1. One man's G.U.T.

The following is a simple exercise where I satisfied myself that black holes have a variable density with size. Hope I got it right. Forgive the poor representation of scientific expressions in excel.

[IMG][/IMG]

2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

conk (12th April 2017), DeDukshyn (13th April 2017), toppy (12th April 2017), Victoria (20th February 2020), yelik (12th April 2017)

3. Re: One man's G.U.T.

In the previous post I calculated various densities for different sized black holes. When they get really big, they are much less dense than the kind of body postulated by conventional science. In the following scribblings, I postulate what it might look like for us, if we were inside a black hole. Not the kind of black hole that one normally considers. It is one that is expanding due to an ENERGY INCOME.

http://imgur.com/kUnfWqR

http://imgur.com/IYVdtY4

http://imgur.com/IvqTRFg

http://imgur.com/7c8o0iR

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

toppy (12th April 2017), Victoria (20th February 2020)

5. Re: One man's G.U.T.

Ok, so things that I will post on this thread.

1. Philosophical and esoteric musings about Micheal's material
2. Personal experience of Michael the man, and his general beliefs and personality
3. My own documentation from memory of what he said - how he described the universe under his own model
4. Any pieces of physics I am able to write, like the ones above, that form a glimpse into the material. sorry, but I may make mistakes.
5. Raw material from Michael's work- probably scans - that will be hard to get into or understand but may be - if Michael was right - important documents.

The work I face is to get further into this stuff. That is hard, so aims for the future are to work on it, write more, investigate etc. It is like a trail of crumbs leading into a forest. I have taken a few steps. I hope to get help to penetrate the forest and/or transcribe and share the work that he wrote extensively about. The way the world is going right now, I feel that this work needs sharing. If anybody would like to receive raw scans of the equations ASAP, pm me with your email.

6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Flash (17th April 2017), toppy (12th April 2017), Victoria (20th February 2020)

7. Re: One man's G.U.T.

Posted by Baby Steps (here)
The following is a simple exercise where I satisfied myself that black holes have a variable density with size. Hope I got it right. Forgive the poor representation of scientific expressions in excel.

http://imgur.com/NqjsqSi
Looks like too much time (for me) would be needed by my brain to fully understand and verify all your math ... unfortunately - always loved advanced math -- skipped too much class That said, member Whitelove appears to be a mathematician ... Perhaps he could chime in?

8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

Baby Steps (13th April 2017), Flash (17th April 2017), Victoria (20th February 2020)

9. Re: One man's G.U.T.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
Posted by Baby Steps (here)
The following is a simple exercise where I satisfied myself that black holes have a variable density with size. Hope I got it right. Forgive the poor representation of scientific expressions in excel.

http://imgur.com/NqjsqSi
Looks like too much time (for me) would be needed by my brain to fully understand and verify all your math ... unfortunately - always loved advanced math -- skipped too much class That said, member Whitelove appears to be a mathematician ... Perhaps he could chime in?
Many thanks - yes. Once I have got more of it on here I will be sharing thread too.
I am talking about an algebraic model for the universe that solves out all the observed & measured phenomena...

It is 'Heresy' , and the man who shared with me was highly intelligent, sincere, and sane.

It has the hallmarks of a paradigm shift - dumping out much of our current physics, (not relativity), and requiring a totally different set of assumptions about the reality we are experiencing. The algebra is beyond me, but the titbits I grasped when I studied it PRODUCED the correct background flux temperature from a set of assumptions. There is also a trail of algebra that derives newtonian gravitation from modelling a rotating black hole. This I am trying to find. You can see that such titbits ARE impressive and DO MERIT further investigation.

The model I shall be describing is consistent with the 'Electric Universe' material that I have seen.

Conventional physics has one thing to recommend it - they often have the humility to admit that they have no idea what is going on.

They cannot detect neutrinos ( Michael says they are imaginary particles, but the quantum of energy is correct)

They cannot account for gravity or what charge actually is.

