Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

reply to post by Bobathon


The ball was in your court. You're refusing to participate. That's your choice.

reply to post by Mary Rose
You're funny. I've joined in a discussion, laid down a clear challenge and opened up a debate, answered every question that's been put to me, and you're telling me that I'm refusing to participate because I'm not actively rebutting the thing that I don't think is there.

reply to post by Bobathon


To be taken seriously as a scientist, you are going to have to rebut Haramein's rebuttal to your criticism of his work.

Jesus.

As I've now said several times, I've already responded to his "rebuttal" in many ways, for example here, and explained a number of his appalling examples of misuse of elementary physics in his attempts to defend his absurd value of the mass of the proton here and his absurd value for the force between protons here.

My point is that he hasn't rebutted anything, all he's done is present a mish-mash of sciencey-sounding stuff, and left a trail of gullible fans who think he's dealt with it. You think I should argue with some vacuous non-rebuttal in order to be taken seriously?

Mary, if I wanted to be taken seriously as a scientist, I wouldn't come on forums to discuss his ideas – I'd do what every other self-respecting scientist is doing and (a) immediately write Haramein off as the incompetent, manipulative, self-aggrandising charlatan that he is, and (b) definitely not attempt to engage in conversation with any of his followers.

reply to post by Bobathon


On page 24 of this thread, the first quotation from “The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto” about the physics of Haramein’s theory appears:


“. . . the actual radius of the proton is still the source of much debate and is considered to be unknown at this point. We found large variations of the estimates of the proton radius size . . .

It's important to note that all these variations occur because of other fairly complex schemes of approximations of the data, and as a result the proton radius is certainly poorly established at this time. We used the Compton wavelength as a first order approximation to see if the concept had any merit whatsoever. We modified it in various ways using the proton charge radius and other approximations and found our results to remain consistent. . . .

