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: 11
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
you're a one-trick pony.


Are you making a derogatory statement about me?




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
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.


I'm glad you admit that at some point in time, which may not even be in our lifetime, your theory will have to be verified by observation in some manner.

But what about all those people who have already measured the height of trees? Should we ignore those measurements because your theory is incomplete?

Good analogy, I like it.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

But what about all those people who have already measured the height of trees? Should we ignore those measurements because your theory is incomplete?

Good analogy, I like it.


I don't think it is a good analogy because the height of trees is not analogous to a sub-atomic particle.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Analogy doesn't mean identical, it means similar. We measured the height of trees and the mass of protons.

We have alternate theories that say the mass of protons isn't what we measure and the height of trees isn't what we measure. What's not analogous?


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Haramein's response:
Don't you have anything to add yourself? All that stuff you posted from Haramein doesn't answer the question, it's deflecting to a list of unsolved problems in physics without answering the question.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What's not analogous?


I don't think trees, which we observe with the naked eye, are analogous to a sub-atomic particle.


Originally posted by Mary Rose
All that stuff you posted from Haramein doesn't answer the question . . .


Yeah I'm not surprised the stuff from Haramein would not answer your question.

No, I have nothing to say of my own. And you knew I didn't before you asked the question, didn't you?

A rhetorical question.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't think trees, which we observe with the naked eye, are analogous to a sub-atomic particle.


Mary, this is my last post in this thread because I'm afraid I am
(a) preaching to the choir when it comes to Arb an others
(b) wasting my time with others.

You are offered a very simple example of an experiment, which is a measurement of a physical observable. That's the crux of the matter. If we know that most trees are higher than one third of a foot, that the proton mass is a certain number, and that the proton exhibits a particular structure -- it's all in our bank of experimental data. If you aren't able to perceive that, there in no point debating. That Haramein's theories aren't compatible with that data is the next step in the logical process, but you must complete the first.

Good bye.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Yeah I'm not surprised the stuff from Haramein would not answer your question.


As an aside, I'd like to mention that the time I spend posting Haramein's words in response to criticism from ATS members has a dual purpose: to participate on the forum, but also to provide information for researchers on the internet who are interested in Haramein's work and get ATS threads in response to their search terms.

Hopefully, some of them will benefit from my time spent and some good will come of it.

What I'm saying is that there is more to ATS debates than what suits the purposes of its members and staff.
edit on 01/08/11 by Mary Rose because: Grammar



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Haramein states that there are complexities regarding the proton mass and structure:


Mass through relativistic dilation

Another issue occurs when considering an object with relativistic velocities. The issue has to do with mass dilation. In the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton (yet to be available on the net yet as it is in the publishing process, and which I would have been happy to share with "Bob-a-thon" if he would have contacted me directly with his inquiries) we calculated that the mass dilation resulting from a proton starting with the standard measured mass, when rotating at relativistic speeds, will increase its mass. We found that at a velocity of just 10-39 slower than c, the rotating proton would exhibit the mass of a Schwarzschild entity of 1014 grams.

Protons outside of nuclei are different

When a proton is knocked out of a nucleus its behavior is very much altered and our resulting measurements may be wrong. Other physicists have made this observation. The poorly understood EMC effect, for example, shows that nucleons when in a nucleus affect one another, and e.g., the proton radius is estimated to be larger when in a nucleus than outside it. There are also changes in the magnetic field. So again, there is the issue that the properties of protons we measure may change or be different in differing environments. Perhaps then, the proton mass we measure could differ depending on where and how we measure it. See:
www.jlab.org...
www.jlab.org...
www.springerlink.com...
www.symmetrymagazine.org...



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
Mass dilation makes objects appear to be heavier than their fundamental mass. Haramein's fundamental mass is 530 million million million million million million times heavier than what's measured. So that's not going to work.

'The poorly understood EMC effect' and the 'proton spin crisis' and the discrepancy of the radius of the proton are all issues of a few per cent. These things don't give rise to discrepancies of 530 million million million million million million times.

It's all very silly. If you researched as excellently as you claim, you'd bother to find this out instead of doing nothing but quoting from a single extremely unreliable source.

(One-trick pony is not derogatory. Just means you only do one thing. Which seems to be true.)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
It's all very silly.


That's just your opinion.


Originally posted by Bobathon
. . . doing nothing but quoting from a single . . . source.


This thread is about Haramein's work and my only interest is in posting the relevant items to show to those reading the thread about his work his responses to your attacks.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

This thread is about Haramein's work and my only interest is in posting the relevant items to show to those reading the thread about his work his responses to your attacks.

I don't believe that's your only interest – that seems a very unreasonable thing to say given your responses to anyone disagreeing with him.

But if that's what you're setting out to do, then thanks for that. I think it does go some way to illustrating how irrelevant, misinformed and meaningless his responses are in each case.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

edit on 01/17/11 by Mary Rose because: Arbitrageur is correct. Post removed.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
There are so many problems with that I don't know where to begin.

First, start with the terms and conditions...did you get advance written permission to post that?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

15d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance written permission from TAN or their agents).

Second, even if you got permission, it's not appropriate to quote a source without crediting the source. But if you don't have written permission that may violate the T&C even further so don't solve one problem and create a bigger one.

Third, not knowing the context in which that message was posted, it's difficult to evaluate, but it doesn't appear to be true at least in the manner in which you posted it. For example there's no context about exactly what is supposedly being fudged. But replication is the basis of scientific confirmation and one purpose of replication is to ferret out things like fudging, bias, etc.

I don't know if any motion is a perfect ellipse or a perfect straight line, but saying everything moves in spirals seems to be wrong. The light or cosmic ray particles we observe from a distant galaxy may not have followed a perfectly straight line, but why would they follow a spiral?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I like this description of Haramein's theory, from the website Arise in Consciousness:


Haramein’s theory, unlike any other, is complete, accounting for all four forces, and does not rely on finding some theoretical particles concocted to make the math work. Haramein has discovered a whole new paradigm in physics based, not on finding a fundamental particle, but on finding the fundamental principle of the division of space. It is a theory based on the vacuum being packed with an energy density, with matter being created in geometric fractals out of the space-time manifold.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
"THE GEOMETRY OF SPACE" by Nassim Haramein:


Have you ever wondered what this reality is made of? This atomic structure that is palpable, thatseems so real? How is it that from nothingness everything emerges? Atoms are made of
99.99999% space, so it turns out that what we call reality is mostly space with a little bit of a jiggle—a little vibratory fluctuation or, as described in quantum theory, a waveform generating what we call atomic structure. One must wonder, couldn't this fluctuation be a function of the space itself? Could space actually be full instead of empty? Couldn't atomic structures be only the symptom of the fluctuation of space?

This is nothing new; most ancient civilizations believed in an all-prevailing soup of energy
embedded within the fabric of space, and later many of the world's great thinkers, including such scientists as Albert Einstein, Nicolas Tesla, Buckminster Fuller and Walter Russell, believed in an all-prevailing energy at the base of the fabric of space. The premise of this research is simple; space is not empty, it is full! It is full of an energy that creates atomic structures themselves —reality. It is a sea of electromagnetic flux we call the zero point energy, which has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, since its mechanical effects have now been measured in laboratories, and the cosmological constant was added to the vacuum at the universal scale to accommodate for the observed acceleration of expansion.

In simple terms, reality is not unlike the phase transition that water undergoes when its molecules change into ice. This thermodynamic effect is the result of a transfer of energy or information from one state to another. In this case water can be represented as atomic structure and ice as the energy of the vacuum structure. Now we can identify both sides of the equation--one being a wave form (water or liquid) and the other being geometric (solid) as it gets cooler.

This research identifies the geometric relationship between space and the phase experienced by matter as related to [or illustrated by] the water/ice example. The relationship is geometrically communicated as a fractal tetrahedral array circumscribed by a sphere where the vector lines of forces generated by the geometric array is the structure of space itself, and the sphere is the waveform resulting from the fluctuation of space, that we observe as atoms. The geometric relationship to the waveform is non-linear, since it is fractal with spheres—from infinitely big to infinitely small—embedded within each other in all directions, thus creating the experience of reality.

For instance, you can imagine in mechanical terms, that the electron spins are embedded in the rotation of the earth, embedded in the rotation of our solar system, embedded in the galactic arm, embedded in our galactic disk, embedded in our cluster, embedded in our superclusters, embedded in our Universe which duplicates fractally to infinity thus, more accurately denoted as our Multiverse. The structure resolution is described by the orbital's relationship to infinity, from infinitely big to infinitely small.

Now, picture yourself as one of these boundaries between the infinitely large and the infinitely small. The transfer of information, or energy, going across the boundaries is reciprocal in both directions. For example, the energy dispensed during the day by your body in terms of thermodynamics is reciprocal to the information gathered by your senses feeding your consciousness. The vector directions are at a 180 phase from each other or, in other words, in opposite directions, whereby the energy dispensed by your body is from the boundary outside of yourself and the information gathering is from the boundary inside of yourself, i.e. Consciousness or self-awareness. The standing waveform generated by the opposite phases is the boundary we call reality. The information transfer across the boundary is a function of the 64 codons generating the amino acids of the double helix of the DNA structure. The combinations of codons that seem to be inactive (only 20 out of 64 codons generate the DNA amino acids) are interacting geometrically with the fractal dimensions of space to transfer the information across the boundary, resulting in what is popularly known as the auric field.

To give you an idea of the amount of information transfer related to only the actual 20 codons, if you were to extend a DNA packet found at the center of a cell so it unraveled like a tight string and you were to hold end to end all of the strands that are found in one human body alone, it would take a jet plane traveling at 1,000 mph approximately 24,000 years to fly to the end of that DNA.

Now why is it that most human beings will often utter the statement that it is impossible to
imagine infinity when their own existence is part of the infinite boundary generated by the fractal geometry of space? The reason is simple—the tendency is to attempt to visualize the Multiverse in the external, infinitely large vector direction. However, visualization is a function of consciousness, thereby from the boundary inward, which is a vector direction towards the infinitely small. Auspiciously, most Masters that have walked this earth have tried to educate the public about the importance of turning our senses inward, which translates in many different cultures as either prayer or meditation. Expressed geometrically or mathematically as nonlinear fractal mathematics, or expressed philosophically as levels of consciousness, the importance of taking the time to sit in contemplation becomes self-evident. As a result of this practice one can experience the true nature of their existence and their place in the infinity of the Multiverse.


That word "consciousness" - I like it. And "visualization." Some people are good at it. They do the mental work.

edit on 01/17/11 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I've just seen in my research a reference to the book Alternative Science by Richard Milton.

The Produ ct Description for the book that appears on Amazon.com states things that apply to Haramein's work and the response to it by some:


Product Description

In this compelling tour through the world of anomalous research, Richard Milton makes clear what the scientific establishment takes pains to deny: plenty of hard experimental evidence already exists for such things as cold fusion, paranormal phenomena, bioenergy, and the effectiveness of alternative medicine. Because these subjects and those who dare to investigate them are continually denied legitimacy by what can only be called the "paradigm police," the public is led to believe that all claims made about such topics are completely groundless. With humor and an eye for the telling detail, the author describes many instances when the defenders of scientific orthodoxy acted with unscientific rigidity in the face of the evidence. Faraday, Roentgen, Edison, and even the Wright Brothers were thought to be charlatans by their contemporaries. Taking the broad view of the way science is done, Milton discusses the forces at work in the marginalization of unorthodox research, and makes the reader wonder if there is not something fundamentally wrong with the way that science is currently being practiced.


"Paradigm police" - this is an apt description.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose"Paradigm police" - this is an apt description.


...and "the uneducated gullible in search of instant gratification" is even more to the point.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
". . . instant gratification is even more to the point. "


No, it's not.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
". . . instant gratification is even more to the point. "


No, it's not.


Oh yes yes yes!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I was worried about the one-liner rule, but I see we're both offenders.

I won't take up any more cyberspace on this.



new topics




 
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join