Home

Interviews for This Week

10/8/2013

I will be speaking with my good friend Micah Hanks on the Gralien Report, Tuesday, October 8 at 8:00 PM ET (I will be coming on at around 8:20). This will be a fascinating interview. Find us at http://gralienreport.com/podcast-and-radio/.

Join me Friday, October 11 at 9:00 PM ET with host Charylene Simpson McCain on The Paranormal and the Sacred. Tune in on the BTR Network at www.blogtalkradio.com/char-mccain/2013/10/12/thomas-p-fuscoauthorscience-and-paranormal-researcher.

2 Comments

Dan Gurzynski

10/14/2013 02:01:27 pm

I've heard you speak a few times and your ideas seems quite interesting. The question I have is do you have the math to back up your claims of a scientific theory? If you do, great. I will buy your book. If you don't, that's all you have. Just another book of fuzzy ideas without the focus of the language of science to develop any kind of actual basis for experiment. Now I am pretty sure you don't have the math so why would you go out like this? Same reason they all do. To get a few sheckels from a gullible public. I wish you well.

Tom

10/17/2013 01:55:00 pm

I appreciate your interest. It's obvious that your comment is cast as an antagonistic challenge. Fair enough. Let me help you out with a number of your misconceptions about science in general and about my work in specific that you are obviously confused about. First, science is a process of observation, asking a question about the observation, forming an hypothesis and testing it. That testing begins by presenting pertinent questions relating to the scope of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis provides meaningful answers to all the presented questions in a consistent way (in other words, does not have to make exceptions to its own rules to answer certain of the questions), the hypothesis is then elevated to a theory. My work has already passed that test. As for the predictive experiments, you're obviously not aware of the numerous experiments that supergeometric theory suggests and predicts the results. Some of these experiments have already been conducted and yielded these predicted results. Among these are certain experiments in paranormal investigation regarding effects such as temporal and gravitational fluctuations, as well as offering a unified and coherent explanation for all secondary paranormal effects. In the field of particle physics, a confirming result came late last year with findings from the LHC indicating that supersymmetrical particles do not exist, a finding predicted by the supergeometric model. Another is that quantum wave functions are not just mathematical abstracts, but represent real supergeometric superpositions that collapse into matter points upon deceleration to luminal velocity and below. Among cosmological predictions yet to be tested are the decrease in the ratio of gravitational effect to visible mass the further we look out to the edge of the universe, and that early cosmic expansion was due to the superluminal state of the initial moments of the Big Bang. With regard to the math, many valid theories exist in the field of science without any math. There are many examples from numerous scientific disciplines, as I suspect you well know. And of course, there's Einstein's relativity theory. It is well known that Einstein conceived it through observation and thought experiments, after which he spent ten grueling years working out the math. However, in its original conceptual-only form, it was already a theory that answered the pertinent questions posed to it that existing theories could not (which justified the ten years of mathematical work). All theories begin as conceptualizations. I am very upfront in my talks and my writings that supergeometrics is such a conceptual theory. I don't mind people tossing challenges at my work, and even welcome it. But when someone doesn't like what I have to say, yet they're incapable of debating the subject on its merits, they sometimes make up imaginary targets they feel they're capable of hitting and that the "gullible public" as you say might be fooled into believing there's some substance to it. While your challenge sounds valid on the surface even though it doesn't address a single element of the theory (and although the stabs in the middle framed by the insincerities at the beginning and end display its passive-aggressive nature), an examination of the actual facts exposes it for the sham that it is. Nice try though. Thanks again for writing.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

About the Author

Thomas P. Fusco has devoted nearly three decades of research into the relationship between mind, physics, spirituality, parapsychology, scientific anomalies and paranormal phenomena with the goal of uncovering the unifying cosmological framework that has eluded mankind for generations. He has been invited to speak as a guest on over 100 national and international radio programs, including Coast To Coast AM.

RSS Feed

Interviews for This Week

Leave a Reply.

Archives

About the Author