Welcome all to my blended site of Consciousness, Physics and Philosophy.  This site is undergoing a very slow rebuild.  If any of these fields interest you, you'll likely find something here that resonates. Eye popping facts and wonder?  Stop reading this and just tap/click menus, then Musings and Prose - at the top, Of All the Gin Joints; There's You....a metaphorical journey of the odds of your existence and why it really really should mean something to you.  Which then will lead to a falsifiable model for consciousness found in the post The Odds Equation.

No existence after death?  I beg to differ:  The Resonance Trail - a 6 Sectored investigation outlining the known science that shows awareness does not end with our last breath.  It’s not Heaven, but it might be a Stairway.  Not a quick read either - but thorough and condensed as I could be.  If you're interested in life after death studies - either for yourself or for those we grieve - this is the one if you read anything at all on here.  

Physics and Consciousness: You'll notice "resonance" is a common theme in my theoretical work.  Since I have published hypothesis' in here, I must state that I am an "independent researcher/construct" - if one needs to apply a label to me.  I have no ties to any brand of thought. I am not funded, nor am I tenured. What this means is I can still dare to wonder.  Some are museum pieces, but many have potential - and danger - as noted in my idea of Emotional Mapping, and found in the menu.  Interested in mental health?  That's the one to check out.  

If up to it, I invite anyone to peruse my physics papers listed in this terrible web host (Weebly). The most important of them, by far, is an embedded PDF under My Own Theory of "Everything".  The Theory of Everything has several names in the field of physics - in short, it is a theoretical framework of physics that should explain and link together all aspects of the universe.  I always include a 'Plain English' summation after each one if you're interested in physics but don't necessarily need to understand what the eloquent equations mean.  Mine is merely a contribution to the Theory of Everything.  

​Feel free to critique anything I have on here.  

​Hucksters of Science: A Field Guide to the Digital Merchants of “Truth”
 
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance—it is the illusion of knowledge.”
—Stephen Hawking
  
Spend a few minutes scrolling your social media feeds, and you’ll see it: A parade of modern sages, each promising the keys to the universe.  Every era has its hustlers. Today, ours have swapped the traveling wagon for a Facebook ad, the tonic bottle for a pixelated Zoom call, and the hand-lettered promises for AI-generated sales copy.
 
Scroll your feed for five minutes, and you’ll find them: modern mystics, secret science whisperers, and “law of attraction” coaches rewrapping old faith-based certainties in shiny new packaging.  They’ll promise you wealth, reunion with the dead, secret universal truths, and limitless consciousness - all in a free webinar that segues, inevitably, into a paid upsell.
 
Some drape themselves in cosmic jargon.  Others lean on institutional prestige.
A few do both, with promises of clarity and hyper awareness.  In an age flooded with information, the real scarcity is humble uncertainty - the courage to admit what nobody fully knows.  Instead, we get manufactured certainty - packaged, monetized, and algorithmically targeted.
 
If you’re here because something about the idea of resonance - of the universe as more than a sterile mechanism - feels intuitively real, you’ve come to the right place.  But let’s be clear about the difference.  I’m not standing on a soundstage, wearing a headpiece microphone, screeching about the “secret” I discovered one evening during an existential moment.  I’m not selling a course that guarantees enlightenment if you sign up before midnight.  I’m not even promising I’m right.
 
All I’m offering is a process - a way of thinking through these questions carefully, transparently, and without pretending the evidence says more than it does.  I am merely sharing my own intuitive ideas, tied to science, and presented. You either jive with it or you don’t.  But to my defense, my physics papers are absolutely not fluffy foo foo; they are most definitively falsifiable.
 
If you read any of what I’ve put together - like the Resonance Trail or the Odds Equation - you’ll see much of it builds directly on what the gatekeepers themselves have blessed. Certainly all of my physics papers follow that incorporation.  I’ve just followed the threads a little further into the dark, past where the consensus narrative usually stops. 
 
I will never claim certainty.
I won’t tell you this is the final word.
I won’t even say it’s free - because “free” suggests I think awareness and abundance are products I have the right to price.
 
Some questions - about why we’re here, what consciousness is, or whether anything persists after death - are too meaningful and mysterious to convert into a checkout page.  All I can do is share what I’ve found, honestly, and hope it helps you assemble your own piece of the puzzle.  I may be a random nobody to most, but I can promise you this – everything I’ve published comes with zero angle.  Just one physics paper takes more work than packing a suitcase and flying to the next Hilton conference center to regurgitate a script for an entire year.  I can’t imagine how ridiculous I would feel standing before people exploiting them for money like I’m some sort of authority.  There are literally thousands of persons, like yourself, like me – pondering, searching, hoping.  There isn’t a single one person though, on the entire planet - that has the definitive answer we seek.  I certainly don’t, but for me, the things I tear down and dissect to rebuild, allows me to move through this marvelously crazy life with a better understanding – albeit still mysterious – of the incredible architecture of how things work. 
 
If nothing else, it’s proof that you don’t need to be credentialed, anointed, or algorithmically amplified to be allowed to wonder.  And you certainly don’t need to pay someone either.
 
Let’s tour this strange bazaar of belief:
 
1. The Mystics and their Dopamine Hits:
 
Open Instagram or Facebook, and you’ll find them:
• Ads for “AI-powered ancestral communication.”
• Videos promising “quantum resonance activations.”
• Invitations to free webinars that end in a predictable upsell.
 
Consider The Shift Network, a platform marketing “multidimensional awakening” courses. Or Humanity’s Team, offering paid summits on how quantum physics proves you are already immortal.
 
How it works:
1. Invent a vocabulary blending science and spirituality - “quantum,” “resonance,” “vibration.”  Fringe speculation dressed up in the language of quantum physics. 
2. Frame confusion as evidence you need their help.
3. Offer limited-time access – one you sign up for a free email that later requires your payment details.
4. Promise privileged access to insights no one else can see.  ‘Give me money; I’ll give you everlasting knowledge’. 
 
The psychological hook is obvious:
If reality feels uncertain or disappointing, these offerings deliver a neatly packaged narrative - meaning on demand.
 
 
Example:
• Gregg Braden blends geology with unverifiable claims about hidden codes in DNA.¹
• Nassim Haramein asserts that black holes exist inside subatomic particles - a claim unsupported by credible peer review.²
 
Why it succeeds:
Because everyone is searching for meaning, and these offers deliver a convenient narrative - instant transcendence, no uncertainty required.
 
Here’s a few other examples that routinely come across my personal feeds:
 
Dr. Joe Vitale and the Law of Attraction
 
“How long does it take to attract something?” the ad asks. The answer, naturally, is always just a little longer - and requires one more course, one more coaching session.
 
The Law of Attraction is the ultimate non-falsifiable promise:
• If it doesn’t work, you didn’t believe hard enough.
• If you question it, you’re blocking the abundance.
• If you run out of money, you can always manifest more.
 
PragerU’s “How Did the Universe Begin?”
 
This one has an entire all you can eat whole buffet:
• Aliens? Check.
• The multiverse? Check.
• God? Of course.
• Simplistic roadmap (just learn this, and poof—enlightenment).
 
No need to pick a worldview when you can just swirl them all together into a cosmic smoothie that promises answers - but never delivers anything but clicks and ad revenue.
 
The through-line in all of these? Recycled faith-based promises of “do this, get that.”
 
It’s the same model that sold medieval relics and 20th-century diet pills:
1. Declare a problem you didn’t know you had.
2. Offer a miraculous fix.
3. Sell it as urgent, exclusive, and secret.
 
So here’s your reminder:
If someone promises certainty about the mysteries of life, the universe, and everything - for the low price of your attention, your money, or your credulity - be skeptical.
 
There are no shortcuts to meaning. And the people claiming to have them are usually the ones who benefit most from your search.
 
 
2. The Credentialed Gatekeepers
“It’s easy to be a science communicator when you never communicate uncertainty.”
 
At first glance, these figures appear to be the antidote to pseudoscience.
After all, they have credentials.
They have TV specials.
They have bestselling books.
 
But look closer: many have simply packaged orthodoxy (Accepted theories….like the Big Bang for example) as a product of their own. 
 
