Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by beebs
Haramein has done a damn good job.

A fitting quote from Einstein:

I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those lawlike connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics.

plato.stanford.edu...

It's ironic you would say Haramein has done a good job and then point to a quote from Einstein that contradicts that assessment. Look at how much Einstein is talking about mathematics in that quote, and by his own admission Haramein is weak in math. Haramein is also weak in other subjects, like junior high school geometry and basic physics.

Haramein's proton paper has protons traveling at the speed of light which is a mathematical impossibility according to Einstein's work, and confirmed by experimental observations at particle accelerators. So I don't see how anybody can take him seriously unless they too lack an understanding of mathematics, basic physics, and observational experience.

And remember what made Einstein famous. It wasn't that he jotted down a bunch of math formulas and published a paper. It was that his work predicted a result that could be measured in the real world, and in 1919 it was, during a solar eclipse.

I don't see anything connecting Haramein's work with the real world like that. And I don't expect that I will, aside from the occasional formula he copies from a high school physics textbook when he's not citing his own previous ramblings as references.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

It's ironic you would say Haramein has done a good job and then point to a quote from Einstein that contradicts that assessment. Look at how much Einstein is talking about mathematics in that quote, and by his own admission Haramein is weak in math. Haramein is also weak in other subjects, like junior high school geometry and basic physics.

Haramein's proton paper has protons traveling at the speed of light which is a mathematical impossibility according to Einstein's work, and confirmed by experimental observations at particle accelerators. So I don't see how anybody can take him seriously unless they too lack an understanding of mathematics, basic physics, and observational experience.

And remember what made Einstein famous. It wasn't that he jotted down a bunch of math formulas and published a paper. It was that his work predicted a result that could be measured in the real world, and in 1919 it was, during a solar eclipse.

I don't see anything connecting Haramein's work with the real world like that. And I don't expect that I will, aside from the occasional formula he copies from a high school physics textbook when he's not citing his own previous ramblings as references.

What? I don't quite understand your objections...

I am basing my speculations upon an aether-like substratum of space time, due to the Zero Point noise and FTL quantum phenomena.

Perhaps our presuppositions are different.

Just because Haramein has suggested he isn't that great at math, doesn't mean he's a failure at it.

I understand math, but I don't have to like it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I'm completely ignorant of it also.

The quote from Einstein directly relates to, in my mind, the Phi ratio and simple geometry like a Torus.

Also, it is intriguing that Einstein appeals to 'the ancients'.

How does the particle accelerator experiments discredit Harameins theory, specifically?

What if the particles in the accelerator are already spinning at the speed of light, and we are unknowingly trying to accelerate them even faster, to a relative speed of light only relevant to our planet? Perhaps the galaxy is already moving at the speed of light...

Maybe we are misinterpreting what the 'speed of light' even is in the first place.

Einstein is also famous for his philosophy and outlook on life... which is probably true moreso of Haramein.

And if I'm not mistaken, it was mentioned earlier in the thread that Haramein and Rodin predicted the 'off center' nature of the black holes in the middle of the galaxy. I think it was due to experimenting with nautilus spirals in a finite circle or something like that... can't remember exactly.

Black hole shoved aside, along with 'central' dogma

In his long talk, Haramein also mentions that he has predicted other new discoveries through his theory I think.

Originally posted by beebs
How does the particle accelerator experiments discredit Harameins theory, specifically?

You're welcome to join the debate but it would be greatly appreciated if you could read the thread to catch up on what the debate has covered so far. I answered that question back on page 3 in the post with the picture of the particle accelerator:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And mass traveling at the speed of light isn't as debatable as arguing about say, who's the best politician. In that case you can have 2 different answers and both can be right.

The evidence that an object with a rest mass (like a proton) can't travel at the speed of light is so overwhelming that you can't have two right answers to that question. The evidence supports one answer, so far...it can't. If you have any experimental evidence to the contrary please post it.

You also might want to read or re-read Haramein's proton paper before defending it.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I had read your post before, but it is very vague to me as to how Haramein's theory does not fit into the results from particle accelerators.

I will try to elaborate myself more clearly.

The LHC and other particle accelerators constantly confirm the velocity-mass relationship established by Einstein, they can double the energy of the proton, but the speed doesn't double, it only goes a tiny bit faster and most of the extra energy goes into increased mass of the proton. That's why you see 99.9997828% of the speed of light. We can build bigger particle accelerators but all we can do is add more 9s to the 99.999% of the speed of light because it would take infinite energy to give the proton infinite mass. This is not some fantasy scientists dreamed up on a piece of paper, it is factual observations made at the LHC and predecessors which confirm how that a proton traveling at the speed of light will have infinite mass. Yet that's apparently no problem for Haramein, in his paper "The Schwarzchild Proton", he sets the velocity of two protons orbiting each other at the speed of light without batting an eye:

We aren't even sure if the whole universe has infinite mass, but if it does, then one proton traveling at the speed of light would have the mass of the entire universe. But Haramein has two protons traveling around each other at the speed of light each of which would have an infinite mass so together these two protons have at least double the mass of the known universe. How do you reconcile that with the tons of observational data on what happens to the mass of a proton at the LHC when we give it more energy?

So from our human frame of reference, we can see at the speed of light. Yet we are wholly made up of protons that can never reach the speed of light.

How do we reconcile the fact that we can see at the speed of light? Especially if we aren't traveling at the speed of light.

What is consequence of our observer effect that allows us to bridge the matter/light gap - according to classical mechanics?

According to quantum mechanics, there is no gap.

What if it actually isn't two 'protons' we are witnessing. Could it be two focus points of aetheric charges opposing each other across the diameter of the inside of the torus? The event horizon of a black hole...

We know that electrons are quantum, not classical. 'Electron' is just a convenient term for the quantum probabilities in a 'cloud' around the center, which we call a 'nucleus'.

Also, the way we measure electrons is highly anomalous. What if they are just magnetic moments or a detectable quantum or level of an aether coming out from the center of a torus shaped density fluctuation in the aether?

If we misinterpreted the electron, whos to say we haven't misinterpreted the 'nucleus'?

Empirical equivalence has always been a pain for physicists.

If both Harameins theory and regular mainstream mechanics(which is not much different nowadays) can both account for most physical evidence, then we must use our discretion to pick the one theory that is simpler, more beautiful, and can account for slightly more phenomena in a unified way.

The strong nuclear force is ugly.

Gravity is beautiful.



I don't care about the UdLiege crap, the idea is what is important.

Notice that AlienScientist shows pictures of cymatics throughout the video...

Cymatics does not operate in a non-medium environment. But it does operate in an aether like medium.

Originally posted by beebs
How do we reconcile the fact that we can see at the speed of light? Especially if we aren't traveling at the speed of light.

Photons reach our eyes at the speed of light while we are standing still.

A baseball catcher can catch a baseball thrown to him at 80 miles an hour while he's standing (or crouching) still.

So your question is like asking how the baseball catcher can catch the baseball?

If you are going to ask questions like that there is absolutely no point in having any discussion with you.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by beebs
How do we reconcile the fact that we can see at the speed of light? Especially if we aren't traveling at the speed of light.

Photons reach our eyes at the speed of light while we are standing still.

A baseball catcher can catch a baseball thrown to him at 80 miles an hour while he's standing (or crouching) still.

So your question is like asking how the baseball catcher can catch the baseball?

If you are going to ask questions like that there is absolutely no point in having any discussion with you.

Ok, nice analogy.

Thats it though? You have no other thoughts on the matter?

That was the least important part of my post...

I am sorry you feel I am not worthy.

You still have not addressed what your background presuppositions are for this debate.

Which models/theories are you basing your speculation on?

Mine, is that spacetime at the lowest level we have been able to discern, is a grainy/quantum aether that expresses itself in simple geometry and ratios - like the Phi ratio.

I base that upon the demonstrable Zero Point field/noise and the FTL capabilities of the quantum system, and the fact that all biological self replicating systems 'grow' according the the Phi ratio and geometries that can be explained through cymatics.

Also, I base this framework on all of the countless philosophies throughout time that have identified with a fluid force that connects everything.

If you have a problem or are not familiar with these background assumptions, then we are not on the same page in this discussion at all.


That 'photon' that hits our eye, is also a wave due to the WPD.

But our eye is not 'catching' a 'photon', in any literal sense. Do we agree on that point?

When we get sunburnt, is it from our skin 'catching' photons? Or is it cells absorbing more energy from the wavelike energy in the light? I am asking these questions not directly at you, but with you as I'm trying to learn myself. In the spirit of the Socratic Method.

In my theoretical framework, like Harameins, the light wave that is the photon is being absorbed more than it is acting like a particle.

And we are not standing still, in reality. It is only our relative frame of reference that appears to be standing still.

Remember, we are continually moving through new and novel spacetime.

The earth is spinning on its axis, revolving around the sun. The sun is oscillating up and down and spinning in the galaxy around the center. The galaxy itself is also whipping through the universe.

So, this is a much more complex situation when the 'photon' is reaching the detectors in our eye.

Originally posted by beebs
So from our human frame of reference, we can see at the speed of light. Yet we are wholly made up of protons that can never reach the speed of light.

I don't see any contradiction in this. JFK was not traveling with a speed of bullet when he was hit with one.

What if it actually isn't two 'protons' we are witnessing. Could it be two focus points of aetheric charges opposing each other across the diameter of the inside of the torus? The event horizon of a black hole...

Sounds like a bunch quazi-scientific sounding cr@p to me.

We know that electrons are quantum, not classical. 'Electron' is just a convenient term for the quantum probabilities in a 'cloud' around the center, which we call a 'nucleus'.

There are plenty of cases when electrons aren't bound to a nucleus, and where they exhibit fairly classical properties.

Also, the way we measure electrons is highly anomalous. What if they are just magnetic moments or a detectable quantum or level of an aether coming out from the center of a torus shaped density fluctuation in the aether?

"Magnetic moments"? What the heck is this supposed to mean.

If both Harameins theory and regular mainstream mechanics(which is not much different nowadays) can both account for most physical evidence

Haramein's "theory" can't explain much at all. Proton is a composite object. So is neutron. Neutron can decay into a proton. I'm not sure Haramein even knows any of these facts.

Originally posted by beebs
Ok, nice analogy.

Thats it though? You have no other thoughts on the matter?

That was the least important part of my post...

I am sorry you feel I am not worthy.

You still have not addressed what your background presuppositions are for this debate.

Which models/theories are you basing your speculation on?

It's not that you're not worthy. You seem like an energetic enthusiast who would like to learn more, but you also seem to have trouble sticking to a topic without digressing into a lot of tangents. So see if you can direct your energy to something that's backed up by experimental evidence in the real world, I promise you it's just as exciting as devoting your energy to fantasies in fantasy land. The point we were discussing was:

Originally posted by beebs
How does the particle accelerator experiments discredit Harameins theory, specifically?

To which I replied:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The evidence that an object with a rest mass (like a proton) can't travel at the speed of light is so overwhelming that you can't have two right answers to that question. The evidence supports one answer, so far...it can't. If you have any experimental evidence to the contrary please post it.

Basically, your post was long and wordy, but non-responsive to the point at hand. You basically presented zero experimental evidence that a proton (or any object with a rest mass) can travel at the speed of light.

Here is the equation proven by the particle accelerators:

I borrowed that from here www.physicsforums.com... because ATS won't allow typing in equations like physicsforums does.

m0 is the rest mass of the proton, and m is the mass of the photon which is increased by accelerating it in the particle accelerator. v is the velocity of the proton. You can see that when you make v=c like Haramein's paper does, the bottom term becomes zero, and when you divide by zero you get infinity meaning the proton would have infinite mass.

So here are some more questions:

-Do you have a different equation for relativistic mass?
-If so does your equation show that objects with a rest mass can travel at the speed of light and if so is there any experimental evidence for this?
-Do you have any doubts that particle accelerators have actually increased the velocity of protons and measured the relativistic effects stated in that equation?

All your energy and enthusiasm is a great thing, I admire it. It's my sincere hope that you can steer it in a meaningful and productive direction.

But I'll reiterate that if your goal is to avoid responding to the fallacy of Haramein's proton paper calculation that protons are traveling at the speed of light and instead obfuscate the discussion by going off on tangents with no basis in reality, then I don't see that being a very productive discussion from my perspective.

So my desire to discuss reality instead of fantasy has nothing to do with your being worthy or not, it's because if Haramein and 100 other pseudoscientists all make up some equations in la-la land, I don't have any reason to believe any of them until they can provide some experimental evidence to prove they really mean something.

To be honest I probably wouldn't believe some of the crazy ideas in relativity and some of the seriously whacked out equations in quantum physics without real world evidence to back them up. So that's where the rubber meets the road...can an idea be proven with experiments or observations in the real world, or not? If not, then it doesn't have much use in science, though it might have some use in another field, like religion. But this isn't the religion forum.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I don't see any contradiction in this. JFK was not traveling with a speed of bullet when he was hit with one.

What if it actually isn't two 'protons' we are witnessing. Could it be two focus points of aetheric charges opposing each other across the diameter of the inside of the torus? The event horizon of a black hole...

Sounds like a bunch quazi-scientific sounding cr@p to me.

We know that electrons are quantum, not classical. 'Electron' is just a convenient term for the quantum probabilities in a 'cloud' around the center, which we call a 'nucleus'.

There are plenty of cases when electrons aren't bound to a nucleus, and where they exhibit fairly classical properties.

Also, the way we measure electrons is highly anomalous. What if they are just magnetic moments or a detectable quantum or level of an aether coming out from the center of a torus shaped density fluctuation in the aether?

"Magnetic moments"? What the heck is this supposed to mean.

If both Harameins theory and regular mainstream mechanics(which is not much different nowadays) can both account for most physical evidence

Haramein's "theory" can't explain much at all. Proton is a composite object. So is neutron. Neutron can decay into a proton. I'm not sure Haramein even knows any of these facts.

Again... I ask simply for you to state your presuppositions in this discussion, just like I ask Arbitrageur for them as well. I have stated mine.

Zero Point is demonstrable through the Casimir Effect.

Your analogy with JFK is exactly like Arbitrageur's... but they both lack the universal context of motion.

You do not think it is interesting that our eyes, which are supposedly made of non-speed-of-light particles, can perceive the speed of light?

That aside...

Quazi-Scientific?!

Perhaps you are not aware of the state that theoretical physics has been at lately...

I suggest this article..



Yes, there are cases of electrons without nuclei. Those cases are also like in the double slit experiment, which shows that electrons are subject to the WPD(Wave Particle Duality) - which indicates that the 'particle' is not only a 'particle' but a WAVE.

This is highly anomalous...

Waves only work in mediums. There has to be a substance through which a wave propagates.


Wiki article on Magnetic Moment


And again, it sounds like you are arguing for classical, finite particles.

I am not. I have stated my presuppositions - which are absolutely essential in theoretical physics.

Keep in mind the idea of Empirical Equivalence.

One thing can be explained in many ways.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Here is the equation proven by the particle accelerators:


I borrowed that from here www.physicsforums.com... because ATS won't allow typing in equations like physicsforums does.

m0 is the rest mass of the proton, and m is the mass of the photon which is increased by accelerating it in the particle accelerator. v is the velocity of the proton. You can see that when you make v=c like Haramein's paper does, the bottom term becomes zero, and when you divide by zero you get infinity meaning the proton would have infinite mass.

So here are some more questions:

-Do you have a different equation for relativistic mass?
-If so does your equation show that objects with a rest mass can travel at the speed of light and if so is there any experimental evidence for this?
-Do you have any doubts that particle accelerators have actually increased the velocity of protons and measured the relativistic effects stated in that equation?

All your energy and enthusiasm is a great thing, I admire it. It's my sincere hope that you can steer it in a meaningful and productive direction.

But I'll reiterate that if your goal is to avoid responding to the fallacy of Haramein's proton paper calculation that protons are traveling at the speed of light and instead obfuscate the discussion by going off on tangents with no basis in reality, then I don't see that being a very productive discussion from my perspective.

So my desire to discuss reality instead of fantasy has nothing to do with your being worthy or not, it's because if Haramein and 100 other pseudoscientists all make up some equations in la-la land, I don't have any reason to believe any of them until they can provide some experimental evidence to prove they really mean something.

To be honest I probably wouldn't believe some of the crazy ideas in relativity and some of the seriously whacked out equations in quantum physics without real world evidence to back them up. So that's where the rubber meets the road...can an idea be proven with experiments or observations in the real world, or not? If not, then it doesn't have much use in science, though it might have some use in another field, like religion. But this isn't the religion forum.

I think mass is also energy if I'm not mistaken? Photons and Protons both are subject to the WPD.

So what you call mass, also has to exist in 'wave form' whatever that may be...Charge, Energy, etc.

You seem to be conflating photon/proton.

The equation you quoted from the physics forum is regarding photons, but I think its also used for other particles?

Again, though, I must reiterate my earlier point: What if we are already light? What if ZPE and FTL quantum phenomena are evidence of this?


Haramein suggests that the proton would have infinite mass, because it is not a 'particulate' proton, but the light/energy equivalent of a black hole at the center of the 'atom'.

Another one of my presuppositions, is that I believe a Unified field exists and is achievable.

Strong nuclear force just doesn't fit in. Weak nuclear force has already been thrown out in Electro-weak interaction theory.

This is why Haramein's theory is VERY significant. In fact, Nobel prize significant if correct.

He has unified the Strong nuclear interaction with Gravity, much like the weak nuclear interaction was unified with EM.

Can you see the importance to a Unified Field Theory if he is correct?

A classical, particulate 'proton' cannot perhaps reach the speed of light.

But if our interpretation of what that 'proton' is is wrong, then all bets are off.

It could be that the proton is already traveling at or near the speed of light(since in Haramein's theory it would be the 'event horizon' around a black hole - the threshold of the speed of light), so to get it to reach the speed of light would be like creating a black hole...

Which makes sense because black holes, for all we know, is light beyond C.

I have yet to see the fallacy in Haramein's theory - which is why I am discussing this so in depth with you.

I think Haramein and myself have different presuppositions in theoretical physics, which you do not share.


You call my speculations fantasy.. but I'm pretty sure they are reality.

Reality is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Please point out where my presuppositions are fantasy.

Of course the speculation in theoretical physics is not demonstrable to you.

Its theoretical physics...

The theory of relativity is a beautiful example of the basic character of the modern development of theory. That is to say, the hypotheses from which one starts become ever more abstract and more remote from experience. But in return one comes closer to the preeminent goal of science, that of encompassing a maximum of empirical contents through logical deduction with a minimum of hypotheses or axioms. The intellectual path from the axioms to the empirical contents or to the testable consequences becomes, thereby, ever longer and more subtle. The theoretician is forced, ever more, to allow himself to be directed by purely mathematical, formal points of view in the search for theories, because the physical experience of the experimenter is not capable of leading us up to the regions of the highest abstraction. Tentative deduction takes the place of the predominantly inductive methods appropriate to the youthful state of science. Such a theoretical structure must be quite thoroughly elaborated in order for it to lead to consequences that can be compared with experience. It is certainly the case that here, as well, the empirical fact is the all-powerful judge. But its judgment can be handed down only on the basis of great and difficult intellectual effort that first bridges the wide space between the axioms and the testable consequences. The theorist must accomplish this Herculean task with the clear understanding that this effort may only be destined to prepare the way for a death sentence for his theory. One should not reproach the theorist who undertakes such a task by calling him a fantast; instead, one must allow him his fantasizing, since for him there is no other way to his goal whatsoever. Indeed, it is no planless fantasizing, but rather a search for the logically simplest possibilities and their consequences. (Einstein 1954, 238–239; my translation)

plato.stanford.edu...

Originally posted by beebs
Your analogy with JFK is exactly like Arbitrageur's... but they both lack the universal context of motion.

They don't

You do not think it is interesting that our eyes, which are supposedly made of non-speed-of-light particles, can perceive the speed of light?

I don't think this is anything outstanding that we detect photons. The meaning of "perceive the speed of light" is so ambiguous it can't be commented on.

Yes, there are cases of electrons without nuclei. Those cases are also like in the double slit experiment, which shows that electrons are subject to the WPD(Wave Particle Duality) - which indicates that the 'particle' is not only a 'particle' but a WAVE.

This is highly anomalous...

I think you are abusing this word..

I am not. I have stated my presuppositions - which are absolutely essential in theoretical physics.

I highly doubt you know any theoretical physics to speak of.

And again, Haramein with his kindergarten-level model does not explain the richness of physics that' already available to us.


[edit on 8-6-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by beebs
You seem to be conflating photon/proton

I actually found a typo where I corrected the spelling from one to the other, are you saying I didn't catch them all before I made my post? I thought I did. If not then I have no idea what that means.

The equation you quoted from the physics forum is regarding photons, but I think its also used for other particles?

It is regarding massive particles (like protons), however it was referenced there to show that a photon can't have a rest mass. because if so it would have an infinite mass at the speed of light, which is basically the same argument I'm making that a proton would have infinite mass at the speed of light.

Again, though, I must reiterate my earlier point: What if we are already light?

Einstein mentioned E=mc^2 so there's an equivalence between matter and light. And we do give off infrared light.
but "What if we are already light??" what the heck does that mean?

It's exactly statements like that which lead me to believe you are living in a fantasy world. Light has a scientific definition, and it has measurable properties. If you are referring to the infrared light being emitted from your body then we are light sources. But to say that "we are light" sounds like a nonsensical statement without any further definition or explanation.

Haramein suggests that the proton would have infinite mass, because it is not a 'particulate' proton, but the light/energy equivalent of a black hole at the center of the 'atom'....

So what he calls a proton with infinite mass is really just a black hole with infinite mass?

I have yet to see the fallacy in Haramein's theory - which is why I am discussing this so in depth with you.

This is because you discuss a proton with infinite mass with no more thought than I might say "I just walked my dog". You fail to realize the implications and the silliness of your statement, and the same is true with Haramein. Think about this, an infinite mass has infinite gravity so you'd be sucked into the gravitational field of a proton with infinite mass. The fact that you can type here means you haven't been and disproves your idea.

I think Haramein and myself have different presuppositions in theoretical physics, which you do not share.

If what you mean is that your presuppositions are based on a bunch of made up fantasies and my presuppositions are based on repeatable scientific observations and experiments, then, yes I agree.

You call my speculations fantasy.. but I'm pretty sure they are reality.

[sarcasm]I've already solved the theory of everything...there's a giant flying spaghetti monster pulling invisible strings interconnected to everything in the universe...so far nobody has proven me wrong.[/sarcasm]

Reality is sometimes stranger than fiction.

That's what I've been trying to say. So why not come back to reality instead of living in a world of fantasy? Reality is plenty strange.

Please point out where my presuppositions are fantasy.

Of course the speculation in theoretical physics is not demonstrable to you.

Can you disprove my flying spaghetti monster theory?

You have it backwards, the burden of proof is up to me to prove my flying spaghetti monster theory of everything, you or any other scientist or pseudoscientist to demonstrate that your or their ideas can make predictions and or explain observations in the real world.

Some speculation in theoretical physics may not be demonstrable to anyone:

String Theory

to constitute a convincing potential test of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion in this sense.

All of theoretically falsifiable prediction specific to the string theory are currently untestable in practice so far. One such unique prediction is string harmonics: at sufficiently high energies—probably near the quantum gravity scale—the string-like nature of particles would become obvious. There should be heavier copies of all particles corresponding to higher vibrational states of the string. But it is not clear how high these energies are. In the most likely case, they would be 10^15 times higher than those accessible in the newest particle accelerator, the LHC, making this prediction impossible to test with any particle accelerator in the foreseeable future.

So yes some theories in theoretical physics don't meet the definition of a scientific theory, but I at least give those theoretical physicists credit for something I can't give you or Nassim Haramein credit for. The have at least learned enough about "non-theoretical" or "real" physics to discuss it intelligently and then expand on the observations we've already made when discussing theoretical physics.

Haramein on the other hand seems to want to throw out the physics we have established by observation in his reference to proton black holes with infinite mass which would then suck in the entire universe and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. This makes Haramein's physics ridiculous, which is worse than just "unproven".

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Haramein suggests that the proton would have infinite mass, because it is not a 'particulate' proton, but the light/energy equivalent of a black hole at the center of the 'atom'....

So what he calls a proton with infinite mass is really just a black hole with infinite mass?

If what you mean is that your presuppositions are based on a bunch of made up fantasies and my presuppositions are based on repeatable scientific observations and experiments, then, yes I agree.

You have it backwards, the burden of proof is up to me to prove my flying spaghetti monster theory of everything, you or any other scientist or pseudoscientist to demonstrate that your or their ideas can make predictions and or explain observations in the real world.

Ok, what in conventional physics can account for the Phi ratio?

Have you heard of Quantum Vacuum Density Fluctuations or Zero Point fluctuations, etc.?

Do you think that space is a 'vacuum'? Its not...

You have not addressed the ZP field at all... or that it has been demonstrated through the Casimir effect.

You should know that gravitational waves are theorized... what do you think allows those waves to propagate? Does particulate 'space-time' just 'bend'? How does that work?

A physicist at my university threw up his hands when I asked him what they were supposed to propagate through and said "Aether." with a puzzled look on his face.

That is real physics. I'm sorry if you don't agree with it.

Haramein's model explains vortexes - like in Hurricanes, water, tornadoes, etc.

Is that unimportant and arbitrary?

----

So a photon can't have a rest mass? I would agree with that, because there is no such thing to my knowledge as ANYTHING at rest.

Motion in the Universe was one of Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God, was it not? Sorry to stretch...

But! If the photon could somehow be put at rest, much like absolute zero with helium in the case of ZPE, would it perhaps have no mass?

I suspect that anything that stopped moving would cease to exist - at least from our frame of reference.


So if E=mc^2, then yes, we would have to BE light or energy. m=E/c^2

I'm not sure how to state that idea better than 'that we might BE light'.

We are made up of electromagnetic waves/vibrations. Light.

And maybe gravity - which is what is more towards the main point here, regarding Harameins theory.

Since we clearly do not agree on theoretical presuppositions, perhaps you can just pinpoint in Haramein's paper where his math/assumptions are wrong?

He IS TRYING to prove his metaphorical spaghetti monster. You just aren't understanding his, or my, background assumptions as to WHY he thinks the spaghetti monster is as he describes. I would love it to see his theoretical framework falsified, so I can move on to the next best thing, but to my knowledge his idea IS the next best thing.

And, to be accurate, I believe he is suggesting that both Protons are 'Schwarzschild protons', because they both fit the Schwarzschild conditions of a black hole, so they are binary black holes revolving around each other.

Here is a good tidbit from his paper(As I stated earlier, I'm not good with the maths):

It is clear from these results that the “strong force” may be accounted for by a
gravitational attraction between two Schwarzschild protons. In the standard model the
strong force is typically given as 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the
gravitational force however, the origin of the energy necessary to produce such a force
is not given. Remarkably, a Schwarzschild condition proton as a mass
approximately 38 orders of magnitude higher than the standard proton mass, producing a gravitational effect strong enough to confine both the protons and the quarks. Our approach, therefore, offers the source of the binding
energy as spacetime curvature resulting from a slight interaction of the
proton with the vacuum fluctuations and offers a unification from cosmological objects
to atomic nuclei. Therefore, we write a scaling law [1] to verify that the Schwarzschild
proton falls appropriately within the mass distribution of organized matter in the
universe.

[math symbols deleted for ATS, refer to document]

When I suggested magnetic moments earlier, I had forgotten that Haramein actually talks about them as well in his paper.

-----

Lastly, As far as I'm aware, I have firmly backed my presuppositions with fact.

You continue to disregard and not acknowledge them, or provide for discussion your own presuppositions.

You continue to call my theoretical standpoint 'fantasy' without showing me where I have made my errors.

Therefore, as you can probably deduce, I am still wallowing in my ignorance - because, as far as I can tell, I am basing my presuppositions on REALITY.

If this REALITY is flawed, I would love to know it so as to lift myself from this 'ignorant fog'.

From my perspective, it is YOU, not ME, that is living the fantasy.

Ah, Relativity

Originally posted by beebs
Haramein suggests that the proton would have infinite mass, because it is not a 'particulate' proton, but the light/energy equivalent of a black hole at the center of the 'atom'....

So what he calls a proton with infinite mass is really just a black hole with infinite mass?

You fail to realize the implications and the silliness of your statement, and the same is true with Haramein. Think about this, an infinite mass has infinite gravity so you'd be sucked into the gravitational field of a proton with infinite mass. The fact that you can type here means you haven't been and disproves your idea.

What do you think is stopping the infinite gravity from the infinite mass of the proton/black hole from sucking you into it?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Balance. Equilibrium.

Put + with - and you get =

reply to post by beebs


And what exactly balances out an infinite gravitational force to cancel its effects?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


If you have to ask me... then I have to wonder if you really understand Haramein's theory, and have been antagonizing me ignorantly.

I will try to make it simple.

Electromagnetism is radiating from the center of the torus.

Spacetime is condensing and expanding at the same time.

Condensing = inside of Torus, gravity or infinite singularity

Expanding = outside of torus, EM or hawking radiation

Thus, Balance.




Same thing with smoke rings.

Only aetheric density fluctuations.

You either get it, or you don't.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

If you have to ask me... then I have to wonder if you really understand Haramein's theory, and have been antagonizing me ignorantly.


Expanding = outside of torus, EM or hawking radiation

If I understood it I wouldn't be asking questions about it, so of course I don't understand it, I'm trying to see if you understand it well enough to explain it to someone else.

OK hawking radiation, I know what that is, it's something that forms outside the event horizon of a black hole right?

And do you know how the radius of event horizon is calculated?

Is it a function of the mass of the black hole?

So if the mass inside the black hole is infinite, what is the radius of the event horizon, in meters? In other words, where is this hawking radiation forming? I know where it forms for a typical black hole, but not for a proton black hole with infinite mass, I don't know how to calculate the distance to the event horizon or the schwarzchild radius when the mass inside is infinite, please help me with that. Here is the Schwarzschild Radius formula I was trying to use, is this the wrong formula?

Schwarzchild radius = 2*G*M /(c^2)
source: scienceworld.wolfram.com...

Where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass, and c is the speed of light. When I plug in infinity for the mass, the radius becomes infinite, so is the hawking radiation forming beyond infinity? And where exactly is that?

Also I don't see how hawking radiation or any of the other forces you mention balance out the infinite gravitational force in the singularity?

Those were pretty bubbles but I didn't see any gravitational force at the center of them so they really didn't help my understanding of what would balance out infinite gravity.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Infinity is relative. If the universe is infinite, then our particular frame of reference is all that matters.

Think of a fractal.

Within a finite frame of reference(like, the computer screen), the fractal looks finite.

But if you 'zoom in' to the fractal, each new frame of reference shows that the fractal is infinite. To me, I think it highly interesting that 'quarks' and all subatomic particles always come in pairs... like magnets.

So everything, from our limited frame of reference, looks finite. But in reality, it is infinite.

I'm not sure, just an idea.

And to my knowledge, yes the Schwarzschild conditions have to be met in order for a black hole to be formed.

The mass has to be at a certain critical point within a diameter in order for it to be considered a black hole. Or something like that.

Wiki says that the Schwarzschild conditions do not take into account rotation, or angular momentum. It is apparently only for a 'static' black hole.

That is another point that Haramein brings up in his paper.

-----

Really, we don't know exactly what is causing the phenomenon we call 'gravity'. IMO.

It is supposedly mass curving the fabric of space-time, but to me I'm not sure.

Perhaps it is due to inherent magnetism in every 'particle' in a massive body, which would be empirically equivalent to the mainstream theory.


And another point about that, the famous picture of the earth 'sitting' in the fabric of spacetime, thus bending it and causing gravity, could easily be altered to toroid geometry if we just poked a hole through the bottom of the fabric - like a wormhole.

Nesting toruses, like Russian nesting dolls.

But these nesting toruses would be quantized at certain harmonies/frequencies which keeps the solar system spaced out the way it is.

Due to ZP noise, this can be envisioned through cymatics if spacetime is aetherlike.

I digress, again
-----

I have been searching xxx.lanl.gov for some papers on this subject.

Happy to find some very interesting ones I will be perusing the next couple days...

Basically, binary black holes are a very interesting topics for physics apparently. This first one is from June 2, 2010.

THE LAGRANGE EQUILIBRIUM POINTS L AND L IN A BLACK HOLE BINARY SYSTEM

The Close-Limit Approximation for Black Hole
Binaries with Post-Newtonian Initial Conditions

Much more where these came from, take a look. Looking forward to some interesting speculation.



edit to add:

Also I don't see how hawking radiation or any of the other forces you mention balance out the infinite gravitational force in the singularity?

Well, my presupposition is that a Unified field is correct, we just have to figure out how to get there.

So, if 'gravity'(whatever that ends up to be) and EM are just opposite charges or opposite aspects of the same force that makes up space-time in the torus dynamic, the very existence of the torus dynamic implies that they are counterbalanced.

Because the smoke ring can only stay a smoke ring as long as the dynamic of force flowing through the middle is balanced with the force that comes out the middle and around the outside and back in through the center again.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by beebs]

Originally posted by beebs
I digress, again

I noticed you do that a lot, I'm glad you noticed you're doing it also.

I guess it's easier to digress and talk about other stuff than to answer difficult questions about Haramein's theory.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Infinity is relative. If the universe is infinite, then our particular frame of reference is all that matters.

So everything, from our limited frame of reference, looks finite. But in reality, it is infinite.

I'm not sure, just an idea.

And to my knowledge, yes the Schwarzschild conditions have to be met in order for a black hole to be formed.

The mass has to be at a certain critical point within a diameter in order for it to be considered a black hole. Or something like that.

Wiki says that the Schwarzschild conditions do not take into account rotation, or angular momentum. It is apparently only for a 'static' black hole.

That is another point that Haramein brings up in his paper.

You got my hopes up talking about the schwarzchild radius that you might actually answer my question about what the schwarzchild radius is for Haramein's proton with infinite mass.
"Wiki says that the Schwarzschild conditions do not take into account rotation, or angular momentum" Yes it does and let's see what else it says about that:

en.wikipedia.org...

It is generally believed that all black holes will eventually be similar to a stationary black hole and, by the no hair theorem, that stationary black holes can be completely described by three (and only three) quantities:

* mass M,
* angular momentum J,
* electric charge Q.

This is because anything happening inside the black hole horizon cannot affect events outside it.

Basically the effect of the rotation is to make the event horizon larger in places as shown in this diagram:

en.wikipedia.org...

So if the proton with infinite mass was not rotating, it would have an infinite sphere for the event horizon. Once you take rotation into account, it only makes the size of the event horizon an even larger infinity!

So how does that help your explanation? How is it any easier for hawking radiation to form outside the larger infinity of a rotating proton black hole than the smaller infinity of the non-rotating proton black hole with infinite mass?

Again, I ask you, without digressing this time, how do you calculate the schwarzchild radius or event horizon radius of Haramein's black hole with infinite mass? Using what formula? And what is the radius? You can use the simplified formula for a non-rotating black hole, and then we can just both agree with Wiki that in the case of the rotating black hole the radius will be larger.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]