A NEW Theory of the Paranormal

[scieotheo]

Beginning next week, I will be introducing a new theory of supernatural mechanics (called supergeometry) on numerous radio interviews throughout November and December, including the Paranormal Science program by the Pennsylvania Paranormal Assn. (featured often on Animal Planet's The Haunted), Haunted South TV, Para-X Radio, and the Gralien Report. The theory provides the first well-defined conceptual model that not only explains the workings behind apparitions, disembodied voices and the like, but also other associated manifestations like cold spots, breezes and malfunctioning of electrical devices (it's not what has been believed previously). This model can also be applied to psychic phenomena and the strange behavioral characteristics of UFOs, as well as scientific anomalies like dark matter, nonlocality, quantum entanglement, time dilation, gravitational enigmas and the dual nature of light. This is the first to provide a model that encompasses all these issues with a single, consistent and uniform set of basic principles. It will call into question a number of traditional assumptions involving the paranormal which have served to obscure our understanding of these strange phenomena, and holds the promise to completely revolutionize the way we perceive, investigate and analyze them. I guarantee you've never heard anything quite like this before.

The names of the shows, how to listen to them online, and the dates and times can be found at the website listed below in my post signature. Keep checking back, as more show schedules will be announced throughout the month.

Hope to see you there!

Author

Behind the Cosmic Veil: A New Vision of Reality

Merging Science, the Spiritual and the Supernatural

www.cosmicveil.com

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Will you be willing to have an open discussion here at UM? There are a few questions I'd like to ask. Maybe it will help turn this hypothesis into theory through peer review. Even with us hobbyist peers.

If you are willing. I can round up a few people who will ask all the tough questions. It may be fun. It couldn't hurt to solidify your ideas.

[scieotheo]

Thank you very much for the thoughtful invitation! I would be delighted to have such an exchange in here, as long as it's substantive, meaningful and sincere.

Of course, the trouble is that we're talking about a 400 page thesis resulting from nearly thirty years of research. Moreover, it does not focus on a small segment of reality, but describes a much larger cosmology that encompasses multiple disciplines. Does anyone know how to establish such a premise with all its permutations in a forum without cutting and pasting the entire book? Nor would any compassionate or reasonable person expect anyone to type out a complete synopsis of such a work in a web forum. Additionally, to single out one sliver to consider in isolation for brevity's sake would not do any such topic justice, and would only tend to replicate the shortcomings of many other theoretical systems by their failure to address a much broader array of phenomena with a single set of consistent, cohesive principles. And while the website has related articles and blog posts, it does not reproduce the core cosmology that is laid out in the book.

So it's regrettable but inescapable that anyone who wishes to initiate or participate in such an exchange would have to first familiarize themselves with the contents of the book. Yet many of the radio programs on which I will be interviewed are broadcast live over the internet and have call-in numbers to ask questions, so you may try to engage that way. But there is no substitute in any such discussion for having the actual work in hand. If you obtain the book and familiarize yourself with its contents, let me know, and we can certainly proceed from there.

Again sincere thanks for the invitation. I remain open to it.

Author

Behind the Cosmic Veil: A New Vision of Reality

Merging Science, the Spiritual and the Supernatural

www.cosmicveil.com

[Nucular]

Hello scieotheo - yes, I do see your quandary. Have any of your media-based Q&A sessions given you any more ideas as to how a discussion like this might work?

If not, might I make a few suggestions for a way forward?

One thing which occurs to me is that, reading through your site, your idea seems quite tied up with various 'paranormal' phenomena (ghosts, ESP, UFOs, etc.). For instance, you conclude your article 'Quantum Mechanics, the Paranormal and Hypocrisy' thus:

So…scientists persist in rejecting paranormal evidence even though it exhibits the very quantum uncertainty in the macro-universe they are searching for, but embrace through fanciful theories the idea of forcing uncertainty onto all other observations in the macro-universe that do not display the characteristics of this quantum effect.

Go figure.

Is your theory predicated on the existence of these paranormal phenomena? Or does it simply seek to explain them? Either way, I enthusiastically wonder whether you are able to say why you think it is that "scientists persist in rejecting paranormal evidence"; and in what way you think this evidence "exhibits ... quantum uncertainty"? If you're able to talk meaningfully to that subject without having to cut & paste your whole book, I think that might open up a great deal of discussion on this forum.

Alternatively, perhaps a more general enquiry might bear fruit for us to share. What is the present relationship between your theory and those of 'mainstream' science? It surprises me rather that the author of such important work as you seem to describe should sidestep the peer review process and instead opt for publication in popular book format with a small (new age?) publisher (or is it self-published?). Have you attempted to submit your work for scientific review?

Or perhaps we could have a look at the consequences of your theory. What predictions does your theory generate which might help rule out some of the more mainstream theoretical approaches to the many disparate phenomena you claim are explained by your framework? Which ones have you tested already, and what were the results?

Three ideas there (each a genuine question I'd love to see you answer) to see if we can get some sort of discussion going on this topic. Any thoughts?

Edited December 2, 2011 by Nucular

[scieotheo]

Thanks, nucular, for your comments and for visiting my site. As you may know, I originally posted my invitation on a number of forums when I first began promoting my new book, Behind the Cosmic Veil. I do not revisit them much anymore because I found that the replies either had nothing to do with the reason why I posted or were antagonistic in some way (although it did increase web visits). I soon discovered (silly, naive me) that forum posts for some are merely publicly exposed targets for the drive-by mudslingers that have nothing better to do with their time or life, much like a graffiti writer looking for a wall or bus on which to make his mark to satisfy his own personal jollies. Fortunately, the responses from my radio interviews have been fantastic! That being said, I just wanted to take a moment to clarify a few things about which, by your posting, you appear to be confused.

First, you mention "I do see your quandary." Let me assist by clarifying this for you. I posted to make people aware of my work and to invite them to follow my media appearances and to read Behind the Cosmic Veil. In this I was successful. One can only have a quandary when he cannot find a way to accomplish his goal. It was the first respondent, and now apparently you as well, that wish to engage me in a discussion or debate, and this of course is not reasonably possible in a meaningful and comprehensive way (otherwise, what's the point?) unless you were first familiar with my work. So in essence, this was your quandary, not mine. I merely pointed it out, and told you how you can solve your quandary. My task of announcement and invitation has been completed. If you wish to engage me in this new endeavor that you suggested, I'm open to it as I said, but you must do your part. Read the book so you'll actually know what you're talking about, and so I don't have to waste any time trying to compensate for your ignorance of the material.

You bring up the content of my website. The content of my website has a book description, related articles to the book, and a blog with current events and announcements. But the content of Behind the Cosmic Veil is not laid out on the website other than generously offering a sample chapter (for obvious reasons--you need to read the book itself to get that content). You may wish to make those articles a point of discussion, but again, that's not what I posted here for. I posted here to invite people to experience the content and substance of Behind the Cosmic Veil, either by listening to the interviews or, much preferably, reading it. I would be happy to discuss its contents with anyone who is actually familiar with the content! I sympathize with your quandary in your particular goal of engaging me in any way possible without reading the book, but my solution for you is still the same, and the only sensible one. As for blog entries and articles on my site, the place for commenting on those belongs on the website on which the blog and articles are located, not to carry on that interchange with that site's author/owner on someone else's forum. Such comments are always conducted on the blog site itself. There are places for you to post your thoughts and comments on my website, which is where the particular content you're referencing is located. I invite you to make use of them in the usual and customary way.

You mentioned about my having published with a small publisher, as well as having not submitted my work for peer review first. You also made those comments in a condescending and prejudicial manner, which indicates that your true motives are not about meaningful, objective and respectable exchange. After all, you're already forming criticisms based on an incidental circumstance instead of on the substance of the book. The Paris Academy of Sciences did the same thing to Thomas Edison when he demonstrated his phonograph before them. They judged based on his lack of education (Edison didn't even have an equivalent to a high school education), and so declared it to be a hoax committed by ventriloquism. They obviously paid no attention to the substance of his work, even though they were all very learned men. Nevertheless, I'll address first things first. Your comments about the book itself reflect a confusion on your part about publishing in general, and scientific publishing in particular. Publishers today use a criteria by which they can appraise a book by it's type, let's say A, B, C or D, so that they can identify the particular target audience A, B, C or D to which they will market it. Behind the Cosmic Veil is such a comprehensive work that it cuts across many traditional lines, and so it's difficult for a mainstream publisher to determine exactly how they'll market it. That's why most such books are published by specialty houses, of which there are hundreds if not thousands. My book on fishing tackle invented by famous bass angler Bill Plummer is published by another such tiny publisher of which I'm sure you've never heard. If you were familiar with the publishing business, you'd know about this, and would not have made such a comment. As for peer review, you're confused between scientific findings (like claims of cold fusion or faster-than-light neutrinos) with conceptual theories. The former is that which is normally subjected to peer review. Conceptual theories like the multiverse, configuration space, torsion physics, string theory, etc, are not typically submitted for peer review before publishing. Of course, and at the risk of repeating myself out of necessity, If you had READ THE BOOK you'd know this (geesh). If you want examples of scientific work and ideas being published prior to any peer review, pick up any issue of Scientific American, and you'll find a bunch of them. Today, the publishing of such theoretical concepts is in effect presenting them for peer scrutiny. I've done that...I've put it out there for everyone to see (at least, everyone that READS THE BOOK).

