While it is no secret that I profoundly disagree with the concept of a singularity, I have, over almost the same lifetime, come to greatly admire Professor Stephen Hawking as a thinker and as a man. His life has been a wonderful example of dogged refusal to give up. He himself has stated that, never give up, is one of his primary teachings. He has set perhaps the very best example of overcoming adversity and making a success of his life regardless of the difficulties caused by his long term illness.
We should also be fully mindful of the kindness and hard work of everyone surrounding him during his long infirmity; their care for him as simply a human being, made much of his more recent work possible. Without their support he might not have lived beyond his twenties. They too have set a standard that will perhaps not be seen again, certainly not in our lifetimes and as such I salute you all too.
There are two separate problems here; scientific apartheid, a refusal to give any credit to any new thinking that emanates from anyone not based within an established scientific institution; and fear. We are deliberately excluded from debate by a combination of systematic exclusion, (for example, no recognised institutional email address, no way to post upon such as arxi.org), and a deliberate policy of teaching students to address any external input to a debate by using terms such as pseudo science and often very demeaning language. Aggressive negativity is being taught as a way of exclusion; with deep fear of such aggressive negative exclusion being the end product. Today, science is trying to defend what is, indefensible.
Rather than teach to read and understand, science has been reduced to a new form of the Milgram experiment, where a figure of authority expects the student to apply rigorous negativity to any new input that may depreciate the teachers knowledge base. Instead of electric shocks, we get at the least, very bad language from someone, in what must now be seen as being in an agentic state. "Milgram suggested that two things must be in place for a person to enter the agentic state: The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate. The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens." https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Thus today it is quite normal for any none scientist original thinker to be presented with such deliberate negativity. A good example is this recent comment: "I hope nobody wastes their money on this book. It is filled with such absolute nonsense that I sadly have to think Chris Coles suffers with some sort of learning disability to be able to write it. Please do take a look inside on Amazon before even considering buying it, you will also see it is mumbo jumbo of the highest order..." https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/099283743X/ref=acr_search_see_all?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
But this is not a debate, we are now within what is fast becoming a classic revolution. A classic example of schumpeter's creative destruction and the deeper problem for science is that unless a substantial figure steps forward to set into motion a real debate about these deep problems within science, there must be the potential for the complete collapse of credibility for major institutions. For this debate will not go away. There is now much too much evidence, some now long ago presented and deliberately excluded, that an expanding universe based upon the foundation of big bang is unworkable.
Using indefensible teaching methods to suppress debate about new thinking has brought science into a desperate situation; where a revolution that will, inevitably, sweep many into complete disrepute and destroy reputations, even those seemed to be of the highest order; is now long overdue.
Who will step forward to lead will forever define the direction; open debate will lead to a renewal; continued suppression will only bring a heavy defeat from an inevitable revolution that will sweep many into the dustbin of history.
What we have been witnessing, for some time now, is the militarisation of the world of long term research; even worse, the secret militarisation of such. This is entirely the wrong path to take, if those of us with an interest in such are to be encouraged to follow.
For a start, I will absolutely NOT place my name or voice towards any such ongoing militarisation of long term research into space travel.
Period.
We are coming to an end of a long thought thread that started before the advent of the Cold War with Russia and which extended on into absolutely idiotic secret military adventures into just about every aspect of the freedom of thought of many other societies on the planet. Secret military organisations dominate the foreign policy of the United States and it is only now, with the advent of the new wave for a push for freedom in the Middle east, that it can be seen that these foreign policy adventures; supporting all forms of military dictatorships, all over the planet, are now falling through their fingers like dust.
Now they want to be able to control the future exploration of space; using the same organisations. Give me strength!
I will have nothing to do with such an ongoing attempt to dominate the long term free research of the planet with military funding for long term military purposes. As things stand, the majority of long term research money now comes from military sources. This must stop.
As also the use of the thoughts and aspirations of the free people to continue to be used to support long term research using military money for the long term interests of the United States dominated Military and Industrial complex. The urge to create a new “Star Wars” must be stopped in its tracks here and now.
I want to be able to see out my life in a more peaceful world, not dominated by military interests, not constantly pushed hither and thither by secret military money.
As such, I call on the rest of the free world to act now to create a completely new, long term research dominated organisation; that can be, indeed, must be, seen to be free of the influence of secret military and industrial money and influence.
DARPA must be told, from the top down, to stand back and not proceed with this further militarisation of long term research.
A new Galaxy is formed from the ejection of energy and mass from the Galactic Core Object at the centre of an existing galaxy. (in fact, as the energy and mass ejection is usually from both sides of such a galaxy), then we must expect to see two galaxies form from such ejection; one at each side. This is an evolutionary event that marks the point of maximum mass for any galaxy; the point where one galaxy must thereafter lose energy and mass to permit the evolution of the new. The surrounding disc of stars form the accretion disc for the Galactic Core Object at the centre of the galaxy. So a galaxy has to have both a core object and an accretion disc.
As we must also expect that the revolving Galactic Core Object will precess; then there will be times when such precession will throw out smaller energy and mass ejections, out of line of the main ejection, to form smaller globular clusters scattered around the eventual galaxies so formed.
The energy, (from the sometimes billions of stars that have formed the full mass of the Galactic Core Object), is stored in the balanced gravity band between the inner and outer event horizons inside, INSIDE, the structure of the Galactic Core Object. The breakup of the outer ring of mass, (and thus the process that releases the energy and mass), is described in great detail in chapter 42, The Whirlpool Galaxy in a new light, The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus Proton Energy http://www.lrsp.com/b2c.html
This is exactly the same process, but on a very much larger scale, that forms the energy ejections from Planetary Nebula and is the well known, but never publicised, "big (and often disorienting) leaps forward" that was written into the final paragraph of "The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars", Bruce Balick et. al. Scientific American, July 2004, page 35.
