Michael J Bull
Michael John Bull
DOB: 12 October 1949.
Nationality: Australian.
Education:
Secondary education from a Sydney GPS Grammar school and a western Sydney Agricultural High School.
Tertiary education from the Uni. of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia ; Queensland Distance Education Centre ; Uni. of Central Qld.
Quarternary education from extensive reading and research over many years.
Supervisors: None
Phone: 0498101527
Address: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
DOB: 12 October 1949.
Nationality: Australian.
Education:
Secondary education from a Sydney GPS Grammar school and a western Sydney Agricultural High School.
Tertiary education from the Uni. of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia ; Queensland Distance Education Centre ; Uni. of Central Qld.
Quarternary education from extensive reading and research over many years.
Supervisors: None
Phone: 0498101527
Address: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Michael J Bull
The lack of coherence between the theories of Special / General Relativity (SR and GR) and Quantum Mechanics has for decades puzzled theoretical physicists. The divide between the macro universe and the micro universe with their different characteristics has presented an enigma. It would appear that there is some missing factor, which when identified, may bring the two theories to a compatible co-existence. This paper attempts to identify the missing factor and provide evidence to support its inclusion into accepted physics. This author's prior work on space-time (S-T) units of measure and gravity experiments, provide an insight into the possible solution, and when combined with the work of Brian Fraser in his 2015 paper “Beyond Einstein: Non-Local Physics” suggest the solution for a number of paradoxes.
The lack of coherence between the theories of Special / General Relativity (SR and GR) and Quantum Mechanics has for decades puzzled theoretical physicists. The divide between the macro universe and the micro universe with their different characteristics has presented an enigma. It would appear that there is some missing factor, which when identified, may bring the two theories to a compatible co-existence. This paper attempts to identify the missing factor and provide evidence to support its inclusion into accepted physics. This author's prior work on space-time (S-T) units of measure and gravity experiments, provide an insight into the possible solution, and when combined with the work of Brian Fraser in his 2015 paper “Beyond Einstein: Non-Local Physics” suggest the solution for a number of paradoxes.
Substance (What we think we know)
Geometry: Warren’s model, Guido Kinet's Model, David Fuller's Calculations, Roman Baudrimont's Model
This review of the work of Floyd Sweet and Tom Bearden during the 1980's and 1990's relating to the connection between electromagnetism and gravity is of particular interest to this author following his own experimental and theoretical work outlined in the Paper “Mass, Gravity and Electromagnetism's relationship demonstrated using two novel Electromagnetic Circuits” in the period 2014 to 2018. The Paper can be found at
https://www.academia.edu/37724456/Mass_Gravity_and_Electromagnetisms_relationship_demonstrated_using_two_novel_Electromagnetic_Circuits .
For example, in the field of physics, our personal belief systems have gradually changed over time, progressing from a belief that the earth is flat and covered by a dome containing the sun and stars, to a spherical earth revolving around the sun within the galaxy. There are perhaps only a few who have considered that our solar system may also revolve around another more massive star or cluster, before the whole revolve around the centre of the galaxy. Similarly the belief systems regarding who and what we are, our relevance and importance, are many and varied.
This essay attempts to question some of the common paradigms and uses a fictional 'Interview with God' as the vehicle to convey some questions and answers.
It is often a shift in paradigm which is required to move knowledge forward, especially in the sciences. The heroes include Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and Planck.
Substance (What we think we know)
Geometry: (Warren’s model)
Part II: After The First Round of Discussions
1. General Geometry of Empty Space in the Absence of Matter:
We must define the arrangement of spatial substance to be in the form of a continuous matrix (G. Kinet & D. Fuller). However, following Einstein & Goedel, this would tend to exclude any form that is non-isotropic or not invariant in the principle directions or composed of individual granular substances. The points of axial intersections of the matrix would appear to resemble the tessellation of a three dimensional hexagonal polyhedron (G. Kinet, D. Fuller & W. Giordano) with dimensions that are a minimal integral multiple of the Planck Length (Mu0E0)/C according to G. Kinet.
2. General Geometry of Space in the Presence of Matter:
If we consider that Einstein’s Energy tensor defines the field and makes no differentiation with regard to matter, then matter is simply the “condensed” state of a portion of the field and is not at all separate from the field. The field being at its most viscous within the particle and diminishing with distance. The energy tensor governs both the flow of time and inversely the length of the Planck Length by the Lorentz effect in relation to the distance from the mass so that the velocity of light is invariant from point to point within the field.
The hypothesis To start with an initial hypothesis:-" The invisible fabric of empty space, the 'aether', exists. " Known sub information either supports the hypothesis or does not support it. Observable supporting evidence is given the highest probability. Evidence which is not observable but supported by other factors is given a probability of more than 0.50. Evidence to the contrary will have a probability of less than 0.50, while statements without observable evidence but with no contrary evidence are given a probability of 0.50. Bayes theorem is P(A/B) = P(B/A) P(A) / P(B). Bayes theorem calculator : http://byjus.com/bayes-theorem-calculator Calculations by Michael J. BULL: Evidence statements 1. Light is a transverse electromagnetic wave which oscillates and requires a medium in which to register its oscillation. Supported. (By analogy to other waves in other media.) More likely to be probable than not. Assign a probability of 0.65. Using Bayes theorem, if the 'aether exists' hypothesis is P(A) = 0.5 and 'light requires a medium to oscillate' is P(B) = 0.65, and the probability of B being true because A is true, P(B/A), is 0.65, then the probability of A being true because B is true, P(A/B), is calculated at 0.5. 2. The 'aether' is not visible but variations within the aether which have an effect upon other phenomena such as light and gravity are observable. Supported. (The bending of light by a variation of a gravity field near a mass.) More likely probable than not. Assign a probability of 0.95. If P(B/A) is certain, 1.0, then P(A/B) for this statement is 0.5263. Slightly better odds than a coin toss. 3. The Planck Length is a fundamental quantum measure. Supported. (The quantum of length divided by the quantum of time exactly equals the speed of light, c, which has been calculated in prior physics as a 'constant'.) More likely to be correct than not. Assign a probability of 0.95. If P(B/A) is certain, 1.0, then P(A/B) = 0.5263 4. (Space is) a matrix mesh of Planck length units which behaves like some sort of gel. Not supported, by other observable evidence at this point. No evidence to the contrary. Assign a probability of 0.50. If P(B/A) = 0.5 then P(A/B) = 0.5 5. Matter is composed of that same material but frozen into a twisted lump by kinetic turbulence of the early universe. Not supported, by other observable evidence at this point. No evidence to the contrary. Assign a probability of 0.50. P(A/B) = 0.5
Substance (What we think we know)
Geometry: (Warren’s model)
Part II: After The First Round of Discussions
1. General Geometry of Empty Space in the Absence of Matter:
We must define the arrangement of spatial substance to be in the form of a continuous matrix (G. Kinet & D. Fuller). However, following Einstein & Goedel, this would tend to exclude any form that is non-isotropic or not invariant in the principle directions or composed of individual granular substances. The points of axial intersections of the matrix would appear to resemble the tessellation of a three dimensional hexagonal polyhedron (G. Kinet, D. Fuller & W. Giordano) with dimensions that are a minimal integral multiple of the Planck Length (Mu0E0)/C according to G. Kinet.
2. General Geometry of Space in the Presence of Matter:
If we consider that Einstein’s Energy tensor defines the field and makes no differentiation with regard to matter, then matter is simply the “condensed” state of a portion of the field and is not at all separate from the field. The field being at its most viscous within the particle and diminishing with distance. The energy tensor governs both the flow of time and inversely the length of the Planck Length by the Lorentz effect in relation to the distance from the mass so that the velocity of light is invariant from point to point within the field.