+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 65

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

  1. Link to Post #41
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    Update: For the record - I still have some of the discs- for an Atari ST 1080 -
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  2. Link to Post #42
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    here we have some more tit-bits from NewScientist.

    Really puzzling. The great minds have got so much right - like relativity and quantum physics. But still they are lost. In the following, some of them are wondering whether, in fact there IS NOT a giant black hole in the centre of our Galaxy... I wonder why they are uncomfortable with this idea? I am. My discomfort stems from a feeling that our Universe is a life support system, and it seems a bit nihilistic to suggest that the very centre of each galaxy is a great destructive plug-hole leading to an inexplicable singularity!

    Quote When is a black hole not a black hole? When it’s a boson star

    Astronomers are confident they know what the mysterious massive object at the Milky Way’s heart is – but our first direct view this year could bring a shock
    By Stuart Clark
    FASCINATING, bamboozling, vaguely terrifying: black holes are the love-to-hate monsters of the universe. These insatiable cosmic cannibals are concrete predictions of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have. Even so, theorists long debated whether they could exist – until astronomers saw the first signs of them. Now we see black hole paw prints all over: in huge stars collapsing in on themselves, in distant collisions of massive objects that set the universe quivering, and in the dark hearts of galaxies including our own.
    This year, we should have the clincher: the first direct image of the supermassive black hole at the Milky Way’s centre. But as we gear up for that shadowy mugshot, some physicists are entertaining a maverick thought: what if it isn’t there?
    The new word is that our obsession with black holes might have blinded us to the existence of something even stranger – a basic phenomenon of particle physics whose significance we have failed to grasp. After all, there’s good reason to want whatever is at our galaxy’s heart not to be a black hole. For a start, black holes make a nonsense of quantum mechanics, the best theory of everything-besides-gravity that we have.
    It is a speculative idea as yet, to be sure, but there are sound reasons to contemplate it. “We scientists tend to be completely arrogant about what we think we know,” says theorist Luciano Rezzolla of the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany
    More on what a boson star could possibly be, thanks wikipedia:

    Quote Boson stars

    A boson star is a hypothetical astronomical object that is formed out of particles called bosons (conventional stars are formed out of fermions). For this type of star to exist, there must be a stable type of boson with self-repulsive interaction; one possible candidate particle is the still-hypothetical "axion" (which is also a candidate for the not-yet detected "non-baryonic Dark Matter" particles that appear to compose roughly 25% of the matter in the Universe).
    As of 2016 there is no significant evidence that such a star exists. However, it may become possible to detect them by the gravitational radiation emitted by a pair of co-orbiting boson stars.
    Boson stars may have been formed through gravitational collapse during the primordial stages of the big bang.At least in theory, a supermassive boson star could exist at the core of a galaxy, which might explain many of the observed properties of active galactic cores.
    Boson stars have also been proposed as a candidate dark matter object, and it has been hypothesized that the "Dark Matter Halos" surrounding most galaxies might be viewed as enormous "Boson Stars."
    The compact boson stars and boson shells are often studied involving fields like the massive (or mass-less) complex scalar fields, the U(1) gauge field and gravity with conical potential. The presence of a positive or negative cosmological constant in the theory facilitates a study of these objects in the de Sitter or Anti-de Sitter spaces

    More on puzzling science from NewScientist:


    Quote The cosmological constant
    In, out, in, out, shake it all about – the history of the cosmological constant is a veritable hokey-cokey. Einstein added it into his equations of general relativity to stabilise the universe and ensure it neither expanded nor contracted under its own gravity. Then in the 1920s, Edwin Hubble and others discovered the universe was in fact expanding – prompting Einstein to decry his invention as his “biggest blunder”.
    In the 1990s, though, observations of supernovae convinced astronomers that the universe’s expansion is actually speeding up. Back came the cosmological constant, this time as the culprit behind “dark energy“, the entity that appeared to be working against gravity to pull the universe apart.
    The only thing is, 20 years on, everyone’s still in the dark about the source of the cosmological constant and dark energy. Our best guess is that it originates in the energetic jigglings of short-lived quantum particles that fill seemingly empty space. But calculations of how much energy this should provide lead to a number that’s 10120 orders of magnitude out of whack. Good job physicists aren’t accountants.
    Quote The quantum multiverse
    Reality seems pretty definite, right? You’re here, the ball’s here, you kick the ball and it’ll end up over there. It’s just a shame that the theory that explains how material reality works paints a very different picture.
    At the heart of quantum theory is the idea that matter exists only in a shadowy, imprecise form until we measure it. Things can be in many places at once, for example – and it’s only when we look at them that we pin them down.
    Einstein had little truck with that, pointedly asking whether that meant the moon didn’t exist till we look at it. To sum up how most of his peers felt, physicist David Mermin coined the memorable phrase “shut up and calculate!”.
    Interpretations of varying wackiness have filled the conceptual vacuum, most notably the quantum many worlds hypothesis. It says that every time we make a measurement, every pre-existing quantum state continues to exist – just in parallel worlds we cannot see.
    I am in no way sneering at conventional science. They are bravely standing up and admitting that they really are struggling to reconcile observed reality with their fundamental theories. Good on them, and I hope they progress things. If the equations in this thread are right, and the MISSING KEY-LOG is the inside-outness of space I hope they get there. Because if they do not, it means huge work for someone!!
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 14th July 2017 at 09:04.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  3. Link to Post #43
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    This thread is primarily about sharing Michael's work. It will include my on-going investigations into it- I will also start adding my own ideas as I delve into physics, and try to apply the context of Michael's work to physics. As I do not wish to detract from the possible documentary value of showing Michael's work here, I will clearly distinguish his work from my thoughts.

    In the following speculation I am trying to apply Michael's thinking to some emerging higher dimensional current thinking. The following vid depicts what a 4 dimensional body would look like in the 3d world. The bodies depicted are solid and unchanging from a 4th D perspective, but our 3 d perception is a slice through the 4d reality, they change, move, and pop in and out of our space in a random way. DOES THIS NOT REMIND YOU OF QUANTUM EFFECTS?



    I asked the scientist who shared the vid with me - could two discrete objects in our 3d reality be connected physically in a higher physical dimension? He was surprised that I had not realised this from the video, so he sent me the following 3d equivalent:

    [IMG][/IMG]

    WOW. a 3d Torus appears as two separate circles in 2d land. Or a 4d torus appears as separate spheres in 3d. The two spheres in our reality are unconnected but from a 4d perspective they are ONE OBJECT

    IN THE CONTEXT OF MICHAEL'S WORK

    I am just musing so far. Michael said that our fundamental particles were composed of 'perfectly inelastic black hole event horizon' . The point about a perfectly inelastic medium is that a force can travel through it at infinite velocity, because there is no elasticity. If that 4d torus was composed of a perfectly inelastic material, the two spheres appearing in 3d, would be instantaneously connected over any distance.

    Michael also said that the fundamental particles each surround the rest of the universe, because they are black holes, and space time stretches, then flips over at the event horizon of the particle. He also stated that charge and magnetism are spin in the fourth and fifth dimension.(or fifth and sixth)

    How to reconcile these issues?

    How about this? The particles are discrete in 3d. They remain discrete in 4d and 5d. But in a higher physical dimension than that (8d??) they are physically part of the continuum. Like the torus above in 3d.
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 23rd March 2018 at 13:07.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  4. Link to Post #44
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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



    I am sharing this video from earlier on in the thread because it is a good introduction to Nassim Haramein's work.
    Having looked into his work somewhat, there are some KEY meeting points between NH and Michael's work.

    I listened to the vid more than ten times, but it took the following excellent Nexus article from 2013 to partially de-mistify NH's work for me. It obviously merits years of work, however at this point it is good to do some dot-connecting. I first got interested because NH talks about the black hole radius of a proton. I do not think any other sinificant people in physics today are looking at this.

    Using the schwarzchild equation - r=2Gm/c2, where r is the black hole radius, G is the universal gravitation constant, and c is the speed of light, Schwarzchild showed Einstein in 1915 how to define the 'Gravity Field' around a black hole. In other words the radius defines the event horizon of the gravity well - at the point where light ceases to escape. Einstein produced field equations for gravity in terms of space-time stretching out (expanding) as one gets nearer to the black hole.

    He successfully mathematically modelled gravity, as it works at a quantum scale.

    Haramein then defined a proton in terms of schwarzchild- used it's mass to derive a radius then used Einstein's gravity field equations - and arrived at the SAME ATTRACTIVE FORCE AS IS DEFINED BY THE STANDARD MODEL FOR THE 'STRONG FORCE' that holds atomic nuclei together. Very, very significant.

    Nexus Editorial:

    Quote As this edition goes to press, the blockbuster
    Gravity, which features two astronaut-engineers servicing the famous Hubble space telescope,
    is making headlines in all the media.
    Our well -known astronaut Jean-François Clervoy, who went on spacewalks in servicing
    missions himsel f, visited many TV sets and made fascinating remarks on aerospace history and on the current status of that field. However, obviously, no one reported on the comments he made in Enquêtes extraordinaires (Extraordinary Inquiries), a documentary that was broadcast this summer on M6. There,
    he evoked the reality of the regular forays of unidentified objects into this planet, and he proposed an exogenous origin as their most likely explanation.
    In response to his comments, we have compared the – surprisingly divergent – views of two leading figures of French aerospace who are officially involved in researching this phenomenon. Enough to sharpen your judgement and recall the strategic stakes around this issue, as well as the solutions to energy and environmental crises that it
    potentially holds. This is also the subject of our front-page report, which announces THE next revolution in the world of physics. Protons as mini -black holes? To be honest, my reaction to this premise was initially very sceptical, even hostile. A black hole swallows everything in its path, right? And yet, atoms would necessari ly weigh tonnes, and we would surely have noticed that! In short , if it was true, we would know! Unless… do read on! How a self-taught man discovered a simple, elegant answer to the great enigmas that have defied physics and astrophysics for decades! And where does the arrow of time fit into all that? At a time when physicists come to doubt the existence of this evasive dimension, the psychology of memory contributes an unexpected element: yes, not only can we change our memories, that is, our past, but it appears that we do it permanently! And what about our relations with
    our future? This famous “law of attraction” which has made some New Age authors rich, what kind of reality does it refer to? Promised: we wi ll give you answers on that point too.

