SubQuantum Kinetics, wide ranging unifying cosmology theory by Dr. Paul LaViolette

Galactic Core Explosions - prevailing concept (1980): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that the cores of galaxies, including our own, become active ("explode") about every 10 to 100 million years and stay active for about a million years. Since our own Galactic core presently appears quiescent, they believed it would likely remain inactive for many tens of millions of years. Although, in 1977, astronomer Jan Oort cited evidence that our Galactic core has been active within the past 10,000 years.

Prediction No. 1 (1980 - 1983): In his Ph.D. dissertation, LaViolette hypothesized that galactic core explosions recur about every 10,000 years and last for several hundred to a few thousand years. He was the first to suggest such a short recurrence time for galactic core explosions and that our own Galactic core undergoes Seyfert-like explosions with similar frequency.

Subsequent concurrence (1998): In 1988, when presented with Dr. LaViolette's Galactic explosion hypothesis, astronomer Mark Morris dismissed the idea as having no merit. However, in 1998 after ten years of observation, Morris was quoted as saying that the center of our Galaxy explodes about every 10,000 years with these events each lasting 100 years or so.

Cosmic Ray Propagation - prevailing concept (1980 - 1983): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that interstellar magnetic fields entrap cosmic rays released from Galactic core outbursts and slow their outward progress so that they reach the Earth after millions of years in the form of a constant low intensity background radiation.

Prediction No. 2 (1980 - 83): Dr. LaViolette's studies concluded that Galactic center cosmic ray volleys interact minimally with interstellar magnetic fields and are able to propagate radially outward along rectilinear trajectories traveling through the Galaxy at near light speed in the form of a coherent, spherical, wave-like volley. He was the first to suggest this idea of a "Galactic superwave."

Verification (1985): Astrophysicists discovered that X-ray pulsars continuously shower the Earth with high-energy cosmic ray particles that have traveled over 25,000 light-years at nearly the speed of light, following straight-line trajectories unaffected by interstellar magnetic fields.

Verification (1997): Astrophysicists detected a strong gamma ray pulse arriving from a galaxy billions of light years away having a redshift of 3.4 (see Prediction No. 10 below). Mainstream media, such as Sky & Telescope magazine, suggested that this gamma ray pulse may be accompanied by a volley of high energy cosmic ray particles travelling at very close to the speed of light along a rectilinear trajectory and that the gamma ray pulse is produced by the radial outward movement of this volley. In effect, they were restating the same Galactic superwave idea that LaViolette had proposed 14 years earlier in the face of stiff resistance from mainstream astronomers.

Verification (2000): Radio astronomers announce at the January 2000 American Astronomical Society meeting that the synchrotron radio emission radiated from the Galactic center (Sgr A*) is circularly polarized. Scientists present at the meeting concurred with Dr. LaViolette's suggestion that the circular polarization indicated that cosmic ray electrons were travelling radially away from the Galactic center along straight-line trajectories.

Cosmic Ray Bombardment - prevailing concept (1980 - 83): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that the background cosmic ray flux has remained constant for millions of years, that intense cosmic ray bombardments occur very infrequently, perhaps every 30 million years, primarily as a result of nearby supernova explosions.

Prediction No. 3 (1980 - 1983): LaViolette concluded that a volley of Galactic cosmic rays had bombarded the Earth and solar system toward the end of the last ice age (ca. 14,000 years BP). Also his findings suggested that other such superwaves had passed us at earlier times and were responsible for triggering the initiation and termination of the ice ages and mass extinctions. He was the first to suggest recurrent highly-frequent cosmic ray bombardment of the Earth.

Verification (1987): Glaciologists discovered beryllium-10 isotope peaks in ice age polar ice. These indicated that the cosmic ray flux on the Earth became very high on several occasions during the last ice age, confirming Dr. LaViolette's theory that Galactic superwaves have repeatedly passed through our solar system in geologically recent times.

Cosmic Debris Around Solar System - prevailing concept (1980 - 83): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that the solar system resided in a relatively dust free region of space.

Prediction No. 4 (1980 - 1983): LaViolette hypothesized that large amounts of interstellar dust and frozen cometary debris lie outside the solar system just beyond the heliopause sheath and form a reservoir of material that would have supplied large amounts of cosmic dust during a prehistoric superwave event.

Verification (1984): The IRAS satellite team published infrared observations showing that the solar system is surrounded by nearby "cirrus" dust cloud wisps.

Verification (1988): Astronomer H. Aumann's observations suggested that the solar system is surrounded by a dust envelope 500 times denser than previously thought.

Verification (1992 - 95): Telescope observations revealed the presence of the Kuiper belt, a dense population of cometary bodies encircling the solar system, beginning just beyond the orbit of Neptune and extending outward past the heliopause sheath.

Verification (1999): Observations of the influx of interstellar dust particles using the Ulysses spacecraft lead Markus Landgraf and his team of European Space Agency astronomers to conclude that the solar system is surrounded by a ring of orbiting dust that begins just outside the orbit of Saturn.

Cosmic Dust Influx - prevailing concept (1979): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that the rate at which cosmic dust particles have been entering the solar system and the Earth's atmosphere has remained constant for millions of years. They believed that the solar system lies in a relatively clean interstellar space environment and hence that there is no need to expect the occurrence of recent cosmic dust incursions.

Prediction No. 5 (Sept. 1979): LaViolette theorized that if a cosmic ray volley (superwave) had passed by at the end of the ice age, it would have pushed nearby interstellar dust into the solar system. To test this, he began a plan to analyze ice age polar ice for traces of cosmic dust.

Verification (1981 - 82): LaViolette was the first to measure the extraterrestrial material content of prehistoric polar ice. Using the neutron activation analysis technique, he found high levels of iridium and nickel in 6 out of the 8 polar ice dust samples (35k to 73k yrs BP), an indication that they contain high levels of cosmic dust. This showed that Galactic superwaves may have affected our solar system in the recent past. In addition, he discovered gold in one 50,000 year old sample, making this the first time gold had been discovered in polar ice.

Verification (1984): The IRAS satellite team reported observations that the zodiacal dust cloud is tilted 3 degrees relative to the ecliptic with ascending and descending ecliptic nodes at 87° and 267°, but failed to draw a conclusion from this finding. LaViolette realized that the nodes are aligned with the Galactic-center-anticenter direction in support of his earlier prediction that interstellar dust has recently entered the solar system from the Galactic center direction. 1987: He published a paper in Earth, Moon, and Planets journal explaining that the orientation of the zodiacal dust cloud nodes indicates that this zodiacal dust recently entered from the direction of the Galactic center.

Verification (April 1993): NASA's Ulysses spacecraft team published observations indicating that interstellar dust is currently entering the solar system from the Galactic center direction (from the direction the interstellar wind blows towards us) and hence that most of the dust outside the asteroid belt is of interstellar origin. Their findings were predicted by LaViolette's 1983 and 1987 publications. One Ulysses team member had received Dr. LaViolette's publications in 1985, but LaViolette's work was not cited.

Verification (1995): Cosmochemists publish observations showing that Helium-3 concentrations in ocean sediments, an indicator of extraterrestrial dust influx, changed by over 3 fold on a 100,000 year cycle between 250,000 and 450,000 years ago.

Verification (1996): The AMOR radar in New Zealand detected a strong flux of interstellar meteoroid particles, measuring 15 to 40 microns in size, entering the solar system from the Galactic center direction.

Verification (2000): LaViolette demonstrates that the acid layers found in 15,850 year old Antarctic polar ice vary in magnitude with an eleven year solar cycle period thereby indicating an extraterrestrial origin for this material. This finding is supported by the discovery mentioned below (2003) that interstellar dust influx varies in accordance with solar cycle phase. The finding that this gas influx event heralded a series of warming trends that ended the ice age, implicates cosmic dust and solar activation as the causal agents responsible for terminating glacial cycles.

Verification (2003): Using data obtained from the Ulysses spacecraft, a group of European Space Agency astronomers led by Markus Landgraf discover that the rate of interstellar dust influx increased three fold from 1997 to 2000 with the approach to solar maximum. They theorize a correlation between solar cycle phase and interstellar dust influx rate, with the influx rate being highest at the time of solar maximum. Such a correlation could explain why the Sun could become locked into an active, dust accreting mode during times of superwave passage.

Tin Isotopic Anomaly - state of the art (1981): At the time of this prediction, astronomers speculated that tin found in extraterrestrial material could have isotope ratios different from those of terrestrial tin. But up until that time no tin isotopic anomalies had been reported.

Prediction No. 6 (1981): Having found very high concentrations of tin in a 50,000 year old ice core dust sample along with gold, silver, antimony, iridium, and nickel, LaViolette theorized that this tin-rich dust was of interstellar origin and that the tin might contain an isotopic anomaly.

Verification (Jan. 1984): Geochemists at Curtin University (Australia) in collaboration with LaViolette used a mass spectrometry technique to determine the isotopic ratios of an unirradiated portion of the tin-rich dust sample. They found significant isotopic anomalies in four isotopes thereby confirming LaViolette's prediction that the tin dust is of extraterrestrial origin. This marked the first time that tin isotopic anomalies had been discovered.

Indirect support (1989): Cosmochemist F. Rietmeijer published a paper describing the discovery of tin oxide grains inside interplanetary dust particles, with tin abundances much higher than typically found in chondritic meteorites. This helps to substantiate LaViolette's 1983 claim that the solar system is surrounded by dust enriched in tin and that this is the source of the tin-rich dust found in polar ice.

Prehistoric Global Warming - prevailing concept (1981): At the time of this prediction, climatologists believed that the Alleröd-Bölling warming and Younger Dryas cold period at the end of the ice age were confined primarily to Europe. They assumed that there was no global warming at the end of the ice age, that the northern continental ice sheets did not melt synchronously with the southern ice sheets, and that the warming in the north was due to heat being drawn from the Southern Hemisphere.

Prediction No. 7 (1983): In his dissertation, LaViolette demonstrated that the last ice age was ended by a 2000 year long global warming which he calls the Terminal Pleistocene Interstadial (TPI) identified with the Alleröd-Bölling interstadial in the north. He also proposed that this was followed by a global return to glacial conditions, identified with the Younger Dryas in the north. He showed that the melting of the ice sheets was synchronous in the northern and southern hemispheres and was brought about by cosmic causes.

Verification (1987 - 96): Climatologists published temperature profiles from various parts of the world showing the presence of this same climatic oscillation, but did not connect their data with the idea of global climatic shifts.

Verification (1998): Climatologists (Steig et al.) published findings in Science demonstrating the synchronous occurrence of the Alleröd-Bölling-Younger Dryas climatic oscillation in the Taylor Dome Antarctic ice core. They claimed this as evidence that the last ice age was ended by a global warming. Although they should have been aware of LaViolette's publications, their report did not cite his prior work.

Prehistoric Solar Conflagration - prevailing concept (1983): At the time of LaViolette's prediction, the general opinion was that the Sun has remained in its present quiescent solar cycle state for hundreds of millions of years. A small group of astronomers, however, dissented with this view. For example, in 1969, astrophysicist Thomas Gold published lunar rock evidence indicating that, within the last 30,000 years, the radiation intensity on the Moon had reached 100 suns for 10 to 100 seconds, possibly due to a solar nova. In 1975, astronomer A. Lovell suggested that sun-like stars occasionly produce flares of up to 10^37 ergs, 30,000 times more energetic than the largest solar flare of modern times. In 1977, astrophysicists Wdowczyk and Wolfendale suggested that the Sun might produce a flare a million times larger (3 X 10^38 ergs) about once every 100,000 years. Moreover in 1978, NASA astronomers Zook, Hartung, and Storzer had published lunar rock evidence indicating that 16,000 years ago solar flare background radiation intensity on the Moon's surface had peaked to 50 times the current intensity and that this may have been somehow associated with the retreat of the ice sheets. The idea that the Earth and Moon might have been affected in the past by the arrival of a giant solar coronal mass ejection had not yet been advanced.

Prediction No. 8 (1983): In his dissertation, LaViolette proposed that invading cosmic dust would have caused the Sun to become more luminous and engage in continual flaring activity. In chapter 4, he suggested that on one occasion the Earth and Moon may have been engulfed by a large prominence remnant "fireball" (coronal mass ejection) thrown out by the Sun during a period of particularly intense solar activity. He interpreted the findings of Zook and Gold as evidence that the Sun had been in a highly active T-Tauri like flaring state and that at times its flaring activity had been as much as 1000 times currently observed levels. He suggested that these may have scorched the surface of the Earth in ice age times, inducing high temperatures, rapid ice sheet melting, global flooding, and mass animal extinction.

Concordance (1997): Satellite observations showed solar flares ejecting expanding balls of plasma called "coronal mass ejections"and demonstrated that these were capable of travelling outward beyond the Earth's orbit. This lent credance to LaViolette's theory that a large coronal plasma "fireball" thrown off by an immense solar flare may have reached the Earth and Moon and scorched their surfaces.

Concordance (1999): Astronomers announced that they had observed large explosive outbursts from the surfaces of nearby normal sunlike stars. These "superflares" were observed to range from 100 to 10 million times the energy of the largest flare observed on the Sun in modern times and were estimated to occur about once every hundred years. This confirmed the Lovell hypothesis and increased the plausibility of LaViolette's suggestion that the Sun was producing mega solar flares and intense plasma fireballs at the end of the last ice age.

Verification (2002): As early as the late 1970's Dr. Han Kloosterman was arguing that a global conflagration was the cause of the black layer found in Alleröd sediments in southern England and in the Great Lakes Region. Later in 2002, when Dr. LaViolette first became aware of his work, he was on a geological field trip accumulating evidence of the black Usselo Horizon dating from the Alleröd/Younger Dryas transition and correlative with similar horizons found in Great Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, Poland, and the southwestern U.S. Kloosterman concluded that this layer was produced by a global conflagration which was also responsible for the exitnction of the Pleistocene megafauna. Kloosterman's thesis and evidence of the Usselo horizon confirm the solar CME scenario that LaViolette had proposed.

Geomagnetic Reversals - prevailing concept (1983): At the time of LaViolette's prediction, geophysicists believed that geomagnetic reversals and magnetic polarity flips were brought about by causes internal to the Earth, that they arose from instabilities in the inner rotation of the Earth's core magnetic dynamo. They believed that these field excursions took hundreds of years to occur due to the inherently slow movement of the core material.

Prediction No. 9 (1983): In chapter 3 of his dissertation, LaViolette proposed that geomagnetic reversals are induced by solar cosmic ray storms. He proposed that at times when invading cosmic dust causes the Sun to become very active and engage in continual flaring activity, major solar outbursts could occur that are a thousand times more intense than those currently observed. Further he proposed that solar cosmic rays from such a mega flare could impact the Earth's magnetosphere, become trapped there to form storm-time radiation belts, and generate an equatorial ring current producing a magnetic field opposed to the Earth's. If sufficiently intense, this ring current magnetic field could cancel out the Earth's own field and flip the residual magnetic field pole to an equatorial location. From this position it could later either recover or adopt a reversed polarity. He proposed that this geomagnetic excursion would be very rapid, occurring in a matter of days.

Verification (1989 - 95): Geophysicists reported their analysis of a geomagnetic reversal recorded in the Steens Mountain lava formation, conclusively demonstrating that during this reversal the Earth's magnetic pole changed direction as fast as 8 degrees per day. This overthrew the conventional geocentric view which could not account for such rapid changes with internal motions of the Earth's core dynamo. It confirmed Dr. LaViolette's mechanism of rapid change.

Concordance (1995): Unaware of LaViolette's publications, two French geophysicists published a paper that sought to explain the Steens Mountain polarity reversal as being due to a solar cosmic ray cause. Their mechanism was the same as that which LaViolette had proposed 6 years before the Steens Mountain discovery. Their independent arrival at the same idea is evidence of parallel idea development and consensus with LaViolette's earlier theory.

Radiocarbon Date Anomalies - prevailing concept (1983): At the time of this proposal, the idea that anomalously young radiocarbon dates might be produced by intense solar cosmic ray bombardments had not been suggested. Such young dates were thought to be due to sample contamination with younger carbon having a higher C-14 content.

Prediction No. 10 (1983): Anomalously young radiocarbon dates are frequently found in fossil remains of Pleistocene megafauna that became extinct at the end of the last ice age. In chapter 10 of his dissertation, LaViolette proposed that a solar cosmic ray conflagration caused the demise of these mammals and their subsequent burial by the action of glacier meltwater waves. He suggested that the neutron shower produced by the intense solar cosmic ray storm (coronal mass ejection) that engulfed the Earth would have radiogenically changed nitrogen atoms in animal collagen into carbon-14 atoms. He proposed that this in situ radiocarbon generation could have made the radiocarbon dates on exposed organic matter anomalously young.

Verification (1998): After conducting seven years of research, archeologist William Topping proposed that the abnormally young radiocarbon dates of ice age Paleo-Indian sites (ca. 12,400 - 13,000 calendar yrs BP) could be explained if a major solar flare cosmic ray particle storm had caused in situ carbon-14 production from nitrogen in the organic remains of those strata. His conclusion of heavy particle bombardment in Paleo-Indian times was partly supported by his discovery of particle tracks and micrometeorite craters in artifacts. This in situ C-14 production mechanism is the same that LaViolette had earlier proposed to explain the young dates for Pleistocene mammal remains dating from a similar period. Like Topping, LaViolette had concluded that the demise of the large mammals at that time was due to a solar flare conflagration. Since Topping was probably not aware of LaViolette's dissertation, his work would constitute independent corroboration.

Concordance (1995 - 1998): Researchers report the discovery that there had been a sudden increase in atmospheric radiocarbon levels at the Allerød/Younger Dryas transition boundary. Over a 300 year period between the time of the IntraAllerod Cold Peak and the beginning of the Younger Dryas, atmospheric C-14 levels rose from 3 to 7 % and subsequently declined during the course of the Younger Dryas.

11. Glacial drift deposits - prevailing concept (1983): At the time of this prediction, geologists believed that the ice sheets melted gradually at the end of the ice age and that their meltwater outflow was also gradual, with the exception of instances of dam breaks occurring in proglacial lakes such as Lake Missoula in Montana.

Prediction No. 11 (1983): LaViolette proposes that much of the glacial drift deposited at the end of the last ice age was laid down by glacier waves issuing from the surfaces of the ice sheets.

Verification (1983): To explain sediment morphology in Manitoba, North Dakota, and Minnesota, geologists Alan Kehew and Lee Clayton propose the occurrence of catastrophic floods produced by a domino effect of proglacial lake discharges. LaViolette had proposed a similar domino effect mechanism for the production of glacier waves on the surfaces of ice sheets.

Verification (1988): German scientist Harmut Heinrich calls attention to North Atlantic ocean sediment layers composed primarily of rock grains of continental bedrock origin that had been transported distances of up to 3000 kilometers prior to their deposition. Subsequent investigations uncovered evidence that these "Heinrich layers" were deposited suddenly. Heinrich advances a theory that this material was transported by drifting and melting ice bergs. However, not all are satisfied with this explanation which fails to explain the suddenness of the deposition events. In 2001 (Galactic Superwaves CDROM), LaViolette shows that Heinrich events correlate with times of climatic warming and that these layers are evidence of long-range sediment transport by glacier waves. He shows that Heinrich layer 0 correlates with accelerated glacier wave discharge activity he proposed was occurring around 12,700 years BP and that Heinrich layer 1 spans the Pre-Bölling Interstadial which began the deglaciation phase.

Verification (1989): Canadian geologist John Shaw points out that drumlins are more likely produced by forceful discharges of glacial meltwater rather than by the action of slowly advancing glaciers. He proposes that the meltwater discharges had reached depths of hundreds of feet and that they originated from beneath the glaciers. However, more probably they were formed by glacier waves originating from the ice sheet surface.

Gamma Ray Bursts - prevailing concept (1983): During the early 1970's, astronomers discovered the Earth is sporadically bombarded by gamma ray bursts. At the time of this prediction, they incorrectly assumed that gamma ray bursts were medium energy events originating from local sources within our Galaxy. They did not regard them as a significant social threat.

Prediction No. 12 (1983): In his dissertation, LaViolette proposed that a superwave produced by an explosion of our Galaxy's core could be immediately preceded by a very strong gamma ray pulse, 10,000 times stronger than what could come from a supernova explosion. He pointed out that upon impacting our upper atmosphere this burst could strip electrons and induce a powerful electromagnetic pulse which, like a high-altitude nuclear EMP, could have serious consequences for modern society. It could knock out satellites, interrupt radio, TV, and telephone communication, produce electrical surges on power lines causing widespread black outs, and possibly trigger the inadvertent launching of missiles. He was among the few to suggest that Galactic core explosions could produce high intensity gamma ray outbursts that could affect the Earth. In 1989, under the sponsorship of the Starburst Foundation, LaViolette initiated an international outreach project, to warn about the dangers of such astronomical phenomena. He pointed out that our Galactic center could produce seriously disruptive low intensity outbursts as frequently as once every 500 years and that we are currently overdue for one. This was the first time a widespread gamma ray pulse warning of this sort had been made.

Verification (1997): In December 1997, astronomers for the first time pinpointed the source of a gamma ray burst and found that it originated from a galaxy lying billions of light years away. This led them to conclude that these are mostly extragalactic events having total energies millions of times greater than they had previously supposed, thereby confirming LaViolette's earlier proposal of the existence of high intensity gamma ray bursts. If this particular outburst had originated from our Galactic center, it would have delivered 100,000 times the lethal dose to all exposed Earth life forms.

Verification (1998): Some months later, in August 27, 1998, a 5 minute long gamma ray pulse arrived from a Galactic source located 20,000 light years away in the constellation of Aquila. The event was strong enough to ionize the upper atmosphere and seriously disrupt satellites and spacecraft. It triggered a defensive instrument shutdown on at least two spacecraft. Astronomers acknowledged that this marked the first time they became aware that energetic outbursts from distant astronomical sources could affect the Earth's physical environment. These events reaffirmed the validity of warnings LaViolette made 9 years earlier about the potential hazards of such gamma ray bursts.

Galactic morphology - prevailing concept (1980 - 83): At the time Paul LaViolette was writing in 1983, most astronomers believed that quasars and blazars were very different from most other galaxies and in a class of their own. LaViolette recalls a telephone conversation he had, in which the renown astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge steadfastly defended this view. Astronomers also believed that active giant elliptical galaxies were structurally different from spiral galaxies.

