Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?

page: 9
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

What I do know is that by giving subspaces a topological structure it is possible to realize a continuous spectrum of eschatological entities which are not subject to causality principle; by giving them the structure of a differential manifold one can talk about smooth transition between theories of Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu

What a funny thing to say. "Giving subspaces a topological structure" doesn't mean anything – all spaces have a topological structure. Causality is a principle of logic, not of spaces. A space, in and of itself, doesn't have any properties that could be called causes or effects; all it has is structure.

I guess you could identify the dimensions with pairs of canonical mechanical variables and apply geometrical restrictions that correspond to physical laws. Not sure that's what Zoroaster had in mind...




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Not sure that's what Zoroaster had in mind...


No, but it is of what Zarathustra spake.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 
differential manifolds?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 
differential manifolds?



I've read Zarathustra and I'm pretty certain he didn't speak of differential manifolds. Those who are skeptical of the claim may check out Zoroaster's Gathas here. I promise that it's physics free. :
www.zarathushtra.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Once again, I posted in jest, by taking a Wiki quote about manifolds and seasoning it to taste with my "thoughts", quotes intended.

If you have an issue with subspaces as I mention them, it would be a good idea to take it up with owners of that Wiki page -- you may have a point and they may be wrong.

Cheers!



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Yes, he didn't speak of differential manifolds in a direct manner. The theorems are hidden in text. However, for the face value, he's clearly referring to Haramein:


I ask thee, O Lord of Life, what is the penalty of those who increase the power of the false one?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
This thread has become a forest of confusion for me.



If you have an issue with subspaces as I mention them, it would be a good idea to take it up with owners of that Wiki page -- you may have a point and they may be wrong.
Hmmm, copying from Wikipedia instead of going away for three years to study topology and differential geometry and then coming back to answer properly, which is what you should have done. The gods will be angry.

(so, er, which page?)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
Hmmm, copying from Wikipedia instead of going away for three years to study topology and differential geometry and then coming back to answer properly, which is what you should have done. The gods will be angry.


I please the gods with my skills in experimental physics and computing. Manifolds are not my province. However, this is the name of the Wikipedia page you are looking for.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
What did the physicist say to the mathematician presenting new work on connected zero-dimensional manifolds?

"you may have a point"



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
What did the physicist say to the mathematician presenting new work on connected zero-dimensional manifolds?

"you may have a point"


And what would a mathematician's answer to a physicist's claim that smooth operation of a proportional chamber is most readily achieved with addition of 20% chlorine to the gas mix?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And what would a mathematician's answer to a physicist's claim that smooth operation of a proportional chamber is most readily achieved with addition of 20% chlorine to the gas mix?
I don't know, what would a mathematician's answer to a physicist's claim that smooth operation of a proportional chamber is most readily achieved with addition of 20% chlorine to the gas mix?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Bobathon
What did the physicist say to the mathematician presenting new work on connected zero-dimensional manifolds?

"you may have a point"


And what would a mathematician's answer to a physicist's claim that smooth operation of a proportional chamber is most readily achieved with addition of 20% chlorine to the gas mix?

"God did it"?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 
differential manifolds?



I've read Zarathustra and I'm pretty certain he didn't speak of differential manifolds. Those who are skeptical of the claim may check out Zoroaster's Gathas here. I promise that it's physics free. :
www.zarathushtra.com...


Ah, but in Yasna 28, Verse 2, he sang of the multiple universe theory.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Coming back to the claim that Haramein's work has been accepted by a scientific publication, I wrote a little summary in the comments thread on my blog as part of the debate there.

There's a further issue of how Haramein got to present his dodgy paper, which has nothing at all to do with computing anticipatory systems, at a computing anticipatory systems conference, never mind how it came to be judged favourably there. I don't have any information, and I'm reluctant to speculate. It's clearly something he's been trying very hard to do for a long time.

So long as he's unable to demonstrate any capacity to understand basic physics, or present anything that's not immediately disprovable, it seems unlikely to do much except backfire on him.

Although it will probably raise his profile with people who couldn't give a crap about physics but like the idea of him being a physicist anyway. I guess that's the idea.
edit on 1-1-2011 by Bobathon because: correcting link



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Good luck, I hope he's right but it is simpler than that, use Faraday, Goedel, Lord Kelvin and plug that into James Clarke Maxwell's equations and you will find a very simple answer.

Already spoken to a theoretical physicist last week ATS, he wanted a simpler answer than the one paragraph I gave him. And published. And not shut down either as there was no repudation.

It is really simple. Can be used for molecules, hyperspace, electricity, gravity, radition and also FTL etc.

Happy Hunting

HADES



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by maxwellsdemon
 
Er, what's simpler than what?

It probably wasn't simplification that was the issue with your physicist friend, it's wtf you're talking about. Plug Goedel into Maxwell's equations? It's like saying ha ha, it's easy to become rich, you just plug fifteen into a C sharp twiglet.

Anyway, hello demon. Haramein's full of crap, that was my point. I've explained why from hundreds of angles. Hoping he's right won't really cut it.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxwellsdemon
Good luck, I hope he's right but it is simpler than that, use Faraday, Goedel, Lord Kelvin and plug that into James Clarke Maxwell's equations and you will find a very simple answer.


Of course! And if you use spaghetti, kool aid, and powdered DVDs of American Idol, you can easily get caviar. But it needs to be plugged just in the right place.


Can be used for molecules, hyperspace, electricity, gravity, radition and also FTL etc.


It slices, it dices, makes tons of julienne fries, but wait, there is more... It also defies gravity.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
To a scientist, if you claim to be published in peer-reviewed conference proceedings it means very little.


I guess it’s been established on this thread that it was not the American Journal of Physics, which is for teachers, but the Conference Proceedings of the American Institute of Physics that published “The Schwarzschild Proton.”

However, perhaps it makes no difference whether a paper is published in peer-reviewed conference proceedings.

I won't argue with that.

Going forward, I think it would be helpful to discuss Haramein's theory without reliance on scientific dogma or scientific authority figures as established in the mainstream.

Instead, I would like to read members' original thoughts on the theory based on research and analysis from both the mainstream and alternative sources - with their own perspective included.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Going forward, I think it would be helpful to discuss Haramein's theory without reliance on scientific dogma or scientific authority figures as established in the mainstream.


It has been done in this threads and prior ones on same subject. There were a number of basic inconsistencies already exposed, which makes this a non-theory. We got it covered, and regurgitating serves no useful purpose.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
We got it covered, and regurgitating serves no useful purpose.


You represent everyone?
edit on 01/07/11 by Mary Rose because: Format





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join