Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

I would like to ask that sarcasm and ridicule stop on this thread. They do not contribute to a sound argument in my opinion - and are counterproductive.

Thank you Mary Rose for reminding of those concepts. They are essential to understand where Haramein is coming from. And sorry, this discussion has gotten a little tainted...

-----

Keep in mind the author of the paper is not a native English speaker, I presume.

So here is my dilemma, Arbitrageur...

1. A classical proton is NOT the same as a black hole with radius 1.32 fm. This is obvious in Haramein's scaling graph - as well as in common sense. Your argument is based on the idea that they ARE the same.

2. A black hole is mass above the speed of light. According to your mainstream equation, this would imply that every black hole is more than infinite in mass.

3. Since we already know that the contents of a black hole are traveling faster than the speed of light, doesn't this mean that that equation does not hold true for black holes, or else they ARE all infinite? Or else the equation is wrong?

4. It makes sense to me, that if mass is spinning above the speed of light in a black hole, there is no reason the black hole itself shouldn't be able to move at the speed of light. This should have NO consequence whatsoever on the contents inside, or outside.


Please illustrate the consequences, if any. However, if Haramein is right, we are here - the black holes are apparently not sucking us in. So, if his model is correct, we can assume that there is a sort of quantum harmonic or equilibrium that is keeping things the way they are. Of course, even if he is wrong we have to assume that anyways.



[edit on 12-6-2010 by beebs]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I would like to ask that sarcasm and ridicule stop on this thread. They do not contribute to a sound argument in my opinion - and are counterproductive.

You brought alienScientist into this and he's the one that told us to attack the theory and that he doesn't support it:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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...

This thread is about Nassim Haramein. Do you or do you not agree that Nassim Haramein ridicules mainstream science? He does so starting with the very basic concept that the first and second dimensions don't have volume but the third dimension does have volume (which according to mainstream science is more or less by definition), but he ridicules this idea and argues that if the first and second dimensions don't have volume, then the third dimension must also not have volume, and he ridicules mainstream people for suggesting that it does. So it seems that he started it. If you get him to agree to stop ridiculing ideas of mainstream science then I might agree to stop ridiculing his ideas outside of mainstream science, but if any idea in the history of mankind is worthy of derision and ridicule, it's most certainly the idea that the 3rd dimension doesn't have volume when in fact that's the definition of the third dimension, that it DOES have volume. You really can't get much more basic than that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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:

I replied "It's the connection with Poplawski I don't see and I re-read your post and I still don't see it."

To which you replied:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which I just looked at again and I still don't see where Poplawski endorses Haramein's work.

Let me propose a hypothetical theory to illustrate why we have to discuss specifics:

The theory by person "Y" has the following postulates:

1. The sky is blue
2. The reason the sky is blue is because that's the color of gas emitted by a giant flying spaghetti monster

Now one of those claims is true, the other claim isn't. We can find mainstream scientists to agree with the claims that are true, but not with the claims that are false. So if I get Poplawski to agree that the sky is blue can I claim he's in support of the theory of person "Y"? Do you get my point?

Link #2:

The zero point field

Ok talking about the zero point field is like saying "the sky is blue". There is something called zero point energy.

Harvesting the energy

Since the word on zero point energy was out in the world, a new breed of gold diggers has been born.

Yes gold diggers trying to part unsuspecting people of their money on "free energy" contraptions that don't work.

Disclosure project

Steven Greer has made a career out of disclosing the truth about free energy in his Disclosure Project.

Now we get to the second part of the hypothetical theory, that the reason the sky is blue is because a giant spaghetti monster is expelling blue gas.

To complete the analogy:

Yes the sky is blue, and yes there is zero point energy.

No the sky isn't blue because of the spaghetti monster and no you can't extract energy from zero point energy for very long. I wrote about that in another thread about a dyson sphere which I'll repost here:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Son of Will
It's a cool concept but frankly it strikes me as "yesterday's physics". With all we know of harnessing zero-point energy, which is literally what the fabric of space/time is made of, I'd like to think that such massive, bulky devices would be made obselete by such an advanced race.

You have a lot to learn about zero point energy my friend.

The zero means "ZERO" as in a bank account with zero funds. Sure you might get away with making a withdrawal or two in the short term before the bank stops you and charges overdraft fees and demands the balance be returned to zero or more. But you won't make withdrawals from a zero bank account for very long.

Likewise, you won't make withdrawals from zero point energy for very long. Zero point is already the lowest possible energy state that can exist. So if you take energy out of space with the lowest possible energy state, by definition the energy state can't go below the lowest possible energy state, so where did that energy come from?

It's a fantasy you read about or saw on TV like I did, and it's a cool fantasy, but please try to separate science fact from science fiction (though we do have an interesting habit of making science fiction into science fact, but not all of it.)

We do have the ability to put satellites in orbit around the sun, and we do already have microwave transmitters that could beam the energy from the satellite back to Earth. So the only thing making a Dyson Sphere fantasy is time and effort, we pretty much already have the technology to do something like that with satellites.

Talking about using zero point energy as an energy source is a different kind of fantasy, one which has no basis in known science. But if you want to do a trial experiment by making withdrawals from a bank account with zero funds, go ahead and try it, and let us know how it goes. The bank actually likes it when you do that a couple of times so they can charge you big overdraft fees, but eventually they want the balance back at zero or higher. Nature doesn't want space energy going below a zero balance any more than a bank does. So to think you can make withdrawals from either for very long, is, well, pick a word that fits.

ATS has started to realize that Greer is a hoaxer and even put at least one of his garbage photos in the "HOAX" section:

[HOAX!] Steve Greer (CSETI) Photograph ET Being

Even the most die-hard previous Greer fans had to start admitting he's a hoaxer after that one.

So that second link has a mixture of fantasy and reality sort of like the movie "What the Bleep do we Know?"

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

The film was also discussed in a letter published in Physics Today that challenges how physics is taught, saying teaching fails to "expose the mysteries physics has encountered [and] reveal the limits of our understanding." In the letter, the authors write "the movie illustrates the uncertainty principle with a bouncing basketball being in several places at once. There's nothing wrong with that. It's recognized as pedagogical exaggeration. But the movie gradually moves to quantum 'insights' that lead a woman to toss away her antidepressant medication, to the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god, and on to even greater nonsense." It went on to say that "Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided," and that "a physics student may be unable to convincingly confront unjustified extrapolations of quantum mechanics," a shortcoming which the authors attribute to the current teaching of quantum mechanics, in which "we tacitly deny the mysteries physics has encountered."

"Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided," is exactly analogous to my observation of that 2nd link. Mix some real science in with some hoaxing and crackpottery and it can really be confusing to laypeople who don't know where the reality ends and the fantasy begins. Frankly some of the real world observations in real quantum mechanics are strange enough without having to invent fantasies, but for some reason some people feel compelled to do this.

I see some mixing of fantasy and reality in that 2nd link, as well as in Haramein's work.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I would like to ask that sarcasm and ridicule stop on this thread. They do not contribute to a sound argument in my opinion - and are counterproductive.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You brought alienScientist into this and he's the one that told us to attack the theory and that he doesn't support it . . .

I don't hear AlienScientist using sarcasm and ridicule.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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...

Please provide the link to the above quote from AlienScientist.

Wow that was like reading about a pissing contest in braille. I have a hard time listening to anyone with arrogance and the I am more of a scientist and you are not. Haha. I'm too simple for this topic, but the way the debate plays out was amusing. Kudos to Beebs for keeping his cool

Originally posted by beebs
So here is my dilemma, Arbitrageur...

1. A classical proton is NOT the same as a black hole with radius 1.32 fm. This is obvious in Haramein's scaling graph - as well as in common sense. Your argument is based on the idea that they ARE the same.

I'm not assuming they are the same. Mainstream theory predicts such a small black hole will dissipate almost instantly as it would be extremely unstable, however I'm not even relying on that assumption. Assume for a minute a small black hole like that is possible. I'm not assuming it's the same as a proton, only that both have a non-zero rest mass, which means that neither can travel at c.

2. A black hole is mass above the speed of light. According to your mainstream equation, this would imply that every black hole is more than infinite in mass.

You are confusing the escape velocity of the black hole with the velocity of the black hole. A black hole could be moving away from the Earth with a relative velocity of 1000 kilometers an hour, but it's escape velocity would still exceed the speed of light. They are two different things.

3. Since we already know that the contents of a black hole are traveling faster than the speed of light, doesn't this mean that that equation does not hold true for black holes, or else they ARE all infinite? Or else the equation is wrong?

See above, you are confused.

4. It makes sense to me, that if mass is spinning above the speed of light in a black hole, there is no reason the black hole itself shouldn't be able to move at the speed of light. This should have NO consequence whatsoever on the contents inside, or outside.

You are confusing motions and units. The speed of light is a velocity which is unit distance over unit time. Spinning is measured like a car engine in something analogous to RPM's (revolutions per minute) so time is a unit but not distance.

Of course, even if he is wrong we have to assume that anyways.

Yes it's pretty safe to assume he's wrong about a great many things. That doesn't mean he hasn't parroted some real mainstream science somewhere which he might be right about.

Regarding balance, it seems some things are in balance and others aren't. Take something as simple as the wind. Some days there is no wind where I live, other days there IS wind. Wind is one of the ways the Earth evens out imbalance in temperatures. So every time the wind is blowing, it's because of a temperature imbalance, more or less. So that's a frequent reminder of imbalance to me.

Regarding the inner workings of atoms, there are still plenty of mysteries and things we don't understand. Some atoms are in balance and others aren't. In fact one of the reasons we exist is due to imbalance in atoms, called radioactivity. I've read speculation by some scientists that without the considerable heat energy released by radioacitve elements in the Earth, it would be a lot cooler than it is, and while probably not as cold as Mars it might not be warm enough to sustain human life. So we may owe our existence partly to the imbalance of those unstable radioactive elements. So no, not everything is in balance.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

This thread is about Nassim Haramein. Do you or do you not agree that Nassim Haramein ridicules mainstream science?

I agree that Haramein is challenging mainstream science. Einstein did the same thing.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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...

Please provide the link to the above quote from AlienScientist.

I did, it's in the youtube link right above what you posted, in the comments section.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

This thread is about Nassim Haramein. Do you or do you not agree that Nassim Haramein ridicules mainstream science?

I agree that Haramein is challenging mainstream science. Einstein did the same thing.

Einstein didn't ridicule mainstream science, he said it's wrong and here's how you can prove it, go measure an eclipse. So in 1919 we measured an eclipse.

Where has Haramein ever done anything like that?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Please provide the link to the above quote from AlienScientist.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I did, it's in the youtube link right above what you posted, in the comments section.

Guess you didn’t verify.

Here’s the full description in question. Guess he edited his remarks since you saw them?

AlienScientist — January 02, 2010 — Of all the controversial subjects I have posted videos on, I have never been so violently attacked as I have been for attempting to explore Nassim Haramein's theories... I cover topics like UFOs and Aliens which certainly receive their share of harsh criticism, but it's nothing compared to the backlash I've received from posting videos on Haramein's theory of the Schwarzschild proton... I really want to get to the bottom of this one way or another, I'm not so quick to throw away any theory that might lead to a unified understanding of physics... Especially one that shows possible derivability of the Strong Nuclear Force...

This is an excerpt taken from my interview with Bill Alek on Achieve Radio's Progressive Technology Hour www.achieveradio.com... The show aired live on Saturday January 2nd, 2010 at 10am PST 1pm EST Visit Achieve Radio's website to listen to the entire interview.

Alternative Link:
www.alienscientist.com...

Wiki Links:
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Links on The Quantum Vacuum Energy Density and how it is derived:
www.journaloftheoretics.com...

Hal Puthoff's pape on Quantum Vacuum Energy:
www.earthtech.org...
...and the article from "New Scientist" Magazine:
www.earthtech.org...

Nassim's Schwarzschild Proton Paper:
theresonanceproject.org...

Thanks for watching!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Guess you didn’t verify.

Here’s the full description in question. Guess he edited his remarks since you saw them?

I pulled the quote myself, and just verified it's still there, he didn't edit it. I said it was 4 months ago, right? Well you have to go back to the comments he made 4 months ago. I didn't cite the comment page numbers because those change as people add comments, but at this moment that comment is still just as I quoted it, on page 4 of the comments as they display on my screen. If you can't find it I can post a screenshot, but please look for it first. You can use the search feature of your browser, I use "Edit...find" in Firefox to find words on a page very quickly without having to read the whole page.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Guess you didn’t verify.

Here’s the full description in question. Guess he edited his remarks since you saw them?

I pulled the quote myself, and just verified it's still there, he didn't edit it. I said it was 4 months ago, right? Well you have to go back to the comments he made 4 months ago. I didn't cite the comment page numbers because those change as people add comments, but at this moment that comment is still just as I quoted it, on page 4 of the comments as they display on my screen. If you can't find it I can post a screenshot, but please look for it first. You can use the search feature of your browser, I use "Edit...find" in Firefox to find words on a page very quickly without having to read the whole page.

Obviously, I thought you were talking about his description for the video you posted. I haven't even looked at the comments for that video yet.

I know how to search.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Mainstream theory predicts such a small black hole will dissipate almost instantly as it would be extremely unstable, however I'm not even relying on that assumption. Assume for a minute a small black hole like that is possible. I'm not assuming it's the same as a proton, only that both have a non-zero rest mass, which means that neither can travel at c.

Mainstream theory thinks they will dissipate due to HR, correct? It would dissipate not because it is 'unstable', but because it would have such a low mass that the Hawking Radiation would drain it... At least that was my impression.

So the escape velocity of a black hole can exceed the speed of light, yet what is inside the black hole doesn't?!?

In order to be inside the event horizon, mass needs to accelerate past the speed of light to get into the black hole, I thought...

The event horizon is the threshold of our perceptive abilities.

The speed of light is a velocity which is unit distance over unit time. Spinning is measured like a car engine in something analogous to RPM's (revolutions per minute) so time is a unit but not distance.

I think that due to the consequence of the theory of 'space-time', Time is also a distance. I guess I would just beg to differ on that point.

Yes it's pretty safe to assume he's wrong about a great many things.

Give it a rest. That is a fallacy.

Take something as simple as the wind. Some days there is no wind where I live, other days there IS wind. Wind is one of the ways the Earth evens out imbalance in temperatures. So every time the wind is blowing, it's because of a temperature imbalance, more or less. So that's a frequent reminder of imbalance to me.

A holistic thinker would recognize that while there might not be wind where you are, there is wind elsewhere in the world at that time. And yes, temperature and wind is a good example of density fluctuations - an essential concept for ZPE.

The radiation from the radiative structures has to be absorbed somewhere, also.

-----

And I want to address your post about Zero Point...

The zero means "ZERO" as in a bank account with zero funds. Sure you might get away with making a withdrawal or two in the short term before the bank stops you and charges overdraft fees and demands the balance be returned to zero or more. But you won't make withdrawals from a zero bank account for very long.

This is NOT the case, and a terrible analogy.

If your bank account was approaching zero, then it would be correct. It would, however, never actually reach zero.

Zero Point is named because there IS no Zero.

I agree that it is debatable whether or not we can withdraw it, but I think there is potential.

Theoretically, you can keep withdrawing a small amount a couple hundred thousand times in a small volume, which really adds up.

Kinda like embezzlement fraud...to go with the banking analogy.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I did, it's in the youtube link right above what you posted, in the comments section.

Arbitrageur,

I see now that you did say "comments section."

I apologize.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Einstein didn't ridicule mainstream science, he said it's wrong and here's how you can prove it, go measure an eclipse. So in 1919 we measured an eclipse.

Did Einstein submit his original paper with the suggestion about the eclipse, or did the idea come later, as a way to test his theory?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Which I just looked at again and I still don't see where Poplawski endorses Haramein's work.

No one has said that Poplawski endorses Haramein's work.

AlienScientist has said that Poplawski's theory is similar to Haramein's.

So again, what do you think of Poplawski's theory?

Originally posted by beebs
Mainstream theory thinks they will dissipate due to HR, correct? It would dissipate not because it is 'unstable', but because it would have such a low mass that the Hawking Radiation would drain it... At least that was my impression.

Close enough

So the escape velocity of a black hole can exceed the speed of light, yet what is inside the black hole doesn't?!?

Some people think they may understand what's inside the event horizon of a black hole. I'm not so sure they do. I'm a bit of an "agnostic" on this issue because nobody can prove what does or doesn't happen inside the event horizon. So let's say that's a bit of a mystery. You alluded to something we might be able to tell about the inside of a black hole earlier. If the inside is rotating, then the shape of the "Ergosphere" would be altered by the rotation. en.wikipedia.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/57114361c5d8.png[/atsimg]

There's an interesting animation of the effect of a non-rotating black hole here (starting about 1:45):

Too bad we can't see black holes move like that. I suppose that one would be moving faster than the speed of light if we could, but it's just an animation to demonstrate the black hole effect, they don't really move that fast.

However black hole theory says even when the escape velocity is faster than the speed of light, matter and light don't travel faster than the speed of light, so a beam of light aimed outward from the black hole would droop down, in a shape kind of like an arch. The black hole's gravity would pull it back toward the center. That's why it's black. And Hawking radiation is of course another effect that doesn't require matter to travel faster than light to get outside the black hole.

In order to be inside the event horizon, mass needs to accelerate past the speed of light to get into the black hole, I thought...

I don't know if anything besides effects like quantum entanglement can travel faster than light. But everything we know now says that light travels at the speed of light and matter travels below the speed of light. Theoretically that applies to inside and outside the black hole too but again I don't pretend to know exactly what goes on inside the event horizon, it's a mystery to me.

The event horizon is the threshold of our perceptive abilities.

That's essentially right, and that's the reason I am unsure about theories that claim to know what goes on inside the event horizon. If we can't observe inside, then I can't say whether those theories are right or not.

The speed of light is a velocity which is unit distance over unit time. Spinning is measured like a car engine in something analogous to RPM's (revolutions per minute) so time is a unit but not distance.

I think that due to the consequence of the theory of 'space-time', Time is also a distance. I guess I would just beg to differ on that point.

Maybe I didn't express it clearly enough. It's a matter of definition, not subject to debate. Remember the one argument Alienscientist said he found convincing that Haramein was wrong was a problem of units? This is like that. It's a problem of units. Velocity is distance times inverse time, and rotation is inverse time, they aren't the same units, by definition.
-----

And I want to address your post about Zero Point...

Zero Point is named because there IS no Zero.

Think long and hard about whether that statement really makes sense or not.

It means the lowest possible energy state. How can you go below the lowest possible energy state?

Now if you're saying zero point is NOT the lowest possible energy state, please cite peer-reviewed sources for that.

Edit to add Ergosphere image.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Which I just looked at again and I still don't see where Poplawski endorses Haramein's work.

No one has said that Poplawski endorses Haramein's work.

AlienScientist has said that Poplawski's theory is similar to Haramein's.

So again, what do you think of Poplawski's theory?

I tried to read Poplawski's paper but it's not free so I didn't. I will say his credentials sound better than Harameins so I don't expect to find the same lack of understanding of math as I do with Haramein's work, but just from reading the abstract I'd have to say the theory sounds pretty far fetched, but I'm open minded to the degree my brain doesn't fall out (per my signature). I'll ask around: maybe I can find someone who has access to or has read Poplawski's paper.

Since you brought up Einstein I'll invoke the same comparison and say if Poplawski's paper proposes experiments or observations that can be used to confirm his theory is true like Einstein did, I'd be interested in seeing what those observations and experiments are. If we carry out experiments to validate the theory like we did with Einstein, then Poplawski would probably get a lot of supporters for his theory just like Einstein did after experiments confirmed his theories.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Since you brought up Einstein . . .

Again, what was the sequence of events with Einstein? Did he, or did he not, propose the test for his theory in his original submission of his theory?