Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

reply to post by buddhasystem


Your opinion is noted.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Your opinion is noted.

You mean that physics teachers usually know physics and Haramein usually doesn't? Looks like we are making progress here!

reply to post by Mary Rose


I think it's interesting that "physical reality" is in quotation marks.

I'm learning to think it terms of the energy and information that resides in the vacuum as being the frontier that will be explored in the coming years.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

I'm learning to think it terms of the energy and information that resides in the vacuum as being the frontier that will be explored in the coming years.

By whom? By means of what?

I'm learning to think that bananas are good for general health.

reply to post by buddhasystem


By reading and watching interviews of people who do research.



Have you no imagination or curiosity?

Your responses are puzzling sometimes.

Of course, everyone's different.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

By reading and watching interviews of people who do research.

Which people? The real McCoys or charlatans? What experiments do you have in mind?

reply to post by buddhasystem


I don't have experiments in mind.

I research the work of others who do the experiments.

Go ahead and think of something sarcastic to say. You'll get the last word.

Enjoy yourself.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Dr. Ha has shown that mass is dependent on the location of observer, and that the mass one measures is less when you are far away. So, for example, a Schwarzschild proton will have a larger mass when measured close to its horizon.

In my opinion, it is clear that he has more knowledge of the issues surrounding theoretical physics and coming up with a unified theory than either you or Bobathon. I think you are judging him from a lens that is not broad enough.

Dr. Ha's paper is very interesting. As with most things in life, the closer you look into it, the more interesting it becomes, and the less it supports the simplistic intuitions of the closed-minded.

Firstly he says right from the start "The horizon mass theorem states that for all black holes: neutral, charged or rotating, the horizon mass is always twice the irreducible mass observed at infinity."

Twice. Not 510 trillion trillion trillion times, as Haramein pretends. Twice.

Also it's entirely dependent on Hawking radiation obeying the laws of thermodynamics, which imply very clearly that a black hole of mass 885 million tonnes MUST have a temperature of 139 billion degrees Celcius, and radiate very high energy radiation (mostly in the form of 5-20MeV gamma rays, neutrinos and gravitons) with a total power of 455 million watts. Which means anyone within... let's see... several miles?... would receive a fatal dose of radiation in less than a day.

That's anyone within several miles of a single proton.

Mary, I'm glad you like Dr Ha's theory and the way it supports Haramein's version of a proton. But if that's what protons are like, I ain't going near one of them things.

(which might be tricky, since about 50% of my body mass is protons)

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I don't have experiments in mind. I research the work of others who do the experiments.

So, does Haramein do experiments related to structure of the vacuum and its information content? I saw Rodin was spinning a magnetized metal ball with a toroidal magnet, that would have looked nice in a science fair but doesn't shed much light onto nature of the vacuum.

Go ahead and think of something sarcastic to say. You'll get the last word.

I know, I know.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Twice. Not 510 trillion trillion trillion times, as Haramein pretends. Twice.

There's a difference?

Before Mary told us how much "more knowledge of the issues surrounding theoretical physics" Haramein has than you and me, I would have thought so...but now I'm wondering if I should sign up for one of the Delegate Programs so the more knowledgeable guy can explain to me how

2 = 510000000000000000000000000000000000000

I guess the equals sign just means "approximately equals"?
Or Dr Ha is off about his factor of 2 and he will explain how the real number is much larger?

I tried to visualize how large that right number is by scaling the mass of the moon to something smaller by that factor.
The moon's mass is about 7.3477 * 10^22 kg
Dividing that by 5.1*10^38 yields 1.44 * 10^-16 kg which is .144 picograms

A box of 5000 staples for my desktop stapler weighs about 213 grams...I need to go smaller because the difference still isn't large enough.

How about a single staple at about 2.6mg? Nope, still way too massive. I'd have to grind the staple into dust, over 1.8 trillion particles so small I couldn't see an individual particle with my naked eye. Then if I took one of those dust particles so small I could only see it with a microscope, and compare it to the moon overhead, I begin to have some idea how big Haramein's error is.

I just don't see how any amount of "hand-waving" could stretch Dr. Ha's factor of 2 to something that big. Which sort of makes me wonder if I should reconsider Mary's assessment about Haramein knowing more about physics than I do. You know what?

On second thought, I think I'll pass on the delegate program, and just wait for this "promised paper" to emerge instead, if it ever does. The fact that he's trying to stretch 2 into 510000000000000000000000000000000000000 tells me that he doesn't have a clue how to explain the "discrepancy" and the only thing will see in his future paper is more making stuff up like he's making stuff up that doesn't match the real world in his existing paper.

And mass aside, he's still never even promised to explain in the future how we can see the internal structure of the proton when the internal structure of a black hole can't be seen, right?

Mary, it's clear to me that you've decided that Haramein is right based on something like "gut" or "intuition" or something like that other than facts, and no amount of real world facts or evidence presented to you that he's wrong will ever convince you that he's wrong.

How does that saying go? De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

Isn't this post showing a paper with a conclusion similar to Haramein's?

I find it hard to believe that Haramein's paper would have gotten the award that it did and that AlienScientist - who is active in researching alternative energy technology so he's aware of suppressed information - would have produced his video - if the math were as preposterous as is claimed here.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Or is black holes as atoms different from atoms as black holes?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Isn't this post showing a paper with a conclusion similar to Haramein's?

No, it's showing a paper that has some words in it that Haramein uses.

Lord save us from people who can't tell the difference.

I find it hard to believe that Haramein's paper would have gotten the award that it did and that AlienScientist - who is active in researching alternative energy technology so he's aware of suppressed information - would have produced his video - if the math were as preposterous as is claimed here.

I find it very easy to believe. AlienScientist isn't a scientist, he's a conspiratorialist. He posts all kinds of cr@p.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Lord save us from people who can't tell the difference.

People like me?

You can come on down from your high horse now.

I find it very easy to believe. AlienScientist isn't a scientist, he's a conspiratorialist. He posts all kinds of cr@p.

I see you have done very little research.

reply to post by Mary Rose

An article by Lisa Zyga dated May 18, 2009 that appears on physorg.com: "Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?"

In trying to understand how gravity behaves on the quantum scale, physicists have developed a model that has an interesting implication: mini black holes could be everywhere, and all particles might be made of various forms of black holes.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I find it hard to believe that Haramein's paper would have gotten the award that it did and that AlienScientist - who is active in researching alternative energy technology so he's aware of suppressed information - would have produced his video - if the math were as preposterous as is claimed here.

Even Beebs figured out that alienscientist admitted doubts about Haramein's paper here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by beebs
Also, AlienScientist now apparently has his doubts about Nassim relating this to the Phi ratio. I am on the fence. I am not as competent in the math, ...

The same alienscientist who said this in the comments section of his youtube video? Mary, surely you remember this? You couldn't find it after I posted this, and then you said you went back and reread my post saying it was in the comments section and then you found it, did you forget?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Regarding the longer video, did you see the comment AlienScientist made to that video 4 months ago?

I am not saying I support this theory... That's a ridiculous stance to take in science. In fact the point of science is to constantly challenge and test all of your theories, and try to prove them wrong...ATTACK THE THEORY! Not the messenger...

So he's not saying he supports the theory and to attack the theory, not him.

And regarding the award, that's already been explained at least a dozen times, the people who voted on the award weren't physicists, they were involved in some computing systems conference, remember?

There were numerous categories one could submit a paper in, and Haramein's paper was voted best in the physics category. To this day, neither you, nor anyone else has been able to tell me how many other papers were submitted in the physics category at that conference. If his was the only one, he automatically gets the "best paper" award in that category, and if they had a "worst paper" award in the category, he would also get that one too if there are no other papers in the category. But regardless of whether the number of other papers submitted in that category was 0 or some other number, the people making the award aren't qualified to understand the material nor are they even pretending to be.

The conference itself had a high buzzword content in the promotional literature so maybe they just liked all the buzzwords they saw in Haramein's paper (if there actually were any other papers submitted in the physics category)?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Or is black holes as atoms different from atoms as black holes?

Are apples as oranges different from oranges as apples?

I have to resort to koans as means of communication. Math and physics won't be understood anyhow.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
An article by Lisa Zyga dated May 18, 2009 that appears on physorg.com: "Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?"

Here is the paper by D.G. Coyne and D.C. Cheng mentioned at the end of the article: "A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics: An alternative mechanism for black holes to appear at accelerator experiments."

Perhaps some information in this paper could shed some light on Haramein's rationale.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
An article by Lisa Zyga dated May 18, 2009 that appears on physorg.com: "Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?"

In trying to understand how gravity behaves on the quantum scale, physicists have developed a model that has an interesting implication: mini black holes could be everywhere, and all particles might be made of various forms of black holes.

Yes, that's physics.

Are we playing spot the difference?

1. it's physics
2. the black holes don't have stupid masses or stupid forces
3. it doesn't ignore general relativity
4. it doesn't deny quantum mechanics
5. it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics
6. it doesn't use a graph of a load of astronomical objects to assert that a proton should weigh millions of tons for it to fit in
7. it's honest
8. it relates directly to other studies and to past and current experiments
9. it uses words to mean what they mean, instead of to sound cool
10. it's not bullsh*t
11. it's written by scientists who know what the word research means
12. it's not written in order to be used as a piece of self-promotion by an institution selling a brand by trying to impress the scientifically illiterate
13. the author would be happy to answer any technical questions (rather than just make derogatory comments and give you loads of irrelevant material), especially if you felt you'd found a problem in the paper.

Perhaps these points could also shed some light on Haramein's rationale