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: 30
17
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
Quantum physics is entirely about causation.


So, going back to this:


Originally posted by Mary Rose

Here's Nassim:


. . . the "strong" force . . . 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 . . .


If by "specify a source for such a force" Haramein means causation, as I am interpreting him, are you saying that the cause of the strong force is established by mainstream science?




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
If by "specify a source for such a force" Haramein means causation, as I am interpreting him, are you saying that the cause of the strong force is established by mainstream science?
Let me answer your question with a question.

If Haramein was right and gravity explained the cause of the strong nuclear force (is that what he's claiming?), then what causes gravity?

Some people say mass causes gravity, but exactly HOW does mass cause gravity? What's the cause of gravity?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Would it be accurate to say that you have resorted to an ad hominem?

Or is this an objective scientific observation?
The latter, of course!


I observed you passing judgment over whether or not someone is communicating with any insight despite not understanding what he was saying. That's arrogant, no?

Forgive me if you have a good reason to disagree with the man widely believed to be the clearest communicator of the theories of quantum interactions who has ever lived... but I made the assumption (which I believe to be reasonable) that you do not.


If by "specify a source for such a force" Haramein means causation, as I am interpreting him, are you saying that the cause of the strong force is established by mainstream science?
I responded to that above, and the clip of Feynman is very relevant to it. Don't throw it in my face without trying to understand and then just ask the same thing again.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


It could be you that doesn't understand Haramein.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
 

It could be you that doesn't understand Haramein.
Hmm, sure. That'll be it.

I'm a bit bored of you asking vague questions and then sticking cotton wool in your ears. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve. Maybe Arbitrageur can say something that you'll actually understand, if such a thing exists.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Actually I'm just being nice to you because you came on this thread and complained about my series of posts (page 25) showing Haramein's response to your original criticism . I thought you might like to show your side on the thread - rather than people having to click on your link and wade through it.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Aw. That's sweet.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


I take that to mean you're not interested in a civil discussion about Haramein's response.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
 

I take that to mean you're not interested in a civil discussion about Haramein's response.
All I've ever seen you do is take things to mean whatever you'd like them to mean and ignore what was intended, so that doesn't surprise me!

I'd love a civil discussion. Do you have any questions you're actually interested in hearing an answer to? If not, I'll settle for more silly bickering if that's all that's on offer...



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
All I've ever seen you do is . . . ignore what was intended.


