Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by beebs
2. You DON'T EXPLAIN WHY anything is patently wrong...

Dude,

the fractional charge of quarks is NOT called the "color quantum number", as Haramein asserts. He mumbles his gibberish because he can count on ignorami like you to swallow his bull line, hook and the sinker. And the paragraph with "lepton number" is equally an agglomeration of scientific-sounding terms. Look up the "lepton number" on Wiki and see for yourself.

Don't accept imitations.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Quote from Haramein:

In the chromodynamics theory of elementary particle physics, the charged particles are quarks and their fractional charge is called the “color” quantum number.

Quote from you:

the fractional charge of quarks is NOT called the "color quantum number", as Haramein asserts. He mumbles his gibberish because he can count on ignorami like you to swallow his bull line, hook and the sinker. And the paragraph with "lepton number" is equally an agglomeration of scientific-sounding terms. Look up the "lepton number" on Wiki and see for yourself.

Sources say:
Color Superconductivity

Color superconductivity is a phenomenon predicted to occur in quark matter if the baryon density is sufficiently high (well above nuclear density) and the temperature is not too high (well below 1012 kelvins). Color superconducting phases are to be contrasted with the normal phase of quark matter, which is just a weakly-interacting Fermi liquid of quarks.

In theoretical terms, a color superconducting phase is a state in which the quarks near the Fermi surface become correlated in Cooper pairs, which condense. In phenomenological terms, a color superconducting phase breaks some of the symmetries of the underlying theory, and has a very different spectrum of excitations and very different transport properties from the normal phase.

Perhaps you should have Wiki'd "Color Charge" as well...
Color Charge

In particle physics, color charge is a property of quarks and gluons that is related to the particles' strong interactions in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Color charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences. The "color" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of color.[1] Rather, it is a whimsical name for a property that has almost no manifestation at distances above the size of an atomic nucleus. The term color was chosen because the abstract property to which it refers has three aspects, which are analogized to the three primary colors of red, green, and blue.[2] By comparison, the electromagnetic charge has a single aspect, which takes the values positive or negative.

Admittedly, wiki says the article is incomplete. But at least Haramein searched wikipedia...

Color Charge(scholarpedia)

Color Charge(stanford)

Lepton

Leptons are a family of elementary particles, alongside quarks and gauge bosons.
Like quarks, leptons are fermions (spin-1⁄2 particles) and are subject to the electromagnetic force, the gravitational force, and weak interaction, but unlike quarks, leptons do not participate in the strong interaction.

There are six flavours of leptons, forming three generations. The first generation is the electronic leptons, comprising the electrons (e−) and electron neutrinos (νe); the second is the muonic leptons, comprising muons (μ−) and muon neutrinos (νμ); and the third is the tauonic leptons, comprising tau particles (τ−) and tau neutrinos (ντ).

Each lepton has a corresponding antiparticle – these antiparticles are known as antileptons.

Leptons are an important part of the Standard Model, especially the electrons which are one of the components of atoms, alongside protons and neutrons. Exotic atoms with muons and tau particles instead of electrons can also be synthesized.

At least I try.

PWNED.

Originally posted by B.Morrison
www.in5d.com...

In the notes from the above, I believe "tropic vector metrics" should be "isotropic vector matrix."

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I happen to have spent a large portion of my professional life using accelerators for research, in my case R&D of instrumentation for particle physics.

Haramein mentioned accelerators in his talk, I believe, in reference to his feeling that we shouldn't keep trying to find the smallest particle; we can always keep dividing to infinity; we should, instead, learn what the dynamic is.

I'm wondering whether this view of his might have something to do with your hostility - whether you are objective or not - in view of your personal professional life using accelerators.

Nooo! Second ever double post haha.

I blame the mosquito that was biting my leg.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by beebs]

reply to post by Mary Rose

Haramein mentioned accelerators in his talk, I believe, in reference to his feeling that we shouldn't keep trying to find the smallest particle; we can always keep dividing to infinity; we should, instead, learn what the dynamic is.

And I would concur. ZPE exists, and it isn't divisible.

A unified field theory would have to reconcile this with classical ideas about particles that are finitely divisible.

But that is hard haha.

So in comes quantum mechanics, and it is oh-so convenient(and ingenious, and monumental, and paradigm changing) to just ignore the particle part of the wave particle duality.

They are just 'point-like' wave packets.

So then, you are working with just waves - much easier to work with in a unified field theory.

I'm not worried. We will know within 10 years IMO.

Or else we will know where to go at least, instead of the kind of 'no-mans land' stalemate that physics is in right now.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I happen to have spent a large portion of my professional life using accelerators for research, in my case R&D of instrumentation for particle physics.

