https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nNetfJQ9HAs
George Harrison, blow away, gehoord op Tel Aviv airport, daarvoor in Eilat als 14 jarige een onwaarschijnlijk knappe Justine Tabak uit Manchester van 16 jaar of ouder ontmoet, zij was op mij afgestapt ! Ze vond me leuk en wilde met me dansen, blauw zijden jurk en witte top die tijdens haar dansen afzakte zodat ik (licht geschokt) haar schitterende borsten, kleine b-cup, zag, 1979. Mooi, knap, elegant ! “Niveau” qua uiterlijk en uitstraling Margalith, Stella, iRyna, silk green shirt. Haar vader kon in 15 minuten een schitterend gelijkend portret tekenen, liet hij in het hotel zien, vrolijke krullende haren kunstenaar met een zeer classy more than royal moeder. Helaas nooit meer van gehoord, 1 avond ook slechts mee gemaakt, de dag daarna moesten we (mijn pa en ik) vliegen, de vlucht vanaf Eilat was geannuleerd dus met een taxi door de woestijn naar Tel Aviv. Zo westers rijk als Israël was, zo arm was Egypte daarnaast. Niet eens gekust, was ik als 14 jarig jochie nog niet aan toe.
"Wat ken mei dat nou schele"
"Nee, het leik nergens naar ken ik je wel fertelle"
vrijdag 12 juni 2020
Tachyon
een heel klein blauw overgebleven tachyon luchtbelletje, kleiner dan kleinst, dat was de aarde
2036-2060
Volgens mij is de waargenomen roodverschuiving bij de "expansie" van het universum een indicatie dat het daar sneller dan het licht als een tachyon de beelden binnen komen op planeet aarde (hubble telescoop en james webb telescoop), NIET op de maan, daar zie je slechts duisternis en mogelijk de 8 planeten, verlicht door de zon, aan de schaduwzijde en dat is een feit, bevestigd door de 18 mannen van de apollo maan missies.
Rejection of the Big Bang[edit]
While having no argument with the Lemaître theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument).[27] Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in the Second World War), in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their Steady State theory. The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave. The resulting universe is in a "steady state" in the same manner that a flowing river is—the individual water molecules are moving away but the overall river remains the same.
The theory was one alternative to the Big Bang which, like the Big Bang, agreed with key observations of the day, namely Hubble's red shift observations, and Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He coined the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949.[28] It was said by George Gamow and his opponents that Hoyle intended to be pejorative, and the script from which he read aloud was interpreted by his opponents to be "vain, one-sided, insulting, not worthy of the BBC".[29] Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for the radio audience.[30] In another BBC interview, he said, "The reason why scientists like the "Big Bang" is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis".[31]
Hoyle had a famously heated argument with Martin Ryle of the Cavendish Radio Astronomy Group about Hoyle's steady state theory, which somewhat restricted collaboration between the Cavendish group and the Cambridge Institute of Astronomy during the 1960s.[32]
Hoyle, unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe. This C-field is the same as the later "de Sitter solution" for cosmic inflation, but the C-field model acts much slower than the de Sitter inflation model.[33] They jointly argued that continuous creation was no more inexplicable than the appearance of the entire universe from nothing, although it had to be done on a regular basis. In the end, mounting observational evidence convinced most cosmologists that the steady-state model was incorrect and that the Big Bang theory agreed better with observations, although Hoyle continued to support and develop his theory. In 1993, in an attempt to explain some of the evidence against the steady-state theory, he presented a modified version called "quasi-steady state cosmology" (QSS), but the theory is not widely accepted.
The evidence that resulted in the Big Bang's victory over the steady-state model included discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960s, and the distribution of "young galaxies" and quasars throughout the Universe in the 1980s indicate a more consistent age estimate of the universe. Hoyle died in 2001 having never accepted the validity of the Big Bang theory.[34]
Theory of gravity[edit]
Together with Narlikar, Hoyle developed a particle theory in the 1960s, the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity. It made predictions that were roughly the same as Einstein's general relativity, but it incorporated Mach's Principle, which Einstein had tried but failed to incorporate in his theory. The Hoyle-Narlikar theory fails several tests, including consistency with the microwave background. It was motivated by their belief in the steady-state model of the universe.