Prediction No. 13 (1980 - 1983): In his dissertation, LaViolette proposes that quasars and blazars are the bright cores of spiral galaxies in which the light from the core is so bright that it masks the dimmer light coming from the galaxy's disk. He suggests that quasars and blazars are essentially the same core explosion phenomenon that is seen in Seyfert galaxies and N-galaxies. He predicts that when it eventually becomes operational the Hubble Telescope will resolve the disks around these bright cores. He also suggests that edge-on spiral galaxies with active cores would give the appearance of being giant elliptical galaxies due to synchrotron radiation emitted from their outward streaming cosmic rays. In connection with this, he predicts that when active giant ellipticals are imaged with the Hubble Telescope, spiral arm dust lanes oriented edge-on will be detected.

Verification (1995, 1997): Astronomers publish the results of a survey which imaged quasars using the Hubble Space Telescope. These quasars (luminous cores) are seen to be surrounded by spiral arm disks, just as LaViolette had predicted. Earlier in 1982 a group of astronomers had resolved galactic light fuzz around quasar 3C273 using a special imaging technique. This was published after the date of LaViolette's prediction. In 1997 NASA astronomers release a photo of an active giant elliptical galaxy that resolves its equatorial dust lane and shows that it is oriented edge-on as LaViolette had predicted.

Archeoastronomy - prevailing concept (1979): At the time of this prediction, ancient historians, cultural anthropologists and scholars of esoteric traditions did not suspect that ancient myth makers knew the location of the Galactic center or that they had associated this part of the sky with the cataclysmic cycles described in legend.

Prediction No. 14 (1979): LaViolette discovered that the ancient star lore connected with the Sagittarius and Scorpius constellations indicated the location of the Galactic center, conveyed the idea of an explosive outburst, and specified a significant past date of 13,865 ± 150 years B.C. which also is encoded in the ancient Egyptian Dendereh zodiac. Also LaViolette found that myths, customs and esoteric lore descendent from prehistoric times indicated that cosmic rays from a Galactic core explosion catastrophically affect the Earth and solar system in recurrent cycles with the most recent event occurring near the end of the last ice age. He wrote up this idea in an unpublished paper in 1979 and formally published these ideas in 1995 and 1997 in his books Beyond the Big Bang and Earth Under Fire. In Earth Under Fire he also connected Mayan cosmology and World Ages with the Galactic center and Galactic superwave events. He began discovering these associations around 1987.

Concordance (1994 - 1998): In a December 1994 magazine article and later in his book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 (1998), John Major Jenkins presented his findings that Mayan lore contains a Galactic center oriented cosmology. that specifically refers to the Galactic center vicinity (ecliptic-Galactic plane crossing point) in connection with the occurrence of the Mayan World Ages. One of his findings is that the Mayan calendar 2012 AD end date, which designates the end of the present World Age, also indicates the time when the Earth's precessing axis will be maximally tipped in the direction of this Galactic plane intersection point. Jenkins was not aware of LaViolette's work at the time he wrote, so his findings constitute an instance of independent discovery and corroboration. Jenkins went into much greater depth in exploring Mayan cosmological references to the Galactic center, but did not explore the Galactic explosion/Earth cataclysm theme discovered by LaViolette.

Concordance (2000): LaViolette discovered evidence indicating that the largest acidity spike in the entire Antarctic ice core record was of extraterrestrial origin, possibly produced by a major incursion of interstellar or cometary dust; see paper posted at solar.html. The date of this event, beginning 13,880 B.C. and tailing off 13,785 B.C., closely corresponds to the date encoded in zodiac star lore marking the arrival of a galactic superwave.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Predictions Part II physics and astronomy

Subquantum Kinetics Predictions and their Subsequent Verification http://home.earthlink.net/~gravitics/LaViolette/Predict2.html

Nucleon Core Field - prevailing concept (1978): The electric field in the core of a nucleon is assumed to be aperiodic and to rise to a sharp cusp at the particle's center.

Prediction No. 1 (1973 - 1978): Subquantum kinetics predicted that the electric potential field in the core of a subatomic particle should be Gaussian-shaped and should continue outward as a periodic field pattern of diminishing amplitude having a radial wavelength equal to the particle's Compton wavelength, further that this field pattern should be positively biased in positively charged particles. Prediction published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics), and 1995 (Beyond the Big Bang).

Verification (2002): Particle scattering form factor data for the proton and neutron is found to be best fit by a model in which the nucleon core electric charge density distribution has characteristics similar to those that subquantum kinetics had predicted. Energy boosting during collision, however, did cause the target nucleons to exhibit a wavelength slightly shorter than had been predicted.

Gravitational Repulsion - prevailing concept (1985): Electrons are assumed to produce matter-attracting fields just like protons. Gravitational repulsion is considered a speculative idea.

Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1990 (ISSS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics).

Verification (2001): Drs. Evgeny Podkletnov and Giovanni Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravitational force on a distant test mass.

Energy Conservation and Photon Redshifting - prevailing concept (1978): At the time of this prediction, physicists and astronomers generally assume that photon energy is perfectly conserved and most attribute the cosmological redshift to the assumed expansion of space.

Prediction No. 3 (1978): As a basic requirement of the validity of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should gradually redshift with time when passing through regions of low (less negative) gravitational field potential, e.g. intergalactic space. It predicted a "tired-light effect," that distant galaxies should appear redshifted without the need of postulating recessional motion.

Verification (1979 - 1986): Dr. LaViolette checks this photon redshifting prediction by comparing the tired-light non-expanding universe model and the expanding universe model (standard Freidman cosmology) to observational data on four different cosmology tests. He demonstrates that the tired-light model consistently makes a closer fit to observational data on all tests. His findings, which were published in the Astrophysical Journal (1986), confirm the subquantum kinetics tired light prediction and the notion that the universe is cosmologically stationary. These findings undermine a key support of the big bang theory. An update of this evidence is presented in Chapter 7 of Subquantum Kinetics.

Energy Conservation and Energy Generation - prevailing concept (1978): At the time of this prediction, physicists and astronomers adhered to the idea that energy is perfectly conserved. Stars are assumed to generate their energy either through nuclear fusion or from heat released from gravitational accretion. Planets are instead thought to acquire their luminosity from stored heat. There is no reason to believe that planets should conform to the stellar mass-luminosity relation.

Prediction No. 4 (1978 - 1979): As a basic requirement of the validity of its methodology subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should gradually blueshift when passing through regions of high (more negative) gravitational field potential, e.g., within stars and planets and in interplanetary and interstellar space. It predicted that "genic energy" should be continuously created within all celestial bodies.

Verification (1979 - 1992): Dr. LaViolette tested this genic energy prediction by plotting the mass-luminosity coordinates of the jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus) to compare them with the mass-luminosity relation for red dwarf stars and found that both planets and stars conformed to the same relation. Other astronomers had not previously done this because doing so didn't make sense in the context of the conventional astrophysical paradigm. This conformance suggests that the heat coming from the interiors of planets is produced in the same way as that radiating from the interiors of red dwarf stars, just as subquantum kinetics predicts. He also showed that the genic energy hypothesis predicts a slope for the "planetary stellar M-L relation" similar to the observed slope. In addition, he showed that the upward extension of the M-L relation predicts that about 16% of the Sun's luminosity should be of genic energy origin, an amount consistent with recent SNO solar neutrino measurements. The required violation of energy conservation is 10 orders of magnitude smaller than what could be observed in laboratory experiments.

Verification (January 1995): Astronomers observing with the Hubble Space Telescope discovered that the star VB10 has a dynamic core, as indicated by the presence of explosive, magnetic-field-driven flares on its surface. VB10 has a mass of about 0.09 solar masses, which indicates that it borders between being a red dwarf and brown dwarf. Conventional theory predicts that this star should be on the border of being dead and hence should not have a strong magnetic field. Subquantum kinetics, which predicts that its interior should be dynamic and actively evolving genic energy, anticipates these results.

Brown Dwarf Stars - prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, astronomers do not expect that brown dwarf stars to have any particular mass-luminosity ratio. They are assumed to be stars that are not massive enough to ignite nuclear fusion and hence are merely dead stars that are cooling off.

Prediction No. 5 (1985 - August 1995): Subquantum kinetics predicted that brown dwarfs should also generate genic energy and hence, like the jovian planets, should lie along the lower main-sequence mass-luminosity relation for red dwarf stars. Paul LaViolette published this prediction on four occasions: 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, p. 339), 1992 (LaViolette, Physics Essays, ) 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 125), and 1995 (LaViolette, Beyond the Big Bang, p. 304).

Verification (November 1995, 1998): Astronomers determine the masses and luminosities of two brown dwarfs GL 229B and G 196-3B. Dr. LaViolette demonstrates that the M-L data points for these brown dwarfs lies along the planetary-stellar M-L relation as he predicted. This indicates that brown dwarfs are not dead stars as previously supposed, but stars that are actively producing genic energy in their interiors.

Interplanetary maser signals - prevailing concept (1985): Maser signals are believed to maintain constant frequencies over interplanetary distances since photon energy is assumed to be perfectly conserved.

Prediction No. 6 (1985): Dr. LaViolette determines the expected magnitude of the hypothesized genic energy photon blueshifting rate by modeling the intrinsic luminosities of the planets. He then predicts that if a maser signal were transponded between two spacecraft separated by 5 AU, the signal should be found to blueshift at the rate of about 1.3 X 10^-18 per second. This prediction was published on two occasions: 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, p. 340) and 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 135).

Verification (October 1998): A group of JPL astronomers publish their discovery that maser signals transponded between the Earth and the Pioneer spacecraft blueshift at a rate of ~ 2.9 ± 0.4 X 10^-18 per second. Their value reduces to 2.3 ± 0.4 X 10^-18 per second when the propulsive effects of waste heat from the spacecraft power source is taken into account. Although the JPL team has chosen a posteriori to interpret this as a mysterious force pushing the spacecraft toward the Sun, it provides a close confirmation of the a priori subquantum kinetics prediction; see paper posted at pioneer.html.

Galactic Evolution - prevailing concept (1979): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that galaxies form in various sizes as galactic-sized gas clouds gravitationally condense to form stars. They assume that the size of these galaxies does not change over time except through galaxy mergers. Galaxies in the immediate neighborhood of the Milky Way are assumed to have the same size ratio as young galaxies at cosmological distances.

Prediction No. 7 (1979 - 1994): Subquantum kinetics predicts that matter is continuously created throughout the universe, with the matter creation rate being highest in the vicinity of already existing matter. Furthermore it predicts that galaxies should progressively grow in size with the passage of time since they are formed by matter being created primarily in their central nucleus and being propelled outward by galactic core explosions. Dr. LaViolette published this prediction on two occasions, in 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, p. 335) and in 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 118). Also see LaViolette, Beyond the Big Bang, p. 94.

Verification (July 1995): Observations with the Hubble Space Telescope show that younger, more distant galaxy clusters are dominated by fainter, more compact galaxies and have much fewer of the larger spiral galaxies, as compared with nearby older galaxy clusters.

Galactic Core Energy Source - prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, the nuclei of active galaxies and quasars are known to contain central masses ranging from millions to billions of solar masses, and astronomers assume that these core masses exist in a collapsed state as black holes. They further assume that the prodigious energy output from these cores is powered from matter being swallowed by these hypothesized black holes. No other means of generating energy is known to explain the immense amount of energy observed to come from these locations.

Prediction No. 8 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that matter-accreting black holes do not exist. Instead, it predicts the existence of highly massive, very dense celestial bodies of finite size called "mother stars" which continuously and spontaneously produce matter and genic energy in their interiors. LaViolette published his ideas on this on two occasions: 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, p. 342) and 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, pp. 143-144).

Verification (January 1995): A group of astronomers led by John Bahcall, observing with the Hubble Space Telescope, discover that 11 out of 15 quasars are devoid of any surrounding material and hence have no matter available to power a black hole hypothetically located at their centers. This supports the subquantum kinetics prediction that such energetic sources are instead powered by energy spontaneously created in their interiors.

Verification (September 1997): Hubble Space Telescope observations of the heart of active galaxy NGC 6251 provide further confirmation of the earlier January 1995 verification. These observations show that this galaxy's core is swept clear and hence that there should be no matter available to be accreted by a hypothetical central black hole.

Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believe that supernova are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. They presume that the once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, it collapses and subsequently rebounds in a supernova explosion.

Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced, not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, pp. 342-343).

Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A explodes in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova observed in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its precursor star on old photographic plates and determine for the first time what sort of star produced this explosion. Surprisingly, they find that it had been a blue supergiant star, just as subquantum kinetics had predicted.

Galactic Core Energy Source - prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, astronomers had not imaged stars in the vicinity of the Galactic center since the observational techniques had not yet been developed. Based on their conventional theories, they expected that most stars in the vicinity of the Galactic center should be low mass stars, which they theorized should be very old stars, at least as old the the Galaxy, e.g., billions of years.

Prediction No. 10 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that massive stars residing in the vicinity of the Galactic center should instead be massive. It proposes the theory that matter is continuously created, that stars grow in size and grow most rapidly in the vicinity of the Galactic center where the gravity potential and matter creation rate is highest. Furthermore subquantum kinetics predicts that massive stars, such as blue supergiants are among the oldest stars and are not young stars as conventional theory predicts. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, pp. 341-342) and again in 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, pp. 157 - 158). Also see pp. 234 and 242 (last paragraph) of the second edition of Subquantum Kinetics which describes the expectation that older, more massive stars should reside near a galaxy's core.

Verification (1995): A group of astronomers (Krabbe et al.) publish observations of the Galactic center stellar cluster which indicate that the region within 1-1/2 light-years of the Galactic center is populated with about two dozen luminous helium-rich blue supergiants having masses of up to 100 solar masses. This finding confirms the subquantum kinetics prediction. Unaware of the subquantum kinetics prediction, they have difficulty in accounting for this finding. They speculate that these are young stars which must have formed between 3 and 7 million years ago from gas residing in this region. But they are unable to explain how this would occur since the large tidal shear in this region should have disrupted such a star formation process.

Verification (2003): UCLA astronomer Andrea Ghez reports on observations she has made of the Galactic center using infrared speckle interferometry and adaptive optics. She was able to plot the trajectories of these stars. Based on these observations, she confirms that the stars in the immediate vicinity of the Galactic center, within 0.01 light years, are very massive, but that they have spectra typical of "young" stars (young by the conventional definition). She finds this puzzling since the tidal forces in the vicinity of the Galactic center would be much too strong to allow stars to form through a gravitational accretion process, this being especially true of the eight stars found closest to the Galactic center. She suggests that these massive stars may in fact be old stars whose proximity to the Galactic center has altered their appearance to make them masquerade as young stars. However, she is unable to offer any mechanism by which this could happen. Here we find her coming close to the subquantum kinetics prediction that these stars near the Galactic center should be very massive. However, by following conventional theory, she must resort to proposing mysterious stellar masquerading effects since conventional theory erroneously interprets massive stars to be young stars, instead of old stars. But with subquantum kinetics these massive stars appear exactly as they should, namely as blue supergiants which in this paradigm are very old stars.

I find this stuff fascinating but I lack the background to criticize it. For your consideration & discussion.

http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/PioneerEffect.pdf

Press Release (Science) The Pioneer Effect Discovery and the Amazing Theory that Predicted it

The Starburst Foundation Athens, Greece, Starburstfound@aol.com, tel: 30-210-64-22-900 January 19, 2007 Journal article announces early prediction of the Pioneer Effect Paul A. LaViolette, “The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of spontaneous photon blueshifting.” Physics Essays 18(2) (2005/2007): 150-163. In print as of January 2007. Journal download: http://www.physicsessays.com In 1978, while still a doctoral student at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, Paul LaViolette made a prediction, which like Einstein’s prediction of the bending of starlight may one day be destined to shake the world. At that time, he was developing a unified field theory called subquantum kinetics. Unlike string theory, which has never made any testable predictions, LaViolette’s subquantum kinetics theory makes several, ten of which have thus far been confirmed.(1) One in particular challenges the most fundamental of physical laws, the law of energy conservation. Subquantum kinetics predicts that a photon’s energy should not remain constant but rather should change with time, that photons traveling through interstellar space or trapped within stars or planets should continually increase in energy, although at a very slow rate. For example, his theory predicts that a photon traveling through our solar system should increase its energy at a rate of somewhat greater than one part in 1018 per second. While this rate of energy change is far too small to measure in the laboratory, if present it would be extremely significant for astrophysics. Essentially, it would require that astrophysicists scrap all their existing theories on stellar evolution and stellar energy production. Subquantum kinetics predicts that all celestial bodies, whether they be a planet or star should produce energy in their interior. Although the energy excess produced by any given photon each second would be incredibly small, when the cumulative effect of trillions upon trillions of photons inside a planet or star are added up, the amount of energy becomes quite sizable. LaViolette coined the term “genic energy” to refer to this spontaneously created energy. More about this may be found in his book Subquantum Kinetics and Genesis of the Cosmos.(2, 3) Although the effect would be too small to be observed in the laboratory, the energy increase accumulated as an electromagnetic wave traveled vast distances through interstellar space should be visible as a slight increase in its frequency, a photon’s frequency being directly dependent on its energy. As a result, the photon should accumulate a detectable frequency blueshift.* LaViolette proposed an experiment in which a maser (microwave laser) signal would be sent out from a spacecraft located near Earth to another spacecraft located near Jupiter and then transponded back again. The entire round-trip path for the signal, which would measure about 10 astronomical units (about 1.5 billion kilometers), would be sufficient to produce a detectable blueshift. Maser signals are routinely used to communicate with spacecraft for purposes of navigation. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California is responsible for monitoring and navigating all of NASA’s spacecraft. So in 1980 LaViolette called up a ___________________ * Subquantum kinetics predicts a different circumstance for intergalactic space – progressive photon redshifting and energy loss, rather than photon blueshifting and energy gain. LaViolette has shown that this “tired-light effect” fits cosmological test data better than the expanding universe hypothesis. But in the immediate vicinity of galaxies and within our own solar system as well, photon blueshifting would be the rule. 1

scientist at JPL to inquire if they had detected any persistent blueshift in the data for maser signals that were routinely being transponded back from spacecraft. He told them the approximate amount that would be expected. The answer came back no, they had not noticed any blueshift. With further inquiry LaViolette learned that the maser signal equipment that JPL was using was stable enough to allow the expected frequency change to be detected. So he asked if the scientists there would be interested to participate in an experiment to construct a pair of spacecraft designed specifically to look for this blueshift effect. The response was that their group at JPL was mainly interested in monitoring the Doppler shift of existing signals to look for evidence of gravity waves and that presently they were concentrating their efforts entirely on getting funding for that project. Hoping that some time in the future NASA might undertake a project to make this photon blueshift test, LaViolette wrote up a description of this interplanetary maser signal test in a paper he was writing on subquantum kinetics and which he submitted for publication that year. He included a numerical prediction which specified the magnitude of the frequency blueshift as a function of the maser signal’s round-trip flight time or flight distance. The paper was finally published in 1985 as a series of three papers appearing in a special issue of the International Journal of General Systems.(4) In the following years, John Anderson, who was a member of the JPL group that was interested in gravity wave detection, began to notice that a blueshifting effect might be present in the Pioneer 10 maser signal data that was routinely monitored. Finally in 1992 he decided to initiate a formal study. In 1998, eighteen years after LaViolette’s phone conversation with JPL, he and his team publicly announced that they had found a persistent unexplained blueshift in the maser signal data being transponded back from the Pioneer spacecraft which at that time had journeyed well beyond the orbit of Pluto. This is exactly the effect that LaViolette had predicted and it was found almost exactly in the way that he had suggested. The only difference is that the outgoing maser signal in this case originated from a ground based radio telescope rather than from a spacecraft near the Earth. Also the remote spacecraft transponding the signal back had journeyed outward to a much greater distance, 67 astronomical units from Earth, rather than just 5 astronomical units. Consequently, there was a much greater round-trip distance over which photon blueshifting could take place, thereby allowing a much larger blueshift to accumulate and therefore be more evident. Anderson and his team, however, chose to attribute the effect to a different cause. They may have been unaware of LaViolette’s published prediction and may have forgotten about his 1980 phone call to their JPL gravity wave group. They instead decided to attribute the frequency shift anomaly to some sort of unknown force that they assumed was pushing the spacecraft toward the Sun and slowing its outward journey as it left the solar system. They estimated this inward acceleration to be 8.7 ± 1.3 X 10-8 cm/s2, about one ten billionth of the Earth’s gravitational acceleration (10-10 g’s). This would have Doppler blueshifted the spacecraft’s return maser signal causing it to be less redshifted than expected, thereby creating an anomalous maser frequency increase of 2.9 ± 0.4 X 10-18 per second. This “unexplained” phenomenon came to be known variously as the “Pioneer effect” or as the “Pioneer anomaly.” Initially, LaViolette had little information about the discovery. What little he knew came from reading a vague story about it in the New York Times. Suspecting that the JPL group may have detected his predicted blueshifting phenomenon, Dr. LaViolette immediately contacted Anderson. He told him about his theory’s prediction and the discussion he had with one of Anderson’s JPL colleagues back in 1980. Anderson sounded interested in LaViolette’s blueshifting prediction and planned to work out whether the predicted amount could account for the anomaly that his team had observed in the data. He asked Anderson for a preprint copy of his paper, but weeks went by and none arrived. He also had mailed Anderson a copy of his book, Subquantum Kinetics, marking the page where it described the spacecraft maser signal experiment that he had proposed back in 1980. The page also specified the approximate photon blueshifting rate that the theory predicted should be 2

observed. But he received no reply back from Anderson. Anderson’s paper was published a week later in the journal Physical Review Letters.(5) Their data indicated the presence of a frequency blueshift that was about twice as large as LaViolette had predicted 18 years earlier, but that lay within two standard deviations of the error limits of that prediction. Hence within the limits of error their findings were a direct confirmation of the effect that LaViolette had sought. Since the JPL team reports that they first became aware of an anomalous frequency shift accumulating in the data beginning in the early 1990’s, their discovery of the effect decidedly post dates the publication of LaViolette’s prediction as well as his discussion with the JPL scientist over a decade earlier. But nowhere did their paper mention LaViolette’s prediction. The JPL announcement triggered a flurry of interest from the physics community and received extensive media coverage. As each year passed the number of papers published on this phenomenon sky rocketed, so much so that many journals became flooded with papers proposing all kinds of unusual theories to account for the effect. The inundation was so great that some journals even had to initiate a policy not to consider any papers written on the subject. Apparently lost in this hubbub was the fact that the existence of this maser signal blueshifting effect had already been predicted many years earlier. In 2002 Anderson’s group published a second paper on the Pioneer Effect,(6) but again they made no mention of LaViolette or the subquantum kinetics prediction even though LaViolette had earlier made Anderson aware of it. LaViolette had lost precious time to bring wider attention to his prediction. The vague newspaper article he had read in 1998 gave no details about the magnitude of the frequency shift effect. Not receiving any response back from the letter and book he had sent to Anderson and not receiving the requested journal paper preprint or reprint, LaViolette soon forgot the matter, being at the time entirely engrossed in his new job as a U.S. patent examiner. It was not until news media press releases were again circulating in 2002 about the findings of Anderson’s group and the imminent publication of an updated paper about the effect that LaViolette’s interest was again awakened. At the library he looked up the team’s 1998 publication, and after making a few simple calculations he realized that the Pioneer results they were reporting confirmed his prediction. He attempted again to contact Anderson to alert him to his theory’s prediction. But Anderson would not return any of his emails or phone calls. He managed to alert some of Anderson’s group members to his prediction, but was met with what might be interpreted as a general lack of interest. In an effort to make the physics community aware about his theory’s prediction, LaViolette wrote up a paper about it and its confirmation by the Pioneer effect results. Between April 2002 and December 2004 he submitted it to eight journals, but none would publish it. In March of 2003, he had sent the paper to Professor Jean-Pierre Vigier, one of the editors of Physics Letters A. Vigier expressed great interest in the paper and said he was willing to pass it on to the editorial board for consideration. But before he was able to forward it, he met with an untimely accident, having fallen down the stairs of his home and thereafter lapsed into a coma. LaViolette was asked to resend his paper to one of the other editors who had taken over Vigier’s journal review work. But this other editor took no special interest in his blueshifting prediction, and not surprisingly, LaViolette’s paper was summarily rejected. Finally, at the end of 2003 he submitted his paper to the journal Physics Essays, and after going through a long an arduous review it was accepted, appearing in print in January 2007 after a one and a half year delay due to a backlog in the journal’s publication schedule.(7) LaViolette points out that the anomalous force interpretation advanced by the JPL group is problematic since, if a mysterious force of this magnitude were present, it would also necessarily be pushing the planets towards the Sun and cause their orbital periods to acce- lerate. But, the planetary orbital periods are known to very high precision, and astronomical data shows that no such orbital acceleration effect is present, a point also acknowledged in Anderson’s paper. So on the one hand, we have the JPL scientists advancing their anoma- lous force theory in a somewhat tentative manner, acknowledging that it may be problematic 3

and reasoning after the fact on the basis of results that emerged from careful analysis of the maser data. On the other hand, we have Dr. LaViolette who made his prediction over a decade prior to the effect first becoming noticeable to the JPL group and 18 years prior to the publication of the JPL findings, but receiving no mention in their paper. Most would agree that if a theory makes a prediction and that prediction is later verified, then there is good reason to consider that the theory may be correct and that it should be given serious consideration. Take for example Einstein’s general theory of relativity and his 1917 prediction that gravity should bend starlight. Five years later Sir Arthur Edington and his collaborators carried out an experiment to test Einstein’s theory. During a solar eclipse, they observed the Sun as it passed in front of a background star. As the star approached the Sun’s limb, its light trajectory was bent inward toward the Sun, just as Einstein predicted. Einstein instantly became a celebrity and his special and general theories of relativity thereafter became adopted by physicists all over the world. For some reason the scientific system, that has worked in the past, failed miserably in the case of LaViolette’s blueshifting prediction. As to why the discoverers of the effect showed no interest in citing the prediction is puzzling. Was it their reluctance to part with one of the most sacrosanct laws of physics? Indeed if the subquantum kinetics genic energy blueshifting effect is acknowledged, this would undermine one of the most important principles of physics, the First Law of Thermodynamics. If LaViolette’s prediction were true, it would suggest that this law is routinely violated in nature, although by an extremely small amount. The implications of this would be more far reaching than the early discovery that celestial bodies are capable of bending starlight trajectories. But for some reason, the discoverers of the Pioneer effect were turning their heads the other way. Although LaViolette’s prediction came out of a theory that was quite different from standard field theories, subquantum kinetics nonetheless has demonstrated a very good track record, having had 10 apriori predictions subsequently verified. Furthermore prior to the formulation of the maser signal experiment prediction, the genic energy prediction had already achieved success in accounting for planetary and stellar mass-luminosity data. An early test of the prediction was to determine whether planets such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune might be producing energy in their interiors. The answer was affirmative. Infrared telescope measurements made by various spacecraft showed that indeed they radiated substantial amounts of heat from their interiors. As a further test, LaViolette plotted the mass-luminosity coordinates for each of these planets along the mass-luminosity trend line for red dwarf stars. This relation, first discovered by Sir Arthur Eddington shows that red dwarf stars follow a logarithmic trend on a graph that plots a star’s luminosity against its mass, a stellar luminosity increasing approximately as the 2.75 power of stellar mass. No one had done this before perhaps because planets were assumed to be energetically dead masses in the process of cooling off and hence should not follow the trend line of active stellar bodies. To his surprise the mass-luminosity coordinates for the jovian planets lay along the lower main-sequence stellar mass-luminosity relation indicating that both planets and red dwarf stars were being powered by the same energy generation mechanism. This commonly shared energy source could not be fusion because the temperature and density in the interior of a planet is far too small to support thermonuclear fusion. Also the presumption that the body is cooling and releasing heat from an internal heat reservoir also fails because this energy source is insufficient to sustain the prodigious energy efflux emitted by red dwarf stars. Consequently, the conformance of the planets to the stellar M-L relation is unexplained by standard theories, leaving the genic energy concept to be the only viable explanation. In fact, the subquantum kinetics genic energy relation predicts the proper exponential rise of luminosity with mass. It was precisely by performing a model fit to this planetary-stellar M-L data that LaViolette was able to produce a numerical value for the rate of photon blueshifting in interplanetary space, a testable prediction, and thereby propose his spacecraft maser signal experiment. Higher mass stars, those lying along the upper stellar main sequence, would be powered primarily by nuclear fusion. The existence of two mass-luminosity trend lines, and upper 4

