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

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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. .

Exactly. There's a whole host of forums on this site to post far out stuff but the amount of "EINSTEIN WAS WRONG AND I HAVE PROOF!" or "AMAZING NEW BREAKTHROUGH BY JON DOE (a car salesman by trade) SHOWS ALL SCIENCE IS A LIE!" threads in this forum is getting ridiculous. By all means chip in with your opinions but the level of ignorance people have of science yet are prepared defend to the hilt all sorts of quackery in the face of actual scientific research that says otherwise is really worrying. Science isn't some sort of elitist club but if you want to discuss things on a scientific basis then at least get the basic methodology right.

Originally posted by beebs
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.

Again, since certain people call him a "physicist", the only context I need to know is physics, not shamanism, not Kabbala and not Oriental acupuncture. For starters, a set of readily observable experimental facts do give context in which Haramein's ideas are false. Objective reality does not depend on "historical context", this is laughable.

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

Was what I say not true? ATS is not well served when someone keeps dishing out opinions unsupported by facts and nuances of which are beyond their comprehension. I wouldn't argue details of music theory here, just out of respect for others. This doesn't mean that some professional musician "elbows" his way "above me".

reply to post by buddhasystem

Again, since certain people call him a "physicist", the only context I need to know is physics, not shamanism, not Kabbala and not Oriental acupuncture. For starters, a set of readily observable experimental facts do give context in which Haramein's ideas are false. Objective reality does not depend on "historical context", this is laughable.

Yep. You are right. Physics has nothing to do with philosophy or history whatsoever. Science stands objectively alone from our presuppositions and the questions we ask. We are independent from what we observe.

Physics is the grail of reductionism, and science is omnipotently correct.

Science as it is now is finished, we have reached the peak of our knowing what the world is like.

Yeah right.

...

I can also be sarcastic and provide straw man positions which are obviously ridiculous.

Who said Shamanism, Qabbalah, and acupuncture?! You did.

That was not the context I was speaking of. I am talking about the context of history and philosophy of science. This includes reviewing similar cases to Haramein's, and comparing and contrasting their ideas.

Keely, Tesla, Pauli (& Jung), Searl, Rodin, Haramein, Kepler, Fludd, alchemy and 'pre-science', corporate influence, 'normal science' and Kuhn, etc. etc.

Originally posted by beebs
Science as it is now is finished, we have reached the peak of our knowing what the world is like.

Yeah right.

Yeah right -- except nobody said that!

Who said Shamanism, Qabbalah, and acupuncture?! You did.

But of course I did. If I write a paper on experimental validation of Newton's laws in non-relativistic case, this is what I do. I don't conjure up "history and philosophy" to patch holes in my logic, setup of the experiment, my own shoddy tradecraft and/or lack of adequate education. No study of Tesla can exonerate crappy work. And neither can Shamanism which is about as relevant, duh.

Originally posted by beebs
That was not the context I was speaking of. I am talking about the context of history and philosophy of science. This includes reviewing similar cases to Haramein's, and comparing and contrasting their ideas.

Keely, Tesla, Pauli (& Jung), Searl, Rodin, Haramein, Kepler, Fludd, alchemy and 'pre-science', corporate influence, 'normal science' and Kuhn, etc. etc.

First, do you really see similarities between Rodin's stuff and the topic of this thread, Haramein's so called Unified Field Theory? Because I don't.

And as you pointed out yourself in the Rodin thread, the proper forum for that is philosophy and metaphysics:

Philosophy and Metaphysics: This new AboveTopSecret.com forum is for the discussion of a wide range of non-religous topics: Consciousness, Mind, Epistemology, Psychology, Philosophy, Metaphysics, Self-Empowerment, Knowledge and also fringe subjects such as Mind-Control and Psychotronic Manipulation. All in all this will be an \"intellectual & philosophical cafe\" with a focus on everything from mental relaxing and non-religious personal balance, to conspiracies and speculation related to influencing the mind.

ATS has plenty of forums and welcomes discussions on the appropriate topics in the appropriate forums.

The science forum is not the place to post about 885 million ton protons. The simplest search for known observational evidence would show that believing protons are this massive is at best a religious belief, and at worst, some kind of difficulty with cognitive perception. Even when discussed in the philosphy forum as a psychological topic, I see the topic of believing in 885 million ton protons as a cognitve issue which Emory University psychology course PSYC410s discusses:

www.psychology.emory.edu...

PSYC 410S: Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology...

Particular emphasis will be placed on (a) both the strengths and limitations of human reasoning processes and (b) acquiring thinking tools to avoid being fooled by misleading claims in daily life.

Texts: Shermer, M. (2002). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time (2 nd edition). New York: Owl. Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (2nd edition). Amherst, New York: Prometheus. Wynn, C.M., & Wiggins, A.W. (2001). Quantum leaps in the wrong direction: Where real science ends and pseudoscience begins. Washington, D.C.: John Henry Press. Kida, T. (2006). Don't believe everything you think. Amherst, New York: Prometheus.

So maybe studying Haramein's belief in 885 million ton protons is more relevant in that psychological context? How does a person come to have beliefs with such an obvious disconnect to real-life observations? It is an interesting topic and one I'm genuinely curious about since the phenomenon is more widespread than I thought and is by no means limited to Haramein. But it's a topic for the Psychology/ philosophy and Metaphysics forum.

The question still being asked in this science forum thread about 885 million ton protons is, where is the observational evidence for 885 million ton protons? Since this question has never been answered by anyone, nor have any of the other science questions been answered relating to Haramein's work, there's really not much more to say about it in the science forum since there's no observational evidence to back it up.

But it's certainly an interesting psychological topic to understand how people can come to believe such extreme fantasies like 885 million ton protons in obvious contradiction to observational evidence, to discuss in the other forum on psychology, philosophy and metaphysics.

Originally posted by beebs

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

How anyone can read the genuine efforts several of us have made to clarify issues, answer questions, raise extremely relevant problems, stay true to the topic and present our perspective in as meaningful and simple a way as possible, and then say that is absolutely beyond me.

I find it sickening.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

First, do you really see similarities between Rodin's stuff and the topic of this thread, Haramein's so called Unified Field Theory? Because I don't.

If you do not see the similarity, then you are not looking. Haramein likes the idea of a toroid dynamic of counter-rotating forces emanating from a singularity. For experimental evidence of a similar phenomenon, see: MAGNETISM.

Rodin is mathematically quantizing this dynamic.

Is that clear enough? I'm not sure how else to say it more simply.

I am not saying they are right, but that is the general idea they are trying to convey.

Regarding your topics on weight, I am not sure you are logically extrapolating the implications of Haramein's ideas.

It isn't just that ONE proton has the mass of the universe... it is EVERY atom.

The black hole or singularity at the center of the atom would exert quite a gravitational force on the proton, thus it would weigh an enormous amount.

But from a relativistic standpoint, this would be negligible since every other atom exhibits the same feature. If it were just one atom, then yes that would be quite ridiculous and everything would get sucked up into it.

Obviously, as you can see by looking around you, this is not the case - we are still here.

If our universe is inside a black hole, and every atom is a fractal layer in feedback with the whole, then I am not sure what that entails for concepts such as weight.

reply to post by Bobathon


Read through the top part of the last page, page 17, and tell me who was condescendingly and sarcastically badgering and who wasn't.

More and more, the responses are oriented towards diminishing Mary's credibility and rational capabilities(which you conflate with Harameins), rather than toroidal dynamics theory and whether or not black holes(or protons ) have structure inside them.

I'm sorry that you gang understand everything, and that we noobs are taking up your precious internet space!

ETA: Same damn thing with page 16, maybe worse. You guys do it to Kineman as well. Using strong rhetoric such as 'you are posting lies, cease and desist!' is the point I am getting at. Mary just kept posting more information to support Haramein in this debate, and you guys have a hissy fit and just yell "WRONG! Stop posting that stuff its illegal!". But you don't come up with anything better yourselves... I guess that is the role of the experimental physicist vs. the theoretical physicist. Just keep pretending everything is alright because you have observed it so it is without doubt objectively real, while ignoring the gaps in the theories and internal discrepancies over how the observations should be interpreted.

reply to post by beebs


Arbitrageur:

If someone (like Haramein) is trying to convince the scientific community to change a paradigm in the absence of evidence, it's not going to happen and ridicule shouldn't be a surprise.

