Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by beebs
. . . the universe could be a 'paradoxical' natural system that isn't linear) . . .

Is this to say there was no beginning; the universe has always been here - as in infinity?

Intuitively, this makes more sense to me than a beginning, because with a beginning, you have to ask, what was here before the beginning, and how did it get here?

reply to post by Mary Rose


I'm thinking that meditation probably is valuable for forming a scientific hypothesis.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm curious. Anyone familiar with Anthony Garrett Lisi, his work regarding a unified theory, and how it compares to Haramein's?

Since you're fond of making comparisons to Einstein, we can include Lisi in the comparison:

y=yes, n=no, for Einsten, Lisi, and Haramein in that order:

Trained physicist: y, y, n
Paper submitted for peer review: y, n, n
Paper initially ignored by mainstream community: y, y, y
Paper can be proven or disproven with experiments: y(proven), ?, y(disproven)

So, Lisi has a little more in common with Einstein than Haramein does, since Lisi is a trained physicist. But unlike Einstein's paper, Lisi's paper wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The reason I put a question mark for whether his theory can be proven is given in the wiki about his theory:

en.wikipedia.org...

By matching 226 known standard model particles to some of the 248 symmetries of E8, Lisi is able to predict the existence and quantum numbers of 22 new particles....

Since Lisi does not specify masses for these particles their prediction is not falsifiable by non-discovery in any given experiment, because the masses could exceed the experiment's reach. However, the discovery of new particles that do not fit in Lisi's classification, such as superpartners, would fall outside the model, and falsify Lisi's match to E8.

So his theory is possibly falsifiable by future experiments in the LHC, if particles are discovered that don't fit his theory. In contrast, Haramein's paper is falsifiable by previous, rather than future, experiments.

It's unfortunate Lisi wasn't able to predict masses for the particles his theory predicts which might allow his theory to be proven.

I share Lisi's concerns about string theory being overly speculative, that's supposedly the reason he initially worked independently rather than accepting a position to work in string theory. Edward Kasner used a "Googol", which is the digit 1 followed by 100 zeroes, to illustrate the difference between an unimaginably large number and infinity. Just try to write this number and you get some idea how big it is. My understanding of string theory is, that's the approximate number of possible solutions to string theory, maybe more, like a 1 followed by 200 zeroes.

So it seems to me like no matter what happens in the LHC, string theorists will be able to say "That was one of the googol of predictions made by string theory". Even if that's true, and even if string theory is true, I fail to see how it helps us at this point, because a theory that predicts everything no matter what happens in an experiment, really predicts nothing, if that makes any sense. So I can appreciate why Lisi wasn't enthusiastic about string theory. His predictions are at least specific enough to be proven false, even if they aren't specific enough to be easily proven true.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
y=yes, n=no, for Einsten, Lisi, and Haramein in that order:
Trained physicist: y, y, n

My impression about Einstein from what I've read is that he didn't get along with his teachers and learned very little from formal education and was virtually self-taught.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Is this to say there was no beginning; the universe has always been here - as in infinity?

Intuitively, this makes more sense to me than a beginning, because with a beginning, you have to ask, what was here before the beginning, and how did it get here?

Right. Infinity, or eternal, etc.

Never-ending evolution. Or to use the alchemical framework, everything is continually transforming.

Or in eastern philosophy, the theory of momentariness might be a relevant equivalent.

----

The paper I just posted suggests that Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence might be responsible for organizing young solar systems.

MHD turbulence

I'm not finished reading it yet, though.

And I'm still reading up on MHD... anyone know more about it?

My impression about Einstein from what I've read is that he didn't get along with his teachers and learned very little from formal education and was virtually self-taught.

Mine as well. 'Tis very inspiring, to me. Institutionalized education is lacking, IMO.

I really had higher expectations from the faculty in my university, to be honest. Maybe the Ivy leagues are way better than where I go, but I doubt it.

There is a pretty intense generational schism between students my age, and the profs.

IMO.

Originally posted by beebs
Institutionalized education is lacking, IMO.

My belief is that Rockefeller and other elements of the powers that be have too much influence over it. Institutionalized education does not have freedom of expression and independence in the search for the truth; it must conform to the wishes of those from above who hold the purse strings and have the power.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
y=yes, n=no, for Einsten, Lisi, and Haramein in that order:
Trained physicist: y, y, n

My impression about Einstein from what I've read is that he didn't get along with his teachers and learned very little from formal education and was virtually self-taught.

