The two opposing cosmologies currently at odds with each other (open vs closed systems) strike on the very nature of life vs death, Matthew Ehret writes.
It appears increasingly like our world is being shaped by ideas and intentions that have a pseudo-religious like commitment to limits and reducing human activity upon the earth.
Whether it is in the halls of Davos, where big wig corporate magnates and powerful technocrats proclaim how important it is to cut back on food consumption, energy use and breathing or in such events as COP26 where these same elites promote decarbonization schemes that threaten to reduce not only carbon production through “global Green New Deals” but life itself, we find notions of “nature”, “equilibrium” and “limits to growth” shaping the contours of all permitted discussion of ecological, economic and political policy among those stuck within the trans-Atlantic “rules based order”.
Where does this dismal “science of managing scarcity” come from?
Certainly it has not always been this way.
Previous generations created abundance through investments into large scale infrastructure and cutting-edge discoveries that not only improved the conditions of life of people and increased the industrial productive powers of nations but even increased the abundance of the biosphere itself as we find in such former desert zones of California which were turned into lush agricultural areas through projects like the New Deal and water projects of the 1960s.
But we are told that those days are long gone, and anti-Malthusian leaders like FDR, Enrico Mattei, Charles de Gaulle and JFK have disappeared from the political landscape of western societies.
In their stead, we find only synthetic political hacks, misanthropic technocrats and several generations of Malthusians who took over the helm of our ship of state in the early 1970s. This takeover was punctuated by such policy documents as Henry Kissinger’s NSSM-200 in 1974 which redefined U.S. foreign policy from the “old wisdom” of promoting infrastructure to poor nations, to the “new wisdom” of promoting population control. Kissinger’s close misanthropic associates who shared his commitment to stasis and control found themselves in positions of vast influence during this time, as witnessed by Kissinger’s student Klaus Schwab inaugurating the World Economic Forum in 1971, and Kissinger’s patron David Rockefeller co-founding the Trilateral Commission in 1973 where the paradigm of limits to growth was turned into a political religion.
Large scale infrastructure investments seized up along with the crash science programs that had defined our earlier breakthroughs with NASA’s funding collapsing from 4.5% of GDP in 1966 to less that 1% in 1976 [see graph].
Fusion research similar shrivelled up as all research into next generation breakthroughs in science were handicapped throughout the 1970s resulting in the demoralized adage “fusion is always 30 years away” which become a cynical truism.
With the Malthusian takeover of Trans-Atlantic governments, the world was slowly turned inside out and a former viable industrial economic system was turned into a post-industrial consumer cult whose growth was defined increasingly in purely speculative monetary terms devoid of any actual genuine metrics of value or GDP.
And so now, we find ourselves trapped within a shrinking box of resources, and increased rates of scarcity across all fields that directly support life: energy, healthcare, agriculture. It isn’t that this scarcity is necessary. Even if next generation technological breakthroughs in all domains had not been sabotaged (they were), then even existing technologies and resources, IF organized and used justly, as the new multipolar alliance is doing, could eliminate hunger and want for the currently existent 7.7 billion souls on the earth with relative ease.
However, we don’t want to be merely satisfied with solving the errors in thinking that have brought us into today’s absurd crisis of scarcity, but we want to ensure that such errors are never brough back in the future.
As such, it were expedient to exit for the time being the realm of geopolitics and appreciate the more subtle scientific ideas shaping standard theory physics itself which in turn influence the thinking of both economic, ecological and political science in profound ways since all three “practical” domains derive their legitimacy from concepts of science that are in turn influenced by theories that extend into the largest domains of existence and the smallest domains of subatomic physics.
NASA’s James Webb Telescope Threatens Big Bang Cosmology
In June of this year, NASA’s James Webb telescope began its work scanning the cosmos with a high powered infra red lens providing a measure of clarity and definition to the images of both deep space and our surrounding environment within the solar system unlike anything ever seen before.
However, with new deep penetrating images of the furthest reaches of the cosmos ever photographed, problems have begun to emerge which are threatening the entire edifice of the already fragile and self-contradictory ivory tower of Standard Model Cosmology.
Images of deep space galaxies which should be few in number, and underdeveloped in form are turning out to be so old (according to the rules of current physics that interpret red shift as a measure of distance and velocity from a point of observation) that current calculations are determining must have existed long before the supposedly 13.77 billion year date which mainstream physicists have agreed the universe was “born” from nothing in the form of the big bang.