They postulate black holes in the centre of galaxies, but proof is thin on the ground

They give up on algebra and write novels like 'A brief history of time' to earn a crust

and for me, the biggest flag that they are barking up the wrong tree is that , as they model stuff, observe, measure etc, their models ACQUIRE INCREASING LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY, EXTRA PARTICLES ETC. This indicates that fundamentals are wrong..

It reminds me of when they were trying to model the movement of planets while postulating Earth in the centre. Those mechanical models had to deal with retrograde and squiggly motion observed. They got very complex, before they gave up and put the sun in the right place!

10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

DeDukshyn (13th April 2017), Flash (13th April 2017), Foxie Loxie (18th April 2017), Michelle Marie (15th April 2018), Victoria (20th February 2020)

11. Re: One man's G.U.T.

The following semantic descriptions are in no way meant as a substitute for the Algebra. Michael consistently described his model as following. Conversations mostly took place in the 90’s. I eventually spent time studying the physics with him and scratched the surface. I hope my memory serves.

The universe is an inside-out black hole. There was a ‘big bang’ event approximately 19 billion years ago. At that point 17 billion magnetic monopoles formed.

These particles when modeled algebraically are shown to produce two magnetically colimmated jets of high energy photons which shoot out in opposing directions. It is these jets that are the source of very high energy radiation that we detect – the ‘cosmic bursters’ that our current models struggle with, as any envisaged event that could produce such energy would be bigger than anything seen.

The monopoles – or QUASARS, are in fact the central builders of each galaxy. Conventional science cannot account for the organization and structure of our galaxies without postulating dark matter, but this is nonsense. Macroscopic black holes – except our universe- are also a myth.

When matter agglomerates due to gravity, such as is a large dying star, the particles are pressed together until the pressure approaches the ‘limiting Einsteinian force’ at which point there is a massive explosion, but no ‘black hole’ forms.

The Schwarzchild equation for the radius of a black hole applies to ‘our edition’ of the universe, and it also describes our fundamental particles, such as electrons, protons & neutrons.

The volume of matter/energy produced by the quasars is a constant, and feeds into the universe at a rate that allows for the universe to fulfill the model of a black hole, expanding at a radial speed of light , C, divided by the square root of 2, with the surface spin at the same speed, resulting in a surface velocity of C. This also applies to fundamental particles.

He described the background flux as an image of the universe at the ‘moment of recombination’, I think. He meant that it was the point at which the hot young plasma universe started to form particles. He took me through the maths for red shifting this image, which surrounds us, from our point of view, and recedes from us. The hand written piece in my second post shows that the energy income for a black hole expanding as described , if red shifted correctly, produces the correct cosmic background flux temperature.

He also mentioned a torsional energy component to the universe and I could not grasp it.

He talked about a ‘thought ship’ that could be used to investigate the shape of space-time. You could go in two directions. OUTWARD to the CENTRE or INWARD to the SURFACE.

The outward journey is to point the magic ship towards the background flux (the inside surface, of our black hole universe, or nearly). To fly towards this red shifted source would heat up the detected temperature, but to reach it, one would have to go faster than C, and in fact go back in time. If one did this, and arrived at the moment of recombination plasma cloud, things would be VERY hot, and the ship would have travelled back at least 99% of the universe age. One would, by flying outwards, have arrived near the centre.

The other thought ship journey is inwards to the surface. We fly into an electron. As we approach the event horizon of the black hole electron, we observe space time stretching greatly, and the universe we have flown from begins to recede into a tiny dense mass. At the event horizon of the particle, space-time flips over, and we see that the electron does, in fact, encapsulate the rest of the universe. IT rotates around the universe that it surrounds. This would apply to EACH BLACK HOLE PARTICLE. The rotation around the rest of the universe is the source of the radial acceleration towards the rest of the universe, and from this model, he derived Newtonian gravitation.

