The Big Bang Reconsidered (E=MC2)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Einstein’s general theory of relativity has not only been proven correct time and time again, but has had implicit in it, ideas that Einstein himself disagreed with on a personal level. This must be properly understood, as this fact is often misused within popular science, as a means to undermine the genius of Einstein. To be clear – E=MC2 is absolutely correct and is not wrong in any way. As a formula, it contributes to, and does not contradict the thinking behind quantum physics. Therefore, it logically follows that Einstein was entirely ‘correct’ when he worked-out that energy equals mass – times the speed of light (squared). This is exactly the same formula that Heisenberg used to formulated his ‘uncertainty theory’, and which Georges Lemaitre used to mathematically work-out that the universe had a definite beginning. Given that this is the case, why is Einstein often portrayed as ‘wrong’ within popular science? This is because Einstein did not personally agree with many of the implications of his own theory, a fact that demonstrates that Einstein managed to ‘think’ beyond his own limited viewpoints. It some of Einstein’s personal opinions that are at odds with his own formula – and not his formula that is ‘wrong’. Many popular scientific narratives conflate Einstein’s personal opinions with his formula, and give the false impression that his formula (and not his opinions) is at odds with the thinking of quantum theory. This is bad science, and one is left wondering what lies behind this obvious attack on Einstein’s genius.

Einstein believed that the universe existed in a ‘steady state’, and was not the product of a sudden creation event. Lemaitre – using Einstein’s formula – proved that Einstein’s personal opinion was at odds with the mathematical implications of his formula. Einstein checked Lemaitre’s mathematical work and agreed that it did suggest that the universe had a definite beginning. Not only this, but Lamaitre’s work suggested that the universe was expanding, and that it emerged from a tiny cosmic egg (or ‘super atom’). Einstein agreed with Lemaitre’s mathematics, but disagreed with his physics. Edwin Hubble, during the 1920’s, worked out that the universe was huge, that it was expanding, and was billions of years old (although his assessment of 2 billion years was wrong). Hubble’s genius was that he scientifically proved that the universe was billions of light years across, and not just hundreds of thousands of light years, as previously thought. Indeed, Fred Hoyle – like Einstein – believed that the universe was eternal and that it already contained hydrogen and helium. In 1949, Fred Hoyle coined the derogatory term ‘Big Bang’ to refer to what he thought was a religiously premised pseudo-science. The eminent Soviet cosmologist George Gamov disagreed with the strong-willed Hoyle – and instead agreed with Lemaitre’s idea of a ‘Big Bang’. Even within the Soviet scientific system (that produced many great scientists), George Gamov was considered a genius in his own right (being elected at the young age of just 28, to being a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). He was an expert in radioactivity, and nuclear fusion, but despite the privileged life he experienced in the USSR, he decided to defect to the West in the early 1930’s – thus betraying his homeland. Whilst building on Soviet expertise and scientific innovation, Gamov exported his knowledge to the USA, where his contribution to science is acknowledged but played-down (Gamov was of the opinion that all hydrogen and helium was suddenly created during the Big Bang).

Although the universe is now known to be 13.8 billion years old, it is considered not old enough for its heat content to be distributed evenly everywhere – as is the case. This is where Alan Guth’s theory of ‘inflation’ comes into play. He stated that although Einstein was right to assume that nothing could travel faster than light, prior to the creation of the universe, this reality did not yet apply. Just before the Big Bang, when the four forces of nature were still a singularity, a certain uniformity of temperature was locked-in to the entire system, before its rapid expansion or ‘inflation’.  Guth premised that the universe originated from a tiny volume, and when the universe was both young and small, its heat content spread evenly, which was retained as space expanded faster than light. Subsequent photographs of the universe just after the Big Bang have subsequently confirmed that the Big Bang happened. Less than one billionth of a second after the Big Bang, a tiny bubble (smaller than a fraction of an atom) with a very high temperature was formed. This contained as of yet the undifferentiated four forces of nature – gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear forces. This is considered a combined superforce. Gravity suddenly split-off from this superforce as the universe rapidly expanded. As the universe expanded, it cooled, triggering a burst of energy which initiated the hyper-inflation of the universe. At this point (perhaps just a second since its beginning), the superforce collapsed into its four constituent natural forces, and eventually light was emitted. As light slowed down, matter was formed, which was then acted upon by gravity (generating spherical shapes). All this was fore-seen in Einstein’s E=MC2. The Big Bang is very much a work in progress within the realm of human science, and could be displaced if new knowledge is discovered or revealed through further research.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Prior to the scientific work of Physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), it was thought that the location and momentum of a particle could be precisely measured in time and space. However, all this changed in 1927, when Heisenberg published his work now known as the ‘Uncertainty Principle’, ‘Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle’, or ‘Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle’. From this point of time onwards, it was understood that the location and momentum of a particle (such as an electron) could not be precisely measured. The scientific universe experienced a paradigm shift which suggested that the world of matter at the atomic or sub-atomic level, could not be ‘known’ through the use of conventional science. Why is this thought to be the case? It is thought to be the case because a particle can not be a) ‘observed’, b) ‘measured’ and c) ‘predicted’. The so-called ‘quantum theory’ of reality suggests that the principles of material science – which rely upon observation, measurement and the prediction related to repeated experimentation – does not, and cannot be applied to low-level physics, despite the fact that such methods continue to function in high-level physics, and remain valid for the macro-world of ordinary, or everyday observable phenomena.

If Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’ is correct, why does the macro-world remain determinate and apparently ‘certain’? In other words, why has logic and reason, (and the development of modern science), all emerged from the apparent ‘certainty’ of the world of observable matter? Today, all school children are taught that an electron is both a ‘particle’ and a ‘wave’. Through the ‘double slit’ experiment (whereby a stream of light is fed through an ever narrowing slit), it can be demonstrated that when the slit is ‘wide’, light behave as if it consisted of particles, but when the slit is narrowed – there is a point where the light beam narrows – but then suddenly expands outwards into a wave-like formation. This being the case, why doesn’t the macro-world experience terminal ‘indeterminacy’? Whilst Louis De Broglie (1892-1987) was re-assessing Albert Einstein’s famous equation of E=MC2, he discovered that a particle wavelength is inversely related to its momentum. Waves are not observable in the macro-world, because Planck’s Constant (h) is so small, and the momentum of macro-objects so large, that any wavelength possessed by a macro-object is infinitesimally small. However, as sub-atomic particles possess very small momentum (again, interpreted through Planck’s Constant) , the wavelengths of sub-atomic particles are more readily observable. Therefore, the material world as it appears to the human senses, manifests as a ‘real’ and ‘constant’ construct. Gravity operating on the ‘mass’ of the macro-world might well generate the conditions for a material world appearing to be ‘stable’ to human perception. Of course, the physical environment is the arena of evolution through natural selection, and so the human senses correspond directly to the sense-objects that they are designed to ‘sense’. As the human brain evolved to make sense of this ‘immediate’ environment, it did not develop the ability to ‘sense’ or ‘see’ the micro-world. The human brain evolved for the purpose of generating meaningful movement through the evolutionary environment – with ‘thought’ being a by-product of this development. Although human-beings have had to develop technology to peer into the sub-atomic world, nevertheless, the human-mind has been able (through mathematics) to ‘infer’ the likelihood of a quantum reality.

The macro-world behaves through strict physical laws – laws which are used everyday in the production and maintenance of advanced and progressive science and technology. Particles are measurable and their location clearly known. Heisenberg mathematically discovered that the micro-world did not behave like this. Albert Einstein contributed greatly to modern science, but did not think quantum reality was correct. Many today state that Albert Einstein was wrong, but I disagree with this. Albert Einstein – being a great scientist – simply tried to prove quantum theory ‘wrong’, as a means to confirm its validity. After-all, his theory of relatively greatly advanced the ‘science’ of quantum understanding. More to the point, despite Heisenberg’s breakthrough, it could be ‘wrong’ because humanity is currently viewing the situation through the rubric of false assumptions and interpretations. How can a material universe be built on an immaterial foundation? Furthermore, quantum theory cannot, and does not explain the existence of the macro-world. As it is the macro-world that humanity exists within, and has built the edifice of its science and spirituality upon, it should be the quantum physicists who should be trying to explain why it is that their view of the world cannot explain material reality. Whatever the case, in reality, Heisenberg arrived at his interesting observation through the practice of a strict material mathematics and science. In the sense of good and reliable research – as Heisenberg would agree – ‘certainty’ of logical methodology is of the greatest importance. It was by observing the nature of material reality that Heisenberg arrived at his famous ‘uncertainty principle’.

How Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) – a Catholic Priest – Progressed Secular Science

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘A Day Without Yesterday’: Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang

Albert Einstein (right) and the great mathematician Georges Lemaître (left). Until Lemaitre presented Einstein with his paper detailing how the universe had a definite beginning (subsequently termed by Hoyle as the ‘Big Bang’), and that space was expanding, Einstein use to think that the universe was eternal. In the history of science, for instance, a great injustice is perpetuated against Lemaitre because of his faith. His mathematical breakthrough (although confirmed by Einstein as ‘correct’) is ignored, and the concept that the universe has a definite beginning is instead erroneously ascribed to Edwin Hubble. Einstein stated that Lemaitre’s mathematics was perfect – but that he did not care much for his physics. This was because Lemaitre talked of a ‘cosmic egg’ to describe the  beginning of the universe, for which no evidence exists. My view is that a person’s personal beliefs should not exclude that person from official recognition if their scientific thinking is correct. Of course, I do not support politicised religion, and fully acknowledge that Lemaitre was probably motivated by proving the creationism of theology correct – and in the process – science wrong. As matters transpired, Lemaitre achieved neither of these objectives, but he did advance secular scientific understanding, and for that he should be properly remembered.

Did Albert Einstein Mention Buddhism?

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Albert Einstein apparently held Buddhist philosophy in high regard, stating that it represented both a social science and a natural science. Of course, the Buddha was right when he stated that the human mind can only know a certain level of knowledge within its natural state. This suggests that the Buddha was discussing a human mind unassisted by modern technology. Of course, through the use of the mind in a particular manner, technology can be produced that augments the mind’s ability to perceive and understand phenomena, but the mind itself is always hindered by a ‘knowledge barrier’ as suggested by the Buddha. The Buddha not only rejected a society premised upon theism, but advocated a complete revolutionary break with the past. This aspect of Buddhism is virtually ignored in the bourgeois West, or those Asian counties that embrace predatory capitalism. As for natural science, it is well-known that the Buddha explained how it is that a bowl of water is teeming with life so small the human eye can not ordinarily detect such entities, and that other worlds exist in the universe, more numerous than the grains of sand in the Ganges. The Buddha clarified the two ways of understanding the universe, namely through logic and reason, and a properly guided intuition. Both types of mind activity are required for the development and progression of scientific understanding. In 2012, those with a superstitious and irrational mind-set thought the world was going to end because the Mayan Calendar appeared to indicate this. Buddhism rejects the ‘argument from authority’ premise, and has a much broader concept of time and space (very similar to modern science).

However, in the West there seems to be confusion about whether Albert Einstein really did praise Buddhism, or consider it a ‘scientific’ philosophy. As Western sources all seem to be copying one another’s lack of knowledge on this issue, I have accessed the Chinese language internet to shed some light on this matter. These are the observations, quotes and attributable sources that I have found, gathered from the work of Chinese scholar Fu Dujun (杜福君) [https://www.zhihu.com/question/24587915]:

1) ‘What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.’

Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side – The Chinese author states the phrase containing the word ‘Buddha could be found, but nothing relating to ‘Buddhist’ or ‘Buddhism’.

2) ‘The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism….’

Source: Albert Einstein, quoted in Madalyn Murray O’Hair – All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists (1982) vol. ii., p. 29 – The Chinese author states that this quote cannot be directly attributed to Albert Einstein – and was probably a product of paraphrasing, condensing and re-imagining a number of known Einstein quotes about Buddhism – as conceived by Madalyn Murray O’hair.

A further note states: A reply from the Einstein Archives of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem states: ‘The quote under discussion which I know is quite ‘popular’, appears to paraphrase some ideas Einstein developed in an essay titled “Religion and Science”, written in 1930. Here, Einstein mentions the “cosmic religiosity” (not religion!), Buddhism, and a belief that avoids dogma and theology.’

3) Einstein’s knowledge of Buddhism comes mainly from Schopenhauer. There is no evidence that Einstein understood Buddhism in its Asian cultural context, or through its broader philosophical implications.

4) Basically, it is clear that Einstein possessed a positive attitude towards Buddhism. In fact, many scientists also have a positive attitude towards Buddhism, but this does not necessarily mean that Buddhism can be of any direct assistance to scientific research, or represents a philosophy higher than science. It is more the case that Buddhism’s understanding of the world seems to be in line with the scientific method. Like science, Buddhism opposes dogma (and agrees with dialectical research), but Buddhism is generally more tolerant toward different types of thinking, than is mainstream science. In-short, the Buddhist integration of wisdom and tolerance allows people to feel good. It should also be noted that this positive attitude of modern science toward Buddhism is ‘generic’, as most scientists (including Einstein) rarely have an in-depth understanding of Buddhist philosophy, and usually do not agree with the concept of re-birth (or reincarnation), as found within popular Buddhism.

Chinese Language Reference Articles:

http://www.chuanxi.com.cn/Article/Content/12596

https://www.zhihu.com/question/24587915

 

Apparent Faster Than Light Travel by Modifying Space-Time

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The work of Albert Einstein relativity theory states that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, or 6 trillion miles per hour. This seems impressive, but in cosmic terms it is very slow. The ‘light horizon’ is the furthest humanity can see at the moment, through its technology – and this has observed the beginning of the universe( which occurred around 13.8 billion years ago). This is the length of time – i.e. 13.8 billion years – that light energy has taken to reach the earth today. In reality, when scientists look at the universe at this point in its early existence, they are looking back in time. There may well be something beyond or behind this event (i.e. the ‘big bang’), but human science is not yet able to see beyond the ‘light horizon’. In other words, the science of light detection, although pivotal to human understanding, curently serves as a barrier to further knowledge of the universe. However, what has been seen at the edges of the universe, is the curious phenomenon of space appearing to expand (or stretch) ‘faster’ than the speed of light. This observation has led to the theoretical idea that it might be possible to traverse vast distances not by travelling at light speed, (or even faster than light speed), but by ‘warping’ time and space. A simple model of this would involve the development of a technology that ‘expands’ space behind a specially designed space-ship – whilst simultaneously ‘contracts’ space in-front of this space-ship. Predictably, NASA has ceased any and all research in this area. Although not literally travelling ‘faster than light’, the vast distances traversed in a very short period of time, could be measured in ‘light years’ – as if travelling faster than light. This method might involve the ‘cutting’ or ‘punching-through’ at a specific point in space – and immediately emerging millions or billions of light years away in another part of the cosmos.

Algebraic Formula for the Achievement of Communism (i.e. ‘Scientific Socialism’)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

A mathematical formula is believed to ‘prove’ something to be logically correct through reasoned argument. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that they had discovered and developed a new kind of social science applicable to the capitalist, industrialised world. As a ‘science’ opposed to a faith-base religion, utopian Socialism or sets of superstitious beliefs, the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels, provided an ‘objective’ observation of the material world (in its socio-economic and political-cultural manifestation), whilst operating a predictive model of changes yet to come, premised firmly upon concrete existential conditions. This is a model of the world free of religious speculation or any form of ‘inverted’ thinking – where thoughts generated in the head are mistaken for actual objects (or processes) in the material world. Once this inverted mind-set (which existed for millennia prior to the emergence of rational thought in humans), is the reason why people have believed in non-existent gods and spirits, built their entire lives on these empty beliefs, and have been prepared to murder one another as a means to ‘prove’ whose ‘inverted’ mind-set is better than all the others. This switch from imagination to the objective observation of the real world and the processes that operate through it, is the foundational premise of the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels. The mind is not ignored or negated in this model, but assumes its correct and pristine function of ‘reflecting’ external conditions within, whilst being able to initiate modes of behaviour (through patterns of progressive and non-inverted thought), that modify and/or sustain various modes of operation or functionality in the material world. The human mind is shaped by external conditions, and given the correct development, also serves to transform the external world (through advanced modes of well-considered behaviour or manifest ‘labour’ in various types). Assuming the correctness of this Marx-Engels (and by extrapolation ‘Marx-Lenin’), the ‘correctness’ of Karl Marx’s understanding can be expressed in a succinct mathematical formula in the following manner.

Key:

Communism = K (Kommunism)

History = Passing Time (pt)

Matter = Social Constructs (sc)

Conscious Awareness = Human Perception (hp)

The long formula reads:

Communism (k) = History (passing time) x Matter (social constructs) ÷ Conscious Awareness (human perception)

Or more succinctly:

K = H x M  – (which is the shorter version of K = pt x sc)

C                                                                            hp

Conscious awareness (i.e. ‘human perception’) is intimately entwined with physical matter, and indeed is a result of matter that has become aware of its own existence during the evolutionary developmental process. Soviet literature quite rightly referred to this process as a ‘special arrangement of matter’. As a consequence, conscious awareness is ‘divided’ throughout all the sensory universe without exception, providing there are no illnesses or injuries that interfere with the cognitive process, and the individual is alive. With the death of the brain and body, the conscious awareness in its ordinary sense, ceases to function and the individual concerned no longer directly influences the world, through thought and behaviour. However, an individual may continue to assert an influence of sorts upon the world, through his or her deeds whilst alive, and the manner in which the living hold the memory of the deceased. For instance, it can be reasonably argued that the memory of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin – to mention just three Communist Revolutionaries – live on with a considerable ‘power’ or ‘force’ in the minds (and behaviours) of others – and yet all three are now dead. Human consciousness, when freed from an inverted functionality, takes its place to correctly reflect the world as it actually is, rather than in a manner premised upon wishful thinking and imagination. No imaginary ‘god’ is going to rescue the Working Class, simply because such a god is a fabrication manufactured by the very same Middle Class that oppresses the workers. This is why the workers must train their minds to ‘see through’ the bourgeois religious myth, and strive to achieve in the physical world, a Proletariat Revolution which transforms the material conditions of that world away from mythology and toward a collective Scientific Socialism.

As Trotskyism is a bourgeois attitude pretending to support ‘Socialism’, its adherents, whilst appearing to confront and protest various aspects of the capitalist system, are in reality supporting the foundation of the capitalist system (seeking power and influence through selfish compromises here and there), whilst opposing Marxist-Leninism, and the achievement of any genuine Communist Revolution. This Trotskyite opposition to a Marxist-Leninist Revolution may be expressed through a slightly modified version of the above mathematical formula.

The Long Formula reads:

Trotskyite Socialism (ts) = History (passing of time) x Matter (social constructs) – Conscious Awareness (human perception)

Or more succinctly:

TS = (H x M) – C – which is the shorter for of TS = (pt x sc) – hp

As the Trotskyites refuse to dialectically participate in the Marxist-Leninist process toward a transformation of the physical world through a Communist Revolution, it can be stated that the Trotskyite approach is ‘unscientific’ and represents a ‘negation’ or ‘withdrawal’ of a correctly focused Revolutionary consciousness. Therefore, the Trotskyites exist to preserve the capitalist system as it exists (i.e. through the passing of time, the capitalist socio-economic constructs remain unchanged), and exercise a deliberately ‘falsified’ state of mind that remains ‘inverted’ and thoroughly bourgeois in essence, and which mimics the Communist Revolutionary spirit – whilst rejecting the very ideology that underlies this spirit. The above formula is straight forward and designed for anyone to understand why the Scientific Socialism of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin is a mathematical (scientific) fact, and why Trotskyism is simply another aspect of the bourgeois preference for capitalism, and a false vehicle for securing power in an oppressive system. In other words, Trotskyism is not ‘scientific’ and should be abandoned by the International Working class, as being an ideology that is against its best class interests. Finally, with perhaps the exception of the Socialist Albert Einstein, the bourgeois academic system, wedded as it is to the capitalist system, refuses to recognise the ‘scientific’ nature of Marxism (and Marxist-Leninism), and heap scorn and derision upon it. It may well be that Marxist-Leninists represent the most advanced human-beings on the earth to date, and that the persecution such people suffer from the establishment, is tantamount to the persecution Galileo faced from the Roman Catholic Church, when he dared to reject the ‘inverted’ teachings of theology, and to state that the earth was round and travelled around the sun! As workers, we must learn all the important facts discovered by the bourgeois establishment, whilst developing our own proletariat science and mathematics.

Rightwing Bigotry Never Invented Anything!

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If it wasn’t for the fact that Albert Einstein was so clever, I am sure the United States would have expelled him, and banned him from re-entering the country.  Furthermore, the US authorities may well have opted for ‘assassination’, to stop a possible ‘defection’ to the Soviet Union  – particularly after Einstein conclusively condemned the modern Zionist State of Israel from it inception.  Einstein was one of the greatest minds created by humanity (and evolution), and in his considered intellectual opinion, capitalism was stupid because it keeps people in a deliberate state of ‘exploitable’ arrested development, as the last thing the exploiters want, is for the exploited to realise and understand what is going on.  Einstein, as a genius, stated quite plainly and clearly that the Socialist path is the scientifically ‘superior’ path for humanity, so if the greatest thinker of our age (or any age) thinks this, then why hasn’t Western society listened to him?  After-all, the Western establishment has been quite happy to ‘steal’ Einstein’s scientific ideas and sell them for profit, but nevertheless steers clear of his preference for Socialism.  Einstein was perfectly correct, or course. Humanity has evolved together in the past, and for it to progress in the future, its must evolve ‘collectively’ yet again.  Capitalism, with its emphasis upon exploitable individuality, runs philosophically and biological counter to the natural forces of evolution, whereas the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels runs entirely inaccordance with it.  Capitalism, with its incessant ‘greed’ for personal wealth keeps humanity as a whole  dumbed-down, and unable to effectively ‘imagine’ and ‘think’. Capitalism, and those wedded to it, are inherently ‘stupid’ because that is the default setting of ‘greed’.  Humans living within bourgeois society mostly conform without any sense of awareness or objectivity, but occasionally, individuals do rise to the top, being able to ‘transcend’ the conditionality of their circumstances.  This is the development of a Socialist mind-set within the capitalist system, and can be used to precipitate a system-wide Revolution of thinking and behaving.  It is only through Socialist thinking that humanity can scientifically progress, this is why the Soviet Union was technologically far ahead of the West, and why Communist China is now leading the world.  One thing is for sure, being happy to wallow in capitalist indifference, is simply being happy to be in one’s prison cell, even though the door is perpetually ‘open’.  Such stupidity!

Auguste Piccard (1884-1962)

images (20)

This man was a genius and a personal friend of Albert Einstein.  A long time before either the Soviets or the Americans put human beings in space – the Swiss-born scientist Auguste Piccard was the foremost explorer and gatherer of data from the earth’s upper atmosphere.  He designed metal bells that were attached to large hot-air balloons, and which took him an incredible ten miles up into the sky in 1931 – a distance that no other human being had travelled at the time, and much higher than the aeroplanes of that time could reach.  He achieved this mission with Paul Kipfer after took off from Augsburg, in Germany.  They reached a record altitude of 15,781 m (51,775 ft). During this flight, Piccard was able to gather substantial data on the upper atmosphere, as well as measure cosmic rays. It was this incredible risk-taking and ingenuity that became the basis of all advanced air and space travel that came later.  His missions into the stratosphere were unpredictable and often dangerous as purpose-built equipment broke or did not work in the manner intended.  Later in his life, he also designed submarine devices to explore the ocean’s depths.  He reported the earth to be round, but also once stated that on one occasion, the earth looked ‘flat’ with turned-up edges.  Gene Roddenberry – the creator of Star Trek – used Auguste Piccard as the inspiration for Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

Auguste Piccard: the physicist who went stratospheric

%d bloggers like this: