Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

reply to post by buddhasystem


Thus speaketh Buddhasystem, who departs his vast knowledge from the mountaintop.





You are hilarious.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You are hilarious.

That was pretty funny, wasn't it?

You know what they say, "the funniest jokes are always the most true..."

I don't really get the rest of that quote:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I am struck by this passage quoting Russell speaking to the biographer:...

"When you are alone the universe talks to you in flashes of inspiration.You will find that you will suddenly know things which you never knew before. "

I've heard of things like that happening in the alternative substances forum, but I'm not into alternative substances so maybe that's why I've been alone before but never heard the universe talking to me?

Does the universe really talk to other people without alternative substances? And do people suddenly know things they never knew before?

Some people THINK they do based on flashes of inspiration, but what distinguishes a scientist from a primitive man is, the scientist figures out a way to test the inspiration with observation and experiment to see if it truly represents something real about the universe. The primitive man just accepts the inspiration and then looks for a virgin to sacrifice, to appease the rain gods so his crops may grow.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Thus speaketh Buddhasystem, who departs his vast knowledge from the mountaintop.

I wish I felt otherwise, but with the exceptions of Bob, Arb, and the 547k that kind of feels like it.

Verily I spoke unto thee and thou hath not listened.
What a waste.

reply to post by buddhasystem

You argued for some non-particle nature of everything, only to refer to quarks in the end, which are particles.
When you observe a proton at energy so high you start seeing quarks, you are no longer looking at the proton, but at a different ensemble of particles. You are a person and you can vote, but if someone takes a chainsaw and cuts you in half, there will be two pieces of cadaver but no functional voter. A tourist can't be in Paris and NYC simultaneously.

I gave you my other argument in a separate post, but you obviously didn't get it. Ultimately, when you get to a point-like particle (list given to you in the above post), even the cadaver argument becomes irrelevant because again, get this, you won't detect half a neutrino.

Yeah... so you haven't paid attention to my argument at all. I am arguing against the particle interpretation of observations... I am not arguing that all observations are an illusion.

Quarks are subharmonic triples, remember?

And don't give me this crap about quarks being wholly different from the proton - if you want to talk about functional then you will quit talking about them like they are separate. Quarks are functional together just like the atom is functional in nature, and cannot be considered just the sum of its parts - it is more than the sum of its parts. This is gestalt like I have mentioned before. Thats the whole point of functionalism, not sure why you are appealing to that all of a sudden...

And please tell me how you reconcile ZPE with your particle view of nature... What particle has an energy density of approaching infinitely less density?

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You argued for some non-particle nature of everything, only to refer to quarks in the end, which are particles.
When you observe a proton at energy so high you start seeing quarks, you are no longer looking at the proton, but at a different ensemble of particles. You are a person and you can vote, but if someone takes a chainsaw and cuts you in half, there will be two pieces of cadaver but no functional voter. A tourist can't be in Paris and NYC simultaneously.

I gave you my other argument in a separate post, but you obviously didn't get it. Ultimately, when you get to a point-like particle (list given to you in the above post), even the cadaver argument becomes irrelevant because again, get this, you won't detect half a neutrino.

Yeah... so you haven't paid attention to my argument at all. I am arguing against the particle interpretation of observations... I am not arguing that all observations are an illusion.

Quarks are subharmonic triples, remember?

And don't give me this crap about quarks being wholly different from the proton - if you want to talk about functional then you will quit talking about them like they are separate. Quarks are functional together just like the atom is functional in nature, and cannot be considered just the sum of its parts - it is more than the sum of its parts. This is gestalt like I have mentioned before. Thats the whole point of functionalism, not sure why you are appealing to that all of a sudden...

And please tell me how you reconcile ZPE with your particle view of nature... What particle has an energy density of approaching infinitely less density?

I think air is an illusion. We only measure air because our instruments are designed that way. In reality air doesn't exist. There are trillions of invisible gnomes who play practical tricks on us, like making us believe there is air. In reality air resistance and fiction are actions of these gnomes. We can't observe these gnomes but rest assured they exist. Scientists simply don't acknowledge their existance because they never questioned their fundamental assumptions of reality, close minded fools. How do you reconcile force at a distance action if it's not just a chain of gnomes pulling and pushing things? As you can clearly see the gnome hypothesis explains why better than the traditional scientific theories, which can't explain why forces act at a distance. It's cutting edge thinking and there is a conspiracy to suppress this research. Scientists are idiots for using math and experiments to figure out things.

reply to post by 547000


Yeah... thats pretty neat there buddy. I remember when I had my first beer.