He stated that all particles, from one point of view are one thing, connected by ‘perfectly inelastic’ black-hole event horizon. This is how information, energy (such as the ‘neutrino’ quantum of energy) could seemingly disappear. Energy is not created or lost, it just travels ‘around the event horizon of the universe’.

He talked about an isolated electron – contained magnetically – that, lacking anything to orbit, automatically starts to orbit the whole universe, in some way. So I think it entangles. It allows for instant communication over vast distances if there is another electron somewhere else, held in the same condition. One would displace the other , so there is the potential for a signal.

He stated that his ‘general equation of physics’ unifies all of physics, and correctly predicts our observed universe.

He stated that there were potentially infinite parallel editions of the universe.

He stated that he was ‘the first man to weigh the universe’

He talked about the gross weight and the ‘all-up relativistic weight’. There are separate equations for both.We have a black hole, a known weight from schwarzchild, an energy income, but we also have relativistic effects to consider. Which weight is the correct one- either the body as it is, taken as a snap-shot by an ‘olympian observer’ from outside, OR the relativistic weight. This would be from our view-point. (and time point). This would mean that some galaxies, at the far end of the hyper-sphere from us, would be younger, and receding from us at a large fraction of C. Relativistically, they would , since travelling rapidly relatively to us, have a huge weight due to velocity. Would the relativistic weight from any given observers point of view WITHIN the universe be greater due to this effect? Under this model, these far off galaxies would be younger and carry less matter.

The super brilliant quasars that are seen at great distances are, under this model, simply young galaxies who’s image has been gravitationally lensed.(magnified)

He stated that another way to model the universe was as a tachyon, slowing down.

Oh Michael, I am sorry that I have remembered so little. I will continue digging…

12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Foxie Loxie (18th April 2017), Michelle Marie (15th April 2018), Victoria (20th February 2020)

13. Re: One man's G.U.T.

I cannot patent the general equation of physics or its uniquely specified working universe model for two reasons:

1. The general equation of physics specifies a universe model that is inherently a perpetual motion machine. The Patent Office will not accept for examination the specifications of any perpetual motion machine.
2. The patent of the grand equality of material measurement and state specifying our universe belongs rightfully to its original author, who first set it to work to make a universe in which mortals would invent computers and write programs for them to exercise.
But I have the right to the copyright of my work on the great equation and its correct universe model. If you consider who must be the originator of the general equation of physics you may well decide not to cheat over royalties on His major oeuvre. I only found the great equation. But such a cat’s cradle of algebra does not emerge from literally mindless nothing. The equation that governs and builds the universe is the genuine sweat of a peerless, conscious, purposeful, benign creator’s mind.

Michael Kirsch
I believe that Michael was keen to share his discoveries widely. He mailed out material incessantly. He attributes the equations to a creator, but copyrights ‘his work on the general equation’. He dies a few years back, and I believe that any rights should reside with this family. I think this amounts to his desire that HE is credited with discovering this material, but his equal desire that the material is made available to mankind, for universal benefit. It would be unfair, therefore for the scans of his work that I will share, not to be attributed, but the algebra is there for all to exercise and investigate.

Apologies for the addendum- Michael did not get on with his siblings - who rubbished his work. The people he wished to benefit from his work are the human race, plus his immediate family, including children and grand children.

14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Flash (17th April 2017), Foxie Loxie (18th April 2017), Michelle Marie (15th April 2018), Victoria (20th February 2020)

15. Re: One man's G.U.T.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Michelle Marie (15th April 2018), Victoria (21st February 2020)

17. Re: One man's G.U.T.

PREDICTIONS OF 'THE GENERAL EQUATION OF PHYSICS'

- There are no macroscopic black holes except for the actual universe. There can be large dense objects, such as brown dwarfs
- Gravity- who's origin is geometrical and the result of circular motion - propagates instantaneously across vast distances
- The central energy source with jets that we see in the centre of galaxies is a sub atomic magnetic monopolar particle
- We will never detect neutrinos as a particle
- We will never find 'gravitons' or exchange particles
- The rate at which our hyperspherical universe expands is a constant, and will never slow or stop
- There are higher physical dimensions and charge is spin in the 5th dimension

God bless

18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Foxie Loxie (20th April 2017), Michelle Marie (15th April 2018), Victoria (21st February 2020)

[IMG][/IMG]

20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Michelle Marie (15th April 2018), Victoria (21st February 2020)

[IMG][/IMG]

22. The Following User Says Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Victoria (21st February 2020)

23. Re: One man's G.U.T.

[IMG][/IMG]

¤=[Post Update]=¤

[IMG][/IMG]

24. The Following User Says Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Victoria (21st February 2020)

25. Re: One man's G.U.T.

[IMG][/IMG]

¤=[Post Update]=¤

[/IMG]

¤=[Post Update]=¤

[IMG][/IMG]

26. The Following User Says Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Victoria (21st February 2020)

27. Re: One man's G.U.T.

Michael Kirsch – the Man I knew

Michael was a child refugee who came to the UK in the late thirties from Germany. He settled here and brought up his family.

He had a career in PR & Journalism before he started his work on physics in the seventies.
I first met him when I was five, so ’72. He became a family friend and Michael, my father and I often went swimming and enjoyed animated conversations over Chinese food for decades.
Michael was very clear about his model, and eventually I put in some time with him studying the algebra, but I did not get very deeply into it. However what I saw was startling. The seemingly crazy assumptions – that we are inside a black hole, that has an energy income- can model the background flux temperature and accounts for gravity, attracted my attention.

Michael sent his work to scientists, governments and Journals. He spent time with some established scientists, but to no avail, and he became unhappy that nobody seemingly accepted his work. Maybe the time was not right.

Michael was highly intelligent, kind, generous and gentle. He meticulously worked to ensure that as many of his human interactions as possible communicated this. Michael was Jewish, and a stout defender of Israel, but not strictly religious. He believed in ‘God’ and said that if we were good enough we would be ‘re-created in the mind of God when we died.’
He believed that there was a Jesus, and that the universe was a huge machine, created by ‘God’ to facilitate consciousness- that ‘God’ was exploring love & friendship.
His model certainly makes one wonder if we are in an intelligently designed system.

Michael was self taught in maths & physics. He was a great reader of scientific American and New Scientist. I believe that it is no coincidence that paradigm shifts emerge from minds that are less programmed by the prevailing ‘certainties’, as these can stunt our capacity to think outside the box.

Michael believed that ‘God’ spoke to him once, and it was just one word: ‘ WRITE’

Michael had some brilliant views on other topics that we discussed.

He believed that the arms industry was so lucrative that the large companies involved had a vested interest in promoting war, fear and instability. He felt that our governments were taking great risks co-habiting with this, in a nuclear world.

He had a solution – which was to offer an equally lucrative opportunity to those companies – to assist them to beat swords into plough-shares. This was by setting up a global renewable energy project.

He looked at economics with a scientist’s eye. He believed that the key to unlocking vast prosperity for all was, in our current resource limited paradigm, to increase the input of energy – which would naturally increase added value & wealth and eradicate poverty .
The prime technology he supported was OTEC- ocean thermal energy conversion. This entails huge floating steel and concrete ‘rigs’ that utilise a volatile substance to harvest energy from the temperature gradient in the sea. This would be used to produce Hydrogen. The PROCESS is proven, but I am not sure about the economics.
He suggested that this would produce up-welling of the nutrient rich deep sea water, once heated slightly, and thereby promote fisheries. Even the construction of a large number of these huge units would promote industry. Again he tried to promote his ideas on this, but did not receive any credit.

