Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

page: 46
17
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From spaceandmotion.com:


From the Solving Nature's Mystery page, the bottom line, the point of it all, as in: What difference does it make?


The rules of wave combination are of great importance to science because the rules and quantum spin determine the structure of the Atomic Table, which dictates the varied forms of matter: metals, crystals, semi-conductors, and the molecules of life. The deep understanding of basic physics that is revealed opens a door to broad fields of applied technology such as integrated circuits, photonics, and commercial energy. It reveals a universe of real quantum wave structures in a space medium that we live in but seldom are aware of. The medium is the heart of wave structure because its properties underlie the wave properties.




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Why do you need these guys? It's obsessive. You don't know what they're talking about, but you seem to need them to be right. Have you given up on Haramein now, and moved onto this character? I don't understand why you're doing it.

Wikipedia consideration

Physics forums have him nicely summed up.

Is there any point in me going into the details of the science, given that you have no willingness to listen to or think about it? Maybe Arb/Bud will oblige if that's what you want. You'll only pull another crank out of the bag after he's been pulled apart.

Open your mind Mary. Try to imagine a world where there are millions of people who are capable of recognising bullsh1t that you can't spot immediately yourself.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


You have an exaggerated opinion of yourself.

A most lame response. I'm not impressed!!



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From spaceandmotion.com:


From the The Dynamic Unity of Reality page, the error, and the solution:


The Error - The Motion of Discrete Particles in Space and Time

For the past 350 years (since Newton) we have tried to describe an interconnected reality (which has been known for thousands of years) with many discrete and separate 'particles'. Thus you have to add forces or fields to the particles to connect them together in space and time. This is merely a mathematical solution and it does not explain how discrete matter particles create continuous fields that act on other particles in the space around them. Further, both quantum physics (particle-wave duality, non-locality, uncertainty) and Einstein's general relativity (matter-energy curves space-time) contradict the concept of discrete and separate 'particles'.

The Solution - The Wave Motion of Space Causes Matter and Time

We simply needed to describe reality from the most simple foundation of the one thing, Space, that all matter exists in (look around you now and think about this - we all experience existing in space).
This leads to only one solution, a Wave Structure of Matter in Space from which we then deduce the fundamentals of physics, philosophy and metaphysics to show that it is correct (and scientific / testable, not just our opinion).





Resorting to fallacies doesn't refute a well constructed and articulated theory of how the universe works - knowledge we can use for better, life-affirming, technology.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon
 


You have an exaggerated opinion of yourself.
I didn't say anything about myself (other than "I don't understand why you're doing it").
And I'm not trying to impress.
And I haven't resorted to fallacies (you're resorting to blatant sweeping generalisations again).
And the extract you just gave is based on an entirely false claim (viz. "you have to add forces or fields to the particles to connect them together in space and time" – that's not how it works at all).



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

I just took a look at this page on the WSM site, where he claims to deduce Einstein's equations of special relativity. There's some vague waffle, and eventually he says "now for the mathematical part" and proceeds to use some high school equations for waves... and finishes by proudly announcing:


Then Einstein's familiar time-dilation formula is found by taking the Lorentz transform of the outwave velocity


What's a Lorentz transform? Well, it's part of Einstein's special theory of relativity. He's using Einstein's special theory of relativity to deduce Einstein's special theory of relativity, and he's pretending he's using WSM.

Dude.

His deduction of the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics, presented on this page are even better! He starts off by saying:


First we assume standing matter waves which start with fundamental wavelength R equal to the Compton wavelength of the electron


What's a Compton wavelength? It's a fundamental result of quantum mechanics. He's using quantum mechanics now to deduce quantum mechanics, and he's pretending he's using WSM.

You got to give him marks for bare-faced cheek.

Obviously some people find this very impressive.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From spaceandmotion.com:


From the The Dynamic Unity of Reality page, the error, and the solution:


The Error - The Motion of Discrete Particles in Space and Time

For the past 350 years (since Newton) we have tried to describe an interconnected reality (which has been known for thousands of years) with many discrete and separate 'particles'. Thus you have to add forces or fields to the particles to connect them together in space and time. This is merely a mathematical solution and it does not explain how discrete matter particles create continuous fields that act on other particles in the space around them. Further, both quantum physics (particle-wave duality, non-locality, uncertainty) and Einstein's general relativity (matter-energy curves space-time) contradict the concept of discrete and separate 'particles'.

The Solution - The Wave Motion of Space Causes Matter and Time

We simply needed to describe reality from the most simple foundation of the one thing, Space, that all matter exists in (look around you now and think about this - we all experience existing in space).
This leads to only one solution, a Wave Structure of Matter in Space from which we then deduce the fundamentals of physics, philosophy and metaphysics to show that it is correct (and scientific / testable, not just our opinion).





Resorting to fallacies doesn't refute a well constructed and articulated theory of how the universe works - knowledge we can use for better, life-affirming, technology.




You really shouldn't be complaining about logical fallacies. That's something you're the master of committing.

How do you know it's a "well constructed and articulate" theory if you don't know the math he's fudging? Here's something you might find also insightful and profound:




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon
 


You have an exaggerated opinion of yourself.


From what I've seen, Bob is well educated in a few areas of science. He didn't proclaim any outrageous opinion about his education, though.

At the same time, you, Mary, have demonstrated a pretty pathetic level of knowledge when it comes to physics or math. Still, you presume to lecture well qualified people in all of these areas. Now, whose opinion of themselves is grotesquely inflated?

I have four letters for you, strictly within the topic of this thread.

ZERO
edit on 22-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Some food for thought:




posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Some food for thought
What thoughts, exactly?

Or do you really mean "some entertainment (for people who don't mind false stories or aren't able or curious enough to check facts)"?

Haramein has every right to entertain such people, so long as we can be honest about it...
edit on 26-4-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Some food for thought
What thoughts, exactly?
I can't believe I watched the whole thing. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, or just shake my head in amazement at how deep in the woo these guys are. I would tend to associate the vast majority of this material with the output end of a digestive system, rather than the input end, as it's more worthy of flushing than consuming.


Haramein has every right to entertain such people, so long as we can be honest about it...
He's in good company in woo land with Greg Braden and Bruce Lipton, a couple of guys who either don't know much about real quantum mechanics and show their ignorance, or if they really do know it, they intentionally misrepresent it.

www.brucelipton.com...

...the universe is not an assembly of physical parts as suggested by Newtonian physics but is derived from a holistic entanglement of immaterial energy waves. Quantum mechanics shockingly reveals that there is no true “physicality” in the universe; atoms are made of focused vortices of energy-miniature tornados that are constantly popping into and out of existence....
A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the “observer creates the reality. “As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality! Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction.
Well that pretty much resolves the discrepancy between mainstream physics and guys like Haramein, Braden and Lipton, doesn't it?

Haramein's "mental construction" of his universe is just as valid as Liptons "mental construction" of his universe which is just as valid as Mary's "mental construction" of her universe.

Don't pay any attention to whether any of these mental constructions agree with observation or not, that's simply an annoying impediment to creating whatever universe you want in your "mental construction", imposed by those stuffy mainstream scientists.

About the only part of that video that didn't seem like total BS to me is the fact that Mandelbrot wrote a book about fractals, but in fact the definition of a "fractal" has expanded to the point where almost anything can be considered a fractal according to the expanded definition, so saying "everything is fractal" is not very meaningful when using such a loose definition of a fractal. It's kind of like saying "Everything we see is from radiation within the visible light spectrum". We've defined visible light to include what we see, so it should be no surprise that the definition matches. Likewise, we've expanded the definition of fractal to the point where even things that Mandelbrot probably wouldn't call fractal, are being called "fractal". So of course if you expand the definition of fractal to include everything, then everything is "Fractal (loosely defined)".

I normally consider "Nature" to be a respectable scientific journal but as this article shows, even Nature managed to publish an article on fractals which doesn't seem to have much validity:

Pollock & fractals? A hoax.


Taylor & al. replied to Jones-Smith and Mathur's article in Nature, displaying an interesting collection of unscientific arguments. They say:"Our use of the term 'fractal' is consistent with that by the research community. In dismissing Pollock's fractals, because of their limited magnification range, Jones-Smith and Mathur would also dismiss half the published investigations of physical fractals."

First unscientific argument, the argument from authority. Indeed I have no problem believing that half of the papers published on "physical fractals" (whatever it means) are crap.
I've read part of Mandelbrot's fractal book and there's some valid mathematics in it. But people like Dr' Lipton have distorted fractals the same way they've distorted quantum mechanics: He should have stuck to biology, and even in that field I don't believe his claim that each one of my cells are sentient, at least not according to my definition of sentience.

If you want to twist and distort the meaning of the word "sentient", you could also claim a rock is "sentient". When you drop it, and it strikes the ground, it stops falling, so it must be "aware" of the Earth, right?

Now, how do I wash all this woo off my hip waders?



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Wow. You LOVE to ridicule.

You are something else. Phew!!!!






posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Wow. You LOVE to ridicule.

You are something else. Phew!!!!


Arb gave a few short but comprehensive presentations on physics in your threads, Mary. You probably didn't appreciate any (and didn't want to). The only thing accessible to you, out of many, in Arb's writing is ridicule (which you frankly deserve), so I see your point of view is biased -- you aren't able to see anything else.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I do think that meditation is useful and important . . .

Does it provide information to a scientist he/she does not get in the lab, reading, talking to others, or any other input?


I never did get an answer to this question, did I?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I've read Healing with Love by Leonard Laskow M.D., and I was thinking about this book this morning. Looking for more information about his perspective I searched on YouTube. A video came up that includes a reference to meditation.

Laskow mentions instructions he was given during a deep meditation back in the 70s: "Your work is to heal with love."

He said he didn't know what it meant at the time. But this experience was step one in a process.

I think this is an example of insight gained by meditation that could not be gained from book-learning or lab work.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I do think that meditation is useful and important . . .

Does it provide information to a scientist he/she does not get in the lab, reading, talking to others, or any other input?


I never did get an answer to this question, did I?


May be, may be not.

Meditation does help concentration and such, but it's not a source of info, as you framed it. You cannot extract data out of your meditation session.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You cannot extract data out of your meditation session.


You make it sound as if data is the only type of info there is.

Maybe that's true for you, however.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You cannot extract data out of your meditation session.


You make it sound as if data is the only type of info there is.

Maybe that's true for you, however.


I used data as an interchangeable piece. Switch it to "information" if you will, or structure. If you are hoping to tap into some occult knowledge of physics... What's the word Bob likes to use? Oh, here: bollocks!

You want to learn? Go to school.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You want to learn? Go to school.


Going to school gives people other people's perceptions.

Meditation is for listening to the universe.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You want to learn? Go to school.


Going to school gives people other people's perceptions.

Meditation is for listening to the universe.


Mary, I have a secret to share for you, that I realized by listening to the birds. Yours for only $199.99!
edit on 6-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join