Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Use both sides of your brain.

Research with an open mind and a good attitude.

Sounds fun. I'll try it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
A serious discussion.

That is what is needed.

A request for serious discussion, followed by attempt at serious discussion:

Originally posted by buddhasystem
how do you reconcile beta decay of neutron, with Haramein's paper?

Followed by the person who said we needed serious discussion to decline having a serious discussion:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Not interested in pursuing that question today...

I'm moving on.

Yeah, well, this is just about how all attempts at serious discussion end up. Do you see the irony?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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

I do see the word "meditation" there coupled with some other choice words:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The word "meditation" appears here:

Meditation techniques based on this knowledge will also be offered as an invaluable tool to aid in further integration, as you learn how to more effectively tap into the vacuum energy and the curvature of space and time and connect to your own personal singularity.

As do some other phrases like "vacuum energy", "curvature of space and time" and "personal singularity"

And how do claims like this not warrant further discussion of their merit or the character of the person making the claims? If he just claimed to be a meditation guru who could bring harmony into our lives with better meditation, I wouldn't be criticizing the guy since I believe that's possible. It's the part about him claiming to be a theoretical physicist and throwing all the scientific jargon into it that he claims to understand but doesn't that I have a problem with. He apparently feels compelled to spoil even something as valuable as meditation with his claims.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's the part about him claiming to be a theoretical physicist and throwing all the scientific jargon into it that he claims to understand but doesn't that I have a problem with.

Well, perhaps you just don't get it.

reply to post by Bobathon


For some reason, your post makes me remember this post.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

For some reason, your post makes me remember this post.

Yup.

For me, though, spirituality is not compatible with denialism.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Well, perhaps you just don't get it.

Ok let me go stand on the bathroom scale one more time.....

Hmmm, my gravitational attraction to the Earth as measured by the scale still says that my total mass is less than 885 billion kg, which means that the protons of which I'm composed also have a mass less than 885 billion kg. So according to the measure of observational evidence, it's definitely Haramein who doesn't get it.

I think even beebs might have been willing to concede the point that Haramein might have miscalculated the mass and resulting gravitational attraction, if I promised to read a few dozen other books on his bibliography.

Originally posted by Bobathon
. . . spirituality is not compatible with denialism.

Spirituality helps identify what is true and what is not: what needs to be unlearned and relearned.

I'm certain it never stops.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What's important is the overall picture.

Science is in need of a paradigm shift.

Spirituality/meditation is a tool for getting there.

reply to post by Mary Rose
I would agree with all three of those comments.

However in the process of getting there, we must test the new paradigm against observation. That's why I asked you earlier how you test something because I was genuinely curious.

I have a huge problem with the standard model saying that between 95-96% of the universe is "missing". So I'd really like to see a paradigm shift that either explains the missing stuff, or else explains why it's not missing, and the inspiration to explain it may well come from a meditation experience, so all that is great.

But the new, shifted paradigm MUST agree with observation.

If I were to try to guess on where we differ in our thoughts on this, you are OK with it not agreeing with observation today on the hope that observations a century from now might reveal something different. However I claim to not be able to predict or know what observations may or may not be made in the future, so I can only rely on the observations we have today.

Is that about right?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But the new, shifted paradigm MUST agree with observation.

In my view, the way we differ is that your use of the word "observation" seems to be that you're absolutely certain that what you've learned in school, or on the job, or through your personal knowledge about physics is iron clad. End of discussion. There is no room for error. No room for a differing interpretation. Certain individuals are not qualified to challenge you on this. Your knowledge is superior.

My research tells me that there is suppressed knowledge and technology. People who challenge the mainstream get threatened - sometimes killed. What is officially "observed" by mainstream science may not be anything close to the truth in some cases. Additionally, any observation is subject to interpretation.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my view, the way we differ is that your use of the word "observation" seems to be that you're absolutely certain that what you've learned in school, or on the job, or through your personal knowledge about physics is iron clad. End of discussion. There is no room for error. No room for a differing interpretation.

Anybody can challenge me or any other scientist on any observation. In fact, scientists are an inherently challenging bunch of people. Why do I say that?

Because when a scientist makes an observation, do other scientists trust it? Maybe some do and some don't, but frequently the confidence in the new observation isn't that high until different scientists do the same experiment and get the same results, in a different lab. And sometimes they don't. So you're wrong, I do allow for differing interpretations of observations as do all scientists. To this day the jury is still out on cold fusion observations as far as I'm concerned. I'm not completely convinced by either the cold fusion believers or the cold fusion skeptics. Why? Because experimental results have been mixed, inconsistent, contradictory, and discrepancies are unresolved.

On the other hand, take the proton, one of the most observed particles in science. Measurements of the proton mass are quite consistent and not subject to the debate and contradictory experimental results like the cold fusion observations. But even with that huge amount of consistent observational evidence regarding the proton, I'm still willing to entertain coherent arguments from anyone that challenge the experimental results and explain why they're wrong. But the people making those arguments need to understand some basic things to make coherent arguments. They need to know some definitions. When we talk about mass, what does mass mean? How is it measured currently? If it should be measured differently, how and why? I'm open to any discussions like that. I've just never seen any presented in a coherent fashion.

When Haramein is pressed to explain his prediction for the proton mass, he never explains it but rather uses deflecting arguments to avoid answering the question and addressing the issue.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When Haramein is pressed to explain his prediction for the proton mass, he never explains it but rather uses deflecting arguments to avoid answering the question and addressing the issue.

Do you have a link or a reference of some kind to back up this statement?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When Haramein is pressed to explain his prediction for the proton mass, he never explains it but rather uses deflecting arguments to avoid answering the question and addressing the issue.

Do you have a link or a reference of some kind to back up this statement?

Here's one example from page 25, I trimmed the quote:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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:

. . . 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. . . .

~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. . . .

To paraphrase his response, he acknowledges that bobathon is correct about the mainstream value of the proton's mass. Then after pointing out the strong nuclear force is strong ( his reference to plus an energy potential of 38 or 39 orders of magnitude) he's basically saying that his paper takes the official mainstream mass, and adds 38-39 orders of magnitude and that's how he gets to 10^14 gm. Can you see that this is a circular argument because his answer is exactly the question bobathon asked?

Bobathon asked why Haramein's prediction disagrees with observation by so many orders of magnitude and the answer is because he added so many orders of magnitude to the mainstream proton mass. None of this explains how or why we don't measure this much larger mass. Thus it's completely non-responsive, and circular reasoning.

This brings us to the next example on page 30 that you posted yourself:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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....

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.

Translation...someday he'll explain it. This is a deflection. If he's published a paper today that contradicts observational evidence today, he should be able to explain it today, or he should have waited to publish his paper until he could explain it.

So finally this is an admission that his other explanation wasn't really an explanation (Bobathon, Buddhasystem, and I figured that out immediately upon reading it because we understand those concepts, I think you didn't quite understand how non responsive it was), and now his more honest response is that it needs to be explained, and he owes us an answer, "someday".

So he still doesn't have an answer today, but he's "planning on addressing the mass issue directly in an upcoming paper". Don't you think it would have been a good idea to be able to explain a discrepancy this large when he published the Schwarzchild Proton paper?

The fact that he can't address it directly right here right now should give you great pause when considering the validity of his claims.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

What's important is the overall picture.

What good is an overall picture if it has nothing to do with nature as we observe it?

No seriously. People had an overall picture of flat Earth for a very long time. It didn't stand the test of time. And so won't many physics theories, but look, Harameins theory is DEAD ON ARRIVAL. I showed you a few times how to take the vital signs but you always refused to listen. And I wish you had CPR skills to revive it because it would be fun, but sadly you don't, and thus you are presiding over this decaying mess.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

While our initial calculation of the mass of the Schwarzschild proton indeed gives a large figure....

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.

Immediately preceding the above is:

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.

In my opinion, it is clear that he has more knowledge of the issues surrounding theoretical physics and coming up with a unified theory than either you or Bobathon. I think you are judging him from a lens that is not broad enough.

And I take him at his word that there is much more work to be done:

While this short paper proposes solutions to the origin of mass and other topics, it is part of a work in progress and is yet to be complete (a status shared with ALL current physical theories). This is why it is clearly stated point blank on our website right under the "proudly displayed" award, "Much more work must be done to complete the picture, yet this simple paper is already producing remarkable results!"

AlienScientist strikes me as very aware of the wave of the future in physics, and he finds Haramein's work credible.

My intuition tells me that Haramein is an honorable, trustworthy person. I also am very impressed with his self-directed quest for knowledge. I am of the opinion that it is an advantage that he has come to the point he has outside the constraints of the university/mainstream system.

I trust him. I'm qualified to do that.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Once again, you take it upon yourself to judge science qualifications of Arb and Bob, and all the while you aren't capable of doing a simplest physics problem yourself. It's frankly laughable. It's like you would comment on influence of a certain ancient dialect on poetry of Du Fu (712-770), while not being able to mutter "Good Morning" in Chinese. Ridiculous.

reply to post by buddhasystem


No, it's not laughable.

I know what a theoretical physicist is. I know what Arb, Bob, and you have posted. I have my opinion, which I'm just as qualified to have as you are.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

No, it's not laughable.
I know what a theoretical physicist is. I know what Arb, Bob, and you have posted.

No you do not. You did not comprehend the simplest expositions of what does not work in Haramein's paper, but you insisted on its veracity with religious zest. So yes it's laughable.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I know the scope of what a theoretical physicist does, as opposed to say, a physics teacher does.

I can also judge character.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I know the scope of what a theoretical physicist does, as opposed to say, a physics teacher does.

It's not a "scope", it's a set of very specific questions any physicist at any level can pose, with regards to the content of Haramein's writings. And I mean any. There are some really sharp physics teachers out there and Haramein can't hold a candle to them. And I mean neither you nor Haramein can say anything of substance in return.

I can also judge character.

I can, too, but that's off -topic.