Another note about peer review. When such work is submitted, the credentials of those to which the work is submitted is known, and the value and benefit that these peers can provide to the individual, team or lab submitting them is considerable. Certainly, you're not suggesting that this forum is such a platform, or that you are such a credentialed peer that can grant me something for my effort. Actually, my work is being reviewed by peers in their respective fields who are READING THE BOOK, and the responses so far have been overwhelmingly positive. But (forgive me, for I speak for argument's sake), who are you? What have you to offer? As for who you might be, I look at your ID next to your post and find the picture of a horrible man, a lunatic who led many people to their deaths. Then I ask myself, what kind of a person would present such a photo to represent himself in this way, or even associate himself with such an image? What kind of reasoning capacity, perspective, or even integrity could such a person actually have? You've got to be joking. Or....am I being condescending and prejudicial, judging the merits of any contribution you could possibly make based on an incidental circumstance of your seemingly juvenile presentation of such a horrendous image as being representative of who you are? No more, I think, than someone forming a condescending opinion about the merits of my work based on the criteria that it was published by a company with which the publishing authority known here as Nucular is personally not familiar. See what I mean?

As for predictions, the supergeometric theory in Behind the Cosmic Veil makes a number of them. For one, the sum total of universal gravity in the early universe was far less than it is today, creating a big problem for dark matter in relation to the laws of conservation. It also predicts that we will never find or isolate ALL three hypothetical particles required for a strictly materialistic explanation for gravity, namely the graviton, dark matter and the Higgs boson. It is as Einstein concluded, in that he accepted the failure of experiments attempting to prove the existence of the hypothetical Newtonian ether as the evidence that it did not exist, and by that finally put to death Newtonian void-space in favor of relativistic space-time. Similarly, I accept science's failure to discover such particles as the graviton (after many decades of scientific effort to do so) as the evidence that they do not really exist. Supergeometric theory also predicts that the very early expansion of the universe will be found to have been superluminal, which would explain some odd astrophysical observations. There are other, equally intriguing conclusions.

What? How can all this about gravity, expansion and light come from a book associated with the paranormal? READ THE BOOK.

I regret that I can offer nothing additional to help you with your quandary. Any practical solution requires that you first READ THE BOOK.

Those are my thoughts.

Author

Behind the Cosmic Veil: A New Vision of Reality

Merging Science, the Spiritual and the Supernatural

www.cosmicveil.com

[Ghostfinder]

Welcome to UM scieotheo. I think you need to chill a bit bro. Kinda ironic, you talking about how Edison was unfairly judged for what he brought to the table, yet you talk down to others with your condescending comments for daring to question you.

Look...I don't wanna READ YOUR BOOK. The people you will be dealing with at the radio interviews have not all READ YOUR BOOK. However, you will still communicate with them.

Here's the deal...people breeze in here all the time trying to sell something, or promote radio shows or web sites. The greater point is, feel free to stick around. Engage UM members in some discussion, even ones that haven't READ YOUR BOOK...I'm sure someone with your knowledge can engage others in some decent dialogue that haven't READ YOUR BOOK, but have sincere questions. You will get those same types of questions during radio interviews with people that haven't READ YOUR BOOK. Yes, of course there will be members that will wanna attack and are really not asking anything. You will need to wade through those questions to get to the sincere folks.

