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: 21
33
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I am not sure it can be discussed only using complementarity, however there is much more to discuss than kilograms and mass and who cares if he is wrong about 885 million tons. That is not the core idea of his work.

One math fail does not equal a systematic and complete wrongness about everything.

His idea of the scaling law, ZP density inside a particle radius, and the fractal dynamic of the vacuum is what is important to discuss.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm wondering whether everyone can begin discussing complementarity as a precept for Haramein's theory. And if not, why not?
As a group we are not advanced enough to discuss such a topic (though some individuals within the group may be).

We can't even all seem to agree on what the definition of a kilogram is, a far simpler concept than complementarity, so I'd say we need to agree on the more basic concepts before tackling more advanced concepts.

Some of us seem to think a kilogram is defined by this piece of platinum alloy:


backreaction.blogspot.com...

A better view outside the nested bell jars:


www.solarnavigator.net...

Others seem to think the value of a kilogram is not the mass of this piece of platinum alloy, but instead something that we make up as we go along.

If we can't agree on the simplest standard like the definition of a kilogram, and other units of measurement, then anything we measure can measure anything and there's no sense in even doing laboratory experiments to determine whether observation agrees with theory.


Originally posted by beebs
I am not sure it can be discussed only using complementarity, however there is much more to discuss than kilograms and mass and who cares if he is wrong about 885 million tons. That is not the core idea of his work.

One math fail does not equal a systematic and complete wrongness about everything.
To quote what you said about something else:


Originally posted by beebs
Now we are getting somewhere.
If we can agree the proton doesn't have a mass of 885 billion kg, and that this is a math fail by Haramein, then we are making progress.

However you treat this as it's some incidental math quirk as a result of some irrelevant part of his theory.

As Haramein himself points out, the strong nuclear force is more than a million trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity, then he sets
gravity = strong nuclear force

THAT is what's at the core of his work and it is THAT fail that causes all the other problems that aren't so much as math problems but problems with a failed concept.

If you set two entities that you know are not only unequal but vastly different as equal, this is more then a math fail, it's a concept fail.

He already knows about the huge discrepancy of the magnitude of gravity and the strong nuclear force before he sets them to be equal to each other!!

So of course every subsequent result from making that known inequality, to be equal, is going to be problematic even if "correct math" is used from that point on. All his other gyrations like having protons travel at the speed of light, making them black holes, etc don't help, they just give more examples of how observations and experiments don't agree with the concept.

In the 3 step process of science cited by Feynman, the steps are:

1. We can "make a guess" that "what if" the strong nuclear force was gravity because the proton was a black hole?
2. Then we do the math.
3. Then we see if it agrees with experiment. (It doesn't as seen with 885 billion kg protons).

I think the problems stem mostly from making a bad guess in step 1, more than doing bad math in step 2, though I'm not claiming his math doesn't have problems also.
edit on 28-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I will make this as simple as possible, though I don't know what to do if you don't get it...

The sun appears to move around the earth. Experiments are done to suggest that it is actually the earth spinning on its axis which makes it look that way. The result? The sun appears to move around the earth. The phenomenon appears the same. What changes is our presuppositions and assumptions about that phenomenon.

The metal appears to have a mass of 1 kg. Experiments could be done to suggest that the strong force is actually a form of quantum gravity. Our notion of mass could be revised to reflect new theory and information. The result? The metal appears to have a mass of 1 kg. What changes is our presuppositions and assumptions about that phenomenon.

You seem to think that this whole discussion hinges on whether or not Haramein's calculation of 885 million tons is wrong. What happens when I concede that point? Will you be willing to address the real theoretical points of his work then? Will you discuss the idea of a scaling law? How about fractal organization of the vacuum? Quantum Gravity unification? Counter-rotating dynamics?

Or do all of these ideas become null and void because he came up with an extravagant mass for a schwarzschild proton traveling nearly the speed of light?

How about all of the other figures I have mentioned to provide context for Haramein's ideas?



ETA:

Others seem to think the value of a kilogram is not the mass of this piece of platinum alloy, but instead something that we make up as we go along.


Yes indeed. This is my point exactly. You are convinced in the existence of an objective external world, and your independence from it. This is a classical, non-quantum assumption.

We are making it up as we go along, because we are defining it. There will always be an amount of metal there, but how we define metal, how we define the molecules - the atoms - the quarks - the strong force - the wave function - mass - angular momentum - everything we describe it as... these do not affect the chunk of metal.

What changes is our presuppositions and assumptions about that phenomenon. What changes is our knowledge of what exactly nature is like.
edit on 28-1-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Has everyone read "THE ORIGIN OF SPIN: A CONSIDERATION OF TORQUE AND CORIOLIS FORCES IN EINSTEIN’S FIELD EQUATIONS AND GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY"?

Maybe it's more important than the proton paper.
edit on 01/28/11 by Mary Rose because: Typo



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Beebs, presuppositions or not, you wrote up a bunch of stuff a couple of pages ago that to a lot of people appears to be gibberish, e.g. a black hole in the center of every atom. When confronted with plain questions, you didn't answer any of them and declared yourself holistic and quantum.

What use in concatenating words just to form a sentence that contains a few pseudo-scientific words? Why pre-suppose random stuff for no reason whatsoever?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Can you be more specific? I apologize if I missed something important.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 
So you're saying maybe a kilogram isn't really a kilogram.

And we may discover something tomorrow that says it isn't.

Even if that's true, and it may be, it's not a good argument to support Haramein's paper or any other paper. Why?

Because I can find 100 other theories besides Harameins that disagree not only with observation, but also with each other, so they can't all be right.

Yes, something may be discovered tomorrow that throws our understanding upside-down, it could happen, I agree. But what will do it is some evidence. What won't do it is Haramein and 100 other people all writing papers that disagree not only with mainstream science and current observational evidence, but also with each other.

So, if there's specific evidence that we are wrong about the kilogram, then present it.

If there isn't, and it's just speculation that someday we may discover something we don't know today and that may change our perception of the kilogram, even though I agree with that statement, it does absolutely nothing to cause us to prefer Haramein's alternate version of reality over any of 100 other papers proposing an alternate version of reality. One of them may actually be true. But evidence will have to be provided to convince anyone of that and evidence is lacking that Haramein's theory agrees with observation, either under our current understanding of the kilogram, or under a different proposed interpretation of the kilogram which you have mentioned but failed to describe specifically or support with evidence.

So do you see why your somewhat valid point does absolutely nothing to support Haramein's paper more than any other paper which disagrees with observation?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Can you be more specific? I apologize if I missed something important.


Lower portion of page 18.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Okay yes... the thing to do now, however, is compare Haramein's theory with relevant context - such as Tesla, Keely, Podkletnov, Leedskalnin, Reich, Pauli, Boyd Bushman, Bohr, Maxwell, etc. And then see if they have a more comprehensive view of nature than we currently do.

It is quite obvious, after studying them, that indeed they do.

ETA:

So you're saying maybe a kilogram isn't really a kilogram.


But again, no... I am saying that a kilogram will always appear as a kilogram. But what a kilogram is may change. ETA: I mean, what we think a kilogram is may change. Our perspective of it will change.

I do not believe that defends Haramein's 885 Million ton schwarzschild proton at almost the speed of light... although 885million tons for a schwarszchild proton at almost the speed of light doesn't sound too far fetched mathematically... does it? Again... not saying his theory is right, but for a schwarzschild black hole with radius of a proton at the speed of light...
edit on 28-1-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Do you mean ones in this post?

As I have stated before, you are the one that is versed in the specific particle physics.

What I am trying to get you to do, is remember Bohr's complementarity and learn my perspective of how to interpret what is happening in accelerator and collider experiments.

Learn to see my presuppositions as equally valid to classical isolation and reductionism.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Do you mean ones in this post?

As I have stated before, you are the one that is versed in the specific particle physics.


a) Yes, that was that post
b) Why did you write a paragraph or two explaining how there are black holes everywhere if (1) you are not versed in physics (2) you can't even explain what you wrote?

I can say that Supreme Being Zmorrg is broadcasting to your brain on a subspace frequency. You can't say that's not possible. However, such assertion would still be silly, no matter how "holistic" or "quantum" thinker I claim to be.

edit on 28-1-2011 by buddhasystem because: correct typos



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I can say that Supreme Being Zmorrg is broadcasting to your brain on a subspace frequency. You can't say that's not possible. However, such assertion would still be silly, no matter how "holistic" or "quantum" thinker I claim to be.
Yes but we could say that Zmorrg could be discovered next week between the 5th and 6th dimensions.

But even if that happens, I would argue that is one of the 100 other alternate realities besides Haramein's that we have no proof of, this week.

If you give me proof of Zmorrg next week, I might believe it next week.

If you don't have any proof of Zmorrg today, don't expect me or anyone else to believe it today.

Same for Haramein's work and the hypothetical changing kilogram.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
I do not believe that defends Haramein's 885 Million ton schwarzschild proton at almost the speed of light... although 885million tons for a schwarszchild proton at almost the speed of light doesn't sound too far fetched mathematically... does it?
No more far-fetched than finding Zmorrg between the 5th and 6th dimensions next week.

I have an equal amount of evidence to support either assertion: zero.

If someone gives me evidence of either one next week, I might be persuaded next week, but I can't be persuaded today, if there's no evidence today.

The list of possible things that could happen next week is nearly infinite if not infinite. The vast majority of those possibilities will not happen.
edit on 28-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
If the Zmorrg theory is too far from the proton black hole theory, here's another unification theory:

The proton is a white hole, not a black hole.

This theory may solve one problem with Haramein's theory, because it doesn't automatically prevent us from seeing the internal structure of the proton. So on that basis alone, it's a better theory than Haramein's and right off the bat should have more believers because it doesn't contradict that observation.

However, it's still got all the other problems that Haramein's theory has...it doesn't agree with observation in countless other respects.

We could go on and list 10,000 more alternate theories or more, ad infinitum, which disagree with experiment today. Let's say we get lucky and happen to describe a theory (call it theory #5,692 in our list of 10,000 possibilities) which disagrees with experiment today, but which in the future we will make new discoveries showing that theory was correct but the other 9,999 theories on the list are all still wrong.

Sure it could happen. But today, before we have that evidence to show it's theory #5,692 that was the correct one, why should we prefer theory #5692 over theory #5693 or #4849 any other theory? If they all disagree with experiment today, then today we observe that and say all 10,000 theories appear to be wrong because they dissagree with observatioon.

If in the future if we have a new observation which shows one of those 10,000 theories is right, then what can we say? We were correct about 9999 of the theories which disagreed with experiment being wrong, but we were incorrect about one of them being wrong, because it was actually right and at that time we didn't know how to make the proper observations.

So Beebs is right. Some theory that we think is wrong today, may be looked at in a new light in the future after we make new observations. But which theory will it be? Is there any way we can even guess before we have the new observations? One way we could look at this question is to say that the more different observations a theory contradicts, the lower the likelihood all those discrepancies will be resolved by future enhanced or revolutionary observations.

On this basis, I would say if someone feels compelled to believe the proton is some kind of hole, they would have a better chance of clinging to a "white hole proton theory" than a "black hole proton theory" because the white hole theory has one less obvious contradiction to observational evidence: It might allow us to see the internal structure of the proton. But it still disagrees with too many observations to be taken seriously, so I'd say dump any theories that say the proton is a black or a white hole for now, and if you have to believe an unproven theory of some sort you'd be better off with Lisi's unification theory.

Lisi's unification theory doesn't predict 885 billion kg protons, or things like it that contradict observations so dramatically, that I'm aware of. It's an unproven theory, but at least it doesn't have such drastic disagreements with observation. That doesn't mean it's right, and I don't want you to think I'm promoting it as right, because I'm not. I'm only saying that it's not as obviously wrong as a 885 billion kg proton which would not have any observable internal structure.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Alright folks... y'all have fun now.

You keep asking me to go deeper and deeper into your presuppositions, so that you can refrain from addressing things from my interpretation.

You need to go back to your first semester - when they actually taught you a bit about the philosophy of science and theoretical physics.

A proton is also a wave function.

Quarks are also cymatical subharmonics(for lack of a better term) of that wave function.

There can be no isolation between the observer and the observed. They affect each other.

Thus: Interdependence, Complementarity, Holism.

Here is a short list to get you started (which I am sure you will subsequently IGNORE like you do everything else I have suggested you study - because you are masters of the universe):


Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, third edition. Book. 1996.

Quine, W. V. O. Epistemology Naturalized. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. 1969.

Karakostas, Vassilios. Forms of Quantum Nonseparability and Related Philosophical Consequences in the Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2004), p. 283-312. Online Resource, JSTOR.

Lewontin, Richard C. Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. Book. 1993.

Lindorff, David. Pauli and Jung. Book. 2004

Leedskalnin, Edward. Magnetic Current. Book.

Tesla, Nikola. My Inventions (Autobiography)

Pond, Keely, Tesla, Cayce. Keely's Secrets: Understanding and Using the Science of Sympathetic Vibration. Book.

Watch the documentary "John Searl Story"

And also, I recommend some of the work of Youtube's AlienScientist, you will find some stuff on Podkletnov and others there also...

etc.


'Til next time...

SEE YOU SPACE COWBOY...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

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. . . .



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I noticed that and I never heard of "Schwarzchild condition" before . . .


The first sentence of the Abstract of “The Schwarzschild Proton” is:


We review our model of a proton that obeys the Schwarzschild condition.


Unfamiliarity with the term “Schwarzschild condition” is obviously a problem on this thread.

The headings in the paper are:

1. Introduction
2. Fundamentals of the Schwarzschild Proton
2.1. A Scaling Law for Organized Matter of Mass vs. Radius
3. The “Anomalous” Magnetic Moment
4. Conclusions

It appears to me that the scientific evidence is presented in 2.1.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Unfamiliarity with the term “Schwarzschild condition” is obviously a problem on this thread.
This is a red herring argument, I said I was familiar with the commonly used term "Schwarzchild radius", and then you pointed out that "schwarzchild condition" had been used almost 3 decades ago in a Chinese journal and one other place. Two citations of the usage is hardly evidence that it's commonly used which is the claim that was being disputed, not the existence of a Schwarzchild radius. So once again, to me this line of argument does more to demonstrate difficulties with reading comprehension on your part to understand the point that was being debated, which was Haramein's claim that Schwarzchild condition was a commonly used term, when it's not, it's black hole that's the commonly used term (or Schwarzchild radius, a feature of black holes).

And if you think citing 2 examples, one from a 3 decades old Chinese journal, demonstrates common usage, well, it doesn't. Nobody said the term was "never" used before, only that it wasn't commonly used as Haramein claimed. And why do you suppose it's not commonly used terminology? The reason is because most people would use the term "black hole" instead.

So I agree that unfamiliarity with the “Schwarzschild condition” which would more commonly be referred to as a black hole, is obviously a problem on this thread.

Because the people that are familiar with black holes know that they would prevent us from seeing the internal structure of a proton if the proton was a black hole as claimed by Haramein and his followers.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Here is a short list to get you started (which I am sure you will subsequently IGNORE like you do everything else I have suggested you study - because you are masters of the universe):

And also, I recommend some of the work of Youtube's AlienScientist, you will find some stuff on Podkletnov and others there also...

It even started to dawn on AlienScientist that Haramein might be wrong because he can't even get the most basic things right, like consistency of units.

www.youtube.com...

did you see the comment AlienScientist made in the youtube comments section somewhere around page 6 of the comments?

I am not saying I support this theory... That's a ridiculous stance to take in science. In fact the point of science is to constantly challenge and test all of your theories, and try to prove them wrong...ATTACK THE THEORY! Not the messenger...

OK we are following the advice of alienscientist and attacking the theory, that even he has some doubts about, and he sounds pretty convinced that Haramein has mixed up some of his units.

When Haramein was asked to respond to a question by bobathon, rather than respond to it, he pointed to a list of unsolved problems in physics and said "hey look a this stuff over here... this means I'm right" and failed to answer the question.

It seems like you're deploying the same tactic of deflection, but on a larger scale. Instead of answering specific questions, you point to an even longer bibliography and say "hey read all this other stuff first". If you had a coherent argument to present, I suggest you could take a specific question and point to one or more specific sources and even specific page numbers for the material needed to support your argument.

For example, do any of those sources explain how we can view the internal structure of a black hole? If they do, point out where they say that. If they don't, how will reading all those sources show us we can see inside a black hole, when by definition of the black hole and the speed of light, we can't? Yet we can see the internal structure of a proton which Haramein claims is a black hole. Which of those sources resolves this contradiction?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Two citations of the usage is hardly evidence that it's commonly used which is the claim that was being disputed, not the existence of a Schwarzchild radius.


From my google search for "the schwarzschild condition":


View Full Text - Analytical design method for a modified ...
by A Budano - 2006 - Cited by 4 - Related articles
the Schwarzschild condition given in Eq. (7), while keeping the concentric condition for the mirrors. In fact, for t tS the second-order coefficient V1 ...
www.opticsinfobase.org/viewmedia.cfm?uri=ao-45-18-4254&seq=0


The upper bound on the entropy of self-gravitating radiation systems
by DX Wang - 1995 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
of the collapsing matter satisfies the Schwarzschild condition e(r) = 0. (e(r) = r - 2re(r)), simultaneously; (III) The outermost mass shell of the ...
www.springerlink.com/index/n558336122438rn9.pdf


I suspect that were you a theoretical physicist, you would have recognized the term right away.





edit on 01/29/11 by Mary Rose because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
In my opinion, these two articles by Bojan Gorjanc clearly sum up Haramein's contribution so far:

"White whole / black whole structures"

"Black hole in the nuclei of an atom"



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join