Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

reply to post by Arbitrageur

He knows fake physics which exists only in his mind. I know the physics that can be proven with experiments and observations. You would be doing yourself a disservice to learn wrong things which can't be proven in any lab, you'd be much better off learning things which CAN be proven in a lab. Lab experiments and observations are methods we use to determine which ideas are true and which are false

Ok. And when we can't use a lab? We must use our intuition, imagination, and rational analysis to push forward into the frontier.

I understand that you do not agree with that. If you had never seen water before and lived in a desert, and I showed you a droplet in a vial and said there was whole expanses of it like there is sand in the desert... would you doubt me? Would you call me crazy because you had never seen the oceans with your own eyes?

Yes, but it's not because he doesn't have a degree that I have a problem with him. Rauscher does and some of the stuff she says is problematic too, like not knowing what the basic fundamental forces of physics are.

So, have you ever thought that maybe you don't know everything about physics as well? Introspection is essential in science.

I've watched all those before, I just watched a sampling to make sure they were the ones I've already seen.

Ok, so you didn't watch them again in the context of this thread.

You argue on a semantical basis, and on the basis that Bushman is a deceptive individual or is 'incompetent'.

To me this is not a sufficient scientific argument. You know all of his experiments are repeatable... It is the context in which he is demonstrating them that is highly credible and interesting.

He is an engineer from Lockheed Martin. What gives you reason to think he is deceiving us - besides the fact that you don't agree with him?

I agree he could have used video recording for the experiment.

What do you think about his testimony and documents regarding the nuclear aircraft?

So what is nature telling us through Lenz's law?

Obviously, Boyd Bushman is trying to get us to think - as he has security clearances like any employee at LM. He can't just tell us exactly what we want.

He can only give clues.


BTW, if you don't mind me asking, what is your degree in? Physics I presume?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beebs
What if the particles in the accelerator are already spinning at the speed of light, and we are unknowingly trying to accelerate them even faster, to a relative speed of light only relevant to our planet?

You don't have to guess. Particles in the accelerator are moving in tightly controlled conditions and no, they aren't spinning at the speed of light.

Ok... you are a reductionist at heart. I am a holist.

*IF* Haramein is correct(and I have yet to see where his math is wrong... Arbitrageur has merely pointed out that it is "impossible" due to that relativistic equation - yet Haramein uses simple maths to deduce the Schwarzschild conditions), then the term 'proton' is only a convenient term for a black hole with radius 1.32 fm.

So the reactions in the particle accelerator would take on a new context.... no?

And that is why this discussion was focused, albeit for a short time span, on the nature of black holes.

I suggest that the contents inside of the event horizon is traveling above c.

So, when we try to accelerate the tiny black holes to our relative 'speed of light', we are perhaps pushing the structure to a next interval in harmonics, or a cymatic/geometric/frequency/quantum threshold.

The 'protons' in particle accelerator experiments are already traveling around the earth's axis, the earth is orbiting the sun, the sun is spinning around the GC, and the galaxy itself is whipping around the universe.

All those add up to quite a bit of inherent angular momentum, or mass or energy or however you want to phrase it.

Originally posted by beebs
If you had never seen water before and lived in a desert, and I showed you a droplet in a vial and said there was whole expanses of it like there is sand in the desert... would you doubt me?

I'd say, "show me", which of course you'd be able to do and then I'd believe you. You could just as easily point to a vial of mercury and claim there were entire oceans full of mercury, in which case I'd also say "show me".

In one case you're presenting facts, in another case you're presenting nonsense. The way we determine which is which is by looking at the evidence, in this case, observations.

Why, would you like me to take your word for it no matter what claim you make?

So, have you ever thought that maybe you don't know everything about physics as well? Introspection is essential in science.

Well, there is the "real physics" of the universe, and then there is our understanding of it. Obviously there are some holes in our understanding, like we don't have a unified theory yet which ties together quantum theory with Einstein's physics. However I do know a fair amount about experiments and observations we have made in our attempt to understand what the real physics is. And that also gives me the ability to recognize obvious nonsense like Haramein's proton paper when I see it which is contradicted by known observations.

You argue on a semantical basis, and on the basis that Bushman is a deceptive individual or is 'incompetent'.

He is an engineer from Lockheed Martin. What gives you reason to think he is deceiving us - besides the fact that you don't agree with him?

Of course his Lenz law experiments are repeatable, it's a well-known effect. Listen to the beginning of the third video you posted, when Bushman says this:

"Notice that it floated above the aluminum. Something mystical inside the aluminum is doing something like what happened inside of copper."

Now it's not semantics to say this is something called Lenz's law and it's not mystical, it is a known, understood effect. And the fact that he calls it mystical means only one of two things:
1. He is telling the truth in which case he really thinks it's mystical and therefore doesn't understand or know about Lenz's law. As a senior engineer that makes him incompetent. OR,
2. He does know what Lenz's law is, in which case he's lying when he says it's mystical. It's not mystical, it's well understood science, so that makes him a liar.

I'm not sure which applies to Bushman, but I'm sure it's one or the other.

This is pretty straightforward, I'm surprised you didn't get it the first time I explained it. I even posted the Lenz Law videos for you.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by beebs
*IF* Haramein is correct(and I have yet to see where his math is wrong... Arbitrageur has merely pointed out that it is "impossible" due to that relativistic equation - yet Haramein uses simple maths to deduce the Schwarzschild conditions), then the term 'proton' is only a convenient term for a black hole with radius 1.32 fm.

That's just complete nonsense because the proton has structure that is observable in scattering experiments. Same applies to all baryons and mesons. By supplying energy, you can get the proton in an excited state (the so-called resonance). There is simply no semblance of black hole behavior in how proton behaves, regardless of what that village idiot Haramein thinks.

So the reactions in the particle accelerator would take on a new context.... no?

What context? We know plenty about particles and they simply don't behave like black holes.

So, when we try to accelerate the tiny black holes to our relative 'speed of light', we are perhaps pushing the structure to a next interval in harmonics, or a cymatic/geometric/frequency/quantum threshold.

This is just a pile of "holistic" nonsense. In particular, what "structure" do you think the "black hole" has?

The 'protons' in particle accelerator experiments are already traveling around the earth's axis, the earth is orbiting the sun, the sun is spinning around the GC, and the galaxy itself is whipping around the universe.

All those add up to quite a bit of inherent angular momentum, or mass or energy or however you want to phrase it.

You don't have a clue, do you? Any idea of scales of velocities involved, and how they compare to "c"?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beebs
The 'protons' in particle accelerator experiments are already traveling around the earth's axis, the earth is orbiting the sun, the sun is spinning around the GC, and the galaxy itself is whipping around the universe.

All those add up to quite a bit of inherent angular momentum, or mass or energy or however you want to phrase it.

You don't have a clue, do you? Any idea of scales of velocities involved, and how they compare to "c"?

No obviously these velocities are all relatively slow compared to the near-c velocities in the particle accelerator. But also the theory of relativity plays a role in making these other velocities less consequential.

The speed of light c is 299,792,458 m/s or 299,792 km/s
The particle accelerators operate at over 99.99% of that velocity.

Beebs here are the other speeds you mentioned (wiki):
Rotation on Earth's axis, small, depends on latitude.
Earth's orbit around sun: ~30km/s
Sun's orbit around Milky Way center: ~220km.s
Sun's movement relative to CMB (includes galaxy whipping around universe and other motions) ~396 km/s

So for the sake of example let's say the net velocity describing the motion of the particle accelerator is around 500 km/s

Divide this by 299792km/s and you get 0.0016678 or 0.16678% of the speed of light. Obviously this is tiny compared to the over 99.99% of the speed of light the particle accelerators operate at.

But you also seem to miss an even bigger point, that of the theory of relativity gives us the very non-intuitive result that the speed of light is not added to these other velocities. So you can't take the 0.167% of the speed of light the particle accelerator is moving through space and add the 99.99% of the speed of light measured inside the particle accelerator, and then calculate that the particles are really traveling at the sum of those speeds or 100.157% of the speed of light. It doesn't work that way.

So the reason all those velocities are inconsequential is not only because they are small relative to the speed of light, but moreover because of the fact that the speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

reply to post by buddhasystem

That's just complete nonsense because the proton has structure that is observable in scattering experiments. Same applies to all baryons and mesons. By supplying energy, you can get the proton in an excited state (the so-called resonance). There is simply no semblance of black hole behavior in how proton behaves, regardless of what that village idiot Haramein thinks.

Empirical equivalence is a bitch.

According to Haramein's working theory, a universe is inside of that black hole. Universes have structure... this could be considered quantum pieces at harmonic thresholds or cymatics geometrical divisions.

Do you really think you know precisely what the 'particles'(that are also waves in QM) are when they collide with each other? Could the mainstream be misinterpreting what 'particles' are?

QM says they are waves. This must be taken into account in collider physics.

Is QM bunk?

What context? We know plenty about particles and they simply don't behave like black holes

Again, particles are also waves. And, we have been discussing how little we know about black holes... how can you state assuredly that 'particles' do not behave like black holes?

This is just a pile of "holistic" nonsense. In particular, what "structure" do you think the "black hole" has?

I don't know... something like a nesting torus. I'm all ears for your insights into a unified field theory. That is my goal.

Why is it that strict reductionists ridicule holistic thought?! Doesn't make any sense to me... Kinda sounds like a fundamentalist ridiculing the spiritual/occult...

You don't have a clue, do you? Any idea of scales of velocities involved, and how they compare to "c"?

Apparently not. Enlighten me.

-----

Arbitrageur-

You have enlightened me 'of the scales of velocities involved, and how they compare to "c"' .

Ok... so working with Haramein's theory, everything that we can observe is merely the event horizon of every schwarzschild proton.

Thus, everything we can observe in the known universe is at the threshold of 'c'.

It is the speed of light. In fact, it is light itself because the inside of the black hole is debatable.

And the value besides the other cosmic speeds that is necessary that I forgot, is the spin of 'particles'.

This then gets into QM... and every larger cosmic scale of spin is dependent upon quantum mechanical factors.

So the reason all those velocities are inconsequential is not only because they are small relative to the speed of light, but moreover because of the fact that the speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

Thanks for the explanation.

My immediate skepticism kicks in in the form of red and blue shifts, and doppler effects. But those are only from our frame of reference, right?

But it seems to me that the motion of the stars we observe shifting is having an effect on the speed of light reaching our frame of reference.


And one more connection I am making as I write this - is that gravity has the ability to 'bend' light.

If Haramein is correct, I am sure there is something significant regarding the quantum gravity effect on light reaching these schwarzschild protons... having trouble visualizing it right now.

If he isn't correct, then we still need to figure out what the strong force is.

My bet is on gravity - as I think there are other theories than Haramein's that suggest quantum gravity.

Originally posted by beebs
My immediate skepticism kicks in in the form of red and blue shifts, and doppler effects. But those are only from our frame of reference, right?

Wrong. not only our frame of reference, but all reference frames see differing blue or red shifts which depend on the relative motions of the different reference frames.

But it seems to me that the motion of the stars we observe shifting is having an effect on the speed of light reaching our frame of reference.

Like I said, that would be the intuitive expectation, probably the expectation a lot of people had before Einstein came along. And Einstein said it wasn't true, and measurements confirm that. See your previous paragraph, the motions affect the red or blue shifts, not the speed of light.

If he isn't correct, then we still need to figure out what the strong force is.

My bet is on gravity - as I think there are other theories than Haramein's that suggest quantum gravity.

Oh yeah? Like what, and are any of those peer-reviewed?

At least we finally agree on something, we need to figure out what the strong force is and a lot of other things too. There's not any "if" about Haramein not being correct.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Do you have reason to disbelieve independent, repeatable observations and experiments?

No.

I agree with you that theories have to be tested. They do.

So maybe the difference between us is, I choose to wait until observations and experiments confirm a theory before believing in it, and you choose to believe in a theory before there are experiments and observations to confirm it?

I would note that statistically speaking, in the history of science, there have been far more theories proven false, than true. So the odds are stacked against you believing in ANY theory which is unsupported by experiments and observations. However, admittedly, a small percentage of these unproven theories will eventually be proven true.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you are unwilling to do the basic research to see if what I say is true, it doesn't demonstrate what I said is false, it only demonstrates that you aren't interested in knowing the truth.

All the stuff you post about science is not of interest to me because of your attitude. Your attitude indicates to me a lack of imagination and a lack of humility. I'm not interested enough in your science to go read up on it and see whether it sounds right to me. I have other research I'd rather spend my time on.

I thought the motto of ATS was "deny ignorance". So you can spend hours posting Haramein's ignorant claims but when someone points out the flaws in his claims to you, your response is you'd rather keep repeating the nonsense rather than take 15 minutes to investigate the claims? Actually I do have some humility about our actual knowledge of the universe, but when I see a nonsensical claim, it's of no benefit to anyone to display false humility that a nutjob writing a paper in direct contradiction of observational evidence "may be right". If your worldview depends not on the facts but on the humility of someone else, that can obviously lead to a distorted world view.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If Haramein were discussing crazy ideas on his own over some beers with some buddies I don't have any problem with that. However when he hosts lectures and starts "teaching" nonsense to the public at large, I have a little problem with that, and when he starts training an army of minions or "delegates" to go forth and spew his nonsense I have an even bigger problem with that.

Feeling the way you do, you're doing exactly what you should be doing. You think he's doing harm.

I don't. I think he's doing great things.

Again, it's not based on "feelings" it's based on facts. Facts which you choose to ignore.

But believers in the paranormal have a tendency to ignore facts, it's been scientifically proven:

confirmation bias

One study showed how selective memory can maintain belief in extrasensory perception (ESP).[30] Believers and disbelievers were each shown descriptions of ESP experiments. Half of each group were told that the experimental results supported the existence of ESP, while the others were told they did not. In a subsequent test, subjects recalled the material accurately, apart from believers who had read the non-supportive evidence. This group remembered significantly less information and some of them incorrectly remembered the results as supporting ESP.

--Russell, Dan; Jones, Warren H. (1980), "When superstition fails: Reactions to disconfirmation of paranormal beliefs", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

So others have also been found to disregard evidence which contradicts their world view. In the case of the research study it may have been done subconsciously. In your case it appears to be willful and at a conscious level, when you don't want to be bothered to check my claims, because you don't like my attitude, presumably because I've exposed Haramein for the fraud he is and you don't like that.

So let's see how this works:
1. Believe Haramein
2. Anyone who says Haramein is wrong has a bad attitude.
3. Don't check factual claims of anyone with a bad attitude.
4. Keep believing Haramein. Ignore the facts.

Sound about right?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So maybe the difference between us is, I choose to wait until observations and experiments confirm a theory before believing in it, and you choose to believe in a theory before there are experiments and observations to confirm it?

What I have done with Haramein's work is to be inspired and impressed with his approach to solving a scientific riddle.

This is not the same as believing his theory is true. It is giving respect where respect is due, and then continuing to follow the course of events as his story unfolds. There will have to be some way to verify his theory. I believe that the method to verify may not be known at this point. I am of the belief that the pursuit of knowledge is going through a paradigm shift.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I thought the motto of ATS was "deny ignorance". So you can spend hours posting Haramein's ignorant claims . . .

Your arrogance is showing again.

And it's getting old.

Ok, I am going to need everyone's help in understanding some of this stuff...

But it has to do with quantum gravity, torus's, and relevant concepts to this discussion.

Chern-Simons theory

CHERN-SIMONS INVARIANTS OF TORUS KNOTS AND LINKS

As explicit formulae are available, torus knots represent an useful ground to
test the conjectured relationship between knot invariants and string theory. The
equivalence of 1/N expansion of Chern-Simons theory to topological string theory
[8] implies that the colored HOMFLY polynomial can be related to Gromov-Witten
invariants, and thus enjoys highly nontrivial properties [27, 19]. This conjecture has
been extensively checked [19, 17, 22], and is now proved [24]. The large-N duality
of Chern-Simons theory with gauge group S O(N ) or S p(N ) has also been studied
[29]. In [3], partial conjectures on the structure of Kauffman invariants have been
formulated. The complete conjecture, that also involves HOMFLY invariants for
composite representations, has been stated by Mari ˜
no [25].

