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: 26
33
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
i would love to watch a poor soul try to debunk Marko Rodin's work. some of the most sound, original, and beautiful theorems i've ever come across. Ive watched all his videos and he's someone that I think will be very famous after he's dead...




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
The guy claims he makes black holes in his workshop...




...then proceeds to marvel at how magnets interact with coils.



So... what's the big deal?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I repeat:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
I believe the term “the Schwarzschild condition” is important for this thread. The first sentence of the Abstract of Haramein’s proton paper is “We review our model of a proton that obeys the Schwarzschild condition.”

. . . Trying to get the definition by advanced google search to pull up relativistic physics papers isn’t working because the .pdf’s for the papers are by subscription.

Does anyone have access to a definition of the term?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


watch the hours of explanation he has available on website and youtube? maybe that'll work...

by the way, that's a coil he invented himself, completely original and copyrighted, it's no ordinary coil, it's a Rodin Coil.
edit on 1/31/11 by metalshredmetal because: coil



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
atoms are black holes: www.springerlink.com...

any vortex of energy is a black hole in some form/stage of what we presently perceive as "black holes".



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


watch the hours of explanation he has available on website and youtube? maybe that'll work...

by the way, that's a coil he invented himself, completely original and copyrighted, it's no ordinary coil, it's a Rodin Coil.
edit on 1/31/11 by metalshredmetal because: coil


I watched a total of 10 minutes and that was enough. Where is the promised black hole? Well he also said he would cure all disease, produce unlimited food and travel anywhere in the Universe.

Yes, it's possible to wind a coil in many different ways. It's also possible to come up with jargon describing that coil. So what?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
ok what's your point? you've made none. anyone can simply dismiss some information or say they don't agree, but until you become educated (not 10 min. educated) about the subject you have no hope of debunking it.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
here might be a good summation of his work and it's possibilities:




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
ok what's your point? you've made none. anyone can simply dismiss some information or say they don't agree, but until you become educated (not 10 min. educated) about the subject you have no hope of debunking it.


There is nothing to debunk because the promised black hole did not materialize. Any 10 year old can make magnets bounce off coils and vice versa. That's a nice project for a school science fair, I suppose.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 


One viewer on YouTube summarized it better than me:



Big claims that he will change our world as he knows it, check.
Big lengthy introduction that offers no explanation whatsoever, check.
Promises that his math will solve our problems, check
Confusing nonsensical meaningless jargon, check.
Actual meaningful and significant mathematical content proving his theory, NO CHECK



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 


One viewer on YouTube summarized it better than me:



Big claims that he will change our world as he knows it, check.
Big lengthy introduction that offers no explanation whatsoever, check.
Promises that his math will solve our problems, check
Confusing nonsensical meaningless jargon, check.
Actual meaningful and significant mathematical content proving his theory, NO CHECK


haha holy crap, why do you hate so much? how could you ever prove something wrong without knowing how it (supposedly) works? because you watched 10 min of a video THAT DOESNT EXPLAIN THE SPECIFICS does not mean that you've disproved it's validity.

please go to youtube and watch his lessons explaining the math and explaining the science and explaining the torus, then come back here and explain to me SPECIFICALLY what is untrue..please do that
edit on 1/31/11 by metalshredmetal because: dumbass needs information



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
please go to youtube and watch his lessons explaining the math and explaining the science and explaining the torus, then come back here and explain to me SPECIFICALLY what is untrue..please do that
edit on 1/31/11 by metalshredmetal because: dumbass needs information


Validity of what? Where are the supposed magical properties of the coil?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
please go to youtube and watch his lessons explaining the math and explaining the science and explaining the torus, then come back here and explain to me SPECIFICALLY what is untrue..please do that
edit on 1/31/11 by metalshredmetal because: dumbass needs information


Validity of what? Where are the supposed magical properties of the coil?

they are in the explanation of his math and science that you obviously know nothing about. when you analyze information, it would behoove you to find the source. 1 min to 10 min summations is not the source.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
they are in the explanation of his math and science that you obviously know nothing about. when you analyze information, it would behoove you to find the source. 1 min to 10 min summations is not the source.


Wait a second, do you say that a person can make absolutely astounding claims that are NOT supported at all by experiment, and that's perfectly fine? Sheesh. I mean whatever floats your boat...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
they are in the explanation of his math and science that you obviously know nothing about. when you analyze information, it would behoove you to find the source. 1 min to 10 min summations is not the source.


Wait a second, do you say that a person can make absolutely astounding claims that are NOT supported at all by experiment, and that's perfectly fine? Sheesh. I mean whatever floats your boat...



no i am not saying that, nor did i ever. he has experiments, you obviously didn't watch the video I posted. you're making yourself look pretty foolish right now, aside from being incredibly annoying. until you do as i've asked you only wasted time and energy.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
no i am not saying that, nor did i ever. he has experiments, you obviously didn't watch the video I posted. you're making yourself look pretty foolish right now, aside from being incredibly annoying. until you do as i've asked you only wasted time and energy.


I watched at least 5 videos by now, and saw that magnets interact with magnetic fields. Is that big news? Yes, count me as foolish all you want.

azureworld.blogspot.com...


Imagine you grew up speaking fluent Mandarin, as well as English. And you'd spent a lot of time in China, living among people in many different parts of the country.

One day, probably somewhere in the US of A, you come across someone giving public lectures on how to understand Mandarin. Lots of people are interested, it seems, because Mandarin is still quite alien to most people in English-speaking countries, yet it's a language that may prove increasingly valuable to learn for the future. You're curious, so you take a look.

What you see is someone making stereotypical Chinese-sounding noises. He utters words that sound vaguely Chinese, and explains what he thinks they mean. He tells his audience that he's studied this language for many many years, and has learned things that most teachers of Mandarin would never even realise. You do recognise some of his words, but they're not put together in a way that makes much sense to you.

You ask his students, who proudly tell you that this is the true Mandarin, and that what they teach in language schools is flawed. When you take issue with this, they insist that obviously that's because you're only able to see what you've been taught, and you've never thought outside of this box, and if you could see the bigger picture then you'd understand what he was saying and what a revolutionary understanding of the language it was. And the reason no other teachers of Mandarin teach this way is because of a massive conspiracy to put down creativity and keep the language in the control of the elite. Or something like that.

Anyway, who are you to tell people how they should speak Mandarin?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 


Welcome Metalshred!

As you can see, buddhasystem is very antagonizing... and apparently has enough time to argue that he knows better - but will never take the time to study the material which is being discussed.

I was interested to see your comment about the black hole earlier... I am studying up on John Keely right now (perhaps you have seen Dale Pond's talk on youtube about Sympathetic Vibratory Physics).


any vortex of energy is a black hole in some form/stage of what we presently perceive as "black holes".


He has this to say about The Neutral Center:


Matter was evolved from the affinity of this neutral center for sympathetic streams and since it is immovable, it caused, through negative attraction the formation of nodes in these streams, where the vibrations thereafter continued to meet in a center of sympathetic coincidence causing the permanence of form and matter.


This is of course what we call the neutron(which I think a likelier case to be the center of the atomic 'black hole' than Haramein's proton). The formative 'streams' which emanate from this center in Keely's physics, is what we would call the wave function of an atom(the complementary necessity to particle behavior). I think another good term for this, is cymatics as opposed to a wave function, and the quark structure are also known to Keely as subharmonics to this stable wave structure.

An asymptotic 'center' of a vortexial torus is by definition an irreducible singularity, because there is no meaningful or discernible 'point' at which the polarity emanates, especially if it lies below the planck scale.

Keely continues:

It consists of a compound inter-etheric point in space, so small that were we to magnify a pin head to the size of the sun, and from that substance take a particle of matter the same size, again magnifying it to the size of the sun, the neutral center would still be invisible, even though the structure of this last substance was examined through the highest powered microscope ever created, or to be created. For the neutral center is INDIVISIBLE. Its attributes do not belong to matter, and pertain in no way to matter, which is but its exterior manifestation.


Hmmm... remind anyone of Haramein?

And who ever said historical and academic context was useless...


The ideas of Haramein and Rodin ARE NOT NEW, they revert back to before the Einsteinian revolution, when occult ideas of balance and male + female were still considered the way to go.

Then the rest is history, of course. The male clearly took over, as seen in the fascist ideologies across the globe, and in the intense acceleration of technological and industrial mechanization of social life. Only later did figures such as Bohr, Pauli, and Jung start to rethink the trajectory of physics to again include the anima, or the fullness of space.


edit on 31-1-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
atoms are black holes: www.springerlink.com...


I see the physicist is Jarmo Makela of the Department of Physics, University of Jyvaskyla in Finland.

Very interesting:


Black Holes as Atoms

Received July 23, 2002

Stationary spacetimes containing a black hole have several properties akin to those of atoms. For instance, such spacetimes have only three classical degrees of freedom, or observables, which may be taken to be the mass, the angular momentum, and the electric charge of the hole. There are several arguments supporting a proposal originally made by Bekenstein that quantization of these classical degrees of freedom gives an equal spacing for the horizon area spectrum of black holes. We review some of these arguments and introduce a specific Hamiltonian quantum theory of black holes. Our Hamiltonian quantum theory gives, among other things, a discrete spectrum for the classical observables, and it produces an area spectrum which is closely related to Bekenstein's proposal. We also present a foamlike model of horizons of spacetime. In our model spacetime horizon consists of microscopic Schwarzschild black holes. Applying our Hamiltonian approach to this model we find that the entropy of any horizon is one quarter of its area.

1. INTRODUCTION

The greatest challenge of modern theoretical physics is to find a quantum theory of gravity, or a theory which brings together general relativity and quantum mechanics. One may expect that when such a theory is one day discovered, its impolications to physics in general may well turn out as profound as were the implications of the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1920's.

When quantum mechanics was discovered, a crucial role was played by atoms. Quantum mechanics was a response to the need to explain . . .



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
The ideas of Haramein and Rodin ARE NOT NEW, they revert back to before the Einsteinian revolution, when occult ideas of balance and male + female were still considered the way to go.
The idea that the sun revolves around the earth isn't new either, and shockingly 1 in 5 Americans still believes that:

Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much


One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.
Maybe some people posting in this thread believe it too. But I would argue that the age of an idea in physics is not an indication of its validity. My observation has been that the converse of that is more likely to be true, that is, we are making new observations that show old ideas to be false (such as the heliocentric model etc).

Anyway, the test for a model is whether it matches observational evidence, not how old the idea is. And Haramein's model doesn't match observational evidence.
edit on 31-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
glad to see some responses, however i'm unable to contribute right now, i'll come back later tonight



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join