Rejection of Earth-based abiogenesis[edit]
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of abiogenesis to explain the origin of life on Earth. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the hypothesis that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on Earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. His belief that comets had a significant percentage of organic compounds was well ahead of his time, as the dominant views in the 1970s and 1980s were that comets largely consisted of water-ice, and the presence of organic compounds was then highly controversial. Wickramasinghe wrote in 2003: "In the highly polarized polemic between Darwinism and creationism, our position is unique. Although we do not align ourselves with either side, both sides treat us as opponents. Thus we are outsiders with an unusual perspective—and our suggestion for a way out of the crisis has not yet been considered."[36]
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe advanced several instances where they say outbreaks of illnesses on Earth are of extraterrestrial origins, including the 1918 flu pandemic, and certain outbreaks of polio and mad cow disease. For the 1918 flu pandemic, they hypothesized that cometary dust brought the virus to Earth simultaneously at multiple locations—a view almost universally dismissed by experts on this pandemic. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote possibility of Earth-based abiogenesis he concluded:
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:
Though Hoyle declared himself an atheist,[38] this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand led him to the conclusion that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and ... there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."[39] He would go on to compare the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" and to compare the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cubes simultaneously.[40] This is known as "the junkyard tornado",[41] or "Hoyle's Fallacy". Those who advocate the intelligent design (ID) philosophy sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned to allow intelligent life to be possible.
Other opinions[edit]
While Hoyle was well-regarded for his works on nucleosynthesis and science popularization, he held positions on a wide range of scientific issues that were in direct opposition to the prevailing theories of the scientific community.[3] Paul Davies describes how he "loved his maverick personality and contempt for orthodoxy", quoting Hoyle as saying "I don't care what they think" about his theories on discrepant redshift, and "it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".[42]
Hoyle often expressed anger against the labyrinthine and petty politics at Cambridge and frequently feuded with members and institutions of all levels of the British astronomy community, leading to his resignation from Cambridge in September 1971 over the way he thought Donald Lynden-Bell was chosen to replace retiring professor Roderick Oliver Redman behind his back.[43] According to biographer Simon Mitton, Hoyle was crestfallen because he felt that his colleagues at Cambridge were unsupportive.[3]
In addition to his views on steady state theory and panspermia, Hoyle also supported the following controversial hypotheses and speculations:
- The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle, with epidemics occurring at the minimum of the cycle. The idea was that flu contagion was scattered in the interstellar medium and reached Earth only when the solar wind had minimum power.[44][45][46][47]
- Two fossil Archaeopteryx were man-made fakes.[48]
- The theory of abiogenic petroleum, held by Hoyle and by Thomas Gold, where natural hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are explained as the result of deep carbon deposits, instead of fossilized organic material. This theory is dismissed by the mainstream petroleum geochemistry community.[49]
- In his 1977 book On Stonehenge, Hoyle supported Gerald Hawkins's proposal that the fifty-six Aubrey holes at Stonehenge were used as a system for neolithic Britons to predict eclipses, using them in the daily positioning of marker stones. Using the Aubrey holes for predicting lunar eclipses was originally proposed by Gerald Hawkins in his book of the subject Stonehenge Decoded (1965).
Nobel Prize for Physics[edit]
Hoyle was also at the centre of two unrelated controversies involving the politics for selecting recipients of the Nobel Prize for Physics. The first arose when the 1974 prize went in part to Antony Hewish for his leading role in the discovery of pulsars. Hoyle made an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter in Montreal that "Yes, Jocelyn Bell was the actual discoverer, not Hewish, who was her supervisor, so she should have been included." This remark received widespread international coverage. Worried about being misunderstood, Hoyle carefully[50] composed a letter of explanation to The Times.[25]
The 1983 prize went in part to William Alfred Fowler "for his theoretical and experimental studies of the nuclear reactions of importance in the formation of the chemical elements in the universe" despite Hoyle having been the inventor of the theory of nucleosynthesis in the stars with two research papers[51] published shortly after WWII. So some suspicion arose that Hoyle was denied the third share of this prize because of his earlier public disagreement with the 1974 award.[52] British scientist Harry Kroto later said that the Nobel Prize is not just an award for a piece of work, but a recognition of a scientist's overall reputation and Hoyle's championing many disreputable and disproven ideas may have invalidated him.[25][53] In Nature, editor John Maddox called it "shameful" that Fowler had been rewarded with a Nobel prize and Hoyle had not.[53]
Media appearances[edit]
Hoyle appeared in a series of radio talks on astronomy for the BBC in the 1950s;[54] these were collected in the book The Nature of the Universe,[55] and he went on to write a number of other popular science books.