The outline of the paper is the following: in section 2, we recall some important
properties of Wilson loops. Section 3 is devoted to the matrix elements of torus
knot operators. In sections 4,5 and 6, we deduce explicit formulae for HOMFLY
and Kauffman invariants of cable knots, torus knots and torus links. Finally, in
section 7 we provide some tests of Mari ˜
no’s conjecture.

Wilson loop

Torus knot

Hybrid Quantization: From Bianchi I to the Gowdy Model

The Gowdy cosmologies are vacuum solutions to the Einstein equations which pos-
sess two space-like Killing vectors and whose spatial sections are compact. We con-
sider the simplest of these cosmological models: the case where the spatial topology is
that of a three-torus and the gravitational waves are linearly polarized. The subset of
homogeneous solutions to this Gowdy model are vacuum Bianchi I spacetimes with
a three-torus topology. We deepen the analysis of the loop quantization of these
Bianchi I universes adopting the improved dynamics scheme put forward recently
by Ashtekar and Wilson-Ewing. Then, we revisit the hybrid quantization of the
Gowdy T3 cosmologies by combining this loop quantum cosmology description with
a Fock quantization of the inhomogeneities over the homogeneous Bianchi I back-
ground. We show that, in vacuo, the Hamiltonian constraint of both the Bianchi I
and the Gowdy models can be regarded as an evolution equation with respect to
the volume of the Bianchi I universe. This evolution variable turns out to be dis-
crete, with a strictly positive minimum. Furthermore, we argue that this evolution is
well-defined in as much as the associated initial value problem is well posed: physical
solutions are completely determined by the data on an initial section of constant
Bianchi I volume. This fact allows us to carry out to completion the quantization of
these two cosmological models.

Holonomy

More later, but I am on vacation right now

Originally posted by beebs
According to Haramein's working theory, a universe is inside of that black hole.

That's irrelevant because we are talking specifically about proton, and we are observers outside of proton.

Do you really think you know precisely what the 'particles'(that are also waves in QM) are when they collide with each other?

There is nothing 100% precise, but our knowledge of proton structure is pretty good. Particles are waves but the wave aspect would depend on the wavelength, and the energies are such in accelerator experiments that quarks and gluons behave like point-like objects.

Could the mainstream be misinterpreting what 'particles' are?
QM says they are waves. This must be taken into account in collider physics.

It is taken into account. Look up the uncertainty principle and plug in the numbers. Estimate the wavelength.

Is QM bunk?

No, but your understanding of physics is.

What context? We know plenty about particles and they simply don't behave like black holes

Again, particles are also waves. And, we have been discussing how little we know about black holes... how can you state assuredly that 'particles' do not behave like black holes?

By definition information does not escape a black hole. If you look at the proton, it has a verifiable structure (a fairly complex one and it's still being studied) so info flows in and out in oodles.

Why is it that strict reductionists ridicule holistic thought?! Doesn't make any sense to me... Kinda sounds like a fundamentalist ridiculing the spiritual/occult...

If by "fundamentalist" you mean coming from fundamental science, you are right. And if by holistic you mean (and you do) tossing around words and categories that sounds cool but to which you have no clue, you are also right. You are an example of devolution as it applies to human appreciation of science and nature around us.

You don't have a clue, do you? Any idea of scales of velocities involved, and how they compare to "c"?

Apparently not. Enlighten me.
-----

Arbitrageur-

You have enlightened me 'of the scales of velocities involved, and how they compare to "c"' .

You could have easily done the "homework" yourself. See, how easily you get into an argument without having no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You profess curiosity but exhibit the kind of laziness that prevents you from clicking on a Wikipedia page. That's the level on "enlightenment" you need, and can't be bothered to obtain.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
All the stuff you post about science is not of interest to me because of your attitude. Your attitude indicates to me a lack of imagination and a lack of humility.I'm not interested enough in your science to go read up on it and see whether it sounds right to me. I have other research I'd rather spend my time on.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I thought the motto of ATS was "deny ignorance". So you can spend hours posting Haramein's ignorant claims but when someone points out the flaws in his claims to you, your response is you'd rather keep repeating the nonsense rather than take 15 minutes to investigate the claims? .

Your arrogance is showing again.
And it's getting old.

I guess if you can't defend Haramein's nonsense based on facts, hurling ad hominem attacks about "arrogance" is about the only debating strategy you have left. I understand.

Your self-admitted refusal to investigate facts which come from someone you disagree with has earned you a reputation for embracing ignorance rather than denying it, I don't see anything arrogant about simply pointing out that fact.

I choose to be ignorant about brain surgery. I don't know much about it and don't claim to. But I'm not in any forum defending some crackpot's theory about brain surgery. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about a subject. But debating a subject in a forum and then proudly admitting you won't even research the most basic aspects of the topic is nothing to be proud of.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . hurling ad hominem attacks about "arrogance" . . .

I don't want to hurl ad hominems. That's against forum rules.

I will find a better way to express myself going forward.

Meanwhile, you scientists please continue enlightening me. I hope you can do it in a respectful manner, with humility.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I hope you can do it in a respectful manner, with humility.

Are you a spiritual leader, a distinguished person in public service or otherwise deserving that your interlocutors express utter humility in your mere presence?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Meanwhile, you scientists please continue enlightening me. I hope you can do it in a respectful manner, with humility.

I learned several important things from reading the biography of Ben Franklin, one of which is that when someone else asks a person to show humility, it's difficult to take on a goal of humility that somebody else suggests for you, if it's not really your own goal. So hopefully you will find this story about humility as enlightening as I do:

Ethics, Virtues, and Values: Knowing What Matters Most

When he completed his list of the virtues to which he aspired, Franklin wrote a brief sentence describing each of the virtues and what it meant to him. He did not want there to be any confusion about what each of these words meant. His definitions of his virtues then looked like this.....

Franklin's List of Defined Virtues

1. Temperance - eat not to dullness; drink not to elation.
2. Silence - Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
3. Order - Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
4. Reolution - Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality - Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; that is, wast nothing.
6. Industry - Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
7. Sincerity - Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly; speak accordingly.
8. Justice - Wrong none by doing injuries; or omitting the benefits of your duty.
9. Moderation - Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness - Tolerate no un cleanliness in bocy, clothes, or habitation.
11. Tranquility - Be not disturbed at trifles or at accidents common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity - Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.

Franklin then took his list to a respected friend who happened to be a Quaker. Franklin explained to his Quaker friend that he, Franklin, was disappointed in the progress in his life to this point and that he intended to turn his life around. From now on Franklin intended to live his life according to his list of virtues. Each day he would read the list and each week he would focus on a different virtue. Repeating the process over and over again until he had become one with his virtues.

Franklin's Quaker friend asked him one question. "Ben are you serious? Because you sure aren't these things now."

Franklin explained that he was indeed serious and that he knew he was far from these virtues now. But he aspired to become one with the twelve virtues he had listed and described.

His Quaker friend went on then to say. "Ben, if you are serious you need to add a thirteenth virtue. Humility. Because you don't have any."

Franklin thought about the advice of his friend and true to the recommendation added a thirteenth virtue.

13. Humility.

Franklin then went on to define humility for his own understanding, and true to his less than humble self Ben Franklin defined humility, thus.

13. Humility - Emulate Christ and Socrates in all things.

Now there is a truly humble man. He would just emulate Christ and Socrates in all things. True humility. Well, perhaps not really!

Not very humble; but true to his word and his intention, Franklin set about to reorder his life. Each day he would read his list and each week he would focus on a different aspect of his list repeating the process over and over and over again.