. . . Therefore, our proton radius value is actually a worst case scenario utilized as a first order approximation, knowing fair well that a full tensor analysis is necessary. We thought (Dr. Hyson, Dr. Rauscher and I) that this would be adequate for now.”

~~~~~~~~~~~

Where do you write about the actual radius of the proton? Is it a known fact? No disagreement?

reply to post by Mary Rose
I haven't written about the "actual" radius of the proton, because it doesn't really have one. In the intro to my post on the Schwarzschild Proton, there's a little note:

Haramein takes the radius of a proton to be 1.32fm. (This is in fact the Compton wavelength of a proton, not its radius, at least not by any measure that I'm aware of, but it's good enough for now.)

I don't have a problem with the use of any choice of proton radius parameter in a speculative model, although to be honest it would be better if it were clear in the paper that this is what he's doing. In your quote he's referring to it as "a first order approximation to see if the concept had any merit", whereas in his recent presentations he refers to it as a proof! There's some difference between the two, as I'm sure you're aware, and as I'm sure he is also aware, so it's clear that he's intentionally misleading his audiences in these presentations. (Example clip)

Regarding the physics of the 'proton radius', Haramein's explanation that "all these variations occur because of other fairly complex schemes of approximations of the data, and as a result the proton radius is certainly poorly established at this time" is scientific garble. The proton is a quantum system, not a ball. It doesn't have a radius. There are several radius-like parameters that can be defined using quantum mechanics, such as the charge radius or the Compton wavelength or the mean nucleon radius.

They're only parameters, and play different roles in different application of quantum theory to protons. The variation between them is not due to "the proton radius" being "poorly established", it's because the proton doesn't have a radius. Different things have been measured in different ways, and they give different results.

I guess that since he also regularly claims that quantum mechanics is bunk (despite it generating the most accurately verified predictions in the history of science and virtually all of the most astonishing technology of the last 75 years), he's probably fairly comfortable with pretending the proton is a little ball.

In short, this was an oversight I felt I could skip over without much explanation, because it only illustrates his general cluelessness. Using the Compton wavelength as a nominal proton radius isn't going to generate complete absurdities like so much else in his paper.

Originally posted by Bobathon
the proton doesn't have a radius. Different things have been measured in different ways, and they give different results.

I suspect this has something to do with the radius being composed of 3 quarks, implying to me that it doesn't have the shape of a miniature billiard ball, which would mean if it's not round, it doesn't have a radius in the typical sense like a round or spherical object would.

Speaking of quarks, I still don't understand how Haramein deals with the evidence that protons are composed of quarks, when according to his theory, the quarks would be inside the event horizon of a black hole and should be unobservable. Has he ever explained this gaping hole in this theory? If so please point me to the explanation, because I've never seen it explained.

Originally posted by Bobathon
In your quote he's referring to it as "a first order approximation to see if the concept had any merit", whereas in his recent presentations he refers to it as a proof! There's some difference between the two, as I'm sure you're aware, and as I'm sure he is also aware, so it's clear that he's intentionally misleading his audiences in these presentations. (Example clip)

I would describe his reference as a hypothesis, not proof. In the clip, he uses the words "If I'm right."

The proton is a quantum system, not a ball. It doesn't have a radius.

I asked a person knowledgeable about physics whether the radius of the proton were in dispute. His answer is that there is a Bohr Radius, the Classical Radius, and that the radius changes when the electron changes discrete orbits.

Perhaps it's not as in a ball, but still a radius.

I guess that since he also regularly claims that quantum mechanics is bunk . . .

He said that in a presentation within the context of no need for the strong and weak forces.

I have separately heard him say that quantum physics needs to be modified.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I would describe his reference as a hypothesis, not proof. In the clip, he uses the words "If I'm right."

He said very clearly that he has "literally mathematically proved" that every atom "is a mini black hole". It's a ridiculous and arrogant thing to say. Saying "if I'm right" in another sentence doesn't change that.

Even if he was right, he still only has a hypothesis. What he said was a straight lie.

I asked a person knowledgeable about physics whether the radius of the proton were in dispute. His answer is that there is a Bohr Radius, the Classical Radius, and that the radius changes when the electron changes discrete orbits.

Perhaps it's not as in a ball, but still a radius.

A Bohr radius and a Classical radius are two parameters usually applied to the electron cloud of an atom, rather than a proton. Perhaps your knowledgeable person was thinking of atoms. You could invent similar things for a proton, but I don't see how they'd be of any value...

Just because something is called a radius, it doesn't make it a radius. These things are all parameters that have some of the properties of a radius, and each gets called a "radius" for that reason, to save having to make up silly new words. That's all.

A ball has a radius. A quantum system has a whole load of parameters which could play something similar to the role of radius in different situations, each of which can be measured accurately, and each will have a different value.

I guess that since he also regularly claims that quantum mechanics is bunk . . .

He said that in a presentation within the context of no need for the strong and weak forces.

I have separately heard him say that quantum physics needs to be modified.