How much he actually learned from formal education can be debated, but he did at least get a formal education, as did Lisi. He certainly didn't get his breakthrough theories from formal education, but he needed the formal education to communicate his breakthrough papers in language that other scientists could understand:

Albert Einstein

Einstein....enrolled in 1896 in the mathematics and physics program at the Polytechnic in Zurich.

Einstein graduated in 1900 from the Polytechnic with a diploma in mathematics and physics

In 1905, he received his doctorate from the University of Zurich. His thesis was titled "On a new determination of molecular dimensions". That same year, which has been called Einstein's annus mirabilis or "miracle year", he published four groundbreaking papers, on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of matter and energy, which were to bring him to the notice of the academic world.

Originally posted by beebs
And I'm still reading up on MHD... anyone know more about it?

I wrote a paper about MHD while I was in high school. So yes, you could say I know something about it.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The point is: his contribution to science came from his inspired thought-experiments and follow through on what he thought about and his individualistic approach. He was self-directed.

reply to post by Mary Rose

There's no doubt about that, I agree with you. But you can't underestimate the value of being able to communicate your self-directed ideas to others. That's where a formal education comes in handy, so you at least understand what other scientists think and how they think it so you can effectively communicate your self-directed ideas to them in a language they can understand.

I freely admit that this is the first time a I came in contact with Lisi theories. I haven't had time yet to check these in any amount of detail. However, it's refreshing that I at least have something to chew on, as opposed to retarded POS put forth by Mr. Haramein, and retarder apologies of same.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Yes, it's definitely a refreshing change to talk about Lisi instead of Haramein. I noticed someone just posted about Lisi's paper today in physicsforums here:

www.physicsforums.com...

That poster alludes to how refreshing it is to see a theoretical physics paper that actually makes some predictions, and I agree.

However I don't know if they'll allow the discussion there or not since the T&C for that site says the paper at least has to be peer reviewed, even when posting in the "beyond the standard model" forum. The poster says it's "For peer review"

Here's the link to Lisi's paper An Explicit Embedding of Gravity and the Standard Model in E8 : arxiv.org...

It was only submitted to arXiv 2 days ago. It will take me a while to peruse it. But he actually points out one of the problems with his paper in the conclusion, the fact that mirror fermions are not known to exist in nature but are predicted by his model. And he thinks he can explain that but I'm not sure about his explanation. But it's a night versus day experience reading Lisi's paper compared to Haramein's paper.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm curious. Anyone familiar with Anthony Garrett Lisi, his work regarding a unified theory, and how it compares to Haramein's?

Geometry is All: An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything by A. Garrett Lisi

Is this an accurate portrayal?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm curious. Anyone familiar with Anthony Garrett Lisi, his work regarding a unified theory, and how it compares to Haramein's?

He goes by "Garrett Lisi."

Deferential Geometry, is his

. . . personal wiki notebook in theoretical physics.

Here's Garrett Lisi speaking before a TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, CA in February, 2008, "Talks: Garrett Lisi on his theory of everything." To the right of the video is an "Interactive Transcript" of the talk.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference . . .

TED says that

His work, explained in his paper "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything," and in an ongoing discussion on FQXi, is still on science's speculative fringe. But some physicists believe he could be pointing the way toward a truly unified theory.

Here is the FQXi discussion referenced.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mock? I just pointed out that there have been plenty of musicians in the past who didn't feel that the frequency of 432Hz chosen for base tone made their music more powerful or cosmic as opposed to many other frequencies.

The link you provided doe NOT show this. Furthermore the reasons I was 'pro' 432 were not posted as "more cosmic".

Originally posted by buddhasystem
De gustibus non est disputandum

My point about studying pitch is that I am educated in the topics i am discussing, not that 432hz was my preferred 'taste' in ref' pitch.

some of my research efforts are compiled here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Good for you! I have my own studio with some decent gear and 48 channel mixing desk.

