It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

page: 22
17
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

So are you answering my question with a question? I've seen other points presented also so I wouldn't call that an accurate assessment, however it's just one thing I picked from Haramein's paper to demonstrate that we don't need to wait for future observational proof to show the paper is false, we already have it since protons can't travel at c. So technically my point was more about what CAN'T travel at the speed of light than what CAN.

I also haven't seen any real debate or dispute to that point. One argument I recall is beebs offered was that it's not a proton it's a black hole. That's no solution to the problem, as the black hole also has mass and also can't travel at the speed of light.

The other argument I recall is that maybe it does travel at the speed of light and has infinite mass. But that also isn't consistent with Haramein's paper which calculated a finite mass, not an infinite mass.

First he calculates a vacuum density mass of 10^55 gm within the proton volume which he says:

We note that this value is typically given as the mass of matter in the universe. This may be an indication of an ultimate entanglement of all protons. We then calculate what proportion of the total vacuum density R available in a proton volume Vp is necessary for the nucleon to obey the Schwarzschild condition

Then he comes up with 8.85 x10^14 gm which he calls the "Schwarzchild mass". But actually, neither of these are the proton "black hole" mass, they are both calculated from different radii of vacuum density.

I would also note as an aside that his statement "This may be an indication of an ultimate entanglement of all protons." isn't supported by his argument because all he does is calculate a mass density, where's the entanglement in the calculation of a mass density? It makes me think Haramein doesn't know what "entanglement" really means.

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Mary Rose

So are you answering my question with a question?

No.

My post is an independent post.

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Would it be accurate to say that the physics dispute on this thread centers around what the scientific community has proven about the speed of light?

No, it won't be accurate. Arbitrageur's posts, for example, contain lots more insights than this specific issue.

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by -PLB-

At most he is philosophizing.

Well, yep pretty much. Do you know what science was called before it was called science?

Natural Philosophy.

And when physics is in shambles for all intents and purposes, the philosophers must step in to return direction to the free for all.

Welcome to the party.

-----

@buddhasystem

Well just look at this... They address "Strong force" and "Color force" as well! So not only Haramein confused electric charge with color charge, he doesn't know that these two forces are same thing!

So to get what you are saying correct: there is NO SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL to the electric charge being 'analogous' to the color charge?

Electric charge has no correlation with color charge.

And the Strong force and color force are the same thing.(which I understand more easily than the above statement)

Right?

For reference, again:

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 .

Can you explain to me what a 'color electric field' is?

Are gluons particles, or just wave function transmissions of information?

How else can the 'strong color force' be reconciled for a UFT, if not some type of quantum gravity or EM?

Do you believe in a UFT?

How does the demonstrated ZPE relate to particle physics, in your opinion?

Do you believe Tesla was wrong basing his model on a type of 'aether' physics?

Can you see the importance for an 'aether' physics model in the WPD and cymatic wave functions?

I am honestly curious about each and every one of your answers - especially because you are a former teacher that worked with particle accelerators.

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Mary Rose

So are you answering my question with a question? I've seen other points presented also so I wouldn't call that an accurate assessment, however it's just one thing I picked from Haramein's paper to demonstrate that we don't need to wait for future observational proof to show the paper is false, we already have it since protons can't travel at c. So technically my point was more about what CAN'T travel at the speed of light than what CAN.

I also haven't seen any real debate or dispute to that point. One argument I recall is beebs offered was that it's not a proton it's a black hole. That's no solution to the problem, as the black hole also has mass and also can't travel at the speed of light.

The other argument I recall is that maybe it does travel at the speed of light and has infinite mass. But that also isn't consistent with Haramein's paper which calculated a finite mass, not an infinite mass.

First he calculates a vacuum density mass of 10^55 gm within the proton volume which he says:

We note that this value is typically given as the mass of matter in the universe. This may be an indication of an ultimate entanglement of all protons. We then calculate what proportion of the total vacuum density R available in a proton volume Vp is necessary for the nucleon to obey the Schwarzschild condition

Then he comes up with 8.85 x10^14 gm which he calls the "Schwarzchild mass". But actually, neither of these are the proton "black hole" mass, they are both calculated from different radii of vacuum density.

I would also note as an aside that his statement "This may be an indication of an ultimate entanglement of all protons." isn't supported by his argument because all he does is calculate a mass density, where's the entanglement in the calculation of a mass density? It makes me think Haramein doesn't know what "entanglement" really means.

The other point is that perhaps we are already light. Or to put it another way, perhaps we are already made up of EM waves to begin with.

This would seem to solve the problem. I'm not saying I agree with that, just that it is a point of discussion(at least to me).

And the reason Haramein suggests the ultimate entanglement, is through the 'universe inside of every black hole' idea.

If there is a universe inside the schwarzschild proton/black hole, then it would be entangled to every other black hole/schwarzschild proton.

Either it is our own universe inside of the schwarzschild proton - like a mirror or feedback system as Wheeler suggested... Or it is parallel universes with the same mass as our own - a lot of them.

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by -PLB-

At most he is philosophizing.

Well, yep pretty much. Do you know what science was called before it was called science?

Natural Philosophy.

I would know, I have "Ph" in my title. And before there was chemistry, there was alchemy. This doesn't mean, however, that we should devolve our understanding of Nature to the level of ancient times.

And when physics is in shambles for all intents and purposes, the philosophers must step in to return direction to the free for all.

Physics in shambles? How would you know, your knowledge of physics expressed as a number between 0 and 273 is approximately same as absolute temperature of liquid helium.

Well just look at this... They address "Strong force" and "Color force" as well! So not only Haramein confused electric charge with color charge, he doesn't know that these two forces are same thing!

So to get what you are saying correct: there is NO SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL to the electric charge being 'analogous' to the color charge?

Eeesh, after all that exposition you don't get it... All right, six times is the charm -- Euros and dollars are both currencies, but you won't buy a kebob in Berlin with dollars.

And the Strong force and color force are the same thing.(which I understand more easily than the above statement)

Yes but Haramein mentions them as separate entities in his bout of typomania.

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 .

Euros and dollars are both currencies. Mortgages are issued in dollars, in the united states, and in euros, in europe.

Humans and fish both breath by absorbing oxygen from their environment.
I invite you to dive in a body of water if there is one nearby, and stay under for 15 min to ascertain the significance of such analogy.

Are gluons particles, or just wave function transmissions of information?

Like photons, they are a manifestation of a field. Photons are manifestations of the EM field, gluons -- of the color field.

How else can the 'strong color force' be reconciled for a UFT, if not some type of quantum gravity or EM?

That I don't know. It's a subject of serious research and not for hand waving for wannabes like Haramain.

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

I would know, I have "Ph" in my title. And before there was chemistry, there was alchemy. This doesn't mean, however, that we should devolve our understanding of Nature to the level of ancient times.

And why should you think the 'ancients' were less 'evolved' than us? Are you factoring in technology in 'evolution'?

There are wise men from every epoch. Not just our own.

Physics in shambles? How would you know, your knowledge of physics expressed as a number between 0 and 273 is approximately same as absolute temperature of liquid helium

How very fitting that you should use this metaphor as an insult. And yet you shy away from addressing Zero Point Energy. Why is that?

Heike Kamerlingh Onnes

From 1882 to 1923 Kamerlingh Onnes served as professor of experimental physics at the University of Leiden. In 1904 he founded a very large cryogenics laboratory and invited other researchers to the location, which made him highly regarded in the scientific community. In 1908, he was the first physicist to liquify helium, using the Hampson-Linde cycle and cryostats. Using the Joule-Thomson effect, he lowered the temperature to less than one degree above absolute zero, reaching 0.9 K. At the time this was the coldest temperature achieved on earth.

I assume you know that Zero Point energy was thought to exist because of Helium...

The continuation of measurements on paramagnetism at helium temper-
atures, which has been in course of preparation for some time, is also impor-
tant in connection with the theory of zero-point energy. The fact is that at-
tempts have been made to explain deviations from the Curie law without
assuming a negative field. This was on the part of Oosterhuis, in that he
introduces into the Langevin theory of rotational energy, which Langevin
puts as proportional to the temperature, the expression of Einstein and Stern
which contains zero-point energy. If the unchanged theory of Langevin is
right, however, this would be shown very clearly at helium temperatures.
Also the influence of the external field on the susceptibility, which is accord-
ing to the Langevin theory inversely proportional to temperature, would be-
come clearly visible at helium temperatures in attainable fields, whilst at hy-
drogen temperatures it cannot be expected to the same extent until fields are
reached which are ten times greater and thus far exceeding what it is possible
to expect.

Onnes Nobel Prize

And you have nothing to say about Tesla, or aether physics and the easily seen connections the aether model has with the WPD and wave functions?

Nothing on color electric fields?

[edit on 2-7-2010 by beebs]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by beebs]

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by beebs
And you have nothing to say about Tesla, or aether physics and the easily seen connections the aether model has with the WPD and wave functions?
So you want to bring back the aether theory?

Do you also want to bring back the Phlogiston theory?

I see they are linked to each other in the "see also" section in Wikipedia.

What's WPD stand for?

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I don't trust mainstream science.

Mainstream science and technology is under great pressure because of the power and influence of people such as Rockefeller who control grant money and who do not want free energy to emerge.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
My belief is that Rockefeller and other elements of the powers that be have too much influence over it. Institutionalized education does not have freedom of expression and independence in the search for the truth; it must conform to the wishes of those from above who hold the purse strings and have the power.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I would know, I have "Ph" in my title.

Titles can sometimes be a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Titles can sometimes be a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

Your argument doesn't seem to be that the disadvantage comes from the title, but from the purse strings, right?

We talked about Garret Lisi, he has the title, but was smart enough to buy AAPL when it was thought by some it might go out of business. When it thrived instead of filing for bankruptcy, that gained Lisi some independence from purse strings.

Einstein was able to think independently in spite of his title also. He was, after all, working in a patent office so that job didn't depend on any funding based on his theories.

I'd say NOT having the education is a bigger disadvantage than having it. Even if you come up with a good idea you can't communicate it effectively without the education. And I'm hard pressed to think of any uneducated physicists who have made contributions to physics in the last century or so, are there any?

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 07:25 PM

Originally posted by ArbitrageurI'd say NOT having the education is a bigger disadvantage than having it. Even if you come up with a good idea you can't communicate it effectively without the education. And I'm hard pressed to think of any uneducated physicists who have made contributions to physics in the last century or so, are there any?

Well said.

The Chobham armor was not designed by the likes of Haramein. Lunar mission was not supported by a bunch of "prophets" with disdain of what is called here the "mainstream physics".

Ignorami cater to ignorami, mainly to those who willingly remain in their situation.

If you do like physics, crack a textbook open and start doing problems. After 10 years of doing that every day, please give me a call. We just might have an intelligent conversation. If you are not willing to make such an investment, shut the %^&* up before your ever proceed to pass judgment on the work of people who did the due diligence.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 07:10 AM
When I watched the 2-part Google video "Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library - 2003" - I took pages and pages of notes.

One of the things I wrote down is, "A unified field theory should include all the biological resolutions. If you look at biology, you see fractal structures everywhere. Always 1.618 smaller and smaller or bigger and bigger. This has emerged directly from the structure of the vacuum."

I'm wondering whether I wrote the word down that was actually said, "resolutions." I guess so.

Anyway, although I'm not a scientist, I'll say it anyway. I think that statement makes a lot of sense. A unified theory should include all the biological resolutions. This is saying to me a unified theory should incorporate more than physics.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:10 AM
Another thing that struck me about the Rogue Valley lecture was the part about the process of "renormalization" in physics.

Nassim quotes a gravitation section in a physics textbook, and tells the seminar attendees that the quote blew his mind when he saw it: "Present day quantum field theory gets rid by a renormalization process of an energy density in the vacuum that would formerly be infinite, if not removed, by renormalization."

He goes on to explain that in physics, there are two infinities: infinitely small and infinitely large. The infinitely large is called "nasty infinity." He says that physics gets rid of nasty infinity by pretending it's not there through the process of renormalization.

He says that you can graduate with a PhD in physics and never have heard that the vacuum density is infinite at the Planck Distance.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
One of the things I wrote down is, "A unified field theory should include all the biological resolutions. If you look at biology, you see fractal structures everywhere. Always 1.618 smaller and smaller or bigger and bigger. This has emerged directly from the structure of the vacuum."

A unified theory should include all the biological resolutions. This is saying to me a unified theory should incorporate more than physics.

In the time of Sir Isaac Newton that might have sounded like a cool theory to me too. That was before we knew about evolution and DNA.

OK where exactly is the 1.618 in this creature, the leafy sea dragon?

Looking at that creature gives me another idea, that one of the reasons it takes the shape it does to be able to mimic the leafy plants around it and hide from predators. The ones that stood out more from the plants got eaten and the ones that did a better job of blending in with the plants survived. If blending in with the plants required ratios of 1.8, or 1.2, or some other ratio, the creatures that blended in best with the plants were the ones most likely to survive.Unless the plant it was trying to match had some 1.618 ratio there was no particular reason for the leafy sea dragon to take that ratio in its form.

So what gives the leafy sea dragon its shape? It's DNA. And how would a unified field theory affect that? The Unified field theory would conceivably encompass all forces involving the molecular and atomic bonds and interactions regarding DNA and all other organic and inorganic molecules. But it's the DNA of the organism that determines its shape, honed through the process of natural selection and mutations. The unified field theory might help explain things like why the DNA has the form of a double helix shape, but the actual shape of the creature that results from that DNA would not be the direct result of unified field theory, but a result of the sequence of the adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) bases in the DNA.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:58 AM
A second thing that struck me about the Rogue Valley lecture was the story of Nassim's presence at a Georgia Tech conference, which was a kind of debate with other physicists. He said there were very well-known physicists - highly regarded, older people, who had their students there. They were talking about things, and looking at equations, and they had all this stuff on the big wall there. He had his book entitled Gravitation with him - a classical book about relativistic equations written by Mesner, Thorne, and Wheeler - legends of physics, Wheeler having worked with Einstein, and so forth.

Haramein was going through all the equations and the physicists were getting upset with him. He was going through the way they think of the universe -the universal dynamics and the universal expansion, etc. Finally, he said, "If I understand your model right," and he opened Gravitation on page 719, and he said, "If this is correct, then the universe is something like this..." and then Nassim shows the picture from the textbook of a person blowing up a balloon with pennies glued to it. (He then explained to the seminar attendees that the pennies represent galaxies, and as the balloon inflates, the galaxies move away from each other, generating the universal expansion we observe that's called the Hubble constant or Hubble expansion.)

Back to Georgia Tech.

Nassim went on to relay the question he asked at the physics conference: "What I want to know is, where is your equation for this guy?"

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Another thing that struck me about the Rogue Valley lecture was the part about the process of "renormalization" in physics.
I think this is the post where you might have mentioned a "unified field theory" or even a "Theory of everything" instead of the last post on biology.

This is just the tip of the non-intuitive iceberg of the quantum world. Many other aspects of quantum theory are non-intuitive. Quantum theory makes very good predictions, but having a better understanding of the underlying reality would be nice. I think you're more likely to learn what we know about quantum theory so far from a website like this one than from listening to Haramein:

Quantum mechanics

Unfortunately, there's a lot of math in quantum mechanics. Fortunately, that site has translates some of it into pretty pictures and movies which you might like, since you liked the wave function plots of the hydrogen atom.

This presentation introduces the basic concepts and fundamental phenomena of quantum physics through a combination of computer simulation and animation. The primary tool for presenting the simulation results is computer animation. Watching a quantum system evolve in time is a very effective method to get acquainted with the basic features and peculiarities of quantum mechanics. The images used to produce the computer animated movies shown in this presentation are not created by hand but are obtained by visualization of the simulation data. The process of generating the simulation data for the movies requires the use of computers that are far more powerful than Pentium III based PC 's. At the time that these simulations were carried out (1994), most of them required the use of a supercomputer. Consequently, within this presentation, it is not possible to change the model parameters and repeat a simulation in real time.

This presentation is intended for all those who are interested to learn about the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. Some knowledge of mathematics will help but is not required to understand the basics. This presentation is not a substitute for a textbook. The presentation begins by showing the simplest examples, such as the motion of a free particle, a particle in an electric field, etc.. Then, the examples become more sophisticated in the sense that one can no longer rely on one's familiarity with classical physics to describe some of the qualitative features seen in the animations. Classical notions are of no use at all for the last set of examples.

Too bad they did that in 1994 on supercomputers. If they had done it today instead, a desktop PC might be powerful enough to run the simulations, and we might be able to change the parameters and re-run the simulations.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:32 PM
A third thing that struck me about the Rogue Valley lecture was his discussion of quantum physics.

Nassim said that in the late 1880s we figured out that atoms have electrons. The crazy electron keeps on going around in circles around the nucleus of the atom. If you take current natural laws that were written by Newton, the laws of entropy, the electron should radiate all its energy within seconds of the big bang, crash onto the nucleus, and all atoms should have been eliminated. So, when the negatively charged electron was found spinning around a positively charged nucleus, at near the speed of light, there was a large conceptual problem.

So, instead of re-examining Newton's laws, a new type of physics was invented.

The first axiom of quantum physics was, "We don't care about causation!"

Quantum physics never explained why the electron is spinning and is not slowing down.

Newton's laws of the conservation of energy reference an "isolated system." A physics book will state that there really is no such system as an isolated system.

So, all our natural laws are based on something that is not found in nature.

Quantum physicists saw that protons were all bunched together in the middle of the atom, and the question of how positively charged particles would stick together when they should be repelling each other had to be resolved. They resolved it by creating a brand new force: the strong force. They didn't explain where it came from.

The largest error in current physics is that they can't deal with singularity so they make it like it's not there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This reminds me of something I read about public officials dealing with ordinary people citing UFOs and how they have dealt with the inquiries: make it like they're not there by ridiculing the whole concept and the people who espouse the concept.

That's one way of dealing with things one doesn't know how to cope with or explain.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Nassim went on to relay the question he asked at the physics conference: "What I want to know is, where is your equation for this guy?"

First, the more popular analogy is that the galaxies and galaxy clusters are like raisins in raisin bread dough which is baking/rising/expanding. The reason that analogy works better is that the raisins are moving away from each other in 3D, and the pennies on a balloon are only moving away only on the surface of a 3D object which isn't as good an analogy.

Second, an analogy is only useful for representing something other than itself up to a point. Every single analogy breaks down at some point in its ability to help us think of something else, and when it does, you have to look at the data itself and not the representation of it via an analogy. So either it's a bad joke or Nassim is very naive to ask that question. Here is some of the actual data, so look at this if you don't like the analogy:

Third, when my nephew asks "and what happened before that? and what happened before that? and what happened before that? " we can answer that up to a point but at some point we have to say "I don't know". I know why Inflation is accepted as part of the standard model, but I think that's partly because nobody has come up with a better theory to explain the observations. If Haramein was smart he'd be picking their brains about inflation instead of asking dumb questions about a balloon analogy. Thanks for once again demonstrating that he's clueless. I have to say "I don't know" if inflation is the right explanation or not. It certainly helps explain observations if it is the right explanation, but it has some problems, such as:

the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known

So personally I'd feel better about accepting the inflation explanation if we understood it better. But I don't have a better theory, and until somebody does, that is the theory we are stuck with as the best explanation for now.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
One of the things I wrote down is, "A unified field theory should include all the biological resolutions. If you look at biology, you see fractal structures everywhere. Always 1.618 smaller and smaller or bigger and bigger. This has emerged directly from the structure of the vacuum."

A unified theory should include all the biological resolutions. This is saying to me a unified theory should incorporate more than physics.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In the time of Sir Isaac Newton that might have sounded like a cool theory to me too. That was before we knew about evolution and DNA.

First you ridicule the statement that a unified theory should incorporate more than physics.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The Unified field theory would conceivably encompass all forces involving the molecular and atomic bonds and interactions regarding DNA and all other organic and inorganic molecules.

Then you go on to agree with the statement.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If Haramein was smart he'd be picking their brains about inflation instead of asking dumb questions about a balloon analogy.

Hmmmmm.

I'd say there is more than one way to skin a cat.

top topics

17