Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, what do you think of that? What evidence points towards conversion of mass to thermal energy, and do you think it's true that high temperatures are only reached in larger aggregates of matter?

I guess Mary's not going to answer, so...I'll comment on the temperature issue.

When I saw table showing a breakdown of the properties of interstellar matter in the Milky Way, I thought it was interesting that more matter within a given volume actually correlated with a lower, rather than a higher, temperature.

The least aggregated areas of interstellar matter, like the coronal gas, are actually the hottest according to that table:

Interstellar matter

That "Hot Ionized Medium" reaches temperatures of millions of degrees, which I'd say represents extremely high temperatures. But that may have only 100 atoms per cubic meter, so I don't see how that can be called a very large aggregate of matter, it's actually among the lowest aggregates of matter in the Milky way from a density perspective. So I can't agree with Larson that "Extremely high temperatures are reached only in very large aggregates of matter". Extremely high temperatures are reached inside stars, which are large aggregates of matter, that much is true. His use of the word "only" is the problem, and it makes that statement false.

Temperatures of millions of Kelvins are possible in both very large aggregates of matter like stars, and very small aggregates of matter like the hot ionized medium in the Milky Way.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, I could point out the extremely high temperatures can be reached in tiny "aggregates of matter" such as in nucleus-nucleus conditions at RHIC. Sun interior is like arctic desert when compared to THAT.

It's 250,000 times hotter than the center of the Sun.

Blanket statements (such as about temperature, size of aggregates, iron being the magic source of energy etc) from DB Larson just reveal an incredible degree of dogma, in the way he tries to explain the arbitrary theses he came up with, which have no foundations in reality. That much he does indeed have in common with the topic of this thread, Haramein.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

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 you won't accept the answer when it is offered to you, or even the possibility that it is a competent or even more comprehensive answer.

Again, from Wolff outlining a clear and logical explanation for everything including ZPE:

Space: The space around us is not empty; Space is a quantum wave medium of spherical quantum waves. The energy-density of space is due to the sum of waves from all matter in the Universe.

Space energy-density: The energy-density of Space is equal to the sum (squared) of wave amplitudes from all the resonances in the (Hubble) Universe.

Space Resonance: A spherical standing wave composed of a superimposed in-wave and an out-wave. This wave is the basic structure of electrons and charged particles.

Wave Center: The center point of converging/diverging in-and-out-waves. The wave center is the apparent location of energy-transfers that appear as a 'particle'.

Space is a medium of quantum waves that obey a scalar wave equation.

Especially important for ZPE:

Minimum Amplitude Principle (MAP): Waves at each point of space minimize their total combined amplitudes.

In other words, the energy-density of space approaches zero as the waves of everything in the universe interact and dissipate with each other - aka entropy. Its like the waves of a lake that seeks to flatten out and become still.

ZPE, or energy-density of space, varies according to the relative conditions of the waves of all the matter in the entire universe and Mach's principle. There is no literal 'vacuum', only relative areas of extremely less density and approaching zero density, but never zero.

WSM does a better job of explaining observations.

One is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and existing parts … We have reversed the usual classical notion that the independent ‘elementary parts’ of the world are the fundamental reality, and that the various systems are merely particular contingent forms and arrangements of these parts. Rather, we say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality, and that relatively independent behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms within this whole. (David Bohm, On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory, Foundations of Physics, vol 5, 1975)

reply to post by beebs
That's a bunch of ideas. Some ideas can be proven correct, and some ideas can be proven incorrect. Some ideas, like string theory, fall into neither category, partly because string theorists say we would need supercolliders many orders of magnitude larger than the LHC to test some of their ideas. This creates a dilemma for string theory. Even if it's true, (which it may or may not be), if it can't make any predictions about the natural world which can be confirmed with experiments and observations, it won't reach the status of an accepted theory, and it hasn't.

Einstein had an idea that gravity could bend light. But he didn't become famous until an astronomer made eclipse measurements and proved the idea was true.

So instead of just posting the ideas from Wolff, can you also post the experiments and observations which demonstrate the ideas are true?

One of the specific mathematical calculations scientists are hoping to find is something that explains how and why vacuum or zero point energy results in the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. We have the observations to show what the acceleration rate is, but we don't have the physical and mathematical models to correlate that acceleration rate with vacuum energy, so if you or Milo Wolff have got that math, that would go a long way toward explaining real world observations and I'd love to see it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

That's a bunch of ideas. Some ideas can be proven correct, and some ideas can be proven incorrect. Some ideas, like string theory, fall into neither category, partly because string theorists say we would need supercolliders many orders of magnitude larger than the LHC to test some of their ideas. This creates a dilemma for string theory. Even if it's true, (which it may or may not be), if it can't make any predictions about the natural world which can be confirmed with experiments and observations, it won't reach the status of an accepted theory, and it hasn't.

Einstein had an idea that gravity could bend light. But he didn't become famous until an astronomer made eclipse measurements and proved the idea was true.

So instead of just posting the ideas from Wolff, can you also post the experiments and observations which demonstrate the ideas are true?

One of the specific mathematical calculations scientists are hoping to find is something that explains how and why vacuum or zero point energy results in the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. We have the observations to show what the acceleration rate is, but we don't have the physical and mathematical models to correlate that acceleration rate with vacuum energy, so if you or Milo Wolff have got that math, that would go a long way toward explaining real world observations and I'd love to see it.

'Gravity' doesn't bend light, it is the increased energy density of space. It is an important distinction, because we must treat space as a medium.

Wolff's argument is complex, and if I have more time perhaps I will type out some passages for you. He reinterprets the red shift of the Hubble radius as an inherent property of looking through the quantum space medium from our relative perspective.

The experiments and observations have already been done. They are just being interpreted differently - namely classical or particle-only interpretation, Copenhagen or WPD(including statistical probability of finding 'particles' as a solution for Schrodinger's wave equation), or cymatical or wave-only interpretation (Schrodinger's equation interpreted as a physical reality in space, the interpretation he preferred himself).

I side with Schrodinger on the issue, which I also think Einstein agreed with more than he did with Bohr.

reply to post by beebs

Space is a quantum wave medium of spherical quantum waves.

Why spherical? Why no cubical or icosahedron? Why not torus-shaped waves?

There is no math and no connection to the observables in all this cr@p, and that's precisely why I call it cr@p.

Little tiny gnome theory has about as much validity as this BLAH BLAH BLAH.

reply to post by beebs


If you don't know the math how would you know the model fits the data?

Also you are equivocating the "wave nature" with the WSM waves. Just because both use the term "waves" doesn't mean they are describing the same thing.

reply to post by beebs


Beebs Beebs Beebs. It's always the same. As you've never studied how real quantum theories work, how effective they are, how powerful and accurate and precise and logically rigorous they are, you have utterly no idea how meaningless what you're saying is in comparison.

Won't you for once just accept the blatantly obvious fact that you're in no position to compare anything with quantum theory or general relativity because you don't know what they are. This is so idiotic otherwise.

Originally posted by beebs
The experiments and observations have already been done. They are just being interpreted differently - namely classical or particle-only interpretation, Copenhagen or WPD(including statistical probability of finding 'particles' as a solution for Schrodinger's wave equation), or cymatical or wave-only interpretation (Schrodinger's equation interpreted as a physical reality in space, the interpretation he preferred himself).

So which experiments and observations have already been done to prove this:

Originally posted by beebs

Space energy-density: The energy-density of Space is equal to the sum (squared) of wave amplitudes from all the resonances in the (Hubble) Universe.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Space is a quantum wave medium of spherical quantum waves.

Why spherical? Why no cubical or icosahedron? Why not torus-shaped waves?

That's exactly what I was thinking. In fact if you type "Casimir effect" into images.google.com, the vast majority of the illustrations are NOT spherical, I think one was. Witout some evidence to show waves are spherical, I see no reason to assume they are.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The experiments are the experiments which display wave behavior, and collapse to appear as 'discreteness' which is really a quantized cymatic of space.

Spherical, at least in the simplest hydrogen, is suggested by the experimental evidence and observed topography of the wave function.

I am very much disappointed that this discussion has continued to the dark corners that it has, it is an unfortunate confirmation that scientific revolutions are as painful as giving birth.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I am very much disappointed that this discussion has continued to the dark corners that it has, it is an unfortunate confirmation that scientific revolutions are as painful as giving birth.

Is giving birth also something you have personal experience of?

Good luck with your revolution. I'm sure this not bothering to learn anything business will take off. Scientists all over the world will stop using theories that allow detailed calculations and precision design and stop bothering to understand the logic of quantum mechanics and start waffling vaguely about waves instead.

Lead on Beebs. They need you.

Originally posted by beebs
Spherical, at least in the simplest hydrogen, is suggested by the experimental evidence and observed topography of the wave function.

What does hydrogen have to do with anything? It's a composite object. Besides, there are non-spherical atoms as well. Many nuclei aren't spherical either.

What is the evidence that the electron is a spherical ball of finite dimensions?

Originally posted by beebs
Again, from Wolff outlining a clear and logical explanation for everything including ZPE . . .

I think this paragraph quoting Einstein from Wolff's Schrodinger's Universe is apropos:

Einstein thought that true scientists were rare. He wrote to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944: I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today--and even professional scientists--seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. Knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is--in my opinion--the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. Einstein is right, we can all become better scientists by adopting independent thinking habits.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Einstein is right, we can all become better scientists by adopting independent thinking habits.

Agreed.

Does that mean blatantly not bothering tounderstand the ideas we claim to be trumping, consistently refusing to give any reasoning or evidence, giving a load of vague claims and calling it a revolution? I don't believe so.

He was a scientist, after all. Not a fruitloop.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think this paragraph quoting Einstein from Wolff's Schrodinger's Universe is apropos:

So many people today--and even professional scientists--seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest.

I'm sure there is truth to that. At the same time, Mary... If we accept the language of this parable, you are not unlike an Eskimo who has never seen a tree in their life, never read a book on tree biology, but heard something vague about trees through static on a shortwave radio. That Eskimo then presumes to lecture forestry to Bavarians, based on what they "learned". The extent of this Eskimo's opinion is that there is a singularity under each tree from which life force sprouts etc, and the center of each tree is a vortex where dimensions cross. When asked what color are tree leaves, or how one climbs a tree, - the Eskimo does not give an answer because she has no idea. But, according to her the "vortex" explains the fractal pattern of each leave and branch. Anyone who disagrees with her (who had never seen a tree or smelled its leaves) is a just closed-minded automaton, of course.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think this paragraph quoting Einstein from Wolff's Schrodinger's Universe is apropos:

This independence created by philosophical insight is--in my opinion--the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. Einstein is right, we can all become better scientists by adopting independent thinking habits.

Indeed that is a great quote from Einstein, and very true. Here are a few more quotes from Einstein:

www.brainyquote.com...

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

This is also apropos. Why? Because when questions for evidence result in answers about being disappointed about the discussion degrading into "dark corners", then I have to ask, are we looking for what is, or for what someone thinks it should be. How do you tell those apart without observations and experiments?

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

Maybe you can explain to me what you think he meant by this one, but I would imagine it might include a reference to people that know nothing next to nothing about science, telling scientists who have spent their whole lives studying science, that they are wrong, and then not being able to provide any coherent evidence to support the claim, and demonstrating that they don't even understand the subject matter they are dismissing.

But professional scientists do challenge each other all the time, and contrary to beebs' claims that they all believe the Copenhagen interpretation, that's not the case.

I also have one other observation about the Wolff quote you referenced. I didn't personally know any scientists when Einstein said that...I wasn't even alive. But I've been impressed with how much of the history of science the scientists I've personally met seem to know. I'm not sure how to explain this, but one possibility might be that they actually studied Einstein's quotes as well as his theories, and made an effort to learn the history. So perhaps either scientists in my lifetime know more about the history of science than when Einstein said that, or else the sample of scientists I've personally met isn't representative of scientists as a whole. But it hasn't been my personal experience from the scientists I've met that they are ignorant of the history of science, and they seem to be well aware of things like phlogiston theory, and are constantly testing and retesting their own and others' assumptions and experiments to root out any modern analogs to the phlogiston theory.

Abraham Lincoln said: "You can fool all the people some of the time." Therefore he was a very wicked man.

See the fallacy here? Now imagine if you kept doing the same, except to support your thesis.

Also by using that Einstein quote you are guilty of using a bit of implied special pleading.

From spaceandmotion.com:

. . . the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave).

Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory.

Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e.
1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory.
2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity.

Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From spaceandmotion.com:

And continuing:

Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.

And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From spaceandmotion.com:

In addition, six predictions/deductions of WSM:

1. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

2. Mach's Principle.

3. The size of our observable universe within infinite Space (thus the motion of distant galaxies will behave as if they are surrounded by matter).

4. Curvature of the space-time continuum in Einstein's general relativity.

5. That light is due to resonant coupling - and thus is discrete. i.e. The electron can only exist in discrete wave functions thus discrete energy states in an atom or molecule.

6. That the de Broglie wave is a phase wave with high velocity for low relative motion, where de Broglie phase wave has velocity c^2 / relative velocity. This provides a simple explanation for non-locality as found in the EPR experiment.