The rest is history. Franklin went on to become one of the most productive, successful and self- actualized people in all of history. He knew what mattered most. That was how he could set about being an author, a printer, an inventor, a father, a politician, the first American Ambassador to France, the inventor of bifocals, swim flippers, lightening rods, hundreds of other things and the Franklin stove and how he could found a public library, a hospital, an insurance company and a fire company and help to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

But did you know that is not the end of the story? In his memoirs, shortly before his death Franklin was reflecting on the story of his virtues (which he told in his autobiography written mid-life) and he noted that he had come to feel a oneness with each of his 12 virtues. When he thought of the 13th virtue, he realized that he simply was not humble.

Franklin had failed at his 13th virtue.

Or had he?

Franklin failed at his 13th virtue, Humility. Why? Was the most difficult virtue on this list the last? Or was there another reason? The answer is obvious and simple. Franklin had not failed at his virtues. He had succeeded at each of his twelve virtues. He failed at a virtue that was not his, a virtue that had been given to him by someone else. Franklin failed at a virtue that he did not value. He failed at doing something someone else valued and suggested to him as a value.

So when Franklin went on to become one of the most productive, successful and self- actualized people in all of history, I guess we can forgive him for failing to show as much humility as someone else thought he should. But I'm not sure the goal was ever really his, especially when his idea of humility is to "be like Jesus and Socrates"

Since we're talking about others showing humility, the guy who's the topic of this thread could use some of that too. It's not exactly the most humble view for Haramein to claim that all of mainstream science is wrong and he's right.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I hope you can do it in a respectful manner, with humility.

Are you a spiritual leader, a distinguished person in public service or otherwise deserving that your interlocutors express utter humility in your mere presence?

I was referring to the ridicule and sarcasm that you have been directing at Haramein.

I think that on a forum it is common courtesy to debate issues focusing on the subject matter rather than using name-calling to criticize the person who espouses the subject matter in question. Haramein or any other public figure whose work or writings are being discussed should not be a target, in my opinion. This is for two reasons. One is I think every person deserves to have a degree of respect. The second is that when you ridicule the public figure, you indirectly ridicule the member who valued that public figure's ideas enough to post about him/her.

It doesn't make for productive debate, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's not exactly the most humble view for Haramein to claim that all of mainstream science is wrong and he's right.

I don't believe that he has claimed that all of mainstream science is wrong.

He has simply proposed a theory.

Going forward I hope the discussion will be on physics and not people.

I have a question for my scientists.

Is this a true statement: "The difference between a particle and waveform is only the way the same frequency field is being decoded by the observer."

Thank you in advance for answering a naive question.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is this a true statement: "The difference between a particle and waveform is only the way the same frequency field is being decoded by the observer."

It sounds like a distortion of known science, but without seeing it in context it's hard to say just how distorted it is.

Fields are generally called gravitational fields, or electromagnetic fields. Within the latter you can also have electric fields and magnetic fields, or a combination of the two. And electromagnetic fields can have frequencies.

But I've never heard of "frequency fields". The term in quantum mechanics that might apply here is called "wave function". Here's what the hydrogen wave function looks like:




jersey.uoregon.edu...

Even a wave packet has some `fuzziness' associated with it. An electron in orbit has no position to speak of, other than it is somewhere in its orbit.

To deal with this problem, quantum physics developed the tool of the quantum wave function as a mathematical description of the superpositions associated with a quantum entity at any particular moment.

The key point to the wave function is that the position of a particle is only expressed as a likelihood or probability until a measurement is made. For example, striking an electron with a photon results in a position measurement and we say that the wave function has `collapsed'

If you leave out the part about frequency fields, then what remains is sort of a quantum mechanical principle, that whether you observe properties of a particle or of a wave depends on how you make the observation.

Wave–particle duality

Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of quantum mechanics, so well that modern practitioners rarely discuss it as such. In the formalism of the theory, all the information about a particle is encoded in its wave function, a complex valued function roughly analogous to the amplitude of a wave at each point in space. This function evolves according to a differential equation (generically called the Schrödinger equation), and this equation gives rise to wave-like phenomena such as interference and diffraction.

But I wouldn't say that's the "only" difference between a particle and a waveform. For example, waveforms in the ocean, or acoustical waveforms in the air have little to do with particles in this way.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And electromagnetic fields can have frequencies.

They don't always have frequencies?