Anyway...good luck with your book and the shows. Feel free to stick around and give your opinion on things, but realize people have a right to question you even if they have not READ YOUR BOOK. Good luck.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Ghostfinder

[scieotheo]

Ghostfinder,

I really like the way you speak of welcoming while mocking me in the same breath. The eloquence of the passive-aggressiveness, seasoned with just the slightest hint of holier-than-thou self-righteousness, is noted.

But this is a more serious subject than that. Some subjects are serious to people, and to tell those people to "lighten up" just diminishes and invalidates them, even if in a passive way. I have spent the better part of my adult life in the search for truth. The overwhelmingly positive reception my work is receiving bears witness that I have arrived at a portion of that truth never before recognized. Along the way, however, I’ve too often encountered instances where truth is subtly twisted into falsehood, or perception presented as a substitute for fact, or the truth-subverting idea espoused that the way in which something is spun or presented is far more important than the real, underlying substance of an issue. Often this nonsense persists because too many people fail to stand up to it out of fear of reprisal, and so let it just simply pass. I’m very glad you posted, because it provides me here with the opportunity to explain to our readers exactly what I mean.

“Kinda ironic, you talking about how Edison was unfairly judged for what he brought to the table, yet you talk down to others with your condescending comments for daring to question you.”

Sounds great, folks, doesn’t it? But take a look at what’s really being said. First the comparison with Edison. The whole point in mentioning this was because these learned men actually reviewed Edison's work first, after which they passed judgement based on his credentials. But in this case, judgement was being passed on my work, and in a condescending tone, based solely on the way it was published before any review of the work itself. That’s two very different scenarios. So this comparison only seems to have some validity on the surface, but when you look at it closely, you find it’s really meaningless and irrelevant. It was merely a handy stone to pick up and toss, however unjustifiably.

You also seem to imply that I have no right to defend myself against such prejudicial statements. Any scenario where the accuser is protected while the accused is suppressed from defending himself always carries with it the taint of injustice. I’m also being falsely accused of being condescending toward being questioned. This is also false. I defended myself against a prejudicial and unqualified attempt to smear my work based on how it was published. I was not being asked a question, was I? So it had nothing to do with anyone "daring" to question me, did it? But in truth, it had everything to do with someone daring to criticize my work based on a false pretense, and before having even considered the content of my work. Furthermore, the condescending statement about how my book was published would leave the reader with a false sense that this particular criticism was actually valid in some way, unless I countered by pointing out that this criticism was unfounded because it was based on ignorance of the publishing business. Or is it a problem with the word “ignorance,” even when it's properly used and justifyingly applied? Is there a word ban list in here that I missed? Or is it that the accuser is permitted to sling such statements about my work, but that I am not permitted to point these things out in response? Or is it only my feelings that are allowed to be hurt, but no one else’s? Do you see what’s wrong with this, folks?

“Look...I don't wanna READ YOUR BOOK. The people you will be dealing with at the radio interviews have not all READ YOUR BOOK. However, you will still communicate with them.”

Here’s another great-sounding statement, but when examined is also found to have no substance (I left the capitalized mocking in to show the hypocrisy of criticizing me falsely for doing something I did not do, while there was no hesitation in doing it to me for real….nice). First, I did not insist that you, Ghostfinder, read my book. Why not? Because it wasn’t you who was pressing me to discuss my work without having first read my work (how hard is this to see?)! You were not among those wanting to debate my work without actually having familiarized themselves with my work by...yes...READING THE BOOK (Oh my!). The idea of discussing a work without familiarizing yourself with it first is ridiculous—it’s like someone wanting to critically analyze DaVinci's brushstroke technique on the Mona Lisa without having ever viewed the painting! Forgive my frustration with those who would persist in such a senseless notion! But by subtly inserting yourself with that group, you not only sought to legitimize them by adding your voice to theirs, but it granted you the opportunity to throw yet another stone at me. Nice try, but it missed. And by this you are presenting yourself as some fair and sincere arbitrator? I don’t think so. This needs to be brought to light too for the sake of truth. Let's get honest....please.

