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: 20
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



What does it say about the contents of the Ark?




Beebs,

Is the above the wrong BS post to link to? I don't see the quote in the post.




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
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


Didn't I say "potential"? Do you know the difference between potential and force?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



What does it say about the contents of the Ark?




Beebs,

Is the above the wrong BS post to link to? I don't see the quote in the post.


Yes, the link is wrong. The correct one contains the Wiki quote on "orgone":

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.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



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?


Can you not gather that from reading what I post?


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 .



Color charge is the 3-valued hidden quantum number carried by quarks, antiquarks and gluons.



O.W. Greenberg introduced the aspect of color charge as a quantum number in 1964



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



From my perspective, it seems like you are belaboring a semantical word-order argument, and not even reading or acknowledging anything I have so far posted.

Perhaps you don't have time. If that is the case, please refrain from posting.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I was referring to this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



What does it say about the contents of the Ark?




Beebs,

Is the above the wrong BS post to link to? I don't see the quote in the post.


Yes, the link is wrong. The correct one contains the Wiki quote on "orgone":

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.



Beebs,

I think we get 24 hours to edit. Please fix this for the convenience of thread readers!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Haha ohh... i get it. You thought I was just referring to Orgone.

Scroll down in the link I provided, the Orgone Accumulator plans is what I was referring to being similar to the Ark of the Covenant construction.

The orgone accumulator is a sort of capacitor for orgone energy.

Reich's story is even more maddening and sad than Tesla's.

In 1947, following a series of articles about orgone in The New Republic and Harper's,[6] the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) obtained an injunction against the interstate sale of orgone accumulators. Charged with contempt for violating it, Reich conducted his own defense, which involved sending the judge all his books to read and arguing that a court was no place to decide matters of science. He was sentenced to two years in prison, and in August 1956, several tons of his publications were burned by the FDA, arguably one of the worst examples of censorship in U.S. history.[2] He died in jail of heart failure just over a year later, days before he was due to apply for parole.[7]

Wilhelm Reich



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Haha ohh... i get it. You thought I was just referring to Orgone.

Scroll down in the link I provided, the Orgone Accumulator plans is what I was referring to being similar to the Ark of the Covenant construction.

The orgone accumulator is a sort of capacitor for orgone energy.

Reich's story is even more maddening and sad than Tesla's.

In 1947, following a series of articles about orgone in The New Republic and Harper's,[6] the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) obtained an injunction against the interstate sale of orgone accumulators. Charged with contempt for violating it, Reich conducted his own defense, which involved sending the judge all his books to read and arguing that a court was no place to decide matters of science. He was sentenced to two years in prison, and in August 1956, several tons of his publications were burned by the FDA, arguably one of the worst examples of censorship in U.S. history.[2] He died in jail of heart failure just over a year later, days before he was due to apply for parole.[7]

Wilhelm Reich


Beebs,

This is a very confusing post.

At the top it says you're replying to my post but you're not.

Also, I would like to suggest that we use the "Quote" function, and trim the quote to only the part we're responding to, instead of the "Reply" function, unless we're responding to the entire post.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
From my perspective, it seems like you are belaboring a semantical word-order argument, and not even reading or acknowledging anything I have so far posted.


I certainly read the quotes you provided, however the issue is not the word order, but your inability to comprehend your own quotes. In these, fractional electrical charge is qualified as an entity separate from color charge, so thank you for proving Haramein wrong.

The "analogy" made there is not even between FRACTIONAL CHARGE and COLOR CHARGE. It's to simply explain that there are charges of different nature that produce different fields. That's entirely not what Haramein said. It's not word order, it's the meaning (or in that case, lack of such).

[edit on 30-6-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . your inability to comprehend your own quotes.


Would it be possible to find another way to say the same thing that would facilitate keeping the discussion moving along in a productive way?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . your inability to comprehend your own quotes.


Would it be possible to find another way to say the same thing that would facilitate keeping the discussion moving along in a productive way?


Actually, no. You see, after repeated posts of quotes which did not support Haramein's faulty discourse, and my statement of lack of such support, I get this:

Can you not gather that from reading what I post?


So no, I find it hilarious that somebody would cut and paste the text without bothering to digest it and referring to obvious gap in logic as a simple matter of "word ordering". This is the laziness typical of such threads. Or lack of reading comprehension skills.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



Beebs,

This is a very confusing post.

At the top it says you're replying to my post but you're not.

Also, I would like to suggest that we use the "Quote" function, and trim the quote to only the part we're responding to, instead of the "Reply" function, unless we're responding to the entire post.


My bad. But did I answer the confusion with the post though?

My link earlier was to plans about an orgone accumulator, not about orgone itself. I had assumed people were familiar with it, but perhaps not.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



In these, fractional electrical charge is qualified as an entity separate from color charge, so thank you for proving Haramein wrong.

The "analogy" made there is not even between FRACTIONAL CHARGE and COLOR CHARGE. It's to simply explain that there are charges of different nature that produce different fields.


Please... Please tell my why you aren't arguing about semantical word order.

Haramein's largely irrelevant quote in the grander scheme of his paper, which you have hinged upon to discredit him is:

In the chromodynamics theory of elementary particle physics, the charged particles are quarks and their fractional charge is called the “color” quantum number.


Ok, lets go piece by piece...

the charged particles are quarks


And the source:

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.



their fractional charge

See above.


their fractional charge is called the “color” quantum number


Sources:

Color charge is the 3-valued hidden quantum number carried by quarks, antiquarks and gluons.



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 .



Detail to me how these do not support EXACTLY what Haramein has said. I just don't get why you don't elaborate if you think you are so right...

Believe me, I am ready to admit when I am wrong. But honestly... You are a terrible teacher if you are indeed correct.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Beebs,

I think we get 24 hours to edit. Please fix this for the convenience of thread readers!


Beebs,

I was going to ask you to go to your post that starts "Not the contents, the construction."

And ends, "Hard to explain."

And edit to correct the link to BS's post so that it is the right one, but I guess we can't do that can we?

BTW, I could have sworn the first time I clicked on the link I got one thing, and just now, I got something else.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



In these, fractional electrical charge is qualified as an entity separate from color charge, so thank you for proving Haramein wrong.

The "analogy" made there is not even between FRACTIONAL CHARGE and COLOR CHARGE. It's to simply explain that there are charges of different nature that produce different fields.


Please... Please tell my why you aren't arguing about semantical word order.

Haramein's largely irrelevant quote in the grander scheme of his paper, which you have hinged upon to discredit him is:

In the chromodynamics theory of elementary particle physics, the charged particles are quarks and their fractional charge is called the “color” quantum number.


Ok, lets go piece by piece...

the charged particles are quarks


And the source:

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.



their fractional charge

See above.


their fractional charge is called the “color” quantum number


Sources:

Color charge is the 3-valued hidden quantum number carried by quarks, antiquarks and gluons.



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 .


Detail to me how these do not support EXACTLY what Haramein has said. I just don't get why you don't elaborate if you think you are so right...


In accordance with what you posted, color charge is not the same as fractional electric charge. What part of this statement don't you understand? Conversely, where does it say that the fractional electric charge is same as color charge (which in fact takes three values, not + and -)?


Believe me, I am ready to admit when I am wrong. But honestly... You are a terrible teacher if you are indeed correct.


My teaching was held in high regard, when I used to teach. Some of my students were getting low grades. You would, too. And so would Haramein -- in his proton paper, two radii in the table 1 are negative. Bleh. And then he even takes a log of that number. Get a calculator and try that.

Did you even ponder the mass that the proton must have (which Haramein quotes himself) to form a black hole? It's roughly E+15 gram. Does it look like anything we routinely observe? Lift your hand. Do you feel the weight?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
My teaching was held in high regard, when I used to teach.


By whom?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
My teaching was held in high regard, when I used to teach.


By whom?


By students. They had anonymous surveys after year's end.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



In accordance with what you posted, color charge is not the same as fractional electric charge.


Ok prof. ... Show me where in what I posted please...


Did you even ponder the mass that the proton must have (which Haramein quotes himself) to form a black hole? It's roughly E+15 gram. Does it look like anything we routinely observe? Lift your hand. Do you feel the weight?


You still don't get Haramein's theory at all do you.

Its one thing to understand a theory and argue against it, another to categorically hate on a theory and ridicule it.

Did you miss the part where Haramein calculates the mass? Selective research...

Obviously if he is right, it isn't just affecting ONE proton in my hand. It is effecting every nuclei of every atom. And guess what - he says there is TWO, count em... TWO schwarzschild protons in a binary system pulling on each other due to gravity - which explains the 'strong nuclear force'.

There is an equilibrium at work - through a unified field DYNAMIC - that is allowing reality to exist.

Before you argue or discuss any further, I think you must study the original resource for this thread:



And his paper:
Schwarzschild Proton

Arbitrageur and I discussed this quite a bit earlier in the thread.

His main point was that neither a proton, nor a black hole, can travel at the speed of light due to relativistic equations that suggest mass would be infinite at that speed.

I propose it wouldn't be infinite, but the mass of the known universe(which could be infinite, I guess)...

But that is for further discussion.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by beebs]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

‘Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. To illustrate his idea, he devised what he calls his "delayed-choice experiment," which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment. ...

By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make— whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously— the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now, says Wheeler, determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed.

It would be tempting to dismiss Wheeler's thought experiment as a curious idea, except for one thing: It has been demonstrated in a laboratory. In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.

Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself— and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.’

Does the Universe Exist if We're not Looking?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
His main point was that a proton, nor a black hole . . .


Is this "not"?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join