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.
Fundamentals of the Schwarzschild Proton
Originally posted by beebs
The radius of a proton from mainstream physics is being used to derive the Schwarzschild conditions.
Also, AlienScientist now apparently has his doubts about Nassim relating this to the Phi ratio. I am on the fence.
Originally posted by beebs
I am not as competent in the math, so I will wait until something better can come up to explain the Phi ratio, but that is not the point.
Yes I know, so his math is inherently self-contradictory and nonsensical. He gives it a standard proton radius for the Schwarzchild radius and then shows it has infinite mass which means the schwarzchild radius is infinite, not that of a proton.
Of course I read his proton paper, didn't you notice that my analysis of his paper back on page 3 had a screenshot from his paper showing the math that was problematic? You already told me twice that you read that post but now that you're asking me if I read his paper, I have to wonder if you really did, or if maybe when you got to the part of my post with Haramein's math in it your eyes just glossed over and you tuned it out? What happened?
Originally posted by beebs
You are stuck on your speed of light/infinite mass loop. I get that point.
That is part of the reason this paper is interesting, is because his math worked, No?
If you had shown where his math was flawed, I think AlienScientist would have noticed as well.
I am not saying I support this theory... That's a ridiculous stance to take in science. In fact the point of science is to constantly challenge and test all of your theories, and try to prove them wrong...ATTACK THE THEORY! Not the messenger...
I've explained the math already but I'll recap parts of earlier posts to review.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Ok, I will concede that Haramein has made a mathematical error of a proton's radius being infinity IF - you can help me to understand how he has suggested so. You are apparently better at the math than I am, as I cannot find that reference in his paper so it must be a consequence of the math that I am ignorant of.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Here is the equation proven by the particle accelerators:
I borrowed that from here www.physicsforums.com... because ATS won't allow typing in equations like physicsforums does.
m0 is the rest mass of the proton, and m is the mass of the photon which is increased by accelerating it in the particle accelerator. v is the velocity of the proton. You can see that when you make v=c like Haramein's paper does, the bottom term becomes zero, and when you divide by zero you get infinity meaning the proton would have infinite mass.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Schwarzchild radius = 2*G*M /(c^2)
source: scienceworld.wolfram.com...
Where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass, and c is the speed of light. When I plug in infinity for the mass, the radius becomes infinite, so is the hawking radiation forming beyond infinity?
Originally posted by beebs
I'm sure you know that entanglement and non-locality is the mainstream now? That implies faster than light communication/interaction between particles...
Originally posted by beebs
How do you suggest that Entanglement can work, if there isn't SOMETHING traveling at or above C?
And if there IS something traveling at or above C, how is it not affecting us?
How can it be both 1.32fm and infinite at the same time?
Originally posted by beebs
The radius of his 'schwarzschild proton'(black hole) is also 1.32 fm.
So, if there is no mistake in Haramein's math that the radius is infinite, then doesn't that mean that either he is right, or the established maths he uses is wrong?
Originally posted by beebs
Electrons are heavier than photons, are they not? So they should be subject to that equation you posted earlier that says that all particles reaching the speed of light would be infinite mass...
Originally posted by beebs
And kudos for the discussion, mate. I am honestly sorry if I am dragging you on, I assure you it does not seem that way from my end, however it is being received.
Hopefully someday we can cheers when we figure it all out.
doesn't really seem fair to lump black holes together with pan-dimensional beings. Even the LHC outreach site talks about what will happen if the LHC creates black holes: lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch...
Originally posted by buddhasystem
What we've seen are -- Quark Bombs, Pan-Dimensional beings, Black holes,
Originally posted by beebs
And the equation you posted for determining a particle's mass hinges upon the fact that nothing can have zero for a rest mass. What if it were shown that a photon did have a 'rest mass'?
Correct, it would be infinity, not just the mass of the known universe. And this is true if you call it a proton or a black hole so I don't see what difference the name makes, as long as it has a rest mass that's sufficient. And of course this is not a possible condition in our universe or we wouldn't be here. So the relativistic mass is NOT infinity, that's what it WOULD be if it COULD travel at the speed of light which it CAN'T.
The particle's relativistic mass would be infinity (or maybe just the mass of the known universe?) at the speed of light if the particle had a non-zero rest mass. Correct?
well it would be the relativistic mass of the proton or black hole over c^2. If the proton or black hole has a rest mass and is traveling at the speed of light, then yes the top term becomes infinite, but again that would be impossible based on observational evidence.
So then, according to your equation for the schwarzschild radius, it would be infinity/c^2. Am I correct?
Well I know of stable black holes, they generally are presumed to have a minimum mass of between 3-4 solar masses and could go up to any large value short of infinity. I suppose in another universe a black hole with infinite mass could exist but nobody on the internet in that universe would be talking about it because they would have all been sucked into it along with the internet. That's what infinite gravity from infinite mass does.
Haramein did not use infinity for the mass inside the 'proton's' radius, instead his math showed that it was the mass of the known universe. Are black holes infinite, or just really really dense, like say, the mass of the known universe...
Given the energy available in the LHC, if a black hole was created it would necessarily be a very small one - a micro black hole - the energy available in the collision of two LHC protons is not a lot on a cosmological scale. The black hole would evaporate almost immediately into a shower of particles.
He doesn't understand his own math so your guess is as good as mine, but he's clearly showing the velocity of the orbiting protons or black holes or whatever you want to call them, to be c. And he's clearly showing they have mass so the particles clearly violate our known observations of the universe by showing massive particles traveling at c. If mass can travel at c he has to do more than claim that on a piece of paper...he either need to conduct or persuade others to conduct experiments to confirm or reject the hypothesis. Since we've already made tons of observations that contradict his suggestion, it's unlikely he can persuade any sane person to do the experiment for him, so he'll probably have to do it himself, and chances are when he does, he'll get the same results everyone else gets.
The relativistic orbital velocity of the two binary black holes with radius 1.32 fm is calculated at the speed of light, due to the calculated mass and their proximity - from gravity if I understand his math correct.
Of course that makes sense, that's why Haramein's theory is nonsense.
It makes sense that the protons are not infinite in mass, if the universe is not infinite in mass.
you can call them whatever you want, protons, black holes, or little miniature pink ballet dancers, the name really doesn't matter. What matters is do they have a non-zero rest mass, and clearly they do, no matter what you call them. Therefore they cannot travel at the speed of light, for in order for them to do so they would have infinite mass.
They are black holes orbiting each other at the speed of light, not protons orbiting each other at the speed of light - because they meet the Schwarzschild conditions. Right?
So, what is the consequence of a black hole at the speed of light? I doubt it can be used in the same mathematical context as we have been discussing with protons and photons.
Translation=I don't understand the theory of relativity and I need to study it. But yes of course everything is in motion. relativity accounts for that. Rest mass is just a mathematical term.
Since we have no such thing as a particle 'at rest', the idea of basing math on the premise of 'rest mass' is like basing math on a dead universe. The universe we inhabit is alive, in motion.
And a giant flying spaghetti monster potentially stole my chimney? We can "what if" all day but as I tried to beat to death that "observational evidence rules". If you have any evidence a photon has rest mass, post it. I'm open to seeing new evidence, but I've never seen any evidence of that before.
If I understand the equations you have provided correctly, since photons DO potentially have 'rest' masses...
Originally posted by beebs
I did post a paper from LANL archives that talks about the rest mass for photons... maybe you missed it. Get back to me when you have read through it, and perhaps you can help check out their maths...
And also I've posted papers regarding binary black holes.
I think there is a significant difference between a classical proton traveling c, and a black hole with radius 1.32 fm traveling c.
Why are black holes subject to that same relativistic equation?
Originally posted by beebs
This paper talks about 'photon gas' being the medium for EM waves, and the density fluctuations of that gas with respect to the CMBR.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I love the fact that he joins science with spirituality.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
That is your opinion.
Please provide scientific analysis as to WHY it is gibberish.
Perhaps you could email the author in the College of Physics at Nanjing University with your concerns.
As the carrier of electromagnetic waves, the photon gas is a discrete
medium at very high frequency, and then the Bohr’s electron is hardly to emit energy in wave form and can be stably rounding the nuclei in discrete orbits at lower temperature.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by ArbitrageurWE can peer review it.
I'm afraid our discussion will inevitably stalemate without addressing new theoretical discoveries and papers.
The carrier or medium of electromagnetic waves has been vainly searched for many years, and now it has been caught after the establishment of the dynamic equations in photon gas. The photon’s rest mass has been estimated from the cosmic background temperature in space where the photon gas is at an open state of thermal equilibrium,
and the photon’s proper magnetic moment is calculated from the dynamic equations of photon gas too. As the carrier of electromagnetic waves, the photon gas is a discrete medium at very high
Bigfoot has been vainly searched for many years, and now it has been caught after the establishment of the dynamic equations of bipedal hominid methane expulsions. Bigfoot's mating cycle has been estimated from the temperature fluctuations in Jupiter's moon Titan due to gravitational distortion.
We still don't have any real evidence bigfoot exists but if it did here are the equations I'd apply to bigfoot:
And I will check into how the papers are published there, whether Cornell or LANL has a say in what is being published.
Well you must admit, he uses a lot more integrals and differential equations than Haramein does, so he can baffle an even wider audience with BS than Haramein can with his simpler equations.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
I looked at the paper and it's gibberish a la Haramein. Birds of feather.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Poplawski is a research associate in the IU Department of Physics. He holds an M.S. and a Ph.D. in physics from Indiana University and a M.S. in astronomy from the University of Warsaw, Poland.
The above is referring to an article dated April 5, 2010 entitled "Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research."
The article begins:
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?
Such a scenario in which the universe is born from inside a wormhole (also called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge) is suggested in a paper from Indiana University theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski in Physics Letters B. The final version of the paper was available online March 29 and will be published in the journal edition April 12.
The concluding paragraph:
This model in isotropic coordinates of the universe as a black hole could explain the origin of cosmic inflation, Poplawski theorizes.
An explanation of the Vacuum Density and some application such as the Casimir Effect . . .
The above is referring to “Chapter 4 The zero point field.”
The first paragraph:
The invisible field
Quantum science in the 20th century revealed the presence of an all-pervasive background sea of quantum energy in the universe. Cambridge University’s Dr. Harold Puthoff was one of the first to measure this energy of the universe. This energy was measured at zero degrees Kelvin, the absolute lowest possible temperature in the universe equal to minus 273 degrees Celsius. At this temperature according to Newtonian physics all molecular and atom movement should have ceased and no energy should be measured at all! Instead of finding no energy, as was expected, he found what he called a ‘seething cauldron’ of energy and henceforth it was given the name zero point energy (ZPE). Harold Puthoff proved that the physical vacuum is not devoid of energy at all and that instead of being a vacuum, space it is actually a plenum.
The last paragraph:
The science of sacred geometry claims that everything in our universe has an underlying invisible geometric structure following a fundamental principle. Contemporary scientists now use sacred geometry to explain how physical reality is constructed from the omni present and all-pervasive background energy of the physical vacuum.