The physics of David Wilcock et. al.

Those who do not know David Wilcock, Richard Hoagland, or any of a plethora of others who are currently challenging the status quo of science, politics, and physics will not understand this post. But it will not be difficult to Google these people if you are interested in knowing more about them. They have countless You Tube videos to view.

I do not like to place labels on people, nor do I like to rigidly classify anything because human beings are complex and ever changing entities and the Universe simply will ridicule any attempt at rigid classification or stereotyping. But is it too convenient for the purposes of a brief discussion to label someone as a psychic, or a quack, or a pseudo scientist, or even a genius? People are much more complex than that and everyone, even me, at multiple points in their lives, can bear the labels of psychic, quack, racist, holy person, saint, criminal, genius, or moron. We have all made mistakes and we will continue to invent new ways to make more mistakes. Labels are distasteful, however they are a necessary evil because words do not reflect the heart all that accurately. This is because written or recorded words are permanent things, while the heart is ever changing. By this, I do not mean an unreliable or deceitful heart. I mean a heart which is continually learning, growing, and becoming better at avoiding mistakes. What do I mean, indeed, what does anyone mean, when they talk about the heart in this way? I think they mean the hopes, attitudes, and intentions of a person as a whole.

For those who know of the “meta-physics” as reported by people such as David Wilcock, then they will know what I am referring to. In terms of the ultimate questions and answers of life, the universe, and everything, the physics of David Wilcock and others do not explain anything. Their physics, or meta physics as it were, merely add layers of complexity to the unanswerable.

It is the same with religion, and with science and especially with modern physics. Cosmologists believe with ample evidence that a special creation or creator is not needed because of the big bang theory. Religions believe that the Universe was created by a special being. Either conclusion does not answer the unanswerable. That is, what came before the big bang, and who created the creator anyway? Religion will simply say a creator does not need a creator because the creator has always been. Science will simply retort that there was nothing before the big bang, that it cannot be known. And so there is an impasse and the unanswerable question remains. At this point – at the beginning of the creation so to speak – neither philosophy has an advantage over the other. In the real world however, science clearly has the upper hand since our entire civilization is a result of it, whereas religion has supplied us with nothing but psychological comfort, or terror, depending on your point of view. Part of the difficulty is that we lack data – data which can probably never be discovered. Our brains are not wired to understand timelessness nor infinity. We were brought into existence in a linear time stream, therefore we are only equipped to understand our environment in the context of linear time.

Is psychic phenomena, the spirit world, the after life, and all things hanging beyond the veil we have labeled the “occult” real? Are there invisible super beings and angels? An ordinary scientist will almost certainly say it is all hogwash and that there is no reproducible evidence for any of it. There are plenty of sincere and respectable skeptics out there such as James Randi, Michael Shermer, James Oberg and many more. And they have a point. I like to believe that my own foundation is based on a great deal of skepticism. However:

Some of the things which modern physics have discovered are just as strange as the things claimed by those who believe in spirits, telepathy, and faeries. I have made a list of some of them, merely to illustrate that the universe is so beyond our comprehension at this time and so beyond our ability to relate due to our very limited perceptions and senses and environment that it boggles the mind. I am emphatically NOT producing this list as an endorsement to abandon science and reason, nor to promote unwarranted mystical lifestyles based on false premises and hearsay.

So without further ado here is the list:

Black Holes. – An invisible object that is the result of other objects collapsing into an infinitely small point with the same amount of gravity. Entire galaxies are swallowed and simply disappear into a black hole that has no physical size, just a gravity field the same size as the total amount of matter that has collapsed into it, a theoretical point of infinitesimal size. Light cannot escape it, and you can never enter it because assuming you can survive the journey, it will take you an infinite amount of time to reach or cross the event horizon. You cannot find these things at your local convenience store.

Dark Matter. – It is everywhere but we cannot see it or detect it yet but we know it is there because we can just see that matter is affected by it.

Dark Energy. – Use the force, it is out there but do not go to the dark side. It is the dark energy counterpart to the energy we get from matter. We cannot yet see it nor detect it but again, we know it is there.

Life. – A random collection of non random things.

A Deterministic Universe, or a Chaotic Universe? – Either every action affects everything else, or it does not. Either option is impossible.

Quantum Mechanics. – The macro is not the micro is not the nano. Or the pico for that matter. This merely means that the quantum world has very different properties than the macro world.

Wave Particle Duality. – A particle can be a particle when it is not being a wave, and the reverse is true but it cannot be both at the same time and it depends on who is looking at it. Can this be any less strange than believing in telepathy?

A single photon is really two photons but not really, it is just one after all. – Scientists send a single photon toward a screen with two slits and therefore two possible paths. The photon is proven to pass through both slits simultaneously, and then interfere with itself: And you thought psychic channeling was weirdo talk!

Need I mention Schrödinger’s cat? – A cat inside a box is both dead and alive at the same time. The very act of opening the box and looking into it will seal the cat’s fate. Don’t believe me? Ask Schrödinger.

Ordinary radio waves. – These and other electromagnetic waves travel through the vacuum of space needing nothing to propagate through, unlike water waves or sound waves. Is this magic pure and simple, or is it simply because the scientists who failed to find the ether, well… failed to find the ether? Google Michelson and Morley.

Virtual particles. – They do not exist except when they magically appear, being created spontaneously out of the nothingness of the vacuum of space. I think Steven Hawking said they are one way that an indestructible and voracious black hole can evaporate.

Stopping Time. – The faster you travel the slower time gets relative to anything else. Go fast enough and time ceases to exist. It just stops.

Getting Bigger. – The faster you travel, the fatter you get. As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity…unless you are a photon in which case your mass must have been infinitely small to begin with before you decided to speed up…

When you look at these strange and recent scientific observations, can you not wonder if spirituality and having a soul and an after-death life is not so strange after all? The answer is that I do not know. But I am working on it.

This entry was posted in Science Friction. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The physics of David Wilcock et. al.

  1. Pingback: The Physics of David Wilcox, Part Two | johnsjar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>