He hit upon a brilliant idea to promote his physics model. The equations are complex- why not write a programme to exercise the expressions, that throw out results that agree to the observed Universe? This he did- he mastered the Atari ST programming language, and mailed out discs to anybody who showed an interest. The idea was not that you would open the programme, and input some assumptions, and be impressed that the programme produced outputs that corroborated to the observed universe.
His objective was that once one had SEEN that the programmes predict our observed universe correctly, one would then go into the source code to see how his equation were being exercised. Very clever. I toyed with ST emulators at one point.

28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Valerie Villars (7th May 2018), Victoria (21st February 2020)

29. Re: One man's G.U.T.

[IMG][/IMG]

¤=[Post Update]=¤

[IMG][/IMG]

¤=[Post Update]=¤

[IMG][/IMG]

30. The Following User Says Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Victoria (21st February 2020)

deleted.....

32. Re: One man's G.U.T.

SEVEN MAJOR MEASURABLE UNIVERSAL PARAMETERS IN THEIR FUNDAMENTAL ALGEBRAIC RELATION

[IMG][/IMG]

http://imgur.com/xrGV8zC

33. The Following User Says Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Victoria (21st February 2020)

34. Re: One man's G.U.T.

SOME NOTES ON HUBBLE

from wikipedia:

The universe goes beyond the Milky Way galaxy

The 100-inch Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory that Hubble used to measure galaxy distances and a value for the rate of expansion of the universe.
Edwin Hubble's arrival at Mount Wilson Observatory, California in 1919 coincided roughly with the completion of the 100-inch (2.5 m) Hooker Telescope, then the world's largest. At that time, the prevailing view of the cosmos was that the universe consisted entirely of the Milky Way Galaxy. Using the Hooker Telescope at Mt. Wilson, Hubble identified Cepheid variables (a kind of star that is used as a means to determine the distance from the galaxy– see also standard candle) in several spiral nebulae, including the Andromeda Nebula and Triangulum. His observations, made in 1922–1923, proved conclusively that these nebulae were much too distant to be part of the Milky Way and were, in fact, entire galaxies outside our own, suspected by researchers at least as early as 1755 when Immanuel Kant's General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens appeared. This idea had been opposed by many in the astronomy establishment of the time, in particular by the Harvard University-based Harlow Shapley. Despite the opposition, Hubble, then a thirty-five-year-old scientist, had his findings first published in The New York Times on November 23, 1924, and then more formally presented in the form of a paper at the January 1, 1925 meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

Hubble's classification scheme
Hubble's findings fundamentally changed the scientific view of the universe. Supporters state that Hubble's discovery of nebulae outside of our galaxy helped pave the way for future astronomers. Although some of his more renowned colleagues simply scoffed at his results, Hubble ended up publishing his findings on nebulae. This published work earned him an award titled the American Association Prize and five hundred dollars from Burton E. Livingston of the Committee on Awards.
Hubble also devised the most commonly used system for classifying galaxies, grouping them according to their appearance in photographic images. He arranged the different groups of galaxies in what became known as the Hubble sequence.
Redshift increases with distance
In 1929, Hubble examined the relation between distance and redshift of galaxies. Combining his measurements of galaxy distances with measurements of the redshifts of the galaxies by Vesto Slipher, and by his assistant Milton L. Humason, he found a roughly linear relation between the distances of the galaxies and their redshifts, a discovery that later became known as Hubble's law.
This meant, the greater the distance between any two galaxies, the greater their relative speed of separation. If interpreted that way, Hubble's measurements on 46 galaxies lead to a value for the Hubble Constant of 500 km/s/Mpc, which is much higher than the currently accepted value due to errors in their distance calibrations.
Yet the reason for the redshift remained unclear. In reality, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist, predicted on theoretical grounds based on Einstein's equations for General Relativity the redshift-distance relation two years before the discovery of Hubble's law. However, many cosmologists and astronomers (including Hubble himself) failed to recognize the work of Lemaître, with, to date, no remaining papers or verification that they found or accepted any link between Lemaître's work and Hubble's measurements. Hubble remained doubtful about Lemaître's interpretation for his entire life. In 1931 he wrote a letter to the Dutch cosmologist Willem de Sitter expressing his opinion on the theoretical interpretation of the redshift-distance relation.
Mr. Humason and I are both deeply sensible of your gracious appreciation of the papers on velocities and distances of nebulae. We use the term 'apparent' velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority.
Today, the "apparent velocities" in question are understood as an increase in proper distance that occurs due to the expansion of space. Light traveling through stretching space will experience a Hubble-type redshift, a mechanism different from the Doppler effect (although the two mechanisms become equivalent descriptions related by a coordinate transformation for nearby galaxies).
In the 1930s, Hubble was involved in determining the distribution of galaxies and spatial curvature. These data seemed to indicate that the universe was flat and homogeneous, but there was a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. According to Allan Sandage,
Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."
There were methodological problems with Hubble's survey technique that showed a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. In particular, the technique did not account for changes in luminosity of galaxies due to galaxy evolution. Earlier, in 1917, Albert Einstein had found that his newly developed theory of general relativity indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Unable to believe what his own equations were telling him, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant (a "fudge factor") to the equations to avoid this "problem". When Einstein learned of Hubble's redshifts, he immediately realized that the expansion predicted by General Relativity must be real, and in later life he said that changing his equations was "the biggest blunder of [his] life." In fact, Einstein apparently once visited Hubble and tried to convince him that the universe was expanding. Hubble also discovered the asteroid 1373 Cincinnati on August 30, 1935. He wrote The Observational Approach to Cosmology and The Realm of the Nebulae approximately during this time.
In December 1941, Hubble reported to the American Association for the Advancement of Science that results from a six-year survey with the Mt. Wilson telescope did not support the expanding universe theory.
A very good video intro:

