Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So in other words, we don't know how many black holes there are exactly, but we can measure radiation and from these measurements we can put a maximum of 300 primordial black holes in every cubic light year.

Just to give you some idea how big a cubic light year is, it takes about 5 and a half hours for sunlight to reach Pluto. One edge of the cubic light year cube would be defined if this light continued for a whole year.

One of the co-authors of the paper that Mary referred to (no, not Haramein papers, the real one) spent a lot of time looking for traces of quickly evaporating black holes (bursts of gamma rays). I guess he ended up putting some upper limit on that as well. Looks like we don't see a lot of really exotic black hole activity.

Got "Dr." Hyson to admit it's a made up number and that they have no math to back it up.

Comment keeps being deleted on their facebook page.



so, mary, care to elaborate?

reply to post by FequalsForce


Thanks!! I've found the "Discrepancies" topic on Facebook and it gives me a new source for info.

I see that you have been insulting.

Anyway, I look forward to reading the discussion so far and following up on subsequent posts.

Originally posted by FequalsForce
Got "Dr." Hyson to admit it's a made up number and that they have no math to back it up.

Comment keeps being deleted on their facebook page.

I'm not surprised they deleted it, the truth hurts.

I find it ironic he says they are answering the question over and over:

www.facebook.com...

At this point, the staff of the Resonance Project is feeling somewhat irritated when we answer the same questions, over and over,

And then proceeds so NOT answer again by referring to "future papers":

Now, do we have all this laid out in a nice, neat mathematical expression to deliver to you?; no, we don't, but we have a path to explaining some of these issues and upcoming papers will deal with them.

So it would be more correct to say they are NOT answering the question over and over!

If the paper disagreed with observation by a factor of 2 one can have hope a future paper will resolve such a discrepancy, though even that type of discrepancy I would expect to be addressed in the original paper and not some follow-up paper. But only the most unthinking person would accept such a non-response about dealing with such a large discrepancy in a future paper as a satisfactory explanation.

Here's a little investigation of Haramein by well-loved, world-famous, actual real astrophysicist Phil Plait:
It's from a podcast dated 11th Jan. The Haramein section starts at 50:00, ends 57:30

Podc ast featuring Phil Plait

Some browsers / plugins don't show the time - if you get this, try it with a different browser.

So, Haramein's theories are finally being addressed by serious scientists. He should be very proud now! I hope he puts this on his website

Must say big thanks to Fequals Force for finding that podcast - great find my friend

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . Nassim mentions in his talks that someone taught him how to meditate . . .

I see in an article from Time magazine "How to Get Smarter, One Breath at a Time" that:

. . . Deutsche Bank, Google and Hughes Aircraft—offer meditation classes to their workers. Jeffrey Abramson, CEO of Tower Co., a Washington-based development firm, says 75% of his staff attend free classes in transcendental meditation. . . .

I think this is very interesting. I'm glad to see this happening.

I don't practice meditation myself, but I admire people who do.

Stars Could Have Wormholes at Their Cores, Say Astrophysicists

Uh-oh... you dedunker guys better contact these astrophysicists and tell them they are completely wrong - because if they aren't wrong then they are unintentionally helping to confirm wackos like Haramein...

Originally posted by beebs
Stars Could Have Wormholes at Their Cores, Say Astrophysicists

Uh-oh... you dedunker guys better contact these astrophysicists and tell them they are completely wrong - because if they aren't wrong then they are unintentionally helping to confirm wackos like Haramein...

What you are unintentionally saying here is that you don't care much for common sense or basic logic. You could have picked any number of articles on astrophysics and say that they somehow "confirm wackos". Any. Except there is no connection.

Originally posted by beebs
Uh-oh... you dedunker guys better contact these astrophysicists and tell them they are completely wrong - because if they aren't wrong then they are unintentionally helping to confirm wackos like Haramein...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
there is no connection.

I don't see the connection either. Besides I thought Haramein's claim was there was a black hole at the center of the star, what you posted isn't the same claim, it's just more wormhole speculation.
theresonanceproject.org...

all stars are born out of black holes, and are themselves smaller black holes, including our sun. In Section 4 of the Scale Unification paper, Haramein and his colleagues give powerful evidence of such a black hole at the center of our sun. This is as well described in a section of the special features of the “Crossing the Event Horizon: Rise to the Equation” DVD set.

The scientists aren't claiming there's a black hole at the center of the sun or other stars, are they?

And the wormholes they are talking about were theorized by Einstein and Rosen in 1935:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Einstein-Rosen bridge was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935.

The theoretical concept was discovered, and published in 1935, but no actual wormhole was observed, and to this day none have been observed.

Show me some evidence of a wormhole and you'll get my interest. But without evidence, I'm not sure why all this speculation about wormholes adds any more to the fact that they were hypothesized as a possibility in 1935.

IF they exist, I'm not sure what practical use they would have, because they'd be formed possibly between black holes and white holes, or possibly if the paper you cited is correct, between two same size neutron stars, some dangerous things we'd probably prefer to avoid if we have any sense.

I've just read a passage from Haramein's "What is the Origin of Spin?" - one of two papers on Haramein's website that is written specifically for the layman.

I think it's a helpful description:

. . . This brings us to a deeper view of black hole dynamics where the black holes are no longer only absorbing material/information, but radiating this information back out in the form of electromagnetic radiation, and the feedback between the two generates the topology of the dual torus structure of the Haramein-Rauscher solution driven by spacetime. Now the black hole is no longer black since its exterior event horizon radiates, which is what I have been calling the white hole portion. Here the black hole/white hole are concentric to each other, where the black hole is inside and the white hole is concentrically structured outside and activates the plasma dynamics and Coriolis forces of the ergosphere of the black hole, which I coined the black-white whole.

reply to post by Mary Rose
Well, it would suit a box of chocolates...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think it's a helpful description:

. . . This brings us to a deeper view of black hole dynamics where the black holes are no longer only absorbing material/information, but radiating this information back out in the form of electromagnetic radiation

One of the many problems with this is saying the black hole is "absorbing material/information" then "radiating this information back out".

The defining characteristic of a black hole, and the whole reason we call it black, is because it CANNOT do this!

What it can do is create disturbances around it and we could conceivably see radiation from material that is near the black hole, but hasn't been "absorbed" yet:

Haramein's description isn't helpful, primarily because he says a black hole will do something that by definition it can't do. For anyone reading the thread who wants a helpful description, see this instead of Haramein's incorrect claim:
www.phys.vt.edu...

Q: I've heard that a black hole 'belches' light and radiation whenever something falls into its event horizon. What does that mean and why does that happen?
A: I'm am not sure what the person is referring to, but I will take a guess. They may be referring to what happens as material falls into a black hole through the action of an accretion disk. As large amounts of material approach a black hole, the material will generally find itself in an orbiting disk-like structure with the hole at the center (i.e., it will look a bit like an extremely crowded solar system). The disk will be extremely hot due to the friction between material with different orbital speeds at slightly different orbital radii. Thus the disk will radiate much light. Much of the incoming kinetic energy of the material is radiated away through this friction-heat-light process. This is what gives rise to the extreme brightness of quasars, and this process is what makes us able to (possibly) find stellar-mass black holes that are part of a double star system. In the latter case, infalling material from the neighbor star makes for the accretion disk around the black hole, and X-rays are emitted by the disk (X-rays are emitted by extremely hot matter, just like the not-so-hot filament of a light bulb emits visible light). In the quasar case, a supermassive black hole (a billion solar masses or so) lies at the center of a galaxy, and gas near the black hole forms an accretion disk around the hole; again X-rays, and other forms of light, are the result.

In none of these cases is light being emitted, and reaching us, from beneath the black hole's event horizon. Nothing can escape from beneath the event horizon.

Q: Can you see a black hole? What does a black hole look like?
A: Not directly. Nothing, not even light can escape from a black hole.

On the other hand, you can see some of the fireworks going on near a black hole. As gas falls into a black hole (perhaps coming from a nearby star), the gas will heat up and glow, becoming visible. Typically, not only visible light, but also more energetic photons like X-rays will be emitted by the gas. What we would expect to see (if our telescopes could "zoom-in" enough) would be a glowing rotating disk of material, with the black hole down a the center of the disk. See the above answers.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've just read a passage from Haramein's "What is the Origin of Spin?" - one of two papers on Haramein's website that is written specifically for the layman.

I think it's a helpful description:

. . . This brings us to a deeper view of black hole dynamics where the black holes are no longer only absorbing material/information, but radiating this information back out in the form of electromagnetic radiation, and the feedback between the two generates the topology of the dual torus structure of the Haramein-Rauscher solution driven by spacetime. Now the black hole is no longer black since its exterior event horizon radiates, which is what I have been calling the white hole portion. Here the black hole/white hole are concentric to each other, where the black hole is inside and the white hole is concentrically structured outside and activates the plasma dynamics and Coriolis forces of the ergosphere of the black hole, which I coined the black-white whole.

Oh Mary, stop being comical. This word soup is written "for the layman"? I'm not saying it even makes an iota of sense, but if one assumes that Haramein is playing a physicist (which I think he does), topics in general relativity are so advanced that even experienced and focused researchers find them hard. I asked you before but got no answer: why do you take it upon yourself to actually pass a judgment, like "it's a helpful diagram" or "it's a description written for the layman", when you don't know even a tiny sliver of physics yourself hence you are not qualified for such statement at all? Do you really think you understand "topology" or "torque" or "entropy"? This fascinating phenomenon (i.e. ignorami making grandiose statements) is frankly the only thing keeps me visiting this thread. It's like hearing a comment how Paul Cézanne sucks from a person who never held an artist's brush in his hand and can't even doodle, and is in addition color blind.

reply to post by Mary Rose
From my blog:

'Layman Paper' on the Origin of Spin

From the research section of his website, you can download a 'Layman Paper' on the origin of spin. In this paper, Haramein announces that he was way ahead of Stephen Hawking in his ideas on black holes, and he got there by using "pure logic" and geometric extrapolations from Hebraic and Egyptian texts. He takes the opportunity to compare himself to Isaac Newton! And, with characteristic humility, he explains that he's named his "landmark" amendment to Einstein's equations after... himself.

