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 solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?

page: 10
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I have made some notes from Haramein's "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

  1. Concerns about the Schwarzschild Proton are valid within the context of the standard model, but not within the context of unification issues.
  2. The paper is based on deriving mass from vacuum fluctuations already present in the standard model, and is part of a work in progress.
  3. The scientific method of proposing a hypothesis and testing it works well in many areas but in advanced theoretical physics where we are seeking an overall understanding, things are not as cut and dried.
  4. Accepted thinking in science can change rapidly.
  5. There are many issues in physics still open for debate. A long list is cited, the first item of which is "vacuum catastrophe." A person evaluating Haramein's work needs to have studied all the unanswered questions in physics.


"List of unsolved problems in physics"




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
We got it covered, and regurgitating serves no useful purpose.


You represent everyone?


Did I say I did?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
A person evaluating Haramein's work needs to have studied all the unanswered questions in physics.


A person evaluating Haramein's work needs to notice that the number for the mass of proton he arrives to is ludicrous, and that the "fluctuation" he wants to use is a completely arbitrary number required for singularity to appear, and that this model contradicts the structure of proton we readily observe in experiment. Thus, one does NOT need to have studied ALL the unanswered question in physics to arrive to inescapable conclusion that Haramein's theory is utter cr@p.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
A person evaluating Haramein's work needs to notice that the number for the mass of proton he arrives to is ludicrous, and that the "fluctuation" he wants to use is a completely arbitrary number required for singularity to appear, and that this model contradicts the structure of proton we readily observe in experiment.


You don't sound comprehensive to me. You sound narrow.

I look forward to some fresh voices on this thread.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
A person evaluating Haramein's work needs to notice that the number for the mass of proton he arrives to is ludicrous, and that the "fluctuation" he wants to use is a completely arbitrary number required for singularity to appear, and that this model contradicts the structure of proton we readily observe in experiment.


You don't sound comprehensive to me.


What's more, I don't sound comprehensible to you, because you don't have even modest skills or experience in physics.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Fair enough. But I'm an excellent researcher.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Going forward, I think it would be helpful to discuss Haramein's theory without reliance on scientific dogma or scientific authority figures as established in the mainstream.


It has been done in this threads and prior ones on same subject. There were a number of basic inconsistencies already exposed, which makes this a non-theory. We got it covered, and regurgitating serves no useful purpose.
Well there is one thing I'm going to regurgitate one more time because I thought Mary agreed with it but then it seems like she ignores it:

Feynman-Key to science

"If it disagrees with experiment, IT'S WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is, It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."

Experiment is the final arbiter and Feynman and Mary agree on one thing, the name of a scientific authority (or non authority as the case may be) coming up with the theory doesn't matter, if observations don't confirm the theory.


Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have made some notes from Haramein's "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

  1. Concerns about the Schwarzschild Proton are valid within the context of the standard model, but not within the context of unification issues.
What about in the context of experimental observation?
-The mass of the proton
-The internal structure of the proton


Originally posted by Mary Rose
  • The scientific method of proposing a hypothesis and testing it works well in many areas but in advanced theoretical physics where we are seeking an overall understanding, things are not as cut and dried.

  • Listen to the video again. I think you and Haramein missed what the key to science is. If an idea can't be confirmed with experiment or observation, then it seems to me like it's less of a science and more of a religion, which Bobathon alluded to earlier and I think he's right. I thought this thread was about science, and debating the scientific facts would clear things up. But trying to convince Haramein supporters with scientific facts is like trying to convince young Earth creationists the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, no amount of facts and evidence matters in either case, because the belief is religious and not based on observation.

    In theoretical physics you may predict the existence something which hasn't been discovered yet, then you can at least claim "the jury is out" until and if that particle is ever discovered. But that's not the subject of the proton paper, the proton is a known object with observable properties that don't agree with Haramein's theory.


  • Accepted thinking in science can change rapidly.
  • There are many issues in physics still open for debate. A long list is cited, the first item of which is "vacuum catastrophe."
  • These statements are true, but they do nothing to support Haramein's theories over any other theory.



    posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:20 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose
    reply to post by buddhasystem
     


    Fair enough. But I'm an excellent researcher.


