Sunday, 31 May 2015

Theoretical Physics Backs Survival


By Ronald Pearson/ Blogger Ref


Overwhelming experimental evidence for survival of bodily death, amounting to total proof, already exists. This has been generated by both mental and physical mediumship, as concisely described by Victor Zammit(1) in his book, "A LAWYER PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE AFTERLIFE". He draws his information from a wide range of literature and this is only one of thousands of books written on the subject. For example, James Webster(2), a member of the inner magic circle and one time stage magician, is a more recent author who would be most difficult to deceive by trickery. He includes his own personal experiences to supplement reports from famous scientists such as Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge and John Logie Baird. What ought to provide a real clincher, however, is the evidence given by a team, including scientists and Webster, in the "Scole Report" published by the Society for Psychical Research(3) in 1999. This is surely proof that mediumship, inclusive of physical effects impossible to replicate by us, can be genuine.

Unfortunately mainline physicists all refuse to recognise the validity of such observations. They are clearly attempting to protect their paradigm that life, based only on matter we can explore by our instruments, is all that exists. To them consciousness is generated by the interaction of neurones in the brain and nothing else so that when the brain dies everything blacks out. This is clearly in total contradiction to the evidence supplied by mediumship and so something needs to be done to resolve the issues raised. It must be obvious to all that theoretical physics is the main stumbling block: it is unable, at the present time, to accommodate spiritual aspects within its framework. Until it can do so most scientists will continue to avoid looking at all this accumulated evidence: indeed they will continue to discredit and debunk this evidence whenever circumstances force them into confrontation.

All Theories Must Match Experiments

No theory can, by itself, prove anything: the proof comes from experiment and observation. Theories make sense of the experiments and show how apparently unrelated phenomena are aspects of the same thing. Good theories provide unification. For example, magnetism and electricity were separate fields when science was in its infancy. As understanding grew it was found that magnetic effects could be produced by electric currents and a moving magnet could cause a current to flow in a loop of wire. Now we speak of electromagnetism as a single force: one of the four forces of nature. Theoretical physicists hope ultimately to join these by a unified field theory arising from a single "superforce". Science, however, cannot progress by theory alone: it requires a synthesis of theory and experiment. When observation runs ahead of theory to provide anomalies which seem inexplicable, then as history has shown by repeating itself over and over, the anomalies are avoided, ignored or discredited in order to maintain the status quo: to avoid the need to injure existing intellectual vested interests. This, however, underlines the importance of making advances in theoretical physics. Until it can permit paranormal phenomena to exist, by unifying them as part of its framework, no amount of further evidence for survival will make the slightest difference: it will be simply ignored like all the rest.

This is where a new approach comes in and, it is hoped, will provide the key needed to switch existing paradigms. This could then permit acceptance of the evidence.

The Invention of the Big-Bang

My study began in 1984 after looking into the basic principles of the "Big-Bang" theory of Cosmology Physics. This had a huge explosive creation produced from an "intrinsic negative pressure of the vacuum". It breaks the rules of common-sense logic for any negative pressure to produce an explosion: such effects can only cause implosions! Further study showed up an alarming number of flaws in the basic logic. This logic is still accepted as if the theory was sound, even though it makes false predictions such as the "Cosmological constant" - a force pushing the galaxies apart which is 50 orders of magnitude greater than astronomical observations can allow! It arises because the theoreticians can find no way of turning off the Big-Bang they have invented.

Could the whole thing be completely wrong I asked myself. At the time I was a sceptic like most other scientists and had no intention of supporting the idea of survival. However, this appeared automatically as a spin-off within the solution.

