Proving a Negative

Proving a negative — especially when the negative one is trying to prove happens to contradict the existing mainstream scientific paradigm — is a tough and often thankless assignment.

In this case I have assigned it to myself, and walk the same high-wire daredevil act as all citizen scientists and philosophers have walked before me throughout history.

As humans, this is an eternal golden braid we carry from generation to generation — a braid which links back to the elements of the universe of which we are one.

The negative cannot be proven, as far as we know, and the efforts to prove it have taken up whole lifetimes and whole academic departments at countless universities for millennia. The negative is so very negative that it exists as the greatest scientific and philosophical paradox.

Science demands observation and measurement. Our new quantum models of the universe allow for measurement and observation at the local scale, but rule both out at the deeper universal substrate. A science which makes its own rules about observation and measurement, but which can never — according to emerging quantum and astronomical science — accomplish either, is a dead science.

The now-dying science was an industrial science, and at odds with the concept of a compassionate, loving, beautiful, mathematically and scientifically harmonious science.

The new science is very much alive, very in tune with a more positive, powerful, and beautiful concept of humanity.

As explored in both historical and modern terms in Gravity’s Quantum Angels, this new science springs from decidedly harmonious roots.