|
|
Note 7 - History |
I am Peter (Ed) Winchester, a retired management consultant
who specialised in “organisation and methods analysis” and "presentation mechanics".
I
began compiling the Malta Cosmology Template in 2009, drawing on
the results of cosmology studies made over the previous
twenty years. |
1988:
My interest is fired by hearing a radio
broadcast
in which black holes are described as being a singularity through
which companion white holes can be reached thus providing short cuts
across the Universe. Given that a) I can see no reason for the core
of a black hole being anything other than a lot of material packed
very tightly together, and b) the singularity concept looks
suspiciously like a “logictrap" (see the glossary), I
resolve to research further.
1990: Began a dialogue with Daphne Jackson
at Surrey. Initially sceptical, she became encouraging. This came to an
end with her death. This was my last positive contact with any
professional scientist (not, I emphasise, of my choosing).
1996:
Having finalised my ideas on the physics of the
Universe, I compile them in a “Blue Book” and send copies to 12
UK academics. Only three reply. All three are dismissive, in each
case for reasons that are clearly not deeply considered and in one
case the result of very careless misreading. That said, the
mental processes
in play were familiar to me from my professional employment and it
was clear that without "oil drums" I wasn't going to get
anywhere.
1997-2004: I maintain a watching brief
on the progress of physics in general and cosmology in particular but
do nothing.
2005:
As a retirement occupation, I return to working on the
subject, well aware that the likelihood of ever being able to interest
anyone in the scientific professions are poor and that I must
treat this as a personal project.
2005-2008:
I revisit the Blue Book to break down and amplify the
information therein to produce a history of the Universe that abides by
the principles of my profession rather than those of science (this is a
valid course of action give that, in my well-qualified opinion,
the standard of rigour among many cosmology professionals
leaves a lot to be desired).
2009:
The
scope of the intended document, the physics of the Universe from the
Big Bang to the Heat Death, is so big that I stop at the creation
of
electrons and produce a new version of the Blue Book. This I have bound
and copies are sent to seventy of the world's leading physicists.
There
is not even an acknowledgement let alone a considered reply.
This, I have to say, is rude. That said, I recognise the reality of the
situation. Blue Book 2 is a large document of over 200 tightly
argued pages. The
size alone would be daunting - always assuming it got
into the hands of
the addressees, which it probably didn't given that
they have secretaries tasked with defending them from cranks.
And
if it ever did get read, the document was combative in
suggesting that many well-thought of ideas (not facts, please
note, only ideas) should be reconsidered. Put some fairly basic
psychology into
play and the likelihood of the document being binned was very
high.
2010:
Thinking cap on again. I needed a way to present what I
had that was scientifically credible. The narratives I had produced so
far didn't fit the bill. I returned to first principles. Using
management consultancy methodologies I homed in on the need to create
the cosmology equivalent of the much admired periodic table of the
elements. Over a period of about six months, I drew up the
concept of a "Darwin Template", the core of which was a set of objectives which needed to be met on every page.
2010-2012:
Translating the document of 2009 into the "Darwin
Template" format. (Later note: at this time, the format was
quite primitive although all the essentials were in place. As noted in
the entries below, in the years since the format has been continually
refined.)
2012:
The revision of the project into Darwin Template form is
completed up to Chapter Six. However, this is only in word processor
form. In the modern world, for a Darwin Template to be easily navigable and readily
updateable it has to be computerised. I begin encoding the Template as
a “semi-interactive” computer program with a view to making
it available on the internet.
Oct 2013: The Darwin Template is uploaded onto the internet as the Malta Cosmology Template. The initial upload
consists of Chapter One only.
Nov 2013: Chapters Two to Six uploaded together with amendments
to the explanatory notes.
Nov 2013: I begin a letter campaign to draw attention to the existence of the site (see “dissemination”
below).
Dec 2013: Amendments to the explanatory notes uploaded. Chapter
Seven (Electrons) is being encoded with a view to being uploaded to the
website during February 2014.
Feb
2014: Chapter Seven (Electrons) is uploaded
but without the selfproving section which is to be uploaded in March.
Mar 2014: Completion and uploading of the selfproving section of
Chapter Seven is put on hold. A friend has been persistent in asking what teels are made
of, so much so that I feel the need to block that avenue should anyone
else be similarly persistent. It takes more time than I can really spare
but the finished result can be see at Selfproof 0122.
The letter campaign continues. No replies yet.
Apr 2014: In their present form, the selfproof
sections are not as valuable as they should be. I have therefore designed a new format for the
selfproof pages. Each page is subdivided into three parts:
- Part One describes the relevant part of the Current Paradigm.
- Part Two describes the corresponding part of the Malta Template.
- Part Three is a
"commentary" in which any differences highlighted, explained, and reconciled.
The letter campaign continues. No replies yet.
May
2014: Revising selfproof pages into the three
part format. The letter campaign continues. No replies yet.
Jun 2014: Revision of the selfproof pages, Chapters One to Six, is completed. Have
suspended the letter
campaign after having written to eighty nine different
cosmologists/physicists
and not yet received one reply. This suggests that this approach needs reconsidering.
Jul 2014: It
is summer in Malta and I have spent much of this month on the
beach in the morning and dining all'aperto in the evening.
I
have also spent much of the month considering the direction in which I
should take the Template. A long conversation over many days with an
appropriately qualified friend has led me to question whether I am
correct in using the "cosmology" label for the Template in that it
really deals with the most basic of physics.
A bit of history: the first book I read on the subject was "In
search of the big bang" by John Gribbin which is as much a book on "cosmology" as any book can be. I have ever since persisted
with the notion that my subject is cosmology, first and foremost, using the argument
that every branch of science is, to a greater or
lesser degree, a branch of cosmology (the justification for this being my own
definition of cosmology as being "the study of the past,
present, and future largescale structure of the Universe").
It
is a fine example of how a mind can become "locked". My very broad
view of cosmology might be accurate but it isn't the one widely
held. The usage of the word "cosmology", and the scope of
cosmology as a subject, in the scientific rainbow is
decided by common practice. In real life, logic and common
practice do not always go together and this is an example of them not
doing so. Here the common practice is that those scientists
who label themselves as cosmologists tend to see themselves as
physicists
underneath - and those who don't label themselves as cosmologists
are
unlikely to see the connection anyway.
Aug 2014: The
decision is taken. I am going to launch a new website to be called "The
Physics Template". The material in the Malta Cosmology Template will be
transferred across to it being revised as necessary.
August
in Malta is also a month for spending mornings on the beach and
evenings dining all'aperto. Nevertheless, have worked on reworking the
Malta Cosmology Template as the Physics Template. Have all but
completed Chapter One. On balance, feel that the change of emphasis is
beneficial.
Sep 2014: This month's work interrupted by a walking holiday in the Channel Islands and a brief return to Essex.
Chapter
One is complete and ready for uploading. The work this month has
principally concerned the explanatory notes which I have long felt
needed some massaging. They were originally produced in haste and
consequently felt rushed and were often imprecise. They are now
complete in their new form and I am now much happier with them.
There
is still work to be done on the linking of the pages but Chapter One
and the explanatory pages should be uploadable in October.
Oct 2014: I
completed the conversion of Chapter One from "cosmology" to "physics"
but it took a lot longer than I anticipated - not least because I found
myself dissatisfied with a lot of the work already done on the Chapter
One pages which prompted a fair amount of rewriting, especially in the
selfproof pages.
The amount of time taken in the transfer was
food for thought. A weakness in me is that I have always preferred
tweaking existing material to writing first drafts - and
this is what I have been doing here. Going for the easy stuff.
Yes, the Template would be better labelled as physics rather than
cosmology but the labelling is not really that important and the amount
of work that will be needed to transfer the existing material to the
new template is considerable. At the rate taken to get Chapter One
transferred, completing the work could well take six months.
Clearly, that is a waste of time. I am now 73 years old and need to get
as much done as I can, as fast as I can.
Nov 2014: Spent
the first part of the month incorporating the work revised for the
physics template into the cosmology template. This was followed by some
revisions to the explanatory notes. The second part was spent mapping out the selfproof pages for Chapter Seven.
Dec 2014: Still
working on the selfproof pages for Chapter Seven. Also noted that
Chapter Seven lacks a section on "electron stabilisation". Mapping that
out. Have put together a selfproof note on Hawking Radiation for Chapter Three.
03 Jan 2015: Something
of a breakthrough this morning. Actually a major breakthrough. As
I noted in December, there was a need to add an electron stabilisation
section in Chapter Seven. I began to work on it but immediately
ran into a problem in that it was not clear how electrons maintained
their mass in changing circumstances (or even if they did in that
some authorities quoted the mass of electrons as "rest mass" without
clarifying whether the mass of electrons changed with speed (I am
ignoring relativity changes)). After grappling with this unsuccessfully
for some days, I tried reconciling electron stabilisation with photon
stabilisation. This proved to be an even bigger problem.
Photon Stabilisation is at Arguments 0606
to 0608 which invoke a multiprocess to account for the way that
photons always move at lightspeed. Truth to tell, the
arguments never filled me with confidence. I had produced a
multiprocess that did the job but it wasn't a selfevident multiprocess.
This is clear from the way that these arguments each resulted in
"assumptions" rather than "conclusions" - something unusual this
far into the Template and not desirable. I am not proud of having left
the situation like that but my excuse is, as ever, that I am in a
hurry to get the Template finished and that working alone means that I
will sometimes rather jump ahead than stop and think deeply.
Anyway, going back to look at photon stabilisation brought home
to me that the arguments were not good enough. Not least because, if I
dispensed with the unsatisfactory multiprocess altogether and
let the previous chapters to evolve naturally, the selfevident
conclusions were that photons increased their mass and energy when
moving away from a gravity source - which goes counter to any form
of selfproof that I know of. Especially it goes counter
to Pound-Rebka. I did seriously consider whether redshift
could actually equate to an increase in mass and energy rather than the
commonsense opposite. In trying to make it work, I produced a
successful multiprocess but it was an ugly thing that probably
wouldn't have worked universally anyway.
I have been
beating my brains out on this for the last three weeks. I have been
waking at three in the morning and turning it over and over. There
seemed to be no way to get photons to move constantly at lightspeed
through a mechanism that wasn't just an artifice.
I wasn't worried
that it blew the Template out of the water. Just because I couldn't
find the answer didn't mean the answer wasn't there. But I was
upsetting myself that it wasn't in plain sight and it should have been
in plain sight. Right through the Christmas and New Year celebrations I
have been becoming more and more depressed.
The answer arrived at 3.30 this morning, in bed and in the warm. The thought process went something like this:
- A photon is nothing more than a specialised blackhole.
- If
a multiprocess keeps a photon moving at lightspeed, that
multiprocess is also present in an ordinary
blackhole unless there is a good reason for it not to be there.
- There is no good reason that I can see.
- Thus, either all blackholes have the multiprocess or none of them do.
- Assuming none do, a blackhole and a photon moving away from a gravity source will add mass and energy.
- If
this is so, given the events already templated to have
happened immediately after Moment Zero, the Universe cannot look
like it actually does today.
- Every cosmic blackhole will have kept on growing as the Universe sphere has expanded.
- So, have I got the parameters wrong?
- Sort of.
- When a blackhole absorbs a teel, it gains
proportionately more energy than mass. When a blackhole ejects a
teel, it loses proportionately more energy than mass.
- There is the rub. The conclusion is right BUT it doesn't go far enough.
- Yes, a blackhole absorbs/ejects more energy than mass.
- But energy comes as kineticenergy and potentialenergy (ignore latentenergy here).
- The thing about potentialenergy is that it is "invisible".
- It is there but it can only affect anything if it transmutes to kineticenergy.
- Thus,
yes, when a blackhole ejects a teel it ejects more energy than mass but
in practice the energy it is ejecting is mostly potentialenergy.
- For a teel to cross a blackhole's gravitysheath interface, it's vergence velocity must exceed the blackhole's escape velocity.
- When a teel crosses the gravitysheath interface it takes the mass of one teel because that is a constant.
- When a teel crosses the gravitysheath interface, the energy it takes with it is a variable.
- However,
to cross the interface, the least kineticenergy necessary is just a
smidgeon over zero (remember, escape velocity at the interface is zero)
- Thus a teel escaping from a blackhole will take a constant of mass but can take a very small amount of (kinetic) energy.
- The direct opposite of Conclusion 0330.
- Conclusion
0330 is correct, but it needs to be modified by a succeeding conclusion
which (tentatively) reads: "When a blackhole absorbs a teel, it
can gain proportionately more or less mass than energy. When a
blackhole ejects a teel, it loses proportionately more mass than energy."
- It'll need more thought before that becomes definite but it looks good at the moment.
Looked
at in hindsight, it is all blindingly obvious but it certainly
didn't look that way from the other side. I haven't enjoyed these
last few weeks.
But right now I am happy. This makes the
Universe of today look as the Template says it should. It makes
Pound-Rebka correct. More importantly to me, it unifies the structure
of blackholes, photons, bigger blackholes, and electrons. They now all
play by the same rules.
It is now possible to chart
the mass/kineticenergy of blackholes/photons on a graph. Massive
blackholes absorb/eject kineticenergy relatively slowly compared
to their mass gain/loss. In photonic blackholes the kineticenergy/mass
gain/loss is faster but it is also in equilibrium which is why
lightspeed is maintained. In less massive blackholes, the kineticenergy
absorption/ejection is relatively faster compared to their mass
gain/loss.
Interestingly, last month I added Selfproof 0310
which dealt with Hawking Radiation. One of the predictions in the
hypothesis is that small mass blackholes should evaporate more quickly
than those of larger mass. I didn't think too much about it at the time
but it fits neatly into the above.
As to
what happens next, a lot of revision will be necessary but it is
straightforward revision and shouldn't be too time consuming. And there
will be value to take from it. This will be the first major revision to
the Template so it will be something of a learning curve to see how
well the Template structure copes.
10 Jan 2015: So
much for overconfidence. What is said in the previous entry is correct
BUT it didn't go far enough. As I attempted to amend the
offending Arguments, I found I was still
not "understanding". There was nothing seriously wrong with
the amendments but they didn't inspire confidence. They
worked but it wasn't clear how they were working or why.
Consequently
this last week has been another time of lying awake at three in the
morning, looking at the ceiling and struggling to put what I thought I
knew into the proper order. And failing. It was not
until this morning that I began to see that I had been ignoring
one of Darwin Templature's cardinal rules - if an argument doesn't
convince, break it down into a set of smaller arguments. If
they don't convince, break it down even further until you get to
arguments that do convince.