    Also in our table of contents, you will find enough to free ourselves from this myth of ecocide growth which politicians
    promise in every elect ion, as well as the hold that lobbies have o n our lives… and even on our glasses to correct short
    - sightedness. With a bonus for the Christmas season: an invitation to rediscover a local treasure, authentic wine.
    Basically, everything necessary to trigger the only valid form of addiction: being hooked on a real news magazine like the one you are holding right now.
    So enjoy your reading! Till next time!

    David Dennery
    What if Nassim Haramein was right?

    By Marc Mistiaen

    Is a new paradigm emerging in the world of Physics? That is what the recent publication of
    the work of Nassim Haramein in a scientific journal with a reading committee appears to indicate. His theory of “the connected universe” offers an alternative vision on gravity. The key issue: the discovery of an energy that is potentially undefined.


    Pseudoscience, scientism, pseudo-scientific gibberish... For a few years now, the qualifiers that certain researchers have used to speak of the research of Nassim Haramein have left little room for doubt: the work of this ‘physicist’ without a degree is of no interest whatsoever. And yet, at the same time, all his lectures kindle among the public a dose of curiosity, and even growing fascination. Patiently, year after year, this researcher has conquered, through the Internet and in the field, a recognition that has just had its crowning: the publication of the outcome of his research in last April’s issue of the prestigious Physical Review and Research International (1). This article, signed by him in his capacity as research director at the Hawaii Institute of Unified Physics, sets out his theory of “the connected universe”, which offers an alternative vision on gravity. Armed with this publication, will Haramein finally make himself heard? What kind of scientific revolution can we witness if such work is acknowledged within the world of physics? In order to understand him, let us look at the fundamentals of his theory, starting from the very beginning.

    How I met Nassim Haramein

    Through my training as a building energy performance advisor, I observed that none of the proposed energy solutions, such as solar panels and other procedures, allow us to put in place a system that produces abundant energy without pollution. For example, manufacturing a photovoltaic solar panel requires smelting silicon, which takes up a lot of energy! Mission impossible, then... and it is to be blamed on the constraints of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created ex nihilo, that is to say, from nothing. It can only be transferred from one system to another. Besides, the entropy of an isolated system can only increase or remain constant, which is why your coffee naturally gets colder

    And yet, quite unexpectedly, I discovered that there were certain individuals - geniuses? naive people? crooks? utopians? - who were conspiring against these principles. Pragmatic and economical by nature, I started my inquiry with Nassim Haramein, who was just coming to France to hold a two-day seminar. There I was, en route to meet him. I immediately felt ill at ease at this first meeting, a feeling of outrage quickly took over me. Nassim's remarks seemed illogical to me, they seemed to contradict everything I knew and had learned. Nassim Haramein was saying that there was no such thing as a vacuum, that a proton couldhave a mass of more than several billion grammes...
    It was too much for me. I looked at the 80 participants, and very few of them seemed shocked... Good grief! I was in France, the homeland of Descartes. Did such comments not upset anyone, then?
    I told myself that there were probably no scientists among the audience. So I asked my neighbour what he thought about this, and he said: "It's amazing!" I replied with a touch of arrogance, filled with both my own certainties and my confidence in my studies, readings and training: "I am an (agricultural) engineer, and what this guy is saying is absurd." He replied: "I am an engineer too (in applied mathematics), and this is not absurd..." I told myself that he must have been stoned... At the end of the weekend (there was no refund for leaving early!), I expressed to Nassim my incredulity at his research. He looked at me with a big smile, he gave me some references and wished me good luck in my research. His patience and the fact that he listened touched me and made me think: I can't be the only one to have questioned him like that. And yet, he persists... A question was nagging me: if a vacuum is not empty, could one in that case use that energy and make it readily accessible, despite the constraints of thermodynamics?
    Quote An uncommon path
    Nassim Haramein was born in Geneva, in 1962, to an Iranian father and an Italian mother. From the age of 9, he was passionate about
    nature and about how the universe, matter and energy worked. He grew up in eastern Canada, where he spent a lot of time observing nature
    and the way it was organised. Haramein devoted most of his time to his independent research on physics,
    geometry, chemistry, biology, consciousness, archaeology and the world's different traditions. That led him to developing a pioneering approach on quantum gravity and to working on a unified field theory
    .
    Speaking in English and French, Haramein has given many lectures and seminars on the unified theory around the world over more than
    20 years. In 2003, he founded The Resonance Project Foundation in Hawaii , where he is the research director. He leads teams of physicists,
    engineers, mathematicians, and other scientists. He shares the results of this work through scientific publications and courses within the framework of the Resonance Academy. Haramein is currently focusing on quantum gravity (and its technological applications), on researching
    new forms of energy, on "applied resonance," on the life sciences, on permaculture and on the study of consciousness. He currently lives in Kauai (Hawaii) with his two children, and surfs on his rare moments of leisure
    So I tried to understand this problem of a vacuum which is no such thing and of a proton which does not have the same mass as we would usually measure. Archimedes and my scuba diving club helped me: I imagined replacing this vacuum which is not empty all around me with water from the pool. Since there is a vacuum everywhere, there is water everywhere, both within me and outside.I am composed of about 60% water (so are you).I imagined an ultra-light bottle that holds one litre and weighs one milligramme, which I fill with water. When I put it on the scales, I will read 1,000.001 grammes (as long as the water is pure, which is of course quite far from being the case). If I plunge the lot into the pool, I will read one milligramme (due to Archimedes’ principle). That is, a difference of one million between the two measurements, and both of them are right! So I understood that a proton could have two different masses, both of them exact, one of which takes into account the density of the vacuum while the other one does not. Next, I imagined our universe as an ocean, with us as fish, and I asked myself whether the fish were aware that they were in water, and what would be the mass of everything that we, as fish, could estimate inside this ocean without taking the water into account...Probably a few per cent of the total mass.Good grief! What percentage does the mass of identified matter in our universe amount to? A few per cent... That very evening, I sent anemail to Nassim Haramein.
    Can one question the standard model?
    Reading the latter's published material allowed me to relocate what I had been taught to the place where it belongs. I have too often been a submissive member of the audience as I listened to unequivocal speakers. Goodbye to my certainties. Welcome, doubts that impose on me never again to consider anything true or false. In short, I got back to the foundations of scientific method. To understand the significance of Nassim Haramein's research, it is essential to draw up an inventory of our current knowledge.

    Quote Glossary
    1- Free parameters
    A free parameter is generally a number without dimension (without unit of measurement), obtained through calculation or experimentation. For example, if we divide the surface (pi x r2) of a circle with a radius r by the surface (r2) of a square with a side r, we obtain a number without unit (such as 3.14..., which we call pi).
    2 - QED - Quantum Electrodynamics
    Quantum electrodynamics is a quantum theory of electromagnetic fields. It describes
    the electromagnetic interaction of charged particles.It has been called the "jewel of physics" due to its extraordinarily precise predictions in the theoretical determination of quantities (measured otherwise), such as the anomalous magnetic moment of a lepton or even the Lamb shift in the energy levels of hydrogen.(Wikipedia)
    3 - Lamb shift
    An atom is made up of a nucleus surrounded by gravitating electrons. These electrons do not move just anywhere, like night insects around a lamp.They take up layers, well-determined energy levels, which we call orbitals. Sometimes, electrons change energy level by emitting a photon whose energy is equivalent to the energy difference between the two levels. This energy is represented on a graph by a line.Splitting lines are the sign of the emergence of virtual particles.
    These presumably come from energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. It is this splitting that we call the Lamb shift (after Willis Lamb, the man who discovered it in 1947, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1955 and died in 2008).
    4 - G factor
    It is a quantity without dimension
    (10) which characterises the magnetic moment and the gyromagnetic ratio (a ratio between the magnetic moment (11) and the angular momentum) of a particle or a nucleon.
    5 - Coupling constant
    It is a number that determines the intensity of the force exerted in an interaction. Usually, a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian system which describes an interaction can be separated in one part caused by kinetics and another caused by interaction. Thecoupling constant determines the intensity of the interaction part with relation to the kinetic part. A particle's electric charge is a coupling constant. The coupling constant plays an important role in dynamics.
    For example, we often put in place approximation hierarchies based on the importance of different coupling constants. In the movement of a large piece of magnetised iron, magnetic forces are more important than gravitational forces, due to the relative values of coupling constants.
    6 - Discrete value
    Discrete value is the opposite of continuous value. The term value is ill-chosen.It is preferable to speak of a discrete or continuous set, with relation to a distance or a topology of this set. We say that a set N is discrete if N's elements represent a finite number of elements.
    Example: the set of real numbersR is not discrete, since [0,1] contains an infinity of elements, while N, on the other hand, is discrete since it represents natural integers such as 0, 1, 2, 3...
    7 - Spontaneous emission
    It is, for example, when an atom emits a photon following a
    spontaneous displacement from a higher energy level to a lower energy level.
    8 - Magnetic moment
    It is a vectorial value which allows us to measure the intensity of a magnetic source. In quantum physics, we regard electrons and other elementary particles as having their own magnetism. Indeed, the fundamental idea of the magnetic moment of a quantum system rests on the fact that we associate a magnetic moment to each charged particle that has an angular momentum. (Wikipedia)
    9 - Wormhole
    It was John Wheeler who described in 1956 the properties of connections between different points in space and named them wormholes. A few years later, at Harvard University, Stephen Hawking and Richard Coleman went back over Wheeler's concept and suggested that spacetime could be
    subjected to the aforementioned tunnel effect, based on an idea that had been put forward by Hugh Everett. Just like electrons that can jump from one point in space to another, the universe could do the same. The tunnel effect would create openings within spacetime that would lead to other universes, cul-de-sac universes or universes as vast as our own (Wikipedia).
    10 - Dimensionless number
    It is a number without a unit. For example, the number of Planck volumes by the volume of a proton equals a size without a unit, since the unit ratio m3/m3 simplifies and equals 1.
    11- Kinetic energy
    It is the energy that an object possesses due to its motion with relation to a given reference point (Wikipedia).
    The standard model describes all the elementary particles that matter is composed of - including electrons, quarks and photons, - the interactions between elementary particles and the forces of the universe such as strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetic interaction and finally gravitational interaction - which the standard model does not succeed in either explaining or integrating. Particles, the energy mass of the standard model, represent only 4% of the mass of the universe.The remaining 96% would be dark matter and dark energy. The standard model is not the fruit of a revolution at the fundamental level, but rather of laborious development, experiment after experiment. For example, the CERN and its 2,400 employees - not counting the eight thousand scientists who use these tools around the world - have been trying since its creation in 1954 to validate this model. In short: we may need to return to atomic and subatomic physics at the point where Max Planck left them. It would not be a surprise: the founders of quantum mechanics - Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac and Niels Bohr - were convinced that there would need to be another revolution in the foundations of physics in order to explain nuclear force.
    We are conceptually stuck
    According to mathematician Alain Connes, "no one thinks that the standard model is the final word in the story, particularly due to the very large number of free parameters (1) that it contains (2)." From 1968, string theory (3) emerged in an effort to perpetuate the standard model. David J. Gross, who contributed to re-inventing this theory in the 1980s (which earned him the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2004), ended up admitting that it was not quite as revolutionary as we had hoped...

    Quote BLACK HOLES

    The presence of black holes has been confirmed by observation since the mid-1980s. The one inside our galaxy is called Sagittarius A*. It has a mass that is four million times greater than that of our Sun.
    It is a hole, because matter and therefore energy (since E = mc2) fall into it, and it is black, since we cannot see either what is inside or its confines (beyond Hawking radiation). Even the light that apparently brightens it is absorbed. We deduce its presence from its gravitational effect on its surroundings. A black hole must, by definition, satisfy the Schwarzschild criterion (rs= 2GM/c2), where rs is the Schwarzschild radius, the black hole's radius; G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the black hole, and c2 is the speed of light.
    The Schwarzschild black hole is the first theoretical black hole, discovered in 1915 in response to Einstein's equations on general relativity of 1915. Karl Schwarzschild proved the existence of the radius - the Schwarzschild radius - from which no object or particle can escape. The Schwarzschild black hole is peculiar in that it is deducted from the Schwarzschild metric, which was conceived for static spherical objects, not rotating ones. Schwarzschild's singularity even surprised Einstein.(Its singularity refers to a region in spacetime near which certain quantities become indefinitely large.)

    These attempts show that we are stuck conceptually. Our spacetime model, as modified by Einstein, is extremely useful, but perhaps it is not fundamental4. To illustrate the remarks above, I am going to turn to the proton radius puzzle.
    Protons, along with neutrons, constitute an atom's nucleus.Electrons gravitate around this nucleus at speeds about 9/10 of the speed of light. In principle, atoms make up all the known matter in the universe. A proton itself is made up of three quarks. Until recently, the radius of a proton, which appeared on the list of nature's fundamental constants, was regarded as a certain value in physics.
    Measuring a proton
    We can measure the radius of a proton using two methods, both of them with relation to the interaction between a proton and an electron.One is the study of high-energy collisions between an electron and a proton, the other is the spectroscopy of a hydrogen atom. Dr. Randolf Pohl and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Munich wanted to measure protons more precisely, that is, to add a few more decimals at the end of the official value, as we do with the value of pi.
    To do that, they used a peculiar hydrogen atom: muonic hydrogen. Muons have the same electric charge as electrons, but they are 207 times heavier. Why use this type of hydrogen atom? First of all, a hydrogen atom is a logical choice, since its nucleus has only one proton, without a neutron and with just one electron gravitating around the nucleus. In its "muonic" variant, the electron is replaced with a muon, which will orbit around hydrogen's central proton 207 times closer than an electron. That allows for a more precise measurement of the proton's size. The measurement is indeed more precise, but above all the proton turned out to be smaller!In fact, for two years, the new value of the radius of a proton has been


    [IMG][/IMG]

    On 24th January 2013, Aldo Antognini and Franz Kottmann confirmed that the radius of a proton was slightly smaller than we had previously thought. It was to this surprising discovery that the New Scientist devoted its front page last July.

    0.84184 x 10-13 cm, instead of 0.8775 x 10-13 cm. This smaller proton radius is in itself a striking sign that could lead to a reconsideration of Quantum Electrodynamics: QED (2). Nowadays, QED is one of the most respected theories in science, largely thanks to the precision with which it allows us to predict orbital energies (for example, through the Lamb shift (3) as well as the G factor (4), which is itself predicted by quantum electrodynamics).
    The enigma around variations in the radius of a proton leads us to think that the standard model should probably evolve, if not radically change. In that case, is there an alternative to this model? Can we do without dark matter and dark energy? What is it that gravity and mass really are? Is there a possible explanation for strong interaction? What about the Holy Grail of physics, the unification of fundamental forces?
    If there is one scientist whose research could contribute to solving these problems, that seems to be Nassim Haramein. However, as we read what follows, let us remember that "all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" (Arthur Schopenhauer).
    Unifying the four interactions
    Strong interaction, also called "the strong force," links quarks together to form, for example, protons and neutrons, which make up the atom's nucleus. We also talk about the force of confinement, since it is the force that allows protons to find themselves stuck together within the small space circumscribed by the nucleus, although they have the same positive sign and should therefore intensely repel each other.The range of strong interaction is extremely small, about the size of the atomic nucleus. Strong interaction is the strongest (hence its name) of the four interactions; its coupling constant (5), for example, is 10e39 times greater than that of gravity.
    Nassim Haramein's genius is to have turned a proton into a black hole and discovered that the gravitational attraction of a black hole the size of a proton precisely equals the strong force.
    The consequences of this hypothesis are extraordinary, since they could lead to this revolution in the foundations of physics

    Quote The holographic principle
    Quote The equatorial surface of a sphere.
    Stephen Hawking believed that the quantum information that fell into a black hole was destroyed upon entry, and that this happened from the event horizon, which is the limit beyond which the attraction of a black hole is regarded as irreversible.This point caused a controversy among many physicists, since it violated one of the principles that are dearest to physics, namely that energy or information are always preserved and cannot be destroyed. The debate was passionate to the point that, in 1997, John Preskill bet with Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne that this information was not lost inside black holes but was indeed preserved, as quantum theory stated. This encouraged two researchers to find a solution: Gerard't Hooft considered a little point on the surface of the black hole's events horizon, one bit of information - as in computers. To do this, he built on the work of Jacob Bekenstein, who proved that information has a minimal size equivalent to one Planck unit. Leonard Susskind studied holographics in the framework of string theory.
    In a general way, Gerard't Hooft proved that all the information contained within the volume of a black hole can be explained in terms of information, or "Planck bits," on the black hole's horizon, which thus preserves the information like a "holographic recording." He called that the holographic principle - by analogy to a hologram, - since it describes a mechanism in which all the information that falls into a black hole is represented on its surface by "pixels" with a side the size of a Planck length. The holographic solution he found is equivalent to temperature, represented by the entropy of a black hole, which corresponds to a quarter of the surface of the information area of the horizon (S = A / 4 * k / l2), where S is the entropy and A is the surface in question, k is the Boltzmann constant and l is the Planck length in terms of Planck units. As an observation, the surface of a sphere is given by 4(pi)r2: this surface divided by 4 simply equals the sphere's equatorial surface. (If we cut the sphere in two equal parts, each of the flat parts represents an equatorial surface.) In 2004, Hawking admitted that information could be preserved and that black holes' horizons absorb and emit coherent information.

