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: 34
17
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Mr. Arbitrary i will quote you, if I may:

"Then why do I feel like I lost? My only intent is to search for the truth and to inspire those around me to search for the truth. I feel like I failed if people don't realize that's not what they're getting from Haramein."

So, you are on a quest to insure people are protected from something that you are certain is not truth. You banter on and on about education, the proper institutional peer review process, the clues of "smoke and mirrors" - YET - you offer no objection to the man's theories. You must have no theories yourself? You must have not even read the theories that exist, as presented by others, perhaps? You don't say. Either way. Why do you argue such a weak position, that is - the position of "He is not smart enough". Are you smarter? Apparently not, if you cannot fight the fight, with the weapons of current theories.

Which, as published, are just that: theories. Have you read them to notice how incredibly weak they are and undefined? Not laws such as The Law of Conservation of Energy, for example.

So, why do you argue this way? What is your argument? In fact you have no argument as presented, all you offer is criticism.


Why do we not have many theories of proper unification? Perhaps because it is difficult to get enough replication done when the world can only afford so many particle accelerators, and put them in the hands of only those that they choose, sponsored by those that can afford to care - paid by those that can finance the "need to know" through advancement, of what? Humanity? or Technology? The corporation? Profit?

So on the one hand we have an arena of educated physicists paid by corporations to say one thing or another, who cannot be argued, because no one can afford to argue (buy a particle accelerator?) and on another hand we
have another ski instructor quack pot who has stepped forward with a theory of unification based on pretty sound and sound strength perfected geometry.

Then we have you, with no argument other than to say the second person is not educated nor accepted enough to have an opinion. For starters you don't know either party, you haven't put any time (that you've mentioned) into either end of the science, you aren't connected to either community of thought, and you can't object to any theories put forward, based on knowledge of other -theories- put forward, all you have to offer is a fear that people may be mislead by someone claiming to know too much for his level of education.

It is minds like YOURS
that should be feared.

Your logic is scary.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kcarring
So, you are on a quest to insure people are protected from something that you are certain is not truth. You banter on and on about education, the proper institutional peer review process, the clues of "smoke and mirrors" - YET - you offer no objection to the man's theories.


The latter sentence can only be composed by a person who either didn't care to read the threads related to Haramein, or suffers from lack of reading comprehension. There are many points raised in (sadly more than one) thread on Haramein that show that his stuff is crock. Do yourself a favor and use search function.


You must have no theories yourself?


Why, anybody who did any science for a period of time has had theories of their own. Sometimes these seemed insignificant but in the end did help to move science forward. No, these were not the kind of claims made with much fanfare like "Haramein finally fullfilled Einstein's dream" (which is both false and corny). It's just you figured why a particular particle decay happens the way it does, or how to optimize an apparatus so it performs ten times better. And then practice shows whether you were right or wrong. Practice. Not a "delegate program".


Why do you argue such a weak position, that is - the position of "He is not smart enough". Are you smarter?


Actually, yes.


Apparently not, if you cannot fight the fight, with the weapons of current theories.


Well dude, the fight hasn't even started. Haramein's pronounciations contradict a plethora of experiments. For example, I say to you that according to my brand new unification theory, your weight from now on is 20 lbs. I invite you to use a bathroom scale and tell me whether such claim is stupid or not. You may want to give Mr.Haramain a call after that.


Which, as published, are just that: theories.


Experiment. You don't know the difference, do you.


Why do we not have many theories of proper unification?


Because the stuff is hard, way beyond "holistic quantum integration approach" that Haramein's fans here claim to practice, which in plain English is "BLAH-BLAH-BLAH".


So on the one hand we have an arena of educated physicists paid by corporations to say one thing or another, who cannot be argued, because no one can afford to argue (buy a particle accelerator?) and on another hand we have another ski instructor quack pot who has stepped forward with a theory of unification based on pretty sound and sound strength perfected geometry.


..which does not match 10,000 observables. Go and use your bathroom scale.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . there's never a serious discussion because orthodox scientists can't relate . . .


A serious discussion.

That is what is needed.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

A serious discussion.

That is what is needed.
Given that Haramein's ideas are so absurdly far from any connection with reality, and so ridiculous, I think there's been way more serious discussion than is necessary.

If what you want is someone with an air of authority to tell you what you've already decided to put your blind faith in, then I wish you'd be honest about it.

Good luck, Mary Rose.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
Mary, we've tried to have serious discussions with you regarding Haramein's physics claims. Why don't we get serious discussions? Look in the mirror for the answer.

You post something Haramein said with little or no explanation or interpretation of your own on how or why that even addresses the point being discussed, and when you're pressed for more, you say something to the effect that you don't have expertise in physics.

How is a serious discussion of a topic going to take place if the people trying to discuss it aren't knowledgeable about the subject?

And due to your self-admitted lack of understanding of the subject matter, you apparently fail to recognize that the responses you post from Haramein fail to address the questions being asked.

I'm picking on you a little because you're the one who said we need a serious discussion, but you're certainly not the only follower of Haremein who professes to not be competent to discuss the detailed subject matter seriously, judging by the responses on Bobathon's blog that read something to the effect that "I'm no scientist, but you've got to admit some of his ideas are pretty cool".

So if you're not competent to discuss the subject matter seriously, nor are other Haramein followers, the only people left that claim to be able to discuss the subject competently are the people that don't follow Haramein, and Haramein himself who as I said earlier manages to avoid addressing the questions being asked of him in his "responses". Given these circumstances, how is a serious discussion ever going to take place?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Look in the mirror for the answer.


Do it yourself.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose


In the second half, I heard:

"There are two general states of physical reality. There's our normal one - the electric atom molecule one - and that's the distance/time related phenomena. The other one appears to function in the physical vacuum, and the physical vacuum occupies the space within the fundamental particles that make up the electric atoms and molecules. So it's also in outer space, of course. But the really key place is that it functions there, and it goes faster than the velocity of light - which you can show mathematically. Normal equipment in our normal world cannot access that, but with the use of consciousness, which we've shown experimentally, you can begin to access this other level of reality. And you can bring about what we call the coupled state. The coupled state is a higher... is called electromagnetic gauge symmetry state, of the very space, the conditions of space; and phenomena occur there differently."

Haramein focuses on the fact that the atom is made up mostly of space. I like his focus on what that space contains.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Look in the mirror for the answer.


Do it yourself.


So obviously, you are locking yourself out of any "serious discussion". As others pointed out, you demand such discussion so adamantly, yet when pressed for a coherent answer on rather simple points, confess your lacking (or non-existent) knowledge of physics. What seriousness do you want? Borrowing from Bob's analogy, it looks as if you demand the discussion be held in Mandarin, and chastise people for not adhering to this language, all the while not being able to put together a single phrase in same. That seems bizarre and unhealthy.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . confess your lacking (or non-existent) knowledge of physics


Physics has a future. I'm researching the wave of the future.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The expertise you rely on and upon which you judge yourself superior to me is only part of the total picture.


edit on 02/01/11 by Mary Rose because: Grammar



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . confess your lacking (or non-existent) knowledge of physics


Physics has a future. I'm researching the wave of the future.


Oh I see, so you dispense with current knowledge. Brilliant!

You are researching a fantasy, actually. "The Wave of the Future", in this case,
consists of quackery that contradicts today's reality. Somehow, you are comfortable with that.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


No, it does not.

I don't dispense with current knowledge. I test it.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In this interview of Dr Tiller, he talks about the need for consciousness to be incorporated into science.


From Dr Tiller's website:


Psychoenergetic Science involves the expansion of traditional science to include human consciousness and human intention as capable of significantly affecting both the properties of materials (non-living and living) and what we call "physical reality."



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't dispense with current knowledge. I test it.

How do you do that?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


No, it does not.

I don't dispense with current knowledge. I test it.


You can't test something you don't have at your disposal. Case in point: how do you reconcile beta decay of neutron, with Haramein's paper?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Not interested in pursuing that question today.

Today I'm interested in delving into the terminology that has been introduced to me by watching this Dr Tiller video.

The OP of this thread was about meditation. We got off on the discussion about the science of Haramein's theory- and about the character of Haramein the person - because of ridicule from you and others. I've posted enough in response to that.

I'm moving on.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Not interested in pursuing that question today.


Will you be more interested in explaining to me this neutron decay, sometimes next week? When you are at this, how about delta resonances? How does early March sound? And for April, can we please do energy levels in charmonium?

I hope you stop making demands for a "serious discussion" because you aren't capable of one. As simple as that.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Like I said, this thread is about meditation.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't dispense with current knowledge. I test it.

How do you do that?

Yes, how do you do that?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Use both sides of your brain.

Research with an open mind and a good attitude.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join