Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?

reply to post by Mary Rose
I'm referring to Haramein's claim that we are made of infinitely dense black holes, the stuff you quoted.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Can you explain what it is about it that you don't like?

reply to post by Mary Rose
The fact that I don't weigh more than Mt. Everest when I step on the scales makes me skeptical about being composed of infinitely dense black holes.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Interesting. Thanks. I'll think about that - and see what I can find that addresses it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I like this quote from the "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

...It matters little how "stupidly big" something is. What matters is if the numbers derived are logical, plausible, consistent with the theory involved, and point to at least useful and/or, ideally, testable results...

It's all in how you look at it.

This was in response to my pointing out that Haramein's own calculation of the force between two protons gives a value that is so huge, no possible force in the universe would be capable of opposing it without violating the fundamentals of General Relativity.

In the real world, the force between protons isn't even strong enough to bind two protons together.

In what way does that "matters little" to a theory of the force between protons?

In what way is it logical, plausible, consistent or useful? What tests would show it to be anything other than blatantly wrong?

I still find this a truly remarkable degree of idiocy. And the fact that people quote it as if it supports him... it really beggars belief.

Details regarding the force between protons here, as ever.

Regarding the standard model,

1. if and whenever a standard model calculation generates infinities for a measurable quantity, it is immediately recognised as being utterly wrong. So his comments about it constitute a blatant lie.*

2. How does a belief that the mainstream is wrong make it ok for him to knowingly sell his own utterly wrong theory? That's just infantile.

(*I use the word lie because he claims to understand the flaws in the standard model. There's a great deal of dishonesty whichever way you look at it.)

Originally posted by Bobathon
There's a great deal of dishonesty whichever way you look at it.

Untrue.

Regarding your perspective, understanding, and grasp of the issues that must be dealt with when proposing a unified theory, this quote from the Manifesto applies:

'The Schwarzschild Proton' is a paper written by Nassim Haramein, proposing a model of the proton based on what he calls 'the Schwarzschild condition'.

"Bob-a-thon" seems to think that we made this phrase up, when, in fact, the Schwarzschild condition is commonly used terminology in relativistic physics papers and is hardly my own invention. To question our use of the term clearly shows the gentleman's lack of familiarity with the subject. . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose

'The Schwarzschild Proton' is a paper written by Nassim Haramein, proposing a model of the proton based on what he calls 'the Schwarzschild condition'.

"Bob-a-thon" seems to think that we made this phrase up, when, in fact, the Schwarzschild condition is commonly used terminology in relativistic physics papers and is hardly my own invention. To question our use of the term clearly shows the gentleman's lack of familiarity with the subject. . . .

As I said last time you brought up this quote, the fact that there are only a few hundred hits for the term "Schwarzschild condition" on Google, the majority of which are either by Haramein himself or people quoting Haramein, should be enough to illustrate that, once again, what he is saying here is utterly untrue.

Anyway, let's come back to the fact that Haramein's own calculation of the force between two protons gives a value that is so huge, no possible force in the universe would be capable of opposing it without violating the fundamentals of General Relativity.

In the real world, the force between protons isn't even strong enough to bind two protons together.

Do you agree with Haramein that that "matters little" to his theory about the force between protons?

reply to post by Bobathon


Weak.

You're grasping at straws, aren't you?

reply to post by Bobathon


The fact that you refuse to answer chapter and verse - claiming "there's nothing there" - the lengthy Manifesto that Haramein put together because of your vitriolic, disrespectful attacks on him - tells me that whatever you point out is from your limited viewpoint as compared to his.

Why don't you get to work on your own unified theory?

reply to post by Mary Rose
It's not weak, Mary. What I asked you, based entirely on what you posted, is about as simple and as clear and as crushingly relevant as it's possible to be on this thread.

Haramein's Schwarzschild proton theory, which you repeatedly quote extensively from, and which this thread is entirely about, is concerned with the force between protons.

The simplest and clearest and most basic possible question you can ask of it is: "What is the force between protons?"

Haramein's theory gives an answer that is as simple and as clear as possible. He gives it directly in his paper, and his answer is greater than can be opposed by any force in the universe.

Observing nature reveals something that is also as simple and as clear and as basic as possible: that the force between protons is not even enough to hold two protons together.

You quote him saying this "matters little". Do you agree that the outcome of the most simple and clear and basic and direct and relevant question possible for a theory of the force between protons "matters little"? Or don't you?

Click here for more information.

The topic of this thread is: “Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?”, not each other.
Please focus on the topic.
Thank you.

Originally posted by Bobathon
As I said last time you brought up this quote, the fact that there are only a few hundred hits for the term "Schwarzschild condition" on Google, the majority of which are either by Haramein himself or people quoting Haramein, should be enough to illustrate that, once again, what he is saying here is utterly untrue.

I noticed that and I never heard of "Schwarzchild condition" before, however I have heard of "Schwarzchild radius".

One could say they both have the word "Schwarzchild", but an analogy shows why this doesn't exonerate Haramein:

I've heard of something called "Polar Bears" before. If you replace the word "Polar" with "condition" and claim that "condition bear" is a commonly known animal, this is analogous to what Haramein is doing. But both expressions have the word "bears", so am I being overly picky by saying "condition bear" isn't a commonly known animal? I don't think so.

But what do you expect from a guy who hasn't yet figured out why a 3D cube has volume and claims it doesn't?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
3D cube has volume and claims it doesn't?

You're paraphrasing a story Haramein told during his presentation at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library in 2003 about the way a teacher went about teaching geometry.

Of course, all of us know that context is everything in understanding what is communicated.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I never heard of "Schwarzchild condition" before

Perhaps that's because you're not familiar with relativistic physics papers?

From the Manifesto:

To question our use of the term clearly shows the gentleman's lack of familiarity with the subject. The following are two examples, selected more or less at random, from the current literature of the use of the term "Schwarzschild condition". First we have:

Yuan-xing and Liu Liao, A comparison of the entropies of collapsing stars and black holes, Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics Volume 6, Issue 2, June 1982, Pages 157-163. See: http://(link tracking not allowed)/dhWRPl
From their Abstract:

"We considered three modes of black hole formation: (I) a black hole kernel first forms at the centre of a collapsing star and as the outer matter falls, the kernel grows until the whole star becomes a black hole; (II) all the layers of a collapsing simultaneously satisfy the Schwarzschild condition; (III) the outermost layer first satisfies the Schwarzschild condition." [emphasis added]

As a second example, see:

Csaba Balazs and Istvan Szapudi, Naturalness of the Vacuum Energy in Holographic Theories. See: arxiv.org... , February 2008.
From their page 2:

"More precisely, a system that saturates the holographic bound also satisfies the Schwarzschild condition, i.e. its maximal mass is the half of its radius in Planck units." [emphasis added]

Originally posted by Mary Rose

reply to post by Bobathon

 

The fact that you refuse to answer chapter and verse - claiming "there's nothing there" - the lengthy Manifesto that Haramein put together because of your vitriolic, disrespectful attacks on him - tells me that whatever you point out is from your limited viewpoint as compared to his.

I've written entire articles about that, and I've responded at length with real issues whenever you've raised anything. So that's utterly untrue.

You, however, have never responded to a single question I've put to you about anything you've said, Mary Rose. So it's also deeply ironic.

I haven't done any vitriolic, disprespectful attacks on him. I don't see any reason to respect him, and I've shown his physics to be ridiculous, but there are no vitriolic attacks. So that's untrue too.

Haramein accuses me of "unfamiliarity with the subject" based entirely on his claim that "Schwarzschild condition" is a "commonly used term", and you've quoted him saying this several times. Unless relativistic physicists don't use the internet, that claim is clearly untrue.

I've asked you the simplest and clearest and most relevant question possible about Haramein's theory and the fact that it gets it wrong, and his nonsensical claim that it "matters little" (which you have also quoted several times), and you've completely ignored it.

This is a silly place.

Originally posted by Bobathon
I haven't done any vitriolic, disprespectful attacks on him.

Your words:

. . . He's also a master story-teller. Physics could really do with more people who can communicate like him . . . . but . . . are a bit less self-obsessed and self-promoting . . .

. . . He is not – as he claims – a physicist. He's a fraud. . . .

. . . has nothing but charisma and a silvery tongue.

. . . Cultivating the image of being a serious scientist by making misleading and false claims in order to attract paying followers is a serious abuse of trust. . . .

Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon

Do You Dr Paul LaViolette He Haves the same Theory of Nassim ,even BETTER i Think

Paul explains that less intense superwaves, which recur with considerable frequency, could also pose a threat. He cites evidence that the galactic center has erupted as many as ten times in the last 2,000 years, the most recent event occurring about 700 years ago. While these low intensity events could have passed unnoticed in earlier centuries, today they could be extremely hazardous. The EMP [electromagnetic pulse] accompanying such a superwave could knock out electrical power grids and communication networks on a global scale. Consequently, argues Paul, study of this phenomenon deserves a very high priority, and he founded The Starburst Foundation to do this www.youtube.com...