It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

page: 19
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Ok, sorry my bad. We DO know what happens when 1.32 fm black holes collide - if Haramein's model is correct.

However, your link to wikipedia does not explain away the theory that gravity is holding the nucleus together.

Face it: Quantum gravity, whether Haramein's or someone elses, will most likely become the replacement for the 'strong force'.


We detect point-like objects inside it.


Yes, I get it. At least you acknowledge they are not 'particles' in any real sense.

What do you think those 'point-like' objects are? To me, it seems they are just a significant organization of wave-functions that are detectable to our instruments.

If(yeah IF... wanna fight about it?
) black holes do encompass a universe inside...

And that universe has structure... Perhaps it shows when we blast the bejeesus out of it in the collider.

Or else maybe it is separating discrete levels of light itself.

Can you yet see the problem of empirical equivalence in this discussion?


The radius 1.32fm is irrelevant in the context of hard scattering, i.e. at high energies. So it's about time you stopped having a hangup on that number.


Can you enlighten me? Although I would tend to agree that all measurements are superficial anyways... I would like to know more of what you mean.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by beebs]




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
However, your link to wikipedia does not explain away the theory that gravity is holding the nucleus together.

Face it: Quantum gravity, whether Haramein's or someone elses, will most likely become the replacement for the 'strong force'.


Face it?

No there are too many discrepancies. For one thing the strong nuclear force is a hundred trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity.

What is the Strong Nuclear Force?


The strong nuclear force, also known as the strong interaction, is the strongest force in the universe, 10^38 times stronger than gravity and 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force.


Another discrepancy is that gravitational force gets stronger as bodies get closer, the strong nuclear force doesn't:


The strong force has a property called asymptotic freedom, meaning as quarks get closer together, the force diminishes in strength, asymptotically approaching zero. Conversely, as the quarks get further apart, the force gets stronger.


That behavior is the opposite of the way gravity behaves.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.Morrison

Ignoring your most recent venomous post directed at me

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Having called me names that would be considered inappropriate in most normal social settings, you have the nerve to accuse me of spreading venom? Some chutzpah you have (and lack of principles).


Yes & my accusations are founded in truth. If we made a tally of all the potentially hurtful or insulting comments YOU have posted, and did a side by side comparison with MY singular utterance of a 'foul' word then it would be undeniably proven that YOU are the main candidate for "who is responsible for this hostile virtual environment...?" if you don't think so I invite you to make that tally & prove me wrong with it...

PAWNED.


Originally posted by B.Morrison
Not one of us here are committing to the ideas we are discussing..

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Quite frankly you could not commit if you wanted to, because you are not equipped to...


VENOM...anyone? anyone care for a portion of venom?
actually to be honest that was tame Mr/Ms. BS,
you having a good day or something???



Originally posted by buddhasystem
such as the absurd statement about the color charge.


you obviously didn't bother reading all the posts, you were factually challenged about this & a failure to reply to it is a failure to prove anything, a failure to recognize your OWN terms... ultimately...FAIL!!!!


Originally posted by B.Morrison
the way you have committed yourself to the laws of physics, the known & proven....



Originally posted by buddhasystem
You have no idea what I'm committed to....


well judging from your later comments about 'no shortcuts' and some of your previous comments in earlier posts, its pretty obvious you committed to studying a HELL of a lot of physics.....correct me if I'm wrong but you've spent so much time & effort already reminding us each & every post you make about your superior physics knowledge......

yet pertain to deny when another suggests the same thing??
how curious, how bizarre...how odd...how absurd....




Originally posted by B.Morrison
in the ideas we have settled on that to us seemed more credible



Originally posted by buddhasystem
how can ANYTHING seem more credible to you than what's published in Physical Review Letters, or Nuclear Instruments and Methods?
this seems to be your misunderstanding....
I meant:
"more plausable than other 'fringe' theories"

NOT

"more plausable than WORKING & PROVEN models of physics....."




Originally posted by buddhasystem
No, there are no shortcuts to knowledge, I am afraid.


LOL! and wrong. FAIL AGAIN!!! ha HA!


Originally posted by B.Morrison
Since you seem to find most of these ideas we are discussing too absurd to even consider, perhaps you should invest your time differently.



Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think Denying Ignorance, in its most direct sense, is quite fitting for the board, and exposing Medieval approach to science for what it is is a worthwhile investment of my time.
[edit on 29-6-2010 by buddhasystem]


I actually whole heartedly agree with you on that one, expect that haramein's methods are sooo obviously uniquely his if you learn about his background that I don't think 'timeframes' can apply....tell me if you understand what I'm getting at before commenting on that if u will...

No harm, no foul Mr/Ms. BS, you are who you are & you do not bother me, I suggest you build a bridge and get over what ails you Mr/Ms. BS, a grudge is a nasty burden to bear.



P.L.U.R.I
-B.M

P.S) for clarity - in case you couldn't tell, I am no longer taking much of any of this 'hostility' between us seriously anymore....

P.P.S) lol @ chutzpah too that is one of the funniest things I've ever been called...


[edit on 30/6/10 by B.Morrison]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
However, your link to wikipedia does not explain away the theory that gravity is holding the nucleus together.


It certainly doesn't even bother to "explain away" this preposterous proposition along with many others, such as that nuclei are held together by subspace field generated by Supreme Being Zmorrg who resides in the Center of Universe.

Arbitrageur addressed some discrepancies in gravity vs strong force, let me add something really simple -- force of gravity that has potential that's described like ~1/r, don't you agree?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.Morrison
you obviously didn't bother reading all the posts, you were factually challenged about this & a failure to reply to it is a failure to prove anything, a failure to recognize your OWN terms... ultimately...FAIL!!!!


Sorry but the posted material did not support Haramein's false stipulation that the fractional charge of quarks represents the color charge. I didn't fail to notice that. Show me the part you are saying I missed, about equivalence of fractional electric charge to color charge. Can you do that? No? Then I guess a little silence would be what the doctor ordered for you, my dear ignoramus. No amount of huffing and puffing is going to plug holes in your knowledge of the subject, there are just way too many.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
As I have previously pointed out, your name-calling of Haramein has been offensive to me as well, as I feel that my posting about him shows my respect for him, and your ridicule feels indirectly aimed at me.


For the record, the following quote, I believe, is not just an indirect insult to a member, it is direct name-calling of members, and against forum rules:


Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . retarder apologies of same.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . retarder apologies of same.


"Apology" is not a name of a human.

So, back on topic, did you read all of Haramein's work?



[edit on 30-6-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Regarding the capacitor Ark, check this out:
www.orgone.org...

I believe Wilhelm Reich stumbled upon a similar phenomenon.


...which I suppose is this one:

Orgone was closely associated with sexuality: Reich, following Freud, saw nascent sexuality as the primary energetic force of life. The term itself was chosen to share a root with the word orgasm, which both Reich and Freud took to be a fundamental expression of psychological health.


What does it say about the contents of the Ark?


But of course, the ark was probably using 'quasi-crystals'


What are 'quasi-crystals'?


or something to amplify and multiply the facets of space time that were gathering energy from the vacuum...


What are the facets of 'space time' and how can they be 'amplified'?


[edit on 30-6-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . retarder apologies of same.


"Apology" is not a name of a human.

So, back on topic, did you read all of Haramein's work?


Buddhasystem,

The word in question is "retarder."

Really now, did you misunderstand me, or what?




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beebs
However, your link to wikipedia does not explain away the theory that gravity is holding the nucleus together.


It certainly doesn't even bother to "explain away" this preposterous proposition along with many others, such as that nuclei are held together by subspace field generated by Supreme Being Zmorrg who resides in the Center of Universe.

Arbitrageur addressed some discrepancies in gravity vs strong force, let me add something really simple -- force of gravity that has potential that's described like ~1/r, don't you agree?


To criticize my own post, discrepancy might not be the right word to describe the differences. If I said there's a discrepancy in the volume of water in 1/4 teaspoon, versus all the Earth's ocean's combined, that's "only" a difference of a trillion trillion. "Discrepancy" would be an understatement for that amount of difference. But the difference in force between gravity and the strong nuclear force is even 100 trillion times greater than that! So am I bad for calling an almost unimaginably large chasm of difference a "discrepancy"?

Doesn't gravity follow the inverse square law? Like 1/r^2? Or should I assume the "~" means you're simplifying the question for the laypeople here? (Which is what I assume)

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law, the gravity field can be put in the form shown below, showing that the acceleration of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity of the gravity field.


And again here it's more than a discrepancy between gravity and the nuclear force, it's polar opposite. Gravity gets weaker with distance and the nuclear force gets stronger with distance.

If I tried to add this Zmorrg explanation to Wikipedia someone would remove it, because it's not scientific because it can't be falsified. In this respect, the Zmorrg theory may actually have a better chance of being true than Haramein's proton theory, which not only can be falsified, but already has been falsified by observational evidence.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The word in question is "retarder."

Really now, did you misunderstand me, or what?



Yes, I meant it as an adjective and not as a noun. Regardless, take it as you wish. What I did mean, and still do, is that evaluating plausibility of a theory without having comprehended its basics it's not a smart thing to do. If someone passes me a paper where a claim is made that a new method of penicillin production is 30% more efficient than the existing one, I'll sure refrain from saying "oh this chemist is great" (based on my own judgment), simply because I don't know biochemistry and can't read through his formulas (and in fact experimental evidence is missing, to boot). If I was to proclaim "he's a genius and this new method rules" under these conditions (without experts in the field certifying that) I guess I'd be a retard.


[edit on 30-6-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arbitrageur, I was getting there (provided I had enough time which I don't).

Protons simply don't scatter off other protons they way they would if the potential was ~1/r (same thing as force being ~1/r^2). What's more interesting, in case of nuclear fission -- within Haramein's proposition, it wouldn't even take place due to long-range nature of gravity. Look, I've been to Hiroshima and center of the city has most definitely been destroyed.

But I guess I'm preaching to the choir.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yes, I meant it as an adjective and not as a noun.


You've made an issue out of someone calling you a name, so let's get this straight.

You meant it as an adjective and not as a noun. That explains it away?

The adjective "retarder" is describing the apologies. The apologies were made by forum members. The forum members are "retarder," are they?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



For one thing the strong nuclear force is a hundred trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity.


Yes... which is one of the aspects why Haramein's model works much better towards a unified field theory, than the 'strong force' does.



The strong force has a property called asymptotic freedom, meaning as quarks get closer together, the force diminishes in strength, asymptotically approaching zero. Conversely, as the quarks get further apart, the force gets stronger.


This really gets me. So when the quarks are compacted together - within the 'proton' - the force holding them together is approaching zero?

The closer they get, the less stuck together they are? What if they form one point like object or wave function before they collide, split, and move away?

If that was the case, there would be NO strong force interaction before separation, correct?

----

It certainly doesn't even bother to "explain away" this preposterous proposition along with many others, such as that nuclei are held together by subspace field generated by Supreme Being Zmorrg who resides in the Center of Universe.


Another Straw Man fallacy.


force of gravity that has potential that's described like ~1/r, don't you agree?


Aside from my lack of understanding of what you are trying to 'nail' me on here... I would of course agree with established math for gravity.

Is this relevant to what you are getting at?
1/R Correction to Gravity in the Early Universe


-----

Show me the part you are saying I missed, about equivalence of fractional electric charge to color charge. Can you do that?


I will repost:

Color charge is the 3-valued hidden quantum number carried by quarks, antiquarks and gluons. Color charge has a 3 valuedness that we associate with the group . Color charge is hidden in the sense that only singlets of that are neutral occur in nature (at least macroscopically and at low temperatures). The strongly interacting color-neutral particles composed of quarks, antiquarks and gluons that occur in nature are called hadrons. (The word color in this context is purely colloquial and has no relation to the color that we see with our eyes in everyday life.)

Color charge has two aspects: (a) as a quantum number that labels states of quarks, antiquarks and gluons: hadrons are in the singlet of as a global symmetry group and (b) as the source of the strong color force acting between quarks associated with as a local gauge group. Each of these is analogous to aspects of electric charge: (a) as a quantum number that counts the amount of electric charge in a state: neutral atoms have zero electric charge under as a global symmetry group, (b) as the source of electromagnetic forces associated with as a local gauge group acting between electrically charged particles .

O.W. Greenberg introduced the aspect of color charge as a quantum number in 1964 (Greenberg 1964). Y. Nambu, (Nambu 1966) and M.-Y. Han and Y. Nambu (Han and Nambu 1965) introduced the aspect of color charge as the source of the force between quarks in 1965 associated with the local gauge group .



When quarks were first proposed they seemed a very strange idea because no one had seen particles with electric charges that were a fraction of a proton charge. Now we understand this is because quarks, and gluons too, are confined -- this means they are only found inside color-neutral hadrons.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The adjective "retarder" is describing the apologies. The apologies were made by forum members. The forum members are "retarder," are they?


Not necessarily, but possibly!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The adjective "retarder" is describing the apologies. The apologies were made by forum members. The forum members are "retarder," are they?


Not necessarily, but possibly!


You mean you can't make up your mind?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs

Show me the part you are saying I missed, about equivalence of fractional electric charge to color charge. Can you do that?


I will repost:

Color charge is the 3-valued hidden quantum number carried by quarks, antiquarks and gluons. Color charge has a 3 valuedness that we associate with the group .....snip....



When quarks were first proposed they seemed a very strange idea because no one had seen particles with electric charges that were a fraction of a proton charge. Now we understand this is because quarks, and gluons too, are confined -- this means they are only found inside color-neutral hadrons.


So where in the material you post is it stated that the fractional electric charge "is called the color quantum number"??? Do you or do you not understand that electric charge and color charge are two different entities? Haramein obviously doesn't know that, I thought maybe you do.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You mean you can't make up your mind?


Some things are harder to decide upon, as opposed to obvious -- that Haramein's theories are all crap.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



What does it say about the contents of the Ark?


Not the contents, the construction.

Alternating gold and acacia wood or whatever wood it was.

View the accumulator plans for further information.


What are 'quasi-crystals'?








What are the facets of 'space time' and how can they be 'amplified'?


By using something like a quasicrystal framework for ZP resonance.

Hard to explain...



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Doesn't gravity follow the inverse square law? Like 1/r^2? Or should I assume the "~" means you're simplifying the question for the laypeople here? (Which is what I assume)


Thats what I thought BS was referring to at first... but surely someone with that qualifications wouldn't have missed the ^2




top topics



 
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join