Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


In my opinion, my post about Stewart Swerdlow's statements applies.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I just thought of something - the weapons were not alleged to be used until March.

So, I don't know...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The more I research in the area of science, the more I realize how little we know about the basics.

Define "basics". You may know very little about these indeed.

I think a great deal of humility is in order when stating what the established laws of physics are.

Instead of liberal arts terms like "humility" let's just use common sense and scientific method. Scientists never run away from statements that a particular theory does not match the fact -- which you personally do all the time. There are numerous examples. Neutral currents was one case when the scientific community did not hesitate to reconsider the base of theory then used.

By contrast, they salivate at every such opportunity because for the capable ones, it's an opportunity to prove they are worth their salt and then some.

PS. Don't think for a second Haramein is in that category, his development stopped some time in the 8th grade.

reply to post by Mary Rose


One thing I do believe is that there is technology available to the powers that be that run this planet that is way beyond anything that is officially admitted to.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

One thing I do believe is that there is technology available to the powers that be that run this planet that is way beyond anything that is officially admitted to.

Yes, and watch out for all that fluoride in the sacred bodily fluids.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

 

In my opinion, my post about Stewart Swerdlow's statements applies.

By this you mean you think the comet was twice the size of Jupiter as Haramein claimed, and a secret particle beam accelerator 5.7 billion trillion trillion trillion times more powerful than the largest particle accelerator we know of, the LHC, was used to blow it up, and that's why we're still here?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose

 

In my opinion, my post about Stewart Swerdlow's statements applies.

By this you mean you think the comet was twice the size of Jupiter as Haramein claimed, and a secret particle beam accelerator 5.7 billion trillion trillion trillion times more powerful than the largest particle accelerator we know of, the LHC, was used to blow it up, and that's why we're still here?

There are many questions pertaining to this, but let me ask one, which is: where would they simply get enough electric power to make this happen?

God have mercy on the uneducated.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Advanced weapons blew up Niburu/Marduk in March, 2003.

Like I said, I don't know what happened with the alleged comet NEAT in February, 2003.

I haven't focused on this issue a lot.

Is the official story that a solar mass ejection wiped out NEAT?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Advanced weapons blew up Niburu/Marduk in March, 2003.

And how exactly do you know that? Which advanced weapons? Powered by what?

Puh-leeze.

My close friend Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a neutron star, disapproves of such pointless and ignorant statements.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There are many questions pertaining to this, but let me ask one, which is: where would they simply get enough electric power to make this happen?

I got the answer to that question from researching the Montauk Project. According to Michio Kaku, it's impossible for traditional power sources to generate enough energy for time travel like they claimed, even if they tapped all the power generated by the US military and then some, but they had a power source much more powerful, enough to warp space and time:

www.stealthskater.com...

"The energy from "...

See source, paragraph 8.

Cameron explains today, quite solemnly, "was used as horsepower for the Chair."

I'm sure you'd agree there's no more powerful energy source than that, especially since he was about 14 years old! Michio Kaku didn't even try to debunk that one!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is the official story that a solar mass ejection wiped out NEAT?

Who knows the answer to this question?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is the official story that a solar mass ejection wiped out NEAT?

Who knows the answer to this question?

According to Wikipedia it's coming back in 34122 AD, which they wouldn't say if it was destroyed, right?

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Okay. I thought I saw something about a CME destroying it. I'll have to re-trace my steps and see if I can find it.

reply to post by Mary Rose
That's also addressed in the Wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

The comet was hit by a Coronal mass ejection during its pass near the sun[4]; some rumoured it had "disturbed" the sun, but scientists dismissed this notion.

The space.com link it references is now dead.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Advanced weapons blew up Niburu/Marduk in March, 2003.

Correction: April, 2003

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Advanced weapons blew up Niburu/Marduk in March, 2003.

Correction: April, 2003

Correction: nothing of that sort has ever happened.

I like this quote from the "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

We can point out that, by the gentleman's own argument, if gravitation at this range is "stupidly big" then exactly how much more "stupidly big" is infinity? Following your style of exposition, would you conclude that the standard model of color/strong force is infinitely more stupid than our proposals?

It matters little how "stupidly big" something is. What matters is if the numbers derived are logical, plausible, consistent with the theory involved, and point to at least useful and/or, ideally, testable results. That is part of science (from the Sanskrit root meaning "lover of truth").

Apparently any stupidity in the standard model is excused in the gentleman's thinking, perhaps just because it is the "standard model"? Yet anything different or new is to be attacked by any means. What has your approach to do with science or truth?

It's all in how you look at it.

And I like this quote from theresonanceproject.org:

At the end of the day, it will come to pass that it is understood that our universe is indeed constructed by embedded singularities from the macro scale to the micro scale. This is a difficult transition from our current understanding and it is to be expected that a certain amount of resistance would arise.

The dictionary definition of singularity at thefreedictionary.com:

4. Astrophysics A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.

I like that word infinity.

I remember Haramein talking about the fact that physicists don't like dealing with "nasty infinity."

Originally posted by Mary Rose

At the end of the day, it will come to pass that it is understood that our universe is indeed constructed by embedded singularities from the macro scale to the micro scale.

The dictionary definition of singularity

4. Astrophysics A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density

I like that word infinity.

Personally I don't like being called infinitely dense, but could this be a case where if you believe it's true, it is true?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You're thinking of teenagers calling each other dense?