Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He's already explained that at least ten times.

No, he hasn't.

In order to do that, he would have to take the time to respond to all of Haramein's points.

And he would have to do it with objectivity.

Regarding predictions and the Standard Model, from "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

The Standard Model specifies the mass of an atom to be infinite

On the subject of infinities, the standard model itself (the currently "established laws of physics") actually predicts the mass of the atom to be infinite, but then it is "renormalized" to agree with experiments.

I love Haramein's thorough, independent, self-taught approach to physics. Here's an example of it, from "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

Bare Mass & Bare Charge

. . . This issue has been so buried that many physicists are completely ignorant of it, and the issue fails to even appear as an entry in Wikipedia as very little literature can be found on it.

However, the problem is extremely significant . . .

The approach of the standard model has been to ignore these results and use a renormalization term typically denoted as Z-1 to make the theory agree with experimental studies . . .

This is an enormous fudge factor! Here's a quote from physicist Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics (1979) from his book "Dreams of a Final Theory" about the bare electron infinite mass . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
People who have completed the Delegate Program can go on to Haramein's Emissary Program.

I have continued to search for info about the Delegate and Emissary Programs.

I like this quote that is associated with an emissary's presentation, from the website Reality Sandwich:

. . . take you on a journey through humanity’s evolution, exposing the changes necessary to produce a Unified physics; a unification of not only the forces of nature, but also evolution of consciousness. Haramein's theory demonstrates as well a parallel between ancient codes and modern physics found in documents and monuments from around the planet. . . .

I like the focus on consciousness.

Originally posted by Mary Roseto make the theory agree with experimental studies . . .

He says this as if it is bad. Maybe that is why he made his own theory not agree with experimental studies?

reply to post by -PLB-


In my opinion, appropriate experimental studies have not even been identified.

At some point in time, maybe not even in my lifetime, the theory will have to be either confirmed or not confirmed, yes.

As an aside - I would like to mention that in my opinion, hurling an ad hominem at a public figure on a thread to make a point is just as unacceptable as doing so at a forum member, because such a tactic does not constitute a bona fide argument, and is a distraction from the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No, he hasn't.

Yes I have.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The Standard Model specifies the mass of an atom to be infinite

On the subject of infinities, the standard model itself (the currently "established laws of physics") actually predicts the mass of the atom to be infinite

No it doesn't.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

My paper on the Schwarzschild proton seeks to derive mass from the vacuum energies already included in quantum theories.

No it doesn't.

(a) He starts off by inserting the existing properties of the proton into the theory (including the Compton wavelength of 1.32fm as an appropriate approximation for the radius, which as any reference will explain is = h/mc, where m is the mass of the proton), and

(b) having started by assuming the correct mass, he goes on to calculate that the mass of a proton is 885 million tonnes, the same as a small mountain.

Pure buffoonery.

Anyway, this has been great fun. It's like having a conversation with someone who does nothing but quote from the bible. You can say things like "ok, now let's look at that passage you just quoted. What is actually going on there? What is it based on? What is really being said?" and instead of engaging in discussion they just throw another passage at you, and another, and another. Except here it's not the bible, it's the PR document of some cartoon character pretending to be a physicist.

It'd be good to actually discuss these things with someone who either understands some of the material that they're about, or is interested enough to find out. Taking Haramein's manifesto as if it's factual is a pretty silly place to start. The whole thing is riddled with nonsense, as I've illustrated time and time again... and tried to explain time and time again. As have Arbitrageur, Buddhasystem, and many others on this and other threads.

There's definitely no point in taking apart his manifesto piece by piece – the amount of nonsense that's already been revealed is way more than is necessary to demonstrate that he is incompetent and untrustworthy. At least to all except the wilfully ignorant. The fact that the only people willing to defend him are people who don't understand what he's talking about speaks volumes in itself.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye on here in case anyone actually has any questions, or anything they genuinely feel (with reasons other than 'because Haramein says so') to be an issue.

Have a nice Christmas, folks.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Anyway, he believes that the fundamental forces are gravity and electromagnetism, and that the feedback between the two is what drives the universe, if I understand him correctly.

The Wikipedia article "Electromagnetic theories of consciousness" states:

The electromagnetic field theory of consciousness is a theory that says the electromagnetic field generated by the brain (measurable by electrocorticography) is the actual carrier of conscious experience.

Maybe there is a relationship between Haramein's work and the work described in this article.

And maybe a synthesis of the world of physics and the world of consciousness/spirituality will come about by open minds pursuing the really big picture.

Originally posted by Bobathon
It's like having a conversation with someone who does nothing but quote from the bible. You can say things like "ok, now let's look at that passage you just quoted. What is actually going on there? What is it based on? What is really being said?" and instead of engaging in discussion they just throw another passage at you, and another, and another.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3334c069a2ca.jpg[/atsimg]Hey are you done talking yet?

If so I can take my fingers out of my ears and post another brilliant passage by Haramein

Haramein presentation at Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library

Google Video Link

~8 minutes in the video

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

"he made a line and he said this is dimension 1 and it doesn’t exist, either; it still doesn’t have volume. And I thought that seems consistent to me. Then he made a square of dots and said this is the dimension that your comic strip lives in. This is dimension 2D and it still doesn’t exist; it still doesn’t have volume. And I thought, although this is a bazaar approach, it was consistent so far. But then he did something that seemed like a miracle. He grabbed 6 of these planes and put them together on the blackboard – made a cube, and said this is dimension 3 – that one you exist in. . . .

I was in the back of the room and I'm like...Oh my God, how can that be? And I could tell that all the other kids were like "huh?" But nobody was saying anything. I wasn't about to put my hand up because I knew the next thing that was going to happen was the door was gonna get opened and I was gonna get kicked out again. So I didn't want to do that.

“It doesn’t make sense; that was a mystery cube. If you make a dot that doesn’t exist that makes a line that doesn’t exist that makes a plane that doesn’t exist – you slap 6 non-existing planes together – you don’t get existence. All you get is non-existence to the 4th.” It's got nothing to do with existence.

Well, he should have put his hand up, because the 6 planes only form the outline of the cube, or enclose the cube. And they don't have volume. But the cube does have volume, and the cube isn't the 6 planes that form its surface

Here I thought I had figured out the difference between volume and surface area of a cube by the 8th grade, but it took the brilliant insight of Haramein to inform me this is really one of the deepest mysteries of the universe which defies existence. Mainstream geometry like totally pwned dude!

Not only that, but since you have as many dimensions as the cube, you probably don't exist either, so you can't even argue about it. But just in case you're going to try, please warn me first so I can put my fingers back in my ears before I hear anything you say :

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Enjoy yourself, A.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Wikipedia article "Electromagnetic theories of consciousness" states:

The electromagnetic field theory of consciousness is a theory that says the electromagnetic field generated by the brain (measurable by electrocorticography) is the actual carrier of conscious experience.

Maybe there is a relationship between Haramein's work and the work described in this article.

Pray tell the basis of that proposition. What's the reason you said "maybe"?

reply to post by buddhasystem


"Pray tell"?

Sarcasm?

I don't know what you're driving at so I can't answer the question.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

"Pray tell"?
Sarcasm?

Inability to answer?

I don't know what you're driving at so I can't answer the question.

I doubted you could, because your post did not contain an iota of sense. Rubbing shoulders with the likes of Haramein just might do it to you.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Hmmmm.

You have not the ability to see my point of view.

I don't do well with sarcasm. Never know what the person is doing. Trying to ask a question, or simply ridicule.

That's okay.

It doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You have not the ability to see my point of view.

Indeed! And I doubt that there is a single rational (or simply sane) person who does. Haramein's proton "model" and its connection to... Drum roll... Electromagnetic theory of consciousness! Look, I have an alternative theory. See, digitized sound of my flatulence contains numerical value of the cosmological constant. There is something in it. A whiff of cosmic consciousness, perhaps.

Never know what the person is doing. Trying to ask a question, or simply ridicule.

There is no "or", it's a sequence. If you make a strange statement (and I'm being generous here) and fail to provide any comment on its actual meaning, you are liable to get to the second stage.

It doesn't matter.

I knew you didn't care. About quality of posts on ATS, in particular.

reply to post by buddhasystem


We know, B.; you're the only sane person around.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

We know, B.; you're the only sane person around.

You don't know, M.

If you did read replies in that thread, you'd find a few of us here.

[redacted]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I remembered that Nassim mentions in his talks that someone taught him how to meditate and that he has had experiences with meditation that have influenced his work.

I have just been reading about the book Some Experiments in Science with Real Magic by Dr Bill Tiller and others. I noted in the amazon.com "Look Inside" for the book that Tiller made use of meditation to gain insight to be used in his work. That made me think of this thread.

In this interview of Dr Tiller, he talks about the need for consciousness to be incorporated into science. He talks about the physical vacuum, space within the atom, going faster than the velocity of light, and getting away from just thinking in terms of distance and time. He talks about how hard it is for orthodox science to embrace this - that there's never a serious discussion because orthodox scientists can't relate: