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

reply to post by 7keys


AND EARTH UNDER FIRE of Dr Paul Is good to www.youtube.com...

None of that is vitriolic. He is self-obsessed and self-promoting, and he is a fraud. He is misleading, and it is an abuse of the trust of people who look to him for genuine answers and see him as the scientist he pretends to be. It's not as if I haven't backed up and explained every one of those things.

Anyway, I've asked you the simplest and clearest and most relevant question possible about Haramein's theory and the fact that it gets it wrong, and his nonsensical claim that it "matters little" (which you have also quoted several times), and you've completely ignored it.

What's the point of supporting some guy with a theory that is so blatantly wrong? Why do you do it? I've never seen such a ridiculous display of entrenched persistent stubborn head-in-the-sand behaviour. I do find it very strange.

Originally posted by 7keys
Dr Paul LaViolette. . . www.youtube.com...

I put the video on pause to write down what I just heard: "Physics traditionally has been based on mechanics. And we're talking about a chemical approach - a chemical reaction approach - to physics. Actually you could say it's alchemical. It ties in with ancient ideas, too. . . . The basis of existence is flux. This is totally different from what physicists have been teaching. . . ."

Originally posted by 7keys
The Starburst Foundation

From www.etheric.com, the website for The Starburst Foundation:

Purpose

History has shown that the most significant scientific breakthroughs were not deduced from the existing theoretical framework, but rather arose as marked departures from conventional thinking. Generally such new views challenged long-cherished assumptions espoused by the established paradigm and were therefore actively resisted by the old guard.

The peer review process, which normally is relied on to determine which ideas out of the many should become funded, is often subject to this bias. As a result, new ideas that could potentially produce scientific breakthroughs are generally refused funding. Thus most work carried out in today's research institutions tends to be traditional, rather than innovative.

Originally posted by Bobathon
What's the point of supporting some guy with a theory that is so blatantly wrong? Why do you do it? I've never seen such a ridiculous display of entrenched persistent stubborn head-in-the-sand behaviour. I do find it very strange.

It's the difference between wanting to learn and wanting to believe. The latter starts with a presupposition which everything else is moulded around

Ophiuchus and 2012 The 13th zodiacBlack


Ophiuchus the secret 13th sign of de Zodiac.BruineDwerg2012 Serpentarius the serpent holder. De Slangendrager.
Nostradames dec 21 2012. Ophiuchus is known as the unlucky sigh. At that very same time Sagittarius will be pointing his arrow directly at the galactic center, also known as the Leviathan or Dark Rift.

www.youtube.com...

This is a July 2010 presentation by Haramein at the Nexus Conference in Australia. It starts with the story of the childhood geometry lesson but scanning through it, it looks like he covers additional material not covered in the 2003 talk:

This January 2009 blog article summarizes and links to Haramein's various papers and states evidence of confirmation of his theory - "Haramein's Universal Model Receives One of its Largest Confirmations | The Resonance Project":

Nassim Haramein for more than two decades has been claiming that black holes are the source of creation, not the result of it. His model early on permitted him to predict that black holes would be found at the center of all galactic formations. In many cases Haramein produced large controversy stating that black holes were most likely there prior to galactic formation, or even star formation, and that even our own sun and the atomic structure that makes up our reality is centered by black hole dynamics, or what he calls the spin horizon of a white whole/black whole. Eventually, telescopic evidence supported the fact that all observed galaxies seem to be centered by super-massive black holes as Haramein predicted. Initially astrophysicists attempted to explain the presence of these black holes by describing the evolution of galaxies as gathering mass until black holes form at their center but further observation demanded that the galactic central black hole co-evolved with the galactic bulge plasma dynamics and the galactic arms.

Now, as recently reported at the American Astronomical Society, a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were there first. This is a fundamental confirmation of Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size.

This may be one of the most exciting confirmations as of yet, as it leads directly to a continuous creation process where our universal black hole produces what we call super-massive black holes, which produce smaller ones we call stars, which in turn produce smaller ones we call atoms. In Haramein’s model, black holes are formed by density gradients in the geometry of spacetime itself, which generates spacetime torque, in turn curling the manifold – like water going down the drain or the slight gradient in air density that produces hurricanes and tornadoes. This results in the extraction of a percentage of the energy available in the vacuum structure, like the air coming up the drain, producing what we experience as mass and electromagnetic radiation (a layman’s explanation can be found in What is the Origin of Spin?). In various sections of his scientific papers (given below with page numbers), Haramein described these processes and a scaling law is given to define the scale relationships of this creation dynamics. Further, Haramein gives a calculation in his Scale Unification – A Universal Scaling Law For Organized Matter paper (see equation #4 through #16) where he demonstrates that the nuclei of atoms can be described as mini black holes, replacing the need for an ad hoc strong force with no source of energy to define its strength with the gravitational force of a mini black hole extracting energy from the vacuum.