But seriously, why is a wave interpretation so ridiculous to you? I honestly don't understand where you are coming from with your ridiculous straw gnomes. This seems to be the best argument you guys can come up with against wave interpretation.

Its like you think I am proposing something out of the ordinary, which it is not the case. I just agree with Schrodinger's presuppositions, thats all. Then I can reinterpret everything else in that context in an effort to competently explain phenomena from that perspective. Thus, the cymatical interpretation rather than classical or Copenhagen.

What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ...
The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ...
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists. (Erwin Schrodinger)

But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability. (Stephen Hawking, 1988)

We have found that both the proton and the electron can be transformed into radiation simply by contact with their respective antiparticles. “All matter seems to be radiation,”41 says Morse, and so far as we know, radiation is nothing more than a vibratory motion. Can we say that the proton is inherently different from motion when we can transform it into motion? Are we not forced to the conclusion that the atom could very well be an integral entity endowed with specific amounts of various kinds of motion (or something equivalent to motion) and that what we call breaking it up into parts amounts to nothing more than detaching portions of this motion (or the equivalent thereof)?

And is it not true that the trend of discovery in the sub-atomic field is driving us slowly but inexorably in this direction, toward just such a conclusion as the foregoing? It is becoming increasingly evident that there are no “elementary particles” and that both the atoms and the sub-atomic particles belong essentially to the same class: a class that should be called “primary” rather than “elementary,” in that these are the entities which are formed directly from the basic substance of the universe, the permissible forms, we might say, into which the basic clay can be shaped. (Larson)

This should be clear by now... or at least you should be able to accept my interpretation as just as valid as your own. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to acknowledge it and retract your ridicule.

reply to post by beebs


What the hell do you have against my gnome theory? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're just brainwashed by the mainstream "alternate science" thugocracy who insist magical creatures are absurd. Think for yourself bra!

If you can't test it, deduce any new conclusions, or verify it inductively... it as as logically valid as the gnomes. You wonder why nobody is willing to vouch for it? It is because it's non-falsifiable. You insist on philosophy, don't you? Well why not read up on what men like Karl Popper have studied? The problem is false premises can lead to true conclusions. Inductive reasoning is needed to justify those premises. Or supposing it's not possible now, what conclusions can we deduce that can validate those premises?

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by beebs

 

What the hell do you have against my gnome theory? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're just brainwashed by the mainstream "alternate science" thugocracy who insist magical creatures are absurd. Think for yourself bra!

I personally support the gnome theory. I must contact Haramein and see what he has to say about it. After all, it makes more sense than his model of the proton. As for Beebs, rarely did I see a person so ossified in his views and so brainwashed by TPTB, to the extent that he rejects this new, promising and exciting theory about the gnomes. I can just hear the gnomes are laughing their tiny @sses off when they listen to what Beebs has to say!

reply to post by 547000

The problem is false premises can lead to true conclusions. Inductive reasoning is needed to justify those premises. Or supposing it's not possible now, what conclusions can we deduce that can validate those premises?

You are right. False premises can lead to true conclusions, but true conclusions are not the same as knowledge or understanding. That was the whole point of pointing you to Chapter II above.

I am sure that is your point, but you won't apply it to your own world view - whatever that is... I can't tell because all you do is ridicule my premises without becoming a protagonist for your own counter-argument.

The false premise to me, is the idea that there are such things as separate 'elementary particles' that are somehow not vibratory wave structures in space, but actual 'grains' of matter.

You can act tough and ridicule all you want on here, but it doesn't make your argument any more sound, or in the least bit convincing. Why would I care what you have to say, when people like Hawking and Schrodinger say the same thing I am trying to say? Surely I would rather listen to them than you... I don't like to appeal to authority in that manner, but when you ignore my argument based on ad hominem and straw man tactics thats about all I can do.

I don't really think you understand most of what I try to convey, and thus it leads you toward the path of ridicule... you can't accept that perhaps it isn't my argument that is unsound - but merely your lack of a good grasp on the topic and the content of the argument as a whole.

I really wish that wasn't the case, but I am left with no other alternative when you fail to address any of the core points in the debate, and instead deflect through fallacious maneuvers.

Again, you don't have to agree with my interpretation of reality, but you damn well better accept it as a relevant alternative to your own beliefs.

Originally posted by beebs
The false premise to me, is the idea that there are such things as separate 'elementary particles' that are somehow not vibratory wave structures in space, but actual 'grains' of matter.

False vs true, in a sane person's mind, is determined by practice. You step out of a window of a high-rise, you crater. That's truth. You step out of a window of a high-rise, and try to levitate. That's false.

You can act tough and ridicule all you want on here

Well yes, son, because Arb and a few other here are engineers who actually build stuff that works, in stark contrast to you.

Why would I care what you have to say

Apparently you don't.

when people like Hawking and Schrodinger say the same thing I am trying to say?

Puh-leeze....

I don't really think you understand most of what I try to convey

Some people just aren't good at digesting nonsense, that much is true.
Again, how can you detect half of an electron, or a neutrino?

but merely your lack of a good grasp on the topic and the content of the argument as a whole

Sounds childish when said by a person with no background in the subject to speak about.

I don't know whether Beebs honestly thinks he understands enough nuclear physics to be able to make these judgements, or whether he knows he doesn't know it but feels it's not important. Either way, I just can't understand the arrogance and idiocy of it.

You linked to the book, not an extract from a chapter. The book, as I said, is bollocks.

Your comment that nuclear physicists don't consider alternative explanations is bollocks. There have been hundreds of thousands of nuclear physicists over the last century. What the f do you know about what they've considered? You haven't a clue about the breadth and wildness of thinking and of interpretation that goes on in any areas of physics. So why say these things?

Nuclear physics is not a house of cards resting on flimsy assumptions. That's bollocks too. If you'd studied anything of the subject, the experimental and logical basis for it, instead of reading opinionated garbage on the internet and thinking you've got it all sussed, you'd know perfectly well that it's not the case. You know that you haven't studied the subject. So why say these things?

Just seems so silly.

My advice is the same advice I'd give to anyone with childish dumb prejudices against sections of society that they don't understand. Find some people who work with nuclei and ask them what they are like. Make friends with them. Find out why they do what they do. They are human beings. You can learn from them. Don't just sit on forums and spout opinionated cr@p about them. Reality is bigger than you.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by 547000

 

The problem is false premises can lead to true conclusions. Inductive reasoning is needed to justify those premises. Or supposing it's not possible now, what conclusions can we deduce that can validate those premises?

You are right. False premises can lead to true conclusions, but true conclusions are not the same as knowledge or understanding. That was the whole point of pointing you to Chapter II above.

I am sure that is your point, but you won't apply it to your own world view - whatever that is... I can't tell because all you do is ridicule my premises without becoming a protagonist for your own counter-argument.

The false premise to me, is the idea that there are such things as separate 'elementary particles' that are somehow not vibratory wave structures in space, but actual 'grains' of matter.

You can act tough and ridicule all you want on here, but it doesn't make your argument any more sound, or in the least bit convincing. Why would I care what you have to say, when people like Hawking and Schrodinger say the same thing I am trying to say? Surely I would rather listen to them than you... I don't like to appeal to authority in that manner, but when you ignore my argument based on ad hominem and straw man tactics thats about all I can do.

I don't really think you understand most of what I try to convey, and thus it leads you toward the path of ridicule... you can't accept that perhaps it isn't my argument that is unsound - but merely your lack of a good grasp on the topic and the content of the argument as a whole.

I really wish that wasn't the case, but I am left with no other alternative when you fail to address any of the core points in the debate, and instead deflect through fallacious maneuvers.

Again, you don't have to agree with my interpretation of reality, but you damn well better accept it as a relevant alternative to your own beliefs.

No, I will not. Call it ridicule all you want but the point is that false premises can lead to true conclusions. You're basically saying particles don't exist, but for all intents and purposes nature simulates such behavior. It's like saying there is no air, but for all intents and purposes it's only air we can detect. Or saying there's a santa claus but he's just not observable. They are just as logically sound as your ideas, since we cannot validate the premises. You should know this if you studied logic. You argument, indeed, is unsound.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Aside from the obvious fallacies and ridicule, there really isn't much of a counter argument in your post.

Again, how can you detect half of an electron, or a neutrino?