A galaxy is thus an object formed from energy and mass ejected from an older galaxy where, over a very great period of time, the central mass of the newly ejected energy and mass has come together to form a galactic Core Object sufficiently massive to bring the rest of the energy and mass into an accretion disc. The stars within a galaxy cannot "bump" into each other because they are all gravitationally attached to each other and balanced gravity effects within such attachments; balance out the forces and stabilise the whole entity.
The first question to ask is: what is "Idiotic"? If you mean something you do not at first sight understand; in what way does that make the thoughts presented “Idiotic”? No, I am not trying to say you are any sort of an idiot for making the statement, simply just trying to open the debate into a new plane of thought. May I pose you a complex challenge; take into your hands the July 2004 edition of Scientific American and turn to pages 26 to 35, a ten page article titled: The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars. Now, read the final two paragraphs. What you will discover is an open admission that the authors do not have all the answers and instead point towards the possible existence of new disruptive theories. One of the authors is Prof. Bruce Balick. Talk to him and ask him why they made that statement; by all means tell him who asked you to open the discussion. However, I suspect, with the greatest of respects, you will find him reluctant to.
Some of us, “on the outside” are recognised in our particular field, but not recognised in “science”. That of itself is not a problem, but what is a problem, not for us on the outside, but for those with enquiring minds on the inside; is that it has become all too easy to call any new disruptive theory “Idiotic” and to thus dismiss it with a wave of the closed off mandarin mind.
There is a very detailed new disruptive theory about the underlying gravitational structure of all mass objects in the universe; from the smallest dust grain to the largest objects at the core of the galaxies. But no one will discuss it nor review the book. I must add, not even Slashdot.
Now you might be forgiven for thinking, so what? But now turn to the Hubble Space Telescope and look for the 15th Anniversary images of M51 and The Eagle Nebula. Yes, there is a connection between the Balick description of a disruptive theory on the one hand and the image of a dust nebula on the other. You see, again, the disruptive theory describes why there are dust clouds, when all mass has gravity that attracts all surrounding mass to form a solid mass object and there is no existing theory for why that solid mass object can gently, without dispersing the mass explosively, evolve into clouds of dust.
Now I am certain that the Zealots will find many reasons to trash this post. But I am assuming you and many like you will have an enquiring mind that actually wants to know why no one, from Scientific American to Slashdot, will review or otherwise publicise the book wherein the disruptive theory resides.
When you do, eventually, get to buy and download the latest e-book edition, you will also discover that it also opens the debate to a completely new internal structure for the Sun and Earth and will point towards why it might be possible for the inner core to be able to easily change its positional relationship with the outer core. And, thus to why the pole is moving and to completely new areas of long term research with millions of clean, blank pages, for all of you who enjoy the challenge, to write upon.
Not even Slashdot is immune from the disastrous effects of the closed mandarin mind desperately afraid to open a discussion about a new disruptive “Idiotic” theory.
Slashdot is being disingenuous; it has already received a detailed explanation of what causes Barred Galaxies; but they, like the entire scientific community, refuse to give such explanation any publicity. May I suggest everyone turn to a past issue, (July 2004), of Scientific American; The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars by Bruce Balick and Adam Frank, Ten page article ending with the remark: "this opens the door to a new disruptive theory" but does not mention whose.... disruptive theory. If I sound angry, I am. Slashdot have had the e-book edition for some time, have corresponded, but only to the effect of off handedly and childishly smirking at it. I challenge Slashdot to publish a review. I will not name it as that would be self publicity. But I do call them disingenuous in not accepting they have received a very detailed explanation of what causes Barred Galaxies.
Whomever the writer is, he/she, should not remain anonymous. With a good grasp of logic and such a pleasant manner of construction, you should be an author.
For the record, anyone making statements that do not agree with the norm, whatever norm might mean; is always faced with the idea that they are "MAD" if for no other reason than no one else understands their thinking.
May previous thinkers who expressed their thoughts were driven away by existing thinking not being able to understand and would have been forgotten but for the simple fact that their new thinking is now recognised as being correct.
How many were burned at the stake for their thoughts in the past?
As the co-founder of Drake and Coles Containers Limited, based just outside the old docks in Southampton, UK, In 1971 I invented, manufactured and sold what we described as Modular Housing Units that were specifically manufactured units, (not modified Freight Containers), that could be used for any purpose. I challenge Google that they breach my copyright to the designs and public descriptions. At the time we were the largest repairer of aluminum freight containers in the UK and main agents for Rubery Owen Rockwell. Google has no right to the concept and the patent must be challenged.
Chris Coles
This must be the stupidest idea from someone that has never had to earn a living as a road warrier. Most of us turn off the sound for a very simple reason, thin walls in homes and hotels. If you are working late, or in an unfamilure time zone, the one thing you do not want is to wake up those around you at some un-godly hour simply because you have work to do, a note to make about a meeting that went on into the early hours,because you cannot sleep and want to surf, you have a sudden idea that has woken you up and you want to set it down in Word.
A lifetime of Karma to the person that finds a way to stop that, regardless of the stupidity and ridgidity of the minds of Microsoft.
There is a much finer point here that seems to be overlooked; what was stolen?
As I see it the only information gathered was taken through the eyes into his brain. There seems to be no mention of his taking the information that was entered into his brain and using that information for gain. He is not accused of selling the information, he is simply accused of taking the information into his brain.
How do you steal an image that is stored in your brain?
Are we to argue that every time we look over the fence of a military installation and see... anything, that we are thus to be accused of stealing the information we have,as a natural process, stored in our brain memory bank?
As I understand it, stealing is taking. Stealing is not seeing. Seeing is not stealing.
He should submit to the extradition and allow himself to be properly represented by a competant counsel and in the process make new law that will forever clarify the use of the human memory.