Examples:
• Neil deGrasse Tyson - whose media persona depends on crisp soundbites, not nuanced debate.
• Bill Nye - who shifted from children’s programming to adult pop-science punditry, rarely updating the tone.  
• Brian Cox - the BBC’s philosopher-physicist, who can be relied upon to restate consensus in soft lighting and warm smiles.
 
Their offer:
• The reassurance that science has nearly everything figured out. 
• The promise that your confusion ends where their authority begins.
 
The unspoken contract:
• They avoid speculations that might alienate institutions.  Think Harvard.  MIT. 
• They rarely acknowledge the deep uncertainties about consciousness or cosmology.  Their hands do the talking, as their mouths babble oft-repeated physics fun or some cosmic discovery that teams of working cosmologists have discovered – as if they had a hand in it.  Yawn. 
• They position dissent as unserious or fringe.  Full sleep. 
 
When Tyson declares philosophy obsolete,³ or Cox dismisses the study of consciousness as trivial,⁴ they’re not simply educating - they’re enforcing the boundaries of acceptable curiosity.
 
3. The Quiet Outsiders
 
“Consensus is frequently late to the truth.”
 
If the loudest voices are either the mystics selling secret shortcuts or the credentialed communicators reciting consensus, there remains a third group - smaller, often ignored.
 
These are the ones without a marketing funnel.  Without a branded media persona.
Sometimes with credentials, sometimes without.  What they share isn’t just skepticism of the mainstream.  It’s an unwillingness to outsource their curiosity.
 
They are not promising you cosmic certainty for $199.
They are not begging for your trust because of the letters after their names.
They are simply saying: maybe there is something real here, and maybe you should look for yourself.  This is where the better truths often live: in the spaces between the canned certainties of institutions and the convenient miracles of pop mysticism. These outsiders - some credentialed, some not - ask questions that reductionism can’t fully answer:
 
• Why do probabilities so vast that they defy comprehension, yet still manifest as our lived experience?
• Why does the intuition of consciousness as something non-trivial keep returning in every culture, every era?
• Why does reality, under close inspection, resemble a resonance field more than a simple mechanistic clock?
 
They are the ones who:
• Develop probabilistic models – things like the Odds Equation - that reductionists would likely laugh at and ignore.
• Chase hypotheses that mainstream journals won’t consider.
• Refuse to abandon curiosity in the face of eye-rolls and ridicule.
 
But this dismissal isn’t proof of emptiness.  It’s proof that the boundaries of accepted inquiry are enforced by the same groupthink the gatekeepers pretend to despise in religion.
 
The quiet outsiders do something different:
They work without a guaranteed audience.
They publish without guaranteed validation.
They think without permission.
 
And while not every maverick is right, every real advance - scientific, philosophical, existential - has come from precisely this posture: the willingness to risk looking foolish in order to say something true.
 
So if you find yourself here - on the margins - don’t be quick to trade your convictions for applause.  Better to stand outside the club and follow your own trail of evidence than to be celebrated for repeating ideas that no longer satisfy.
 
Historical parallels abound:
 
For every credentialed figure who has spent a career defending the boundaries of what’s “serious,” there are countless examples of thinkers who were ignored, ridiculed, or erased - simply because they didn’t fit the mold.  Some lacked degrees.  Some had credentials but dared to challenge the consensus.  All were inconvenient reminders that truth rarely emerges fully dressed in institutional approval.
 
Consider these cases:
 
Albert Einstein
In 1905, while working as a patent clerk, Einstein published the special theory of relativity - including the famous equation E = mc².  He hadn’t yet earned his doctorate.
He held no faculty appointment.  He was dismissed by many as an amateur tinkerer with impractical ideas.
 
Gregor Mendel
An Augustinian monk, Mendel quietly bred pea plants and discovered the laws of inheritance.  His findings were ignored for 35 years, until other scientists independently confirmed them.  Today, he’s called the father of genetics.
 
Ignaz Semmelweis
Semmelweis proved that simple handwashing could prevent deadly infections in maternity wards.  His colleagues were so offended they ostracized him.
He died in an asylum, his work vindicated only decades later.
 
Alfred Wegener
Wegener, a meteorologist - not a geologist - proposed continental drift.
He was scorned as a dilettante and dragged relentlessly.  Half a century later, his idea became the foundation of plate tectonics.
 
