Behind The Cosmic Veil has been marked as “temporarily out of stock” on Amazon.com. I understand that it will be back in stock in about a week, so you can still order the book with confidence and receive it with only a minor delay. We are taking steps to insure that there will always be stock on hand in the future. If you have an immediate need within the next several days, please contact us and we’ll see what we can do. In the meantime, thank you all for your understanding. Your patronage and support is much appreciated.
From time to time, I come across other works on alternative theories of reality. One of these is a self-published work that’s boldly entitled The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon. At the heart of it is what he calls expansion theory, which is the idea that certain processes like gravity are really the result of expanding bodies. In other words, you are held to the ground because the earth, being a larger body, is expanding at a greater rate than your own smaller body, and so is basically rising up to meet you. He continues by providing answers to all kinds of scientific puzzles by applying this same principle, sometimes in remarkably clever ways. McCutcheon has a background in engineering and mathematics, and so he presents numerous mathematical “proofs” for his theory.
I was at first intrigued by the concept, but as I looked further into it, something kept nagging at me. While he’s chalked up a few positive reviews, all are from persons without backgrounds in physics, and most have no qualifications at all. I’ve no doubt that the sensational title garnered extra attention, just as does any outrageous statement when compared to one more reserved. The favorable comments focus exclusively on how well the book was written and how eloquently the ideas are expressed, (a sure sign of targeted reviewers) especially in how it identifies and defines current scientific anomalies, and how it gets you to think about how many mysteries about the universe still remain. I could find no qualified review that gave any positive comment about the soundness of the theory itself.
But there was still something not quite right, even beyond the substanceless reviews, some critical element that was missing in this kind of universal model. Looking further into it, I came upon some of the book’s content. One of the experiments McCutcheon presents as evidence describes two balls connected by an elastic band. When one ball is held straight out, the other one hangs below, and the weight of this second ball stretches the band. Now according to him, the standard theory of gravity states that when the first ball is released, both balls should remain in the same relative position to one another as they fall at the same rate to the floor. What happens instead is that the elastic band contracts as the assembly falls, causing the two balls to travel at different rates of speed. He then claims that this is a mystery of which every scientist is aware, but none can explain—a mystery that only his theory solves.
It was this last statement that blew me away. How could anyone miss such an obvious and elementary detail? I then understood why the positive comments came from unqualified readers—I can assure you that this “mystery” puzzles no physicist. The flaw in his reasoning is the failure to include the force of the experimenter’s hand as one of the elements! It is that force against which the elastic band stretches. Once that force is removed, of course the band will contract. It made me wonder whether the author was serious or if the entire work was based on similar gimmicks and written almost tongue-in-cheek. After all, to proclaim that Newton and Einstein were largely mistaken and deceived displays a level of arrogance to which any serious person would hardly aspire. How could such loose logic lead to any kind of a sound theory? I then found a few negative reviews (that they were from qualified, unsolicited readers is no surprise) that pointed out numerous other physical observations that McCutcheon overlooks, is unaware of, or simply ignores because they don’t fit into his model. Of course he knows he’s unlikely to get caught by a layperson, but if any of his targeted reviewers do, he just simply doesn’t publish that review.
My point in all this is not to throw stones at this particular author’s work. There’s a long history of theories that accomplish their goals by excluding data that doesn’t fit into the theory’s model. I side with Einstein in such matters—any candidate for a final “theory of everything” must be capable of explaining all observable phenomena in a consistent and uniform way. But I believe that to truly fulfill this criterion, we must take into consideration “all observable phenomena,” even those that physicists typically exclude. Paranormal phenomena, the genesis of life from inanimate matter and the human mind’s ability to create what it conceives are all as much a part of observable reality as particles, gravitational fields and galaxies. No theory of everything, however cleverly contrived, will ever be complete without including these in its reckoning.
An AP article of 9/8/11 announced the discovery of two unusual primate skeletons near Johannesburg as the most promising candidate to date for an ancestor to Homo Sapiens. The brain, hand and foot show characteristics common with both modern man and pre-human primates, representing a transitional form. It’s being hailed as a “game-changer” in evolutionary theory.
I devoted some time in Behind The Cosmic Veil to exposing how statements made to the public by the scientific community are sometimes misleading and occasionally outright dishonest. The field of evolution seems more prone than others to these misleading imperial edicts. A few of the statements made by paleontologists in the AP article illustrate this unfortunate habit. The trick is that you have to look at what they say very carefully to catch them in the act.
Darrel J. DeRuiter of Texas A & M is quoted; “This is what evolutionary theory would predict, this mixture of Australopithecene and Homo.” “It's strong confirmation of evolutionary theory.” Richard Potts of the Smithsonian Institution is quoted; “[The features of these skeletons] force a rethinking of how traits are coupled together in human evolution.” “The more we learn about human evolution, the more we see that traits that must have happened together could occur separately”
Here are the hypocrisies that lay bare this scholastic sleight-of-hand. How about the statement, “It's strong confirmation of evolutionary theory.” What? Haven’t they been telling us for decades both in the classroom and in public forums that evolution has been firmly established? And yet, in the excitement of the moment, they let slip that they’re still in the process of confirming it? Do you feel violated yet? Read on.
This fuss over these skeletons is not about evolution in general, but about one of the two evolutionary anomalies that have been internally dubbed the “trade secrets”—disquieting facts that if discussed openly would be bad for business. The one in question is evolution’s difficulty in explaining the co-evolution of interdependent traits within a given species in terms of gradual, incremental changes as proposed by the theory. For example, a giraffe’s long neck is depended upon a beefed up circulatory system. In order for the creature to be viable, both traits had to evolve together in a synchronous and sensible (intelligent?) way. No advantage would accrue from one without the other, and would simply be a pointless waste of the animal’s resources. One of the most extreme examples of this is the whale, which is supposed to be a land mammal that transitioned to the water. Changes like legs into fins, the opening of a blowhole, development of a specialized nipple that can only work in the water in its current form, specialized skin, and a transition from normal milk (that would make feeding impossible underwater) to one that is the consistency of toothpaste, would have all had to co-evolve simultaneously in a coordinated and functional way. And yet, when you stop to think about it, any transitional form would not yet be able to function adequately in the water to justify the changes, while at the same time increasingly crippling the creature’s ability to function on land. Imagine a creature with half limbs and half fins trying to swim or hobble around on land, or a transitional nipple and milk that makes it challenging to feed young in either environment. How do any of these afford each successive intermediary creature with advantages over its predecessor? It cannot be properly explained according to the standard model of evolution.
The co-evolutionary traits at question in these skeletons are brain size and hip structure. A human-like, broad hip has always been found associated with an enlarged brain. In this case, the creature has a broad hip with a small brain. This is the “confirmation” spoken of, in that the two traits not being co-evolutionary appears at first to overcome this evolutionary anomaly by allowing each trait to evolve independently: “…we see that traits that must have happened together could occur separately”.
But there are still two problems. First, the brain of this creature was configured differently than other primitives in that its structure was more in line with an evolutionary path to modern humans. So a division between human-like hips and human-like brain structure is still not proved by this specimen to be distinct in nature, but only in size. Secondly, these two traits are not co-dependent as they are in most cases like the giraffe and the whale, so that these skeletons do little in overcoming this co-evolutionary enigma.
And finally, we have the statement, “This is what evolutionary theory would predict.” Huh? Wasn’t the discovery remarkable in that it displayed co-evolutionary features that were not predicted? I thought instead that the discovery forced “…a rethinking of how traits are coupled together in human evolution.” Which is it?
Don’t you wish you had a job where you establish your own standards by which the integrity of your work is measured, and then you can change them on the fly anytime you find it convenient? This is science? Sign me up!
The argument here is not against evolutionary theory, but against these kinds of scholastic shenanigans, which need to stop if we are to make real progress in finding the ultimate Truth.
I’ve been working very hard at fleshing out this site with what I see as important and relevant articles (see right sidebar), and so I haven’t had time to add to the blog. I’ve got only a couple more articles to write, but I feel there’s enough material now to provide some substance of value to the visitor. I can therefore take some time to catch up on current events here.
Reports appeared in late August that physicists working with CERN’s Large Hadron Collider are coming to accept that the Higgs boson—a particle fundamental to the current view of the universe—may not exist after all. The LHC is sufficiently powerful to uncover this particle if it exists as theorized. They are simply running out of places where it could be hiding.
The ramifications of this are very significant. The Standard Model of the universe has for decades served as science’s description of how the universe is put together and works. While it’s not without its problems, it has been the best universal model so far in that it answers most of the physical questions posed to it about universal processes (although it allows no place within its walls for spirituality or the paranormal). Fundamental to its soundness is the premise that every process has a material cause. Confirmation of this philosophy hinges in part on three hypothetical particles or materials—the graviton (required for expressing gravity as a material force), dark matter (needed to explain why close to 90% of the gravity in the universe has no associated mass generating it) and the Higgs boson (which provides a material cause for mass), all which have never been discovered.
According to the Standard Model, it was gravity that caused the primordial cloud of the Big Bang to begin coagulating into galaxies and stars to commence the fusion process that causes them to burn. Gravity is supposed to be generated by mass. The hypothetical Higgs boson is what purportedly imparted mass to early particles, and in doing so began the process of shaping the universe. This is why it’s often called the ‘God’ particle (see the article The End of Materialism and a Return to God for a more detailed description). Without this particle, there is no materialistic explanation for the birth of gravity. The failure to detect it has scientists talking now about pursuing a ‘new’ physics. In the absence of the Higgs and its brethren, the formula necessary to eliminate the hand of a creator-God in the shaping of the cosmos still cannot be written.
The failure to find these hypothetical particles lends added weight to the Supergeometric Model set forth in Behind the Cosmic Veil. While this model is not dependent on the absence of the Higgs boson, it explains the phenomenon of gravity without the need for it. The creation of gravitational fields without the need for adjacent material mass affords a sound, uniform solution for many anomalous observations from paranormal phenomena to UFOs, and opens a door to the reality of a Prime Order that preceded the universe based not just on faith and inner awareness, but on pragmatic reasoning as well.
I am happy to announce the launch of this website as the companion to the new book, Behind the Cosmic Veil: A New Vision of Reality.
When this book project began 29 years ago, the world was a different place. The IBM PC had been on the market for only about a year, and you could own one for the tidy sum of $4000 in today’s money—that is, as long as you could figure out what to do with it. It had also been only a year since the launch of the first space shuttle, and the release of the Iran hostages. 1982 began with an inflation rate of 8.39%, and ended with an unemployment rate of 10.8%. The emergence of the World Wide Web was years away. Cable television was available in very limited markets, purchased primarily by those outside the range of good antenna reception, and was limited almost exclusively to the transmission of conventionally broadcasted network stations. Popular TV shows were M*A*S*H, Dallas, and Three’s Company.
The subject of paranormal phenomena was still considered a taboo to mainstream culture and science. The majority of books on the topic were relegated to the New Age rack at the bookstore, and consisted mostly of sensationalized ghost stories and other spooky tales aimed more at entertainment than serious inquiry. Of the few serious scientific published works, most were devoted to disproving altogether the existence of paranormal phenomena. The groundbreaking TV series Sightings that investigated the paranormal, and the fictional series The X-Files, both of which raised awareness of the supernatural and helped bring it more into the public conscious were a decade off.
Physicists were still in the process of collecting sufficient data and observations to enable them to even ask the right questions about the fundamental nature of the universe and reality. The Hubble Telescope, a key source of this vital data, was not to be launched for another 8 years. Electron microscopes were not yet powerful enough to view structures on the atomic level. The first protron-antiprotron collider went online just the previous year, and the high-energy Tevatron in 1983. The failure of the latter to yield the anticipated findings (like the discovery of the elusive Higgs boson) resulted in the “build it a little bigger” philosophy that led to today’s giant CERN Large Hadron Collider that became fully operational in 2009.
Things are different today. The flurry of recent TV shows devoted to the paranormal are for the first time presenting case studies and hard evidence to a widespread audience. The proliferation of affordable digital media devices in the hands of private citizens who are recording evidence of UFOs, apparitions, EVP and other strange occurrences, coupled with the power of the Internet to immediately publish them to a worldwide audience is making it increasingly untenable for old-school deniers to simply dismiss these experiences as so much delusion or hysteria. The continuing difficulties in finding the physical evidence needed to conclusively confirm the Standard Model of the universe is leading an increasing number of physicists to explore the possibilities of a “new physics” in which scientific materialism gives way to a vision of the cosmos that includes both physical and extra-physical elements. This revolution carries with it the prospect of a new scientific validation for principles long held by those of faith to replace the outworn arguments pitting science against religion in a world where the importance of spiritual concerns has grown increasingly marginalized by the modern trends of social secularism and mass consumerism. It is truly an exciting time to be alive.
Both the book and this website are dedicated to those hearty souls who are not satisfied with pre-packaged, stock explanations championed by the establishment. It’s for pioneers, free thinkers, and those with a genuine thirst for Truth. I will be posting here regularly with the latest news, reviews and commentary on matters relating to the theme of the book. I welcome you to contribute your viewpoints and insights by posting your comments.
It is my honor and privilege to join with all of you in our mutual quest for the ultimate Truth.
—Thomas P. Fusco