One man's G.U.T.

[Baby Steps]

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



http://i.imgur.com/kh8MPmo.jpg

[Baby Steps]

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

http://imgur.com/kUnfWqR

http://imgur.com/IYVdtY4

http://imgur.com/IvqTRFg

http://imgur.com/7c8o0iR

http://i.imgur.com/kUnfWqR.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/IYVdtY4.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/IvqTRFg.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/7c8o0iR.jpg

[Baby Steps]

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

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

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

[DeDukshyn]

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

http://imgur.com/NqjsqSi

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

[Baby Steps]

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

http://imgur.com/NqjsqSi

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

Many thanks - yes. Once I have got more of it on here I will be sharing thread too.
I am talking about an algebraic model for the universe that solves out all the observed & measured phenomena...

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

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

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

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

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

They cannot account for gravity or what charge actually is.

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

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

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

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

[Baby Steps]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baby Steps]

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

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

Michael Kirsch

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

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

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/bSfGPem.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://i.imgur.com/HlewTFk.jpg

[Baby Steps]

PREDICTIONS OF 'THE GENERAL EQUATION OF PHYSICS'

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

God bless

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/VdNx0zN.jpg

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/2gct3ft.jpg

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/Hgl02ZR.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://i.imgur.com/EA2cD7N.jpg

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/z8ZGmSH.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://http://i.imgur.com/nRdBKzQ.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://i.imgur.com/nRdBKzQ.jpg

[Baby Steps]

Michael Kirsch – the Man I knew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/lw8gKz1.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://i.imgur.com/CWA5oX9.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://i.imgur.com/VmvCoWM.jpg

[Baby Steps]

deleted.....

[Baby Steps]

SEVEN MAJOR MEASURABLE UNIVERSAL PARAMETERS IN THEIR FUNDAMENTAL ALGEBRAIC RELATION


http://i.imgur.com/xrGV8zC.jpg

http://imgur.com/xrGV8zC

[Baby Steps]

SOME NOTES ON HUBBLE

from wikipedia:


The universe goes beyond the Milky Way galaxy

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

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


A very good video intro:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7knav5DvEL0


Relationship between Hubble ‘constant’ and universe age

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

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

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

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

35208

http://i.imgur.com/9NQ2R12.jpg

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/Bk9Udw8.jpg

[Baby Steps]

uh-oh

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

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/mOKf1no.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/7KlV1Oz.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/whTJ4dE.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/EUYELbg.jpg

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/dcznkw2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/mveIKSh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/dfM0WPo.jpg

[Baby Steps]

The following is a very good scientific American article. Michael wrote a commentary which I will share next.

http://users.df.uba.ar/sgil/tutoriales1/fisica_tutoriales/cosmologia/evolution_of_the_universe.pdf

[Baby Steps]

from the article:


At a particular instant roughly 12 billion years ago, all the matter and energy we can
observe, concentrated in a region smaller than a dime, began to expand and cool at an
incredibly rapid rate. By the time the temperature had dropped to 100 million times that
of the sun's core, the forces of nature assumed their present properties, and the
elementary particles known as quarks roamed freely in a sea of energy. When the
universe had expanded an additional 1,000 times, all the matter we can measure filled
a region the size of the solar system.


http://i.imgur.com/7VtMDVr.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/0pvD3UG.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/MBPnEzq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/OdT72t4.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/5pOFh1o.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/mRgbi2A.jpg

[Baby Steps]

CONTINUING MICHAEL'S ANSWERS TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH:


http://i.imgur.com/yMWwrwc.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3Nxs543.jpg

http://http://i.imgur.com/4jw34Io.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/4jw34Io.jpg

[Baby Steps]

Second para of article;


. When the universe was half its present size,
nuclear reactions in stars had produced most of the heavy elements from which
terrestrial planets were made. Our solar system is relatively young: it formed five billion
years ago, when the universe was two thirds its present size. Over time the formation
of stars has consumed the supply of gas in galaxies, and hence the population of stars
is waning. Fifteen billion years from now stars like our sun will be relatively rare,
making the universe a far less hospitable place for observers like us.


Michael's Answer:


2. Galaxies do not form as commonly supposed by astronomers and cosmologists. Each is built by the back-to-back jets of a quasar particle at the rate given by equation (0.7 b). And so 'population of stars is.... ''NOT'' ... waning...'

[Baby Steps]

Para 3 from the article:


Our understanding of the genesis and evolution of the universe is one of the great
achievements of 20th-century science. This knowledge comes from decades of
innovative experiments and theories. Modern telescopes on the ground and in space
detect the light from galaxies billions of light-years away, showing us what the universe
looked like when it was young. Particle accelerators probe the basic physics of the
high-energy environment of the early universe. Satellites detect the cosmic
background radiation left over from the early stages of expansion, providing an image
of the universe on the largest scales we can observe.


http://i.imgur.com/6mrUT0t.jpg

[Baby Steps]

Para 4 from article:


Yet the big bang model goes only so far, and many fundamental mysteries remain.
What was the universe like before it was expanding? (No observation we have made
allows us to look back beyond the moment at which the expansion began.) What will
happen in the distant future, when the last of the stars exhaust the supply of nuclear
fuel? No one knows the answers yet.


http://i.imgur.com/zA0whZO.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/9S7edeR.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3dN7Xul.jpg

[Baby Steps]

5th extract from the article:


That is not the picture at all: in Einstein's universe the concept of space and the
distribution of matter are intimately linked; the observed expansion of the system of
galaxies reveals the unfolding of space itself. An essential feature of the theory is that
the average density in space declines as the universe expands; the distribution of
matter forms no observable edge. In an explosion the fastest particles move out into
empty space, but in the big bang cosmology, particles uniformly fill all space. The
expansion of the universe has had little influence on the size of galaxies or even
clusters of galaxies that are bound by gravity; space is simply opening up between
them. In this sense, the expansion is similar to a rising loaf of raisin bread. The dough
is analogous to space, and the raisins, to clusters of galaxies. As the dough expands,
the raisins move apart. Moreover, the speed with which any two raisins move apart is
directly and positively related to the amount of dough separating them.

http://i.imgur.com/wv5ugXp.jpg

[Baby Steps]

Extract 6:


Hubble's law has great significance not only because it describes the expansion of the
universe but also because it can be used to calculate the age of the cosmos To be
precise, the time elapsed since the big bang is a function of the present value of
Hubble's constant and its rate of change. Astronomers have determined the
approximate rate of the expansion, but no one has yet been able to measure the
second value precisely.




http://i.imgur.com/1LbHd7q.jpg

[Baby Steps]

Extract 6 & 7


Hubble's law has great significance not only because it describes the expansion of the
universe but also because it can be used to calculate the age of the cosmos To be
precise, the time elapsed since the big bang is a function of the present value of
Hubble's constant and its rate of change. Astronomers have determined the
approximate rate of the expansion, but no one has yet been able to measure the
second value precisely.
Still, one can estimate this quantity from knowledge of the universe's average density.
One expects that because gravity exerts a force that opposes expansion, galaxies
would tend to move apart more slowly now than they did in the past. The rate of
change in expansion is thus related to the gravitational pull of the universe set by its
average density. If the density is that of just the visible material in and around galaxies,
the age of the universe probably lies between 10 and 15 billion years. (The range
allows for the uncertainty in the rate of expansion.)


NB: the version Michael has, which is the copy from the original magazine puts the age at 'between 12 & 20 billion years' whereas the version I downloaded has modified this sentence with a different age range, as above.

http://i.imgur.com/VAGv6RR.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8YYCZ4f.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/9JizUhr.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/KQbrL25.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/2TOK6Kd.jpg

[Baby Steps]

Michael's favourite quote

from St Julian of Norwich 'revelations of divine love'


Also in this He shewed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball. I looked on it with eye of my understanding, and thought: What may this be? And it was answered generally thus: It is all that is made. I marvelled how it might last, for I thought it might suddenly have fallen to naught for littleness. And I was answered in my understanding: It lasteth, and ever shall last for that God loves it. And so everything has the Being by the love of God. In this Little Thing I saw three properties. The first is that God made it, the second is that God loves it, the third, that God keeps it. But what is to me truly the Maker, the Keeper, and the Lover, - I cannot tell; for till I am Substantially joined to Him, I may never have rest nor very bliss: that is to say, till I be so fastened to Him, that there is right nothing that is made betwixt my God and me.

[Baby Steps]

TRAVELLING AROUND THE BLACK HOLE EVENT HORIZON

Michael repeatedly confirmed that his model allowed for energy and information to travel 'around the universe's black hole event horizon' instantaneously, because this surface was 'perfectly inelastic'.

He stated that the neutrino quantum of energy that disappears from certain reactions (resulting in conventional science postulating another particle) in fact travels elsewhere via this event horizon.

This naturally got me thinking about 'free energy' and space travel. I directly asked him, if amounts of energy could travel in this way, could it be possible for energy to be realised or harvested in this way. He clearly said that he did not think so. We did not cover Zero point energy/the Casimir effect. I wonder if he was right about this - or if, in fact, the correct model DOES allow for mass/energy to just appear before us, because all matter is, in some way connected.

I regret not pursuing this further, and not succeeding it getting a clear understanding of how spatially, discrete particles could be connected. We do know about entanglement so to an extent quantum theory confirms this.

Musing further, one wonders whether a large structure like a ship or person could travel around the event horizon...this would involve the matter of the ship, merging, then de-merging with the black hole continuum. I would then wonder about the spirit of any beings aboard. Would their bit of spirit , merge with some greater spirit continuum?

35248

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/VLYG6qJ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/4liFRU5.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/gSsj4fq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/KjRsAwX.jpg

[Baby Steps]

It is at this point interesting to consider the implications of a universe where the entire physical workings, including sub atomic/quantum are described in equations that correctly model them.

Imagine that this is the case, for a moment.

Here we are, a young and primitive race, yet the key to all technology has been given to us. All that would be needed, in this scenario, is for a good AI to process the expressions and assist us to apply them to our own endeavours.

I suggest that use of such an equation would be the equivalent to , in the Star Treck series- 'warp drive' which is taken by advanced civilisations as a marker of a civilisation ready for contact. (see: Star Treck - first contact, the Vulcans detect a warp signature and get in touch)

Man kind could, potentially, become a high tech civilisation, that would then have the time, energy and inclination to spend it's time investigating spirituality, healing and other benevolent activities, as so many problems we currently wrestle with would be solved.

[Baby Steps]

TRAVELLING AROUND THE BLACK HOLE EVENT HORIZON

Michael repeatedly confirmed that his model allowed for energy and information to travel 'around the universe's black hole event horizon' instantaneously, because this surface was 'perfectly inelastic'.

He stated that the neutrino quantum of energy that disappears from certain reactions (resulting in conventional science postulating another particle) in fact travels elsewhere via this event horizon.

This naturally got me thinking about 'free energy' and space travel. I directly asked him, if amounts of energy could travel in this way, could it be possible for energy to be realised or harvested in this way. He clearly said that he did not think so. We did not cover Zero point energy/the Casimir effect. I wonder if he was right about this - or if, in fact, the correct model DOES allow for mass/energy to just appear before us, because all matter is, in some way connected.

I regret not pursuing this further, and not succeeding it getting a clear understanding of how spatially, discrete particles could be connected. We do know about entanglement so to an extent quantum theory confirms this.

Musing further, one wonders whether a large structure like a ship or person could travel around the event horizon...this would involve the matter of the ship, merging, then de-merging with the black hole continuum. I would then wonder about the spirit of any beings aboard. Would their bit of spirit , merge with some greater spirit continuum?

35248

The following COLLECTIVE EVOLUTION article is excellent. There are a number of synchronicities with what Michael has revealed, including the idea that an electron is a fundamental particle, and that all matter in the universe is connected. It appears that various minds in various fields are intuiting a different arrangement for the layout of space-time, and are getting results. The results being likely human inter stellar travel in the 'black' world, and quantum ability to harvest energy from the vacuum.

I regret not quizzing Michael about the vacuum or Aether ideas , but I feel that these things do fit in somehow. I feel that a photon is a disturbance/ push-pull, or vortex in the aether, and if it has sufficient energy, it flips into a hollow black hole particle, encapsulating the outer void from our view point.


QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT MAY BE KEY TO LONG DISTANCE SPACE TRAVEL – EX LOCKHEED EXEC SAID IT’S ALREADY HAPPENING
ARJUN WALIA
FEBRUARY 6, 2017

It’s called quantum entanglement, it’s extremely fascinating and counter to what we believe to be the known scientific laws of the universe, so much so that Einstein himself could not wrap his head around it. Although it’s called “quantum entanglement,” though Einstein referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.”
Recent research has taken quantum entanglement out of the theoretical realm of physics, and placed into the one of verified phenomena. An experiment devised by the Griffith University’s Centre for Quantum Dynamics, led by Professor Howard Wiseman and his team of researchers at the university of Tokyo, recently published a paper in the journal Nature Communications confirming what Einstein did not believe to be real: the non-local collapse of a particle’s wave function. (source (https://app.griffith.edu.au/news/2015/03/31/quantum-experiment-verifies-einsteins-spooky-action/))(Source (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7665)), and this is just one example of many.

They did this by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, and testing whether measurement of it in one laboratory would actually cause a change in the local quantum state in the other laboratory. In doing so, researchers were able to verify the entanglement of the split single photon.
Researchers have since replicated this experiment over and over again, with results of entanglement seen at kilometres of distance. Below is a great visual depiction of what quantum entanglement from the film, “What The Bleep Do We Know (http://www.whatthebleep.com/).”


“Space is just the construct that gives the illusion that there are separate objects” – Dr. Quantum

Sure, there are a lot of philosophies regarding what all of this stuff actually means, but, as Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher puts it, it’s a pre-curser to realizing that everything is connected, and that everything in the universe is one. What happens in what we call reality, is effecting something else in that same reality, it’s all “touching.” (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Rauscher))

What’s happening here is that, either we are witnessing the transfer of ‘information’ at a speed far greater than the speed of light, or even better, something completely instantaneous.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Ia3kcQydc

If all points in space are connected, that means vast distances between places are simply an illusion. Furthermore, quantum entanglement challenges Einsteins theory of relativity, but theories are developed to be tweaked and changed. Unfortunately, our world is plagued with secrecy, and you can learn more about that in an article about the black budget linked at the bottom of this article.
The Lockheed Executives Comments On Space Travel

Rich was the second director of Lockheed Skunkwork’s from 1975-1991. He’s been called the Father of Stealth, having overseen the development of the stealth fighter, the F-117A nighthawk. Before his death, Rich made several shocking open statements about the reality of UFOs and extraterrestrials.

“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do it.

“We now have technology to take ET home. No it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars.”

“There are two types of UFOs — the ones we build and the ones ‘they’ build.”

Where Quantum Entaglement Comes In

When Rich was asked how UFO propulsion worked, he said, “Let me ask you. How does ESP work?” The questioner responded with, “All points in time and space are connected?” Rich then said, “That’s how it works!”
Interesting to think about, isn’t it? Perhaps the vast distances that exist between planets, solar systems and more isn’t really as much of a barrier as we thought it was.

What Are The Sources For These Quotes?

One of the sources is aerospace journalist, James Goodall, who wrote for publications such as Jane’s Defense Weekly, Aviation Week and Space Technology, and Interavia. He is an accomplished speaker specializing in the history, development, and operations of the world’s only Mach 3 capable, manned air breathing aircraft, the SR-71 family of aircraft. (source (http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lhd6/Pages/BonhommeRichardDeliversA3toPacificAviationMuseum.a spx#.WRmKnGnyuUl))(source (http://aviationweek.com/author/james-c-goodall-0))

He is also an author, as well as the Associate Curator at the Pacific Aviation Museum, HI. He was also the restoration manager at the Museum of Flight in Paine Field, Everett, WA.
Goodall interviewed many from the classified black budget world (read more about that world here (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/31/snowden-reveals-first-ever-public-disclosure-of-secret-black-budget-programs/).) He claimed that some of his contacts told him that “we have things out there that are literally out of this world, better than Star Trek or what you see in the movies.”

From his work alone, James Goodall knew Ben Rich well. In a video interview, Goodall stated that he spoke to Rich approximately 10 days before he died:
“About ten days before he died, I was speaking to Ben on the telephone at the USC Medical Center in LA. And he said, ‘Jim, we have things out in the desert that are fifty years beyond what you can comprehend. They have about forty five hundred people at the Lockheed Skunk works. What have they been doing for the last eighteen or twenty years? They’re building something.’”
Another source comes from John Andrews, who was a legendary Lockheed engineer. He had written to Rich, stating his own belief in UFOs, both man-made and extraterrestrial. Andrews has asked Rich if his own beliefs covered extraterrestrial as well as man-made UFOs. Rich’s reply was as follows:
“Yes, I’m a believer in both categories. I feel everything is possible. Many of our man-made UFOs are Un-Funded Opportunities. There are two types of UFOs, the ones we build, and the ones they build.”

In Rich’s reply, he underlined the U, F, and O in “unfunded opportunities.”
Thirdly, Jan Harzan, a senior executive with IBM, along with Tom Keller, an aerospace engineer who has worked as a computer systems analyst for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, discusses a talk Ben gave some time ago. On March 23rd, 1993 at a UCLA School of Engineering talk where he was presenting a general history of Sunk Works, he said this:


We now know how to travel to the stars. There is an error in the equations, and we have figured it out, and now know how to travel to the stars and it won’t take a lifetime to do it. It is time to end all the secrecy on this, as it no longer poses a national security threat, and make the technology available for use in the private sector. There are many in the intelligence community who would like to see this stay in the black and not see the light of day. We now have the technology to take ET home.

Here is a video of Jan telling the story:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9ZZekWMiUQ

What’s Remarkable About The ET/UFO Phenomenon

It’s quite remarkable how many verified statements we have regarding UFOs (unidentified flying objects) and extraterrestrials from people who have held the highest positions possible within the government, military, academia, politics and more. To be honest, it’s overwhelming, and when you put all of those statements together with all of the previously classified documentation that has been released over the past few years, it paints a startling picture. Anybody who has done even a fair amount of research, and adheres to the philosophy of “condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance,” would not be able to deny this, and I have yet to come across someone who has done the research that still subjects this topic to the “conspiracy theory” realm.
If you’d like to learn more about UFOs, a great place to start is by checking out what happens when they are tracked on military radar. (http://www.collective-evolution.com/?s=military+radar)

To view a fraction of some verified quotes, and documents, and more, you can sift through the exopolitics (http://exopolitics.org/) section of our website and browse through our heavily sourced articles there.

Below is an example, and a video I’ve used many times before, as it is an extremely powerful statement. I apologize if you’ve seen it before, but it really hits home. There really is an “abundant amount of evidence.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO0T05kQkbs

Want to Learn More About The Secret Space Program?
Below is a great lecture given by researcher Richard Dolan. A great place to start. I apologize if you’ve seen this content before, but we always have new readers visiting our site, so it’s important to constantly put this information out there for those new eyes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buNCOlB-HeM

Space is Not Empty, Everything Is Connected


A century from now, it will be well known that: the vacuum of space which fills the universe is itself the real substratum of the universe; vacuum in a circulating state becomes matter; the electron is the fundamental particle of matter and is a vortex of vacuum with a vacuum-less void at the center and it is dynamically stable; the speed of light relative to vacuum is the maximum speed that nature has provided and is an inherent property of the vacuum; vacuum is a subtle fluid unknown in material media; vacuum is mass-less, continuous, non viscous, and incompressible and is responsible for all the properties of matter; and that vacuum has always existed and will exist forever….Then scientists, engineers and philosophers will bend their heads in shame knowing that modern science ignored the vacuum in our chase to discover reality for more than a century.


The quote above comes from Paramahamsa Tewari (http://www.tewari.org/), Inventor of what’s called the Reactionless AC Synchronous Generator (RLG).
What he says above has been the subject of discussion within the realms of physics and astronomy for decades. At the turn of the nineteenth century, physicists started to explore the relationship between energy and the structure of matter. In doing so, the belief that a physical, Newtonian material universe that was at the very heart of scientific knowing was dropped, and the realization that matter is nothing but an illusion replaced it. Scientists began to recognize that everything in the Universe is made out of energy.
Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. This is also known as “the Vacuum” or “The Zero-Point Field.”
What’s even more fascinating is that the “stuff” within this space can be accessed and used. This was experimentally confirmed when The Casimir Effect illustrated zero point or vacuum state energy, which predicts that two metal plates close together attract each other due to an imbalance in the quantum fluctuations(source (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7226/edsumm/e090108-01.html))(source (https://physics.aps.org/story/v2/st28)).

You can see a visual demonstration of this concept here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xuEY2bm-W50). Before Casimir, these pockets of “nothing” were thought to be voids.
Unfortunately, when contemplating the nature of our reality and what we perceive to be our physical world, the existence of the vacuum and and what lies within what we call “space” is very much over-looked. I find it amusing how we’re still searching for the ‘God’ particle when a large amount of evidence points to the idea that most of what we refer to as “reality” is actually something we can’t perceive with our physical senses!

No point is more central than this, that space is not empty, it is the seat of the most violent physics – John Wheeler

It’s quite confusing, which is why I am posting the video below of someone (out of many people) who spends their life researching and experimenting with these cool concepts.
Below is a video of Nassim Haramein giving a TEDx talk at USCD. Nassim currently leads teams of physicists, electrical engineers, mathematicians and other scientists to explore the frontier of unification principles and their implications. Haramein’s lifelong vision of applied unified physics to create positive change in the world today is reflected in the mission of The Resonance Project Foundation. He shares the developments of his research through scientific publications and educational offerings through the Resonance Academy (https://resonance.is/events/nassim-haramein-dr-semir-osmanagich-bosnia/).
Currently Nassim is focused on his most recent developments in quantum gravity and their applications to technology, new energy research, applied resonance, life sciences, permaculture, and consciousness studies. Nassim currently resides in Kauai compassionately raising his two young sons, and surfing the sunlit swells on the shores of the magnificent Hawaiian islands.

HERE (http://hiup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/scalinglaw_paper.pdf) is an example of some of his published research, with co authors, one of whom is Elizabeth A. Rauscher, an American physicist. She is a former researcher with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Stanford Research Institute, and NASA.

“Space is actually not empty and it’s full of energy…The energy in space is not trivial there’s a lot of it and we can actually calculate how much energy there is in that space and that reality might actually come out of it. Everything we see is actually emerging from that space.”




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJsl_klqVh0

Related CE Articles:
Distinguished Scientists Gather To Emphasize That Matter Is Not The Only Reality (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/02/07/physicists-examine-consciousness-conclude-the-universe-is-spiritual-immaterial-mental/)

Sources:
(1) Dolan, Richard. UFOs For the 21st Century Mind: New York: Richard Dolan Press (https://www.richarddolanpress.com/books), 2014 (Historian, author, one of the world’s leading researchers on the topic of UFOs)

Related CE Article: Learn More About The “Black Budget (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/09/03/a-top-secret-black-budget-secret-space-program-thats-reversed-engineered-extraterrestrial-technology/).”

[Baby Steps]

My limited understanding of quantum equations is that they have got the key expressions, such as E=hf, etc etc. These have been proven, and the expressions are simple and elegant.

But they throw up singularities, such as that which they say resides in the centre of a black hole. The algebra describes an event horizon. This is the place where you are falling in, and need to be travelling at a speed greater than c, the speed of light to escape. Clearly a key parameter, but if there was a huge black hole, that you were falling into, you would not necessarily know, detect, or feel that you had crossed this point of no return in your falling journey. The algebra throws up a central singularity that cannot be defined, it approaches infinite density, and that is the gravity well you are falling into.

However Einstein et al felt that there was something fundamentally wrong. He said that we will have got it right when we eliminate the singularities.

Apart from the fact that Michael believed that there were no such things as macroscopic black holes - except for our universe, he felt that it was the orientation of space-time that they had got inside out. We are in a hypersphere , a 4 dimensional sphere with time being fourth dimension. If we were 'Olympian' and inside here, we could leave, because we would not be bound by physics. As material participants, if we fly outwards, and try to leave, we find ourselves flying into the hot centre of an ever younger universe. We cannot get out. As an Olympian, let's leave. Now look back.

We see exactly the entity described above in my account of the classical idea of a macroscopic black hole. We can fall in, and enter space time, and as we peer into the centre we see an ever denser clump of matter- the material universe.

So what I am trying to say is, that quantum theory is right, but the missing piece of the puzzle is having the correct view point. Not the inside out one.

http://i.imgur.com/6urzPjZ.png

http://i.imgur.com/S15O6yX.png

[Baby Steps]

In the following article (http://www.iflscience.com/space/astronomers-find-3-early-quasars-that-defy-all-current-theories-about-how-fast-they-form/) from 'IFL Science', we have once again, conventional science scratching their heads in the face of observed data. Michael always hoped the the Hubble Telescope would vindicate his work. I did not get, and have not found a definitive statement from him as to how the vast improvement in how far back we can look with this converted spy satellite would support his work, but we did discuss it.

I am pretty sure that it would at least partly relate to our ability to look back to the early universe to a much greater degree, and hopefully see the 'central building quasars' working with less obscuration. A little late, but the following is part of this. They are scratching their heads because they say that they cannot explain how super massive black holes appear so early in the universe's life. They postulate that large stars must form, burn out, go super nova, manufacture black holes, then these gather into the super massive variety. This they expect, quite reasonably, to take billions of years, yet they say that they have detected them VERY EARLY in the life of our universe. How did they form?

Firstly, to note from, I hope, Michael's perspective is that they HAVE NOT detected super massive black holes. What they are seeing are the quasar jets. The error lies in the suggestion that the jets mark a SMBH, because of their accretion disc model. In other words in the conventional universe the only time you will see these jets is in the presence of the SMBH. In Michael's universe the Quasars form very early on- complete with jets. Michael clearly expected the identification of the very distant, young quasars to confirm or support his model. Not so far, however they are clearly in a quandary as to how these jets appear so early on. This train of thought is a confirmation of Michael's work.



Astronomers Find Three Early Quasars That Defy What We Know About How Black Holes Form


There’s a lot that we don’t know about the early universe and all the new discoveries seem to suggest that even things we have a good grasp of are still hiding surprises. One of these is related to how quickly supermassive black holes (SMBH) formed.
Three quasars have been observed with some seriously supermassive black holes, with a mass the size of a billion Suns. Strangely, they have only been growing for less than a 100,000 years, which is thousands of times faster than people expect their growth rate to be.
“This is a surprising result,” lead author Christina Eilers, a doctoral student at Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, said in a statement (http://www.mpia.de/news/science/2017-05-young-quasars). “We don’t understand how these young quasars could have grown the supermassive black holes that power them in such a short time.”
The study, published in the Astrophysical Journal (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c60/meta;jsessionid=C14604081DBE033C368CD4D038774268.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org), focuses on the proximity zones of quasars. These are regions surrounding the primordial active galaxies where the intense radiation from the supermassive black holes have ionized (made transparent) the intergalactic gas. Out of the 34 quasars studied, three had a very small proximity zone and the most likely scenario modeled suggests that these SMBHs formed extremely quickly.
The light of these quasars took 13 billion years to travel to us and what we are seeing is how these objects looked just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.
Astronomers assume a bottom-up formation mechanism, where small structures formed first and then merged into bigger and bigger objects. Under that assumption, large black holes formed from the supernovae of the first massive stars. These black holes then merge with each other until they became supermassive. But the SMBHs powering these quasars are challenging everything we know about how long it takes to get this big.
“No current theoretical models can explain the existence of these objects,” explained co-author and team leader Professor Joseph Hennawi. “The discovery of these young objects challenges the existing theories of black hole formation and will require new models to better understand how black holes and galaxies formed.”
To solve this conundrum the team is already planning new observations hunting more quasars similar to the three they found.
“We would like to find more of these young quasars,” admitted Eilers. “While finding these three unusual quasars might have been a fluke, finding additional examples would imply that a significant fraction of the known quasar population is much younger than expected.”
Understanding these objects, especially if they are not flukes, might tell us a lot more about how objects grew during the earliest time of the universe.

[Baby Steps]

what I believe I have shared so far are Michael's statements about his model, plus the main equations which he produced or discovered, that describe a working model for the universe including reconciliation of Relativity with Quantum Equations, without any singularities.

Journeying into his work for the second time, 20 years after I did, with Michael, is hard. I suspect that how he started was with the equations in post 2. In that tract of algebra, he starts with the crazy idea that we are inside a black hole as described by Schwarzchild, that is advancing at a radial C divided by the square root of 2. In order for this to be the case, the 'particle' needs to be gaining mass at a certain rate. He then imagines a black body radiating this energy income AT US from the inside surface, and arrives at the background flux temperature. This may be how he started. The expression he produces includes many constants that conventional science has been trying to unify in one equation. From crazy assumptions, he produces a working equation. From there he goes on to model the whole she-bang.

The bit that grabbed me was the part where the same assumptions show us that gravity is inertial, and caused by the rotation of the black-hole event horizon about the rest of the universe. Again we start with Schwarzchild, but we are now describing our fundamental particles, that actually individually encapsulate the rest of the universe and rotate around it at c divided by the square root of 2. Circular motion is actually acceleration at a constant rate towards the centre. This implies a force.

In the following tract of Algebra Michael starts with his black hole particle and derives Newtonian Gravitation. No conflict. This is quantum gravity without exchange particles.

http://i.imgur.com/hnfHOL7.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://i.imgur.com/i9muhIA.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/f3JyINn.jpg

http://http://i.imgur.com/irqV7gO.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://i.imgur.com/irqV7gO.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/UU1L7hZ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Bpuvk96.jpg

[Baby Steps]

http://i.imgur.com/C3EOdPu.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/N7rd3VB.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/S3mZGQp.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://i.imgur.com/kcn4EMR.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/YNdUhjH.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/W5hW4qW.jpg

[Baby Steps]

Update: For the record - I still have some of the discs- for an Atari ST 1080 -

[Baby Steps]

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!


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:


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 (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140261-five-things-physicists-hate-about-physics/?cmpid=ILC%7CNSNS%7C2017-GLOBAL-inlinelink&utm_medium=ILC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=inlinelink):



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.


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!!

[Baby Steps]

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?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t4aKJuKP0Q

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:

http://i.imgur.com/oUHUyvL.jpg

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.

[Baby Steps]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJsl_klqVh0

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:


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?


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.


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...


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


http://i.imgur.com/erabuHn.jpg

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 (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929262-100-particle-puzzle-honey-i-shrunk-the-proton/) 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


The holographic principle
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.....

[Baby Steps]

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.

http://i.imgur.com/Vd9Gk25.gif

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.

http://i.imgur.com/njTglu7.png

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....


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.

[Baby Steps]

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.

[Baby Steps]

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':

http://i.imgur.com/ovvkGZQ.jpg

[Baby Steps]

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 (https://resonance.is/about-haramein/) 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 (https://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/QGHM.pdf) 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 (http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/our-story) 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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99418-News-from-the-Quantum-World-The-Universe-is-eternal&p=1174509&viewfull=1#post1174509) appeared which introduced me to Garrett Lisi. And there it was – confirmation, and very synchronous. Garrett Makes the following statement:



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.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNWPzFczmLY

[Baby Steps]

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. .



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYqvi7qQ_Ko

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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97116-One-man-s-g.u.t.&p=1154490&viewfull=1#post1154490) ON THIS.

Best regards

[Baby Steps]

The Universe Model Maker's Construction Kit - scan 1



https://i.imgur.com/fPKVAHM.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Br7l4O4.jpg

[Baby Steps]

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.

37796

[Baby Steps]

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.

37665

[Baby Steps]

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.

37704

[Baby Steps]

In the following Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02616-8) 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.


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.”



https://i.imgur.com/y3lfLDj.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmIImZ8uiOs

[Baby Steps]

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.

37759

[Baby Steps]

part 5, The server seems to dislike files that are too big.

[Baby Steps]

THE OFFICIAL MAINSTREAM NARRATIVE IS COLLAPSING (LIKE A SUPERNOVA)

This 'conspiracy style' phrase may not be an exaggeration - see the following from Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-puzzle-of-the-first-black-holes/).

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.


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.

https://i.imgur.com/UmBPItM.jpg

[Baby Steps]

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

38312

[Baby Steps]

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....


https://i.imgur.com/aDTPa6C.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/KChxBZC.jpg

[Ascension]

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.

[ndroock1]

Who is Michael the man?

[Baby Steps]

Who is Michael the man?

hi,
thanks for having a look, I wrote a bit about him in post 6. He died about 8 years ago. He was in PR and Journalism before he started working on his theories.

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

addendum: also post 14

[Baby Steps]

NO QUARKS

In the following article from NewScientist (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332500-900-what-the-quark-why-matters-most-basic-building-blocks-may-not-exist/), we are getting hints that Quarks do not exist.

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

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



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


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

Andrea Ucini

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

And now, in a twist to rival that of any experimental novel, it seems quarks may not actually exist. According to tantalising new research, they may instead be an illusion, the product of quantum trickery we don’t yet fully understand.

[Baby Steps]

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


See post 54 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97116-One-man-s-g.u.t.&p=1224009&viewfull=1#post1224009) and post 57 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97116-One-man-s-g.u.t.&p=1226130&viewfull=1#post1226130) for more evidence




THE MYSTERIOUS STAR THAT APPEARS TO BE OLDER THAN THE UNIVERSE


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



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





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

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

A mysterious, fast-moving star:

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





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






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

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

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





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



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PprRtLosj4A

[Baby Steps]

This is a follow up post to post 6

IF SIZE IS RELATIVE COULD MOTION BE RELATIVE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Micheal stated that as we approach the event horizon, the curvature of space time approaches infinity, and this was a way that he used to postulate the space time flip- from being encapsulated, to encapsulating. The particle encapsulates the rest of the universe. They all do simultaneously.

[Baby Steps]

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....


https://i.imgur.com/aDTPa6C.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/KChxBZC.jpg

The above equation is the core of Michael's work, and appears to be correct. Michael became convinced over several years, after he went through a process of playing with it, reducing it to accepted expressions, and exercising it to arrive at correct predictions regarding the universe that we observe. So he found multiple corroborations. He wrote programs that exercised it too.

Some may look at this and dismiss it out of hand on the grounds that it contains Hubble, and the background flux temperature. Conventional physics accepts that Tb is a variable, ie that image of the expanding early universe will cool over time.

Conventional physics generally describes Hubble as a 'constant' whereas Michael says it is a variable and simply the inverse of the universe age.

There therefore remains the problem, if we accept that G and the others ARE constants.

my proposal is that there should be a new constant made up of H2/Tb4. Lets call it the Kirsch constant of cosmology. I do not doubt that if any of that is correct, it will still be decades before the Kirsch becomes mainstream.

[Baby Steps]

It Appears that the idea that we are living inside a black hole (universe) is gaining ground...

New Theory Suggests We Live in a Gigantic Higher Dimensional Black Hole (https://themindunleashed.com/2019/06/universe-higher-dimensional-black-hole.html)

A team of astrophysicists have put forth a theory suggesting that our entire universe exists inside the event horizon of a higher dimensional black hole.


JAKE ANDERSON


New research (https://themindunleashed.com/2019/06/black-hole-portals-other-galaxies.html) into black holes has accelerated in recent years, producing some outlandish—though mind boggling—ideas. The newest theory (https://www.ibtimes.co.in/big-bang-theory-wrong-universe-itself-exists-inside-gigantic-higher-dimensional-black-hole-799674?fbclid=IwAR0-gSoMnS68z3suEregoWJKjUxCq10xIqx_hm1MJ8rdV9bKmr7yEkY3O80) advanced by researchers may take the cake in this regard.

A team of astrophysicists at Canada’s University of Waterloo have put forth a theory suggesting that our universe exists inside the event horizon of a massive higher dimensional black hole nested within a larger mother universe.

Perhaps even more strangely, scientists say this radical proposition is consistent with astronomical and cosmological observations and that theoretically, such a reality could inch us closer to the long-awaited theory of “quantum gravity.”

The research team at Waterloo used laws from string theory to imagine a lower-dimensional universe marooned inside the membrane of a higher dimensional one.
Lead researcher Robert Mann said:



The basic idea was that maybe the singularity of the universe is like the singularity at the centre of a black hole. The idea was in some sense motivated by trying to unify the notion of singularity, or what is incompleteness in general relativity between black holes and cosmology. And so out of that came the idea that the Big Bang would be analogous to the formation of a black hole, but kind of in reverse.

The research was based on the previous work of professor Niayesh Afshordi, though he is hardly the only scientist who has looked into the possibility of a black hole singularity birthing a universe.
Nikodem Poplawski of the University of New Haven imagines the seed of the universe like the seed of a plant—a core of fundamental information compressed inside of a shell that shields it from the outside world. Poplawski says this is essentially what a black hole is, a protective shell around a black hole singularity ravaged by extreme tidal forces creating a kind of torsion mechanism.
Compressed tightly enough—as scientists imagine is the case at the singularity of a black hole, which may break down the known laws of physics—the torsion could produce a spring-loaded effect comparable to a jack-in-the-box. The subsequent “big bounce” may have been our Big Bang, which took place inside the collapsed remnants of a five-dimensional star.

Poplawski also suggested that black holes could be portals connecting universes. Each black hole, he says, could be a “one-way door” to another universe, or perhaps the multiverse.
Regardless of whether or not this provocative theory is true, scientists increasingly believe that black holes could be the key to understanding many of the most vexing mysteries in the universe, including the Big Bang, inflation, and dark energy. Physicists also believe black holes could help bridge the divide between quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of relativity.


From National Geographic:

Are We Living in a Black Hole? (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/2/140218-black-hole-blast-explains-big-bang/)

[Baby Steps]

Another section of the Universe Model Makers Construction Kit.

Michael discusses the two alternative geometries (Human and God) and how the algebra confirms it.

43664

[Baby Steps]

The following video sets out the idea that the universe is a hypersphere of four spatial dimensions very nicely, ie all of our 3d space is on the surface of a 4d sphere. He ends by saying that this is unlikely to be the case due to recent work on the CMB, however the explanation is excellent.

Michael described the Universe as a hypersphere, but mentioned at least six physical dimensions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1dOnqCu9pQ

[Baby Steps]

The following excellent video is well reasoned at a fairly low high school level of physics. I think they are setting out correctly that current state of play with regard to gravity and the idea of extra spatial dimensions. Basic gravitation out in space conforms to Newton's equation, which includes gravity reducing with distance according to an inverse square law, and this strongly suggests that in the macro world there are only 3 spatial dimensions.

The idea is that more dimensions are folded up into very tiny spaces that we cannot perceive, but can be measured at tiny scale interactions between fundamental particles. They are 'compactified'.

This is an old idea going back to the Kaluza-Klein theory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory) It could also fit with Haramein's view that the strong nuclear force is just gravity operating over extremely proximal scales.

It also explains the Cavendish experiment, and how he managed to get G to within 1% using pendula. Amazing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z91oGI5aP0A

[Baby Steps]

The Crisis in Cosmology

Well it sounds like there are many. A common thread seems to be that we are getting better & better observation and measurements, and as the data accumulates, it is challenging most assumptions and models that were previously regarded as solid.

The particular crisis mentioned in the following is that the first stars in the universe had unexpectedly lower levels of Helium, (the Helium crisis). The model for the big bang that is generally accepted is that all the matter we see now appeared in an instant at the beginning. What this would produce, according to their models and calculations, is a large amount of lighter elements such as Helium , lithium etc due to fusion in the very young universe where temperature & pressure are at the levels that we know produces fusion.

The predictions they made for the abundance of these elements based on the conventional big bang model are way off compared to observations.

This conundrum again can be said to support Michael's model, as in his model the quasar magnetic monopole particles are basically hydrogen hoses.Very high energy photons pour out , many forming protons etc but not much or any helium (as far as I know from Michael's work)

Therefore the young universe in Michael's model is mostly hydrogen.

The speaker is using this point to question the whole idea of a big bang.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KkhRibBllU

[Baby Steps]

Michael believed that the Hubble would vindicate his work . He thought that the idea of quasars/super massive back holes acting as galaxy seeds would be obvious once this telescope started producing images.

Well it did not happen , however certainly since then we are moving towards this conclusion as observation has forced mainstream science to postulate a spontaneous formation theory for SMBH’s since we know now that they formed earlier than the previous model allowed for . ‘Stuff just keeps getting older’ as Graham Hancock says.

Well now we may have another opportunity with the James Webb telescope . Are we going to see much younger bodies emitting the twin jets? What will happen if we observe these things operation JUST AFTER the early plasma universe loses its opacity. What contortions can we expect to hear from established science next ?

We live in interesting times

Here’s a great comment regarding our view of the universe

“ Issue: The Big Bang is usually represented in graphics with the Big Bang on the left of the image with the universe expanding to the right with newer galaxies on the right with us; the observer. This can be very confusing. Easy to graph but confusing.

A better way, I think, is to represent the change in the universe as a growing sphere with the Big Bang on the outside and Earth as a point at the center of the sphere. The cosmic background radiation (CBR) is a coating on the outside of the sphere. The oldest and furthest thing we can see.

With this graphic; everywhere we look from the center we see older stars and galaxies. We see the CBR at the limits of our view in all directions. We see very old galaxies in all directions near the surface of the sphere. The JWST will be able to image these old galaxies near the surface of the sphere in all directions. Our view within the sphere started when electromagnetic radiation began to travel through space. Before that it was very hot and opaque. As it became transparent the CBR was able to travel as the universe cooled enough to for atoms to form. Sort of like the raisin bread without raisins. The raisins condensed out of the space as it cooled. At one time long ago, we were the condensing raisins. Long ago we looked like those distance galaxies very young and new.”

[palehorse]

NO QUARKS

In the following article from NewScientist (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332500-900-what-the-quark-why-matters-most-basic-building-blocks-may-not-exist/), we are getting hints that Quarks do not exist.
..
.


wasn't Stephen Hawking the one who studied the tiny bits of matter (aka quarks) his entire life and came to the conclusion before his death that quarks are not actually real?
I remember reading something he wrote about quarks exist only in a concept of a model, for example a forced created reality (artificial), like smashing protons at sub atomic levels (the crazy things they do @ CERN) .. I did read some of his works, very interesting stuffs.

[Baby Steps]

Stuff keeps getting older

The mainstream models for galaxy formation are being challenged by ever earlier evidence. How did they form so quickly after the Big Bang?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomers-grapple-with-jwsts-discovery-of-early-galaxies1/

[Baby Steps]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euEY7lkRRaE

Cross posting as this mostly fits with what Michael said.

Wow – its looking like Quasi-crystal theory & observation are pointing strongly towards multidimensionality in a way that could unify Einstein with Quantum Theory.

(I wonder how time crystals fit in?)

There has been thought along these lines, check out the Kaluza Klein Theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory


If I have it right, they were trying to find more dimensions but concluded that since Newtonian Gravitation in macro open space recedes at an inverse square rate, the extra dimensions were not operating at the macro level, but were, instead folded up in our fundamental particles like plank scale layers.
This then suggests that particles are multidimensional but in a layered way.

Why do we search for multidimensionality?

We cannot seem to arrive at a working model for material reality without it. We see in the quantum world, particles that are ‘clouds of probability’ that respond to the attention given or not by an observer. They pop in and out of existence (challenging a 3 d conservation of energy idea), and the are acted on by unknown Forces.
Entanglement (spooky action t a distance as Einstein dismissively described it) gives us two particles that appear to be physically connected when they are at huge relative distances. You then might wonder if such entanglement might operate across the universe in the same way.
A way to explain this connection is to look at higher dimensions. Those two particles are connected in a higher dimension.
Imagine 2 d world, like a piece of paper with a stick man scientist drawn on it. Lets say you, a 3 d observer puncture the paper with a 3 prong fork.
The stick man scientist suddenly observes three separate discrete 2 d particles appearing from nowhere into his reality. He walks up to one, and taps it – they all three move in unison. The stick man scientist works out that those three particles are part of one object but connected via a higher dimension that he cannot perceive, but suspects is there.

So how can two protons be physically connected?

In the video Billy correctly says that our atoms & molecules are mostly empty space. He explains that we only experience them as physical because of the charge and forces in action, that hold this reality together. But if you could compactify the actual protons, neutrons & electrons it would be much much smaller.
This is all school level physics, but what mainstream physics has done is suggested that the components of the atom are constructed in the same way ie, tiny quarks or maybe planks, are flitting around forming the proton, and again the proton is mostly space.(this is not 100% proven)

I am suggesting that things may be different to that however. It may be that the Protons, Neutrons and electrons are not comprised of quarks etc, but are fundamental particles.
They then give us the structure for the ‘layered dimensions’ that Billy and Kaluza-Klein postulate.
Imagine a circle but with multiple concentric circles or ‘layers’, with the outermost being 3d and progressively going up the dimensions as you move inwards.
Now go back to the 2 d world thought experiment. Lets say that two protons are connected. If you push in past the 3-d layer, you get to 4-D etc. Maybe they are still separate in 4-d. Maybe they are connected at 5 or 6D. One thing. Maybe at 8-D ALL MATTER is connected into the one object.
In that way , humans and infinite other life forms may be slight perturbations in a single 8 dimensional sphere.(or maybe 11)
This single entity can pass energy from any one point to any other point instantly. This single entity houses a vast collective consciousness. Our quantum brain can decode a limited amount, but our consciousness resides on this 8-d surface, and the 3-d brain is a receiver. This receiver can broaden its signal, it can access much more .
I really like the Adinkra codes. It seems much ancient wisdom resides in east Africa amongst the Dogon.

Simulation?

He is using the language of fractals and simulation. There has ben much talk that humans live in a matrix style tank and everything we experience is a simulation. So there’s a computer creating a tea cup sitting in front of me. However that is not what Billy is pointing to. Its more like the fundamental particles and dimensions are being run by code, with a set of rules or governing equation.
What happens, what grows, evolves or is made in the multi dimensions is not a simulation. It is a process enabled by the creation of those particles, or that surface.
So In modern computer games they program in physics, enabling the graphics to realistically model that enemy dropping down to the ground. But in our reality the physics governs the particles or FABRIC. But after that the reality is a play area for creators, beings, or spirits.
So here we are buried in this complex machine. Imagine how huge, significant and transformational it would be if we decoded the reality we are living in?

[Baby Steps]

I am not sure why this thread is now considered medical.

The following are recent articles again suggesting that the Universe is a black hole - that we are living inside.


We could be living in a black hole
Story by Devika Rao, The Week US

Could our galaxy actually be inside a black hole? New research seems to suggest this possibility. NASA's James Webb Telescope discovered that the rotation of the galaxies goes against what scientists previously thought about the universe. The findings have revealed new insights about deep space.

Not so random
Data from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey found that the majority of galaxies rotate in the same direction, according to a journal article in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. After analyzing 263 galaxies, two-thirds were found to rotate clockwise, while approximately one-third of them rotated counterclockwise.
The Milky Way rotates counterclockwise, putting it in the minority. These findings are surprising because if the universe is random, as previously thought, "there should be an approximately equal amount of galaxies rotating in both direction[s]," said Popular Mechanics.
One explanation for this phenomenon is that the "universe was born rotating," Lior Shamir, a computer science professor at Kansas State University and author of the study, said in a statement. This explanation "agrees with theories such as black hole cosmology, which postulates that the entire universe is the interior of a black hole." However, if the universe was born rotating, "it means that the existing theories about the cosmos are incomplete."

Black hole cosmology "suggests that the Milky Way and every other observable galaxy in our universe is contained within a black hole that formed in another, much larger, universe," said The Independent. The theory "challenges many fundamental models of the cosmos, including the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe." The study's data also opens the door to the idea that each black hole is a door to another universe and that we exist in a multiverse.



Black hole in the wall


The idea that the universe is in the interior of a black hole is decades old. It posits that the "'event horizon' (the boundary from within which nothing can escape a black hole, not even light) is also the horizon of the visible universe," said Space.com. In turn, "each and every black hole in our universe could be the doorway to another 'baby universe,'" and "these universes would be unobservable to us because they are also behind an event horizon."



K State News and Communications Services
Wednesday, March 12, 2025

MANHATTAN — In just over three years since its launch, NASA's James Webb Space Telescope has generated significant and unprecedented insights into the far reaches of space, and a new study by a Kansas State University researcher provides one of the simplest and most puzzling observations of the deep universe yet.
In images of the deep universe taken by the James Webb Space Telescope Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey, or JADES, the vast majority of the galaxies rotate in the same direction, according to research by Lior Shamir, associate professor of computer science in the Carl R. Ice College of Engineering. About two third of the galaxies rotate clockwise, while just about a third of the galaxies rotate counterclockwise.
Shamir's study — published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society — was done with 263 galaxies in the JADES field that were clear enough to identify their direction of rotation.
“The analysis of the galaxies was done by quantitative analysis of their shapes, but the difference is so obvious that any person looking at the image can see it," Shamir said. "There is no need for special skills or knowledge to see that the numbers are different. With the power of the James Webb Space Telescope, anyone can see it.”
In a random universe, the number of galaxies that rotate in one direction should be roughly the same as the number of galaxies that rotate in the other direction. The fact that James Webb Space Telescope shows that most galaxies rotate in the same direction is therefore unexpected.
“It is still not clear what causes this to happen, but there are two primary possible explanations," Shamir said. "One explanation is that the universe was born rotating. That explanation agrees with theories such as black hole cosmology, which postulates that the entire universe is the interior of a black hole. But if the universe was indeed born rotating it means that the existing theories about the cosmos are incomplete.”
The Earth also rotates around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and because of the Doppler shift effect, researchers expect that light coming from galaxies rotating the opposite of the Earth's rotation is generally brighter because of the effect.
That could be another explanation for why such galaxies are overrepresented in the telescope observations, Shamir said. Astronomers may need to reconsider the effect of the Milky Way's rotational velocity — which had traditionally been considered to be too slow and negligible in comparison to other galaxies — on their measurements.
“If that is indeed the case, we will need to re-calibrate our distance measurements for the deep universe,” Shamir said. "The re-calibration of distance measurements can also explain several other unsolved questions in cosmology such as the differences in the expansion rates of the universe and the large galaxies that according to the existing distance measurements are expected to be older than the universe itself.”

Link to Study (distribution of galaxy rotation in JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey | Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society | Oxford Academic)

[Baby Steps]

Heres another credible source talking about the idea that we are living inside a black hole.

S5w5bwcYKCY

Michael stated that, yes we are inside a black hole, however he went further.

He considered the shape/form of this hypersphere

Consider that when we look out into the void we see increasingly ancient bodies, until we get to the cosmic background Flux. This is described as 'an echo of the big bang' however more accurately it is the view of the early universe in its plasma form, but red shifted (and time dilated) by a large proportion of C.

However Sabine and other scientists are struggling to define the boundary of the BH as they are trapped in 3 physical dimensional thinking a bit.

So if its a huge BH, where is the boundary or event horizon? Don't go pointing out to that early plasma image, that is stretched out around us. If we tried to travel in that 'outwards' direction we would just (ignoring speed of light limitations) arrive at that primal micro-universe that science cannot explain or measure.

No - to find that event horizon we, according to Michael, need to just look at the matter around us including us. Its the event horizon of those sub atomic particles that forms the boundary. The boundary is not a 3D sphere, is in a higher dimension, and appears to us as discrete objects, that are in fact physically joined together , but in a higher spatial dimension.

Now that idea is a bit mind expanding or befuddling!