Renowned physicist Eric Lerner (author of the 1992 best seller ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’) had this to say about the crisis and newly published scientific papers which acknowledge the crisis in physics:
“Since that hypothesis [big bang theory’] has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
In this sequal to my previous article “Open System Thinking with Vladimir Vernadsky”, I would like to discuss additional evidence for the fallacies underlying Big Bang cosmology which will hopefully liberate our crisis-ridden world from certain poisonous dogmas that have kept the scientific community in a stagnant box for far too long, and have justified the outdated and closed-system pseudo-science of “limits to growth” and Malthusianism permeating the western world.
This exercise will bring us into an appreciation of some major suppressed discoveries in embryology, life sciences and cosmology during the 19th and 20th centuries and will have us encounter certain scientists with names like Halton Arp, Alexander Gurwitsch, Hans Driesch and Fritz Popp. These names should be known far and wide due to the profound nature of their discoveries into the creative foundations of life, electromagnetism etc. However, due to the infantile period of oligarchism which humanity has struggled with in its still-early stages of life in the universe, these names have remained in obscurity.
Who was Halton Arp?
The recently deceased Halton Arp (1927-2013) remains one of the pioneers of modern astrophysics whose observational work during the 1960s formed the bedrock for much of today’s descriptive cosmology.
In 1966, Arp published an incredible book called “The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies” which catalogued hundreds of cases of anomalous observations which broke the chains of “standard theory cosmology” which was quickly shackling mainstream scientific research. For this work and the decades of advances on these insights, Arp was never forgiven by the scientific establishment and his work at the Carnegie Institute of Washington was ended along with his access to the telescopes needed to conduct his work, while his writings would no longer be published or peer reviewed, forcing him to eventually leave the U.S.A all together.
Even though he recruited a loyal following of students and researchers internationally, his work which totally abolishes the foundations of Big Bang (and implicitly Heat Death) cosmology remains inaccessible for most students of physics and citizens alike.
What Did Arp Discover?
In his decades of fruitful work, Arp tackled the Achilles heal of big bang cosmology by demonstrating that quasars (the furthest and thus oldest objects visible from the earth), do not give off their extremely large red shifts due to the doppler effect which mainstream theorists wish to believe, but actually contain a form of “intrinsic redshift” indicative of their young age as “galactic seedlings” or embryos having only recently been born of more mature parent galaxies in their vicinities. These parent galaxies were found to exhibit redshifts of a much lower magnitude indicating their age and phase of evolution more than serving as any form of indication of the recession or speed from the point of observation as is commonly thought.
Figure 1 A simple example of the Doppler Effect as it expresses red or blue shifting observations
The importance of maintaining adherence to the Doppler Effect interpretation of redshift (the phenomenon caused by degrees of shifting of spectroscopic data from electromagnetic signatures of various celestial bodies towards the red or towards the ultraviolet part of the spectrum) is due to the fact that linear extrapolations into the past using redshift permits scientists to determine “when” the universe began. In the case of quasars, their redshift is especially important since it’s extreme intensity implies a maximum distance from us putting them onto the supposed “edge” of the universe (beyond which a vast nothingness is assumed to exist).
This assumed distance creates a certain “boundary condition” around which all other metrics of time, relationships and distances of all other visible objects are established. Imposing this bounded, finiteness onto a potentially unbounded, infinite universe has given big bang cosmologists the arrogance to assert in absolute terms that our universe is definitely 13.77 billion years old[1]. Before the universe exploded onto the scene in the form of the Big Bang from an infinitely dense and small singularity which contained all energy now in existence, these physicists insist that all that existed was an expanse of eternal nothingness and just as National Geographic reported in the opening quote, it will be this nothingness that we are destined to eventually return once more.
Figure 2 The popular model of the universe now hegemonic across the scientific establishment. Everything “before” the light 13.77 billion years ago and “outside” the limited boundaries assumed to exist is essential an infinitely extended ocean of nothing.
These big bang models have also established with certainty that in only 4.5 billion years the blue shifted Andromeda galaxy near the Milky Way’s Galaxy will smash into us[2] causing unimaginable destruction.
In his work Arp catalogues hundreds of instances of galaxies who exhibit immensely different redshifts which would suggest incredible distances of hundreds or even thousands of light years of separation from one another and yet whom are consistently bounded by material filaments emitting electromagnetic energy from all across the spectrum. The three cases of the companion galaxies NGC7630 and its companion galaxy taken from x ray and radio wave filters showcases this phenomenon excellently. Each galaxy feature vastly different redshifts implying a separation of over hundreds of millions of light years, but they are undeniably connected by filaments of gas and energy making this interpretation impossible! Additionally we see two extremely redshifted quasars which would imply a distance of thousands of millions of light years more [see figure 4].