How do you know? You can read my mind?

~~~~~~~~~~

There are 6 posts (including the one I've already asked you about) on the thread of my quotes that I took from Haramein's "The Schwarzchild Proton Manifesto" - "Here's Bob-a-thon"/"Here's Nassim." I don't know whether your rebuttal in your blog addresses any of these quotes because you say in the blog that you left out stuff. I'm not going to read your blog, anyway.

And I'm not going to ask you any more questions.

But if you're interested in rebutting the specific quotes, I would be interested in reading your rebuttals.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
But if you're interested in rebutting the specific quotes, I would be interested in reading your rebuttals.
As I pointed out in this post, Bobathon asks how Haramein addresses the fact that experimental results show the mass of the proton is much lighter than Haramein's theory says.

Haramein's response is, paraphrased:

"yes the proton is measured as very light.
Yes my paper states a mass that's very heavy."

So basically, he's agreeing with Bobathon. How is Bobathon supposed to rebut a rebuttal that agrees with him?

Haramein talks about how he's mystified by the Strong Force, but none of his musings about that explain why the experimental results for the mass of the proton disagree with the mass his paper claims.

On the matter of why Haramein's heavy proton doesn't agree with experimental measurements that show the proton is much lighter, Haramein doesn't address this question, in fact he confirms the discrepancy, so what's to rebut?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Actually I'm just being nice to you because you came on this thread and complained about my series of posts (page 25) showing Haramein's response to your original criticism .



I've read those quotes over and over. It's plain clear that Haramein does not address the obvious discrepancy that exists between what we observe as the proton mass and the number that is needed to satisfy the Schwarzschild condition.

And frankly, that's not the only hole in that pathetic excuse of a theory.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
The 'Standard Model' takes as its starting point the strong interaction, the electro-weak interaction, and a set of fundamental particles with various properties.


Does everyone agree that the Standard Model is hypothetical?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What about this section of "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto"?


While our initial calculation of the mass of the Schwarzschild proton indeed gives a large figure, we go on to suggest that this mass/energy is already present in the standard model in terms of confinement (although yet to be accounted for by the standard model) so that what we ordinarily measure as mass (involving measurements made far away from the highly curved region of spacetime near a Schwarzschild proton) is far less than we would measure in regions of high curvature.

Mass may depend on the position of the observer. Similar concepts are being explored by others as well. One promising approach is by:

Yuan K. Ha, A New Theorem for Black Holes, March 2007.
See: arxiv.org...

From the abstract:

"A new theorem for black holes is established. The mass of a black hole depends on where the observer is. The horizon mass theorem states that for all black holes: neutral, charged or rotating, the horizon mass is always twice the irreducible mass observed at infinity."

Dr. Ha has shown that mass is dependent on the location of observer, and that the mass one measures is less when you are far away. So, for example, a Schwarzschild proton will have a larger mass when measured close to its horizon.

I am planning on addressing the mass issue directly in an upcoming paper, showing that the solution to the Schwarzschild proton, which was only a first order approximation, should be addressed in a Haramein-Rauscher metric, where torque and Coriolis effects are accounted for and the mechanism for the vacuum interaction with the event horizon is the result of a structured and polarized vacuum, as initially described in our earlier papers.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


There is also this:


In one way the Schwarzschild proton elucidates the fact that the energy potential necessary for confinement must be accounted for and in the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton (not available on the net yet as it is in the publishing process) we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild entity. From there, I am planning on addressing the mass issue directly in an upcoming paper, showing that the solution to the Schwarzschild proton, which was only a first order approximation as mentioned above, should be eventually addressed in a Kerr-Newman and more importantly in a Haramein-Rauscher metric, where torque and Coriolis effects are accounted for. These effects may show that the distortion of the metrical space at the surface event horizon of the black hole structure produces turbulence and high curvature that may not be detectable from a simple long-range mass spectrometer or scattering experiments, which do not examine the highly curved structure near and at the horizon. In this case the black hole has hairs due to Coriolis effects on the structure of spacetime (Others have come to similar conclusions from completely different approaches arxiv.org... arxiv.org... arxiv.org... arxiv.org...), and it is in that fashion that I am planning on explaining the reason why the current so-called rest mass of the proton is so far off the Schwarzschild condition and the apparent trend of other organized matter in our Universe.


from "Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon."

Edit to supply working links for the above:

“Quantum Hair on Black Holes”
“Classical Hair in String Theory I: General Formulation”
“Classical Hair in String Theory II: Explicit Calculations”
“Black Holes as Elementary Particles”



edit on 12/21/10 by Mary Rose because: Provide working links



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild entity.


If this indeed is a quote from Haramein, the guy is an imbecile.

Ten to minus 39 power is virtually zero.

Just another factor he needs to fudge in to explain the glaring holes in his paper.

If a proton is "spinning" at relativistic speed (which NH didn't bother to elucidate), that would result in a huge angular momentum which we don't observe in any of nuclear reactions.

Give it up, buddy, you are way (10^39) out of your depth.

edit on 21-12-2010 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Ten to minus 39 power is virtually zero.

Just another factor he needs to fudge in to explain the glaring holes in his paper.
He says the latest version of his paper isn't available online. Previously, he had the protons going at the speed of light, which would have given them infinite mass. At least by slowing them down by ten to minus 39 power he has lowered the mass from infinity to "only" 885 million metric tons, though he still has a lot more 'splainin' to do about why we measure 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram, there's not a black hole hairy enough to explain that discrepancy.

It sounds like what he plans to do is write another paper and then reference his own paper to explain the measurements. And even if his ridiculous hair explanation was possible, he still hasn't explained how we can observe that the proton consists of 3 quarks, which should be impossible no matter how hairy his black hole is.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
how we can observe that the proton consists of 3 quarks, which should be impossible


If the criterion for having a civil, objective discussion about a theory is that the method for proving the theory with observation must be stated then I think there is no basis for discussion. People who are interested in Haramein's theory are wasting their time debating with his critics, because no matter what the issue is, the critics stand back with their arms folded and a sneer on their virtual faces and retort how are you going to test this?? Don't know? Then it's crap, obviously, and the person suggesting the theory is a charlatan, obviously.

I think that's largely been the problem on this God-forsaken thread.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
People who are interested in Haramein's theory are wasting their time debating with his critics,


I think they are wasting their time reading the charlatan's publications, instead of trying to learn physics in their spare time, if such is their interest.


because no matter what the issue is, the critics stand back with their arms folded and a sneer on their virtual faces


Critics don't really stand back with arms folded, they beat the hell out of idiotic postulates found in Haramein's writings. Somebody needs to do that, just for sanity's sake.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think they are wasting their time reading the charlatan's publications, instead of trying to learn physics in their spare time, if such is their interest.


People who are interested in Haramein's theory are interested in theoretical physics, not physics taught to students in institutions from textbooks.

Textbooks are good as a reference but not as a bible.



edit on 12/21/10 by Mary Rose because: Add a statement



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join