    That's great. There are plenty of materials out there concerning inelastic scattering of protons. As far as proton mass is concerned, you don't even need to read much. Just pour yourself a glass of water, and hold it in your hands. If Haramein was right, you wouldn't be able to do so.



    posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:52 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    Experiment is the final arbiter and Feynman and Mary agree on one thing, the name of a scientific authority (or non authority as the case may be) coming up with the theory doesn't matter, if observations don't confirm the theory.


    Yes.

    But it has been pointed out by Haramein that his theory is a work in progress.

    I think that it is premature to be discounting his theory so far as unprovable.

    And I think it has not been established that what he has put out so far is contradicted by observations. I think there is more than one way to look at what science has established so far.



    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    What about in the context of experimental observation?
    -The mass of the proton
    -The internal structure of the proton


    Again, I think you’re relying on the “standard model,” and I think you’re not allowing for the possibility that changes need to be made to it.


    Originally posted by Arbitrageur If an idea can't be confirmed with experiment or observation, then it seems to me like it's less of a science and more of a religion . . .


    Agreed.

    At some point in time, which may not even be in our lifetime, Haramein’s final product will have to be verified by observation in some manner.



    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    . . . the proton is a known object with observable properties that don't agree with Haramein's theory.


    I believe that this is your opinion.

    I am not convinced you’re right.




    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    These statements are true, but they do nothing to support Haramein's theories over any other theory.


    The point of the list is to show that the “laws of physics” are far from established and Haramein is working on the unsolved mysteries.



    posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:53 PM
    link   
    reply to post by buddhasystem
     


    Fascinating!

    Please elaborate a little bit.



    posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:54 PM
    link   
    This is incredible!

    I know channeled material isn't taken to seriously, but in The Ra Material, Ra states that intelligent infinity is present in every particle. Very similar, and this was printed in 1981.



    posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:49 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose

    Originally posted by buddhasystem
    A person evaluating Haramein's work needs to notice that the number for the mass of proton he arrives to is ludicrous, and that the "fluctuation" he wants to use is a completely arbitrary number required for singularity to appear, and that this model contradicts the structure of proton we readily observe in experiment.


    You don't sound comprehensive to me. You sound narrow.

    I look forward to some fresh voices on this thread.


    You still waiting for someone who'll agree with your narrow-minded insistence that we should wilfully ignore the experiences of the hundreds of thousands of people who actually physically work with protons, and focus on what you want things to be like instead?

    You so enlightened, Mary Rose.


    I guess this is henceforth a "Mary's fantasies" thread.
    Nothing wrong with that. Just so long as it's clear.



    posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:19 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Bobathon
    I guess this is henceforth a "Mary's fantasies" thread.
    Nothing wrong with that. Just so long as it's clear.
    Actually there are different forums on ATS with different rules. This thread is in the "Science and Technology" forum where claims need to be backed up by evidence.

    Mary started another thread about Haramein which ended up in "Skunk Works", a place where you can post all the fantasies you want and no evidence is needed:

    Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

    ATS Skunk Works: This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum.
    So actually, that thread can be the "Mary's fantasies" thread, no evidence is needed.

    This thread shouldn't be a fantasy thread unless it gets moved out of the "science and technology" forum, though there's probably an argument for moving it. The other thread was originally posted in science and technology also, before it got moved.

    So my vote would be to follow the ATS guidelines and put the fantasies in the other, skunk works thread, and stick to science in this thread, as long as it remains in the "science and technology" forum.


    Originally posted by Mary Rose

    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    What about in the context of experimental observation?
    -The mass of the proton
    -The internal structure of the proton


    Again, I think you’re relying on the “standard model,” and I think you’re not allowing for the possibility that changes need to be made to it.
    I fully expect there will be changes to the standard model, but none of them will conceivably say that we can't observe the internal structure of a proton as consisting of quarks, when in fact we can observe that. That's a consequence of Haramein's theory, that the internal structure of the proton can't be observed.