and lower branch, then becomes understandable. Stars belonging to the upper branch would be those in which nuclear fusion was adding its contribution. This genic energy M-L prediction achieved an added success after confirmation of its prediction that brown dwarfs would also conform to the same lower mass-luminosity relation as a low mass extension of the red dwarf trend line. Professor Panagiotis Pappas a physicist at the Technical Education Institute in Piraeus, Greece has publicly stated that “LaViolette deserves two Nobel prizes for his M-L relation finding alone.” It was not only journals that resisted publications of LaViolette’s prediction. The physics internet archive arxiv.org also blocked him from posting a preprint of his paper. Formerly administered by Los Alamos Laboratories, and presently under the oversight of Cornell University, it has now grown to be the central electronic preprint repository for the physics community. This has the advantage of speeding up the communication and exchange of ideas since the journal peer review process can take many months or sometimes years. In fact, numerous papers discussing the Pioneer effect were being posted to the archive’s general relativity/quantum cosmology section. Hoping to make an early announcement of his theory to his physics colleagues, LaViolette attempted to post his paper to the archive, but was repeatedly met with road blocks. Even though he had followed the archive’s posted instructions and obtained a sponsor for his paper, the archive administrators repeatedly withheld their approval. Although one sponsor is normally required, LaViolette had come up with several sponsors all willing to support the papers’ uploading to the archive. One of these sponsors was Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe. Bethe had received the Nobel for his theory that stars are powered by nuclear fusion. LaViolette’s genic energy prediction, though, challenged that notion, suggesting that red dwarfs are instead powered by energy arising from photon blueshifting and that genic energy even makes a substantial 10 to 15 percent contribution to the Sun’s total energy output. Even though he had the most to lose to support the posting of LaViolette’s paper, he was nevertheless willing to back it. Referring to the blueshifting prediction, he said the he felt that LaViolette “may have something there” and that he “didn’t know of anyone else who had proposed something similar.” Bethe made several telephone calls to Dr. Ginsparg, the archive’s director to communicate his support of LaViolette’s admission to the archive, but Ginsparg refused to return his calls. LaViolette them presented them with a third sponsor who had posted papers to the archive on the Pioneer Effect. No response came back. After making repeated requests to allow his paper to be posted, the archive’s administrator finally stated that they wished no further communication with him and suggested instead that he seek publication in a refereed journal. Other physicists who proposed relatively speculative theories to account for the Pioneer Effect were able to post papers to the archive, but did not receive similar treatment. In 2004 LaViolette filed a complaint with the National Science Foundation complaining about the archive’s discriminative practices. Several other dissident physicists who like LaViolette had been blocked from posting their work to the archive subsequently filed lawsuits against both Cornell University and NSF. In an effort to avoid sticky legal proceedings, NSF cut off funding to the arxiv.org program although it is rumored that NSF funds still flow to the program being laundered from other Cornell University research budgets. Learning that others had suffered similar fate and obtaining some of their names, he contacted these physicists and together the group organized themselves into a resistance movement. They eventually launched a website www.archivefreedom.org which criticizes the repressive policies of the Cornell preprint archive and where victims can post stories of what they have gone through. Confronted with this pressure, and reprimanded by National Science Foundation officials, the archive administrators relented and finally allowed LaViolette’s paper to be posted. Although they corralled it into a separate physics category, segregating it from the section forum where papers discussing the Pioneer effect were usually posted. 5

The implications of LaViolette’s genic energy prediction may extend far outside the battle with the white tower physics establishment to embrace society as a whole. Routinely the U.S. Patent Office rejects patents on so called free-energy devices that claim to generate energy without burning any kind of fuel. To do this they cite violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even though the inventor in many cases provides signed affidavits of witnesses claiming to have tested the device and affirming that it works just as claimed, usually the patent is rejected in deference to the sacred law of energy conservation. As a result, many inventions that attempt to provide us with an alternative to burning fossil fuels end up in society’s trash bin. By casting doubt on the absolute validity of this law, the genic energy prediction could help to thaw patent examiners’ prejudiced stance on these technologies. With global warming well upon us, it is time the physics community takes a fresh look at LaViolette’s prediction and does some deep soul searching. If physicists choose to continue to defend their First Law, perhaps we had better start building boats. 1) See list at: http://home.earthlink.net/~gravitics/LaViolette/Predict2.html. 2) Paul A. LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology (Niskayuna, NY: Starlane Publications, 1994, 2003); http://home.earthlink.net/~gravitics/LaVioletteBooks/Book-SQK.html. 3) Paul A. LaViolette, Genesis of the Cosmos: The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation (Rochester, VT: Bear & Co., 1995, 2003); http://www.curledup.com/gencosmo.htm. 4) Paul A. LaViolette, “An introduction to subquantum kinetics.” Parts I, II, and III. International Journal of General Systems 11 (1985):281-345. 5) John D. Anderson, et al., Physical Review Letters 81 (1998): 2858-2863; Eprint http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081. 6) John D. Anderson, et al., Physical Review D 65 (2002): No. 082004; Eprint: http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064. 7) Paul A. LaViolette, “The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of spontaneous photon blueshifting.” Physics Essays 18(2) (2005): 150-163. Eprint available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603191.html. Journal download available at: http://www.physicsessays.com. (Note: although this paper has a 2005 date, due to a backlog in the journal’s publication schedule, it did not appear in print until January 2007.) 6

Hi folks.

In a previous thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1865962/posts?page=632#632

I had posted this stuff but it looks so intricate that it needs its own thread.

Dr. LaViolette is kinda wacky & strange, maybe like Einstein would have been if he had not gained recognition for his theory. He was terminated from the US Patent office because he “believed in” Cold Fusion.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2002_March/ai_86472886

Cold fusion confusion the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s incredible interpretation of religion in LaViolette v. Daley
Army Lawyer, March, 2002 by Drew A. SwankIs cold fusion (1) the equivalent of Catholicism? Is believing in extraterrestrials the same as being an Episcopalian? In the recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decision of LaViolette v. Daley, (2) the EEOC held that the complainant’s unusual beliefs regarding cold fusion, cryptic messages from extraterrestrials, and other “scientific” beliefs are entitled to the same protection in the workplace from discrimination as religious beliefs. (3) This note, by examining the facts of the case, the relevant statutes, agency regulations, and case law, will demonstrate that the EEOC’s ruling has impermissibly expanded the definition of “religion” to the point that it has created a new cause of actionable discrimination—something the EEOC has neither the power nor the authority to do.

Genesis

Paul LaViolette had been a patent examiner with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) until he was fired on 9 April 1999. (4) On 28 June 1999, LaViolette filed a formal complaint of discrimination, alleging that the PTO fired and refused to rehire him based upon his “unconventional beliefs about cold fusion and other technologies.” (5) The Department of Commerce, of which the PTO is part, dismissed LaViolette’s complaint on 13 September 1999, for failure to state a claim within the purview of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (6)

LaViolette appealed the dismissal, arguing that “`discrimination against a person on account of his beliefs is the essence of discrimination on the basis of religion.’ Therefore, he contends, his scientific beliefs in cold fusion are protected.” (7) The EEOC reversed the agency’s dismissal of his complaint and remanded it for further processing. (8) While an agency must dismiss a complaint of discrimination that fails to state a claim, (9) here the EEOC held:

In determining which beliefs are protected under Title VII, the Supreme
Court has held that the test is whether the belief professed is sincerely
held and whether it is, in his own scheme of things, religious....
Moreover, in defining religious beliefs, our guidelines note that “the fact
that no religious group espouses such beliefs ... will not determine
whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee ...

In the instant case, complainant argues that his unconventional beliefs
about cold fusion and other technologies should be viewed as a religion and
therefore protected. Complainant claims he was terminated and denied the
opportunity to be rehired because of religion, which embodies his cold
fusion beliefs. Therefore, under the applicable law noted above, we find
that the agency improperly dismissed complainant’s claim of discrimination
for failure to state a claim. (10)
While the EEOC subsequently stated that it did not determine the validity of LaViolette’s complaint, (11) by allowing the case to go forward, it has extended Title VII protection to scientific beliefs. In doing so, the EEOC not only misapplied its own regulations, but also ignored the statutes and case law that govern it and exceeded its statutory mandate as well.

Numbers

The ultimate question presented by LaViolette’s complaint is whether his scientific beliefs deserve the same protection from discrimination as another’s religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (12) provides that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” (13) It defines religion to “include all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” (14) Title VII has been interpreted “to protect against requirements of religious conformity and as such protects those who refuse to hold, as well as those who hold, specific religious beliefs.” (15)

The EEOC, responsible for enforcing Title VII, (16) is required by its own regulations to adopt Title VII’s definition of religion. (17) As Title VII’s definition of religion is circular (religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice), (18) the EEOC’s regulation further adds that

[i]n most cases whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at
issue. However, in those cases in which the issue does exist, the
Commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical
beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the
strength of traditional religious views. This standard was developed in
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States,
398 U.S. 333 (1970). The Commission has consistently applied this standard
in its decisions. The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or
the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to
belong may not accept such a belief will not determine whether the belief
is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee. The phrase
“religious practice” as used in these Guidelines includes both religious
observances and practices, as stated in section 701(j), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j).
(19)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.