Kaidan from Arkona

I’m currently reading a book by Don Richardson. He has several very interesting books about his life as a missionary. I am reading the book that refutes the Big Bang Theory, A Man from Another World, EA Books Publishing 2016

It is not an easy book to read, but it is presented in a very friendly fashion. Kaidan is a visitor from beyond our galaxy, and he has come to point out the error in our ways concerning our ideas on cosmology. He is from the planet Arkona, which may be in another galaxy, but we share the fact that we are all created. Shouldn’t we agree on the process? And, oh by the way, he has 24 other planets that are pretty much aligned with a better theory than the Big Bang.

So the book continues with a teaching seminar with 500 of the top terrain scientists who are almost rabidly in favor of the Big Bang. Kaidan is very kind, but he points out some embarrassing concepts that are held with no foundation in logic.

I love a good story, and if the story teaches, I’m a big time fan. There is one problem though. The book assumes that some of the basics of cosmology are understood.

What’s wrong with that assumption? What thinking person hasn’t spent some time pondering the very nature of creation? It’s the most important piece of scientific inquiry that we have. Where did we come from? Are we riding on the back of a turtle or not? Let’s sit down and reason together, come up with the answer(s).

I must admit I’m more familiar with cosmetology than cosmology. The book uses words that are mostly in English, and in most cases the words are simple, like Big Bang Theory. This tricks you into thinking that you understand. After reading two thirds of the book I can clearly state that the air is fairly thin, and what I thought I knew was… just plain simpleton crap. Now, Don comes along with his fiction based character to offer even more of the stuff that I didn’t understand in the first place.

I remember this happening once before. I picked up Bill Bryson’s book where he actually explains the Theory of Relativity. I was thrilled, I understood it for a full day. The next day I was back to being a dullard. Except this time, in Don’s book, as soon as any theory was mentioned, my eyes just glazed over.

One concept did crystallize, apparently the Big Bang Theory does not consider magnetism, because ions did not exist, and ions create magnetism. So planets had to form by gravity alone. But Kaidan’s Theory includes ions and magnetism, so planets are formed with gravity aided by magnetism.

This must be important if true. And what would it take to understand the truth? It can’t be just words, because I’ve tried that. It’s like trying to understand another language by having the speaker talk louder. It doesn’t help!

I would like to think I have the ability to finish this book. Apart from the random boredom that sometimes occurs, I have never given up on a book. I plodded through to the end with James Joyce’s Ulysses, and I learned the classic meter of Nikos Kazantkakis’ The Odyssey; A Modern Sequel. Having said that, this little two hundred page book is kicking my butt.

I can’t read it louder, but perhaps I can read it slower.

About johndiestler

Retired community college professor of graphic design, multimedia and photography, and chair of the fine arts and media department.
This entry was posted in Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Kaidan from Arkona

  1. Hans De Keulenaer says:

    I’ve experienced a simular feeling a couple of times. E.g. David Foster Wallace’s history of infinity, a book on an equally fascinating topic that doesn’t require require any prior mathematics according to the author, but then goes on to talk about subjects in math that only are covered in PhD courses. In such case, you have a choice for either a deep dive into the field, or resorting to an impressionist reading. I’d go for the latter.

    • johndiestler says:

      Haha, tell me more about the impressionist reading. Are you simply hoping for an impression or is it like the art movement- it isn’t reading, but it is an impression of it. Works for in either case. Have you seen Nikos’s work?

      • Hans De Keulenaer says:

        I meant impressionist as in looking from a distance, as opposed to analytical reading, as in reading all the words but not trying to understand every sentence, as in trying to see the forest rather than the trees.

        Who is Nikos?

  2. johndiestler says:

    An American film that was very popular was Zorba the Greek, based on a book written by Nikos Kazantkakis. Americans are generally not familiar with his written work.
    One work of his was based on a proposed sequel to the life of Odysseus. Nikos assumed that Odysseus would not be happy to be a simple king on Ithaca, so he gathers up the youth of the island and heads off to discover the source of the river Nile. Lots of adventures along the way.
    A good read once you get used to the meter.

Leave a Reply