Mike Smith Cosmos

Well I would agree you need the things you mention for explaining the phenomenon . However I disagree in your comment about .:- " in the event you'd never observed it." As you would never start ,going ,doing the calculations , I doubt , unless you had observed the strange phenomenon in the first place . Today I went for a walk and observed a phenomenon I have noticed at sea . Now in a canal see pictures below . Part of the expanse being calm , a distinct other part , being roughed up , likely by wind . It changes very very slowly with time . If it followed the vissisitudes of the wind , it would be all over the place . My initial guess, (Some form of quantum value waves are produced? . ) only a guess at this stage ? Now it needs the physics and maths . This is how new descoverlies are originated. Not by some random mathematical doodling . I trust ?

I particularly like the part. " Observations " Example . When going up in an aircraft , as you go through the first layer of cloud , all the clouds , have a flat bottom , all their bottoms are at the same level . Cloud Base .

I am sure , as this is a science forum , the question must have been raised before ! But the discussions are probably buried deep within the depths of information contained in the Forum . With the input of new members and the passage of time and events , it might be beneficial to take another look. Google Definition :- - - SCIENCE. - - - " The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. ". * There are quite a few Meaningful words and sentiments here ----------------------------------------------------------- Intellectual Activity : and Practical Activity : Systematic Study of the -: Structure :- of the Physical World and Natural World Systematic Study of the -: Behaviour :- of the Physical World and Natural World All this :- By Observation and Experiment ----------------------------------------------------------- One could bring examples ( past and present ) to the fore , to advantage , of the descriptive words about science listed above . Mike * link to the definition . Google definition science

.No ! I am genuine here ! As pure as driven snow ! I have already established a very tenuous communications link ! It took me a large part of my life to work it out . But a link ' none the less ' . If you have a look at my profile , I have been in engineering , science and communication most of my life . Even over the last two days I have asked two questions . One that we are supposed not to know, the other very simple. One was about ' when the assistance could be forthcoming ? ' the second very pedestrian , ' is there a simple easy method of making things happen ? ' I am very happy to tell you the communication if you are interested ? It's not long winded ? But you do need to ask me . Mike

.Well I must say I admire your optimism . But as I see it , we do appear to be , " at the end of the day ' a pack animal' " . Even the lead Dog in a wild pack , turns back and enters the centre of the pack to re- emerge as leader to face the foe , ' in short form' . If my nature documentaries serve me right. What leaders of organisations do , or historic rulers did , in times of abject crisis, I do not know, I can guess , but I am and have never really been ' a leader ' , much, so I can not speak from personal experience. It would be interesting to speak to such a leader , in private, and confidence " where do you turn to in real ' against the wall crisis? " . I think in the worlds current situation, taking everything into account, ( resources, economy, population , land area, climate, etc, etc) . We or someone is going to have to do some pretty ' sharp' footwork , to get out of this one! If we want to migrate to Mars, the moon, somewhere else , or just stay put ' and fix it ' , we have quite a lot of preparation to do , and packing besides. And time is not on our sides. If we want to stay here ( on Earth), then we need some help. I still feel it is an option to return temporarily to the ' centre of our pack ' and come out fighting the challenge. Considering the enormity of the current Problem :- For me that means :- locating our originators, ; asking for help, ; and ; being open to a few surprises.? Mike

. Well may be that is it ! . Quote " So ! What comes next ? " A world WITHOUT war ! A WARLESS WORLD , I like the sound of that ? Is there any opportunity for an " intervention " ? If so by what / who ? I think our opportunities are limited in number to the number of fingers on one hand ? I guess ? 1) If there is any intelligent life out there, higher up the capability ranking , keeping an eye on us . Then now would be a good time for some form of help or intervention? 2) If we are completely alone in the universe . Then , we are in a really , very , very tight corner . Or 3) then God help us ? Sorry not 5 choices , just 3 ? Mike

.I do not know which bit we will look back on as Armageddon , whether something yet future or the whole of this period since , and including the First World War , until it is all over , say some time soon . I think we will look back and say , what came over us all ? Because it has been a century of ' All sorts ' - discovery , population explosion, technology explosion, war explosion , climate change, da,de da ,de ,da. But if we come out of this alive , we will have had to change to survive ! I think in one way or another , that is the thrust, of the question, of this thread . Has this last century , been so notable ,or so full of so many climax and notable circumstances, that it could be .... Viewed in retrospect as . ." Armageddon " Is this just coincidence , or are we going through some form of change , which we will look back on and say ' WOW That was something else '! So ! What comes next ? Mike

Yes but surely what is happening as we speak is still pretty Cataclysmic . Armageddon like . 5,000,000 dead , 6,000,000 displaced .( in last 5 years ) . Monuments from civilisations 2000 to 4000 years old . Historic sites , well. Mike