Mary:

I don't buy your argument about evidence

You:

More and more, the responses are oriented towards diminishing Mary's credibility and rational capabilities

In view of the above, are you really surprised, with respect to say "rational capabilities"?

Let me quote the AmWay promotional tape again: "if you believe strong enough, facts don't matter". Seems that sentiment prevails in some quarters.

I'm tired of listing examples of how Haramein contradicts readily observable data. It's like he has a brand new theory that the sky at noon is actually of bright red color and you believe him because it's a paradigm derived from "Vedantic studies" and "looking at the bigger picture", as Mary says. And she doesn't seem to care that the sky is indeed blue.

reply to post by beebs
You aren't trying to defend those lies are you?

The article clearly claimed that another article about supermassive black holes confirmed Haramein's work regarding atomic sized black holes. Do you understand the difference between supermassive black holes and atomic sized black holes?

And yes, I will challenge the reading comprehension abilities of anyone who fails to recognize this difference. Atomic sized black holes are not supermassive black holes, and supermassive black holes are not atomic sized black holes. This is not some esoteric concept in physics that requires a lot of math, it's about as simple as it gets.

An article about supermassive black holes is no way any type of confirmation about atomic sized black holes and to claim otherwise is just as silly as claims about 885 ton protons.

Originally posted by beebs
It isn't just that ONE proton has the mass of the universe... it is EVERY atom.

Bobathon said 885 million tons, and now you're saying it's the mass of the universe?

The black hole or singularity at the center of the atom would exert quite a gravitational force on the proton, thus it would weigh an enormous amount.

But from a relativistic standpoint, this would be negligible since every other atom exhibits the same feature. If it were just one atom, then yes that would be quite ridiculous and everything would get sucked up into it.

I don't follow your logic here.

You say if it's just one proton it would exert a tremendous gravitational force.

Then you say if it's 2 protons it doesn't matter. It seems to me like if there's 2 protons in proximity to each other, as in say an atomic nucleus, each of them would be exerting this tremendous force on each other. In fact this is the concept behind Haramein's unified Field theory which supposedly explains the strong nuclear force, isn't it?

This is the aspect of Harameins' theory that Bobathon has asked Mary about over and over and over again, with no answer from Mary, about why Haramein says that "It matters little how 'stupidly big' something is. So what makes you think those 2 protons won't be pulling on each other with a "stupidly large' force? You admit to the huge force for a single proton, right?

It's like there's a complete denial of wanting to address the most basic aspects of the theory. And instead of resolving these fundamental issues, we see efforts to divert the discussion to things like supermassive black holes, or other topics that have nothing to do with the issues at hand in Haramein's paper.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Let me quote the AmWay promotional tape again: "if you believe strong enough, facts don't matter". Seems that sentiment prevails in some quarters.

Believe me... this point is hardly lost on me. It is so hard for me not to lose it discussing matters with you when you are on your high horse. You think experimental physics is the best thing ever, while on the other hand, the theoretical physicists (whose paradigm you are working in) are still arguing about what the atom is, and which interpretation of quantum mechanics is right, etc.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Do you understand the difference between supermassive black holes and atomic sized black holes?

One is big, the other is small.

Atomic sized black holes are not supermassive black holes, and supermassive black holes are not atomic sized black holes. This is not some esoteric concept in physics that requires a lot of math, it's about as simple as it gets.

Right... thanks. Got it. Big vs. Small.

Have I ever told you about the concept of self-similarity? Perhaps you are familiar with it... Fractal mathematics?

It isn't some esoteric concept either...

Might as well toss this one out in the rubbish pile as well:

Black holes surrounded by a magnetized torus or disk are believed to constitute the
central engines that power various high-energy sources, notably active galactic nuclei, galactic
microquasars, and gamma-ray bursts.

Theory and astrophysical consequences of a magnetized torus
around a rapidly rotating black hole

After all, it is plainly obvious to highly advanced humans such as ourselves that such a dynamic CAN NOT similarly operate at smaller scales. Surely we would be able to tell if this were the case. For example, there would be an intense force in the nucleus of atoms which held it together... as well as there would be magnetic charge radius's around the nucleus, perhaps in topological structures which behaved more like a wave-like field than classical particles... Nope.. can't be.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Oh man... come on now.

Haramein is the one who said it has the mass of the Universe.

One proton weighing 885 million tons in relation to every other proton NOT weighing 885 million tons would cause quite a ruckus.

But would one proton weighing 885 million tons cause a ruckus if EVERY OTHER proton weighed the same?

Originally posted by beebs

One proton weighing 885 million tons in relation to every other proton NOT weighing 885 million tons would cause quite a ruckus.

But would one proton weighing 885 million tons cause a ruckus if EVERY OTHER proton weighed the same?

Let's try and find some common ground.

Beebs, you're talking about mass here. To a physicist, mass has to mean something. The usual intuitive meaning would be the ratio of force to acceleration (inertial mass), or perhaps the ratio of weight to gravitational field strength (gravitational mass). These are things that can be measured, either directly or indirectly, in very well-defined ways.

I guess you're using the word in a different sense. Can you be specific about what you mean - say how you think it relates to things that can be observed?

I think it would help if we're talking the same language, that's all...

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Oh man... come on now.

Haramein is the one who said it has the mass of the Universe.

One proton weighing 885 million tons in relation to every other proton NOT weighing 885 million tons would cause quite a ruckus.

But would one proton weighing 885 million tons cause a ruckus if EVERY OTHER proton weighed the same?

This doesn't change the fact that a proton doesn't way 885 million tons!

The measurement system is still consistent, we would still measure 885 million tons when we measure a proton.
It is as simple as that.


And besides, if you could bring it upon yourself to believe that a proton weighs 885 million tons, then tell me why Nasseim fails to mention the hawking radiation that is supposed to come out from these mini black holes?

Is it because the hawking radiation would cause them to maybe, just maybe, radiate out until there is no more proton?

Originally posted by beebs
It isn't just that ONE proton has the mass of the universe... it is EVERY atom.

What happens if you form an ion, is there still a "black hole"? If yes, where? If you have a deutron, where is it located? Why?

The black hole or singularity at the center of the atom would exert quite a gravitational force on the proton, thus it would weigh an enormous amount.

Atom is a system with central nucleus and electrons bound to it. What exactly protons are you talking about? The ones in the nucleus? What about the neutrons? What happens when you scatter 2 protons off each other, like in colliding beams?

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
And besides, if you could bring it upon yourself to believe that a proton weighs 885 million tons, then tell me why Nasseim fails to mention the hawking radiation that is supposed to come out from these mini black holes?

Is it because the hawking radiation would cause them to maybe, just maybe, radiate out until there is no more proton?

No, it's because the math beyond Hawking radiation is way, way, way beyond his grasp. One can take a formula for Schwarzschild radius and plug in an arbitrary radius like proton and calculate an equally arbitrary mass, using just third-grade math all the way. You will have considerably less luck describing Hawking radiation with the same set of tools and capabilities.

reply to post by Bobathon


Sounds good.

Well, I understand where you are coming from. That was the reason I was intentionally using the word weight, because I was assuming that a ton is a measure of weight, not mass.

An object's mass is a fundamental unchanging property of the object. An object's mass will not change by moving the object to a different location or changing the object's environment in any way. For example, a 70 kg astronaut will have a mass of 70 kg on Earth, in the space shuttle, on Mars, or anyplace else in the universe. The astronaut will however have a different weight at all these locations.

Understanding Mass and Weight

Notice that weight is a force not a mass. Unlike mass, an objects weight depends on its location. The astronaut mentioned above will have a different weight, but the same mass, on the Moon, Mars, and other locations because the gravitational force varies.

I am unsure where the 885 million tons came from. I remember we talked about it before, but I have since lost where that number came from.

Are tons like kg or lbs?

Mass or Weight?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Do you not understand yet that I do not DENY your experimental observations?

I am merely coming at this whole thing with the opposite set of presuppositions than you are.

You are reductionist, classical, objective reality isolated independently from observer.

I am holistic, quantum, interdependent reality which is not independent from observer.

reply to post by beebs
Haramein gives the figure as the mass of the proton. If it's worth defending, it surely must mean something to you. What does it mean to you?