Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Have you read Mr. Haramein's paper??

I would copy and paste it, but the math screws up the formatting on ATS.

Refer to Section 2 of his paper, entitled:

Fundamentals of the Schwarzschild Proton

And please tell me you have watched this video, which has been posted at least twice in this thread previously(ignore the University Liege stuff if you don't think thats 'credible', just listen to the physics and ideas):


The radius of a proton from mainstream physics is being used to derive the Schwarzschild conditions.

This is why I started looking at papers about binary black hole systems...

Also, AlienScientist now apparently has his doubts about Nassim relating this to the Phi ratio. I am on the fence. I am not as competent in the math, so I will wait until something better can come up to explain the Phi ratio, but that is not the point.

And this is very informative:

Originally posted by beebs
The radius of a proton from mainstream physics is being used to derive the Schwarzschild conditions.

Yes I know, so his math is inherently self-contradictory and nonsensical. He gives it a standard proton radius for the Schwarzchild radius and then shows it has infinite mass which means the schwarzchild radius is infinite, not that of a proton.

Of course I read his proton paper, didn't you notice that my analysis of his paper back on page 3 had a screenshot from his paper showing the math that was problematic? You already told me twice that you read that post but now that you're asking me if I read his paper, I have to wonder if you really did, or if maybe when you got to the part of my post with Haramein's math in it your eyes just glossed over and you tuned it out? What happened?

Also, AlienScientist now apparently has his doubts about Nassim relating this to the Phi ratio. I am on the fence.

If you're on the fence at least that's some progress, I thought you actually believed Haramein. At least you have doubts. Thank goodness even AlienScientist is starting to wake up and have doubts about Haramein, he doesn't sound like a total idiot to me so I was hoping he'd know enough math to see through the sham Haramein presents. I listened to alienscientists analysis of Fouche's explanation of the TR-3B propuslsion system and he actually pointed out some of the same flaws with Fouche's concepts that I always like to point out, so that gave me some respect for that part of what he says at least, though he still seems a little gullible on other topics but I think he's smart enough to figure out the truth if he wants to.

Originally posted by beebs
I am not as competent in the math, so I will wait until something better can come up to explain the Phi ratio, but that is not the point.

And I have to wonder about this for anyone who believes Haramein. Are all his believers/followers not so good at math like Haramein is not so good at math, or even worse than he is? I would think they would have to be to not have the mathematical inconsistencies jump out at them.

Did you notice in the video how alienscientist sort of glossed over and even ignored the fact that Haramein has the protons traveling at the speed of light to make his calculations? However at 4:00 in the video, it does say "I divided by zero, Oh SH**"", that's exactly the problem with Haramein's math, he's dividing by zero and getting an infinite mass for the proton, but he doesn't adjust the Schwarzchild radius accordingly. So, he's contradicting his own self! He doesn't even have to disagree with anyone else, he doesn't even agree with him self because his math isn't internally consistent. So keep that in mind when you decide which side of the fence to fall off of!

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yes I know, so his math is inherently self-contradictory and nonsensical. He gives it a standard proton radius for the Schwarzchild radius and then shows it has infinite mass which means the schwarzchild radius is infinite, not that of a proton.

Of course I read his proton paper, didn't you notice that my analysis of his paper back on page 3 had a screenshot from his paper showing the math that was problematic? You already told me twice that you read that post but now that you're asking me if I read his paper, I have to wonder if you really did, or if maybe when you got to the part of my post with Haramein's math in it your eyes just glossed over and you tuned it out? What happened?

See, I think we are not on the same page...

You are not interpreting this Schwarzschild problem in the same way I am.

He is using the standard proton radius to determine how much Zero Point energy - or Quantum Vacuum density - whatever you want to call it, would be inside a particle of that size.

Thus, he determines that the ZP noise inside the standard volume of the proton is sufficient to fulfill the Schwarzschild requirements for a black hole.

This Zero Point field is one of my background assumptions, as it has been demonstrated through the Casimir effect.

It is absolutely essential to understand this, to understand why Haramein concludes that a standard proton fulfills the Schwarzschild conditions.

-----

Going back to re-read your posts on the 3rd page...

You only showed the screenshot of his paper.

Nowhere did you elaborate on how the math was wrong.

In fact, you didn't even talk about his math. (or Rauscher's, more probably)

You are stuck on your speed of light/infinite mass loop. I get that point.

That is part of the reason this paper is interesting, is because his math worked, No?

If you had shown where his math was flawed, I think AlienScientist would have noticed as well.



edit to add: And he doesn't gloss over the speed of light thing, refer to around 2:40 in the first video.

Any comments on the longer video?




[edit on 9-6-2010 by beebs]

Originally posted by beebs
You are stuck on your speed of light/infinite mass loop. I get that point.

That is part of the reason this paper is interesting, is because his math worked, No?

If you had shown where his math was flawed, I think AlienScientist would have noticed as well.

The reason I keep bringing up the proton traveling at the speed of light is to get a response from you on how ANY observational evidence supports that a proton can do this. Virtually ALL observational evidence shows that it can't.

And no his math doesn't work, the schwarzchild radius can't be both the radius of a proton and infinite simultaneously yet that's what his math shows.

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

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

So he's not saying he supports the theory and to attack the theory, not him. So I'm following his advice. I know you'd rather digress into a million other things so you don't have to answer how a proton can travel at the speed of light but no, I don't think you do get it. Some equations are just figures on a piece of paper. Others are more than that, they are backed up by real world observations. You have yet to acknowledge the difference, that's the point I'm trying to make and you have yet to demonstrate that you "get it", everything you have said other than "I get it" shows that you DON'T get it.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ok, I will concede that Haramein has made a mathematical error of a proton's radius being infinity IF - you can help me to understand how he has suggested so. You are apparently better at the math than I am, as I cannot find that reference in his paper so it must be a consequence of the math that I am ignorant of.

My understanding, is that his math only says that inside the volume of the proton is the MASS of the entire universe - within the volume of a standard proton, radius of 1.32 femtometers.

The radius of his 'schwarzschild proton'(black hole) is also 1.32 fm.

It is the speed of light that these binary black holes are revolving around each other.

That is why I was looking towards more frontier physics a couple posts back about the nature of binary black holes. Highly relevant.

----

I'm sure you know that entanglement and non-locality is the mainstream now? That implies faster than light communication/interaction between particles...

BUT- Is matter waves or particles? Can it be both? I'm sure you see how important this is for the future of physics.

So, if there is no mistake in Haramein's math that the radius is infinite, then doesn't that mean that either he is right, or the established maths he uses is wrong?

How can electrons be subject to faster than light quantum phenomena? Shouldn't that also be impossible, because their mass would be infinite?!

Why is entanglement so mainstream, if the consequence of the interaction would imply an infinite mass system - which would surely disrupt the universe?

Electrons are heavier than photons, are they not? So they should be subject to that equation you posted earlier that says that all particles reaching the speed of light would be infinite mass...

How do you suggest that Entanglement can work, if there isn't SOMETHING traveling at or above C?

And if there IS something traveling at or above C, how is it not affecting us?

----

And kudos for the discussion, mate. I am honestly sorry if I am dragging you on, I assure you it does not seem that way from my end, however it is being received.

Hopefully someday we can cheers when we figure it all out.

Nice avatar!

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Ok, I will concede that Haramein has made a mathematical error of a proton's radius being infinity IF - you can help me to understand how he has suggested so. You are apparently better at the math than I am, as I cannot find that reference in his paper so it must be a consequence of the math that I am ignorant of.

I've explained the math already but I'll recap parts of earlier posts to review.
OK you accept he has the proton traveling at the speed of light as shown in the part of his paper I posted, which you also pointed out in alienscientists video, right?

And the math for the relativistic mass is in this earlier post:

Originally posted 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 that gives a value for m of infinity.

To calculate the Minimum schwarzchild radius (for non-rotating objects) plug that infinite mass in this formula:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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?

Now to account for the rotation you make the radius a little larger in some directions, but larger than infinity is still infinity so the rotating part doesn't affect the calculation much in this case of infinite mass.

Originally posted by beebs
I'm sure you know that entanglement and non-locality is the mainstream now? That implies faster than light communication/interaction between particles...

Now? Entanglement is what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" the better part of a century ago, and it allows information to travel faster than light, however it's a fairly limited and useless form of communication, so some people argue that it's not really communication at all. But it's a real effect whatever you want to call it. People are trying to figure out how to make quantum computers with that effect.

Again this illustrates why observations and experiments rule over equations on a piece of paper. We have observed that this happens so it's real world stuff.

This is in contrast to someone writing down that a proton travels at the speed of light when real world observations have shown what happens when we try to accelerate a proton to that speed. If there's a conflict between the theory and the observations, the observations rule (if they are repeatable by others).

Originally posted by beebs
How do you suggest that Entanglement can work, if there isn't SOMETHING traveling at or above C?

And if there IS something traveling at or above C, how is it not affecting us?

Science doesn't have all the answers yet. However that doesn't translate into any equation no matter how stupid should therefore be considered (obviously directed at Haramein and not you). I will say this, the entanglement occurs when the particles are closer together, and they remain entangled when you move them apart. Then when you move them apart, information can be communicated faster than the speed of light. But it's not like any particles in your body are likely to have any quantum entanglement with particles on Jupiter, because the quantum entangled particles would have had to be together in the first place, and they weren't.

And I never said nothing could go faster than C. Obviously photons can travel at c and quantum entangled information can travel faster than c. Possibly too could an Alcubierre drive because it doesn't travel faster than light locally.

Originally posted by beebs
The radius of his 'schwarzschild proton'(black hole) is also 1.32 fm.

So, if there is no mistake in Haramein's math that the radius is infinite, then doesn't that mean that either he is right, or the established maths he uses is wrong?

How can it be both 1.32fm and infinite at the same time?

Originally posted by beebs
Electrons are heavier than photons, are they not? So they should be subject to that equation you posted earlier that says that all particles reaching the speed of light would be infinite mass...

You're correct. Electrons, protons, and neutrons all have a rest mass so they can't travel at the speed of light. Photons don't have a rest mass so they can travel at the speed of light.

Originally posted by beebs
And kudos for the discussion, mate. I am honestly sorry if I am dragging you on, I assure you it does not seem that way from my end, however it is being received.

Hopefully someday we can cheers when we figure it all out.

Kudos for your enthusiasm to understand the mysteries of the universe!
You are making me repeat myself a little like reviewing all the math again above, but as I said I admire your energy and enthusiasm to learn the truth and that's what we would all like to do. I don't have all the answers, nobody does. If I could explain exactly how quantum entanglement does what it does I might win a Nobel prize for that, so I'm not afraid to say I can't.

But I do know nonsense when I see it and it's not because I'm married to mainstream concepts, rather, it's because I need to see experimental or observational evidence to show a claim or a formula is true. I'd be skeptical of quantum entanglement action traveling faster than light but we have experimental evidence, so that rules. Ideas with no support in experimental or observational evidence may be interesting to ponder at times, but at the end of the day, they may be of no practical value if they can't explain or make predictions about what happens in the real world.

But yes someday it would be nice if we can figure out the answers to some of these mysteries. And the real world mysteries are quite exciting enough to solve, without Haramein trying to confuse us as he has confused himself.

My thread on medieval tendency in popular science:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by buddhasystem


I agree with a lot of that but the statement:

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What we've seen are -- Quark Bombs, Pan-Dimensional beings, Black holes,

doesn't really seem fair to lump black holes together with pan-dimensional beings. Even the LHC outreach site talks about what will happen if the LHC creates black holes: lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch...

But yes if too many people start to believe pseudoscientists like Haramein we may be headed not only for the "middle ages" as you suggest but possibly the "dark ages" as Astyanax suggested in that thread. And from what I've read the dark ages was a really bad time to live in. I think some posters to ATS are already living in their own little "Dark Ages" world and all they need to do to escape it is educate themselves. But that's hard work, especially grasping the math (for some people).

It's a whole lot easier to listen to some guy who doesn't even grasp enough math to understand exactly what the current scientific theories are, make stuff up and shake your head in agreement with him, while thumbing your nose at the entire scientific community who DOES grasp the math, and pretend you are smarter than they are.

Now will some current scientific theories be shattered by new theories and new discoveries? Yes of course they will. But do you know how to tell the difference between those who really have a better theory and those who are charlatans?

The people who really have a better theory will be able to explain the current mainstream theories and observational evidence, and will be able to explain to other scientists exactly how and why the current theory is wrong and how their theory explains observations better than the current theory (or they will have new observations).

Haramein is incapable of doing that and that's the biggest sign he's a charlatan, and not a visionary making breakthroughs. It even started to dawn on AlienScientist that Haramein might be a charlatan because he can't even get the most basic things right, like consistency of units.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ok, as of writing this post I have made a huge gap in my understanding... I hope.

The first point I would like to make, is that no, it is not 'protons' orbiting each other at the speed of light. I was getting confused on that point. If it was, you would be right.

It is two black holes orbiting at the speed of light. Proton is hardly the right term to be using anymore.

How would a universe inside of a 'proton' look to us?

Haramein also implies we are inside of a black hole, the light can never escape our universe because there is too much mass. From outside our universe, we would look like black nothingness beyond an event horizon.

And the equation you posted for determining a particle's mass hinges upon the fact that nothing can have zero for a rest mass. What if it were shown that a photon did have a 'rest mass'? Not really at 'rest', but the lowest possible energy level. Just like Zero Point Energy...

The particle's relativistic mass would be infinity(or maybe just the mass of the known universe?) at the speed of light if the particle had a non-zero rest mass. Correct?

So then, according to your equation for the schwarzschild radius, it would be infinity/c^2. Am I correct?

Haramein did not use infinity for the mass inside the 'proton's' radius, instead his math showed that it was the mass of the known universe. Are black holes infinite, or just really really dense, like say, the mass of the known universe...

The relativistic orbital velocity of the two binary black holes with radius 1.32 fm is calculated at the speed of light, due to the calculated mass and their proximity - from gravity if I understand his math correct.

It makes sense that the protons are not infinite in mass, if the universe is not infinite in mass.

They are black holes orbiting each other at the speed of light, not protons orbiting each other at the speed of light - because they meet the Schwarzschild conditions. Right?

So, what is the consequence of a black hole at the speed of light? I doubt it can be used in the same mathematical context as we have been discussing with protons and photons.

Since we have no such thing as a particle 'at rest', the idea of basing math on the premise of 'rest mass' is like basing math on a dead universe. The universe we inhabit is alive, in motion.

This paper talks about 'photon gas' being the medium for EM waves, and the density fluctuations of that gas with respect to the CMBR.

They are describing an aetherlike substance, akin to ZPE. In fact, I would suggest the photon gas they propose is the same thing as the ZPE and/or CMBR.

In the paper, they speculate that they have figured out the 'rest mass' of a photon.

If I understand the equations you have provided correctly, since photons DO potentially have 'rest' masses...

something significant haha.

And the point about the infinite radius is only relevant if it is protons travelling at the speed of light. These are black holes.

Originally posted by beebs
And the equation you posted for determining a particle's mass hinges upon the fact that nothing can have zero for a rest mass. What if it were shown that a photon did have a 'rest mass'?

What if a giant flying spaghetti monster stole my chimney? We can "what if" all day but as I tried to beat to death that "observational evidence rules". If you have any evidence a photon has rest mass, post it. I'm open to seeing new evidence, but I've never seen any evidence of that before. And the main purpose of that equation is to determine relativistic mass. The fact that anything traveling at the speed of light can't have a rest mass is a consequence of that equation.

The particle's relativistic mass would be infinity (or maybe just the mass of the known universe?) at the speed of light if the particle had a non-zero rest mass. Correct?

Correct, it would be infinity, not just the mass of the known universe. And this is true if you call it a proton or a black hole so I don't see what difference the name makes, as long as it has a rest mass that's sufficient. And of course this is not a possible condition in our universe or we wouldn't be here. So the relativistic mass is NOT infinity, that's what it WOULD be if it COULD travel at the speed of light which it CAN'T.

So then, according to your equation for the schwarzschild radius, it would be infinity/c^2. Am I correct?

well it would be the relativistic mass of the proton or black hole over c^2. If the proton or black hole has a rest mass and is traveling at the speed of light, then yes the top term becomes infinite, but again that would be impossible based on observational evidence.

Haramein did not use infinity for the mass inside the 'proton's' radius, instead his math showed that it was the mass of the known universe. Are black holes infinite, or just really really dense, like say, the mass of the known universe...

Well I know of stable black holes, they generally are presumed to have a minimum mass of between 3-4 solar masses and could go up to any large value short of infinity. I suppose in another universe a black hole with infinite mass could exist but nobody on the internet in that universe would be talking about it because they would have all been sucked into it along with the internet. That's what infinite gravity from infinite mass does.

Regarding smaller black holes, they have been hypothesized as a possibility in particle collisions but are believed to be very unstable and would likely immediately dissipate into a shower of particles. It's possible we might see some evidence of this in the LHC but if we have yet, I'm not aware of it. This is from their site:

lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch...

Given the energy available in the LHC, if a black hole was created it would necessarily be a very small one - a micro black hole - the energy available in the collision of two LHC protons is not a lot on a cosmological scale. The black hole would evaporate almost immediately into a shower of particles.

What is inside the event horizon of a black hole is a matter of some debate, but it really doesn't matter because we'll never be able to find out from any direct observation as far as I can tell. But we can measure the gravity outside the event horizon, say, by how fast stars are orbiting a black hole. We just can't measure anything directly inside the event horizon of a black hole because if we do send a probe inside the event horizon we don't have any way to get the information out to find out what the probe measured. Hawking radiation can escape a black hole but I don't know of any way to translate the probe's data output into hawking radiation, though someday a clever person might figure out how to do that, but I am not holding my breath for that to happen.

The relativistic orbital velocity of the two binary black holes with radius 1.32 fm is calculated at the speed of light, due to the calculated mass and their proximity - from gravity if I understand his math correct.

He doesn't understand his own math so your guess is as good as mine, but he's clearly showing the velocity of the orbiting protons or black holes or whatever you want to call them, to be c. And he's clearly showing they have mass so the particles clearly violate our known observations of the universe by showing massive particles traveling at c. If mass can travel at c he has to do more than claim that on a piece of paper...he either need to conduct or persuade others to conduct experiments to confirm or reject the hypothesis. Since we've already made tons of observations that contradict his suggestion, it's unlikely he can persuade any sane person to do the experiment for him, so he'll probably have to do it himself, and chances are when he does, he'll get the same results everyone else gets.

It makes sense that the protons are not infinite in mass, if the universe is not infinite in mass.

Of course that makes sense, that's why Haramein's theory is nonsense.

They are black holes orbiting each other at the speed of light, not protons orbiting each other at the speed of light - because they meet the Schwarzschild conditions. Right?
So, what is the consequence of a black hole at the speed of light? I doubt it can be used in the same mathematical context as we have been discussing with protons and photons.

you can call them whatever you want, protons, black holes, or little miniature pink ballet dancers, the name really doesn't matter. What matters is do they have a non-zero rest mass, and clearly they do, no matter what you call them. Therefore they cannot travel at the speed of light, for in order for them to do so they would have infinite mass.

Since we have no such thing as a particle 'at rest', the idea of basing math on the premise of 'rest mass' is like basing math on a dead universe. The universe we inhabit is alive, in motion.

Translation=I don't understand the theory of relativity and I need to study it. But yes of course everything is in motion. relativity accounts for that. Rest mass is just a mathematical term.

If I understand the equations you have provided correctly, since photons DO potentially have 'rest' masses...

And a giant flying spaghetti monster potentially stole my chimney? We can "what if" all day but as I tried to beat to death that "observational evidence rules". If you have any evidence a photon has rest mass, post it. I'm open to seeing new evidence, but I've never seen any evidence of that before.

Glad to see you're at least looking at the equations though, these equations are not that complicated.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I do not appreciate your condescending jabs at what you perceive is my ignorance.

I did post a paper from LANL archives that talks about the rest mass for photons... maybe you missed it. Get back to me when you have read through it, and perhaps you can help check out their maths...

And also I've posted papers regarding binary black holes.

I think there is a significant difference between a classical proton traveling c, and a black hole with radius 1.32 fm traveling c.

Why are black holes subject to that same relativistic equation?

Originally posted by beebs
I did post a paper from LANL archives that talks about the rest mass for photons... maybe you missed it. Get back to me when you have read through it, and perhaps you can help check out their maths...

Is that paper peer reviewed?You mean this one, right?

arxiv.org...

I can't find any evidence that it is, nor can I find any observational evidence to support the findings.

And also I've posted papers regarding binary black holes.

There's no problem with binary black holes, I expect there are lots of them.

I think there is a significant difference between a classical proton traveling c, and a black hole with radius 1.32 fm traveling c.

Why are black holes subject to that same relativistic equation?

What differences? Why wouldn't they both be subjected to relativistic mass increases?

Every mass has an escape velocity. the larger the mass the higher the escape velocity. What makes a black hole unique is that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. that's it. That's what defines a black hole. But when it becomes a black hole, that doesn't erase the fact that it has mass.

If we could feed matter into the sun, it would get more and more massive. Perhaps by the time it got up to 4 times its current mass it might collapse into a black hole. But everything that was there to begin with, plus all the additional matter is sucked in, is still there, except for what it loses through hawking radiation. But it's still got mass and still can't travel at the speed of light.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

I think Haramein's story and his approach to the pursuit of understanding are inspirational, and I suspect that his work is part of an overall paradigm shift in the pursuit of knowledge. I love the fact that he joins science with spirituality. This is balancing the left and right brain. And I think it's good that he's collaborating with someone else. I look forward to feedback from people who have attended his Delegate Program and have gone on to become Emissaries.

Originally posted by beebs
This paper talks about 'photon gas' being the medium for EM waves, and the density fluctuations of that gas with respect to the CMBR.

I looked at the paper and it's gibberish a la Haramein. Birds of feather.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I love the fact that he joins science with spirituality.

Haramein has nothing to do with science. His paper that I read is 100% crap. The "spirituality" bit is an attempt to put some honey on top of crap. But this is still crap.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


WE can peer review it.

And I will check into how the papers are published there, whether Cornell or LANL has a say in what is being published.

I'm afraid our discussion will inevitably stalemate without addressing new theoretical discoveries and papers.

The papers from Cornell and LANL are much more credible in my eyes, than Haramein's.

As of right now, I will be looking into archives and journals for more to back up the photon non-zero rest mass - as that seems to be the point Haramein's theory rests upon.

reply to post by buddhasystem


That is your opinion.

Please provide scientific analysis as to WHY it is gibberish.

Perhaps you could email the author in the College of Physics at Nanjing University with your concerns.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

That is your opinion.

Please provide scientific analysis as to WHY it is gibberish.

Perhaps you could email the author in the College of Physics at Nanjing University with your concerns.

It is indeed my opinion but I don't doubt it is shared with anyone who went through at least a college level physics curriculum. I won't bother to write the author as I have other things to do other than communicating with nuts.


Look at this pearl of wisdom:

As the carrier of electromagnetic waves, the photon gas is a discrete
medium at very high frequency, and then the Bohr’s electron is hardly to emit energy in wave form and can be stably rounding the nuclei in discrete orbits at lower temperature.

The author is referring to special relativity but contradicts is immediately since he assumes that photons don't travel at speed of light.

I can go on and on.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

WE can peer review it.

I'm afraid our discussion will inevitably stalemate without addressing new theoretical discoveries and papers.

That's fine, my purpose is to seek truth, not to prevent this discussion from becoming stale. If your goal is to prevent this discussion from becoming stale by seeking made up stories to discuss, then we have different goals. But I thought you were also seeking truth.

Basically here's how I read the paper. The abstract that says:

The carrier or medium of electromagnetic waves has been vainly searched for many years, and now it has been caught after the establishment of the dynamic equations in photon gas. The photon’s rest mass has been estimated from the cosmic background temperature in space where the photon gas is at an open state of thermal equilibrium,
and the photon’s proper magnetic moment is calculated from the dynamic equations of photon gas too. As the carrier of electromagnetic waves, the photon gas is a discrete medium at very high

To me, it reads kind of like this:

Bigfoot has been vainly searched for many years, and now it has been caught after the establishment of the dynamic equations of bipedal hominid methane expulsions. Bigfoot's mating cycle has been estimated from the temperature fluctuations in Jupiter's moon Titan due to gravitational distortion.

We still don't have any real evidence bigfoot exists but if it did here are the equations I'd apply to bigfoot:

So you can write all the equations you want about bigfoot, but if you don't have any real evidence bigfoot exists (besides that old movie of a man in a suit), all the equations aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Likewise he admits we've searched in vain for this " aether" yet he offers no proof that we've found it.

Can't you see what he's saying here?: "The carrier or medium of electromagnetic waves has been vainly searched for many years" and his next words should be "and finally here is the experimental evidence that proves it really exists and the search hasn't been in vain" but does he say that? NO!!! He says "here are some equations I made up, and I still don't have any proof of it but if you are really gullible you might think these equations are proof". That's my interpretation.

And I will check into how the papers are published there, whether Cornell or LANL has a say in what is being published.

What I've seen some pseudoscientists do is get other pseudoscientists to review their paper and show that review. See where it says: "Which authors of this paper are endorsers?" in that link I posted? That's where you can sometimes find the other pseudoscientists listed who endorsed the paper, but he doesn't even have any of those listed.

Here's a list of 16,482 scientific journals (I'm trying to give you lots of options here):

www.thomsonscientific.com...Α=N

If you find any peer reviewed papers in any of those journals that talk about photon rest mass or massive objects traveling at c, then let's take a look.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I looked at the paper and it's gibberish a la Haramein. Birds of feather.

Well you must admit, he uses a lot more integrals and differential equations than Haramein does, so he can baffle an even wider audience with BS than Haramein can with his simpler equations.

Okay you scientists, I don't believe you've addressed the two links that I've previously posted which AlienScientist/Jeremy included as relevant in the description of his video about Haramein's work.

Link #1:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Poplawski is a research associate in the IU Department of Physics. He holds an M.S. and a Ph.D. in physics from Indiana University and a M.S. in astronomy from the University of Warsaw, Poland.

The above is referring to an article dated April 5, 2010 entitled "Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research."

The article begins:

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?

Such a scenario in which the universe is born from inside a wormhole (also called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge) is suggested in a paper from Indiana University theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski in Physics Letters B. The final version of the paper was available online March 29 and will be published in the journal edition April 12.

The concluding paragraph:

This model in isotropic coordinates of the universe as a black hole could explain the origin of cosmic inflation, Poplawski theorizes.

Link #2:

An explanation of the Vacuum Density and some application such as the Casimir Effect . . .

The above is referring to “Chapter 4 The zero point field.”

The first paragraph:

The invisible field
Quantum science in the 20th century revealed the presence of an all-pervasive background sea of quantum energy in the universe. Cambridge University’s Dr. Harold Puthoff was one of the first to measure this energy of the universe. This energy was measured at zero degrees Kelvin, the absolute lowest possible temperature in the universe equal to minus 273 degrees Celsius. At this temperature according to Newtonian physics all molecular and atom movement should have ceased and no energy should be measured at all! Instead of finding no energy, as was expected, he found what he called a ‘seething cauldron’ of energy and henceforth it was given the name zero point energy (ZPE). Harold Puthoff proved that the physical vacuum is not devoid of energy at all and that instead of being a vacuum, space it is actually a plenum.

The last paragraph:

The science of sacred geometry claims that everything in our universe has an underlying invisible geometric structure following a fundamental principle. Contemporary scientists now use sacred geometry to explain how physical reality is constructed from the omni present and all-pervasive background energy of the physical vacuum.