You have no items in your bag. get the Epoch
The address for the 12th December UK General Election follows near the end of this blogpost.
In the meantime, herewith a couple of more important matters of Cosmic and Global Significance: -
Progress continues with the quest to replace the current apocalyptic scientific creation myth with a more realistic and more philosophically satisfying model.
The Hyperspherical Lensing Equation
Derives from a Stereoscopic Projection of the 3D surface of a Glome into Euclidian 3D space.
When multiplied by the Actual Distance to a far distant luminous body it gives its Apparent Distance as measured by its flux. Perlmutter’s paper confirms this up to Z = 1. The equation predicts that as redshift Z rises towards infinity at antipode then so will the apparent distance as the flux decreases towards zero and the absolute magnitude climbs towards infinity.
New. When multiplied by the Actual Diameter of a far distant luminous body it gives its Apparent Angular Diameter. Conventional Expanding Acceleration theory predicts a minimum apparent angular diameter at Z = 1.25 and then an increase, in some cases a continual increase in others to a maximum followed by a decrease. The equation predicts a minimum at Z = 1 and then a continual increase climbing towards infinity as Z climbs towards infinity at antipode. Observations currently seem scant and technically difficult. Hopefully confirmation will emerge eventually.
Both calculations depend on using the Redshift-Distance Equation
A combination of the Redshift-Distance Equation with the Hyperspherical Lensing Equation applied to find Actual Distance d as a fraction of Antipode Distance for any distant luminous object yields a constant antipode distance L of almost exactly 13 BLY. Hypersphere Cosmology looks increasingly likely to replace the Big-Bang theory.
Just published 2019-11-4: the universe is closed.
"Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology"
A miraculous cure for Climate Change, and the salvation of civilisation?
I have often wondered why we haven’t thrown much more effort into developing an ‘Artificial Photosynthesis’ that could sequester CO2 from the atmosphere and produce fuel, particularly ethanol which could replace most liquid fossil fuels very easily. Now it looks like a team has done it, and with catalysts that work even in dull sunlight.
We seem to approach the decisive battle of the Brexit war.
For the better part of a decade I have participated in the struggle for Britain to regain its Independence, and to regain control of its legal system and its borders, and its overseas trade arrangements.
I have also persistently maintained the hope that the Political Project of the EU would collapse through the eventual revolt of the nations ensnared within it.
For centuries Britain has resisted the attempts by the Papacy, the Hapsburgs, the Bourbons, Napoleon, the Hohenzollerns, and most recently Hitler, to impose hegemony on the continent of Europe.
Since WW2 a cabal of politicians and businesspeople has conspired to build a European Super-state based on French inspired ideas about political Synarchy and German ideas about social discipline and financial-industrial might. Democracy has of course become side-lined within this structure. It has only a sham-parliament that cannot initiate legislation, or raise or spend taxes, nor does it have much oversight or scrutiny over the EU’s unelected shadowy executive branches and their vast bureaucracies. Big business revels in the EU because it co-opts big business to define a regulatory culture which favours big business. The political classes revel in the EU because it provides a gravy train from which they never face democratic deselection.
Only Germany has profited from this enterprise. The other nations of Europe would have done better staying out, but they now feel trapped financially.
The desperate argument that - “at least the European Union has prevented its member states from going to war with each other as they did so frequently in the past” - appears completely vacuous today. No two Democracies have ever declared war on each other, and besides, modern military technology would make it economically unviable. The nations of Europe no longer go to war with each other because they have become democracies and no possible profit lies in it. Yet the EU becomes increasingly dismissive of democracy within itself.
The argument that the nations of Europe must become a single political entity to stand up to the military or economic might of other super-powers sounds superficially convincing. However offensive military might has become increasingly impotent and useless for technical reasons and small wealthy nations can now easily render invasions catastrophic for any aggressor. Small nations tend to become wealthier than large ones. Only one large nation on earth has a high per capita income, whilst many smaller nations do.
The various arguments that the EU forces certain standards of environmentalism and social policy upon us which we would otherwise lack seem doubly disingenuous. Why should we pay the EU for the non-privilege of outsourcing our own democratic decisions on such matters?
Globalisation has not favoured the UK. Manufacturing has become outsourced and capital has become invested offshore rather than in British enterprises. Immigration and multiculturalism have driven down wages and eroded social cohesion. A large proportion of the UK population now subsists hopelessly in a low wage service economy. Continued membership of the EU will soon result in the erosion of the UK as a major financial centre.
Only by freeing itself from the EU can the UK devise its own responses to globalisation.
Thus, I urge my UK readers to vote for whatever will Get Brexit Done.
If Brexit fails, Britain will end up ruled from Berlin via Brussels.
The real negotiations over trade with the EU will take place only after we have left. Any deals made before leaving can only hamstring the UK’s negotiating position.
Voting for UKIP or the Brexit Party now becomes probably unnecessary. They have done their job well, but few voters want Nigel Farage in Westminster, although he deserves a Peerage for his Services to the Realm.
The Remain inspired vote seems split between the ambiguous policy of the Labour party and the unambiguous policy of the Liberal Democrats, whilst a terror of Corbynist-Trotskyite-Marxism chills most voters.
Let us hope that the Brexit party and the leftover rabble in UKIP do not split the Leave inspired vote.
And lastly; Drugs & Magic.
Crowley defined Magick as "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will”.
Dion Fortune defined Magic as “the art of causing changes to take place in consciousness in accordance with will”.
After a long career I edge towards defining Magic as “the art and science of causing change to occur in consciousness and in reality, by the exercise of imagination”
(I do a lot of results magic, I didn’t get born rich, and I think Will only arises from sustained imagination.)
So, what point lies in using drugs in magic one may ask? Crowley used rather a lot; Fortune appears never to have bothered. I tried them but eventually dismissed them as a waste of time.
Yet if you look at The Blog of Baphomet and the stuff coming out of various ‘Psychedelic Institutes’, you might get the impression that hallucinogens and euphoria inducing substances hold the key to mystical enlightenment, magical powers, and mental health.
The ancient Greeks thought that when they first discovered how to make wine. It remains as false now as it did then.
Hallucinogens, disinhibitory substances, and euphoriants send the imagination into overdrive.
This state of overdrive might feel ‘magical’ but it proves illusory and transient and it fails to compare to what a carefully trained imagination can achieve.
Rarely does this overdrive create anything useful, more commonly it just leads to obsessive fixation on whatever drifts into attention, addled by a general loss of control of attention.
Thus, drugs prove utterly useless and counterproductive for any kind of active intent-based results magic, and in divination they tend to yield extravagant nonsense by the bucketload, unfiltered by critical thought.
Do drugs provide inspiration? Well perhaps they can stir up the otherwise unimaginative, but very few of humanities masterpieces seem to have arisen from their use. (I discount mad religions from the list of human masterpieces.)
Can drugs offer Enlightenment? I have to laugh here. I know a number of people who have taken hundreds of doses of psychoactive substances and they all have exactly the same human failings they started with, plus in most cases, additional problems and delusions.
Any new psychoactive drug that a culture discovers seems to go through three phases:
At first it seems amazing and mind opening to an elite few.
Then it becomes passé as many become familiar with it out of curiosity.
Thirdly it becomes widely abused, and by some strange sort of morphic field mechanism it no longer seems amazing and mind opening to anyone, and it just does damage.
Thus, such substances should remain firmly illegal. The elite will always manage to obtain them whilst they remain interesting.
You cannot solve Spiritual, Psychiatric, or Psychological problems with drugs (or scalpels).
Massive Upgrade to Hypersphere Cosmology https://www.specularium.org/hypersphere-cosmology