He's made it very clear that he doesn't know what quantum physics is, so why should anyone care what he thinks about it?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Bobathon
the proton doesn't have a radius. Different things have been measured in different ways, and they give different results.

I suspect this has something to do with the radius being composed of 3 quarks, implying to me that it doesn't have the shape of a miniature billiard ball, which would mean if it's not round, it doesn't have a radius in the typical sense like a round or spherical object would.

Ah, funnily enough it is perfectly round.

Please bear in mind that it's impossible to picture it in any kind of reliable, literal way, because things just don't "look like" anything at this scale. But perhaps you could imagine a perfectly spherical cloud, more dense towards the centre, that just gradually fades out as you look further from the centre and doesn't have anything like an edge. It'll be a cloud of quarks and gluons... but don't try to imagine little things rattling around inside – each of the constituents is smeared out over the whole cloud.

The most intuitive 'radius' is the charge radius, which is the root mean square average of the radial component of the charge distribution, but you could think of it as the radius of an imaginary sphere that would contain a certain fraction of the charge of the proton. I don't know what the fraction would be – maybe something like 70%. You get the idea though...

Originally posted by Bobathon
He's made it very clear that he doesn't know what quantum physics is, so why should anyone care what he thinks about it?

Actually, what he has made clear is that there are problems with quantum physics.

reply to post by Mary Rose
Of course there are problems with quantum physics. Why do you think quantum physicists do research?!!

Science has never been a set of doctrines to believe, and it's never claimed to have the final answer for anything. Science is the process of finding out what's going on, over time. By bothering to look.

As I said before, quantum physics has generated the most accurately verified predictions in the history of science and virtually all of the most astonishing technology of the last 75 years. Anyone can stand up and thumb their nose at something they don't understand. That's called prejudice. It's not insightful, it's not open-minded and it's not honest.

The problems of quantum physics won't be solved by anyone who doesn't understand why it works so faultlessly and has continued to work so faultlessly even in the most extreme environments we are capable of creating. They'll be solved, as are all the great problems in science, by people who bother to look.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Actually, what he has made clear is that there are problems with quantum physics.

No, Mary, he's made exquisitely clear that he has no understanding of quantum physics at all. He hasn't admitted it, of course, because he's an arrogant self-aggrandising fool and he wants people to think he's Einstein... but it's very very clear whenever he tries to talk about it.

If you want to dispute that, you'll have to find an example of him either using quantum physics to calculate something, or explaining something using quantum physics in a talk, or perhaps any evidence that he's even attempted to study it?

Of course he hasn't a clue about quantum physics.

Originally posted by Bobathon
. . . he's an arrogant self-aggrandising fool . . .

Character assassination is not a scientific argument.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Character assassination is not a scientific argument.

You're really clutching at straws, aren't you.

Okayyyy... let's see if the argument falls apart if I take that comment out...

No, Mary, he's made exquisitely clear that he has no understanding of quantum physics at all. He hasn't admitted it, but it's very very clear whenever he tries to talk about it.

If you want to dispute that, you'll have to find an example of him either using quantum physics to calculate something, or explaining something using quantum physics in a talk, or perhaps any evidence that he's even attempted to study it?

Of course he hasn't a clue about quantum physics.

Seems not.

"Character assassination" is generally reserved for the spreading of exaggerations or untruths. So I don't think you can say it applies here. As you know, I'd be all too happy to back up every one of those three words with detailed examples and explanations.

To be honest, I think it's clear you have nothing to say to any of the criticisms I've made of Haramein, so let's leave it. Let me know if you find anyone who can actually try to defend a single part of his science.

If his science is indefensible – if it really is as abominable as I've shown it to be – then he's a fraud. It's very simple. That's not a character assassination, it's an inescapable fact.

reply to post by Bobathon


And it is clear you represented yourself in a dishonest way when you posted on this thread in order to continue your rant. I overlooked that to try to give you a platform to have a civil discussion. But I'm done with you now.

Well even if specifics of Haramein's workings are completely wrong (which I am still not convinced of, seeing as the specifics are most probably worked out by the Dr.'s he works with) - I still think he is generally on the right path toward solving the anomalies of this current paradigm, and laying the framework for the next.

This is necessarily opposed by the current institution and establishment. They would rather we continue to pursue goals from the previous paradigm even if they know those goals are just as incompletely founded as the paradigm itself.

There will always be some who do not fit into the paradigm, for they have jumped to the next one already.

But actually, in this particular case, we are going back to go forward.

Tesla, Keely, and Searl were much more competent than the current paradigm allows us now. If you think they were bunk, that is another discussion.

Haramein is possibly totally wrong, but others will take his place - as it is the natural order of things.

Loop-Quantum Gravity will become established first, but IMO that will eventually lead to more comprehensive structures such as cymatical torus feedback loops(for lack of better terminology). It is the simplest way to reconcile everything into a UFT.

There is an eschaton for science, a goal at the end.