If I were you, from where I am standing, I would go into Pure Physics as an academic subject. That branch of science is about to be turned completely upside down and almost everything in the text books will be re-written. Look at the new industries associated with the race to commercialise space. Get work at a commercial space port or a university associated with such. If you are going to continue to work in software, then stick to emulating the new technologies that will stem from the new research areas in Pure Physics or the new commercial space industry. Enjoy!
For the event horizon to grow larger, the mass within it must have less density. The mass is no more, no less than that that which produces a gravitational "pull" sufficient to prevent photons form breaking free from the surface. That is it, there is nothing more than that to an event horizon. Nothing.
If you have a mass, say, ten times more than the mass needed to prevent the photons from escaping, then, from the moment that the mass reached `one', there were no photons escaping.
At `two' there is mass `one' plus another `one'
The first mass stopped photons from escaping, so from that moment, the event horizon was in place. No matter what you do to the extra mass, `one' remains the level of mass required to stop the photons escaping from the surface.
The "Event" was reaching `one'. At `two', there is the event - still there at `one'.
The event horizon cannot grow larger than that needed to create the effect, (preventing photons from escaping), in the first place.
It would be churlish for me to add anything further as you have already asked me to stop and after this I will. But you will find that I have given a completely new explanation for gravity.
I also have the support of NMSU/PSL, and my proposals for a Visual Gravity Observatory are being looked at by NSF, NOAA, Dept of Transport VOLPE center and USGS as I believe I have defined exactly what gravity is, how to observe it in real time and a path to the control of gravity.
I will be pleased to sit down and debate this with you anytime. But, sadly, no one that knows me well thinks that I am mad so you may be greatly disappointed; and, I do not know any aliens.
Chris Coles
cfc@lrsp.com
Nothing like a closed mind to describe an alternative argument as from an idiot!!
It is a matter of fact that 2 x 2 = 4, so, go on, add another digit to the calculation. Try it? 2 x 3 = 4? Well, that is what you are saying, that you can add mass to the calculation. At a specific mass, (depending on the density and diameter of the object, yes), the gravity is sufficient to prevent light from escaping. That is called the event horizon. But it is simply the point where the mathematics calculate that the gravity from the existing mass has reached a sufficient level that the point has been reached where light cannot escape. So, at that level of mass, gravity prevents light from escaping. So, ALWAYS, from that moment onwards, at that level of mass, light cannot escape.
Adding more mass does not, indeed, cannot, change that relationship. So from that point onwards, any additional mass is more than required to create an event horizon and thus is not in the original calculation, but outside of it. (You still have a star shining away inside the event horizon, but no light escapes).Thus any additional mass added is more than is needed to create the event, and light not escaping.
That extra mass is outside of the event horizon. If that is so, then all the energy from the extra mass must, because the gravitational force is so high, be sucked into the original star under the event horizon leaving behind inert mass with no energy.
Thus what happens is that outside of the event horizon you get a layer of super dense, inert, (SDI), mass. As that mass grows in depth, you reach the point where the SDI mass is deep enough as a layer to have balanced gravity effects within that SDI mass such that, from that point onwards, instead of all the energy of the extra mass going into the original star, it starts to collect in a ring inside the SDI mass. In time the size becomes such that it acts as though a sandwich between the teeth and energy squirts back out into space as a jet from both ends. A quasar at the larger end and a planetary nebula at the other. Thus it is impossible to create a singularity as the object ejects energy back into space in all senarios.
If you look at the book you will find I have also explained how the Whirlpool Galaxy is the way it is because of tidal forces causing the outer ring of SDI mass to split into two causing a two arm galaxy.
Again, the USGS gave permission from The Department of the Interior for a web page from their site as an annex for the book because I show why we have an inner and an outer core on Earth. (Caused by balanced gravity effects never before proposed).
And please notice, I have not profaned or called you names either.
Nothing like a closed mind to come up with a word like Kook!!
It is a matter of fact that 2 x 2 = 4, so, go on, add another digit to the calculation. Try it? 2 x 3 = 4? Well, that is what you are saying, that you can add mass to the calculation. At a specific mass, (depending on the density and diameter of the object, yes), the gravity is sufficient to prevent light from escaping. That is called the event horizon. But it is simply the point where the mathematics calculate that the gravity from the existing mass has reached a sufficient level that the point has been reached where light cannot escape. So, at that level of mass, gravity prevents light from escaping. So, ALWAYS, from that moment onwards, at that level of mass, light cannot escape.
Adding more mass does not, indeed, cannot, change that relationship. So from that point onwards, any additional mass is more than required to create an event horizon and thus is not in the original calculation, but outside of it. (You still have a star shining away inside the event horizon, but no light escapes).Thus any additional mass added is more than is needed to create the event, and light not escaping.
That extra mass is outside of the event horizon. If that is so, then all the energy from the extra mass must, because the gravitational force is so high, be sucked into the original star under the event horizon leaving behind inert mass with no energy.
Thus what happens is that outside of the event horizon you get a layer of super dense, inert, (SDI), mass. As that mass grows in depth, you reach the point where the SDI mass is deep enough as a layer to have balanced gravity effects within that SDI mass such that, from that point onwards, instead of all the energy of the extra mass going into the original star, it starts to collect in a ring inside the SDI mass. In time the size becomes such that it acts as though a sandwich between the teeth and energy squirts back out into space as a jet from both ends. A quasar at the larger end and a planetary nebula at the other. Thus it is impossible to create a singularity as the object ejects energy back into space in all senarios.
If you look at the book you will find I have also explained how the Whirlpool Galaxy is the way it is because of tidal forces causing the outer ring of SDI mass to split into two causing a two arm galaxy.
Again, the USGS gave permission from The Department of the Interior for a web page from their site as an annex for the book because I show why we have an inner and an outer core on Earth. (Caused by balanced gravity effects never before proposed).
And please notice, I have not profaned or called you names either.
The problem with the debate about missing matter is that the underlying theory, Big Bang, is fatally flawed and thus all the derived associated theories are built upon incredible foundations. Like a house built on soft mud, no matter what you try, it keeps falling down. You may have noticed that Steven Hawking recently abandoned his Theory of Everything. UK Sunday Times Colour Magazine "Hawking's Big Bang".
We believe he did that because he has read a new book, The Universe is a Cloud by me, Chris Coles. Further, we have produced a e-book of a second edition http://www.lrsp.com/ebooks.html that goes even further into where the present theories are wrong. One of the consequences of this book is that you should by now have noticed that the singularity has dissappeared. Take for example the big bit in Scientific American about time this month.
In essence, they have made some really silly mistakes that, because they are so silly, really stupid mistakes, they are not even prepared to debate them. The first BIG mistake was that when a stars mass, (any star's mass), grew to the point that light was prevented from escaping because of the strength of gravity, (what is described as an Event Horizon - the point beyond which light does not transmit), they always proposed that from that moment all the additional mass that was sucked into the star was also, from that point onwards, always inside that event horizon. But think about that. The event horizon is simply a mathematical point; mass sufficient to prevent light escaping. Thus that mass is always the point where light cannot escape. Adding mass is like trying to pour more coffee into a cup once the cup is full. For once the cup is full, all the additional coffee must be outside of the cup. It is mathematically impossible for the coffee to be added to the cup; same with an event horizon.
The event horizon is simply a notional point where gravity is so high, light cannot escape. Beyond that point, all mass must be OUTSIDE of the event horizon and that leads us into a completely new view of the universe. Read it and find out why Steven Hawking has abandoned his theories. http://www.lrsp.com/ebooks.html
They are all wrong. There are several mistakes made and there is no chance that the bet has been won as the structure of a black hole is totally different to that conjectured by present day physics. Why has the singularity disappeared? Why did Stephen Hawking abandon his theory of everything last week, (Sunday Times London Fed 22nd. Hawking's Big Bang). It is because a book has been published that completely destroys the present theory. The primary mistake was to assume that the event horizon would go on expanding as the mass increased. In fact the event horizon is just a simple mathematical point. Imagine a coffee cup half full as a star shining and a full cup has reached the point where the mass is sufficient to prevent the light from escaping from the total mass. OK, now add to the mass in the coffee cup? What happens is that the additional mass MUST now be outside of the cup. The same with the black hole. from that initial point of the creation of the event horizon, all the mass must be outside of the event horizon and thus all the energy must be sucked into the area inside of the event horizon. The mass outside is completely inert. Super compressed inert mass. This was all written up in a book called The Universe is a Cloud. But you have not heard about it because no one would admit to it existing. Yet, the singularity has disappeared, (try and find it in the four latest cosmology articles in Scientific American), and Hawking has abandoned his theory of everything.
If I am correct, Opportunity has landed in a thin film of mud. Take a close look at the pictures taken of the immediate foreground in front of the deflated bags. To my mind that looks exactly like the bags have wrinkled up the surface of a thin layer of mud. The original surface has not been touched for...how long?... yet, it looks just as though it has the surface of mud that has been rained upon with a classic stippled surface. Where the bags have deflated the surface is smooth in places. If this is correct, then NASA have hit the holy grail on first base and have liquid water right under the lander. Again, on the first images of the bare rock nearby, the surface of the rocks looks wet.
I understand that when the first tests for life on Mars were done back in the days of Viking missions, if there had been evidence of water at that site, then there would have been no argument whatever that they had detected life.
Well done NASA! WE, are not alone, there is life on MARS.
Columbia left the ISS with seven crew members after which it lost its left wing during re-entry and broke up killing all the crew on board. What planet are you living on?
First of all there was a known problem with impacts on the tiles. Why had no one worked out the simple procedure of when the shuttle arrived at the ISS to do a simple roll while someone on the ISS took photos of any likely damage?
Two, why was the shuttle designed with not even the simplest sheet of insulating material behind the mounting points for the leading edge Carbon/carbon mouldings? With even the simplest fire door there is a back up foam that expands to fill gaps. Why was this not done?
Three, why had no one thought to make up something simple such as a mix of phenolic resin foam to squirt into a small hole to prevent ingress of hot gas? Another simple back up system. Gosh! Even a small water spray into the hole would have had some likely effect. Particularly if the spray had produced an outward flow of heated water vapour to create a cussion.
The previous remark about Duck tape was very probably correct. With such a small hole being catastrophic, almost anything would have helped.
What really concerns me is that NASA is employing individuals that show, (by there refusal to believe things are possible), that in truth, they are mentally challenged when faced with something new and hide their lack of personal confidence behind bold statements of the impossiblility. Where are the leadership qualities that weed out such thinking? It is the clear lack of quality leadership that is so disturbing. If there are 100 astronauts prepared to fly a rescue mission, why are there not 100 NASA engineers standing in line with ideas of how to go do it???
I suspect that there is an embedded group at the highest levels that has no business being there in such an organisation. In a large company someone would make the brave decision to close it down and start again with a clean sheet of paper, but let me guess, being all government paid, they have jobs for life and a good pension too.
The solution is to take 25 of the top astronauts and replace the top 25 individuals in NASA. ALL OF THEM. Clean out the top rung and give the new incomers total cart blanch. Hire a couple of big hitting head count cutting execs from industry, (they are easily found and purchased), then take the existing slow projects and make them all speed up their aiming points. Ten year projects should be two or three years. When you run a organisation with a large overhead, the only way forward is to maximise turnover of projects.
Someone in a position to make some impact on this debate must realise; that statements of impossibility clearly demonstrate a flaw that has no place in a such forward moving organisation. NASA faces daily challenges to the impossible. Until it is realised that the fatal flaw is right at the top, these sort of accidents will continue to happen and that is very sad when we are talking about the leading edge of the intellect of the finest nation on the planet.
May I suggest that the professor will have to read: "The Universe is a Cloud, Some Raw Food for Thought" www.lrsp.com where he will find, conclusively, that the Big Bang theory has just collapsed into a heap of dust nebula.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to thank you for putting up this link to Edge; very useful and well worth reading.
While it is no secret that I profoundly disagree with the concept of a singularity, I have, over almost the same lifetime, come to greatly admire Professor Stephen Hawking as a thinker and as a man. His life has been a wonderful example of dogged refusal to give up. He himself has stated that, never give up, is one of his primary teachings. He has set perhaps the very best example of overcoming adversity and making a success of his life regardless of the difficulties caused by his long term illness.
We should also be fully mindful of the kindness and hard work of everyone surrounding him during his long infirmity; their care for him as simply a human being, made much of his more recent work possible. Without their support he might not have lived beyond his twenties. They too have set a standard that will perhaps not be seen again, certainly not in our lifetimes and as such I salute you all too.
Chris Coles.
There are two separate problems here; scientific apartheid, a refusal to give any credit to any new thinking that emanates from anyone not based within an established scientific institution; and fear. We are deliberately excluded from debate by a combination of systematic exclusion, (for example, no recognised institutional email address, no way to post upon such as arxi.org), and a deliberate policy of teaching students to address any external input to a debate by using terms such as pseudo science and often very demeaning language. Aggressive negativity is being taught as a way of exclusion; with deep fear of such aggressive negative exclusion being the end product. Today, science is trying to defend what is, indefensible.
Rather than teach to read and understand, science has been reduced to a new form of the Milgram experiment, where a figure of authority expects the student to apply rigorous negativity to any new input that may depreciate the teachers knowledge base. Instead of electric shocks, we get at the least, very bad language from someone, in what must now be seen as being in an agentic state. "Milgram suggested that two things must be in place for a person to enter the agentic state: The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate. The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens." https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Thus today it is quite normal for any none scientist original thinker to be presented with such deliberate negativity. A good example is this recent comment: "I hope nobody wastes their money on this book. It is filled with such absolute nonsense that I sadly have to think Chris Coles suffers with some sort of learning disability to be able to write it. Please do take a look inside on Amazon before even considering buying it, you will also see it is mumbo jumbo of the highest order..." https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/099283743X/ref=acr_search_see_all?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
But this is not a debate, we are now within what is fast becoming a classic revolution. A classic example of schumpeter's creative destruction and the deeper problem for science is that unless a substantial figure steps forward to set into motion a real debate about these deep problems within science, there must be the potential for the complete collapse of credibility for major institutions. For this debate will not go away. There is now much too much evidence, some now long ago presented and deliberately excluded, that an expanding universe based upon the foundation of big bang is unworkable.
Using indefensible teaching methods to suppress debate about new thinking has brought science into a desperate situation; where a revolution that will, inevitably, sweep many into complete disrepute and destroy reputations, even those seemed to be of the highest order; is now long overdue.
Who will step forward to lead will forever define the direction; open debate will lead to a renewal; continued suppression will only bring a heavy defeat from an inevitable revolution that will sweep many into the dustbin of history.
What we have been witnessing, for some time now, is the militarisation of the world of long term research; even worse, the secret militarisation of such. This is entirely the wrong path to take, if those of us with an interest in such are to be encouraged to follow.
For a start, I will absolutely NOT place my name or voice towards any such ongoing militarisation of long term research into space travel.
Period.
We are coming to an end of a long thought thread that started before the advent of the Cold War with Russia and which extended on into absolutely idiotic secret military adventures into just about every aspect of the freedom of thought of many other societies on the planet. Secret military organisations dominate the foreign policy of the United States and it is only now, with the advent of the new wave for a push for freedom in the Middle east, that it can be seen that these foreign policy adventures; supporting all forms of military dictatorships, all over the planet, are now falling through their fingers like dust.
Now they want to be able to control the future exploration of space; using the same organisations. Give me strength!
I will have nothing to do with such an ongoing attempt to dominate the long term free research of the planet with military funding for long term military purposes. As things stand, the majority of long term research money now comes from military sources. This must stop.
As also the use of the thoughts and aspirations of the free people to continue to be used to support long term research using military money for the long term interests of the United States dominated Military and Industrial complex. The urge to create a new “Star Wars” must be stopped in its tracks here and now.
I want to be able to see out my life in a more peaceful world, not dominated by military interests, not constantly pushed hither and thither by secret military money.
As such, I call on the rest of the free world to act now to create a completely new, long term research dominated organisation; that can be, indeed, must be, seen to be free of the influence of secret military and industrial money and influence.
DARPA must be told, from the top down, to stand back and not proceed with this further militarisation of long term research.
As we must also expect that the revolving Galactic Core Object will precess; then there will be times when such precession will throw out smaller energy and mass ejections, out of line of the main ejection, to form smaller globular clusters scattered around the eventual galaxies so formed.
The energy, (from the sometimes billions of stars that have formed the full mass of the Galactic Core Object), is stored in the balanced gravity band between the inner and outer event horizons inside, INSIDE, the structure of the Galactic Core Object. The breakup of the outer ring of mass, (and thus the process that releases the energy and mass), is described in great detail in chapter 42, The Whirlpool Galaxy in a new light, The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus Proton Energy http://www.lrsp.com/b2c.html
This is exactly the same process, but on a very much larger scale, that forms the energy ejections from Planetary Nebula and is the well known, but never publicised, "big (and often disorienting) leaps forward" that was written into the final paragraph of "The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars", Bruce Balick et. al. Scientific American, July 2004, page 35.
A galaxy is thus an object formed from energy and mass ejected from an older galaxy where, over a very great period of time, the central mass of the newly ejected energy and mass has come together to form a galactic Core Object sufficiently massive to bring the rest of the energy and mass into an accretion disc. The stars within a galaxy cannot "bump" into each other because they are all gravitationally attached to each other and balanced gravity effects within such attachments; balance out the forces and stabilise the whole entity.
Some of us, “on the outside” are recognised in our particular field, but not recognised in “science”. That of itself is not a problem, but what is a problem, not for us on the outside, but for those with enquiring minds on the inside; is that it has become all too easy to call any new disruptive theory “Idiotic” and to thus dismiss it with a wave of the closed off mandarin mind.
There is a very detailed new disruptive theory about the underlying gravitational structure of all mass objects in the universe; from the smallest dust grain to the largest objects at the core of the galaxies. But no one will discuss it nor review the book. I must add, not even Slashdot.
Now you might be forgiven for thinking, so what? But now turn to the Hubble Space Telescope and look for the 15th Anniversary images of M51 and The Eagle Nebula. Yes, there is a connection between the Balick description of a disruptive theory on the one hand and the image of a dust nebula on the other. You see, again, the disruptive theory describes why there are dust clouds, when all mass has gravity that attracts all surrounding mass to form a solid mass object and there is no existing theory for why that solid mass object can gently, without dispersing the mass explosively, evolve into clouds of dust.
Now I am certain that the Zealots will find many reasons to trash this post. But I am assuming you and many like you will have an enquiring mind that actually wants to know why no one, from Scientific American to Slashdot, will review or otherwise publicise the book wherein the disruptive theory resides.
When you do, eventually, get to buy and download the latest e-book edition, you will also discover that it also opens the debate to a completely new internal structure for the Sun and Earth and will point towards why it might be possible for the inner core to be able to easily change its positional relationship with the outer core. And, thus to why the pole is moving and to completely new areas of long term research with millions of clean, blank pages, for all of you who enjoy the challenge, to write upon.
Not even Slashdot is immune from the disastrous effects of the closed mandarin mind desperately afraid to open a discussion about a new disruptive “Idiotic” theory.
Slashdot is being disingenuous; it has already received a detailed explanation of what causes Barred Galaxies; but they, like the entire scientific community, refuse to give such explanation any publicity. May I suggest everyone turn to a past issue, (July 2004), of Scientific American; The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars by Bruce Balick and Adam Frank, Ten page article ending with the remark: "this opens the door to a new disruptive theory" but does not mention whose.... disruptive theory. If I sound angry, I am. Slashdot have had the e-book edition for some time, have corresponded, but only to the effect of off handedly and childishly smirking at it. I challenge Slashdot to publish a review. I will not name it as that would be self publicity. But I do call them disingenuous in not accepting they have received a very detailed explanation of what causes Barred Galaxies.
Whomever the writer is, he/she, should not remain anonymous. With a good grasp of logic and such a pleasant manner of construction, you should be an author. For the record, anyone making statements that do not agree with the norm, whatever norm might mean; is always faced with the idea that they are "MAD" if for no other reason than no one else understands their thinking. May previous thinkers who expressed their thoughts were driven away by existing thinking not being able to understand and would have been forgotten but for the simple fact that their new thinking is now recognised as being correct. How many were burned at the stake for their thoughts in the past?
As the co-founder of Drake and Coles Containers Limited, based just outside the old docks in Southampton, UK, In 1971 I invented, manufactured and sold what we described as Modular Housing Units that were specifically manufactured units, (not modified Freight Containers), that could be used for any purpose. I challenge Google that they breach my copyright to the designs and public descriptions. At the time we were the largest repairer of aluminum freight containers in the UK and main agents for Rubery Owen Rockwell. Google has no right to the concept and the patent must be challenged. Chris Coles
This must be the stupidest idea from someone that has never had to earn a living as a road warrier. Most of us turn off the sound for a very simple reason, thin walls in homes and hotels. If you are working late, or in an unfamilure time zone, the one thing you do not want is to wake up those around you at some un-godly hour simply because you have work to do, a note to make about a meeting that went on into the early hours,because you cannot sleep and want to surf, you have a sudden idea that has woken you up and you want to set it down in Word. A lifetime of Karma to the person that finds a way to stop that, regardless of the stupidity and ridgidity of the minds of Microsoft.
There is a much finer point here that seems to be overlooked; what was stolen? As I see it the only information gathered was taken through the eyes into his brain. There seems to be no mention of his taking the information that was entered into his brain and using that information for gain. He is not accused of selling the information, he is simply accused of taking the information into his brain. How do you steal an image that is stored in your brain? Are we to argue that every time we look over the fence of a military installation and see... anything, that we are thus to be accused of stealing the information we have,as a natural process, stored in our brain memory bank? As I understand it, stealing is taking. Stealing is not seeing. Seeing is not stealing. He should submit to the extradition and allow himself to be properly represented by a competant counsel and in the process make new law that will forever clarify the use of the human memory.
If I were you, from where I am standing, I would go into Pure Physics as an academic subject. That branch of science is about to be turned completely upside down and almost everything in the text books will be re-written. Look at the new industries associated with the race to commercialise space. Get work at a commercial space port or a university associated with such. If you are going to continue to work in software, then stick to emulating the new technologies that will stem from the new research areas in Pure Physics or the new commercial space industry. Enjoy!
For the event horizon to grow larger, the mass within it must have less density. The mass is no more, no less than that that which produces a gravitational "pull" sufficient to prevent photons form breaking free from the surface. That is it, there is nothing more than that to an event horizon. Nothing. If you have a mass, say, ten times more than the mass needed to prevent the photons from escaping, then, from the moment that the mass reached `one', there were no photons escaping. At `two' there is mass `one' plus another `one' The first mass stopped photons from escaping, so from that moment, the event horizon was in place. No matter what you do to the extra mass, `one' remains the level of mass required to stop the photons escaping from the surface. The "Event" was reaching `one'. At `two', there is the event - still there at `one'. The event horizon cannot grow larger than that needed to create the effect, (preventing photons from escaping), in the first place. It would be churlish for me to add anything further as you have already asked me to stop and after this I will. But you will find that I have given a completely new explanation for gravity. I also have the support of NMSU/PSL, and my proposals for a Visual Gravity Observatory are being looked at by NSF, NOAA, Dept of Transport VOLPE center and USGS as I believe I have defined exactly what gravity is, how to observe it in real time and a path to the control of gravity. I will be pleased to sit down and debate this with you anytime. But, sadly, no one that knows me well thinks that I am mad so you may be greatly disappointed; and, I do not know any aliens. Chris Coles cfc@lrsp.com
Nothing like a closed mind to describe an alternative argument as from an idiot!!
It is a matter of fact that 2 x 2 = 4, so, go on, add another digit to the calculation. Try it? 2 x 3 = 4? Well, that is what you are saying, that you can add mass to the calculation. At a specific mass, (depending on the density and diameter of the object, yes), the gravity is sufficient to prevent light from escaping. That is called the event horizon. But it is simply the point where the mathematics calculate that the gravity from the existing mass has reached a sufficient level that the point has been reached where light cannot escape. So, at that level of mass, gravity prevents light from escaping. So, ALWAYS, from that moment onwards, at that level of mass, light cannot escape.
Adding more mass does not, indeed, cannot, change that relationship. So from that point onwards, any additional mass is more than required to create an event horizon and thus is not in the original calculation, but outside of it. (You still have a star shining away inside the event horizon, but no light escapes).Thus any additional mass added is more than is needed to create the event, and light not escaping.
That extra mass is outside of the event horizon. If that is so, then all the energy from the extra mass must, because the gravitational force is so high, be sucked into the original star under the event horizon leaving behind inert mass with no energy.
Thus what happens is that outside of the event horizon you get a layer of super dense, inert, (SDI), mass. As that mass grows in depth, you reach the point where the SDI mass is deep enough as a layer to have balanced gravity effects within that SDI mass such that, from that point onwards, instead of all the energy of the extra mass going into the original star, it starts to collect in a ring inside the SDI mass. In time the size becomes such that it acts as though a sandwich between the teeth and energy squirts back out into space as a jet from both ends. A quasar at the larger end and a planetary nebula at the other. Thus it is impossible to create a singularity as the object ejects energy back into space in all senarios.
If you look at the book you will find I have also explained how the Whirlpool Galaxy is the way it is because of tidal forces causing the outer ring of SDI mass to split into two causing a two arm galaxy.
Again, the USGS gave permission from The Department of the Interior for a web page from their site as an annex for the book because I show why we have an inner and an outer core on Earth. (Caused by balanced gravity effects never before proposed).
And please notice, I have not profaned or called you names either.
Read the e-book. See for your self.
Chris Coles.
Nothing like a closed mind to come up with a word like Kook!!
It is a matter of fact that 2 x 2 = 4, so, go on, add another digit to the calculation. Try it? 2 x 3 = 4? Well, that is what you are saying, that you can add mass to the calculation. At a specific mass, (depending on the density and diameter of the object, yes), the gravity is sufficient to prevent light from escaping. That is called the event horizon. But it is simply the point where the mathematics calculate that the gravity from the existing mass has reached a sufficient level that the point has been reached where light cannot escape. So, at that level of mass, gravity prevents light from escaping. So, ALWAYS, from that moment onwards, at that level of mass, light cannot escape.
Adding more mass does not, indeed, cannot, change that relationship. So from that point onwards, any additional mass is more than required to create an event horizon and thus is not in the original calculation, but outside of it. (You still have a star shining away inside the event horizon, but no light escapes).Thus any additional mass added is more than is needed to create the event, and light not escaping.
That extra mass is outside of the event horizon. If that is so, then all the energy from the extra mass must, because the gravitational force is so high, be sucked into the original star under the event horizon leaving behind inert mass with no energy.
Thus what happens is that outside of the event horizon you get a layer of super dense, inert, (SDI), mass. As that mass grows in depth, you reach the point where the SDI mass is deep enough as a layer to have balanced gravity effects within that SDI mass such that, from that point onwards, instead of all the energy of the extra mass going into the original star, it starts to collect in a ring inside the SDI mass. In time the size becomes such that it acts as though a sandwich between the teeth and energy squirts back out into space as a jet from both ends. A quasar at the larger end and a planetary nebula at the other. Thus it is impossible to create a singularity as the object ejects energy back into space in all senarios.
If you look at the book you will find I have also explained how the Whirlpool Galaxy is the way it is because of tidal forces causing the outer ring of SDI mass to split into two causing a two arm galaxy.
Again, the USGS gave permission from The Department of the Interior for a web page from their site as an annex for the book because I show why we have an inner and an outer core on Earth. (Caused by balanced gravity effects never before proposed).
And please notice, I have not profaned or called you names either.
Read the e-book. See for your self.
Chris Coles.
The problem with the debate about missing matter is that the underlying theory, Big Bang, is fatally flawed and thus all the derived associated theories are built upon incredible foundations. Like a house built on soft mud, no matter what you try, it keeps falling down. You may have noticed that Steven Hawking recently abandoned his Theory of Everything. UK Sunday Times Colour Magazine "Hawking's Big Bang". We believe he did that because he has read a new book, The Universe is a Cloud by me, Chris Coles. Further, we have produced a e-book of a second edition http://www.lrsp.com/ebooks.html that goes even further into where the present theories are wrong. One of the consequences of this book is that you should by now have noticed that the singularity has dissappeared. Take for example the big bit in Scientific American about time this month. In essence, they have made some really silly mistakes that, because they are so silly, really stupid mistakes, they are not even prepared to debate them. The first BIG mistake was that when a stars mass, (any star's mass), grew to the point that light was prevented from escaping because of the strength of gravity, (what is described as an Event Horizon - the point beyond which light does not transmit), they always proposed that from that moment all the additional mass that was sucked into the star was also, from that point onwards, always inside that event horizon. But think about that. The event horizon is simply a mathematical point; mass sufficient to prevent light escaping. Thus that mass is always the point where light cannot escape. Adding mass is like trying to pour more coffee into a cup once the cup is full. For once the cup is full, all the additional coffee must be outside of the cup. It is mathematically impossible for the coffee to be added to the cup; same with an event horizon. The event horizon is simply a notional point where gravity is so high, light cannot escape. Beyond that point, all mass must be OUTSIDE of the event horizon and that leads us into a completely new view of the universe. Read it and find out why Steven Hawking has abandoned his theories. http://www.lrsp.com/ebooks.html
They are all wrong. There are several mistakes made and there is no chance that the bet has been won as the structure of a black hole is totally different to that conjectured by present day physics. Why has the singularity disappeared? Why did Stephen Hawking abandon his theory of everything last week, (Sunday Times London Fed 22nd. Hawking's Big Bang). It is because a book has been published that completely destroys the present theory. The primary mistake was to assume that the event horizon would go on expanding as the mass increased. In fact the event horizon is just a simple mathematical point. Imagine a coffee cup half full as a star shining and a full cup has reached the point where the mass is sufficient to prevent the light from escaping from the total mass. OK, now add to the mass in the coffee cup? What happens is that the additional mass MUST now be outside of the cup. The same with the black hole. from that initial point of the creation of the event horizon, all the mass must be outside of the event horizon and thus all the energy must be sucked into the area inside of the event horizon. The mass outside is completely inert. Super compressed inert mass. This was all written up in a book called The Universe is a Cloud. But you have not heard about it because no one would admit to it existing. Yet, the singularity has disappeared, (try and find it in the four latest cosmology articles in Scientific American), and Hawking has abandoned his theory of everything.
If I am correct, Opportunity has landed in a thin film of mud. Take a close look at the pictures taken of the immediate foreground in front of the deflated bags. To my mind that looks exactly like the bags have wrinkled up the surface of a thin layer of mud. The original surface has not been touched for ...how long?... yet, it looks just as though it has the surface of mud that has been rained upon with a classic stippled surface. Where the bags have deflated the surface is smooth in places. If this is correct, then NASA have hit the holy grail on first base and have liquid water right under the lander. Again, on the first images of the bare rock nearby, the surface of the rocks looks wet.
I understand that when the first tests for life on Mars were done back in the days of Viking missions, if there had been evidence of water at that site, then there would have been no argument whatever that they had detected life.
Well done NASA! WE, are not alone, there is life on MARS.
Try - The Universe is a Cloud, Some Raw Food for Thought. Blows away Big Bang Theory, I mean, completely.
Columbia left the ISS with seven crew members after which it lost its left wing during re-entry and broke up killing all the crew on board. What planet are you living on?
First of all there was a known problem with impacts on the tiles. Why had no one worked out the simple procedure of when the shuttle arrived at the ISS to do a simple roll while someone on the ISS took photos of any likely damage? Two, why was the shuttle designed with not even the simplest sheet of insulating material behind the mounting points for the leading edge Carbon/carbon mouldings? With even the simplest fire door there is a back up foam that expands to fill gaps. Why was this not done? Three, why had no one thought to make up something simple such as a mix of phenolic resin foam to squirt into a small hole to prevent ingress of hot gas? Another simple back up system. Gosh! Even a small water spray into the hole would have had some likely effect. Particularly if the spray had produced an outward flow of heated water vapour to create a cussion. The previous remark about Duck tape was very probably correct. With such a small hole being catastrophic, almost anything would have helped. What really concerns me is that NASA is employing individuals that show, (by there refusal to believe things are possible), that in truth, they are mentally challenged when faced with something new and hide their lack of personal confidence behind bold statements of the impossiblility. Where are the leadership qualities that weed out such thinking? It is the clear lack of quality leadership that is so disturbing. If there are 100 astronauts prepared to fly a rescue mission, why are there not 100 NASA engineers standing in line with ideas of how to go do it??? I suspect that there is an embedded group at the highest levels that has no business being there in such an organisation. In a large company someone would make the brave decision to close it down and start again with a clean sheet of paper, but let me guess, being all government paid, they have jobs for life and a good pension too. The solution is to take 25 of the top astronauts and replace the top 25 individuals in NASA. ALL OF THEM. Clean out the top rung and give the new incomers total cart blanch. Hire a couple of big hitting head count cutting execs from industry, (they are easily found and purchased), then take the existing slow projects and make them all speed up their aiming points. Ten year projects should be two or three years. When you run a organisation with a large overhead, the only way forward is to maximise turnover of projects. Someone in a position to make some impact on this debate must realise; that statements of impossibility clearly demonstrate a flaw that has no place in a such forward moving organisation. NASA faces daily challenges to the impossible. Until it is realised that the fatal flaw is right at the top, these sort of accidents will continue to happen and that is very sad when we are talking about the leading edge of the intellect of the finest nation on the planet.
May I suggest that the professor will have to read: "The Universe is a Cloud, Some Raw Food for Thought" www.lrsp.com where he will find, conclusively, that the Big Bang theory has just collapsed into a heap of dust nebula.