+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 4
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: One man's g.u.t.

  1. Link to Post #61
    Avalon Member ndroock1's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Posts
    68
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 123 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: One man's g.u.t.

    Who is Michael the man?

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ndroock1 For This Post:

    Baby Steps (29th June 2019), Bill Ryan (20th October 2019)

  3. Link to Post #62
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,399
    Thanks
    14,916
    Thanked 6,357 times in 1,254 posts

    Default Re: One man's g.u.t.

    Quote Posted by ndroock1 (here)
    Who is Michael the man?
    hi,
    thanks for having a look, I wrote a bit about him in post 6. He died about 8 years ago. He was in PR and Journalism before he started working on his theories.

    In the time I spent with him, I was able to conclude that he was a sane, sincere genius, who cared very deeply about the human race and it's future

    addendum: also post 14
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 29th June 2019 at 08:24.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

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

    Bill Ryan (20th October 2019)

  5. Link to Post #63
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,399
    Thanks
    14,916
    Thanked 6,357 times in 1,254 posts

    Default Re: One man's g.u.t.

    NO QUARKS

    In the following article from NewScientist, we are getting hints that Quarks do not exist.

    I remember discussing this with Michael, he stated that conventional science is wrong and Quarks are a fiction. Again I cannot recall more detail. My take is that the approach of smashing things together at very high energies may not be showing us much. The thinking is that if you get to a higher enough energy in a particle collider you will find the fundamental building blocks of matter. So far not. If Protons, Neutrons & Electrons are woven from black hole event horizon as Michael said, smashing them together might send out fragments that rapidly decay or re-integrate with the universal black hole continuum.

    It is possible that things temporarily form that are unstable, but give the impression of being an object, when in reality they are just decaying fragments. So far there is not much on-line that I could find regarding this, I am sure there is more to come....


    Quote What the quark?! Why matter's most basic building blocks may not exist


    Quarks are the subatomic particles thought to make up nearly everything we can see. Now it turns out they could be an illusion created by quantum trickery
    PHYSICS 2 October 2019
    By Joshua Howgego


    Andrea Ucini

    FINNEGANS WAKE has a reputation for being one of the most difficult novels in the English language. Written by James Joyce over 17 years, it blends invented words with real phrases in grammar-defying constructions. The final line ends mid-sentence – only for you to realise that the words that should come next are the ones at the book’s beginning. Some say it is Joyce’s attempt at recreating a dream. Others claim that it contains no meaning at all.
    It might seem odd, then, that a nonsense word from this most ungraspable of books should have given its name to a particle known as the building block of reality: the quark. In modern physics, a quark is what you would find if you were able to take a piece of matter and cut it in half again and again until you could cut no more.
    Quarks are as fundamental as anything can be. But they are also exceedingly weird. They have strange quantum properties known as flavour and spin. They crave each other’s company, clustering together in pairs or triplets. And they have a special sort of charge that comes not in the positive or negative variety, but in colours.

    And now, in a twist to rival that of any experimental novel, it seems quarks may not actually exist. According to tantalising new research, they may instead be an illusion, the product of quantum trickery we don’t yet fully understand.
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 20th October 2019 at 17:42.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

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

    Bill Ryan (20th October 2019), Cara (21st October 2019)

  7. Link to Post #64
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,399
    Thanks
    14,916
    Thanked 6,357 times in 1,254 posts

    Default Re: One man's g.u.t.

    Continuing the series of article shares relating to hints we are seeing that the Universe may be much older than 13.8billion years, we have the very old Methuselah star


    See post 54 and post 57 for more evidence


    Quote THE MYSTERIOUS STAR THAT APPEARS TO BE OLDER THAN THE UNIVERSE


    The oldest known star seems to be older than the universe itself, but a fresh study is facilitating to clear up this apparent enigma.



    Earlier study had projected that the Milky Way galaxy's so-called "Methuselah star" is up to 16 billion years old. That's a problem, as most scientists agree that the Big Bang that made the universe happened about 13.8 billion years ago. Now a team of astrophysicists has derived a new, less ridiculous age for the Methuselah star, combining information about its distance, brightness, composition and structure.





    "Put all of those constituents together, and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a remaining doubt that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the cosmos," study chief author Howard Bond, of Pennsylvania State University and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, said in an announcement.

