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: 20
33
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You were talking about black holes and internal structure...


Its like your internet ego requires you to only think and discuss in the comfort of your own technical jargon. You try to trick other people with the most specific of details... just so you can go "AHA! See, I'm smarter!"

When in reality physics is not nearly so esoteric, you just want to maintain that it is because then you can talk over people.

The difference between a proton in a PA and a proton in the brain... is exactly that.


My presuppositions say they are different because of the whole system which they are in.
edit on 27-1-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Force cannot exist without mass, mass cannot exist without force.

Is all of that correct?
It's pretty close, though saying mass cannot exist without force I would rephrase a bit.

The m=f/a you mentioned is inertial mass, the central property of mass in this diagram:

en.wikipedia.org...

We talk about something called "zero-g" though there's really no such thing if the measurements are accurate enough, as long as the universe isn't empty there's always gravity from something, however we can for large objects make an approximation of zero-g in a micro-gravity field, say at the point in space where the net gravitational fields coming from the Earth, moon and sun approximate something close to zero.

If you put a 1 kg mass at this point in space there are forces but they roughly net out to zero. But that mass doesn't cease to exist just because the net effective force is zero. In fact that mass emits its own gravitational flux, which would be the property of mass at the top of the diagram.You may not see any force manifested until you say brought a paper clip near the mass, and released it and observe the paper clip falling toward the mass due to its gravitational flux.

And then there's the quantum mass at the bottom.

But now that you've defined what mass is, then what units shall we use, say a kilogram? And how do you define a kilogram?

Once you define what a kilogram is, and how you measure it, then you can answer this question:


Originally posted by beebs
What I am saying, is that if every proton has an inherent mass of 1 unit, that unit could be 1.7e-27 kg or it could be 1.7e27 kg. (Currently, we see it as 1.7e-27 kg)

How are we supposed to tell the difference, when one would appear the same as the other? (or would they)

In other words, how do we prove that 1.7e-27 kg is inherently 1.7e-27 kg, and it is not just another instance of our human arbitrariness applied to nature?
You are correct about human arbitrariness, if you are referring to the unit of a kilogram. If we defined a kilogram to have a mass comparable to a grain of sand we'd have one system of units. If we defined a kilogram to have a mass comparable to the sun, then we'd have another system of units. As it turns out, we chose an arbitrary value somewhere in-between. So yes the kilogram is arbitrary. However, once it's defined, it is a defined amount.

And then your question about whether a kilogram could be be trillions of times smaller than we defined it, or trillions of times larger than we defined it could be answered "yes" if we chose to define it differently.

But, once you use the accepted definition of a kilogram, then the amounts you ask about, 1.7e-27 kg versus 1.7e+27 kg, are no longer arbitrary values, they then become defined values. So if we measure the mass of something using a defined kilogram, those values are not arbitrary.

Now, if you claimed that a kilogram is not a defined value yet, and you could arbitrarily define a kilogram as anything you want and yes there could be 54 orders of magnitude of difference in 2 possible definitions like the 1.7e-27 kg versus 1.7e+27 kg you suggest however I would rewrite that as 1.7e-27 kg-def-1 versus 1.7e+27 kg-def-2 as kilogram definition 1 and definition 2 as that would mean there are two different definitions for the kilogram.

But you aren't claiming that the kilogram isn't a defined value yet, are you?

We all agreed (well, most of us, anyway) to use the same definition of kilogram back in 1889 when we defined a kilogram to be equal to the mass of the "International Prototype Kilogram". which is a chuck of platinum alloy kept in a vault and rechecked every few decades.

Once we define a kilogram, then the difference between 1.7e-27 kg versus 1.7e+27 kg is no longer arbitrary, and hasn't been since 1889, right?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
You were talking about black holes and internal structure...


Yes, because talking of a proton as a black hole invites a question of how we observe (with greater precision now than 40 years ago) its internal structure in so much detail).


Its like your internet ego requires you to only think and discuss in the comfort of your own technical jargon. You try to trick other people with the most specific of details... just so you can go "AHA! See, I'm smarter!"


It's not "jargon", it's a pretty basic knowledge of the subject. I suppose this is a modest pre-requisite to having a meaningful discussion. You, however, eschew that and instead describe yourself as "quantum, holistic thinker", which indeed is a jargon and possibly an admission that you don't know jack.


When in reality physics is not nearly so esoteric, you just want to maintain that it is because then you can talk over people.


How much of the paper I linked to, do you understand?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Mass is an inherent property of matter or energy due to its inertia.

I posted a definition, and then asked you for further qualification as to what we shall call tons in this discussion.

Instead, you have posited that I am clueless and irrelevant.
No I didn't.

I said "Haramein gives the figure as the mass of the proton" in answer to whether the 'tons' referred to mass or weight. It refers to mass in Haramein's paper.

What I said was that your use of 'mass' (or tons or whatever) seems to be meaningless to me, so I asked you to show that it wasn't meaningless by explaining what you meant by it.


For the record: Haramein's ideas MUST be viewed in a proper context, and not as a 'crazy lone gunman'. Since this context is outside of normal science and has been suppressed, you will not be familiar with it and it will sound alien to you.
In that case, it is pointless throwing out dozens and dozens of ideas and long lists of names at us. For there to be any real communication, I think it would be better to stop and look at one thing at a time, and go into some detail of what each thing means until we're happy that we're talking the same language.


how do we prove that 1.7e-27 kg is inherently 1.7e-27 kg, and it is not just another instance of our human arbitrariness applied to nature?
What does that mean?

To someone who knows what these measurements mean, they're very well-defined, and obviously different. You'd have to not know and not care what they mean to think they're arbitrary.


m=f/a

But then what is force? It is defined in part by mass (which is defined in part by force (which is defined in part by mass (which is defined in part by force (which is defined in part by mass etc. ))))


You still seem to be saying that you don't know the meaning of the word mass, and can't offer a quantitative meaning - when you try to, you're implying that there isn't one that makes sense to you.

So if the measurement of mass doesn't really mean anything definite to you, is this why you don't approve of other people using Haramein's values of mass as evidence that he's blatantly wrong?

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Am I getting close?
edit on 27-1-2011 by Bobathon because: clarification



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
For a light-hearted moment and a grain of education, the video of the assembly of ATLAS (yes, that's one point among others where protons or ions collide in the LHC):




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I think this post from another thread needs to be put on the record here.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Since you do not address my previous attempts to answer your question about mass, I will simply refer you to Haramein's response in Mary's post above.

He clearly and succinctly states what his objective is in his paper. We can get nowhere before you acknowledge that.

This discussion goes nowhere fast, when Haramein recommends further reading, and when I recommend further studies about the topic... and then you guys just reduce everything down to "lets take things one piece at a time and make sure YOU know what you are talking about."

This is precisely what I mean by making physics more esoteric than it really is.

We are coming at this problem from opposite sides. The only difference is that I understand where you are coming from, while you will not acknowledge where I am coming from.

Our presuppositions are completely opposite, and I am going to the opposite extreme on purpose to illustrate how one sided you are.

Our definition of mass is tied up with our definition of force, they are not independent variables. Even with zero mass in a system(photon?), there is still quantum uncertainty is there not? If that is the case, then there is ZPE, and thus no such thing as a 'vacuum of empty space'. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'space in-between' especially at the planck scale. I think there is no such thing as 'rest mass', first because of planck scale interactions and quantum uncertainty etc. Second because it is obvious there is no such thing as absolutely 'at rest' which was learned in the cryogenics lab at Leiden in the attempt to reach absolute zero... which leads back to the first point I guess but you get the picture.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think this post from another thread needs to be put on the record here.
Why would you keep reminding us that:

A. Haramein hasn't answered the question about mass, nobody has, and
B. Haramein states that the strong nuclear force must be at least a million trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity, therefore his proposal that the strong nuclear force and gravity are one in the same is the answer (not only is this an obvious contradiction, but it still says nothing about the mass. The question was about the mass. He failed to answer the question)

If you can defend these claims then do so, but if you can't defend them I don't know why you keep posting them. Where does that answer explain why laboratory results shouldn't show 885 million tonnes? It doesn't. The answer doesn't even respond to the question, it's a deflection. And even the deflection comment is self contradictory stating that the strong nuclear force is not only many times stronger than gravity but also is equal to gravity. He is re-affirming the conflict, instead of resolving it.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

"But what is light really? Is it a wave or a shower of photons? There seems no likelihood for forming a consistent description of the phenomena of light by a choice of only one of the two languages. It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do." -- Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, pg. 262-263.

here



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



A. Haramein hasn't answered the question about mass, nobody has, and
B. Haramein states that the strong nuclear force must be at least a million trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity, therefore his proposal that the strong nuclear force and gravity are one in the same is the answer (not only is this an obvious contradiction, but it still says nothing about the mass. The question was about the mass. He failed to answer the question)


A. How doesn't he answer it? It was quite clear to me. Of course it is theoretical, you will never be happy unless you can measure it... see: Complementarity, Heisenberg UP, observer effect, fractals, epistemology. Theoretical physics is concerned with understanding what the atom is BEFORE you bombard it and change it.

B. You don't get it... or you won't. Quantum gravity is much more potent than macro gravity. What is the contradiction, besides that you think SF and QG are different? The mass issue is dead. Haramein clearly discussed the relevant FORCE(which is complementary with MASS) to make his case.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 
Yes this is taught to freshman physics majors, but please explain its relevance to the topic of this thread which is: "Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?".

By the way, still waiting for an answer about the definition of a kilogram, do you think it's still arbitrary since it was arbitrarily defined in 1889 as the IPK (International prototype Kilogram)?
edit on 28-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
please explain its relevance to the topic of this thread which is: "Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?"


I have been thinking about this, too.

From what I can gather, Haramein has not claimed to have found a unified field theory. Other people say this, but he doesn't. I think what he says is that he's working towards a unified field theory, but there is much work to be done.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Yes this is taught to freshman physics majors, but please explain its relevance to the topic of this thread which is: "Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?".


Nope, it should be obvious. I have tried to state it as simply as I can several times over. You think in classical/reductionist/particle physics. I embody the other side, to complement it. I am but a figment of your unconscious.


ETA:

We can switch back and forth between the two viewpoints. But we can not see both at once. But the figure is both at once.

Similarly, we can think of an electron as a wave or we can think of an electron as a particle, but we can not think of it as both at once. But in some sense the electron is both at once. Being able to think of these two viewpoints at once is in some sense being able to understand Quantum Mechanics.

...

The fact that the interaction cannot be reduced beyond a minimum amount, the interchange of a single photon, is the heart of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, Bohr realised that it means even more than this. At this level we can not divide the quantum of energy into a contribution from the apparatus and a contribution from the system: the process is inseparable. Thus it is holistic.


please read the rest of this resource



By the way, still waiting for an answer about the definition of a kilogram, do you think it's still arbitrary since it was arbitrarily defined in 1889 as the IPK (International prototype Kilogram)?


Quite probably. Especially when we learn new things about mass/energy and physics in general. Our presuppositions are different now than they were in 1889, the object is thus seen as a different object. That doesn't mean in the slightest that all of a sudden we would measure a different mass - it is the way we define that mass and how we perceive it. A more comprehensive and full idea of the kilogram would be empirically equivalent with the kilogram before. The sun still appears to rotate around the earth - but we know otherwise.

BTW, still waiting for you to check out the works of Tesla, Keely, Pond, alchemy in general, Podkletnov, Leedskalnin, Pauli (and Jung
) etc.
edit on 28-1-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon
 
The only difference is that I understand where you are coming from, while you will not acknowledge where I am coming from.
Jesus. What arrogant garbage.

Oh well, never mind. I tried.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
please read the rest of this resource


From the above, I like this quote:


Regrettably, some physicists claim that it is not important whether or not we understand Quantum Mechanics: what is important is that we know how to manipulate the mathematical formalism to get answers to our quantitative questions.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Jesus. What arrogant garbage.

Oh well, never mind. I tried.


Now we are getting somewhere.


That is precisely the way I feel about the three of you.. Buddhasystem mostly.

I have repeated over and over again that our presuppositions are different in this discussion, leading to a sort of 'talking past' each other. It is a stalemate until we discuss your fundamental philosophical assumptions.

I have been up front and open about my arguing stance ever since the beginning. But when I try to analyze yours you get upset. If you would rather provide a statement about your philosophy than have me speculate, I would be glad to hear it.

Until then, you think I am an arrogant New Age guy, and I think you are a one-sided strict atomic and materialistic reductionist.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Yes this is taught to freshman physics majors, but please explain its relevance to the topic of this thread which is: "Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?".
Nope, it should be obvious.
What Einstein said is obvious, it's what I was taught when I was a freshman physics major. What's not obvious is how it's relevant to this thread. I asked you to explain it and saying "it's obvious" isn't an explanation.


I have tried to state it as simply as I can several times over. You think in classical/reductionist/particle physics. I embody the other side, to complement it. I am but a figment of your unconscious.
...

By the way, still waiting for an answer about the definition of a kilogram, do you think it's still arbitrary since it was arbitrarily defined in 1889 as the IPK (International prototype Kilogram)?


Quite probably. ... A more comprehensive and full idea of the kilogram would be empirically equivalent with the kilogram before.
I think a discrepancy of the magnitude you suggest is a figment of something, but if you can explain how a kilogram is different now than it was in 1889, then please do so, I'm all ears. I read an article that the IPK might be off by a few billionths of a kilogram from what it was in 1889, and they are trying to find a definition for the kg that doesn't rely on the vault standard to avoid small discrepancies like that. So even if the discrepancy is a few parts in a billion compared to 1889 which is the only discrepancy I've seen so far, that's not a large enough discrepancy to explain the difference between 885 billion kg predicted by Haramein, versus the lab measurements of 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram, is it?

What other discrepancies are there in the kg, besides the few billionths of a kg that seem to have gone missing from the IPK kg standard?

And I asked you to keep this thread on topic, yet you mention Leedskalnin, you mean this Leedskalnin and his magical levitation device?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[sarcasm] obviously, technology that advanced could only have come from aliens [/sarcasm]
Please try to stay on topic. Three outstanding questions are:

Why don't we see 885 billion kg of mass in lab measurements?
Why do lab measurements show the attractive force between protons is much smaller than the "stupidly big" number Haramein predicts, and when asked about this, why does Haremein reply that "It matters little how 'stupidly big' something is..." ?
How is it we are able to see the internal structure of the proton if the proton is a black hole where nothing should be visible within the event horizon?

And please tell me it's not because of the block and tackle that Leedskalnin used to "magically" levitate huge stones.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Yes Mary, this really is the heart of the issue in this discussion.


Regrettably, some physicists claim that it is not important whether or not we understand Quantum Mechanics: what is important is that we know how to manipulate the mathematical formalism to get answers to our quantitative questions.

Here are some statements by physicists that take the opposite position on understanding:

"Never make a calculation until you know the answer." -- Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, pg 60.

"Our mathematical procedures seem to obscure our intuitive and imaginative understanding." -- Bohm, Foundations of Physics 5, 93 (1975).

"I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all if we just apply working mathematical rules; that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with." -- Dirac, Physicist's Conception of Nature, pg 11.

In any case, the typical education of a physicist tends to ignore the issue of interpretations.


I feel it is obvious that I agree with these quotes, and they agree with my consistent position on this matter.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It is only our perception of the kilogram which changes.

The questions we ask determine the answers we receive. Our presuppositions lead us to ask the questions we ask.

Complementarity is obvious to you, yet you do not see plainly how I represent the opposite side of yourself. Recognizing this is the only way to reconcile the two interpretations, for more comprehensive understanding.

Leedskalnin wrote a book on magnetism, which is what I am referring to.

Have you anything else to say about the others? Or is Leedskalnin just the easy one to pick on...

ETA: A quote from Leedskalnin's Magnetic Current

Now I will tell you what magnetic current is. Magnetic current is the same as electric current.

Current is a wrong expression. Really it is not one current, they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams and the other is composed of South Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screwlike fashion, and with high speed. One current alone if it be North Pole magnet current or South Pole magnet current, it cannot run alone.

To run one current will have to run against the other.


Complementarity.
edit on 28-1-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


I have to smile because I noticed the keyword "complementarity" and wanted to review what had been said about it. When I finished scrolling and searching and came back to your post I noticed your edit.

Here are some quotes:


Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Okay, but we do not just have 2. We have a whole system - this is the main difference between classical reductionism and quantum interdependence and complementarity.

I know for the simple maths, it is nice to isolate the situation.

That is not real, however.



Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



You can't measure internal structure of the black hole by definition.

And guess what, protons are routinely created in accelerators (but you didn't know that). And there is no difference between those and the protons which make up a significant part of your brain


Says who, you?

What if HR shows the internal structure?

This kind of over determinism is not scientific. We do not yet know whether there is internal structure, or if we can measure it.

Oh really?! Protons are created in accelerators? Come on down off your high horse...

But there is a difference between protons in particle accelerators, and protons in our brain.

There isn't for you, because you believe in such a thing as isolation and reductionism.

But for me, I believe in interdependence and complementarity, and the Gestalt idea that the functional whole is more than the parts combined.



Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Okay, but we do not just have 2. We have a whole system - this is the main difference between classical reductionism and quantum interdependence and complementarity.

I know for the simple maths, it is nice to isolate the situation.

That is not real, however.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I agree with this in principle and in reality that is why calculating a trip to the moon isn't reducible to 2 body system. There are at least 4 major bodies involved in the calculation, the spacecraft, the earth, the moon, and the sun. All 3 bodies (besides the spacecraft) are massive enough and close enough to have significant effects on the spacecraft trajectory. So this supports your argument that this example of a real world event cannot be reduced to something as simple as a 2 body system.

Now similarly, if you prefer to evaluate the attractive forces present in a helium-4 nucleus, then feel free to explain it in that context. We don't have to be reductionist and simplify it if you don't want to. But if you want to evaluate a real molecule then please explain how you calculate the forces between protons in the Helium nucleus in the context of Haramein's model.



Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



A. Haramein hasn't answered the question about mass, nobody has, and
B. Haramein states that the strong nuclear force must be at least a million trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity, therefore his proposal that the strong nuclear force and gravity are one in the same is the answer (not only is this an obvious contradiction, but it still says nothing about the mass. The question was about the mass. He failed to answer the question)


A. How doesn't he answer it? It was quite clear to me. Of course it is theoretical, you will never be happy unless you can measure it... see: Complementarity, Heisenberg UP, observer effect, fractals, epistemology. Theoretical physics is concerned with understanding what the atom is BEFORE you bombard it and change it.



Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It is only our perception of the kilogram which changes.

The questions we ask determine the answers we receive. Our presuppositions lead us to ask the questions we ask.

Complementarity is obvious to you, yet you do not see plainly how I represent the opposite side of yourself. Recognizing this is the only way to reconcile the two interpretations, for more comprehensive understanding.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm wondering whether everyone can begin discussing complementarity as a precept for Haramein's theory. And if not, why not?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join