Figure 3 Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 and its companion high redshift companion galaxy connected by a filament of x ray emitting gas
Figure 4 Another filter taken of the same galactic anomaly features the redshifts of two young quasars (objects 2 and 3) whose immense redshifts should place them at the edge of the Big Bang universe and yet who obviously sit in between the two companion galaxies.
During his years of research, Arp accumulated a vast array of quasars which tended to be found in the proximity of parent galaxies either within the filaments themselves connecting galaxies [as featured in images 3 and 4], or in the jet streams emitted by the polar axis of seyfert galaxies (ie: spiral) galaxies [image 5 and 6]
Figure 5 Galaxy NGC 4258 with two optically active x ray emitting quasars found symmetrically within the conic zones surrounding the parent galaxy’s line of axis.
Figure 6 Another example of the same common observation taken from the side view of another galaxy
Keep in mind, most galaxies feature some form of jet streams visible in various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum which also creates vast problems for big bang cosmologists who wish to maintain that galaxies are held “together” by a combination of powerful black holes internally, and vast arrays of “dark matter” and “dark energy” pushing all stuff together. The case of Centaurus A Radio galaxy (featuring filters of other parts of the spectrum) is useful to showcase the point. The fact that vast emissions of new energy is being created by these jet streams including small quasars should not be seen as surprising.
Figure 7 The Centaurus A radio galaxy
These anomalies demonstrated several revolutionary truths:
- That high redshift quasars could not exist on the “edge of our universe” as mainstream scientists imply, but rather must exist in close proximity to the parent galaxy that birthed them
- That among the thousands of quasars documented, the expected continuous array of various redshifts one would expect to find in a universe governed by randomness were nowhere to be found. Rather only a handful of harmonically ordered frequencies moving from higher (younger) to lower (older) frequencies in a discrete manner[3]. This harmonic character implies an organized state of the universe which favors order over chaos and also specific phases of the quasar’s evolution towards maturity as its parts differentiate and the space time field of the system matures accordingly. [see figure 8]
- That since redshift properties were “intrinsic” to their respective galaxies and expressed a signature to said galaxies’ rate of maturation, a process of creative life rather than death and decay fundamentally organize our universe!
Figure 8 This illustration of a side view of a parent galaxy ejecting two high redshift quasars demonstrates their slow motion away from the parent as they evolve lowering their redshifts to become spiral (seyfert) galaxies
Describing this process in 2009, Arp wrote:
“When quasar-like companions are associated with a parent galaxy they tend to be smaller, higher surface brightness and show emission line activity. In quasars large energies are packed into absurdly small initial volumes. As they evolve they have no place to go except to brighten towards being galaxies and lessening intrinsic redshifts with time. The important point however is that the excess redshift companions are in the process of evolving into more “normal” galaxies and it is the numerical value of the redshifts themselves evolving by steps into smaller values”.[4]
When one treats the facts discovered by Arp seriously, we confront the happy reality that evidence points not towards a dying heat death as the ultimate abysmal conclusion of our death-dominated universe, but rather to a universe characterized by life, creativity and directed upward evolution! This is a universe which has more in common to the principles of open system embryology than to the closed system lifeless processes that characterized an engine or randomized “gas theory”, and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) underlying the statistical logic of big bang cosmology.
A Fresh Look at Embryology
Just as astronomers began to discover the fascinating geometries of galaxies at the end of the 19th century, parallel discoveries were being made on the microcosm with new insights into the mechanisms defining the growth of living matter. Embryology was a relatively new field as two opposing schools of thought began to clash in Europe. One school known as vitalism found its champion in the form of the great epigenesist Hans Driesch (1867-1941), the other was called the mechanistic/preformism school led by the figure of Wilhelm Roux (1850-1924).
Both schools were fascinated by the obvious directionality and design expressed by the unfolding of an organism from a fertilized single cell all the way to becoming a fully formed organism.
In the field of embryology, it was more obvious than any other field that randomness, chaos and chance played no role in this complex yet harmonic process of growth, multiplication and differentiation of cells over the course of an embryo’s existence. What mechanisms determined how the parts would unfold over time as the embryo grew?
An elementary question during this time was: did the parts define the whole or did the whole define the parts? How could we know at what point the undifferentiated cell’s fate becomes sealed by its destiny?
The mechanist school of Roux assumed that one could know only what a cell would do a “moment” before or after one observes it, but that the pathway was assumed generally unknowable beyond this point. The vitalist school of Driesch on the other hand presumed that only the “end phase” of an embryo could be known, but nothing of its individual changes.