However, the very first sentence of the paper is false. This is a problem, because this sentence encapsulates the idea that motivates all Haramein's ideas about spin, torsion, Coriolis effects, vortices... the works. It's wrong because:

(a) the Universe would evolve into spinning systems even if there is no spin to begin with – there are good reasons why it would be impossible for spin not to arise.

Briefly, when a gas cloud condenses to form a galaxy, if anything has motion that is not directed precisely towards the centre then that would give rise to angular momentum. The overall rate of spin naturally increases as an object becomes more compact. Total angular momentum should be conserved: for every unit of spin in galaxies turning clockwise about any axis, there should be a unit of spin in galaxies turning anticlockwise about the same axis. The total angular momentum in the Universe can still balance out to zero.

Interestingly, there's a theorem that states that in a friction-free system, spin couldn't arise. Friction is really the key to how different parts of the Universe acquire spin – not, as Haramein would have us believe, a reason for why it shouldn't be there.

(b) the idea that spin (or angular momentum) would run down if there is friction within a system is also false. He illustrates this with an example of a spinning egg, which can easily be shown to be flawed – you can even demonstrate yourself with a simple experiment.

Under Haramein's biography on his site, there is also a link to a radio interview in which you can hear him present his own ideas. He starts with the nonsense about spin that I mentioned above, and within 3 minutes he's diverged so far from reality that he's telling us that "if a planet suddenly stopped spinning it would explode."

Poor, silly Nassim. A deluded, ridiculous, manipulative little man. Reliant now and for ever on the profound and wilful ignorance he encourages in his supporters.

And still they try to defend his sparkly nonsense.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Checking out Haramein's website this morning I'm pleased to see that he is going to be speaking in France in May at a conference about quantum and energetic medicine, a topic I love reading about and the wave of the future, in my opinion:

1st International Congress
Informational and Quantum
Sciences & Applications

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm pleased to see that he is going to be speaking in France in May at a conference about quantum and energetic medicine

I'm pleased to see that he's supporting the French economy with his hard-won Euros. I'm also pleased to note that the conference is chaired by a specialist in acupuncture and homeopathy, who also has knowledge of shamanism and Tibetan medicine. These sciences are true pillars of modern physics! Bring out the new age crystals! Haramein is in the right company. I mean how can you tackle General Relativity without the counsel of a good shaman? And herbs?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Open up your mind and you might learn something.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Open up your mind and you might learn something.

...says a person who didn't learn much in the course of her life.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
the conference is chaired by a specialist in acupuncture and homeopathy, who also has knowledge of shamanism and Tibetan medicine.....Haramein is in the right company.

The flim flam men of modern medicine meet the flim flam man of modern physics, yes he's in the right company!

I mean how can you tackle General Relativity without the counsel of a good shaman? And herbs?

I can comment on the shaman part but I can't comments on Haramein's usage of herbs without violating the ATS T&C
When I was doing oil exploration work for some oil companies in the African bush, at times I was over a hundred kilometers from the nearest hospital, and the nearest medical help consisted of the tribal shaman we referred to as "medicine men". Fortunately I never got sick so I didn't visit any medicine men, but one of the guys I worked with claimed he did and that the shaman/medicine man diagnosed his illness by throwing some bones on the ground and interpreting how they landed.

I think there's supposed to be some kind of communication with the spirit world when that happens, so hopefully it's from a good spirit who arranges the bones so the diagnosis will make you better, if an evil apirit gets in the way it could mislead the medicine man with the wrong diagnosis. I've never had a CAT scan either, but somehow that seems a little more scientific to me than throwing some bones on the ground to diagnose an illness.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Open up your mind and you might learn something.

One time I saw in a movie if you click your heels together three times and say something, it will come true. I tried clicking my heels together three times and saying "I believe", but that seemed to have no effect other than a slight tingling sensation where I had banged my heels together.

Someone told me it didn't work because I wasn't wearing the requisite magic slippers

Then I read Carl Sagan who said "I don't want to believe, I want to know" and that sounded pretty good to me so I stopped trying to believe things without proof. I also put that in my signature.

What amazes me is how homeopathy is alive in western countries like the US even though it's pretty much known quackery and at best doesn't do anything more than any other placebo:

Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake - Stephen Barrett, M.D.

At Best, the "Remedies" Are Placebos

...Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100^200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

That just goes to show there's money in quackery (pun intended) like homeopathy.

And indeed Haramein is in good company, however I did notice he's just about the only guy there without a Dr. or Pr. in front of his name which I assume means Doctor or Professor so he might be a little out of his league with respect to formal education.