    The uncertainty Bond refers to is plus or minus 800 million years, which means the star could truly be 13.7 billion years old — younger than the cosmos as it's presently understood, though just barely.

    A mysterious, fast-moving star:

    Bond and his team utilized NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to study the Methuselah star, which is more officially known as HD 140283. Researchers have known about HD 140283 for more than 100 years, as it journeys across the sky at a comparatively rapid clip. The star moves at around 800,000 mph (1.3 million km/h) and covers the width of the full moon in the sky every 1,500 years or so, scientists said.





    The star is just passing through the Earth's neck of the galactic woods and will ultimately rocket back out to the Milky Way's halo, a populace of earliest stars that surrounds the galaxy's acquainted spiral disk. The Methuselah star, which is just now swelling into a red giant, was perhaps born in a dwarf galaxy that the nascent Milky Way gobbled up more than 12 billion years ago, scientists said. The star's long, looping orbit is possibly a residue of that intense act of cannibalism.






    Distance makes the difference:
    Hubble's calculations permitted the astrophysicists to polish the distance to HD 140283 using the principle of parallax, in which a change in an observers' location — in this case, Hubble's variable position in Earth orbit — translates into a shift in the deceptive position of an object.

    They discovered that Methuselah lies 190.1 light-years away. With the star's distance known more accurately, the team was capable of working out Methuselah's intrinsic brightness, a need for calculating its age.

    The researchers also applied present theory to learn more about the Methuselah star's burn rate, composition and internal structure, which also shed light on its possible age. For an instant, HD 140283 has a comparatively high oxygen-to-iron ratio, which takes the star's age down from some of the former estimates, scientists said.





    In the end, the astrophysicists estimated that HD 140283 was born 14.5 billion years ago, plus or minus 800 million years. Additional studies could help bring the Methuselah star's age down even more, making it clearly younger than the universe, scientists said.

    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

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

    Bill Ryan (20th October 2019), Cara (21st October 2019)

  9. Link to Post #65
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,399
    Thanks
    14,916
    Thanked 6,357 times in 1,254 posts

    Default Re: One man's g.u.t.

    This is a follow up post to post 6

    IF SIZE IS RELATIVE COULD MOTION BE RELATIVE?

    Michael stated that the universe had two geometries that apply equally. I would say that he meant two distinct view points.

    Firstly to define the 'Olympian' view point, or the realm of imagination. A place outside space time, that you can only get to in your imagination(leaving aside spiritual considerations). This is the formless void outside the universe, where no space exists, nor physics. It is the place into which the universe expands. A view of this would be that the boundary of space time, or the black hole universe is defined as where the first photons from the big bang have reached.

    As an Olympian, one can exist outside that boundary, and observe. But in that realm, there is no physics, and NO SUCH THING AS SIZE. In that realm, from that view point, the universe you are holding in your hand can be seen as a small fixed object, like, say, a nut.

    As Michael said, the expanding universe is in a swirling, rotating motion. But what about from the Olympian view point? The motion does not go away! Instead the olympian sees this motion as a swirling, never ending collapse in upon itself, towards seeming infinite density in the centre. This is more that a philosophical exercise, as that collapsing in motion is then described as half of the c resultant speed at the black hole event horizon of each particle. The Olympian observes each particle spinning at c/root 2 but also collapsing in - getting smaller - at the radial c/root2, to get us to the c required for space time to turn in on itself at the event horizon of each fundamental particle.

    It follows from this logic, that from our point of view, within the universe, all of our particles are expanding. We will not notice, as it is all happening simultaneously.

    As the work of Einstein tells us, space time compacts - not stretches out as I previously stated- in the vicinity of the black hole's event horizon. This means that for us in physical space time, if we were able to approach the black hole event horizon of a proton, neutron, or electron, WE would experience compaction of space time..

    I did not get to this point with Michael, but what I am wondering is, if we were able to approach that particle, and we entered the region of extreme space time compaction near the event horizon, would we SHRINK? Would that particle get larger and larger from our point of view ?

    Micheal stated that as we approach the event horizon, the curvature of space time approaches infinity, and this was a way that he used to postulate the space time flip- from being encapsulated, to encapsulating. The particle encapsulates the rest of the universe. They all do simultaneously.
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 9th November 2019 at 23:52.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 4

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts