Non of us are too old to learn - just don't discredit Harramein based on Einsteins special relativity, because that would be foolish in the extreme IMHO.

Cheers

I guess it's OK then to discredit him because he doesn't know the difference between the radius and the wavelength of a proton? Or because he obviously has never seen a helium balloon float, because he says that the 4 protons in each molecule would weigh 3400 tons? Per molecule? So, if you figure the volume of a10 inch helium balloon, you would end up with about .4 moles of helium (at STP) or 1.5x10^23 molecules. That helium balloon would, using his numbers, have a mass of about 5x10^26 tons. That's 5 with 26 zeroes behind it tons. Discredit away.

edit on 4-12-2010 by 4nsicphd because: commas gone bad

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
I like this concept, however I fear just like string theory, all the pieces of the master jigsaw puzzle can be made to fit together... but the issue is the picture is all messed up.

Then why do you like it? I thought you were more discriminating than that? I can't find anything to like about something so deeply flawed and fictitious.

You are right it is deeply flawed and fictitious, I like it because it is a beautiful piece of math that describes something that is in visualization is very aesthetic.

I like ideas that have complexity built from simplicity, this part of the theory is I believe the truth, I do believe in a single unifying field. Though I suggest that this field is space-time itself and the most fundamental levels of our reality dissolve to a point of complete chaos where simple randomness gives rise to the order we see at our level of reality.

So in essence the mood of the paper is in sync with what nature is about, however it's completely the wrong picture.



Korg.

Haha, the guy had a physics peer review in a computer conference!!!

I find it interesting - that it seems to be "de rigour here" - for anyone who disagrees with an idea, to attack the person who posted it, rather than debunk the information they posted.

I see that as a sign of weakness.

For example the intimation is that Einsteins special relativty theory underwent a rigorous peer review process before it was published by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.

That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness.

But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error. Why did no one catch the obvious error?

It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review.

Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien, won Nobel Prizes themselves. They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.

It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year. Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers." For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal.

It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists. But not so.

**Perhaps someone could direct me to the library collection that holds the peer review comments of the scientific peers of Einstein who peer reviewed his Special relativity paper - I'd very much like to read them!**.

Ohh - maybe Einstein just passed his papers out at a "computer" conerence - ha ha ha..

**A link to the peer review comments anyone?**

Cheers

Originally posted by ianmoone1
I find it interesting - that it seems to be "de rigour here" - for anyone who disagrees with an idea, to attack the person who posted it, rather than debunk the information they posted.

I find lots of posts in this thread debunking the claims in his paper so I'm not buying your claim we are attacking the person and not his work, we are in fact attacking both his technical claims and his claim of peer review. He invited the latter by making a false claim of peer review, when all he did was present the physics paper at a conference where the people reading it were not physicists but simply participants at a computer conference.

If you were arguing that Einstein made a false claim his paper was peer reviewed when it wasn't, and since Einstein did that, it it's ok for Haramein to also do that, the Einstein peer review argument might be on topic, but that's not the argument you're making so it seems off topic to me.

It's also very ironic that you complain about people not focusing on the content of his work, and then make posts yourself that have almost nothing at all to do with Haramein's work. You need not scroll up any further than my recent post to find some aspects of his work we can discuss.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ianmoone1
I find it interesting - that it seems to be "de rigour here" - for anyone who disagrees with an idea, to attack the person who posted it, rather than debunk the information they posted.

I find lots of posts in this thread debunking the claims in his paper so I'm not buying your claim we are attacking the person and not his work, we are in fact attacking both his technical claims and his claim of peer review. He invited the latter by making a false claim of peer review, when all he did was present the physics paper at a conference where the people reading it were not physicists but simply participants at a computer conference.

If you were arguing that Einstein made a false claim his paper was peer reviewed when it wasn't, and since Einstein did that, it it's ok for Haramein to also do that, the Einstein peer review argument might be on topic, but that's not the argument you're making so it seems off topic to me.

It's also very ironic that you complain about people not focusing on the content of his work, and then make posts yourself that have almost nothing at all to do with Haramein's work. You need not scroll up any further than my recent post to find some aspects of his work we can discuss.

edit on 4-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

I hear you - but maybe the irony was lost on you afterall - just as I claimed..

1. No one has been able to "prove" that Einsteins special realtivity paper was peer reviwed.
(Just as no one has been able to prove that Harrameins wasn't).

2. The "debunking" of Harrameins paper uses Einstens non peer reviewed Special Relativity, as its basis to proclaim Harrameins non Peer Reviwed Numbers/ mathematics flawed!.

The irony was in using Einsteins non peer reviwed and obvously wrong numbered, scientific methododology based physics, to try to debunk Harrameins apparently non peer reviewed Paper.

I said that was inherrently dangerous as an argument (he said / she said), reasoning.

It appears the irony was lost on you perhaps, using rubbery figures to defend rubbery figuires.

I used a few numbers myself in the thread I referenced including Einsteins own 21 equationn set for the solution to the Mitchellson Morley light speed experiment that gave us his much vaunted but non peer reviwed and obviously flawed "Special Realivity theorem".

I also showed the obvious Math error that Einstein made - alog with the paradoxical outcome that ocurs when you start with a flase premise.

I showed where he went wrong in hispostulations in that he never allowed for a space ether orbiting at the same relative velocity as the earth rotation about it's own axis.

So far here - I'm the oNLY one whos gone to any great legt to disprove Einstein or show any validity for Harrameins work.

It seems to me that poularity or opinions are all that counts -actual phtysics or mathematics holds no sway - its more important what people thing - and be damned the figures.

So physics should be based just on popularity of an opinion - and not on solid science or mathematics.

Who'd have thought that a popularity poll was all that was required to find the grand unification theorem!.

So far I can definitely say that I'm "underwhelmed" by the depth of scientific thought process displayed here in this thread.

Were I Einstein or Harramein - would I bother to try to explain anything or debate anything in this forum?

I could - using the rationale used here to date in this thread - equally label Einstein a Fraud as I Could Harramein using the same parameters & logic.

I find it all somewhat Ironic as i suspect that either Einstein or Harramein themselves might.

Cheers.

Originally posted by ianmoone1
I find it interesting - that it seems to be "de rigour here" - for anyone who disagrees with an idea, to attack the person who posted it, rather than debunk the information they posted.

I see that as a sign of weakness.

For example the intimation is that Einsteins special relativty theory underwent a rigorous peer review process before it was published by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.

That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness.

But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error. Why did no one catch the obvious error?

It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review.

Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921. Wilhelm Wien won the Nobel prize in physics in 1911. Max Planck won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1918.

The papers on the photoelectric effect and special relativity were published in 1905.

BUT...dont forget, although not finished, the UFT is STILL engineerable.

Ahh... One of the best topics at the frontier of physics is discussing the relevancy of Haramein's ideas. Brings out some interesting ad hominem and appeal-to-authority...

4 forces:

Strong & Weak 'nuclear' forces

EM & Gravity


Weak has been folded into EM, in Electro-weak theory.

Haramein is folding Strong into Gravity.


So, Electro-weak and Gravity-strong

Radiation and Condensation

+ and -


Whether Haramein is correct about the amount of Zero Point Energy/Vacuum density inside the radius of a 'proton', that is a crucial point.

It seems to me, that the most simple dynamic to reconcile these two fundamental forces(which IMO is what we are looking at in future UF theories) is exactly what Haramein/Rodin suppose.

Vortex fluid dynamics in toroid geometry, like a smoke or bubble ring. A constant feedback loop, just like what J.A. Wheeler talked about.


Haters gonna hate...

Originally posted by beebs



Whether Haramein is correct about the amount of Zero Point Energy/Vacuum density inside the radius of a 'proton', that is a crucial point.

How can he conceivably be correct "about the amount of Zero Point Energy/Vacuum density inside the radius of a 'proton' when he doesn't even know what the radius of a proton is?