.Yes that's good . We will just have to start it with a selective interpretation mechanism at the front and a choice mechanism for choosing the required results from Google .Then assemble for presentation. With all these things it is the search engine that is the important 'crux' of the matter ! Mike

Yes .i am inclined to agree . Wikipedia could well make a core reference in the translation device , I have been referring to . Mike .It sounds that a coordinated system , would combine various sources to provide this easy to use translation device , for the main sake of communication , and productive conversation . Mike

.I was not so much thinking of books ! I was thinking more like ' Google translate ' . I can put an Italian paragraph in , and get a fairly good , paragraph , to understand in English . I was thinking , if we had the sort of thing , I have been discussing earlier in the thread . That a software algorithm could scan the input Data and give an approx range of meanings , enough to have a conversation . Rather than look completely dumbfounded and run a mile . Mike

I am sure it was Einstein who bleeted on about " there are no hidden variables ! " I will have to abstain on " strings " . I once thought it great . Now with going off into ' brains ' and 13 dimensions , I am lost ! I can not cope with it . If it is right . Then I am off to paint Mermaids ! " The energy excites the fields that corresponds to the particles is a better way to think of it. These excitations correspond to the particles." Now that sounds more like what I have been trying to say throughout this ' thread' ! Well, you are correct to think that it is naive to think of the proton and neutron to be simply made of three quarks. Well I thought protons and neutron were made of combinations of Up and down quarks ? May be I am going batty ? Mike (can't make this multi quote work )

.Well I am trying to relate it . A problem since Einstein , was that it was folly to " look for hidden variables" , inside the atom . Maybe I misunderstood what he meant ? Of course there has been all the progress you could imagine this last century 1900- 2000 and beyond. But it is still time to move on. I think many have become upset that too much time has been devoted to string theory . Little vibrating strings inside the particles. It is these and other possible entities that lurks there that I am suggesting ' nothing is there ' . I believed in it once , now I have my doubts. I was triggered into the current frame of mind I have . Following the large hadron collider, progress. I was surprised to hear the statement . " Of course we actually Create the particles with the vast energy of the collisions. " That got me to thinking ' yes , of course' . It it the huge pressure, as energy , at the collision that 'makes ' the new particles, from the OUTSIDE . If I have understood it right. So with the quarks , again if I have understood it right . They do not split up into bits of a proton . The energy of collision , makes the quarks . Am I right ? Namely from the outside in , not the inside out ? So if I am correct. The Big Bang was a vast supply of energy from the outside ,or collapse with so much energy and pressure , that it created the particles to start with, in the proportions we believe they started. As an analogy , I can think of it like pushing something together , so hard , it is so difficult , but if you keep on pushing beyond belief , suddenly the two bits ( like a zip fastener , pop together.) then you have done it , they fit together. So with fundamental particles , maybe the pressure reached astronomical proportions , to such an extent that the elemental bits all stuck together , and away we went ! Its a phase transition , a bit like the recombination event at the universe being approx 300,000 years old the temperature had fallen to just the right amount so the electrons no longer had the energy to be ' free electrons' so combined with protons to become hydrogen Atoms . Not the same but that sort of thing . The pressure reached so high the the particles ' formed ' . Pop, pop, pop pop , pop Mike

I .I thought it had been a problem since the early 1900's ... " no hidden variable ! " So no ! I have been giving it thought for some years . In fact on this forum I mentioned years ago about " moulds " , though this is probably not quite on the same tack. Looking for strings inside the particles has come to nought ! Mike

Wow ! That was quick ! ( I am out for an hour ) Mike Wow also ! There is reasoning and examples of experiments . ( you will need to give me a moment , off out ) Perhaps in the mean time , :- think of all the examples where , we interfere from the outside , making 'pasta ' , building a cabinet , laying a tar mack road, ... Not too many work there way from the inside -out . More often than not , we go about things from the outside -in ! Mike

O.k. back to the Topic Well one thing I am not attempting, is to rewright the standard model. Many, many scientists over the last 100 years have observed, measured , traced and categorised all these particles. I am not in a position, or desire to in any way challenge these characteristics. What , I am suggesting , and feel there is a lot of growing evidence, over this same period of time to change our view that : There is a vast , EMPTY SPACE , out there beyond atomic matter. And all the answers to what makes up the universe , and why it works the way it does , in some way EMANATES out of these atomic particles ( listed in the standard model) . And that we should dig ever deeper into the heart of these particles to find the Answers , as to How an why everything works , the way it does. I am taking ' as read ' all the current figures for charge, mass, etc . What I am suggesting that these self same Standard model particles , are the way they are by 'dint' of the nature of the world outside of the particle. The very space we thought 100 years ago was practically empty, ' there is nothing else' . More investigative , discoveries , and thoughtful development of ideas , have discovered, and unearthed , far, far, far more being outside the particles , than inside. 1. The force of the 'exploding ' Big Bang 'itself 2. The shear size of the universe at large 3. The discovery of an expansive force , as the cosmological constant (viz dark energy ) 4. The discovery of a mass attractively orientated force in the expanse of space ( viz dark matter) 5. A mixture of things we know very little about , like neutrinos , and others. Most of these ( 1-5 ) are not included ( as far as I know ) as existing at the heart ( inside ) the standard model particle. So there seems a lot of possibility that the influence of the items listed above could well contribute to the OUTSIDE pressure , that I suggest may be More responsible for the Working of the Standard Model Particles OUTSIDE , rather than from within the particles. I do not need to prove that things (1-5 ) exist or act. Others have done this. What might be beholden on me, is why I think things are the way I suggest . Mike