    Nassim Haramein's genius idea is to have turned a proton into a black hole and discovered that the gravitational attraction of a black hole the size of a proton precisely equals the strong force.


    that was expected by the fathers of quantum physics, to unify the four interactions, to finally unveil what mass, gravitational force, etc., are. Besides, for the first time, quantum and Newtonian physics would no longer be separate(5)...It is therefore the cornerstone of the research of Nassim Haramein, and it calls for further development.
    World-eating black holes
    If they are not properly understood, black holes can be scary. We imagine them as monsters who attract, swallow and destroy everything. Let us get things straight. Although the black hole is indeed a glutton, its range is limited.Fortunately for us, otherwise we would be the next meal for Sagittarius A* (our galaxy's black hole)! While the mass of a black hole is always high, its density, on the other hand, decreases depending on its size. A black hole's density is therefore weaker the longer its radius, and vice versa. This gradient is probably essential to explain the rotation of celestial bodies... Indeed, it is for example thanks to a density difference that air masses form whirlwinds!
    Could Nassim Haramein just have shown us what the Big Bang cannot explain, namely why all objects, be they galaxies, our Earth, our atoms, electrons, etc., have been rotating for 14 billion years? Black holes themselves do not destroy everything, at least not gravitational attraction, which allows us to locate them. They even seem to have a coherent structure which preserves information (see box on"The holographic principle").
    How to obtain a 10e14 g mass for a proton?
    If we take as a Schwarzschild radius the former value of the radius of a proton, 1.32 fm (femtometre, that is to say 10e-15 m), we will obtain a proton black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10e14 g (Schwarzschild mass, also called the holographic mass of a proton). This holographic mass is also consistent with the rest of the universe's estimated masses. The table opposite shows that the proton black hole aligns itself on the right of the masses, unlike the proton mass (10e-24 g) measured in the laboratory.
    First notion one should understand well: the vacuum. First of all, there is a lot of vacuum within matter. Simplistically, an atom has a size of approximately 10e-10m, that is to say, one tenth of a millionth of a millimetre. An atomic nucleus has a size of approximately 10e-15m, that is to say, it is one hundred thousand times smaller than the atom itself. The volume of the nucleus (let us remember that it is proportional to its size cubed) is one quadrillion times smaller than that of the atom. The volume of the atom is therefore at least 99.999% vacuum! Indeed, matter is made up of space, since there is a huge gap between the different atomic nuclei that unite to form molecules. An example to understand this better: if I enlarge the nucleus of an atom so as to get a sphere with a one-metre diameter, its electrons will be about 50 km apart. If two atoms come together, the two nuclei will be 100 km apart... two spheres with a one-metre diameter that are 100 km apart! The vacuum is therefore omnipresent, whether it is within matter or outside it.


    cont'd.....
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 3rd September 2017 at 09:58.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

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

    onawah (9th August 2017)

  6. Link to Post #45
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    Quote Geometry of Karl Schwarzschild
    German physicist
    Karl Schwarzschild (1873-1916) solved in 1916 Einstein's equations using the principles of Minkowski's complex
    geometry. Where Einstein proposed rectangular coordinates, Schwarzschild chose a "polar" system.
    One analogy is often made: spacetime is like a structure where mass (energy) creates a curvature, as
    if a bowling ball were placed on a trampoline.The curvature is present along the side where the ball is;
    spacetime is represented by the surface of the trampoline, while the mass, or the energy, is
    represented by the ball.If we place another ball on the same surface, it would seem to us that the second
    ball is attracted to the first by a sort of force, while the phenomenon is due to the spacetime curvature
    around the ball. Einstein was impressed by the simplicity of the geometric calculations made by Schwarzschild,
    who quickly shared these results with his colleagues. Schwarzschild died soon afterwards, at
    the age of 41. The geometry that Schwarzschild used to solve Einstein's equations became physicists' standard
    approach to establish the gravitational properties of planets and stars.
    [IMG][/IMG]

    Scaling law to organise matter, taking into account mass as a function of the radius.

    When we take the size of different bodies in the universe as a function of mass and of their radius, we get a regular straight line. (Planck mass, the universe's smallest value is the point of departure on the left, and the mass of the universe is the point of arrival on the top right.) Along this line, we find the Earth, the Sun, galaxies, pulsars, quasars... and not the standard proton but rather the Schwarzschild proton. (When we try to place the standard proton, it falls on the side, below the line, while the black hole proton is on the line.) That tends to show that the universe is mathematically organised, from the infinitely large to the infinitely small.


    [IMG][/IMG]

    Quantum gravity and holographic mass.
    The first equation describes the ratio between the proton surface and theequatorial surface of Planck volume.It allows us to calculate the number of equatorial surfaces of Planck spheres there are on the surface of a Proton, that is, 10e40.
    The second equation gives us the number of Planck spheres contained in a proton, that is, 10e60.In the third equation, the external surface is divided by the internal volume, and the result is multiplied by the Planck mass, which gives us the value of the proton mass (the result is written as "g," not "gm").It is a geometric calculation that allows us to obtain a mass.



    The expected value of the energy of vacuum, when all excitation modes are regarded as the results of an infinite number of oscillations, represents an infinite amount of energy at each point.


    Second notion: vacuum is not empty. Indeed, it contains energy in the form of fluctuations, of vibrations. This energy is gigantic, since the density of quantum vacuum fluctuation, also known with the name Planck density (see box below), is given by pv= 5.16 x 10e93 g/cm3. Imagine a 1 followed by 93 zeros in your bank account!

    Casimir effect

    Vacuum energy fluctuations have been confirmed experimentally for decades. The first experimental validation of its existence came from the so-called Casimir effect, where two plates are drawn closer to each other thanks to a slight difference in the density of vacuum energy between and outside these plates. More recently, it has been shown that the dynamic Casimir effect, where the plates are reproduced electronically, is literally the result of the extraction of photon microwaves caused by vacuum energy fluctuations. The expected value of vacuum energy, when all excitation modes are regarded as resulting from an infinite number of oscillations, represents an infinite amount of energy at each point. In Mathematics, infinity added or multiplied to a number always equals infinity, which does not allow us to go further. This problem has been dealt with by using a limit value, a "renormalisation." The limit used has been the Planck wave length, since it is the smallest possible oscillation of the electromagnetic field. However, the resulting density of vacuum energy remains very large. Planck density, as it has been called, can be....

    Quote MAX PLANCK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

    The development of quantum mechanics started in 1894 with the work of a pioneer, Max Planck, who studied the problem of black-body radiation. In physics, a black body is regarded as an idealised body that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation, whatever the frequency or the incidence of emissions. Such an object, in thermal equilibrium, will emit electromagnetic radiation. So a major problem emerged: the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation of a given black body emits infinite energy into the ultraviolet region of the spectrum, which was called the ultraviolet catastrophe.
    At the time, Planck put forward the view that the light that radiation gives off exists only in integers. The total
    amount of energy jumps from one value to another continuously, creating a quantified - rather than continuous and infinite - energy package. In other words, Planck put forward the hypothesis that the amount of energy that a wave can exchange with matter is discrete (6).His theoretical results were verified when he predicted the correct experimental value for the spectrum of a black body and naturally solved the ultraviolet catastrophe. Planck's law tells us that electromagnetic energy can only be emitted in discrete energy packages proportional to frequency. Thanks to the more precise results of later experiments, he was able to establish the parameters, known as Planck constants, deducted from a set of measures that represent an angular momentum or the wave length of
    the initial energy package. The idea was considered harebrained until Einstein applied it to the photoelectric effect, describing light as a particle which was later to be called a photon. Max Planck was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize in 1918 for his contribution to understanding the workings of this effect, which consolidated the quantum revolution.
    In 1899, Max Planck extrapolated his fundamental units, now known as Planck units. Planck quantities are natural units, without arbitrary concepts, based on the fundamental constants of physics. For example, Planck time is defined as the time necessary for a photon (an energy package) to cover one Planck length.
    Consequently, a Planck length is the minimum length of the electromagnetic field or, if you will, the smallest possible vibration of electromagnetic radiation.
    It is important to note, in the context of this article, that the initial theoretical construction of the black body happened a long time before the conceptualisation and discovery of black holes, which are in themselves almost perfect black bodies.
    Therefore, that clearly suggests that there can be certain more appropriate specific means through which the gravitational force and the mass of a black hole can be expressed in the form of discrete integers on the quantum scale, which is what Nassim Haramein is showing us!
    Spontaneous emission (7) could not
    be explained using the parameters of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, on its own, was unable to explain this behaviour in the context of a theory in which the dynamics of the atom are quantified, but the electromagnetic field is not. (No probability was found for spontaneous emissions when calculations were made with the initial approach.)
    It was necessary to generalise quantum mechanics, on the one hand, to take into account spontaneous emissions and other dynamics observed in the quantum world, and, on the other hand, to find a means to link special relativity to the quantum scale. Quantum mechanics needed to expand its framework to express the
    electromagnetic field as quantified modes of oscillations at every point in space, which led to the development of the quantum field theory launched by Paul Dirac at the beginning of the 1920s, with his equation that has since become famous.
    In other words, quantum field theory describes space as if it were filled with discrete, unconnected packages, of both energy and waves, like little masses linked by springs. In 1913, Albert Einstein and Otto Stern established that the quantum vacuum (the spacetime structure on the quantum scale), demonstrates major excitations even at a temperature of absolute zero kelvin, which earned it the name "zero-point energy."
    ...calculated for the value of the density of vacuum energy by simply counting the number of small Planck volumes within a cubic centimetre of space, which would correspond to the oscillation mode present in the vacuum within this volume. The resulting value for the density of vacuum energy within a cubic centimetre of space (approximately 10e93 g) far surpasses the mass energy of matter in our known universe (approximately 10e55 g). Although the majority of this energy is bound to be neutralised, many physical phenomena are attributed to vacuum energy fluctuations. This energy is not apparent to us because there is equilibrium. Let us imagine that two equally strong forces, with the same direction but the opposite sense are applied to an object. This object will be in equilibrium, at rest, and we will not be aware of the presence of those forces.
    Black hole proton or Schwarzschild proton: is everything related?

    Calculating the volume of a proton and considering the vacuum it contains, we get, based on Planck density (10e-5 g), a mass of 4.98 x 10e55 g by volume of the proton. While it is a lot larger than required to obtain a black hole proton (8.85 x 10e14 g), this value is interesting because it corresponds to the value that is generally given for the mass of visible matter in the universe. That can be an indication of the interweaving of all protons through vacuum fluctuations, of everything being inside everything else. We observe that a very weak proportion of the energy mass available inside the volume of the proton (stemming from vacuum density) is necessary for a proton to obey the Schwarzschild criterion and become a black hole. Nassim Haramein finishes his publication as follows: "If the proton is regarded as a mini black hole due to its interaction with quantum vacuum energy, the energy mass associated with this black hole corresponds exactly to the gravitational force of confinement described in quantum physics as the strong force. The Schwarzschild proton (or black hole proton) system predicts remarkably well the interaction time, the electromagnetic radiation, the magnetic moment (8), and is perhaps at the origin of the confinement of nucleons within the nucleus in terms of the spacetime curvature. It is thanks to this spacetime curvature (think about the trampoline) that nucleons remain confined within the atomic nucleus. The Schwarzschild proton strongly suggests that matter, on many scales, can be organised by black holes (or by phenomena that are similar to black holes) and thus lead to a scale for the unification of the fundamental forces. A solution could be found to describe both the origin of mass (currently unknown within the standard model) and the origin of the strong force as a gravitational mechanism)"

    Although the majority of this energy is bound to be neutralised, many physical phenomena are attributed to vacuum energy fluctuations. This energy is not apparent to us, because there is an equilibrium.


    It is not over!
    From the moment when Nassim Haramein sensed that gravitational force could be the mechanism that keeps protons together, he needed to understand why this colossal force in the nucleus only has a very short range, the size of the atomic nucleus at most, that is, 10e-15 m, while the Earth's attraction force can express itself over considerable distances: the Moon is 384,400 km away, and yet it is indeed attracted to the Earth! It is here that Nassim Haramein was to show his genius as ever before: he used a holographic solution(7). The consequences and results of this approach are surprising, since they could provide answers to the questions that have been asked. Besides, it is an elegant solution. Based on the holographic principle, the information held inside a volume of space can therefore be described by what we find on its surface. Nassim Haramein goes further, by asking himself whether the information that falls into the black hole is not simply holographically encoded, but also holographically shared with every black hole in the universe. Each of the Planck spheres on the surface of a proton would be linked to other protons in the universe thanks to "wormholes." (9) Could this be the mechanism that defines mass and gravity? If a proton is a mini black hole, are its mass and its force of confinement the result of the information network that relates the internal volume of vacuum fluctuations, which holographically represents all the other protons in the universe, and its surface horizon outside?

    In that case, it would be a mechanism within which the holographic influence of the information within 10e80 protons (that is, the estimated total number of protons in the universe) would interact with a single proton, thus producing the exact value of this proton's rest mass, which is approximately 10e-24 g.
    In concrete terms?
    The Planck sphere is the smallest piece of information possible, like one bit of information. Remember that this Planck sphere is filled with vacuum; it is therefore the minimum size (a Planck length) of the oscillation of vacuum energy. In order to establish the information on the external surface of a proton, Nassim Haramein calculates the number of Planck sphere equatorial surfaces on its surface. To establish the information inside the proton, he calculates how many Planck spheres there are inside it. By drawing up a ratio of internal information divided by external information, he obtains a dimensionless number (10), since it is a size ratio which, multiplied by the Planck mass, gives us a mass. Using the radius of a standard proton (0.8775 x 10-13 cm), he obtains a value of 1.603498 x 10e-24 g, namely a 4% difference with relation to the value of the proton mass. Using the new value of the radius of a muonic proton (0.84184 x 10e-13 cm), he obtains 1.6714213 x 10e-24 g, that is, a difference of 0.07% with relation to the proton mass reference (1.672622 x 10e-24 g). Using this geometric method, he is able to calculate the value of the proton radius, that is, 0.841236 x 10e-13 cm! In this case we have exactly the same mass as we had for reference!

    Multiplying the radius of any given black hole by the ratio of the Planck mass divided by twice the Planck length, we get the mass of the black hole!

    Even more exciting: Nassim Haramein's geometric solution is equivalent to Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's equations... Yes, more complicated formulae to get there! Then, multiplying the radius of any given black hole by the ratio of the Planck mass and twice the Planck length, we get the mass of the black hole! We therefore have an expression for black holes as a function of Planck measurements, independent of values such as G (gravitational constant) and c (speed of light). It is extraordinary! It gets more and more exciting:it was impossible to unify the four interactions, since gravitational interaction (unlike other interactions) could not be expressed in discrete values. The fact that he uses Planck spheres as one bit of information gives him a discrete solution. Spacetime is no longer smooth, it has become granular, which can allow the unification of the four interactions. Nassim Haramein's solution for gravity is totally innovative, and it functions as well at the cosmological level as it does at the atomic level.
    What are the implications?
    We could have access to an infinite form of energy, which could offer us a world of abundance, without poverty or exclusion. Free or insignificantly priced access to clean energy, not based on the combustion of our planet's resources.Tomorrow's mankind would no longer be like today's, there would no longer be wars over oil!
    Let us return to our fish, which have now become conscious of the fact that the volume in which they live is made up of water. They therefore have at their disposal an almost infinite number of water molecules. That will allow them access to infinite energy. It only remains for them to establish how to obtain energy, using for example the hydrogen and the oxygen that the water contains.
    Nassim Haramein also gives us important elements
    to know and therefore understand our universe. Grasping mass through the holographic principle allows us to finally define and understand it. And yet mass is one of the foundations of mechanics, since it plays a role in force (m x a, that is to say, force multiplied by acceleration), in kinetic energy (11) (mv2/2)8, and in potential energy (mgh)9. Likewise, understanding the structure of spacetime as dynamic and discrete, rotating, also allows us to contemplate changing its curvature, which corresponds to changing gravity. Imagine the possibilities, in terms of transport, but also in terms of space travel. We would no longer be confined to Earth. That is without considering that the philosophical implications that emerge from this research are themselves as revolutionary as the implications for physics, if not more. All that could accelerate if our universities and our researchers join Nassim Haramein's research.

    Marc Mistiaen


    Notes:

    1. "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass," Physical Review & Research International, 3(4): 270-292, 2013.
    2. Alain Connes, with André Lichnerowiczand Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, Triangle de pensees, Odile Jacob, coll.
    "Sciences", 2000, p. 94.
    3. String theory strives to provide a description of quantum gravity and to unify the four known elementary interactions.That is why we talk about the theory of everything. In practice, there are several theories, all of them complex, that do not allow us at this point in time to obtain usable results without inaccurate approximations.
    4. "Nobel Laureate Says Physics Is in Need of a Revolution," Peter Byrne, Simons Science News, 04/06/ 13.
    5. This idea was developed in "The Schwarzschild Proton," by Nassim Haramein, The Resonance Project Foundation, December 2010.
    6. Nassim Haramein, "The schwarzschild proton," AJP Conference Proceeding, CP 1303, 2010, pp. 95-100.
    7. See "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass,"20l 2, on Science Domain lnternational, www.sciencedomain.org.
    8. mv2/2, that is, the mass multiplied by the square of the speed, divided by two.
    9. mgh, that is, the mass multiplied by the acceleration of weight (a constant value of 9.81 m/s2), multiplied by the height of the mobile.
    Further reading
    - Nassim Haramein, L'Univers décodé ou la théorie de /'unification,
    Éditions Louise Courteau, September 2012.
    - Nassim Haramein, "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass," 2012, on ScienceDomain International, www.sciencedomain.org
    - On YouTube: Conference at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library in 2003, 242 :55.
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 10th August 2017 at 18:13.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

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

    onawah (9th August 2017)

  8. Link to Post #46
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    WOO-WOO - 'Dream time' input - inspiration and imagination

    Quantum physics tells us that in a vacuum there is an intense oscillation. 'something' is oscillating at an incredible density and energy content. In terms of density, it is denser than a black hole, and more energetic than anything in our universe. It is virtually undetectable but it IS there, flickering in-and-out in the vacuum.

    I have an imaginative visual based mind. Firstly I got to a super dense crystal structure, and imagined whisps of energy & vortexes within that matrix. The whisps form matter, and life. The entities see other whisps within the crystal matrix, but they cannot sense the hard crystal matrix, so the just feel it as open vacuum.

    This first inspiration did not quite work for me.

    The second one is a little sexy - sorry about that. The Plank 'bits' poke in and out of our dimension from a higher dimension, the oscillation is the most intensely energetic process in existence, but it is happening at such a fine grain that we cannot see it. The poking in and out balances itself almost completely, leaving us with just a very slight photon output into our 3d vacuum, this is the Casimir effect, and make no mistake, this is free energy from somewhere, into our universe.

    The third image is a TV screen. An old analogue one, not tuned in. A screen of static, which is a constant fluctuation of black and white dots. The white bits introduce energy. The black dots suck energy. The net output of the SCREEN is measured as the Casimir effect.

    So these Planck 'bits' or 'units' poke in and out constantly....

    UNLESS THEY DON'T

    If they stabilise, and protrude into our 3d space, we have a body made of these Plancks.
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 13th August 2017 at 10:39.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

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

    onawah (9th August 2017)

  10. Link to Post #47
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    HARAMEIN MEETS KIRSCH

    NH said two very important things.

    1. Define your back hole proton by schwarzchild, and fill it , as a sphere, with Planck units. This theoretical particle is said to weigh as much as all the protons in the universe.

    2. Instead of filling the black hole particle with Plancks, NH wall-papered the black hole proton with ONE LAYER of Plancks. They are of a known mass, and size. He then weighed the resulting theoretical particle, and GOT A CORRECT SCHWARZCHILD MASS PER OBSERVATION

    POSTULATION ABOUT POINT 1.

    This is a proton. It is one particle-that is ALL protons. We see it as discrete protons , separate and divided into pieces, because this one big universal proton is in a higher spatial dimension, and protrudes into 3d AS SEPARATE PARTICLES

    POSTULATION ABOUT POINT 2

    This is actually what our protons are in 3d. They are hollow bodies made up of a single layer of Plancks that are jammed together to the maximum proximity that is possible. The Proton is a hollow body with a surface that is hard (perfectly inelastic) and spinning at c/square root of 2. The Proton is a black hole after Schwarzchild and gravity as per Einstein holds it close to other nuclear particles. However in 3d, we are inside the universe black hole, and the outside of space time is within that Planck Proton surface. The proton is shrinking at a radial c/square root of 2 as it spins at the same speed, resulting in a surface velocity of c. We do not detect the shrinkage, as everything is shrinking. I am looking at it from an Olympian perspective - outside the black hole universe, looking in at a particle of fixed size (the universe) which has a mass in its middle that is constantly shrinking in on itself-like swirling into a vortex of potential singularity.
    (from the inside where we are, the Universe is expanding)

    The proton is composed of perfectly inelastic black hole event horizon, and space time flips over at the event horizon, so that the Proton encapsulates all of creation (this edition of the universe). The proton, spinning around the rest of the universe, is , due to circular motion (Michael says 'omnispin') accelerating towards the rest of creation at the correct rate to produce gravity.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Michael Kirsh's 'perfectly inelastic black hole event horizon':

    [IMG][/IMG]
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 3rd September 2017 at 10:07.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

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

    onawah (9th August 2017)

  12. Link to Post #48
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    A PAUSE FOR BREATH, & RE-FOCUS

    I have shared a fraction of Michael’s work, and started digging in, & educating myself in Physics generally. I do not wish to overly cover items outside Michael’s work, however I believe some new thinking is really helping me to frame the work in the context of emerging physics that fits what Michael said much better than orthodoxies prevailing 20 or 30 years ago.

    Frankly it is stunning and heart warming.

    I started by(slightly) exploring Haramein’s work and discovering the he is creating a black hole proton by pasting a mosaic of Planck masses over a slightly different Proton radius. Really that paper deserves a Nobel if true. All Haramein needs to do is flip that event horizon over to surround everything else, as Michael always said – and we have gravity due to circular motion – acceleration towards the centre- in this case the rest of the universe.

    Then a thread appeared that introduced Quantum Gravity Research and it’s 8th dimensional maths. I started to get an answer to my question that I had wished to ask Michael – how could a particle be a discrete object in our reality but , ultimately, ‘One Object’. Everything Connected. It really looks like you can have 2 spheres in a 3d space, that is part of a greater whole in a higher physical dimension. Michael said that both Magnetism, and Charge, were ‘spin in higher dimensions’. So I speculated that the particles remain discrete in higher dimensions, but EVENTUALLY, perhaps in 8d, are ‘one object’.

    Then another thread appeared which introduced me to Garrett Lisi. And there it was – confirmation, and very synchronous. Garrett Makes the following statement:

    Quote Well, right now the pattern I showed you, that corresponds to what we know about elementary particle physics-that already corresponds to a very beautiful shape. That is one that I said we know for certain.
    And that shape has remarkable similarities in the way that it fits with this E8 pattern and that could be the rest of the picture. And these patterns of points that I have shown you actually represent symmetries of this high dimensional object that would be warping, and moving, and dancing over the space-time that we experience, and that experience, that would be what explains all these elementary particles that we see...
    An electron in E8 would be one of the symmetries of this E8 shape-so what’s happening is, as the shape is moving over space time, its twisting, and the direction its twisting as it moves is what particle we see, so ...
    As far as we know, electrons are point particles, so this would be going down to the smallest possible scales. So the way these things are explained in quantum field theory is that all possibilities are expanding and developing at once and this is why I use the analogy of the coral. And in this way, the way that E8 comes in would be as a shape that’s attached a unique point in the space time, and the way the shape twists- the direction along the way that this shape is twisting as it moves over this curved surface is what the elementary particles are themselves, so, through quantum field theory that manifests themselves as points and interact that way.
    So his complex mathematical plotting has confirmed my previous postulation. There is an object, that is one thing in 8d, but comes to us in 3d as a variety of different particles. He also talks about ‘6d charge space’. Again, how brilliant. Thanks to Avalon members for finding this.

    Bringing in other thinkers has helped me to postulate Michael’s work as follows:

    The Universe is a single 8th dimensional continuum, that is made of a mosaic of planck masses that are embedded in a perfectly inelastic event horizon surface and obey schwarzchild and Einsteinian gravitation field equations. The strong force is replaced by gravity once correct radii are used. Because the continuum is ‘perfectly inelastic’ it allows for instantaneous entanglement, and instantaneous transfer of mass, energy, and information FROM anywhere TO anywhere. Michael’s key point about inside out-ness means that each 3d object does in 3d surround everything else, and rotate about it, yet in 8d it remains just a drop in the communal ocean of planck surface.


    I have also mentioned some current observations, that Michael was looking forward to – the discovery of quasar jets without an accretion disc or super massive black hole- that would assist Michael to prove his model. He was waiting for better telecopy, which is now happening.

    Now back to Topic.

    Last edited by Baby Steps; 5th September 2017 at 20:44.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  13. Link to Post #49
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    Quote Nassim Haramein presents new evidence that mainstream physics is wrong on many levels. Haramein is a theoretical physicist noted for his “spacetime torque” model of stellar movement,, which is based on the inclusion of torque and Coriolis force terms in Einstein’s field equations to formulate a universal model of “spin”. On this basis, in contrast to the big bang model, Nassim outlines a torus shaped infinite universe model, in a way that everything is connected, humans included.

    Haramein touches on a mixture of thermodynamics, information, and energy exchange with a person’s boundary, speaking about things deteriorating towards entropy, but all-in-all the discussion seems to diverge into the metaphysical, to a large part, e.g. speaking about the hidden energies of the structure of the vacuum, auras, consciousness or awareness. .


    Nassim Haramein gives an excellent talk. This is really helpful for anybody looking into his paper on 'Holographic Mass'.

    It answered my question- which also applies to Michael's work.

    Both state that , say, a proton, is a black hole.

    However the measured and well established mass of a proton is obviously far less. Haramein answers that the missing mass originates with the relativistic mass of that proton caused by its surface velocity of C or very nearly C.

    Michael stated that the black hole event horizon of particles was travelling at C, so the two thinkers are converging!

    In summary, Haramein states that if you paste a mosaic of Planck masses over the correct radius of a proton, you get the MASS of a black hole.(per Schwarzchild). He then says that once it is modelled as such, the strong force appears correctly AS GRAVITY. The spin of the black hole particle generates the space-time stretch that is the gravity well. Intriguingly, Haramein states that each Planck mass is a wormhole-connecting each proton to the rest of the protons in the universe. He also states here that because the surface is travelling at C, it cannot suck in or ingest matter.

    AREAS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN NASSIM HARAMEIN AND MICHAEL KIRSCH

    1. Fundamental particles are black holes as per Schwarzchild
    2. The surface is travelling at C
    3. This is the first time I have heard Haramein stating that the Universe, itself, is a black hole.

    AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

    1. Haramein, for now, believes that large black holes exist out there, including at Galaxy centres and within Suns. Michael stated that the only black holes were the universe, and fundamental particles.
    2. Although they agree on the event horizon speed, Michael states that the speed, C, is a resultant of surface rotation at C/root 2, and 'impansion' radially at c/root 2.
    3. Haramein says that he can solve everything without more spatial dimensions. Michael mentioned spin in 5th and 6th. That is as high as I recall him going.
    4. Haramein talks about Planck masses as worm holes, so much like strings. This is converging to the idea that all particles are part of one thing, however since Haramein discounts higher physical dimensions perpendicular to our reality, he will not get to 'one thing' yet.
    5. Although Haramein states 'we are living inside a black hole' he does not mention an energy income. I would hope that he would arrive at this, from the idea that the size of the black hole universe that we are in is INCREASING, as , of course, it is - if you take it's event horizon as where the first photons from the big bang have reached. It becomes less dense over time, but it has to GAIN MASS as well.

    DEAR NASSIM, IMAGINE THAT YOUR PLANCK MOSAIC SURFACE SURROUNDS THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE. TAKE SPIN AT c/root 2. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DERIVE GRAVITATION, REFER TO MICHAEL KIRSCH'S EQUATIONS HERE ON THIS.

    Best regards
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 16th September 2017 at 20:40.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  14. Link to Post #50
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    The Universe Model Maker's Construction Kit - scan 1



    [IMG][/IMG]

    [IMG][/IMG]
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  15. Link to Post #51
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    I will be/am typing up some work.

    I will share sections as I complete.

    The following introduction section includes a radically different take on the geometry of our universe and some algebra touching on conditions at the event horizon of a black hole.

    I would urge the curious to bear with this-it sounds outlandish when Michael talks about electrons appearing in the same place, as he develops an algebraic template that links much of conventional physics together. This takes time to lay out, and semantics do not convey it adequately.

    UMMCK part 1.pdf
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 15th May 2018 at 20:52.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  16. Link to Post #52
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    Part 2. Michael takes his black hole universe and shows how to visualise inside out space. (or one might say we live in inside out space, and this assists us to see in the right way around.)

    Sorry the doc is not perfect.

    UMMCK pt2.pdf
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 29th April 2018 at 12:02.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  17. Link to Post #53
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    In part 3, Michael shows us how the big bang event is actually an on-going process, due to time dilation. It continues to feed energy and space time into the steadily expanding black hole universe. Conventional models discount the mass equivalent of the background flux, but this is key (and may be a substitute for the fabled 'dark matter').This stuff is not a semantic or philosophical exercise, it is rather one man's interpretation of a set of self supporting equations that describe something very like our universe.