Relationship between Hubble ‘constant’ and universe age

Looking into current conventional thought, which I am trying to understand, Hubble convinced Einstein that the universe was expanding with excellent evidence from red shifting (higher red shift or recession speed as the galaxies are more distant from us) plus Cepheid variables. It is accepted that the universe is expanding from an origin point, which was the big bang. Because they postulate that all the matter/energy was created at that point, they see it as a kind of battle between the momentum of the expanding mass from the initial explosion, and the gravitational pull acting to slow the mass down and potentially collapse it back in, eventually returning to the mysterious singularity that they do not understand. In order for the above to work, they need an ‘inflation period’ very early on, where , as with 9/11, the laws of physics are temporarily suspended so that they can hold on to their faulty perceptions.

They then say that whether the universe collapses back in or continues its outward movement relates to the amount of ‘dark matter’. This is the stuff that they have created, that has no measurable evidence supporting it, but is needed to account for the level of organisation observed in galaxies, again this is based on the erroneous assumption that galaxies arranged themselves due to gravity only. They need ‘dark matter’ to hold themselves together. A model including a central building quasar does not need all the invented stuff to work.

They describe the Hubble number as a constant. This means that galaxies are receding from each other at a constant rate. This sounds odd, as to be a constant, it would mean that the momentum of the galaxies exactly balances the gravitational attraction and the universe is ‘critical’- or expanding at a steady rate. See attached pdf, this does not work, as the modelling of globular clusters puts a limit of 13 billion years on the universe age- no younger. So criticality does not hang together in a universe without a mass/energy income.

In Michael’s physics, the Hubble Constant is called the Hubble variable. It is the inverse of the universe age. Simple. ‘ The Hubble time is the right time’. See the following graph-estimate for the Hubble ‘constant’ has changed over time but is converging now.
Michael insisted that the universe was over 19 billion years old, and that would support some of the earlier estimates for Hubble. Perhaps somebody has been cooking the books to fit observed phenomena...

Age-of-universe.PDF

[IMG][/IMG]

35. The Following User Says Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Victoria (21st February 2020)

[IMG][/IMG]

37. The Following User Says Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

Victoria (21st February 2020)

38. Re: One man's G.U.T.

uh-oh

security shenanigans have started - thanks for the confirmation, guys!