Haramein mentioned accelerators in his talk, I believe, in reference to his feeling that we shouldn't keep trying to find the smallest particle; we can always keep dividing to infinity; we should, instead, learn what the dynamic is.

I'm wondering whether this view of his might have something to do with your hostility - whether you are objective or not - in view of your personal professional life using accelerators.

I used a tiny accelerator in high school when I measured the mass of an electron for my high school science project so I can't claim any particle accelerator experience, other than working with CRT monitors. However I remember that statement by Haramein. My interpretation of his statement is something like this:

"Why get facts (from a particle accelerator) when we can make up fantasies?"

If he had outlined a better method of getting facts it might make sense, but he seems to abandon the observational evidence approach and even you, Mary Rose, stated that you thought observational evidence was important. So I'd think you should also have some serious questions about exactly what Haramein is proposing we using INSTEAD of particle accelerators to gather facts. His "dynamic" is entirely theoretical as far as I can tell, but if I'm wrong maybe you can educate me about how he intends to collect facts without a particle accelerator?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research."

Here is the abstract for the paper that AlienScientist said is similar to Haramein's theory:

"Radial motion into an Einstein–Rosen bridge"
Nikodem J. Popławski

We consider the radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a black hole in isotropic coordinates, which represents the exterior region of an Einstein–Rosen bridge (wormhole). The particle enters the interior region, which is regular and physically equivalent to the asymptotically flat exterior of a white hole, and the particle's proper time extends to infinity. Since the radial motion into a wormhole after passing the event horizon is physically different from the motion into a Schwarzschild black hole, Einstein–Rosen and Schwarzschild black holes are different, physical realizations of general relativity. Yet for distant observers, both solutions are indistinguishable. We show that timelike geodesics in the field of a wormhole are complete because the expansion scalar in the Raychaudhuri equation has a discontinuity at the horizon, and because the Einstein–Rosen bridge is represented by the Kruskal diagram with Rindler's elliptic identification of the two antipodal future event horizons. These results suggest that observed astrophysical black holes may be Einstein–Rosen bridges, each with a new universe inside that formed simultaneously with the black hole. Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing inside another universe.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
His "dynamic" is entirely theoretical as far as I can tell, but if I'm wrong maybe you can educate me about how he intends to collect facts without a particle accelerator?

listen man, don't subscribe to the tact of asking us to disprove you without providing source or legitimate proof of the things you are stating,

because asserting yourself to be the one who has things correct without evidence, is speculative. Also, to assert yourself as correct simply because no one can prove you wrong, is a disfunction you probably would not want to nurture.

-B.M

P.S) his dynamic may be entirely theoretical, but I suggest that the point is that the dynamic is where the attention should be cast, not the age old "smash & analise" we've adhered to since caveman days.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
He mumbles his gibberish because he can count on ignorami like you to swallow his bull line,
Don't accept imitations.

Mr or Ms 'B.S'.....

Ignoring your most recent venomous post directed at me, I think there is a simple reason you are reacting to our openess on these ideas as you are.

Not one of us here are committing to the ideas we are discussing the way you have committed yourself to the laws of physics, the known & proven....that is not undesirable, some might say admirable.

But it is not what is happening here,
what is happening here is an open & frenetic discussion of possibility and trying to determine greater depths of validity, in the ideas we have settled on that to us seemed more credible than the vast majority of 'possibilities' out there, and that warrant further investigation.

Since you seem to find most of these ideas we are discussing too absurd to even consider, perhaps you should invest your time differently.

P.L.U.R.I
-B.M

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

Originally posted by B.Morrison
because asserting yourself to be the one who has things correct without evidence, is speculative.

Apparently you don't understand my assertion. My assertion is that if we smash something in a particle accelerator, we obtain observational evidence. How that evidence is interpreted can be debated but what I don't think can be debated is that whatever happens and is observed is some observable manifestation of the universe we live in.

Now if we follow Haramein's advice and stop using particle accelerators to collect real observational evidence, what should we use instead?

I thought the Schrodnger's Cat book talks about the observation paradox when dealing with QM

Are you sure about what you're observing?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Now if we follow Haramein's advice and stop using particle accelerators to collect real observational evidence, what should we use instead?

I would put money on the probability that we will just keep seeing more and more 'point-like' opposing pairs.

What is your feelings about the possible future discoveries of particle accelerators?

I think since we have them already built, we may as well use them. Of course, I think we should really consider thoroughly(like with interdisciplinary round tables) what exactly is possible with the technology.

We must tread carefully into the unknown.

Originally posted by sticky
Are you sure about what you're observing?

Does this sound like I'm sure?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
How that evidence is interpreted can be debated

Originally posted by beebs
What is your feelings about the possible future discoveries of particle accelerators?

Buddhasystem would be more qualified to answer that than I am.

All I can tell you about is what I've read here:

lhc.web.cern.ch...

If you click on each experiment you can learn more about it like what it's looking for. For example, the first one, ALICE, mentions it's looking for

the formation of a new phase of matter, the quark-gluon plasma

I agree it would be a shame to spend 17 years building the LHC and then to not use it because Haramein said so We may as well use it!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I agree it would be a shame to spend 17 years building the LHC and then to not use it because Haramein said so

We may as well use it!

you know I think again this has all been a misunderstanding, and I think one that may reoccur because some of us are very literal in our way of talking and others talk in a way that takes a little decoding, a little interpretation, I believe Nassim was making the point that the answers lie in the dynamic, and due to what the device is capable of doing, it cannot answer the questions being posed about dynamics, I think it is obvious he does not have the answer in terms of which device we can use to test/experiment with in attempting to answer the questions about dynamics, but I think its also obvious he is simply expressing the need for one, and the need for a shift of focus away from devision of 'building blocks'

a sift of focus to what exactly I don't know off the top of my head, but just personally I was never going to use any of nassim's stuff as proof, because is all theory.

instead I remember the theory & 'wait & see' and continue to search for the truth myself.

-B.M

[edit on 29/6/10 by B.Morrison]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If he had outlined a better method of getting facts it might make sense, but he seems to abandon the observational evidence approach and even you, Mary Rose, stated that you thought observational evidence was important. So I'd think you should also have some serious questions about exactly what Haramein is proposing we using INSTEAD of particle accelerators to gather facts. His "dynamic" is entirely theoretical as far as I can tell, but if I'm wrong maybe you can educate me about how he intends to collect facts without a particle accelerator?

What I said is that his theory will have to be tested.

And I said that I think the method of testing it may not be known yet.

I think his use of meditation has been very important in the formation of a hypothesis. Also his study of the ancients and his personal observation of nature.

I think he has it together better than most.

His approach is a balance of the left and right brain.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Buddhasystem would be more qualified to answer that than I am.

I disagree.

I would like to hear YOUR gut feelings or intuitive thoughts regarding the matter at hand.

Not what anyone else tells you is going to happen - as there is disagreement rampant in the field IMO.

I'm just curious...

Originally posted by B.Morrison
Ignoring your most recent venomous post directed at me

Having called me names that would be considered inappropriate in most normal social settings, you have the nerve to accuse me of spreading venom? Some chutzpah you have (and lack of principles).

Not one of us here are committing to the ideas we are discussing

Quite frankly you could not commit to any of this crap even if you wanted to, because you are not equipped to see what's in Haramein's papers, which is a scrapbook of formulas he pulled out of other peoples papers mixed with a generous helping of his own nonsense, such as the absurd statement about the color charge.

the way you have committed yourself to the laws of physics, the known & proven....

You have no idea what I'm committed to. There are things that we can't explain right now, and certain laws are only known to be true withing certain limits. So I subscribe to making a thorough investigation in either case.

in the ideas we have settled on that to us seemed more credible

If you can's understand more than 10 paragraphs in random points in Haramein's writing, how can ANYTHING seem more credible to you than what's published in Physical Review Letters, or Nuclear Instruments and Methods? How often do you peruse publications like these? Have you ever gone through a classic text like Jackson's and did problems? Can you do textbook level problems in particle physics? If you don't know physics, how come all of sudden "a" theory is "credible"?

I believe that the current onslaught of charlatans' worshipers here on ATS is due to the desire for a shortcut to knowledge. It's a lot easier to hear "look, the proton is a black hole!" and decide "wow, it's kind of cool, and I just learned something" than to learn something for real. More on this in my thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, there are no shortcuts to knowledge, I am afraid.

Since you seem to find most of these ideas we are discussing too absurd to even consider, perhaps you should invest your time differently.

I think Denying Ignorance, in its most direct sense, is quite fitting for the board, and exposing Medieval approach to science for what it is is a worthwhile investment of my time.


[edit on 29-6-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by beebs
PWNED.

You really think so? Did you even try to understand what Haramein wrote, that the fractional ELECTRIC charge is the QCD color charge? Read this sentence a few times because it doesn't seem to sink into your head.

Did you read Haramein's quote on lepton number and correlate it with the Wiki?

You are way out of your depth, and can't PWN anyone with a modicum of knowledge, which you don't have.