    UMMCK pt3.pdf
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  18. Link to Post #54
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    In the following Nature Article we are seeing solid science that is challenging conventional models of the early universe. They are saying that their data suggests that gas in the early universe was TOO COOL. The model they use includes all the matter/energy appearing at the initial instant. If that were the case the early universe would be hotter than this data is suggesting. They attribute this strange result to the influence of the mystical dark matter.

    Again, these findings tend to support Michael's work, because in his model the mass/energy that we have now is introduced into our reality at a steady rate, so it naturally would allow for cooler hydrogen in the early universe. The article has an excellent podcast.
    Quote Astronomers detect light from the Universe’s first stars

    Surprises in signal from cosmic dawn also hint at presence of dark matter.
    Elizabeth Gibney


    A radio telescope in Western Australia has detected a sign of the light from the Universe’s first stars.Credit: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
    Astronomers have for the first time spotted long-sought signals of light from the earliest stars ever to form in the Universe — around 180 million years after the Big Bang.
    The signal is a fingerprint left on background radiation by hydrogen that absorbed some of this primordial light. The evidence hints that the gas that made up the early Universe was colder than predicted. This, physicists say, is a possible sign of dark matter’s influence. If confirmed, the discovery could mark the first time that dark matter has been detected through anything other than its gravitational effects.

    “This is the first time we’ve seen any signal from this early in the Universe, aside from the afterglow of the Big Bang,” says Judd Bowman, an astronomer at Arizona State University in Tempe who led the work, which is published in Nature1 on 28 February. “If it’s true, this is major news,” says Saleem Zaroubi, a cosmologist at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Other teams will need to confirm the signal but, so far, the finding seems to be robust, he says. “It’s very exciting stuff. This is a period in the Universe’s history we know very little about.”

    Star sparks

    Physicists think that the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, generated an ionized plasma, which cooled rapidly as the Universe expanded. After about 370,000 years, this soup began to form neutral hydrogen atoms. Over time — and under gravity’s influence — these clumped together forming stars that ignited. This transition is known as the cosmic dawn (see ‘Dawn’s early light’).
    “At that point we started to feel a little excitement…” Researchers describe their discovery of a fingerprint from the early Universe.

    Light from these stars would now be so faint that detecting it with Earth-based telescopes is near impossible. But astronomers have long hoped to see it indirectly: the light would have subtly shifted the behaviour of the hydrogen that once filled the space between stars. This change would have allowed hydrogen gas to absorb radiation from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) — the afterglow of the Big Bang — at a characteristic radio wavelength of 21 centimetres, which leaves a dip in the intensity of the CMB.
    To search for the signal, the team used a radio telescope called the Experiment to Detect the Global Epoch of Reionization Signature (EDGES), based at the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory in Western Australia. Because our own galaxy and human-generated FM radio generate waves in the same band as the signal, spotting the dip meant carefully filtering out these more powerful sources. But Bowman and his colleagues soon found the predicted signal at roughly the frequency they expected. And despite being a puny 0.1% drop in the radiation, it was still twice the magnitude predicted. The finding was so stark that the researchers spent two years checking that it didn’t come from an instrumental effect or noise. They even built a second antenna and pointed their instruments at different patches of sky at different times. “After two years, we passed all of these tests, and couldn’t find any alternative explanation,” says Bowman. “At that point, we started to feel excitement.”
    Radiation from this period arrives stretched out by the expansion of the Universe, meaning the band in which the signal was found gives away its age. This allowed the team to date the latest onset of the cosmic dawn to 180 million years after the Big Bang. The signal’s disappearance gives away a second milestone — when more-energetic X-rays from the deaths of the first stars raised the temperature of the gas and turned off the signal. Bowman’s team puts that time around 250 million years after the Big Bang.
    Understanding these primordial stars is important not only because they shaped the matter around them, but also because their explosive deaths created the soup of heavier elements, such as carbon and oxygen, from which later stars formed, says Bowman. “If we really want to understand the cosmic ladder of our origins, this is a critical step to understand,” he says.

    Cosmic cradle

    While the signal appeared at an expected frequency, its strength was utterly unexpected, says Rennan Barkana, a cosmologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. “I was actually quite amazed,” says Barkana, who has published a second, related paper in Nature2. He says the strength suggests that either there was more radiation than expected in the cosmic dawn, or the gas was cooler than predicted. Both would be “very strange and unexpected”, he says.
    The only explanation that makes sense to Barkana is that the gas was cooled by something. That points to dark matter, he says, which theories suggest should have been cold in the cosmic dawn. The results also suggest dark matter should be lighter than the prevailing theory indicates, says Barkana. This could help to explain why physicists have failed to observe dark matter directly, in experiments stretching over decades. If that’s true, we have to design new kinds of experiments to see it, he adds.

    For now, the cosmic-dawn signal is tentative. But other experiments are lined up to investigate it. Most radio astronomers had been looking for other hydrogen signals from a later period in the Universe’s history. One such experiment in development, the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array, an international radio-telescope project based in South Africa’s Karoo desert, is now being adapted to detect signals at the wavelengths explored by Bowman’s team. He hopes that it could replicate his results during the next few years.
    Other experiments, such as LOFAR (Low-Frequency Array), a large system of radio antennas spread over five European countries, should be able to go a step further and map how the intensity of the signal fluctuates across the sky. And if the cause of the strong signal is dark matter, that should be visible as a distinctive pattern. “We’re eager for another instrument to confirm it,” says Bowman.
    We’ve been trying to study the period when stars first formed for 35 years, says Martha Haynes, an astronomer at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. “I’m excited to think that we have finally detected the signal sought for so long.”

    [IMG][/IMG]

    Last edited by Baby Steps; 10th May 2018 at 13:22.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  19. Link to Post #55
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    In part 4 there are more pretty pictures. It brought to mind the opening of a pomegranate. Start with a GOD view of a sphere, that is outside the surrounding particle, or universe black hole event horizon. Now open up the fruit and shrink the skin down to the size of one of the other seed/bubbles. The skin has become just another of the many particles (seed/bubbles) and the universe has been inverted into the form that we experience inside it. To go outside, we, the material observers need not look outwards. Instead we need to look into one of the particles or seed/bubbles. If Nassim Haramein was reading, I would say I am happy to see Michael referencing Coriolis effects, and the strong force, in this section.

    UMMCK part 4.pdf
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  20. Link to Post #56
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    part 5, The server seems to dislike files that are too big.
    Attached Files
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  21. Link to Post #57
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    THE OFFICIAL MAINSTREAM NARRATIVE IS COLLAPSING (LIKE A SUPERNOVA)

    This 'conspiracy style' phrase may not be an exaggeration - see the following from Scientific American.

    They are confirming that the Super massive black holes that they say are the source of the Quasar Jets that are observed very early in the Universe's history are TOO YOUNG to have happened, in the way they previously thought. The jets are being observed in an era before there had been time to form super massive black holes. Again they are not observing the signs of a gravity well - just the jets. They are now postulating a new mechanism whereby SMBH's can form from a galactic gas cloud. This new formulation is a bit of a blow to their previous ideas. Michael was hoping for this moment.

    Michael's position was always that a fixed number of these energy source quasar particles formed just after the initial instant, and it is they that feed a fixed amount of matter/energy into the universe.

    Quote The Puzzle of the First Black Holes

    How could the oldest black holes have grown so big so early in the universe?
    • By Priyamvada Natarajan on February 1, 2018



    Credit: Mark Ross

    IN BRIEF

    • In the very distant, ancient universe, astronomers can see quasars—extremely bright objects powered by enormous black holes. Yet it is unclear how black holes this large could have formed so quickly after the big bang.
    • To solve the mystery, scientists proposed a novel mechanism for black hole formation. Rather than being born in the deaths of massive stars, the seeds of the most ancient supermassive black holes might have collapsed directly from gas clouds.
    • Astronomers may be able to find evidence for direct-collapse black holes using the James Webb Space Telescope, due to launch in 2019, which should see farther back in space and time than any instrument before it.

    Imagine the universe in its infancy. Most scientists think space and time originated with the big bang. From that hot and dense start the cosmos expanded and cooled, but it took a while for stars and galaxies to start dotting the sky. It was not until about 380,000 years after the big bang that atoms could hold together and fill the universe with mostly hydrogen gas. When the cosmos was a few hundred million years old, this gas coalesced into the earliest stars, which formed in clusters that clumped together into galaxies, the oldest of which appears 400 million years after the universe was born. To their surprise, scientists have found that another class of astronomical objects begins to appear at this point, too: quasars.
    Quasars are extremely bright objects powered by gas falling onto supermassive black holes. They are some of the most luminous things in the universe, visible out to the farthest reaches of space. The most distant quasars are also the most ancient, and the oldest among them pose a mystery.

    To be visible at such incredible distances, these quasars must be fueled by black holes containing about a billion times the mass of the sun. Yet conventional theories of black hole formation and growth suggest that a black hole big enough to power these quasars could not have formed in less than a billion years. In 2001, however, with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, astronomers began finding quasars that dated back earlier. The oldest and most distant quasar known, which was reported last December, existed just 690 million years after the big bang. In other words, it does not seem that there had been enough time in the history of the universe for quasars like this one to form.

    Many astronomers think that the first black holes—seed black holes—are the remnants of the first stars, corpses left behind after the stars exploded into supernovae. Yet these stellar remnants should contain no more than a few hundred solar masses. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the black holes powering the first quasars grew from seeds this small.

    To solve this quandary, a decade ago some colleagues and I proposed a way that seed black holes massive enough to explain the first quasars could have formed without the birth and death of stars. Instead these black hole seeds would have formed directly from gas. We call them direct-collapse black holes (DCBHs). In the right environments, direct-collapse black holes could have been born at 104 or 105 solar masses within a few hundred million years after the big bang. With this head start, they could have easily grown to 109 or 1010 solar masses, thereby producing the ancient quasars that have puzzled astronomers for nearly two decades.
    The question is whether this scenario actually happened. Luckily, when the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) launches in 2019, we should be able to find out.

    THE FIRST SEEDS


    Black holes are enigmatic astronomical objects, areas where the gravity is so immense that it has warped spacetime so that not even light can escape. It was not until the detection of quasars, which allow astronomers to see the light emitted by matter falling into black holes, that we had evidence that they were real objects and not just mathematical curiosities predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity.
    Most black holes are thought to form when very massive stars—those with more than about 10 times the mass of sun—exhaust their nuclear fuel and begin to cool and therefore contract. Eventually gravity wins, and the star collapses, igniting a cataclysmic supernova explosion and leaving behind a black hole. Astronomers have traditionally assumed that most of the black holes powering the first quasars formed this way, too. They could have been born from the demise of the universe's first stars (Population III stars), which we think formed when primordial gas cooled and fragmented about 200 million years after the big bang. Population III stars were probably more massive than stars born in the later universe, which means they could have left behind black holes as hefty as several hundred solar masses. These stars also probably formed in dense clusters, so it is likely that the black holes created on their deaths would have merged, giving rise to black holes of several thousand solar masses. Even black holes this large, however, are far smaller than the masses needed to power the ancient quasars.

    Due to launch in 2019, the James Webb Space Telescope will be powerful enough to find evidence for direct-collapse black holes, if they exist. Credit: Chris Gunn NASA
    Theories also suggest that so-called primordial black holes could have arisen even earlier in cosmic history, when spacetime may have been expanding exponentially in a process called inflation. Primordial black holes could have coalesced from tiny fluctuations in the density of the universe and then grown as the universe expanded. Yet these seeds would weigh only between 10 and 100 solar masses, presenting the same problem as Population III remnants.
    As an explanation for the first quasars, each of these pathways for the formation of black hole seeds has the same problem: the seeds would have to grow extraordinarily quickly within the first billion years of cosmic history to create the earliest quasars. And what we know about the growth of black holes tells us that this scenario is highly unlikely.

    FEEDING A BLACK HOLE

    Our current understanding of physics suggests that there is an optimal feeding rate, known as the Eddington rate, at which black holes gain mass most efficiently. A black hole feeding at the Eddington rate would grow exponentially, doubling in mass every 107 years or so. To grow to 109 solar masses, a black hole seed of 10 solar masses would have to gobble stars and gas unimpeded at the Eddington rate for a billion years. It is hard to explain how an entire population of black holes could continuously feed so efficiently.
    In effect, if the first quasars grew from Population III black hole seeds, they would have had to eat faster than the Eddington rate. Surpassing that rate is theoretically possible under special circumstances in dense, gas-rich environments, and these conditions may have been available in the early universe, but they would not have been common, and they would have been short-lived. Furthermore, exceptionally fast growth can actually cause “choking,” where the radiation emitted during these super-Eddington episodes could disrupt and even stop the flow of mass onto the black hole, halting its growth. Given these restrictions, it seems that extreme feasting could account for a few freak quasars, but it cannot explain the existence of the entire detected population unless our current understanding of the Eddington rate and black hole feeding process is wrong.
    Thus, we must wonder whether the first black hole seeds could have formed through other channels. Building on the work of several other research groups, my collaborator Giuseppe Lodato and I published a set of papers in 2006 and 2007 in which we proposed a novel mechanism that could have produced more massive black hole seeds from the get-go. We started with large, pristine gas disks that might otherwise have cooled and fragmented to give rise to stars and become galaxies. We showed that it is possible for these disks to circumvent this conventional process and instead collapse into dense clumps that form seed black holes weighing 104 to 106 solar masses. This outcome can occur if something interferes with the normal cooling process that leads to star formation and instead drives the entire disk to become unstable, rapidly funneling matter to the center, much like water flowing down a bathtub drain when you pull the plug.

    Disks cool down more efficiently if their gas includes some molecular hydrogen—two hydrogen atoms bonded together—rather than atomic hydrogen, which consists of only one atom. But if radiation from stars in a neighboring galaxy strikes the disk, it can destroy molecular hydrogen and turn it into atomic hydrogen, which suppresses cooling, keeping the gas too hot to form stars. Without stars, this massive irradiated disk could become dynamically unstable, and matter would quickly drain into its center, rapidly driving the production of a massive, direct-collapse black hole. Because this scenario depends on the presence of nearby stars, we expect DCBHs to typically form in satellite galaxies that orbit around larger parent galaxies where Population III stars have already formed.

    Simulations of gas flows on large scales, as well as the physics of small-scale processes, support this model for DCBH formation. Thus, the idea of very large initial seeds appears feasible in the early universe. And starting with seeds in this range alleviates the timing problem for the production of the supermassive black holes that power the brightest, most distant quasars.

    LOOKING FOR PROOF
    But just because DCBH seeds are feasible does not mean they actually exist. To find out, we must search for observational evidence. These objects would appear as bright, miniature quasars shining through the early universe. They should be detectable during a special phase when the seed merges with the parent galaxy—and this process should be common, given that DCBHs probably form in satellites orbiting larger galaxies. A merger would give the black hole seed a copious new source of gas to eat, so the black hole should start growing rapidly. In fact, it would briefly turn into a special kind of quasar that outshines all the stars in the galaxy.

    Credit: Amanda Montañez
    These black holes will not only be brighter than their surrounding stars, they will also be heavier—a reversal of the usual order of things. In general, the stars in a galaxy outweigh the central black holes by about a factor of 1,000. After the galaxy hosting the DCBH merges with its parent galaxy, however, the mass of the growing black hole will briefly exceed that of the stars. Such an object, called an obese black hole galaxy (OBG), should have a very special spectral signature, particularly in the infrared wavelengths between one and 30 microns where the JWST's Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) and Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) cameras will operate. This telescope will be the most powerful tool astronomers have ever had for peering into the earliest stages of cosmic history. If the telescope detects these obese black hole galaxies, it will provide strong evidence for our DCBH theory. Traditional black hole seeds, on the other hand, which derive from dead stars, are likely to be too faint for the JWST or other telescopes to see.
    It is also possible that we might find other evidence for our theory. In the rare case that the parent galaxy that merges with the DCBH also hosts a central black hole, the two holes will collide and release powerful gravitational waves. These waves could be detectable by the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), a European Space Agency/NASA mission expected to fly in the 2030s.

    A FULLER PICTURE

    It is entirely possible that both the DCBH scenario and small seeds feeding at super-Eddington rates both occurred in the early universe. In fact, the initial black hole seeds probably formed via both these pathways. The question is, Which channel created the bulk of the bright ancient quasars that astronomers see? Solving this mystery could do more than just clear up the timeline of the early cosmos. Astronomers also want to understand more broadly how supermassive black holes affect the larger galaxies around them.
    Data suggest that central black holes might play an important role in adjusting how many stars form in the galaxies they inhabit. For one thing, the energy produced when matter falls into the black hole may heat up the surrounding gas at the center of the galaxy, thus preventing cooling and halting star formation. This energy may even have far-reaching effects outside the galactic center by driving energetic jets of radiation outward. These jets, which astronomers can detect in radio wavelengths, could also heat up gas in outer regions and shut down star formation there. These effects are complex, however, and astronomers want to understand the details more clearly. Finding the first seed black holes could help reveal how the relation between black holes and their host galaxies evolved over time.
    These insights fit into a larger revolution in our ability to study and understand all masses of black holes. When the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) made the first detection of gravitational waves in 2015, for instance, scientists were able to trace them back to two colliding black holes weighing 36 and 29 solar masses, the lightweight cousins of the supermassive black holes that power quasars. The project continues to detect waves from similar events, offering new and incredible details about what happens when these black holes crash and warp the spacetime around them. Meanwhile a project called the Event Horizon Telescope aims to use radio observatories scattered around Earth to image the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Scientists hope to spot a ringlike shadow around the black hole's boundary that general relativity predicts will occur as the hole's strong gravity deflects light. Any deviations the Event Horizon Telescope measures from the predictions of general relativity have the potential to challenge our understanding of black hole physics. In addition, experiments looking at pulsing stars called pulsar timing arrays could also detect tremors in spacetime caused by an accumulated signal of many collisions of black holes. And very soon the JWST will open up an entirely new window on the very first black holes to light up the universe.
    Many revelations are in store in the very near future, and our understanding of black holes stands to be transformed.
    [IMG][/IMG]
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  22. Link to Post #58
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    Part 6 - more on Michael's conception of the inside-outness of fundamental particles and how he has tied in Astronomical quantities into his model

    UMMCK PART 6.pdf
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  23. Link to Post #59
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    14,872
    Thanked 6,336 times in 1,252 posts

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

    well, I finally got round to plugging 'The General Equation' Into excel, in order to check the formulas.

    It works numerically, however I should/will also check the units.

    Here we have an equation that contains the fundamental constants. Once in excel, it should be easy to manipulate using very basic algebra, and God knows where that could lead....


    [IMG][/IMG]


    [IMG][/IMG]
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 26th June 2019 at 23:02.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  24. Link to Post #60
    United States Avalon Member Ascension's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd October 2011
    Posts
    178
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked 827 times in 165 posts

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

    Trying to wrap my head around this...because my gut reaction is that it is important. Unfortunately, implosion from overload is imminent.

    Thank you Baby Steps.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Ascension For This Post:

    Baby Steps (27th June 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 3 4 LastLast

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