.But it was working producing (..so many grams ) at the moment , but none the less working . He anticipates scaling up to many many Tons of thrust Similarly the Ministry of Defence , working at Quantum level , was producing an illuminated cloud of minute particles , which were shown to distort in shape , purely due to the gravitational force being influenced by the mass of a person . The commentator investigator had initially got involved in these sort of projects to investigate identifying the movement of objects such as planes. Mike

So do you personally feel there is a need for some form of translation or presentation system that presents physics / science in a more digestible form ? Like more a representation of that middle ground ? Half way between conceptual physics and strict maths Mike

Because if my proposal is correct , ( OP ) then all this ability to produce motive drivers for space travel will derive its ability and energy from the region at or beyond the hollow particle outer boundary and within nearby space-time ! I am suggesting it is this region that is responsible for these phenomenon. MIKE

Yes , but if you watched the program , it ended with two working prototype working models . Mike No. Because we already use Rocket fuel as a propellant ( at great weight and expense) . One of the working models used Microwaves as a propellant . And the other ( I think ) was coupled with Ministry of Defence projects with surveillance . And whereas NASA once dumped ideas , they are now renewing their research in the light of newer understanding of anti matter . Also , because science is developing so quickly , New physics , and established physics , are nearly 'clipping at each other's heels ' as they race into the future. Mike

Ok . If horizon is not available , I will need to summarise the findings as they involve findings and current working models . As explained above , I will summarise findings . ( Tonight , out today ) Eg But quite incredibly they showed a working laser system showing a visual display of a direct detection of the disturbance of the Gravity ' field ' by a persons gravitational mass ! The other demo with microwaves was of equal quality ! Microwave propulsion against Gravity. Demonstrated! Both within recognised research establishments ! Like the u.k. Ministry of Defence Porton Down . NASA, Etc Mike

. Well that was a remarkable coincidence. Last night BBC TV 2 ..Horizon . ( Ron Evans ) Showed " Project Green Glow - The quest for Gravity Control . " The program spanned research spanning recent years , ending in two demonstrable experiments ( one microwave , the other Laser) both working . This relating to both the particle and space .( at the atomic levels just discussed above.) ---------------------------------------------------------- Quote " Swansont said " You need to explain the relevance. Our current models already tell us that space isn't empty. What new perspective are you bringing to the table? Unquote " ---------------------------------------------------------- So THAT must be something " Brought to the table " . Like Gravity Control ! By Microwaves , Antimatter, Dark matter , and Dark energy Mike Link to Horizon Programme :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0752f85/horizon-20152016-2-project-greenglow-the-quest-for-gravity-control

.Quite ! Is that not what one would want for a Translation Device to provide a sort of ' Pigeon Science Language ' .* If that is the correct way to state it ? Mike * a language to give the absolute ' bare bones ' of information, so as to 'get by with' , or understand . Even just with an accompanying cartoon picture .

The new perspective , that I believe would prove to be very fruitful is :- 1 . Not looking for the source of an amalgamation of all forces into One in a ( GUT ) General Unified Theory from the inside of a particle , Which includes Gravity . 2. Take a new exciting look at the external environment of space beyond the supposed Particle boundary , locally . Also , if necessary , Out to the far reaches of space . To see what forces are possible to produce such intense pressures , so as to ' create ' a particle from outside? These could include forces such as Gravity , helping to unify Gravity into the model . Mike

A move towards a more " digestible description " with the helpful "unambiguous 'notations ' and 'definitions' " ( I am attempting to extract the key ingredients which could assist my software friend to generate an ' Algorithm ' .) Here a mathematician would input , necessary information , the Algorithm would hopefully process the following . (1) 'indigestible maths items to lay scientists' in perhaps a visual , pictorial , form (2) establish definitions and notations that lay people can understand . (3 ) show a mechanical ' Analogy ' to clarify the principle of the process. (4). Succinctly describe both visual , model, and symbolic ' working of the problem ' , hoping to be achieved , as a mechanism . (5). Supplying a very loose direction thus suggested as being undertaken by this project . Do you think this might work as a sort of Translation . ( or do you think this might be construed by some ,as a presumption and attempted invasion of ' math ' territory ? ) Mike