    At some point in time, which may not even be in our lifetime, Haramein’s final product will have to be verified by observation in some manner.
    why wait? aspects of it can be tested now and be shown false. If this isn't his final product then let's wait until he has a product worthy of testing before we test it, though I can't imagine his final product will be much better. But at least you admit it must be verifed by observations.



    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    . . . the proton is a known object with observable properties that don't agree with Haramein's theory.
    I believe that this is your opinion.
    I am not convinced you’re right.
    Observations aren't the same things as opinions. Again, they are the foundation of science because they can be independently replicated by different labs and people. Observations are what makes science independent of opinion. It would really help to understand this.

    People can have different opinions on why the observations are what they are, but the observations are what they are and they aren't opinions, if they have been thoroughly replicated, which is certainly the case with proton measurements.

    Also, you have provided no real scientific counter-argument and have just claimed ignorance because you're not a scientist. That's ok in the skunk works thread but evidence should be required to support arguments in this thread as long as it remains in the science forum.



    posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:02 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    Actually there are different forums on ATS with different rules. This thread is in the "Science and Technology" forum where claims need to be backed up by evidence.

    Mary started another thread about Haramein which ended up in "Skunk Works", a place where you can post all the fantasies you want and no evidence is needed...

    So my vote would be to follow the ATS guidelines and put the fantasies in the other, skunk works thread, and stick to science in this thread, as long as it remains in the "science and technology" forum.

    Ok, thanks. I hadn't appreciated that those two threads were on different forums. Then there's no excuse for Mary's deliberate dismissal of obvious scientific results.



    posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:28 AM
    link   
    Actually, I have my own theory, which is that all the world's trees are less than 10cm tall. I call it the Sub-Decimetre Tree Theory, and it's set to revolutionise botany.

    There are still many who refuse to open their minds to the new SDT theory. These paradigm shifts can be expected to take years, even centuries, to become accepted. As with any work of genius, my theory is often ridiculed by those who have been brainwashed by the uncreative dogma of education.

    The advantages are clear: forestry will become so much easier than it is currently seen to be. And anyone with a small yard could easily plant thousands of trees, which has never before been seen as possible. The horizons are truly breathtaking.

    It's been submitted to several scientific journals and I can tell you that the signs are very hopeful that it will pass peer review and be accepted for publication very soon. It is very important for this theory to be accepted by the mainstream. Once accepted, it will remove the barriers to almost unlimited tree-planting all over the world, thereby saving the world's forests and the global climate.

    My theory is currently work in progress. But to those who doubt, I say this: only time will tell whether or not all trees truly are less than 10cm tall. Until then, all those with an open mind will agree, SDT theory simply cannot be ruled out. I'll keep you posted.



    posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:29 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    Also, you have provided no real scientific counter-argument and have just claimed ignorance because you're not a scientist.


    Again, although I don't have the science background that you do, I am a careful researcher and I have posted relevant responses to challenges from Haramein's writings. I think the problem is your and others' contempt for Haramein. I don't see this contempt as justified. You do.

    Your challenge to Haramein's theory is based on your belief about established science.

    My interest in the theory is based upon what I perceive as original, creative, thinking.

    And my opinion is that verification by testing of Haramein's theory so far - again he's working on a unified theory which is a work in progress - is premature.



    posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:48 AM
    link   
    [fabricated quote removed]







    edit on 1/8/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: fabricating quotes to 'put words in a fellow member's mouth' not tolerated on ATS - warned



    posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:28 AM
    link   
    [off topic comments removed]













    edit on 1/8/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:44 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    I fully expect there will be changes to the standard model, but none of them will conceivably say that we can't observe the internal structure of a proton as consisting of quarks, when in fact we can observe that. That's a consequence of Haramein's theory, that the internal structure of the proton can't be observed.


    I did a search for the word "quark" in Haramein's response to Bobathon's criticism. Hopefully the following quotes will not be off-topic to your premise. If they are, I apologize.

