Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Again, what was the sequence of events with Einstein? Did he, or did he not, propose the test for his theory in his original submission of his theory?

I know his manuscript "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity". Originally published in Annalen der Physik (1916) was published in 1916 and that site has links to the original German, and English translations of the paper.

This article was the first systematic exposé of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein completed the general theory of relativity in 1915 and published this first exposé the following year.

The general theory predicted exactly to what extent a light beam would be bent when it passes near the sun. This prediction was confirmed by observations made by an expedition led by the British astronomer Arthur Eddington during a total eclipse of the sun in May 1919. It was the announcement of the confirmation of this prediction which thrust celebrity status upon Einstein overnight in November 1919.

Why do you ask?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Again, what was the sequence of events with Einstein? Did he, or did he not, propose the test for his theory in his original submission of his theory?

I know his manuscript "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity". Originally published in Annalen der Physik (1916) was published in 1916 and that site has links to the original German, and English translations of the paper.

This article was the first systematic exposé of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein completed the general theory of relativity in 1915 and published this first exposé the following year.

The general theory predicted exactly to what extent a light beam would be bent when it passes near the sun. This prediction was confirmed by observations made by an expedition led by the British astronomer Arthur Eddington during a total eclipse of the sun in May 1919. It was the announcement of the confirmation of this prediction which thrust celebrity status upon Einstein overnight in November 1919.

Why do you ask?

You seem to be saying that Einstein did not state how his theory could be tested in his paper.

Is that what you're saying?

Who has knowledge of research regarding an anti-gravity effect?

I am looking for comments about this previous post:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
On the Vortex Network News website is a free audio archive on a program that Bill Akek did based on Jeremy's video and Nassim's paper. He gave the program the heading "The Schwarzschild Proton - Unifying Gravity with the Strong Nuclear Force."

In the program, Bill talks about the significance of the double torus [I've corrected here my original misspelling] having a counter-rotation in its ring structure. He says that counter-rotation is very important in an anti-gravity effect. He said he's done work replicating the Nazi Bell device, which is modeled on counter-rotating opposing magnetic fields.

For convenience, I have inserted, hopefully, a live link to the page where the audio can be found, into my quote, above.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You seem to be saying that Einstein did not state how his theory could be tested in his paper.

Is that what you're saying?

Not exactly, no. If you look at page 200 of that English version of his 1916 paper, it does state explicitly how his theory explains the anomalous advancement of the perihelion of Mercury. Regarding the bending of light by the sun, he does state mathematically what effect to expect so you could say that yes his paper does make that prediction mathematically, that's the source of the prediction.

Even in 1914, 2 years before that 1916 paper was published, he was trying to get his eclipse prediction tested, so you could really say he was saying how the measurements could be made 2 years in advance of his paper being published:

www.1919eclipse.org...

Einstein attempted to convince observers to measure the gravitational deflection. He found an enthusiastic colleague in Erwin Findlay-Freundlich, whose expedition to Russia in August 1914 was scuppered by the outbreak of war in the very month of the solar eclipse: as a German national in Russia, he was arrested. William Campbell, Director of the Lick Observatory, was similarly unlucky in his attempts. His missed the 1914 eclipse and another in June 1918 in Washington State due to thick cloud.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Not exactly, no. If you look at page 200 of that English version of his 1916 paper, it does state explicitly how his theory explains the anomalous advancement of the perihelion of Mercury. Regarding the bending of light by the sun, he does state mathematically what effect to expect so you could say that yes his paper does make that prediction mathematically, that's the source of the prediction.

Is this the same as spelling out the way to test the theory?

The point I'm driving at is whether, in theoretical physics, in order to be a legitimate theory, the scientist has to spell out how the theory can be tested, or can a theory simply be a thought experiment submitted for consideration - to be followed up later, of course, by a test that scientists agree would prove or disprove the theory.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Yes, well the Mercury "prediction" was based on known data so it wasn't really a "prediction" in advance. He apparently tried to get the eclipse observation in advance of his paper also, but when his friend got arrested trying to help him out in 1914, he probably felt like he couldn't wait until 1918 to publish in case someone else published the same theory before he did, so he published in 1916.

Your question relates to the definition of science.:

Scientific method

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results.

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[40]

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.

As this shows it's nice if you can make the measurements, analyze the data, and interpret it (4-6) before publishing (7) and it appears Einstein attempted to do this with his 1914 efforts to get colleagues to measure gravitational deflection, but it didn't work out so he took a chance and published before he had all the data.

#4 could also be "make observations", but either experiments or observations are important elements of science.

Another important concept of science is the utility function:

Utility Function - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it. One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the refutability of the model.

Scientific theories lacking in utility function are to some degree by definition, useless. If it's not falsifiable and can't make any predictions about the real world, it's not useful and I'd say it may be something else, but it's probably not science.

Now compare that definition of the scientific method to Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method

So notice the big difference is science and pseudoscience. The former is testable and falsifiable and the latter is often not.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The point I'm driving at is whether, in theoretical physics, in order to be a legitimate theory, the scientist has to spell out how the theory can be tested, or can a theory simply be a thought experiment submitted for consideration - to be followed up later, of course, by a test that scientists agree would prove or disprove the theory.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Yes, well the Mercury "prediction" . . .

I believe you are dancing around the question.

Does the paper have to have the test spelled out or not?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I believe you are dancing around the question.

Does the paper have to have the test spelled out or not?

Does it "have to?" We don't "have to" do anything but die unless someone has figured out immortality. The best papers have already done the experiments and observations and analyzed the results before publishing.

The worst papers from a scientific perspective don't have any conceivable test to prove them correct or to falsify them.

Between those extremes there's a whole continuum of papers with various value. Going back to the Einstein example, he may not have had the eclipse evidence when he published but his paper was clearly falsifiable when it was published and it was just a matter of time before it was either falsified or not.

Haramein's proton paper is falsified from observational evidence gained from particle accelerators before it's even published (The version I have says "draft" so I assume it's not published yet...correct?).

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Close enough

Oh... Really?

Some people think they may understand what's inside the event horizon of a black hole. I'm not so sure they do. I'm a bit of an "agnostic" on this issue because nobody can prove what does or doesn't happen inside the event horizon. So let's say that's a bit of a mystery. You alluded to something we might be able to tell about the inside of a black hole earlier. If the inside is rotating, then the shape of the "Ergosphere" would be altered by the rotation.

Well, that is entering into stalemate area for this discussion again.

I think we can easily conclude that since we cannot perceive the contents of a black hole, that it is operating above the speed of light. If you don't agree with that... well then it would be a stalemate. I also believe that 'rotating' is a convenient term for a complex relationship with the mass inside the black hole. Everything we know of outside of a black hole is spinning, so based on what we know it is possible that what is inside is spinning as well.

And, if we are indeed inside of a black hole(not that far of a stretch), then we have a good idea of what is inside an event horizon - because we are observing it.

However black hole theory says even when the escape velocity is faster than the speed of light, matter and light don't travel faster than the speed of light, so a beam of light aimed outward from the black hole would droop down, in a shape kind of like an arch. The black hole's gravity would pull it back toward the center. That's why it's black. And Hawking radiation is of course another effect that doesn't require matter to travel faster than light to get outside the black hole.

Ok, but you just said that we don't know what is going on inside a black hole. And if light or matter doesn't travel faster than the speed of light, then WTF is happening in a black hole? The event horizon?

Your explanations are lacking in explanatory power...

Perhaps only one quantum level of 'light' has the threshold that we can perceive at an event horizon.

Hawking Radiation is matter? And I'm not seeing your point about the light beam emitting from a black hole.

Coronal loops from the sun do the same thing, arching back towards the sun.

I don't know if anything besides effects like quantum entanglement can travel faster than light. But everything we know now says that light travels at the speed of light and matter travels below the speed of light. Theoretically that applies to inside and outside the black hole too but again I don't pretend to know exactly what goes on inside the event horizon, it's a mystery to me.

So you admit quantum entanglement can be FTL, yet you do not see the connection with Haramein's theory?

And, what happens to light and matter beyond the event horizon, if they are not exceeding the speed of light?

You have to provide a better explanation if you are going to discard the previous theories and assumptions about black holes.

----

And I think I am very correct about Zero Point. I have spent a good deal of time researching it.

It IS NOT zero.

It is EM noise that means there is no such thing as a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum.

It is the lowest possible energy state. In no way can you conflate that with absolute zero.

There is no absolute zero. It is only a theoretical framework.

That is the whole point of zero point.

No puns intended.

www.calphysics.org...

Originally posted by beebs
I think we can easily conclude that since we cannot perceive the contents of a black hole, that it is operating above the speed of light. If you don't agree with that... well then it would be a stalemate.

No I don't agree with that and no it's not a stalemate.

Think about this, the reason it's considered a black hole is that light can't escape. If you now want to theorize that something inside the event horizon is traveling faster than light, then that would be able to escape, and it wouldn't be a black hole. Do you understand?

Your explanations are lacking in explanatory power...

I admit I'm curious about what would go on inside the event horizon of a black hole, however I'll probably never know, but that doesn't bother me, you know why? Because it's just a matter of curiosity and it really doesn't matter, since what's going on inside the black hole isn't that important as a result of the no hair theorem:

Black Hole

The no hair theorem states that, once it achieves a stable condition after formation, a black hole has only three independent physical properties: mass, charge, and angular momentum.[13] Any two black holes that share the same values for these properties, or parameters, are classically indistinguishable.

These properties are special because they are visible from outside the black hole. For example, a charged black hole repels other like charges just like any other charged object. Similarly, the total mass inside a sphere containing a black hole can be found by using the gravitational analog of Gauss's law, the ADM mass, far away from the black hole.[14] Likewise, the angular momentum can be measured from far away using frame dragging by the gravitomagnetic field.

So you admit quantum entanglement can be FTL, yet you do not see the connection with Haramein's theory?

It's more than just me admitting it, FTL "spooky action at a distance" from quantum entanglement has been measured as occurring FTL. But the stuff in Harameins paper like what happens to a proton as it approaches c has been measured. So measurements prove quantum entanglement FTL is true, and they also prove that Haramein's protons (or black holes, or whatever you want to call them) traveling at c is false.

And, what happens to light and matter beyond the event horizon, if they are not exceeding the speed of light?

You have to provide a better explanation if you are going to discard the previous theories and assumptions about black holes.

Like I said, I'm curious, but it doesn't really matter. The black hole itself can't travel faster then the speed of light, we know that much. And if the stuff inside it was traveling faster then the speed of light, it wouldn't be a black hole, because then it would be moving fast enough to escape. So by definition it wouldn't be a black hole. That's what makes a black hole black, is that stuff traveling at the speed of light can't escape.

And I think I am very correct about Zero Point.

It is the lowest possible energy state. In no way can you conflate that with absolute zero.

Good! So you know it's the lowest possible energy state. Do you think the energy state can go below the lowest possible energy state? If yes please explain how. If not, then that's why it's called zero, not because it is zero but because it can't go any lower, and since it can't go any lower you can't take anything out of it without having to give it back.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Like I said, I'm curious, but it doesn't really matter.

Maybe your pursuit of the truth is not strong enough to matter.

Maybe protecting what you think you know is more important to you.

I have found an MP3 of an interview of an emissary for the Resonance Project on a website for Conscious Living Radio.

Info on the emissary:

Michael Hey is a Vancouver writer and filmmaker. In January of 2008, he became an emissary for the Resonance Project. As an emissary, Michael has been giving presentations of Nassim Haramein's Unification Theory.

Michael stated that a flaw in our current physics is that everything is separate - the world is made of stuff - it's made of matter; matter is hard and it's separated by space in the vacuum . . . We're baffled by the way everything seems to interact because we think of these as separate things.

He said in Haramein's theory, there is nothing separate; everything is part of a greater whole. Haramein's exploration of this concept took him into geometry.

There was a second guest for this interview who talked about sacred geometry.

Michael said that these presentations for Haramein's theory are interactive - there is discussion among the attendees and the presenter about how the theory applies to various occupations. He used the example of energy healing - understanding the physics of it.

I've located another emissary named Jeffrey Allen on the web. Here is what he had to say:

"The first time I watched Nassim's DVD presentation, I was glued to the screen! I had been using sacred geometry for healing and manifestation for years. I knew it worked, but Nassim was describing HOW it worked and tying it together with ancient teachings. I was fascinated and intrigued!


As I watched, many pieces of my past - such as visits to the pyramids in Mexico and Egypt, my fascination with 3D geometric puzzles, and my deep feelings of connection and oneness - fit in with Nassim's teaching. I felt as if I was meant to be watching!

Nassim also left me with a feeling of hope that science can assist in uniting rather than dividing humankind. I imagined a day where these unconventional thoughts were accepted science taught to children in schools. I could easily see this changing the way we view each other and our own place on the planet and beyond.


When I heard about the Emissary Program, I knew I was meant to be part of it. I'm grateful for the opportunity to share this information and inspire others as I've been inspired - to look back at our past, ahead at our future, across continents, and out into the stars - to see the vastness of it all and know our own connection deep within."

I'm realizing more and more how inter-disciplinary Haramein's work is, and how much it naturally leads to a change in approach to problem-solving.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Do you realize that how much New Age this paragraph is? Sacred geometry and holistic healing may sound pleasing to the ear, but even if Haramein's "theory" wasn't already a pile of crap, that would do it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Do you realize that how much New Age this paragraph is? Sacred geometry and holistic healing may sound pleasing to the ear, but even if Haramein's "theory" wasn't already a pile of crap, that would do it.

I am very suspicious of "New Age crap" as Stewart Swerdlow often calls it, but not sacred geometry and holistic healing. These are good topics in my book.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I am very suspicious of "New Age crap" as Stewart Swerdlow often calls it, but not sacred geometry and holistic healing. These are good topics in my book.

"Sacred" and science (or equation, or experiment) do not belong on the same page. Not more than "magic potion" belongs in a book on medicine.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Sacred" and science (or equation, or experiment) do not belong on the same page.

Depends on how you look at it. "Sacred" can be thought of as the truth of the universe and all of creation and how it works.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Sacred" and science (or equation, or experiment) do not belong on the same page.

Depends on how you look at it. "Sacred" can be thought of as the truth of the universe and all of creation and how it works.

Well in the context being discussed, it's clearly the magical aspect, not just respect of creation. Speaking of respect to nature and science, anyone willing to practice that should read Haramein's work and promptly discard it as trash.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well in the context being discussed, it's clearly the magical aspect, not just respect of creation.

Magic can be thought of as advanced technology.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I am very suspicious of "New Age crap" as Stewart Swerdlow often calls it, but not sacred geometry and holistic healing. These are good topics in my book.

"Sacred" and science (or equation, or experiment) do not belong on the same page. Not more than "magic potion" belongs in a book on medicine.

I must admit I didn't know what "sacred geometry" was so I Googled it and found the wiki that says this:

Sacred geometry may be understood as a worldview of pattern recognition, a complex system of hallowed attribution and signification that may subsume religious and cultural values to the fundamental structures and relationships of such complexes as space, time and form.

Despite the fact that my aptitude scores on reading comprehension were very high, I still had difficulty understanding exactly what that meant, so for further insight I followed the link that says:

Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Which says (ATS censored words modified):

Am I the only person who notices that when BS artists are at work, sentences pop up that have no decipherable semantic meaning? Let me just try to translate this into English. "Sacred geometry may be understood as... making stuff up."

Oh well if it's about making "stuff" up then it's a perfect fit for the other stuff Haramein made up like the fact that 3 dimensional objects have no volume because 1 and 2 dimensional geometrical constructs like lines and planes have no volume. One of his great "insights" is that he failed to understand a simple concept in 8th grade geometry, the difference between the surface area of a cube and the volume of a cube! See this 8th grade geometry problem:

Grade 8 Geometry Problems and Questions with Answers

3. A cube has a total surface area of the six faces equal to 150 square feet. What is the volume of the cube?

What is Nassim Haramein's answer to this 8th grade geometry question?

Haramein (paraphrased) "Because I don't know the difference between the surface area of the cube and the volume of the cube, I'm going to proclaim all mainstream scientists don't know what they're talking about because when I took a class in geometry, I thought maybe a cube really didn't have volume because the 6 planes that form the surfaces of the cube don't have volume, and I was too afraid to ask the teacher about it. So I proclaim everyone else in the world is wrong about the cube having volume and I hereby say the cube has no volume".

Yes, he's pretty good at making stuff up about geometry. The question is why he has any followers after starting his lecture with a presentation about how he failed to understand this simple concept from 8th grade geometry.

Now about the sacred part, I guess people can worship the cube?

BTW Buddhasystem, I saw the tesseract on the "sacred geometry" wiki page, you used to have that for an avatar, right? I remember it because it was one of my favorite avatars. Well, I like tesseracts, but I don't worship them.