As far as the radio shows, you're mistaken about that as well (am I allowed to say that?), perhaps because you are not familiar with how they work, just like Nucular is not familiar with the publishing business. I’ll try to assist once again. Actually, the vast majority of the radio hosts have received a review copy of the book prior to the interview (of course, you wouldn't know that because no one thought to ask first before commenting). Secondly, whatever questions they ask are geared to bringing forth the content and substance of my work, not looking for a way to bait the guest to discredit him and his work like the posters in here were obviously doing (big difference). Thirdly, the questions people call-in relate to the material I presented earlier in the interview, so yes, they actually have some familiarity with my work prior to asking their questions, unlike those in here, or as what you were implying. And finally, most hosts screen call-ins or questions from chat rooms before introducing them into the show, and so filter out those who are just calling to throw stones. So yes, of course I will still communicate with them, but your implication that it’s in a scenario where the listeners or hosts have no knowledge of the substance of my work before discussing it or asking questions is far from the truth (I hope this clarifies this so you’ll know how these radio interviews work in the future). But it seems to me that the misleading character of your comment really wasn't due to any ignorance of the subject, but rather that you were twisting it in this misleading way just to make it appear to the readers as if you have justification to throw another stone at me. Another miss.

“Anyway...good luck with your book and the shows. Feel free to stick around and give your opinion on things, but realize people have a right to question you even if they have not READ YOUR BOOK. Good luck.”

I’m sorry, but the apparent sincerity of your well-wishing is negated by your previous stone-throwing. Aside from that, what a spun statement! I never said or implied that no one has a right to ask me questions. That notion is ridiculous too. But if someone wants to have a discussion with me about the substance of my work, they need to first familiarize themselves with the substance of my work (who doesn’t get this?). And as I said before, that cannot be done until they first read the book. I’m not going to cut-and-paste the book here. This reality is inescapable, at least by any sincere, thinking person. And as I said before, the idea of someone wanting to debate my work without any knowledge of my work is their quandary, not mine. I never made the invitation or even the suggestion that they should attempt this—that was purely their idea. I just pointed out the obvious futility of their notion, and expressed my frustration at their persistence in that futile notion. As for being welcome to voice my opinion on things as you allege is permitted for me to do, that’s exactly what I did—and am now being scolded for it while being invited to do so on the same breath (???). No sincerity in that.

And yes, how am I, or anyone else for that matter, suppose to take seriously someone who posts as a representative image of himself the photo of a horrible, murdering, monstrous madman like Marshall Applewhite? What kind of person represents himself in that way? Of all the images available everywhere on the internet, what was the thinking behind selecting that particular man's photo? Am I not allowed to ask that very legitimate (and if you think about it, somewhat disturbing) question? Is it not a valid opinion??? Or am I not allowed to express that particular one either?

Did anyone notice that I did answer the one of the only viable questions asked, the one about the predictions made by my theory? Did anyone notice that? Did anyone make an intelligent comment about those predictions? Or is that not being acknowledged because it doesn't support the agenda here?

And yes, when you are on an author’s blog site, and you want to communicate with that author about the content of his site, and if the site provides for such exchange, then the proper place to have that exchange is on the author’s site. To transfer that content here as was being done (copyright violation, since there was no permission), then drag the author off his own site and into another site so that the exchange can take place on some alternate site instead of the author’s site (that he set up for that specific purpose) is senseless. Or is that another opinion that makes me a bad person by voicing? Or is it instead really about the way opinions are stated and spun, so that the spin and dance is more important than the substance of people’s statements, as it is in politics? Is it a matter of politics in here? Or is it that the boy is allowed to poke the dog with a stick, but when the dog bites back, it’s the dog’s fault??? Is that how it works in here?

I was asked for my thoughts. I gave them. They were honest and sincere. Sorry you didn’t like them. I have responded based on the substance and merits of people’s own statements (and even the photos they presented!). I wish only to be granted the same courtesy, regardless to how that substance may have been framed. But if anyone tries to twist things or make unreasonable requests or present false premises, I have the right and the duty to respond accordingly. Or does a person not have that right in here? Or do only certain persons have that right in here?

There you have it folks. Who’s being honest, up front, precise and sincere, and who’s not? Who’s speaking truth and who’s talking trash? You decide. That power of decision is another right that the members of this forum should have. Well, let’s hope that you're allowed that in here. We’ll know by what comes next.

Author

Behind the Cosmic Veil: A New Vision of Reality

Merging Science, the Spiritual and the Supernatural

www.cosmicveil.com