But what is the purpose of that, since such activity always is deterred or halted by the aging process that men and women are cursed with?

And what happens to the transcendental elements of the sensual life, such as hearing a Beethoven symphony or viewing a Michelangelo sculpture or tasting a very fine Chablis, when one passes on?



Do the memories of those delights linger, and are they able to be recalled in an afterlife?

Or do the pleasures cease when the body ceases to exist in this worldly milieu?

Do we cease altogether, even though Einstein told us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed – it just is?



Scientists cogitate on the origins of the Universe, life, various species of flora and fauna, and lots of other things that are certainly transitory in that they will stop existing, for those who die or in and of themselves.

The aim of evolution is to perfect the organism that is struggling to be the fittest.



But to what ultimate end? After an organism (man?) reaches perfection, what happens? What’s the point?

But let’s look at the final destination of evolutionary constructs: death.

Is it possible that the pinnacle of humanity – evidenced by Plato, Aristotle, K’ung Fu-tse (Confucius), Chaucer, Dante, Copernicus, Maimonides, Leonardo, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Newton, Chopin, Darwin, Einstein, et alia – is thwarted by death?



That is, how does evolution, especially the kind that du Nouy and Teilhard advances, account for the stoppage of mental or spiritual progression when, in fact, the fittest of the mental giants die, and their thought processes with them?

Freud presented the idea that there is a death wish (Thanatos) inherent to the psyche of man.



Does mankind really want to revert to an inert state, Sartre’s “nothingness”?

Certainly not. Men (and women) want to live forever, usually. Or, at least, as long as Methuselah.



Personal evolution benefits civilization’s evolution. And if there were a purpose to being, that would be the sine qua non.

However, death obstructs evolution altogether, so the purpose of life, its meaning, is not evolution, not physical evolution anyway.

And a spiritual evolution, per du Nouy, is iffy, since it has to complete in a hereafter, and that milieu is not quite a reality, not even in the Platonic sense.

So what is the meaning of life? No one knows. Not even us.

Yet, it (the meaning of life) is grist for discussion, so we’ll continue to do so, here and elsewhere….

The Neo-Alchemists

Swiss psychologist Carl Jung made alchemy an essential part of his psycho-philosophical ruminations, even though alchemical experimentation, through the ages, produced nothing of consequence. However, the evolutionary thrust it provided chemistry must be given its due.



What has happened is that scientists, especially physicists, since the early 1900s, have assumed the mantle, the guise, of alchemy, with their formulae and arcane theories and experimentations.

Of course, physicists’ mentor, Sir Isaac Newton, was an alchemist, and his alchemical studies were mirrored in his mathematical and scientific treatises.



So a precedent, although unspoken and not acknowledged, establishes an imprimatur for today’s scientists, particularly physicists.

The physicist’s Holy Grail, The Theory of Everything, may be likened to the alchemists’ Philosopher Stone.



(The Elixir of Life, the ejaculatory spew, of alchemy is not relevant to this discussion.)

Quantum theorists are alchemists par excellence.

Titus Burckhardt, in his book Alchemy [Element Books, Longmead, 1986, Page 59] refers to René Guénon’s tome, The Reign of Quantity [Luzac, London, 1953] wherein the author states that there is no spatial extension which does not have a qualitative – as well as a quantitative – aspect.

Alchemy deals with eidos and hyle (forma and material) says Burckhardt [Page 61] which is exactly what quantum physicists contend with: light as wave and/or particle, and quanta itself.



Cosmologists struggle with visible matter and dark (invisible) matter.

The Hermetic androgyne (king and queen forming one physical body – see Plato’s Symposium also) is not unlike the constructs of the macro-Universe or the quantum-Universe, the world above and the world below.



Science has not moved very far from the alchemical studies of ancient Egypt or Babylon.

And the alchemy of the 1700s infused Einstein, producing E=mc² where the alchemical idea of transmutation (lead into gold) actually ended up turning uranium into fissionable material, the atom bomb.



And isn’t M-Theory (the extrapolated string theory) really a search for the material prima?



One can praise the physicists of today but they are little different from the alchemists of yesterday, and we’ll explore the connection further, upcoming….

Einstein's Error

It’s not Einstein’s cosmological constant blunder or fruitless pursuit of a theory of everything that is Einstein’s error.

It’s his relativity “proof” that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light; the idea that mass becomes infinite when one approaches the speed of light and thus makes travel over 186,000 miles per second (299,792,458 meters per second) impossible.

Of course Einstein allowed for perturbations in his theory but the light constant became an idée fixe that is in error.

Quantum particles can travel faster than light, as can “information,” but what about matter that is overt?

Depending upon one’s location in the Universe, one will find light traveling at varying speeds, and very likely faster than 186,000 miles per second.

Moreover, Einstein’s concept of warped space – the curvature imposed upon it by gravitational force – allows the possibility that a space traveler can go from Point A to Point B, following the curve of space faster than a space traveler going from Point A to Point B along a linear path, with time being equal in both instances (since time is not altered by the curvature or straight-line travel (in a vacuum).



Here are some papers (in PDF format) outlining various theses or speculations about faster than light parameters:

http://rrrgroup.homestead.com/faster1.pdf

http://rrrgroup.homestead.com/faster2.pdf

http://rrrgroup.homestead.com/faster3.pdf

As you can see, Einstein’s concept has to be re-configured, just as Newton’s theories needed to be reconfigured by Einstein’s