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: 29
17
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
Ha – nice pics!

I'll withdraw my claim that it's perfectly round... I may have been assuming a little too much. Larger nuclei certainly wobble like tiny blobs of jelly, with quadrupole oscillations and higher order harmonics, and often an orbital internal angular momentum causing a bulge around some equator too. This can all be measured. I don't know about single protons.

My point was that the reason the proton has no definite radius is because it has no definite edge in space. It's a fuzzy probability cloud with no distinct boundary. Even if it were perfectly spherical, it still wouldn't have a well-defined radius... just a set of radius parameters that can be constructed for various purposes.


if this is proven, it will be a further nail in the coffin of Haramein's theory, though it has so many nails in it already, I'm not sure if there's room for any more.


I love the image of Haramein's theory being in a coffin that's so full of nails there's no room for any others!! That's fab. We are flogging a dead horse, as they say.

It's like something from Monty Python, having all these people trying to say it's still alive.

edit on 15-12-2010 by Bobathon because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Stating that you replied to Haramein's response which is quoted on this thread on page 25 some time ago and that he responded is dishonest.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
It betrays true science when we reject and postpone open-minded progress towards that end.

The problem with what you're saying is that what Haramein is doing isn't anything like open-minded progress. It's showmanship, it's someone pretending to do science while completely closed-mindedly rejecting virtually the whole of modern physics, discouraging his followers from taking any notice of any relevant studies of protons (in order to distract from the complete disagreement between his theory and all relevant measurements), claiming to have proved all sorts of things that he blatantly hasn't, and selling his product to gullible customers.

It is precisely the opposite of science. And it pretends to replace it with a new paradigm – look at Haramein's paradigm! Seriously, man. It's an abomination.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon
 

Stating that you replied to Haramein's response which is quoted on this thread on page 25 some time ago and that he responded is dishonest.
I didn't say any such thing.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Here's where you said it:


Originally posted by Bobathon


I've just noticed a whole load of things written about me on page 25 of this thread, including quotes, and examples of things presented as if everything I've said has been neatly dismissed by Haramein :-)

This is slightly amusing and slightly unsettling.

I'm guessing this thread may be a bit dead, so I'll just say that I replied to Haramein's response some time ago in this post.

In my blog, I very carefully exposed and explained sound scientific falsehoods in Haramein's work, one after another after another... and he responded with the rhetoric of a politician . . .



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
1. In my blog, I very carefully exposed and explained sound scientific falsehoods in Haramein's work (not response), one after another after another... and he responded with the rhetoric of a politician.
2. I replied to Haramein's response some time ago.
They were non-chronological. Sorry if that confused you.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
2. I replied to Haramein's response some time ago.
They were non-chronological. Sorry if that confused you.


You haven't confused me one bit.

You've enlightened me in your modus operandi.

The above explanation is a clear example of obfuscation.

I again invite you to go through Haramein's "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto," and respond to it scientifically. Saying "there's nothing there" is not going to cut it.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The above explanation is a clear example of obfuscation.
Don't be silly. I was trying to be clear.


I again invite you to go through Haramein's "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto," and respond to it scientifically. Saying "there's nothing there" is not going to cut it.
No thanks, I've presented plenty already.
Don't worry, I'm under no illusions that I could ever convince you of anything. That would be nothing short of hubris.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


It's not a matter of convincing me of anything.

It's a matter of your responding to a response to your criticism. That's how debates are conducted.

Normally.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
It's a matter of your responding to a response to your criticism. That's how debates are conducted.
Except Haramein is debating like a politician instead of like a scientist.

Example: Politician 1: "politician 2 has never addressed what he is going to do about unemployment"

Politician 2: "OK I'll address that now. My position is that full employment is important and we are not going to raise taxes"

It's a non-responsive response. You can't go back to politician 1 now and ask them how they are going to come up with a better plan for dealing with unemployment than politician 2, since politician 2 never responded. Yes, he said something, but it was a non-responsive response.

Same thing with Haramein's response. He says some things, but if you read it closely he never really addresses the issues.

The only way this can move forward is to talk about a specific topic you feel Haramein has successfully responded to and we can dissect that to see if he really responded, because it sure looks to me like he responded the same way as politician 2: Say something, change the subject, and don't directly respond to the original point. Not really a true response.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


More obfuscation.

I'm not buying it.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
More obfuscation.

I'm not buying it.
Thank you! I was trying to provide an example of obfuscation.

That's what Haramein does, let's look at your quote from page 25:


Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto"


Here's Bob-a-thon:

The paper begins with the suggestion that a real proton may be considered to be such an entity. To see if this is workable, let's compare his model with what we already know about protons.
Mass

-Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram

-Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tonnes
These aren't particularly close.

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?


Here's Nassim:

. . . assuming that physicists could fill in the blanks and would already know about the issues related to the vacuum density and the cosmological constant, among others - please read carefully:

S.E. Rugh and H. Zinkernagely,
"The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem"
at . . .

In any case, perhaps the fundamental concepts I wished to convey with the Schwarzschild proton approach were missed. So let me restate it as clearly and simply as possible.

Although the current mainstream value given for the mass of the proton is 1.672621637(83)x10-24 gm (or 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram) what the gentleman fails to mention is discussed below. . . .

In fact, a force of at least 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than their mutual gravitational attraction is postulated to counter this repulsion. Something like this is required for the nuclei of atoms to be stable. The postulated force is called the "strong" force and is fully accepted in the "standard model". It is sometimes estimated to be as much as 38 to 41 orders larger than the gravitational attraction. . . .

It is crucial to note that these wide variations occur because the standard model here becomes very fuzzy. It fails to specify a source for such a force and the current schemes for its mechanisms are extremely tentative. In fact, there is no analytical solution to LQCD, no mathematical proof that the current standard model scheme, which includes gluons and the color force, is anywhere correct. It is often described as the most difficult and obscure force to calculate. This is why you find these sinuous statements on the Wiki QCD page . . .

Therefore, all the Schwarzschild proton concept really does (although the implications of such a change is profound) is establish a source for the mass-energy necessary to produce such a constraining force. Thus, in order to account for the strongest force in the Universe, 38 or 39 orders of magnitude of energy/mass (or some new kind of eccentric new physics capable of generating such a force) must be considered in relationship to the proton entity for proper accounting of the energy necessary to generate such a force.

Consequently, ~10-24 gm plus an energy potential of 38 or 39 orders of magnitude produces ~1014 gm. All my paper does is point out that this just happens to be the mass necessary to define the Schwarzschild condition of a proton entity. Coincidence? Maybe, but I think otherwise. . . .
Now Bobathon's claim is very clear:

" -Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tonnes"

Where does Haramein ever address that?

Does he say, "yes my theory does predict the 885 million metric tonnes, and here's how it's supported by experiments and observations"

Does he say "Bobathon is misreading my paper, I'm not claiming the mass is 885 million metric tonnes, but rather I'm claiming the mass is (fill in the blank) and here's how that aligns with experimental observations."

He never says either one of those, he never even mentions it. It's a non-responsive response, and yes, I'd call it obfuscation.

But if you want to explain or point out how he resolved the 885 million metric tonnes in his paper with the actual mass of a proton somewhere in that explanation, please point out where he does that because I'm not seeing it.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Here's Nassim:


. . . assuming that physicists could fill in the blanks and would already know about the issues related to the vacuum density and the cosmological constant, among others - please read carefully:

S.E. Rugh and H. Zinkernagely,
"The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem"
at . . .

In any case, perhaps the fundamental concepts I wished to convey with the Schwarzschild proton approach were missed. So let me restate it as clearly and simply as possible.

Although the current mainstream value given for the mass of the proton is 1.672621637(83)x10-24 gm (or 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram) what the gentleman fails to mention is discussed below. . . .

In fact, a force of at least 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than their mutual gravitational attraction is postulated to counter this repulsion. Something like this is required for the nuclei of atoms to be stable. The postulated force is called the "strong" force and is fully accepted in the "standard model". It is sometimes estimated to be as much as 38 to 41 orders larger than the gravitational attraction. . . .

It is crucial to note that these wide variations occur because the standard model here becomes very fuzzy. It fails to specify a source for such a force and the current schemes for its mechanisms are extremely tentative. In fact, there is no analytical solution to LQCD, no mathematical proof that the current standard model scheme, which includes gluons and the color force, is anywhere correct. It is often described as the most difficult and obscure force to calculate. This is why you find these sinuous statements on the Wiki QCD page . . .

Therefore, all the Schwarzschild proton concept really does (although the implications of such a change is profound) is establish a source for the mass-energy necessary to produce such a constraining force. Thus, in order to account for the strongest force in the Universe, 38 or 39 orders of magnitude of energy/mass (or some new kind of eccentric new physics capable of generating such a force) must be considered in relationship to the proton entity for proper accounting of the energy necessary to generate such a force.

Consequently, ~10-24 gm plus an energy potential of 38 or 39 orders of magnitude produces ~1014 gm. All my paper does is point out that this just happens to be the mass necessary to define the Schwarzschild condition of a proton entity. Coincidence? Maybe, but I think otherwise. . . .


Bobathon,

Do you agree that the standard model fails to specify a source for the strong force?

If you agree, does it matter that the source is unidentified?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


The idea that the strong force and gravitation are actually the same force seems totally implausible to me. As result of the totally implausible masses, the forces on a macro scale would be completely out of balance, and life as we know it would be totally impossible. Lifting your arm would require a force in the order of that of a super nova.

What exactly causes the strong force may be unknown, but as far as I know the same count for gravity. So interchanging the strong force for gravity isn't solving anything. In fact, you end up with a model that is absolutely nothing like reality.

Anyway, that is just my layman view on it. I am not a physicist.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Bobathon,

Do you agree that the standard model fails to specify a source for the strong force?

If you agree, does it matter that the source is unidentified?

I don't know what "a source for the strong force" actually means, to be honest. What does a "source" mean?

The 'Standard Model' takes as its starting point the strong interaction, the electro-weak interaction, and a set of fundamental particles with various properties. It doesn't explain them in terms of anything else, that would be backwards. What it does is to explain and describe everything else apart from gravity in terms of these starting points. (And I don't mean in the way pseudoscientists do it, where they just waffle about it, I mean it explains and describes and predicts things precisely) It's very impressive.

A more unified theory would start from less. It would be nice if the strong and electro-weak interactions could be verified as being part of one unified interaction. There are many such theories, some are very promising, but none have been proved yet. A theory of everything would include gravity too. There are many theories that do this too, but they're probably a long way off being testable. So there's plenty further to go.

Maybe you could say more about what you mean by 'source' or 'identified'. Because to me, 'identified' just means explained in terms of something else. I think it would be wrong to think the strong force needs to be explained in terms of something more familiar.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Here's a clip of Feynman explaining something very similar about magnetism. The basic building blocks of physics are the forces. Things tend to be described and explained in terms of these, rather than the other way around. It may seem a little counter-intuitive to begin with, and it might even seem like he's dodging the question, but he's not. There's a lot of insight here.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
I don't know what "a source for the strong force" actually means, to be honest. What does a "source" mean?


I believe that what Haramein is saying is that quantum physics does not concern itself with causation, and Haramein believes this to be a cop out.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
There's a lot of insight here.


I could not disagree more.

I had to force myself to listen to the whole thing.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I believe that what Haramein is saying is that quantum physics does not concern itself with causation, and Haramein believes this to be a cop out.
Quantum physics is entirely about causation. So that settles that silly notion.



Originally posted by Bobathon
There's a lot of insight there

I could not disagree more.

I had to force myself to listen to the whole thing.

Luckily for the rest of us, there are better criteria for discerning insightfulness than asking whether some arrogant woman who doesn't even understand it happens to like listening to it or not.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
. . . arrogant woman . . .


Would it be accurate to say that you have resorted to an ad hominem?

Or is this an objective scientific observation?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join