Relativity Incompatible with Quantum Theory

Further study showed that attractive forces, like gravitation or the strong nuclear force, were being modelled using assumptions which violated a basic law of physics called the "conservation of momentum", which meant that a complementary form of substance had to exist at a sub-quantum level whose responses to applied forces had to be opposite those of matter. This complementary substance had to exist as primary particles made of negative energy. They complemented "primaries" made of positive energy, the whole existing as a balanced mixture. Unfortunately such a background medium was incompatible with the idea of "curved spacetime": the basis of Einstein's theory of general relativity. However, an incompatibility also existed between Einstein's relativity theories and quantum theory. The former relates generally to motions of matter on the large cosmic scale whilst quantum theory deals with the small scale: mostly motions of the components of atoms. (This incompatibility was admitted later by Professor Stephen Hawking in his popularisation, "A Brief History of Time").

Fully Compatible With Quantum Theory

The new approach, detailed in this author's book(4), showed that the basis of his own discipline, Newtonian physics, was also not being used in an exact way. The "inertial mass" of any object needed to include the equivalent of its energy of motion, "kinetic energy". Then it turned out that a sub-quantum level of reality had to exist to produce forces on matter and that this had to behave as a compressible fluid. Like air, it was most compressed the closer it was to a massive object like a planet or a sun. These two effects, when quantified by mathematics, paralleled all the predictions that were previously thought to be unique achievements of both special and general relativity: the theories that made Einstein so famous. Indeed almost every end equation that could be checked experimentally was identical to that derived from special or general relativity. The big difference, however, was that the new approach was not only fully compatible with quantum theory, it enhanced that theory.

A Paradox-free Alternative to the Big-Bang

Quantum theory as it stands is based on abstract "quantum waves" which double as sub-atomic particles. There is nothing in the theory that even attempts to say how these waves arise or even suggests what they are made from. These defects are now rectified as a consequence of a self-organising structure appearing at the sub-quantum level of reality (whose very existence is denied by relativity theory). It arises as a consequence of this level being a composite of the two complementary energies mentioned earlier and having the form of primary particles. It is shown that, in order to satisfy two basic conservation laws of physics, those of energy and momentum, that these particles actually breed by collision: so creating a paradox-free alternative to the Big-Bang as the primary creative force. The problem of the cosmological constant is resolved by its replacement with an ever-accelerating expansion caused by a net creation existing everywhere at all times. This fits in nicely with a recent observation made in 1998 and which still puzzles cosmologists: the expansion of the universe is accelerating instead of slowing down as they supposed.

Survival as a Fundamental Part of Physics

The mechanics of the process is shown, in the author's second publication(5), to result in a structure with similarities to the neural network of our brains. This arose in space, right to the very edges of the universe, together with its own built in power supply everywhere. The mathematics threw up a structure of interconnected switches which would naturally generate waves in a similar way to those traversing our brains. The structure is of immensely finer scale than our brains of matter but, more speculatively, it appears to have the same potential to develop both a machine-like intelligence and ultimately a primary consciousness. All it could do, however, is to control its waves. It seems reasonable to equate these with the quantum waves that are then used deliberately to create matter. Focused waves produce density spikes and these would behave like particles to us: so providing a unique explanation of the enigma called "wave particle duality". This is a basic feature of quantum theory but now providing a solution to a puzzle not previously resolved.

If true a "supermind of space" could create a whole set of matter-systems all co-existing in the same space but tuned to different quantum-wave frequencies. Then fragments of the supermind structure, the "sub-minds", could only tune into one matter-system at a time. Consequently the only reality apparent at any one time would be the one to which a sub-mind is temporarily tuned. When that matter-system became outworn, this sub-mind, being part of the structured sub-quantum fluid, would simply tune into one of the remaining matter-systems and continue to survive. On this basis our brains could well be mere interfacing mechanisms needed to enable the real minds to pilot the body. No justification can exist any longer in postulating that, of necessity, consciousness vanishes on brain death.

At least a mix of firm mathematical prediction and the speculation based upon it shows, in this way, that the link between survival and theoretical physics cannot be dismissed as impossible. Further detail is given in the peer-reviewed publication by this author(6), which also shows how the same waves produce the long range density gradients on which the new "quantum-wave theory of gravity" depends. Hence a further indication that this approach could be the one which is correct, is that now gravitation becomes integrated with the other forces of nature: something that the established approach has so far failed to achieve.

Now, however, nearly all aspects of the paranormal, inclusive of survival, are seen as potentially real effects. Theoreticians are therefore no longer justified in their attempt to explain these away. Nor can they be justified any longer in resorting to any other kind of subterfuge for their discreditment. Instead a way is provided for physics to be revitalised and reformed to accept survival as a fact which in no way conflicts with its basic principles.

It is worth noting, at this stage, that this new, "enlightened theoretical physics" is not equivalent to "dualism". The dualist idea is God outside of spacetime who organises matter. Physicists balk at accepting something outside the scope of their discipline. The new solution advanced, however, arises from physics itself and is inseparable from physics.

Now, as soon as this theory can become published and criticised the better. All criticism is welcome except for the destructive kind. The kind which simply ignores the logic presented and, to quote one typical example of a phrase used by an assessor for its dismissal, "relativity has withstood the test of time". This is simply not true when its admitted incompatibility with quantum theory is considered. I do not think anybody will find any basic flaw in the logic or any inconsistency with experimental observation. Then, if I am correct, this theory could become scientifically acceptable. If this happens, or anybody else produces an equivalent theory, then the accumulated evidence of survival will become accepted as a fundamental part of physics. No longer will the controversy survive, and the conflict between creationists and evolutionists will come to an end. The universe was deliberately created by the supermind of space so that biological systems could evolve.


2.Books by James Webster
James Webster's web site:
3.Keen, M., Ellison, A., & Fontana, Prof. D. : "The Scole Report".
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research Vol. 58, Part 220.
November 1999. SPR, 49 Marloes Road, London W8 6LA
4.Pearson, R.D. "Intelligence Behind The Universe". ISBN 0 947823 21 2.
Publications by Ron Pearson
5.Publications by Ron Pearson
6.Pearson, R.D. 'Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon'. Peer-refereed and published in the journal 'Frontier Perspectives': Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Vol. 6 No. 2 Spring/Summer, 1997. ISSN: 1062-4767
 Ref. 4 & 5 are written for the intelligent non-scientist but each has a mathematical supplement which should be understandable to anyone with school sixth-form mathematics.

The above comes from the following site

The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom

The secular scientific case for survival after death

Cheating the Ferryman:A new Paradigm of Existence

Blogger Ref

......Many of my recent FB Friends may not be aware of how the whole "Cheating the Ferryman" bandwagon first started. Well although my critics will not like this, it all started with a peer-reviewed academic paper which appeared in the IANDS Journal of Near-Death Studies. It was published with the help of Professor Bruce Greyson of the University of Virginia. To read it, and/or download a free copy please follow the link below. Also please feel free to "share" thus link on your own FB Wall or distribute the pdf to your own friends and associates. My position is not as hard-line materialist as it was fifteen years ago but the central concept still holds true for me ...…/Cheating_the_Ferryman_A_New_Para…
Cheating the Ferryman: A New Paradigm of Existence

Harvard Neurosurgeon Confirms The Afterlife Exists


Before his experience, he did not believe existence of a non-physical spirit. Trained in western medical school and surrounded by medical colleagues who are deeply invested in the materialism view of the universe, he thought that the idea of a soul was outlandish.  Like most “skeptics”, he believed stories of the afterlife to be hallucinations or products of the human imagination.
Dr. Alexander changed his mind after he was in a coma for seven days caused by severe bacterial meningitis.  During his coma he experienced a vivid journey into what he knew to be the afterlife, visiting both heavenly and not so heavenly realms.
After returning to his body and experiencing a miraculous healing against all odds, and went on to write the NY Times #1 best selling book “Proof of Heaven.” What Dr. Alexander confirms is that our life here is just a test help our souls evolve and grow, and that the way we succeed in doing so is to proceed with love and compassion.  Here are just a few other notable points he made:

– The experience of the afterlife was so “real” and expansive that the experience of living as a human on Earth seemed like an artificial dream by comparison.
The fabric of the afterlife was pure LOVE. Love dominated the afterlife to such a huge degree that the overall presence of evil was infinitesimally small. If you wish to know the Universe, know Love.
– In the afterlife, all communication was telepathic. There was no need for spoken words, nor even any separation between the self and everything else happening around you. All the questions you asked in your mind were immediately answered to you telepathically as well.

When asked what he wants everyone to know about the spiritual realm, he always answers saying that you are precious and infinitely loved more than you can possibly imagine. You are always safe. You are never alone. The unconditional and perfect Love of God neglects not one soul.
“Love is, without a doubt, the basis of everything. Not some abstract, hard-to-fathom kind of love but the day-to-day kind that everyone knows-the kind of love we feel when we look at our spouse and our children, or even our animals. In its purest and most powerful form, this love is not jealous or selfish, but unconditional.
This is the reality of realities, the incomprehensibly glorious truth of truths that lives and breathes at the core of everything that exists or will ever exist, and no remotely accurate understanding of who and what we are can be achieved by anyone who does not know it, and embody it in all of their actions.”
Now let’s talk credibility for a minute.  What makes this experience so much more significant than another NDE account? Eben’s neocortex was completely nonfunctional during the time of his coma do to his severe bacterial meningitis, so there is no scientific account for why he experienced this.  In fact, he gives refutations to 9 different possible scientific explanations for his experience in his book.

Exploring Naturalistic Explanations

Let’s take a look at 5 potential explanations he outlines in Appendix B of “Proof of Heaven”.  Some are of his explanations would make no sense to us as laymen untrained in neuroscientific terminology, so here are the most common explanations he refutes, all of which are taken verbatim from his book:
1. A primitive brainstem program to ease terminal pain and suffering (“evolutionary argument” – possibly as a remnant of feigned-death strategies from lower mammals?).  This did not explain the robust, richly interactive nature of the recollections.

2. The distorted recall of memories from deeper parts of the limbic system (for example, the lateral amygdala) that have enough overlying brain to be relatively protected from the meningitic inflammation, which occurs mainly at the brain’s surface.  This did not explain the robust, richly interactive nature of the recollections.
3. DMT dump.  DMT, a naturally occurring serotonin agonist causes vivid hallucinations and a dream-like state.  I am personally familiar with drug experiences related to serotonin agonist/antagonists (LSD) from my teen years in the early 70s.  I have had no personal experience with DMT but have seen patients under its influence.  The rich ultra-reality would still require fairly intact auditory and visual neocortex as target regions in which to generate such a rich audiovisual experience as I had in a coma.  Prolonged coma due to bacterial meningitis had badly damaged my neocortex, which is where all of the serotonin from the raphe nuclei in my brainstem (or DMT, a serotonin agonist) would have had effects on visual/auditory experiences.  But my cortex was off, and the DMT would have no place in the brain to act.

4. A reboot phenomenon – a random dump of bizarre dis-jointed memories due to old memories in the damaged neocortex, which might occur on restarting the cortex into consciousness after a prolonged system-wide failure, as in my diffuse meningitis.  Especially given the intricacies of my elaborate recollections, this seems most unlikely.
5. Unusual memory generation through an archaic visual pathway through the midbrain, prominently used in birds but only rarely identifiable in humans.  It can be demonstrated in humans who are cortically blind, due to occipital cortex.  It provided no clue as to the ultra-reality I witnessed and failed to explain the auditory-visual interleaving.
His NDE account stands as the most credible account of all time, and coming from his materialistic scientific background, we have good reason to believe that he really did have a vivid encounter with something beyond this world.
Here is an interview/feature he did with ABC News about his condition and his experience: new social platform is being built called ‘The Conscious Forum‘ to provide the best place online for open-minded people to discuss, engage, and connect with one another in a way never offered before.  To learn more, click the photo below:

Sources: New York Times
Proof of Heaven by Dr. Eben Alexander
- See more at:

List of skeptical organizations


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia/Blogger Ref
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a list organizations that promote or practice scientific skepticism.
Name (English / local (abbreviation))FoundedRegion servedNotes
Argentinian Skeptical Circle / Círculo Escéptico Argentino[1] (CEA)2010 Argentina
Association against Quackery / Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (VtdK)1881 NetherlandsOldest skeptical organisation.[2] Member of ECSO.[citation needed]
Association for Skeptical Enquiry (ASKE)1997 United KingdomMember of ECSO.[3]
Australian Skeptics1980 Australia
Bihar Rationalist Society / Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj (BRS)1985 IndiaMember of FIRA.
Brazilian Society of Skeptics and Rationalists / Sociedade Brasileira de Céticos e Racionalistas (SBCR)2001 Brazil
Center for Inquiry (CFI)1991The Earth seen from Apollo 17-white.jpg WorldGlobal umbrella organisation based in Amherst, New York.
Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS)2010 CanadaPart of Centre for Inquiry Canada.[4]
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), formerly Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)1976 United StatesPart of the Center for Inquiry.
Committee Para / Comité Para[5]1949 BelgiumMember of ECSO.[3] Serves Wallonia and Brussels.
Commission of Fight with Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research /
Комиссия по борьбе с лженаукой и фальсификацией научных исследований
1999 RussiaOrganized by RAS or RAN (not to be confused with RANS or RAEN).
Czech Skeptics Club Sisyfos / Český klub skeptiků Sisyfos (Sisyfos)1995 Czech RepublicMember of ECSO.[3]
Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association / தட்சிண கன்னட பகுத்தறிவாளர் ஒன்றியம் (DKRA)1976 IndiaMember of FIRA.
Edinburgh Skeptics Society (EdSkeptics)2009 United Kingdom
European Council of Skeptical Organisations (ECSO)1994 EuropeEuropean umbrella organisation, based in Roßdorf, Germany.
Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations / இந்திய பகுத்தறிவாளர் ஒன்றியங்களின் பேரவை (FIRA)1997 IndiaIndian umbrella organisation.
Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)1978 United StatesFocuses on state/church separation, nontheism, and atheism.
French Association for Scientific Information / Association française pour l’information scientifique (AFIS)1968[6] FranceMember of ECSO.[3]
Glasgow Skeptics2009 United Kingdom
Good Thinking Society2012 United Kingdom
Het Denkgelag2012 Belgium
Hungarian Skeptic Society / Szkeptikus Társaság (HSS)2006 HungaryMember of ECSO.[3]
Independent Investigations Group (IIG)2000 United States
Indian CSICOP19?? IndiaAffiliated with CSI, member of FIRA.
Indian Rationalist Association (IRA)1949 IndiaMember of Rationalist International.
Irish Skeptics Society2002 IrelandMember of ECSO.[3]
Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Pseudosciences / Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Affermazioni sulle Pseudoscienze (CICAP)1989 ItalyMember of ECSO.[3]
James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)1996 United States
Maharashtra Committee for Eradication of Blind Faith / Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (MANS)1989 IndiaMember of FIRA.
Merseyside Skeptics Society (MSS)2009 United Kingdom
MTÜ Eesti Skeptik ( Estonia
National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS)1987 United StatesServes Washington metropolitan area.
Network of Independent Danish Skeptics[3][7][8][9] / Skeptica1997 Denmark
New England Skeptical Society (NESS)1996 United StatesFusion of three earlier organisations.
New Zealand Skeptics[10] (NZ Skeptics)1986 New Zealand
Nirmukta2008 India
Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)2011 Philippines
Polish Sceptics Club / Klub Sceptyków Polskich (KSP)[11][12]2010 Poland
Portuguese Skeptical Community / Comunidade Céptica Portuguesa (COMCEPT)2012 Portugal
Rational Alternative to Pseudoscience - Society for the Advancement of Critical Thinking /
Alternativa Racional a las Pseudociencias - Sociedad para el Avance del Pensamiento Crítico[13] (ARP-SAPC)
1986 SpainMember of ECSO.[3]
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS)2006 UK &  USThe American and British branches are independent.
Round Earth Society / Sociedade da Terra Redonda (STR)1999 Brazil
Science and Popular Enlightenment / Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning (VoF)1982 SwedenMember of ECSO.[3]
Science and Rationalists' Association of India / Bharatiya Bigyan O Yuktibadi Samiti1985 IndiaBased in Kolkata, West Bengal.
SKEPP[14]1990 BelgiumMember of ECSO.[3] Serves Flanders and Brussels.
Skepsis ry1987 FinlandMember of ECSO.[3]
Skepsis Foundation / Stichting Skepsis (Skepsis)1987 NetherlandsMember of ECSO.[3]
Skepsis Norway / Skepsis Norge (Skepsis)[15][citation needed] Norway
Skeptical Association of Chile / Asociación Escéptica de Chile (AECH)2010 Chile
Skeptical Circle / Círculo Escéptico (CE)2006 SpainMember of ECSO.[3]
Skeptic Society / Общество скептиков[16]2013[17] Russia
Society for the Scientific Investigation of Parasciences / Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP)1987German-Language-Flag.svg D-A-CHBased in Roßdorf, Germany. Member of ECSO.[3]
Swiss Skeptics – Association for Critical Thinking / Skeptiker Schweiz – Verein für kritisches Denken (Skeptiker)2012  Switzerland
The Skeptics Society1992 United StatesGlobally active, but mainly serves California
Young Australian Skeptics (YAS)2008 Australia
Zetetic Observatory / Observatoire Zététique (OZ)2003[18] FranceBased in Grenoble, France. Member of ECSO.[3]

See also[edit]


  1. Jump up ^ Círculo Escéptico Argentino website
  2. Jump up ^ Andy Lewis (3 August 2009). "Dutch Sceptics Have ‘Bogus’ Libel Decision Overturned On Human Rights Grounds". The Quackometer. Retrieved 16 May 2014. 
  3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p "Skeptics Organisations: ECSO Members". ECSO website. European Council of Skeptical Organisations. 16 March 2008. Retrieved 19 July 2014. 
  4. Jump up ^ History of CASS
  5. Jump up ^ Its full name, Comité Belge pour l'Investigation Scientifique des Phénomènes Réputés Paranormaux ("Belgian Committee for Scientific Investigation of Purported Paranormal Phenomena"), is rarely used, except to indicate it inspired the name of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) three decades later.
  6. Jump up ^ Jean-Pierre Thomas. "Notre histoire". Website AFIS (in French). AFIS. Retrieved 3 April 2015. 
  7. Jump up ^ Skeptica website
  8. Jump up ^ Also translated as Association of Independent Danish Skeptics by ECSO and CSI.
  9. Jump up ^ CSI – Association of Independent Danish Skeptics
  10. Jump up ^ The full name is "New Zealand Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal", but this name is rarely used in practice.
  11. Jump up ^ Tomasz Witkowski & Maciej Zatonski (18 November 2011). "The Inception of the Polish Sceptics Club". CSI website. Retrieved 18 July 2014. 
  12. Jump up ^ KSP website
  13. Jump up ^ ARP-SAPC website
  14. Jump up ^ The letters 'SKEPP' stand for Studiekring voor de Kritische Evaluatie van Pseudowetenschap en het Paranormale ("Study Circle for the Critical Evaluation of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal"), but in practice only the abbreviation is used.
  15. Jump up ^ (Norwegian) Skepsis Norge
  16. Jump up ^ Saunders, Richard (23 March 2014). "The Skeptic Zone #283 - 23.March.2014". The Skeptic Zone. Episode 283. Australian Skeptics. Retrieved 19 July 2014. 
  17. Jump up ^ Алфёров, Кирилл (April 2014). "Выпуск 041". "Скептик" podcast. Общество скептиков. Retrieved 1 March 2015. 
  18. Jump up ^ "FAQ". OZ website. Observatoire Zététique. Retrieved 27 March 2015. 

External links[edit]