To prove his case, Roux began by burning one of the two cells making up a frog zygote which resulted in the eventual formation of a half frog. This incredible experiment implied of course that all information determining the fate of all subsequent phases of embryonic evolution were contained within each of those two original cells. If Driesch were correct, then that single cell should have grown up into a full frog. While this appeared at first to be a “win” for the mechanist school, it wasn’t long enjoyed, as Driesch formulated a new experiment whereby instead of killing one of the two cells of the frog zygote, he used a four celled sea urchin embryo cut in half using a fine baby’s hair which now resulted not in two half organisms as Roux and the mechanists had expected, but rather two fully formed sea urchins!
While these experiments contributed much towards answering some fundamental questions about the mechanism of creative growth, many other questions remained unanswered and still required a few decades for a new generation of scientists to tackle the problem with a fresh perspective. One of the most prominent of these scientists being a brilliant Ukrainian naturalist named Alexander Gurwitsch.
Gurwitsch Takes the Stage
Rather than simply side with the vitalists or mechanists, Gurwitsch took the best of both schools and added something extra by asking the question “how do cells communicate and harmonize their behaviour in one unifying system”?
Considering that the average human baby comprises approximately 10 trillion cells with 10 million dying and being born with every passing second, and considering that each cell has within it over one million molecular actions/second it is nothing short of a miracle that these trillions of cells can communicate and harmonize with one another, let alone “decide” when an undifferentiated cell should take on a function such as a liver cell, brain cell, heart cell, etc that will define its “destiny”.
Gurwitsch realized that the vast intercommunication of cells could not be accounted for through mere molecular activity or the motion of enzymes from one place to another in the body. Something more had to be occurring. But what?
It was in the period of rich creative development of the 1920s that Gurwitsch configured his famous “onion root experiment” which involved simply configuring two onion roots in a perpendicular set up. While one onion root grew downwards, the other was caused to grow towards it [see image]. When the stems came into close proximity, a 30% increased rate of growth was induced in the first onion stem and it was now obvious that high rate of young cell mitoses occurring at the tip of the stem were accompanied by some form of invisible energy emission inducing the increased growth rate, but what was its nature? What sort of energy was being admitted from one stem to another?
Figure 9 Alexander Gurwitsch and his original onion root experiment. Two onions (Z1 and Z2) grow perpendicularly with point W representing the point of intersection of the younger root emitted from Z1 and the older root of Z2 separated by a quartz lens blocking the emissions of ultra violet emissions from Z1 to Z2.
To answer this next question, Gurwitsch tested various quartzes that blocked all but the ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum and discovered that the increased cell growth only occurred when UV light was permitted to transmit. Even though no instrumentation would be invented for another 30 years sensitive enough to pick up these ultra weak UV photon emissions, Gurwitsch’s elegant experiment demonstrated what sort of electromagnetic properties were causing living tissues to harmonize!
Gurwitsch termed this newly discovered phenomena “Mitogenetic Radiation” with this idea created several new interconnected fields of 1) molecular morphology, 2) cellular morphology and 3) organismic morphology which all encompassed the concept of Gurwitsch’s “biogenic field”.
Despite an intensive counter operation run by the Rockefeller Foundation which attempted to discredit Gurwitsch under the scientific hack A. Hollaender who intentionally bungled his experiments producing negative results, small networks of committed scientists continued this valuable work [5]. Several decades had to pass until A.B. Burkalov, inspired by Gurwitsch’s onion roots, set up a similar experiment using two sets of fertilized fish embryos separated by a glass divider and a small opening- one set of embryos being slightly older than the other. Burkalov discovered that as long as the age separating the two sets was not too great, placing each set into proximity caused the younger eggs to speed up in their development greatly. However when the age difference was too far removed beyond a certain bandwidth, the younger eggs grew into malformed mutants [6].
Popp, Montagnier and the Schumann Resonance
Over the years, this research continued in the fringes of the scientific community with some of the most interesting developments occurring under the guidance of Fritz Popp who discovered a wide array of ultra weak bio-photon emissions from all forms of life[7]. Popp established that coherent photon fields are emitted by all cells and molecules expressing life- each carrying unique signatures and information from that cell across the entire body triggering an intricate array of chemical reactions necessary for the functions of living matter to endure. Working with Walter Nagel, Popp additionally discovered techniques which interpreted the scattering patterns of cell photons in order to adduce information about viral and bacterial infections.
Popp claimed that “every change in the biological field or physiological state of the living system is reflected by a corresponding change of biophoton emission”.
Figure 10 Fritz Popp (left) and Dr Luc Montagnier (right)
This work was amplified by the later work by the Nobel Prize winning virologist Dr. Luc Montagnier who discovered how ultra weak photon emissions were not only occurring in the UV range but also in the radio wave spectrum[8].
Montagnier went even further to measure the frequency of these emissions occurring from DNA which was placed in liquid solutions within test tubes. In these experiments which advanced the work of Jacques Benveniste on water memory, Montagnier discovered how the radio signals emitted from the DNA structured the water molecules in such a manner that even after all traces of the DNA were filtered out of the water, DNA-specific radio signatures continued to be emitted from the liquid solution and even caused a clone replica of the original DNA to be created out of random organelles, proteins and nucleotides when placed within the resonant solution. The only caveat here was that this cloning only occurred under the singular condition that the solution were exposed to a 7.8 Hertz background radiation in the laboratory.[9]
This 7.8 Hz background radiation is of course the same frequency which characterizes the earth’s natural electromagnetic environment between the ionosphere and surface of the earth itself. This phenomenon was first discovered in 1923 and was given the name Schumann Resonance for its discoverer Winfried Otto Schumann (1888-1974)[10]. As Magnetic Resonance Imaging developed in the 1970s, it was also discovered that 7.8 Hz happens to also be the same frequency that the human brain emits when in a calm meditative state. The electromagnetic environment shaped by the earth’s evolving ionosphere, magnetosphere and Van Allen Belts (themselves influenced by the growth of free oxygen over long expanses of time contributing to the ozone layer) not only “tunes” but is tuned in return by the evolving systems of life on the earth leading up to the most advanced yet seen: the human brain.
Re-Uniting the Macro and Microcosmos
As you can see, the flow of these discoveries has brought us from the macrocosm of galaxies birthing seedling galaxies in the form of quasars within a dense intergalactic and interplanetary medium of plasma (not dark matter or the nebulous dark energy which so many statistical Big Bang Cosmologists assume must exist by virtue of their denial of Arp’s discoveries). We moved from the realm of galaxies into the realm of cellular evolution, and the dynamic equilibrium maintained by the space time of living organisms. We then continued our journey through the electromagnetic properties and fields of life throughout the 20th century until we arrived back at the Schumann resonance defined by the earth’s Van Allen belts, magnetic field and the broader magnetic field shaped by the sun in our small corner of the Milky Way galaxy which is itself just one of billions if not trillions of suns being shaped by our galaxy.
Although it is not well understood, our solar system exists not in “empty space” with planetary bodies falling in random locations orbiting our star, but rather in a densely saturated ocean of plasma and cosmic radiations with harmonic least action pathways defining each pulsating orbit. While each revolution of our star the sun occurs every 365 days, our solar system itself is revolving around the galactic center once every 220-250 million years during which time our solar system passes through arms of the Milky Way and bobs above and below the galactic plane. These insights are inferred primarily from measuring the relative rates of radioactive decay in fossil records and the relatively cyclical mass extinction (and mass creation events) which have been archeologically uncovered in recent years.
Figure 11 Various periodic activities discovered in long term activities of the earth have found a correlation to such long term periodic behaviour only occurring on the level of galactic activity illustrated above [image from the Schiller Institute]
Just as the living organism is a sort of universe unto itself defined by trillions of cellular interactions occurring throughout a life, a galactic body is made up of trillions of stars and many more planetary bodies within each system harmonized by the living space time of that particular galaxy’s phase of evolution from young Quasar seedling to a more advanced mature state such as the blue-shifted Andromeda galaxy which may in fact be MUCH closer than the 2.5 million light years assumed by Big Bang theorists.
From this new and healthier re-framing of the forces and principles at play in our living, creative universe, Andromeda’s blue shift is no longer seen as the rate at which this large galaxy is racing towards our Milky Way where we are destined to collide in 4.5 billion years… but rather becomes seen as indicative of its older, parental relationship to our younger galaxy from which it once gave birth (as well as all other galaxies within our local galactic constellation).
If you haven’t realized it, the two opposing cosmologies currently at odds with each other (open vs closed systems) strike on the very nature of life vs death. Where one system assumes the principle of death to be primary in a universe of decay and entropy, the other paradigm sees life as primary within a universe of creative growth and perfectibility.
So before you find yourself agreeing to the assumption that “scarcity” and “limits to growth” are absolute laws which define our choices going into the 21st century and beyond, it were wise to look at nature itself from this standpoint and ask if it were not MORE NATURAL to leap beyond our mental and physical limits by making discoveries into our potentially unbounded, albeit finite universe and live as though we were made in the image of the creator ?
The author recently delivered a lecture on this topic which can be viewed here:
!!!