It betrays true science when we reject and postpone open-minded progress towards that end.

Originally posted by Bobathon
"Character assassination" is generally reserved for the spreading of exaggerations or untruths. So I don't think you can say it applies here. As you know, I'd be all too happy to back up every one of those three words with detailed examples and explanations.

As previously noted, hasn't Haramein claimed the entire scientific community is wrong and he's right? I don't think any further explanation of arrogant and salf-aggrandizing is required to understand how applicable those words are, it's self evident.

If his science is indefensible – if it really is as abominable as I've shown it to be – then he's a fraud. It's very simple. That's not a character assassination, it's an inescapable fact.

I think this boils down to the simple fact of whether or not Haramein chooses to look at the evidence to see if his theories are true, and he chooses to not look at the evidence. Real physicists want to know if observations and evidence confirm their theory. I like this short clip you mentioned elsewhere, showing the 3 steps to science. It's the last step Haramein lacks, and that's what makes him not a real scientist:

The Key to Science


Haramein is good at step 1. Regarding step 2, by his own admission, he's not that good at math, so that's shaky, but step 3 is where he really falls off the map, he just doesn't seem very interested in step 3, like real scientists are.

To be honest, I think it's clear you have nothing to say to any of the criticisms I've made of Haramein, so let's leave it. Let me know if you find anyone who can actually try to defend a single part of his science.

When this thread got bumped, I said I'd be impressed if Haramein supporters can actually defend his science....so far I'm not impressed.

Mary thinks I'm so mired in the mainstream I won't look outside the box, but that's actually not true. There's an electric universe poster on ATS, mnemeth1, who posts EU and non-mainstream stuff, and from time to time he actually posts some interesting arguments against mainstream science, like some alternate versions of the tired light theories which suggest the redshift data might be interpreted differently regarding the expansion of the universe. While I'm not yet convinced by these arguments, I do read them as some of them make some interesting assertions and at least one mainstream physicist seems to have admitted we need to make better and more accurate measurements to rule some of these alternate theories out (back to the all important step 3 in that video again).

So I think it's interesting when someone can buck the mainstream and provide enough arguments to at least get some scientists to admit they might need to make some more accurate measurements, then there's at least some debate on the science and the observations that support it.

But in contrast to that, I have yet to see Haramein's theories supported by people who can argue the science and particularly the real-world observations that do or do not support the theory.

So going against the mainstream is OK in my book if the claims are supported by the observational evidence or at least some interpretation of it. This is how science advances.

But going against the mainstream without support from observational evidence does seem like lunacy considering the overwhelmingly large amount of evidence that's been collected in the last 100 years (including measurements of the proton mass showing it doesn't weigh millions of tons).

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I suspect this has something to do with the radius being composed of 3 quarks, implying to me that it doesn't have the shape of a miniature billiard ball, which would mean if it's not round, it doesn't have a radius in the typical sense like a round or spherical object would.

Ah, funnily enough it is perfectly round.

I used to think so, but now I'm not sure that's true. You seem far more confident of this than I am:

www.scienceagogo.com...

What Miller discovered from those results is that a proton at rest can be shaped like a ball - the expected shape and the only one described in physics textbooks. Or it can be shaped like a peanut, like a rugby ball or even something similar to a bagel.

He was able to use his model to predict the behavior of quarks, and he discovered that different effects of the quarks could change the proton's shape.

What Shape Are Your Protons?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f930a4ee7c41.jpg[/atsimg]

The three faces of a proton: sphere, peanut, and bagel.

Miller showed how a proton's internal momentum affects its shape. Fast quarks that spin in the same direction as the overall proton distort it into a peanut, while quarks that have opposite spin breed bagels. Proton shape-shifting probably influences subatomic interactions in ways that are not yet known. Nobody understands exactly how the momentum inside a proton keeps changing. "All we can say is that sometimes it is large and sometimes small, and every proton can fluctuate instantly from one shape to another," Miller says.

I'm not saying I've accepted Miller's claims yet, but if he's right a lot of physics textbooks will have to be updated. By the way this is VERY relevant to this thread because if this is proven, it will be a further nail in the coffin of Haramein's theory, though it has so many nails in it already, I'm not sure if there's room for any more.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

And it is clear you represented yourself in a dishonest way when you posted on this thread in order to continue your rant. I overlooked that to try to give you a platform to have a civil discussion. But I'm done with you now.

WTF?

I'd love a civil, honest discussion. But let's be realistic – honest and civil doesn't mean that I should pretend to be respectful towards Haramein or any of his uncritical apologists. Not while presenting a vast array of reasons for concluding that he is incompetent and disreputable. I don't see what sense that would make.

That doesn't mean I'm ranting, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm dishonest. It just means you don't like what I say. I had rather hoped you'd have defend Haramein against my criticisms instead of stamping your feet and calling me names.

Hopefully someone else will find some way to attempt to defend his science.