Barbara McClintock
Her discovery of “jumping genes” was treated as fringe speculation.
She eventually stopped publishing out of frustration.
Thirty years later, she won the Nobel Prize.
 
Srinivasa Ramanujan
A self-taught Indian mathematician, Ramanujan mailed his theorems to Cambridge scholars.  At first, they doubted his legitimacy.  Then they realized he’d independently derived results that would shape modern mathematics.
 
Mary Anning
A working-class woman with no formal education, Anning unearthed fossils that rewrote natural history.
Her discoveries were often credited to male scientists.
Only in recent decades has she received proper recognition.
 
 
 
 
Nikola Tesla
While Tesla trained as an engineer, much of his work was conducted outside academic circles.  He was derided for pursuing wireless energy transmission.  His “impractical” ideas laid the groundwork for the electrical infrastructure we now take for granted.
 
These stories are not nostalgic trivia.  They are a living rebuke to both extremes of the modern marketplace of certainty:
• To the credentialed gatekeepers, they say:  Be careful dismissing unconventional inquiry - history shows you will often be wrong.
• To the pseudoscientific marketers, they say:  Genuine discovery doesn’t need a webinar funnel. It doesn’t shout about hidden secrets to drive conversions. It speaks in the quiet language of evidence and persistence.
 
The paradox is simple:  Real breakthroughs often emerge where neither the orthodox nor the opportunistic are willing to look.  They come from thinkers who:
• Had no guarantee of acceptance.
• Had no ready-made audience.
• Had no incentive except curiosity itself.
 
So if you ever wonder whether you are wasting your time pursuing an idea no one takes seriously, remember this:
 
Consensus is a lagging indicator. It always arrives late to the truth.
 
If you’re reading this, you’re likely not trying to build a brand or defend an orthodoxy.  You’re just searching. Your curiosity is the commodity these groups trade in:
• The mystics want you to buy the promise.
• The celebrities want you to buy the orthodoxy.
• The outsiders ask you to consider that neither is complete.
 
If you feel confused, good.  Confusion is the hallmark of honest inquiry.
 
In Closing:
 
The next time someone offers you prepackaged certainty either in book form or a $49 webinar - whether wrapped in sacred geometry or presented by a smiling hack in a white coat - pause and consider:
• Is your confusion being exploited?
• Is your wonder being flattened into ideology?
• Is your trust being traded for profit or status?
 
Certainty is cheap to produce and easy to sell.  Real understanding takes patience, humility, and the willingness to say:
 
“I don’t know—and maybe no one does.” 
 
A Note for the Sincere Searchers
 
If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you’re simply trying to understand your place in a complicated universe.
 
You are the real target market - because your longing to know is the commodity all these players trade in:
• The mystic entrepreneur wants you to buy the promise.
• The celebrity scientist wants you to buy the orthodoxy.
• The outsider (me) asks you to consider that maybe neither side has it fully right.
 
Here is what I can offer you, with no funnel attached:
 
There are no shortcuts to meaning.
Certainty is cheap because it is easy to manufacture.
Skepticism is essential - but it should be applied in all directions, including toward the people telling you skepticism has an endpoint.
 
If you feel confused, congratulations - you’re alive and thinking.
 
In Closing
 
There will always be salesmen eager to hand you certainty in a box - sometimes spiritual, sometimes scientific.  The antidote is not to retreat into cynicism, but to keep your curiosity intact even when it makes you uncomfortable.
 
References
 
¹ Gregg Braden, The God Code (Hay House, 2004).
² For critical analysis of Haramein’s physics, see: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/nassim-haramein.49417/
³ Neil deGrasse Tyson, “Philosophy is a Waste of Time,” Big Think: https://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-philosophy-is-a-waste-of-time/
⁴ Brian Cox on The Infinite Monkey Cage (BBC Radio), describing consciousness as an “emergent epiphenomenon.”
 
Postscript
 
If you ever doubt yourself for questioning - remember:
 
The greatest breakthroughs began as unpopular questions.  Stay curious. Stay skeptical - especially of those who claim skepticism has an endpoint.  Better to stand outside the club and follow your own trail of evidence than to be celebrated for repeating ideas that no longer satisfy.