Can you please elaborate on how this question is still relevant, or is it just rhetorical?

Its like you think that just because you throw out more names of what you call 'particles' I am somehow caught in your trap..

It doesn't matter what you call them, they are all quantum wave structures of space. Some bigger, some smaller. Some are major harmonics, some are subharmonics. Some are 'created' in special cases, etc. They are all structural systems of space vibrations/motion. We only differentiate between them according to charge, 'spin', energy density, and subsequent behavioral characteristics.

'Half' of an electron is therefore not a proper concept, especially with the dubious nature of your electron to begin with. Instead, it should rather be stated like a 'subharmonic' of the electron, but even that is unsatisfactory in your model if we consider the atomic electron as a statistical system and not intrinsically 'real' according to our presuppositions.

And why does no one comment on ZPE, and the logical implications of its existence? Ignoring it does not make it go away. How do you explain its existence through your particle model?

reply to post by Bobathon

I don't know whether Beebs honestly thinks he understands enough nuclear physics to be able to make these judgements, or whether he knows he doesn't know it but feels it's not important. Either way, I just can't understand the arrogance and idiocy of it.

You linked to the book, not an extract from a chapter. The book, as I said, is bollocks.

Your comment that nuclear physicists don't consider alternative explanations is bollocks. There have been hundreds of thousands of nuclear physicists over the last century. What the f do you know about what they've considered? You haven't a clue about the breadth and wildness of thinking and of interpretation that goes on in any areas of physics. So why say these things?

Nuclear physics is not a house of cards resting on flimsy assumptions. That's bollocks too. If you'd studied anything of the subject, the experimental and logical basis for it, instead of reading opinionated garbage on the internet and thinking you've got it all sussed, you'd know perfectly well that it's not the case. You know that you haven't studied the subject. So why say these things?

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty...

Please provide an argument for your claim that the book is bollocks. I have read it(a physical copy, not some 'opinionated garbage on the internet'), I doubt you have read it in its entirety so I will just assume that you concede this point to me that it is not bollocks, since you have no experiential basis on which you formulate your opinion.

Second, you are generalizing about nuclear physicists and appealing to them as if they are a coherent authority that has solved all of the problems but they are not. Science is not like that. There are disagreements, and lots of them. But when external factors such as grant money and economics gets involved in the science game, we get incredibly narrow-minded science. If you deny this then you are naive.

Third, clearly alternative explanations were not considered in the case of Rutherford as is discussed in the book. I am interested in your counter-argument to that claim, if you can manage it. You will of course have to read the book to get the full scope of his argument, so I will wait.

If nuclear physics does not address alternative explanations to the Rutherford phenomena(and subsequent more-precise repetitions etc.) then indeed their theories are assuming one interpretation over the alternative explanations for it if the theories are in any way still based on his work - which they are since science builds upon itself.

Why is a cymatic only interpretation wrong?

How do nuclear physicists reconcile ZPE with particle physics?

reply to post by 547000

No, I will not. Call it ridicule all you want but the point is that false premises can lead to true conclusions. You're basically saying particles don't exist, but for all intents and purposes nature simulates such behavior. It's like saying there is no air, but for all intents and purposes it's only air we can detect. Or saying there's a santa claus but he's just not observable. They are just as logically sound as your ideas, since we cannot validate the premises. You should know this if you studied logic. You argument, indeed, is unsound.

True conclusions do not equal understanding or knowledge.

Just because nature simulates particle behavior when we interrupt, doesn't mean nature is a particle normally.

I don't get where you are coming from saying the wave structure of space is 'not observable'... doesn't really make any sense, since it is based on the wave-like observations and 'anomalies'. It is merely a more logical and simple interpretation and explanation of reality through the observed facts.

There was a physicist guest lecture in one of my classes, who was talking about his work around detecting gravitational waves. I raised my hand and asked what was the medium through which these supposed gravitational waves propagated - and he responded with a shrug and said "Aether."

Do you know why he didn't say "Spacetime."?

Because when we label something, the label comes attached with certain presuppositions. If he would have said Spacetime, which is the logical answer, he would be implying that space, or space-time, is a medium of wave propagation. This is true, of course, but it is a punch to the gut of conventional thought in physics because it takes us right back to the turn of the last century, when aether was adamantly ruled out by some physicists. Right at the same time, other physicists were just discovering ZPE. Zero Point Energy is just a new and more accurate label for 'aether'.

What kind of particles make up ZPE, or the energy density of space?

Reinterpreting through new and more accurate labels is a primary goal for philosophy of science. However, one is not easily reconciled to the loss of an old friend in the world of ideas.

I will not be going away any time soon, so your arguments will have to get better. I am in this thing for the long haul.

reply to post by beebs

Beebs, what sense is there in anyone discussing nuclear physics with you? You don't know any and you're not interested in knowing any.

As I said before, read and understand a proper nuclear physics book, and then we can discuss weighing up different viewpoints. Deal? Krane is a good one to start with.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Second, you are generalizing about nuclear physicists and appealing to them as if they are a coherent authority that has solved all of the problems but they are not. Science is not like that. There are disagreements, and lots of them.

Not sure how you can say I was treating them as a coherent authority. I was responding to your silly suggestion that they don't consider alternative explanations. Of course they do. There are many views and many interpretations and many debates. Are you now saying that they do consider alternative views, but these never get published because of the powers that be? This based on your complete absence of experience or knowledge of how scientists work, as ever :-/

Third, clearly alternative explanations were not considered in the case of Rutherford as is discussed in the book. I am interested in your counter-argument to that claim, if you can manage it.

It's just not true. Try Kumar's book on the history of quantum mechanics if you're interested in the debates and various pictures that were flying around at that time (which you probably aren't). Even those will only be the ones considered relevant by history – a tiny tiny tip of an iceberg. Come on, you can do better than just taking this guy at his word. Can't you?

Why is a cymatic only interpretation wrong?

It doesn't work like that and you know it. If cymatics can produce the kind of detailed results and explanations that nuclear physics can, without throwing up inconsistencies all over the place, then it's a useful theory. If someone can show that it does anything, people will take notice. Again, you need to study nuclear physics and see what that can do, otherwise there's no way you'll be able to make any comparison.

How do nuclear physicists reconcile ZPE with particle physics?

By understanding the experimental basis and logic of quantum field theory. Come on man, they're not going to do it by being ignorant, are they.

Not learning anything of the subject doesn't work. Making pretentious claims about nuclear physics without learning anything of the subject and then complaining when you get ridiculed doesn't work either.

reply to post by beebs


Then I dare you to debunk my gnome theory. If you can't debunk it, it is also a sound, logical theory.

Are you serious here? Do you not see why scientists will not suddenly "see the light" and accept a non-falsifiable theory as gospel? One that cannot be validated by any experiment? In that case I look like a human, act like a human, but I'm in reality a rhino. I magically turn into a human for all observations, but I'm really a rhino. That's essentially what you seem to be arguing from my perspective, except for me, human and rhino you are saying atom, particle, and wave. Do you know that in the double-slit experiment the probability wave doesn't form instantaneously, as a wave should? Whatever wave nature particles seem to exhibit is nothing like the conspiracy theory you're presenting.

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

Chapter IV
Particle Problems


II
It is no secret that a large and growing number of physicists, as well as scientists in allied fields, are profoundly dissatisfied with the general state of physical theory as it now stands, and are convinced that some drastic overhauling will be necessary. David Bohm describes the situation in this manner: “Moreover, physics is now faced with a crisis in which it is generally admitted that further changes will have to take place, which will probably be as revolutionary compared to relativity and the quantum theory as these theories are compared to classical physics.”38 J. R. Oppenheimer agrees, “It is clear that we are in for one of the very difficult, probably very heroic, and at least thoroughly unpredictable revolutions in physical understanding and physical theory.”39

This book was published in 1963.

In need of an overhaul for almost 50 years.

Time to get on with it.

reply to post by Mary Rose

We are always looking for better theories, so if somebody's got a theory that better explains observation, let's see it. I'm not married to many current theories or models, if someone can show me a better one.

So are the current theories or models perfect? I doubt it. As beebs pointed out we don't have all the answers on Zero point or vacuum energy. But this doesn't mean we should adopt wsm or any other model that does a worse job of explaining observations.

Will we have better models someday? My guess is, yes we will, and hopefully they will explain vacuum energy better than current models.

But the reason we will accept those new models is because they explain observations better. That 50 year old book doesn't explain observations better for the reasons already discussed.

But the gnome theory sounds interesting. If you believe the current model is wrong, why not adopt the gnome theory instead?