which bears no relation to education, which was my point, the one that your "superior" mind failed to grasp. I don't care how much money you have or things you own, nor does it relate to what we are talking about.
~~~

With regards to "A=432hz is the natural resonant frequency of the average human voice"

generally, the audience will perceive a clear register shift from the second to the third, high register (particularly in the tenor voice, which is stronger), as a change in color, (See Bergonzi program., 1993). Physically, the shift from the soprano's first to second register, is located in the scale precisely where the tenor's shift from second to third register occurs, which is between the F-F# above middle C, (with C tuned to the scientific tuning of C=256Hz, or A at 430.5- 432HZ.)

Third register notes, if sung with the right impostazione (placement), have a particular brilliance, which they lose if they are shouted, or sung in the throat, where they become opaque. First register notes, being sung mostly with a chest resonance, are perceived as darker notes. This implies that each note of the scale does not have the same value for singing.

Great composers such as J.S. Bach, Mozart Beethoven and Verdi were aware of these differences in registration when they wrote their vocal works, and Bach developed the well tempered scale based on this palette of vocal colors.

Source

...as you can see the validity & worth of 432hz is unaffected by (i.e. does not relate to) the differences in sex or register of the voice in question, your argument (again) is nonsense.

I had not remembered things exactly right, admittedly & I cannot point to a paragraph stating 432hz as the most common resonant frequency of the average human voice, but to discredit the idea of 'average resonant frequencies' is ridiculous as you only need to realize that all house phones relay a thin band of frequencies with boosts at 1.25khz & 800hz (core frequencies of average human speech) to see this.

people who get 'hard of hearing' tend to loose the freq's around 3000 & 5000 hz which are the 'Plosives' etc that tell our ears one word is finished and the next is about to begin....

what I DID manage to find to back my arguments is following...

a milestone for the movement launched in 1988 by Lyndon LaRouche, to bring the standard tuning pitch back down to the natural value of C=256 Hz, as was demanded by the Italian opera composer Giuseppe Verdi, and as was considered the norm for all the great composers of Classical polyphony.

Schiller Institute - Verdi's Pitch

The Milan conference heard presentations, among others, from Prof. Bruno Barosi of the Cremona International Institute of Violinmaking, Dr. Jonathan Tennenbaum on the astrophysical basis of the C = 256 tuning, and soprano Renata Tebaldi on the absolute necessity to reverse the tendency toward raising the pitch in performance, in order to save the voices of today's and tomorrow's singers. World-famous Verdi baritone Piero Cappuccilli demonstrated the difference between the Verdi tuning and today's higher pitch by singing two Verdi arias in the two tunings.

petitition
~~~

Originally posted by buddhasystem
...and also other powerful magic enhanced with human sacrifice! What fitting content for a thread with "Haramein" in its title! Pure science.

it IS science you arrogant a-^%$#&*....









with regard to the unusual properties of the great pyramid -

the stone samples contained 10% of impurities and other material, not present in the quarried, natural stone. The additional matter precisely matches (within 1%) that found in the highest quality artificial stone made by Prof. Davidovits. The additional matter consists of a mix of alumina, soluble silica, and traces of (acidic) vegetable material (probably from citrus fruit, rhubarb or agave) that together make a zeolite bonding agent similar to those developed by Prof. Davidovits. According to Davidovits, if the stone he examined was natural (the very remotest of possibilities) then it certainly did not come from the Mokattam quarries historically associated with this work. However, although spectral analysis was unable to completely exclude the possibility that the stone was natural, the visual analysis of micrographic (magnified) images of the stone would seem to settle the issue. Having been almost solely responsible for the development of modern geopolymers, Davidovits is, without doubt, the acknowledged world expert on the subject: He is also a careful and meticulous scientist. Whilst not excluding the remote possibility that the casing stones are natural, from his vast experience, Davidovits claims he has only ever seen this type of inclusion in artificial stone.

Source
Davuidovits theory PROVED

"In carrying on the work, leaves of papyrus, or paper, inscribed with certain characters, were placed under the stones prepared in the quarries; and upon being struck, the blocks were moved at each time the distance of a bowshot (which would be a little over 200 feet), and so by degrees arrived at the pyramids." were the blocks placed on some unknown apparatus (mistaken by the historian to be a piece of papyrus) that would levitate them. If you strip away all the additions and embellishments to a legend, sometimes you are left with a strand of truth.

source

that barely scratches the surface but that's all the time & effort I have to waste on someone only seeking to troll/debunk anyway.

So the Jews were hauling a car battery with them through the desert? Please write to scholars of Judaica, they will be amused.

(no, no mockery there at all..... )
you have to put the effort in to understanding the theories (surrounding the true purpose of the ark of the covenant) to make any comments that hold credence & you are not...

try un-soldering open that tightly sealed mind of yours from time to time, you may find it beneficial...

-B.M

[edit on 28/6/10 by B.Morrison]

Originally posted by B.Morrison
it IS science . . .

I have read that sound technology is probably what was used to build the pyramids and not the asinine explanation offered by traditional, mainstream institutions of learning.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Guess that's what

Originally posted by B.Morrison
source

is saying.