In the play Sur la route de Montalcino, the character of Fred Hoyle confronts Georges Lemaître on a fictional journey to the Vatican in 1957.[56]
Hoyle appeared in the 1973 short film Take the World From Another Point of View.[57]
In the 2004 television movie Hawking, Fred Hoyle is played by Peter Firth. In the movie, Stephen Hawking (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) publicly confronts Hoyle at a Royal Society lecture in summer 1964, about a mistake he found in his latest publication.
TACHYON ENERGY
Tachyon
Een tachyon (uit het Grieks: ταχύς (tachús), 'snel') is een hypothetisch exotisch deeltje dat beweegt met een snelheid groter dan de lichtsnelheid.
De eerste beschrijving van tachyonen wordt toegeschreven aan de Duitse natuurkundige Arnold Sommerfeld, maar het waren George Sudershan[1][2] en Gerald Feinberg[3] (die de term bedacht) in de jaren zestig die een theoretisch model ontwikkelden voor hun onderzoek. Tachyonen worden in meerdere theorieën gebruikt, waaronder de snaartheorie. In termen van speciale relativiteit is een tachyon een deeltje dat zich op een ruimteachtige (in plaats van een tijdachtige) baan beweegt en een imaginaire eigentijd heeft.
New age[bewerken | brontekst bewerken]
Vanuit de wereld van de new age zijn vanuit pseudowetenschappelijk onderzoek[4] producten en diensten ontwikkeld waarvan beweerd wordt dat ze gebruikmaken van tachyonen.
In fictie[bewerken | brontekst bewerken]
Tachyonen komen veelvuldig voor in fictie. Ze worden door sciencefictionschrijvers vaak gebruikt als een handig mechanisme om communicatie sneller dan het licht mogelijk te maken, al dan niet rekening houdend met causaliteitskwesties. De term tachyon is zo algemeen bekend geworden dat ze een gevoel van sciencefiction kan geven, zelfs als het onderwerp in kwestie geen directe relatie heeft met superluminale reizen.
Tachyonen komen voor in televisieseries als Star Trek, Babylon 5, Flash (DC Comics) en Doctor Who.
Zie ook .. en dus sneller dan het licht, muon neutrino's, als je dat goed leest
CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso
CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso (CNGS) is een natuurkundig experiment dat in 2011 meerdere malen werd uitgevoerd. Dit gebeurde in een samenwerkingsverband tussen het CERN nabij het Zwitserse Genève en het Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso in het Italiaanse Gran Sassomassief. Het doel van het experiment was om een schatting te kunnen maken van de massa van neutrino's.
Tijdens het experiment werd vanuit het CERN een bundel muon-neutrino's richting het detectiecentrum in Gran Sasso gestuurd. Aangezien deze deeltjes nauwelijks wisselwerken met materie, kunnen ze bijna ongehinderd door de aardkorst reizen. Hierna werden ze 732 kilometer verderop gedetecteerd in Gran Sasso.
Het experiment werd in mei 2011 voor het eerst uitgevoerd. In september 2011 leidde men uit de meetgegevens af dat de neutrino's zich sneller dan licht moeten hebben verplaatst. Dit nieuws werd met veel scepsis ontvangen aangezien dit indruist tegen de uitgangspunten van de speciale relativiteitstheorie. Het vermoeden was dan ook dat tijdens het experiment wellicht meetfouten waren gemaakt. In november 2011 werd het experiment nog nauwkeuriger uitgevoerd. Dit gebeurde onder andere door de neutrinopulsen te verkorten tot drie nanoseconde. Opnieuw werd een snelheid gemeten die hoger was dan die van het licht. Op 23 februari 2012 maakte CERN bekend dat bij deze experimenten een niet goed functionerende glasvezelverbinding tot een lagere uitkomst van de vluchttijd van de neutrino's geleid kan hebben. Nieuwe metingen in mei 2012 hebben deze meetfout bevestigd.
Albert Einstein Over uniek zijn :
"Er zijn maar weinig mensen die met hun eigen ogen kijken en met hun eigen hart voelen."
A = X + Y + Z.
X is werk. Y is spel. Z betekent zwijgen."
"De manier om het meeste te leren, is wanneer je iets met zoveel plezier doet, dat je niet merkt dat de tijd verstrijkt."
De creatieve en briljante geest van Albert Einstein (msn.com)
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten