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: 17
33
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Relational Self-Similar Space-Time Cosmology Revisited" by John J. Kineman, Ph.D. of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado


In the above paper what is the first inaccurate statement Dr. Kineman makes?




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I see on Haramein's website that the Schwarzschild Proton paper has been cited in a paper published by the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS). The paper is entitled "Relational Self-Similar Space-Time Cosmology Revisited" by John J. Kineman, Ph.D. of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado.


I like the interdisciplinary approach of the ISSS:


ISSS...
Origin and Purpose of the ISSS

The International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) is among the first and oldest organizations devoted to interdisciplinary inquiry into the nature of complex systems, and remains perhaps the most broadly inclusive. The Society was initially conceived in 1954 at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Kenneth Boulding, Ralph Gerard, and Anatol Rapoport. In collaboration with James Grier Miller, it was formally established as an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1956. Originally founded as the Society for General Systems Research, the society adopted its current name in 1988 to reflect its broadening scope.

The initial purpose of the society was "to encourage the development of theoretical systems which are applicable to more than one of the traditional departments of knowledge," with the following principal aims:

* to investigate the isomorphy of concepts, laws, and models in various fields, and to help in useful transfers from one field to another;
* to encourage the development of adequate theoretical models in areas which lack them;
* to eliminate the duplication of theoretical efforts in different fields; and
* to promote the unity of science through improving the communication among specialists.

In the intervening years, the ISSS has expanded its scope beyond purely theoretical and technical considerations to include the practical application of systems methodologies to problem solving. Even more importantly, it has provided a forum where scholars and practitioners from across the disciplinary spectrum, representing academic, business, government, and non-profit communities, can come together to share ideas and learn from one another. Please contact us for further information.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Mary,


I like the interdisciplinary approach of the ISSS


You do because (just like Vedantic component in Kineman's writings) it allows you to skip learning hard sciences.
It's much easier to discuss meditation and aromatherapy than to do 1 (one) problem in relativistic physics.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Actually, you can't speak for me.

You can only speak for yourself.

I'm looking at the big picture.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Additionally, "meditation and aromatherapy" have nothing whatever to do with Haramein's theory, other than the fact that he is smart enough to use meditation to gain insight with which to identify falsehoods and seek the truth.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


As far as I can tell, the answer to your objection lies here:


even our own sun and the atomic structure that makes up our reality is centered by black hole dynamics, or what he calls the spin horizon of a white whole/black whole.


Key words would be "dynamics" and "white whole/black whole."



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
 

I'm looking at the big picture.




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Relational Self-Similar Space-Time Cosmology Revisited" by John J. Kineman, Ph.D. of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado


In the above paper what is the first inaccurate statement Dr. Kineman makes?
You can't expect to ask any more questions and get any answers until you answer Bobathon's question about Haramein's comment that "It matters little how 'stupidly big' something is.", item #2 here: azureworld.blogspot.com...

He must have asked it a half dozen times and you ignore it every time, yet you want your questions answered?

Communication is a two-way street. At least it's supposed to be. You like to ask questions but have avoided answering them.

As an aside, while I don't object to discussing Kineman to the extent his work may have similarities to Haramein and may be on topic in that respect, Bobathon's question is more on topic since it's a product of correspondence between him and Haramein who is the topic of this thread.

If it's over your head, and you're not prepared to defend your (or Haramein's) claims, then just stop making claims and we won't ask you to defend them.

But if you are going to make claims, then you should expect people might ask you to defend them. As a corollary to that, if you are unable or unwilling to defend the claims you make (such as you claiming Haramein isn't a fraud when he says "It matters little how 'stupidly big' something is"), you can't expect anyone to take your claims seriously, or pay any attention to them.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You should be well aware of the fact that I make no claim of having an expertise in physics - unlike you and others who ridicule Haramein.

And you should be well aware that my posts in response to Bobathon are to establish a record of Haramein's response to Bobathon's ridicule.

If you don't want to show your expertise by answering my question - that's your choice.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Actually, you can't speak for me.
You can only speak for yourself.
I'm looking at the big picture.


Wait, are you saying here that you already aced relativistic physics and are ready for the "big picture"?

Or the big picture for you is relating a particular chakra to one of special sub-space dimensions which resonate with the frequency of Cosmic Consciousness while revealing the fractal nature of genesis and eschatology according to Haramein?

As I said before, I have nothing against New Age and don't care if you meditate on some of the finest crystals (currently on sale at Woodstock), It's quite silly nevertheless to drag either Einstein or physics into that.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You should be well aware of the fact that I make no claim of having an expertise in physics - unlike you and others who ridicule Haramein.


Then, in the spirit of honesty, you really should close that thread and have the mods to remove it. How can you even start talking about "unified field theory" if by your own admission you have no clue of what it might mean?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


If you'll recall, my interest in meditation is within the context of my interest in Haramein's DVD set, which I found very interesting and thought-provoking.

Haramein is a self-taught, self-directed seeker of truth who doesn't go along to get along and perseveres despite ridicule. I hope he continues to gain recognition from open-minded people. I hope free-energy technology ceases to be suppressed as a result of his efforts and the efforts of people like him.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I hope he continues to gain recognition from open-minded people.


Sorry to rain on your paraede, but since "recognition" in this case means being oblivious to observable facts in favor of some half cooked dogma, this will only appeal to people with no understanding of physics and a strong desire to escape from reality. I'm not saying this is as bad as the Heaven's Gate, but hardly more meaningful.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Actually, Haramein is extremely observant.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Actually, Haramein is extremely observant.


Yes, like he misses the fact that the proton actually has structure. That's astute.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yes, like he misses the fact that the proton actually has structure. That's astute.
To me that's one of the most self-evident flaws in his theory that even someone with little physics background should have major problems with.

Bobathon raised this issue also, and I've not seen Haramein address it.

If Haramein hasn't observed there's internal structure to the proton, or at least noted others have observed structure which should be impossible to observe if his theory was true, then he is indeed not very observant about the facts and evidence relating to his theory.

On a simpler note saying a cube is "non-existence to the fourth" isn't exactly very observant either. Mary, does it really help if I quote it in context? If anything it looks worse that way to me:

Haramein presentation at Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library 2003

Google Video Link



"he made a line and he said this is dimension 1 and it doesn’t exist, either; it still doesn’t have volume. And I thought that seems consistent to me. Then he made a square of dots and said this is the dimension that your comic strip lives in. This is dimension 2D and it still doesn’t exist; it still doesn’t have volume. And I thought, although this is a bizarre approach, it was consistent so far. But then he did something that seemed like a miracle. He grabbed 6 of these planes and put them together on the blackboard - made a cube, and said this is dimension 3 - that one you exist in. . . .

"I was in the back of the room and I'm like...Oh my God, how can that be? And I could tell that all the other kids were like "huh?" But nobody was saying anything. I wasn't about to put my hand up because I knew the next thing that was going to happen was the door was gonna get opened and I was gonna get kicked out again. So I didn't want to do that.

“It doesn’t make sense; that was a mystery cube. If you make a dot that doesn’t exist that makes a line that doesn’t exist that makes a plane that doesn’t exist - you slap 6 non-existing planes together - you don’t get existence. All you get is non-existence to the 4th. It's got nothing to do with existence."

He's not very observant because it has everything to do with existence. The cube isn't the 6 planes, it's the volume enclosed by the 6 planes and it does exist. If he had bothered to raise his hand maybe the teacher would have explained it more clearly, but instead now we have to listen to a guy claiming to be a physicist tell us how he never grasped basic geometry? How observant is that?

And if the fact that he didn't figure it out then and didn't ask a question isn't bad enough, he still hasn't figured it out, and what's worse yet, he brags about it. No, he's not very observant.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Wow lets be mature here people.

Mary keeps posting information, and you others just keep badgering on about nonsense.

Everybody is crazy who has an open mind, aren't they?

Forget Haramein's(I mean RAUSCHER'S) math, DISCUSS THE THEORETICAL IDEA.

Quit talking about how Haramein and Kineman are 'not qualified' - that is a BS excuse to avoid discussing the general idea.

Until you address the works of Pauli & Jung(their correspondences on the 'psycho-physical' problem), Keely, Tesla, Searl, Rodin... until you address them all together and in their respective contexts you will just keep spouting insults and self-aggrandizing perpetuation.

These people are not inherently wrong because you disagree. You must study them and philosophy of science in general.

Theoretical Physics is theoretical physics. The probing reductionism of experimental physics will NEVER get the complete picture until you learn to accept the irrational side of interdependent QM, and to see things complementarily.

We must imagine what we cannot observe, as it is functional BEFORE we probe it. All the data we have from experimental physics is data from a changed system, it is not data of the functional whole.

Sorry for the rant, but I get so peeved when I just read bickering... and therefore I must bicker myself!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Wow lets be mature here people.


That's what I've been saying long along! Nobody listens.


Mary keeps posting information, and you others just keep badgering on about nonsense.


Fantasy doesn't count as information, and relegating elementary logic and attention to facts to the status of "nonsense" is frankly quite scary.


Forget Haramein's(I mean RAUSCHER'S) math, DISCUSS THE THEORETICAL IDEA.


Theoretical ideas in physics are expressed as math and required to have both descriptive and predictive power. You can't discuss nebulous concepts which contradict hard and well established facts, in good faith.


Quit talking about how Haramein and Kineman are 'not qualified' - that is a BS excuse to avoid discussing the general idea.


Au contraire, this I suppose is pretty evident. "Vedantic approach" does not a scientist make.


Until you address the works of Pauli & Jung(their correspondences on the 'psycho-physical' problem), Keely, Tesla, Searl, Rodin... until you address them all together and in their respective contexts you will just keep spouting insults and self-aggrandizing perpetuation.


That's a pretty lame attempt at deflection. The topic title was not "Pauli&Jung", but a specific individual "Haramein" and how he somehow "fulfilled Einstein's dream of a unified field theory". Never mind that Mary hardly knows what field theory is.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beebs
Forget Haramein's(I mean RAUSCHER'S) math, DISCUSS THE THEORETICAL IDEA.


Theoretical ideas in physics are expressed as math and required to have both descriptive and predictive power. You can't discuss nebulous concepts which contradict hard and well established facts, in good faith.

Well you can in forums like metaphysics, or skunk works, where standards of evidence are low, but in this science and technology forum where the standards of evidence are higher, be expected to receive hard challenges when claims directly contradict observations and be prepared to defend those claims. If you're not prepared to defend science claims with scientific evidence, then post in another forum, like, maybe even religion, since the belief in something in the absence of (and sometimes in contradiction to) facts is really more religion than science.

I'd be pretty inquisitive of a theoretical string theorist if one posted a claim here that they had created a unified field theory with string theory. But exactly as buddhasystem said, I expect the string theorist would at least be able to back up the claims with some serious math.

The math in raised in some of the questions by Bobathon isn't really all that hard like:

What proton mass do we observe? A teeny tiny fraction of a gram? Or 885 million tons as Haramein''s theory shows? I mean how hard is that math? Do you even have to know any math or physics to know the mass of a proton is less than one ton? Not much, I say.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



"Vedantic approach" does not a scientist make.

That's a pretty lame attempt at deflection. The topic title was not "Pauli&Jung", but a specific individual "Haramein" and how he somehow "fulfilled Einstein's dream of a unified field theory". Never mind that Mary hardly knows what field theory is.


It doesn't mean he isn't a scientist if he is interested in a bit of philosophy as well. (you will call it 'religion', of course...
)

Well, if you won't do the research and put Haramein's ideas in proper academic and historical context then I don't know where to go from here.

Did you really need to throw that jab in there at the end? Somehow, you just couldn't resist elbowing your way above others.

Tell me... do you think that Darwin's evolution through natural selection is best summed up as the 'survival of the fittest'?

Sounds like a random question, I know. But it has great significance in the way people think.

Peace.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join