In the previous
entry, I noted that I had been using "energy" when I should
have been using the subproperty "kineticenergy". Now I see that I
should have been working at an even lower level - with "vergence
velocity" and "escape velocity".
Using EV and VV as the
working factors, the mechanism becomes clear, both
practically and mathematically. Especially, it is now crystal
clear why blackholes that become stable at lightspeed and within
the "photonic masses" will only move at lightspeed
thereafter.
Unfortunately this morning's good thinking
means that more reconstruction work on the Template will be required
than I previously anticipated. At a guess, it will be three months
before Chapter Seven is finally completed. Never mind though. Getting
it exactly right is the only serious option.
21 Jan 2015: The
past ten days have seen a lot of progress but not the sort of progress
I intended. In trying to describe the mechanism underlying the way
photons move at lightspeed, I resorted to mathematics because I
couldn't see any other easy way. However, the Darwin Templature
methodology is clear on this: if mathematics seems to
be the only way to describe something, it is highly likely that
the argument hasn't been taken to a deep enough level. As I carried on
struggling with the maths, it became more and more clear that this was
indeed so.
Having painted myself into a corner, I now had no
choice but to return to basics. I commenced a deep study of Chapter
Three and became progressively less happy with its current form. This
is because the chapter lacks detail in fundamental areas.
Specifically: teelpair mechanics are not dealt with at all and
teelpair mechanics are essential to any attempt to explain photon
mechanics: and Part Five is just plain inadequate.
I am now
working on a revamp of Chapter Three to counter the faults. Thereafter,
I will have to revamp later chapters to bring them into line.
Hopefully, I will still be able to bring it all home within three
months.
A salutary lesson has come from the past ten days
work. A major objective for a Darwin Template is to eliminate, as far
as possible, the use of assumptions. Unfortunately, human thought
processes don't always behave as they should. A major assumption has
crept into Chapter Three without my noticing which shouldn't be
there. It began as a convenience but over time it ossified
into a staple. The assumption is that there is a difference
between a teelpair and a blackhole. There isn't. The same rules apply
to both. A blackhole is bigger, that's all.
Another
assumption I have been making is that photons are composed of
large numbers of teels and that there will be a range of blackholes of
lesser mass. I am no longer sure this assumption is
justified. The jury is still out but I am hoping to resolve the
matter in the next few weeks.
It is now clear that the
notation system I have been using so far is not going to be as
satisfactory as I hoped for incorporating major revisions like the
one now underway. I will take the opportunity when recompiling Chapter
Three to bring in an improvement notation.
28 Jan 2015: Progress
Report: Have now completed the principal revisions for Chapter
Three and have to say they look good to me. They cover ground not
previously covered in the chapter and will make the revision of
the photon and electron chapters much easier. I am also well underway
with revising the notation system. The one I am now using is not as
pretty as the one it is replacing but it is more informative and it
will allow largescale revisions to be made to the Template without the
need for largescale rewrites.
As to how long this revision
will take - my guess is that it will be another two weeks to the
completion of Chapter Three, assuming no interruptions along the way.
Maybe a few days more, certainly not less. As for the rest, one month?,
two months. Wait and see.
22 Feb 2015: Progress
Report: Two weeks to the completion of Chapter Three turned out
to be optimistic. I had almost completed it when I began to feel
unhappy about Part 3. I returned to it and the more I worked on it, the
unhappier I felt. Exactly what was wrong, I couldn't put my finger on
but it didn't seem to achieve what I wanted it to achieve.A nagging feeling.
What
followed thereafter has been many hours trying to reconcile the
relevant factors (and actually trying to be sure what really is
relevant). To recap, I began this burst of revision months
ago through trying to establish the mechanism that keeps photons
moving at lightspeed in enough detail to allow usable maths to be
formulated. To do this, I found I had to return to Chapter Three
and get the selfstabilisation of blackholes exactly right. Since then,
the work has been hard and unfortunately fruitless. Again and
again I have thought I had the key but whenever I tried to turn it in
the lock the door stayed firmly shut. Two days ago, again, I thought I
had it but at four AM yesterday, while staring at the ceiling in the
dark, I realised I didn't.
Yesterday morning I spent over
four hours standing at the whiteboard. I ran two whiteboard pens dry in
laying out options and parameters, finding them wanting, rubbing them
out, and trying again. By the end of the session, I had what I was
looking for. I had gone off in a completely different direction and, lo
and behold, everything had fallen into place. Consequently, I spent the
rest of the day in a quietly euphoric state.
Then came five AM
today and the realisation that I had forgotten a factor which made
a major difference to all I had done. It wasn't a disaster because
salvage was possible but it was extremely annoying. Then, for no
particular reason, the mind went off at a tangent and started
trying to visualise the mechanicals of a photon in the light of the
salvage I was going to have to perform on blackholes. And suddenly it
came to me. I could see what it was that I had not been seeing all
these past few months. It was clear. It was the sudden light on the
road to Damascus. It was the epiphany that Watson and Crick had when
they first saw the double helix. I now have the key to lightspeed, to
photons moving only at lightspeed for purely mechanical reasons. It is
difficult to underplay the importance of this.
It is going to
take a while before I can get Chapters Three and Six revised to take
account of this so, lest I die before I have completed them, I will
give the gist here. The key is that the core of a photon is
liquidbonded. That is obvious now but I have always previously
assumed it is solidbonded, as is any other blackhole. Being
liquidbonded enables the core to entropise its spin and its speed,
something it could not do if it were solidbonded (and which was why I
have been unable to get a proper hold on the mechanism). Being
liquidbonded also allows the quick transmutation of density energy into
kineticenergy. It also explains why there are no photons more massive
than gamma photons - because masses more than gamma photons are
sufficient to form a solidbonded core - the doing of which means the
core can no long entropise its spin and speed and will slow below
lightspeed. Bingo.
Feeling
very happy at the moment but, of course, there is always the five AM
moment of disillusion to look forward to.
21
Mar 2015: Two things achieved over the past month.
Firstly, Chapter Three is almost ready for uploading. Should be done by
the end of this month. Secondly,
much of this last month has been spent revising the numbering system, a
fair amount of the text, and the layout of Chapter One. I felt this was
important due to the number of changes being made to Chapter Three. Now
the new revised Chapter One serves as a "template" for the revision of
the other chapters.
29 Mar 2015: For
consistency's sake, have spent this week revising Chapter Two, bringing
it stylistically and numerically into line with Chapter One. Have just
uploaded it. Will now set to work on Chapter Three.
17 Apr 2015: At long last, Chapters One, Two and
Three are uploaded. Revising the numbering system as well as making
substantial revisions to the text has proved to be a much bigger task
than I was expecting. Am reasonably happy with it as it is. I feel that
the revised numbering system is somewhat clunky but it won't get
revised again unless I get some serious help.
A fair amount of
deep thinking has gone on during the recent bout of revision resulting
in a number of breakthroughs. I shall summarise them here because it
may be some time before I can get round to incorporating them into
their appropriate chapters.
The first is that while I was
struggling to nail down the mechanism that keeps photons at lightspeed,
I finally came across the key factor, the one that has been eluding me
for the last twenty years. It is that the blackhole core of a photon is
actually liquidbonded and not, as I had always assumed, solidbonded.
Liquidbonding makes all the difference. It allows the mass of a photon
to be increased one teel at a time with the least substantial photon of
all being a teel trio. Ultimately, of course, the mass of the photons
increases sufficiently for the teels in the core to start solidbonding.
This breaks the mechanism that keeps photons moving at lightspeed. This
is why there are no truly heavyweight photons.
The second is
that, and I haven't thought this through thoroughly yet, the quarks
inside electrons and nucleons may also be liquidbonded. This provides
additional help to the mechanism that keeps them at the same mass, as
long as they are bound into their particles.
The third is that
I may have been wrong in constructing such a firm divide between
teelpairs and blackholes. The ideas have evolved over more than twenty
years and one builds on top of another. That is why the divide exists.
In truth however it may be better to consider a teelpair as just the
lowest mass blackhole of all. If that is to be the final conclusion,
however, it will be a long time before I get around to revising the
layout of the Template. Given that I am now 73, it'll probably be a job
for someone else.
Anyway, from here on, I will proceed through
Chapter Four onward, revising the format of the arguments to tie in
with Chapters one to three. Eventually I will get to Chapter Six and
photons and will then be able to attend to the necessary amendments to
the mechanisms involved.
26 May 2015: This
morning I uploaded the revised Chapter Four. As usual, the
revision took longer than I hoped but this session,
nevertheless, has been very rewarding. The overall tenor of the chapter
is unchanged but there is a lot of alteration in detail
and emphasis. Notably, the teelocean surrounding the
blackhole core is more prominent. In the original version, the
teelocean didn't feature strongly but it should have done. When I come
to revise chapters five to seven, I am anticipating that teeloceans
will be seen as very influential factors in the structure of the
Universe.
18 Jul 2015: Lots
of good intentions have fallen apart over the past weeks. I have
entertained a succession of holiday making visitors. This has led to an
almost total cessation of work on the project. All I have been doing is
broadcasting a mailshot to each of the heads of physics departments in
UK universities. The mailshot consists of a thermally bound printout of
Chapter One. It is a different approach to my previous mailing but only
time will tell if it is more successful.To date it isn't but I live in hope.
I
will be away from my desk during the first weeks of September. Between
now and then there are no visitors booked so, hopefully, productivity
will now rise up to its earlier levels.
31 Jul 2015: Have
completed the mailing capaign to the Heads of Physics Departments in UK
universities. That is: to 37 of them. To date: no replies and no
access to the website. What a shower. Am now into the revision of
Chapter Five (Darkmatter).
16 Nov 2015: It
has been some while since I added to this "blog". A number of reasons.
Holidays (3 weeks out). A major computer crash followed by computer
replacement which resulted in a lot of rebuilding of databases (4 weeks
out). In between this, have rebuilt Chapter Five, finally publishing it
over the past few days.
Some notes on the revised Chapter Five
are worthwhile. The creation of the Template is an ongoing task. With
each iteration I believe I have the format right and then, after
some thinking, I feel a need to "improve" it. Underlying this is
the constant worry that this is nothing more than navelgazing and
that the resulting improvements are just tinkering. I don't know if
that is true but "we do what we do".
Anyway, with Chapter
Five I have indulged in a major format revision. This came about
because I have long felt that Template arguments are too thin. Each
argument is designed to flow from one to the next with each
chapter being a "super argument". The downside to this is that
individual arguments, looked at in isolation, don't "stand
alone" effectively. To make sense, they need to be seen in the context
of the whole chapter - and they need the willingness of the reader to
seek out that context. Bearing in mind my difficulty in getting anyone
to read anything all, it is a worry that should there ever be any
readers, they will lose interest too quickly to ever care about
establishing context.
A lot of thinking has gone into creating
a revised format that would counter my worries while still
allowing each chapter to be a super argument. What has been done
is that arguments are expanded from three sections to five, thus:
- PRECEDENTS: effectively what was previously "brought forward".
- PARAMETERS: this lays down the ground upon which the following reasoning will be based.
- REASONING: as before although hopefully now more succinct.
- FINDINGS: essentially what has been found in the reasoning.
- ASSUMPTION/CONCLUSION: as before.
It
seems to work and I am happy with the result. Each argument is indeed
more self-contained while still managing to be part of the chapter
"whole". There is a cost however. The new style
arguments are more longwinded than their predecessors and
they are less easy to read/require more concentration.
This reduction in "friendliness" worries me. It'll probably
mean that I'll want to revise again sooner or later - and who knows
whether this will be worthwhile improvement or yet more prevaricating
navelgazing.
Meanwhile, the letter campaign has
effectively dried up. After 60 odd mailings with no response at all,
feeling somewhat dispirited. Will need to give deep thought as to what
to do next.
30 Apr 2016: In
December last year, a large polyp was discovered in my colon. In
February of this year I was hospitalised for ten days for removal of
the polyp. Since that time I have been recovering. Being rather ill for
a lot of this time has meant little or no work. Nevertheless, over the
past month or so I have been revising chapters one to three to the new
five section format. This work was completed two days ago. Over the
next weeks will continue to put the remaining chapters into the new
form.
20 Jul 2016: This morning have completed the revisions up to and including Chapter Six. All is now published.
28 Jul 2016: After
I finished uploading Chapter Six, I returned to revising Chapter One
into the improved format. Now does look a lot better. And especially
with the Selfproofs, a lot of the commentaries are benefiting from
some substantial rewriting.
15 Sep 2016: Chapter
One completed and uploaded in the new format. Very pleased with it. I
don't think it is a format I can improve on (for the moment that is).
Now working through Chapter Two. Up to 202-04. Have started a new
mailshot campaign. Who knows what will come of it. Past experience
suggests bugger all.
As another side project, something to
fill my time in the early evening. I am now keying in "the blue book"
as Explanatory Note 08. It deserves to be part of this website because
it is an integral part of the history of the Template. It is quite some
way short of being accurate but it was already in the ball park in
1996. If it doesn't interfere too much with the rest of my life, I'll
key in later attempts in due course.
30 Sep 2016: Have
completed the revision of the Chapter Two arguments. Now to start on
the Chapter Two selfproofs. That said, have come across a task that I
deem to have priority. Chapter Three deals with blackholes. When I
first constructed the chapter, I dealt with teelpair physics in a
part separate from blackhole physics. This irritated me somewhat,
seeming illogical. Because of the irritation I eventually worked at
marrying the two parts into one entitled Blackhole Physics. It did make
for a big part however. An unwieldy part. An unclear part which I
can live with no longer. So, the next few days will be spent
reconstructing Chapter Three.
The spur to action has come from
the nature of my latest mailshotting. This has involved sending the
first four pages of the Summary of Findings. The fourth page reaches
Chapter Three and Blackholes. As I have bundled each of the pages for
sending, the unclearness of the Blackhole Physics part has shouted at
me. Must revise it before any more mailshots.
On the subject of
the mailshotting, sent another five this morning which brings it up to
fifteen in the current campaign. I don't have any great faith that
anything will come of these letters. Putting it bluntly, the world has
changed a lot since I began this study in the 1980s. I sent out ten
copies of the Blue Book in 1996 and received three replies. A 30% hit
rate. Look at the list of letters I have sent since 2013 and look
at how many replies I have received. Exactly and precisely none. A
perfect 0% hit rate.
The reasons for difference are abundantly
clear. The cosmology world is much busier now than it was in the 1980s.
Universities are bigger. Science is bigger. Department heads and
underheads and subheads are now constantly jetting off to take part in
international (and prestigious) collaborations. Far too much of their
job is now about raising money rather than teaching. Success is
now gauged as much by the number of papers you publish as by what you
actually achieve. The need for outreach is recognised - but it is
almost always delegated, with getting faces onto tv, so they
can boast a bit and self congratulate a lot, being vastly more
important than listening to outsiders. And then there are the
secretaries sit on the line between being facilitators and being a
defensive wall against those self-same outsiders with the scope of
those defences now being on an industrial scale.
As a
description of the current cosmology world, the above may be overstated
but it is nonetheless accurate. It makes me sound jaded, of course, but
I have a right to feel jaded. Consider this: when I began
preparing the Template as a website, I was well aware of my advancing
years. It was clear that I would never be able to complete the
Template in the time left to me, let alone expand it and update it as
it should be expanded and updated. I deliberately called it the Malta
Cosmology Template for two reasons. Firstly I wanted to honour the
country I have happily called home for a long time. I have happily
called home. Secondly, and more importantly, I had thoughts that Malta
University might be an ideal home for the Template, that I might be
able to encourage the University to set up a small corps of
researchers to complete and maintain the Template for use by the
whole scientific community - since the Template is the most accurate
and (hopefully) up to date digest of cosmology science, it
would be the first port of call for any researcher. The
possible consequences of this would be far-reaching. Having
Malta University as the home of the Malta Cosmology Template,
would bring prestige to the island of Malta but especially it
would bring prestige to the University itself (much needed prestige
because, let's face it, Malta University is a very minor
world-scale educational establishment in a small country most
people have never heard of). Since 2013, I have made regular attempts
to reach through to the University. Some of the attempts have been
straightforward. Others have been, frankly, somewhat underhand. And the
net result? Zero. Of course.
12
Oct 2016: There it is - I am now 75 years old and the net
result of all my efforts to get someone to take notice is precisely
nil. I am not now as much "an old man in a hurry" as an old man
screaming in frustration. Have done little over the past week due to my
having visitors along with the organisation of the birthday
celebrations. Anyway, have now completed the format revision of the
first six chapters. Have begun working on chapter seven. This will
require considerable effort although the donkey work is already
done.
02
Nov 2016: I am now well into the rebuilding of Chapter
Seven. Simultaneously, I am putting Chapter Three into the new format -
it is the last remaining of the big six. I have also put up Principia
Cosmologica as Explanatory Note Nine.
Notably, I have tried a
new tack for attempting to raise some interest. Rather than attempting
to entice heads of department, something that has notably failed, I
have now started trying at the other end of the establishment. I have
just letterbombed 20 of the research staff at Bristol University - on
the basis that they are likely to be less than 27 and thus more
amenable to new ideas.
04
Jan 2017: The new tack is notable for being no more
successful that the previous tacks. Ah well. Keep plugging on. Have
completed Chapter Seven and am now working on the selfproofs. Must say
I am pleased with the chapter. I think it is the first one with a
format that is nearly exactly right. The earlier chapters have tended
to stray too much into cosmology and away from the physics and
mechanics. The cosmology really belongs in the selfproofs rather than
being the backbone of the chapter. Certainly, using Seven as a template
for succeeding chapters should speed up the creating of the work.
08
Mar 2017: Have completed a major rewrite of the chapter
on electrons. Pleased with it. Now working on the electron selfproofs.
18
Mar 2017: Am working through the first seven chapters
adding full cross-referencing with the Glossary. This will make the
whole thing much more useful and interactive for users (should there
ever be any).
26
Apr 2017: Am continuing with the cross referencing, which
is proving to be a long-winded task. However, in the meantime have made
another alteration. During another of my lying away at five in the
morning looking at the ceiling sessions, it came to me that calling the
fundamental particle the teel was a conceit on my part. The name
started as a joke (Tom Lehrer - TL - Teel). I carried on with it, in
part through laziness but also through a form of self-congratulation.
However, I have long felt uneasy about it. The name has a weak sound
and doesn't have any serious connection with the subject. At one point
I seriously considered changing it to "quants". The crux came at five
in the morning: I should change the name to graviton. The
teel/graviton is not the same as the graviton/graviton. The
graviton/graviton is a massless exchange particle. The teel/graviton
has mass and it has rejectivity - and thus becomes the source of the
Universe's gravity and its structure. The teel/graviton may not be a
particle that physicists will recognise but they will recognise the
name. Anyway, the deed is now done.
I may add, that merely by
changing the name to graviton, some things actually seem clearer. Also,
some of the selfproof are in need of serious rewriting.
26
Jun 2017: Brief update. Have completed the cross
referencing. Have completed the teel/graviton exchange. Have started a
new campaign which is more on the lines of "show, don't tell". Whether
it will be any more successful is open to question. Feeling tired.
01
July 2017: Feeling a lot less tired now. A new campaign
is underway which doubles up as a form of Template selfproofing. I am
picking articles out of the scientific press that deal with
cosmological conundrums and seeing whether they are resolved in the
Template. Thus far, each one works out fine. Then a quick letter to the
cosmologists involved. Have done four so far. Am also sending off a
copy of each one to Sammut at Malta U, just to keep him posted.
06
Jul 2017: Have just complete the next mailing. A simple
one, didn't take long. Selfproof 0203 - Multiverse. There is no such
thing.
17
Jul 2017: Continuing with the mailing. Have also started
something else with the Template. I am coming up to 76 years old and am
physically and mentally less capable than I was. The Template is
completed to a reasonable standard up to Chapter Seven but my ability
to do much more than that is waning fast. I have therefore embarked on
providing a brief missive for each of the remaining chapters to
illustrate where, so far as I can see now, the Template would have
gone. Have done Chapter 8 and am now working of Chapter 9. At a guess,
it'll take about three months - say up to my 76th birthday by which
time I reckon I will have done enough.
24 Jul 2017: Another mailing. This one concerned blackholes. The sent paper was Selfproof 0301.
31 Jul 2017: And another, this one being concerned with Inflation Theory (Selfproof 0202).
07
Aug 2017: And another, this one being re the double-slit
experiment (Selfproof 0614). This selfproof required a substantial
rewrite but I am happy with the result. It did however bring to notice
the inadequacy of Chapter Six. The layout is poor and unfocused and as
far as supporting the selfproof is concerned, is not fit for purpose.
It needs restructuring and quickly.
21
Aug 2017: Didn't manage to send one last week - for
honorable reasons. Was planning another send "hyperblackhole"
(Selfproof 0311). However, started tidying it up and found myself
becoming ever more dissatisfied. It is an extremely long piece with
much of it (too much of it) being conjectural. Since conjecture is bad
for the Template, started looking at it anew and realised that there is
a major flaw within it. After a lot of thought have decided the only
way out is to divide it into four parts. Each is standalone but (?)
interdependent. Anyway did the first part this week which is "How
blackholes merge" (Selfproof 0313) and sent it.
This campaign
is useful (and dispiriting) in that it is revealing deficiencies in the
Template that will never be properly addressed without substantial
tweaking. This tweaking is about detail rather
than structure but work necessary will still be
considerable - and probably more than I'll ever have time to get
around to. The latest Selfproof is a good example. Have been concerned
that the selfproofs (and indeed the arguments) are not very readable.
Since it was being written from scratch, adopted a revised format that
I am pleased with - more direct, more precise. To spread that new
format over the so-far completed Template (which is of course a long
way short of the whole Template is a job for years rather than months.
Hmmm. Oh well. KBO.
28
Aug 2017: The next one has been completed and sent. This
one is on darkmatter (Selfproof 0401). Quite pleased with the rewrite.
The format for selfproofs gets ever more concise and ever sharper. This
one is the best yet. Could be better of course and will get better.
04
Sep 2017: The latest one is on Einstein's equivalence
principle (Selfproof 0113). Suspect that if I am to get a response at
all (lol) it is more likely to be with something like this which is
fairly basic physics and which does offer a clearly viable alternative
to the paradigm. Of course, to get that far someone has to actually
read it (unlikely) and then has to decide it is worth their while to go
against all their training and set themselves up as an Aunt Sally for
their peers (requiring bravery and thus very very unlikely). Oh well. KBO.
11
Sep 2017: This week's is Galileo's equivalence (Selfproof
0124). Am pleased with this one. It is very simple, very
straightforward. Especially compared to the original version which
rambled a lot - possibly because I wasn't certain as to who the
audience would be. The rains have come. Summer is over.
18
Sep 2017: This week's is Darkmatter (Selfproof 0501). Yet
again had to do a major rewrite of the original. However was worth it.
The end result is very acceptable.
| DISSEMINATION
The
small size of the Malta Cosmology Template's target audience means
the Template will never rise high on Google's pagerank system. This
has a boomerang effect wherein the low pageranking means it won't
even reach its its target audience without help. The only sort of
help that works in these circumstances is “word of mouth” but
achieving word of mouth needs some form of kickstarting. Ironically
one of the best ways to kickstart the accessing of a hi-tech website
is through lo-tech snail mail. Thus, with the use of a circulated
letter, the website will be brought to the attention of as many
cosmologists as can be identified.
Of
course, putting a letter into a mailbox doesn't mean the addressee is
going to read it, let alone take any serious notice of it.
Secretaries protect their boss by deciding what the boss will see.
Then there is the junk mail pile. And the “I'm too busy doing
important things” instinct. And the “not invented here”
reflex. It doesn't take much imagination to guess that the response
rate is going to be very low and may even (if the lessons of history
are anything to go by) sit resolutely at zero.
Purely
as an academic exercise, I am hereafter recording the names of those
to whom the letters have been sent together with dates of dispatch.
If the website is one day successful, and achieves its purpose,
someone will be interested in this list. If it isn't, and doesn't, it
won't matter anyway.
Any
replies received will be posted here – hopefully, I'll have the
resolve to post them here even if the reply is unfavourable but this isn't a
promise because I don't have the hide of a rhinoceros.
Oh, and by the way, the list of names isn't a pillory so if
anyone wants their name removed, let me know and it will be done.
Similarly, I'll not post a reply if the author asks me not to.
22
Nov 2013 – Doctor Kristian Zarb Adami (Oxford U)
23
Nov 2013 – Dr Ing. Owen Casha (Malta U)
24
Nov 2013 – Doctor Joseph Sultana (Malta U)
25
Nov 2013 – Doctor Victor Debattista (Central Lancashire U)
26
Nov 2013 – Jackson Levi Said (Malta U)
27
Nov 2013 – Phil Bull (Oxford U)
28
Nov 2013 – Matt Jarvis (Oxford U)
29
Nov 2013 – Doctor Isobel Hook (Oxford U)
30
Nov 2013 – Doctor John Wheater (Oxford U)
1
Dec 2013 – Professor James Binney (Oxford U)
3
Dec 2013 – Professor Eanna E. Flanagan (Cornell U)
3
Dec 2013 – Professor Rachel Bean (Cornell U)
6
Dec 2013 – Professor Liam Alexander (Cornell U)
6
Dec 2013 – Professor James Alexander (Cornell U)
6
Dec 2013 – Professor Ira M. Wasserman (Cornell U)
22 Jan 2014 - Doctor Anthony Challinor (Cambridge U)
22 Jan 2014 - Professor Martin Haehnelt (Cambridge U)
22 Jan 2014 - Professor Gerry F Gilmore (Cambridge U
22 Jan 2014 - Professor Wyn Evans (Cambridge U)
22 Jan 2014 - Professor George P Efstahiou (Cambridge U)
23 Jan 2014 - Professor Richard G McMahon (Cambridge U)
24 Jan 2014 - Doctor Ian R Parry (Cambridge U)
25 Jan 2014 - Professor Max Pettini (Cambridge U)
26 Jan 2014 - Doctor Daniel Baumann (Cambridge U)
26 Jan 2014 - Doctor Peter Adshead (Cambridge U)
27 Jan 2014 - Doctor David Sloan (Cambridge U)
27 Jan 2014 - Doctor Yi Wang (Cambridge U)
1 Feb 2014 - Doctor Stephen Wilkins (Sussex U)
1 Feb 2014 - Doctor Christian Byrnes (Sussex U)
1 Feb 2014 - Doctor Claudia Eberlein (Sussex U)
1 Feb 2014 - Professor Philip Harris (Sussex U)
1 Feb 2014 - Doctor Matthias Keller (Sussex U)
17 Feb 2014 - Doctor Kathy Romer (Sussex U)
17 Feb 2014 - Doctor Simon Peeters (Sussex U)
17 Feb 2014 - Professor Christiano Galbiati (Princeton U)
17 Feb 2014 - Professor Steven Gubser (Princeton U)
1 Mar 2014 - Professor William Jones (Princeton U)
2 Mar 2014 - Professor James Olsen (Princeton U)
3 Mar 2014 - Professor Lyman Page (Princeton U)
4 Mar 2014 - Professor P James Peebles (Princeton U)
5 Mar 2014 - Professor Frans Pretorius (Princeton U)
6 Mar 2014 - Professor Suzanne Staggs (Princeton U)
7 Mar 2014 - Professor Paul Steinhardt (Princeton U)
8 Mar 2014 - Catherine Visnjic (Princeton U)
9 Mar 2014 - Professor David Bacon (Princeton U)
10 Mar 2014 - Doctor Marco Bruni (Portsmouth U)
11 Mar 2014 - Doctor Robert G. Crittenden (Portsmouth U)
12 Mar 2014 - Professor Roy Maartens (Portsmouth U)
13 Mar 2014 - Doctor Claudia Maraston (Portsmouth U)
14 Mar 2014 - Professor David Matravers (Portsmouth U)
15 Mar 2014 - Professor Bob Nichol (Portsmouth U)
16 Mar 2014 - Professor Will Percival (Portsmouth U)
17 Mar 2014 - Doctor Daniel Thomas (Portsmouth U)
18 Mar 2014 - Professor David Wands (Portsmouth U)
19 Mar 2014 - Professor Gus Evrard (Michigan U)
20 Mar 2014 - Professor Katherine Freese (Michigan U)
21 Mar 2014 - Professor Dragan Huterer (Michigan U)
22 Mar 2014 - Professor Jeff McMahon (Michigan U)
23 Mar 2014 - Professor Gregory Tarle (Michigan U)
24 Mar 2014 - Professor Kathryn Zurek (Michigan U)
25 Mar 2014 - Professor Carlo Contaldi (Imperial)
26 Mar 2014 - Professor Jerome Gauntlett (Imperial)
27 Mar 2014 - Professor Alan Heavens (Imperial)
28 Mar 2014 - Professor Andrew Jaffe (Imperial)
29 Mar 2014 - Doctor Jonathan Pritchard (Imperial)
30 Mar 2014 - Doctor Roberto Trotta (Imperial)
31 Mar 2014 - Doctor Henrique Araujo (Imperial)
11 Apr 2014 - Professor John M Kovac (Harvard U)
11 Apr 2014 - Kate Alexander (Harvard U)
11 Apr 2014 - Victor Buza (Harvard U)
11 Apr 2014 - Andrew Chael (Harvard U)
11 Apr 2014 - Jake Connors (Harvard U)
11 Apr 2014 - Kirit Karkare (Harvard U)
11 Apr 2014 - Chin Lin Wong (Harvard U)
14 Apr 2014 - Professor Clement Pryke (Minnesota U)
14 Apr 2014 - Brett Buchea (Minnesota U)
14 Apr 2014 - Stefan Fliescher (Minnesota U)
14 Apr 2014 - Robert Schwarz (Minnesota U)
14 Apr 2014 - Christopher Sheehy (Minnesota U)
14 Apr 2014 - Justin Willmert (Minnesota U)
17 Apr 2014 - Professor Chao-Lin Kuo (Stanford U)
24 Apr 2014 - Professor Alan Guth (MIT)
26 Apr 2014 - Professor Andrei Linde (Stanford U)
26 Apr 2014 - Professor Andreas Albrecht (UC Davis)
26 Apr 2014 - Professor Paul Steinhardt (Princeton U)
16 May 2014 - Professor John Peacock (Royal Observatory, Edinburgh)
16 May 2014 - Doctor Hiranya Peiris (University College, London)
24 May 2014 - Professor Steven Rose (Imperial)
27 Oct 2014 - Doctor Shep Doeleman (MIT)
27 Oct 2014 - Doctor Reinhard Genzel (Max Planck Institute)
27 Oct 2014 - Michio Kaku (New York City College)
27 Oct 2014 - Professor Lawrence Krauss (Arizona State U)
27 Oct 2014 - Professor Douglas Leonard (San Diego U)
27 Oct 2014 - Professor Ramesh Narayan (Harvard U)
27 Oct 2014 - Professor Andrew Strominger (Harvard U)
27 Oct 2014 - Professor Max Tegmark (MIT)
07 Nov 2014 - Professor Justin Wark (Oxford U)
07 Nov 2014 - Professor Steven Cowley (Imperial College, London)
07 Nov 2014 - Professor Phillippa Browning (Manchester U)
19 Nov 2014 - Professor Charles V Sammut (Malta U)
02 Dec 2014 - Rowan Hooper (New Scientist)
02 Dec 2014 - Tiffany O'Callaghan (New Scientist)
02 Dec 2014 - Valerie Jamieson (New Scientist)
02 Dec 2014 - Sumit Paul-Choudhery (New Scientist)
27 Apr 2015 - Professor Simon Bending (Bath U)
28 Apr 2015 - Professor Andy Schofield (Birmingham U)
30 Apr 2015 - Professor James Annett (Bristol U)
01 May 2015 - Professor Andy Parker (Cambridge U (Cavendish Lab))
04 May 2015 - Professor Gilbert Lonsarich (Cambridge U (Cavandish Lab))
05 May 2015 - Professor Andrew Fabian (Cambridge U)
06 May 2015 - Professor Matt Griffin (Cardiff U)
07 May 2015 - Doctor Stewart Eyres (Central Lancashire U)
12 May 2015 - Professor Simon Morris (Durham U)
13 May 2015 - Professor Arthur Trew (Edinburgh U)
14 May 2015 - Professor James Dunlop (Edinburgh Royal Obervatory)
15 May 2015 - Professor Malcolm McMahon (Edinburgh U)
16 May 2015 - Professor Luigi Del Debbio (Edinburgh U)
24 Jun 2015 - Professor Roger William Lewis Jones (Lancaster U)
25 Jun 2015 - Professor Sean Ryan (Hertfordshire U)
26 Jun 2015 - Professor Bill Barnes (Exeter U)
27 Jun 2015 - Professor Isabelle Baraffe (Exeter U)
30 Jun 2015 - Professor Andrew Cameron (St Andrews U)
01 Jul 2015 - Professor Mark Lester (Leicester U)
02 Jul 2015 - Professor Martin Hendry (Glasgow U)
03 Jul 2015 - Professor Claudia Eberlein (Sussex U)
06 Jul 2015 - Professor Jon Butterworth (University College London)
07 Jul 2015 - Professor Christos Touramanis (Liverpool U)
08 Jul 2015 - Doctor David Keeble (Dundee U)
09 Jul 2015 - Professor Rob D Jeffries (Keele U)
10 Jul 2015 - Professor Phil Charles (Southampton U)
13 Jul 2015 - Professor Erling Riis (Strathclyde U)
14 Jul 2015 - Doctor William N MacPherson (Heriot-Watt U)
15 Jul 2015 - Professor David Richards (King's College London)
16 Jul 2015 - Professor Samjid Mannan (Kings College London)
17 Jul 2015 - Professor Paul Sellin (Surrey U)
20 Jul 2015 - Professor Sarah Thompson (York U)
21 Jul 2015 - Professor Michael Merrifield (Nottingham U)
22 Jul 2015 - Professor Francis Keenan (Queens U, Belfast)
23 Jul 2015 - Professor Pedro Teixeira-Dias (Royal Holloway, London U)
24 Jul 2015 - Doctor Gerry Swallowe (Loughborough U)
31 Aug 2015 - Professor Bob Nichol (Portsmouth U)
31 Aug 2015 - Progessor David Wands (Portsmouth U)
01 Sep 2015 - Professor James Annett (Bristol U)
01 Sep 2015 - Professor Steve Lloyd (London U, Queen Mary)
01 Sep 2015 - Professor Mary O'Neill (Hull U)
04 Jun 2016 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
20 Jun 2016 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
27 Jun 2016 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
30 Jun 2016 - Professor Saul Perlmutter (California U, Berkeley)
30 Jun 2016 - Professor Bob Nichol (Portsmouth U)
30 Jun 2016 - Doctor Tom Kitching (Mullard SSL)
30 Jun 2016 - Professor George Efstathiou (Cambridge U, Kavli)
30 Jun 2016 - Doctor Clare Burrage (Nottingham U)
30 Jun 2016 - Professor Mark Cropper (Mullard SSL)
30 Jun 2016 - Professor Risa Wechsler (Stanford U)
04 Jul 2016 - Doctor Alexander Friedland (SLAC)
04 Jul 2016 - Professor Avi Loeb (Harvard U)
04 Jul 2016 - Professor Michael Turner (Chicago U)
04 Jul 2016 - Professor Adam Riess (Johns Hopkins U)
14 Jul 2016 - Doctor Stephen Green (Perimiter)
14 Jul 2016 - Doctor Syksy Rasanenen (Helsinki U)
14 Jul 2016 - Professor Dr Thomas Buchert (Lyon U)
14 Jul 2016 - Professor David Wiltshire (Canterbury U (NZ)
18 Jul 2016 - Professor Glenn Starkman (Case Western Reserve U)
26 Aug 2016 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
05 Sep 2016 - Professor Bob Nichol (Portsmouth U0
15 Sep 2016 - Professor Simon Bending (Bath U)
16 Sep 2016 - Professor Andy Scholfield (Birmingham U)
17 Sep 2016 - Professor James Annett (Bristol U)
18 Sep 2016 - Professor Andy Parker (Cambridge U)
23 Sep 2016 - Professor Arthur Trew (Edinburgh U)
24 Sep 2016 - Professor Simon Morris (Durham U)
25 Sep 2016 - Doctor Stewart Eyres (Central Lancashire U)
26 Sep 2016 - Professor Matt Griffin (Cardiff U)
27 Sep 2016 - Professor Andrew Fabian (Cambridge U)
28 Sep 2016 - Professor Gilbert Lonzarich (Cambridge U)
30 Sep 2016 - Professor Andrew Cameron (St Andrews U)
30 Sep 2016 - Professor Isabelle Baraffe (Exeter U)
30 Sep 2016 - Professor Luigi Del Debbio (Edinburgh U)
30 Sep 2016 - Professor Mark Thompson (Hertfordshire U)
30 Sep 2016 - Professor Nick Stone (Exeter U)
28 Oct 2016 - Dr Anna Adamska (Bristol U)
28 Oct 2016 - Dr Liam Payne (Bristol U)
28 Oct 2016 - Dr Oliver Stevens (Bristol U)
28 Oct 2016 - Dr Jorge Barreto (Bristol U)
28 Oct 2016 - Dr Jake Kennard (Bristol U)
29 Oct 2016 - Dr Raffaele Santagati (Bristol U)
29 Oct 2016 - Dr Josh Silverstone (Bristol U)
29 Oct 2016 - Dr Emyr Clement (Bristol U)
29 Oct 2016 - Dr Luke Kreczko (Bristol U)
29 Oct 2016 - Dr Edmund Harbord (Bristol U)
31 Oct 2016 - Dr Graham Marshal (Bristol U)
31 Oct 2016 - Dr Jeremy Dalseno (Bristol U)
31 Oct 2016 - Dr Ryan Page (Bristol U)
31 Oct 2016 - Dr Dylan Mahler (Bristol U)
31 Oct 2016 - Dr Dondu Sahin (Bristol U)
01 Nov 2016 - Dr Pisu Jiang (Bristol U)
01 Nov 2016 - Mr Jianwei Wang (Bristol U)
01 Nov 2016 - Dr Dong Liu (Bristol U)
01 Nov 2016 - Dr Indranil Chatterjee (Bristol U)
01 Nov 2016 - Dr James Pomeroy (Bristol U)
02 Nov 2016 - Dr Scott Greenwell (Bristol U)
02 Nov 2016 - Dr David Cussans (Bristol U)
02 Nov 2016 - Dr Mark Taylor (Bristol U)
02 Nov 2016 - Dr Jim Brooke (Bristol U)
02 Nov 2016 - Dr Paras Naik (Bristol U)
15 Feb 2017 - Nicola Neri (INFN)
17 Feb 2017 - Professor Jeff Kahn (Hawaii U)
17 Feb 2017 - Professor Shane Larson (Northwestern U)
17 Feb 2017 - Hang Yu (MIT)
17 Feb 2017 - Professor David MacFarlane (SLAC)
27 Feb 2017 - Julian Barbour
27 Feb 2017 - Professor Joan Vaccaro (Griffith U)
27 Feb 2017 - Professor William Unruh (British Columbia U)
09 Mar 2017 - Professor Sandu Popescu (Bristol U)
10 Mar 2017 - Lee Smolin (Perimiter I)
14 Mar 2017 - Anna Ijjas (Princeton U)
15 Mar 2017 - Professor Paul Steinhardt (Princeton U)
16 Mar 2017 - Professor Avi Loeb (Harvard U)
17 Mar 2017 - Professor Niayesh Afshordi (Waterloo U)
18 Mar 2017 - Professor Joao Magueijo (Imperial College U)
31 Mar 2017 - Doctor Chiara Mingarelli (Caltech)
01 Apr 2017 - Professor James Bullock (California U, Irvine)
02 Apr 2017 - Professor Hakeem Oluseyi (Florida Tech)
04 Apr 2017 - Doctor Jedida Isler (Harvard U)
05 Apr 2017 - Professor Zoltan Haiman (Columbia U)
08 Apr 2017 - Doctor Ben Gripaios (Cambridge U)
09 Apr 2017 - Doctor Mike McCulloch (Plymouth U)
10 Apr 2017 - Bernard Haisch
18 Apr 2017 - Professor Priya Natarajan (Yale U)
19 Apr 2017 - Professor Jenny Greene (Princeton U)
20 Apr 2017 - Marta Volonteri (Institut d'astrophysique de Paris)
22 Apr 2017 - Professor Mitchell Begelman (Colorado U)
23 Apr 2017 - Doug Spolyer (Stockholm U)
24 Apr 2017 - Professor Avi Loeb (Harvard U)
19 Jun 1017 - David H Shoemaker (MIT)
19 Jun 2017 - Carl Rodriguez (MIT)
19 Jun 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
26 Jun 2017 - Professor Alexander Kusenko (UCLA9)
26 Jun 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
03 Jul 2017 - Professor Tony Padilla (Nottingham U)
03 Jul 2017 - Qindi Wang (British Columbia U)
03 Jul 2017 - Natacha Altamirano (Waterloo U)
03 Jul 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
10 Jul 2017 - Professor Yasunori Namura (California U, Berkeley)
10 Jul 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
17 Jul 2017 - Professor Juan Garcia-Bellido (UA Madrid)
17 Jul 2017 - Doctor Sebastien Clesse (Aachen U
17 Jul 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
24 Jul 2017 - Professor Luciano Rezzolla, Frankfurt IAS)
24 Jul 2017 - Professor Steve Liebling (Long Island U)
24 Jul 2017 - Professor Dr. Heino Falcke (Nijmegen U)
24 Jul 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
31 Jul 2017 - Professor Malcolm Perry (Cambridge U)
31 Jul 2017 - Professor Hiranya Peiris (UCL)
31 Jul 2017 - Professor David Lyth (Lancaster U)
31 Jul 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
07 Aug 2017 - Professor Sheldon Goldstein (Rutgers U)
07 Aug 2017 - Professor David Albert (Columbia U)
07 Aug 2017 - Professor John Bush (MIT)
07 Aug 2017 - Professor Aephraim Steinberg (Toronto U)
07 Aug 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
21 Aug 2017 - David H Shoemaker (MIT)
21 Aug 2017 - Carl Rodriguez (MIT)
21 Aug 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
28 Aug 2017 - Daniel Scolnic (Kavli, Chicago)
28 Aug 2017 - Professor David Spergel (Princeton U
28 Aug 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
04 Sep 2017 - Professor Juan Garcia-Bellido Capdevila (Madrid U)
04 Sep 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
11 Sep 2017 - Doctor Ben Gripaios (Cambridge U)
11 Sep 2017 - Professor Claus Lammerzahl (Bremen U)
11 Sep 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
18 Sep 2017 - Professor Thomas Buchert (ENS Lyon)
18 Sep 2017 - Doctor Syksy Rasanen (Helsinki U)
18 Sep 2017 - Professor Charles Sammut (Malta U)
|
|
|