    Bobathon:


    What happens when you look inside a proton?

    -in an actual proton: we see point-like constituents (quarks), and a measurable distribution of charge. Things don't disappear.

    -in a Schwarzschild proton: there is an event horizon of 1.32fm radius, and nothing that crosses this horizon can re-emerge. There is no way of looking inside.

    This also follows directly from General Relativity. This messes up our proposed way out of the mass problem, because if the full mass of the black hole is experienced at short distances, then any electron or other particle used to probe inside a proton would simply vanish, making the mass black hole grow slightly. This follows from the definition of the Schwarzschild radius, which is what Haramein has used. It's a space-time horizon. Beyond this horizon, all possible measures of time are directed spatially in, and only in. Out ceases to exist, except in the past.

    Yet many particle experiments, in particular all those that have done some form of deep inelastic scattering, make it clear that we can probe inside a proton.

    (New Agers should note that this 'deep' doesn't mean profound and mysterious and cosmic, it just means you magnify your proton a lot so that you can look a long way inside. Though I like it when French physics journals call it diffusion profondement inelastique.)

    How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
    He doesn't.

    What could we do to deal with this problem? I've no idea. I'll have a think, but this is starting to get a bit silly.


    Haramein's response:


    Well, when one ignores the complexities involved, and fails to realize that our understanding of black holes and their horizons at the fine edge of physics is still being explored and is nowhere close to complete, and that some of the greatest and most respected physicists are becoming aware that these dynamics may be related to particles in the quantum world, then one can make blanket conclusions as the gentleman has attempted. However, there is sufficient knowledge to understand that we have yet to completely describe what happens at and near a horizon. The landscape of a nucleon is poorly understood and many assumptions are made to interpret results from experiment. This is why in the list of unsolved problems in physics under Nuclear physics, the entry Quantum chromodynamics specifies:

    What are the phases of strongly interacting matter, and what roles do they play in the cosmos? What is the internal landscape of the nucleons? What does QCD predict for the properties of strongly interacting matter? What governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pions and nucleons? What is the role of gluons and gluon self-interactions in nucleons and nuclei? What determines the key features of QCD, and what is their relation to the nature of gravity and spacetime? [emphasis added]

    These issues are, as well, related:

    Proton spin crisis

    As initially measured by the European Muon Collaboration, the three main ("valence") quarks of the proton account for about 12% of its total spin. Can the gluons that bind the quarks together, as well as the "sea" of quark pairs that are continually being created and annihilating, properly account for the rest of it?

    Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in the non-perturbative regime

    The equations of QCD remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei, and only mainly numerical approaches seem to begin to give answers at this limit. How does QCD give rise to the physics of nuclei and nuclear constituents?

    Black holes may have "hair" - effects that reach through and beyond the horizon creating measurable effects. Perhaps all the information in black holes is preserved, as would be expected if conservation laws are to remain valid.

    We are investigating effects such as those caused by torque and Coriolis forces at the horizon that may significantly change our view of entropy, and may perhaps allow us to explain other subatomic particles using an approach similar to our current paper.



    posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:55 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose
    [post removed by staff]

    It's exactly the same theory though, wouldn't you agree? Absolutely identical, but for trees instead of protons. If you support one, you support the other, no?

    Regarding Haramein's obfuscation of an answer,

    The landscape of a nucleon is poorly understood and many assumptions are made to interpret results from experiment.
    That's nonsense. Deep inelastic scattering results precisely agree with QCD as to the straightforward point-like nature of the constituents and the complete absence of an event horizon.

    And as has been said a million times, lists of unsolved problems doesn't answer anything. Scientists don't know everything, therefore what they do know doesn't count, therefore Haramein is right? What kind of reasoning is that? Seriously, Mary.

    The guy's a joker, and you're a one-trick pony. The only thing you've ever offered to back up Haramein's nonsense claims is more of Haramein's nonsense claims.
    edit on Sat Jan 8 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



    new topics

    top topics



     
    33
    << 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

    log in

    join