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: 22
33
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I suspect that were you a theoretical physicist, you would have recognized the term right away.
You seem to think that Haramein is a theoretical physicist, and since he thinks the proton has a mass of 885 billion kg, I appreciate you not lumping me into the same category with him, at least from your perspective.

Thank you.




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
This thread is now way beyond silly.

If any of Haramein's supporters were remotely capable of making a simple, clear, single claim in support of any of his theories, and sticking to the point by discussing and explaining what is behind that claim and what the terms in it mean, surely they would have done so by now.

If you don't have any claims that you're prepared to focus on, then in what way are you saying anything meaningful? It's just empty words and slippery avoidances.

Please, rather than coming at me with more accusations, let's have some content. Can you give a single claim that you're prepared to discuss and examine in detail, one that has some real meaning in terms of what can be observed in the universe we're in.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"White whole / black whole structures"


In the following quote "spin horizon" links to Haramein's paper "SCALE UNIFICATION – A UNIVERSAL
SCALING LAW FOR ORGANIZED MATTER":


In many cases Haramein produced large controversy stating that black holes were most likely there prior to galactic formation, or even star formation, and that 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.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

What's your claim, and is it empty or are you prepared to discuss it in depth.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


I'm not making a claim; I'm posting relevant information.

Have you read all of Haramein's papers?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
You make claims all the time, Mary. This thread is full of claims you've made for Haramein or his theories. I'm asking for ones that aren't empty. If you don't have any, that's ok.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
...and around we go...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


I guess that means you haven't read all of Haramein's papers.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Black hole in the nuclei of an atom"


Maybe we should focus on gravity in general to continue the discussion:


In his Crossing the Event Horizon presentations Haramein claims that the problem in current physics relates to the belief that gravity is a weak force, which goes back to the structure of the atom, where all of the problems started. In studying the atom, physicists were confused when they found a very dense positive nuclei in the center of the atom, which defied their theory of mass and then they found the negative electrons surrounding the atom that had a constant spin without losing energy and showed no signs of entropy. This created the first problem and instead of resolving it through Newtonian physics, they created quantum physics with new forces and particles.

Under Newtonian physics if you put positive particles together, they repel each other. However, in the nuclei of the atom, it has the dense structure of a black hole in the vacuum, but physicists did not consider gravity as the natural force to hold this dense mass together. So instead of re-investigating gravity as a stronger force, which would have resolved the structural issue, they created new forces called the strong and weak forces and added gluons to hold it all together. The simplicity of the structure of nature therefore, eluded them causing major fundamental errors which have been compounded over the years.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Black hole in the nuclei of an atom"


And maybe this description of the proton paper can shed some light on the subject:


In The Schwarzschild Proton paper, Haramein examines some of the fundamental issues related to black hole physics and the amount of potential energy available from the vacuum. He finds that only a very small percentage of the vacuum fluctuations available within a proton volume need to be cohered and converted to mass-energy in order for the proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition for a black hole. This Schwarzschild condition proton has a mass approximately 38 orders of magnitude higher than the standard proton mass.

Examining then the role of the strong nuclear force relative to the gravitational forces between two Schwarzschild protons, he comes to the conclusion that the gravitational component is adequate for confinement. In the standard model the strong force is typically given as 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. However, the origin of the energy necessary to produce such a force is not given. Remarkably, a Schwarzschild proton with 38 orders of magnitude higher mass than the standard proton, produces a gravitational effect strong enough to confine both the protons and the quarks.

This approach gives the source of the binding energy as spacetime curvature resulting from a slight interaction of the proton with the vacuum fluctuations. As such it offers a unification from cosmological objects to atomic nuclei. Therefore, it is possible to write a scaling law to find that the Schwarzschild proton falls appropriately within the mass distribution of organized matter in the universe.

Haramein finaly calculates the magnetic moment of such a Schwarzschild proton system and he finds it to be a close approximation to the measured value for the so-called anomalous magnetic moment of the proton.

With The Schwarzschild Proton paper, Haramein has presented evidence that the proton may be considered as a black hole and that such a system predicts remarkably well, even under crude approximations utilizing semi-classical mechanics, its interaction time, its radiation emissions, its magnetic moment, and even the origin of the strong force as a gravitational component. The Schwarzschild proton strongly suggests that matter at many scales may be organized by black holes and black hole-like phenomena and thereby lead to a scale unification of the fundamental forces and matter.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon
 


I guess that means you haven't read all of Haramein's papers.

I've read all the papers linked on his website, but so what?

Even if I hadn't read anything, I'd still be aware that nobody in this discussion is willing to make any claims for him that aren't empty.

Let me put it another way.

Would anyone like to present any reasoning as to how any of Haramein's ideas relates to the universe we can observe, and be prepared to discuss that reasoning in a focused way?

If not, then perhaps we can agree that although some people like quoting him and talking about his ideas, we have no reason to take his ideas seriously as physics. Then we can wrap this whole thing up and go home and live happily ever after.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
we can agree that although some people like quoting him and talking about his ideas, we have no reason to take his ideas seriously as physics.
I would agree to that. it's more or less what I said a few pages ago.

If people here are posting his ideas without understanding them or defending them, there's no reason to take them seriously if nobody can defend them. Nobody is really even making an effort to try.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":


Regarding Haramein's argument in answer to Bobathon's question about the discrepancy between the actual and Schwarzschild protons, I hear Haramein saying the following:


  1. The electrostatic repulsion of two protons within an atomic nucleus is very large.
  2. A postulated force of 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than their mutual gravitational attraction is postulated to counter this repulsion. This is the postulated strong force of the standard model. Sometimes it is estimated to be as much as 38 to 41 orders of magnitude larger.
  3. The standard model fails to specify a source for such a force.
  4. There is no mathematical proof that the current standard model scheme is anywhere correct.
  5. All the Schwarzschild proton concept really does is establish a source for the mass-energy necessary to produce a constraining force 38 or 39 orders of magnitude of energy/mass - in relationship to the proton entity - for proper accounting of the energy necessary to generate such a force.


So, isn't Haramein simply replacing the postulate of the strong force with a different postulate?

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



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

So, isn't Haramein simply replacing the postulate of the strong force with a different postulate?

Yes, he is.

But there are many many many reasons why his postulate is very clearly wrong.

The simplest two are as follows:

(a) he does it by assuming the mass of the proton to be 885 million tonnes, which it very clearly is not

(b) the answer he gets for his gravitational attraction is many trillion trillion trillion times the electrostatic force it was supposed to overcome, whereas in reality the strong force is not powerful enough to overcome the electrostatic force between two protons.

The standard model theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), however, provides a perfect model for the complexity of what is observed within nuclei. There's no "mathematical proof", because it's not a mathematical theory, it's a mathematical model for a physical reality. The verification comes from the fact that every type of observation of physical reality at the scale of nuclei or particles sees exactly what QCD predicts.

The 'source' of QCD (meaning the way that it is connected to and arises with the other forces of nature) is not yet known. There are many suggestions (ones that don't disagree with reality as we observe it, unlike Haramein's). Some are more brilliant and beautiful than others, but there are plenty of them. And there are many experiments and projects to investigate them. Nobody will take seriously anyone who claims to have the answer unless it agrees with what has been seen. If we're talking about the world we can observe, then that is surely the only way to honestly do things.

Thank you Mary for a clear and well-stated question. I hope this is a helpful answer.
edit on 29-1-2011 by Bobathon because: correction



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

  • A postulated force of 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than their mutual gravitational attraction is postulated to counter this repulsion. This is the postulated strong force of the standard model. Sometimes is is estimated to be as much as 38 to 41 orders of magnitude larger.


  • Just to correct you here: Haramein postulates a force that is more than 77* orders of magnitude stronger than their mutual gravitational attraction (see my point (b) above). This is one of the most obvious errors in his theory.

    *The value that his theory gives (which he explicitly gives in his paper) is 7.49 x 10^47 dynes. The value of the gravitational attraction between two real protons is given by F=Gmm/r^2, and comes out at 2.68 x 10^-30 dynes using the separation Haramein suggests. The ratio is 77.4 orders of magnitude.



    posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:07 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose
    reply to post by Bobathon
     

    I guess that means you haven't read all of Haramein's papers.


    Mary, did you read these papers for real, meaning not gleaning over pages but actually trying to plug one equation into the other?



    posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:21 PM
    link   
    reply to post by buddhasystem
     


    I haven't read all his papers.



    posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:46 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose
    reply to post by buddhasystem
     


    I haven't read all his papers.


    That's not what I asked. Did you read any number of papers more or less in their entirety, i.e. following the math?



    posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:49 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose
    So, isn't Haramein simply replacing the postulate of the strong force with a different postulate?
    Mary, it's nice to see you using your own words, instead of just re-posting something someone else said!



    posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:09 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Arbitrageur
     


    Thanks.

    I have never taken physics. I'm just fascinated by it. It took me a long time to acquire the confidence to trust my own words.




    top topics



     
    33
    << 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

    log in

    join