In the same conference, Dr. Elizabeth Humphreys reported that stars have been caught in the act of being born extremely close to the super-massive black hole near the Milky Way core. This contradicts the standard model that would predict that these stars would get ripped apart by the strong tidal gravity produced by the nearby black hole. It is evident that the mechanism that allows such young stars to be present so close to a super-massive black hole is not clearly understood by the standard model. However, it is predicted by the continuous black hole creation model of Haramein’s theory. Stars could only exist in the vicinity of such tidal gravity if they harbored a black hole themselves. Of course it’s implied that all stars are born out of black holes, and are themselves smaller black holes, including our sun. In Section 4 of the Scale Unification paper, Haramein and his colleagues give powerful evidence of such a black hole at the center of our sun. This is as well described in a section of the special features (YouTube video) of the “Crossing the Event Horizon: Rise to the Equation” DVD set.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This January 2009 blog article summarizes and links to Haramein's various papers and states evidence of confirmation of his theory - "Haramein's Universal Model Receives One of its Largest Confirmations | The Resonance Project":

a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were there first. This is a fundamental confirmation of Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size.

How does this in any way confirm atomic-sized black holes? The black holes mentioned in that paper are MASSIVE! Actually beyond massive, they are referred to as SUPERMASSIVE! NOT atomic sized.

You would have been banned from physicsforums a long time ago for continually posting lies like this, and for not defending what you post and not answering legitimate questions asked of you by other members. But I guess you can post lies you want on ATS as long as you're polite about it and can claim you didn't know it was a lie. Well consider yourself informed, it's not true.

You claim to be a good researcher, but if you were really a good researcher, you'd do more than just regurgitate quotes from someone else, you would do some investigation, analysis and interpretation of what's been said. As far as I can tell, you don't do any of that but instead spam us with false material like this, and then just pretend to be ignorant when someone asks you questions about what you're spamming us with (or just ignore the question like you've ignored the "matters little" question bobathon has asked you repeatedly).

Now how does this posting confirm smaller black holes in any way? It doesn't, and the claim that "This is a fundamental confirmation of Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size" is a complete lie. There is absolutely nothing in that link about atomic sized black holes.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
How does this in any way confirm atomic-sized black holes?

The gist of the article is an overall pattern, not the atomic-sized black hole in isolation.

The part of the article that you did not quote:

. . . it leads directly to a continuous creation process where our universal black hole produces what we call super-massive black holes, which produce smaller ones we call stars, which in turn produce smaller ones we call atoms. . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
How does this in any way confirm atomic-sized black holes?

The gist of the article is an overall pattern, not the atomic-sized black hole in isolation.

The part of the article that you did not quote:

. . . it leads directly to a continuous creation process where our universal black hole produces what we call super-massive black holes, which produce smaller ones we call stars, which in turn produce smaller ones we call atoms. . .

OK I'll add that in addition to posting lies you're having difficulties with reading comprehension. There are two articles with links in your post, the article you quoted at icresource.com with the lie about atomic black holes, and the article that author references with the claim

Originally posted by Mary Rose

a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were there first. This is a fundamental confirmation of Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size.

where the "black holes were there first" links to the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) website article, followed by the claim that "This is a fundamental confirmation..."

It's NOT a fundamental confirmation as claimed when it refers to the NRAO article.

What you cited is NOT from the NRAO but a different line from the same article that I was complaining about lying in the first place. So all you've done is show the article prints the same lie more than once, and you've still shown nothing to refute my claim that you are posting lies, and since I informed you it's a lie, and now you are doing it knowingly, you are in violation of the ATS terms and conditions.

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

The NRAO article doesn't contain the word "atom" nor any variation of it such as "atomic", as I searched for "atom" and it came up empty.

Please stop posting lies claiming that the NRAO article says something that it doesn't say. This is every bit as bad a source as AllNewsWeb which has been banned from ATS. I pointed out to you the information was false, and instead of apologizing you just posted more crap from the same lying source. Unbelievable.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I would suggest that if you have an issue with my post regarding the terms and conditions that you ALERT the post, as the terms and conditions instruct us to do.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's NOT a fundamental confirmation as claimed when it refers to the NRAO article.

When you read an article, you have to read the whole article from start to finish and interpret what the author is saying.

You may disagree with the author's conclusion; that doesn't make it a lie.

Just taking quick notes from his presentation:

Universe has spin. Things spin in the Universe. So, where there is spin, there is polarization. You can polarize a triangle

If Dan Quayle muttered something like this, he'd be the laughing stock of the nation for a week or so.

Every time an electron comes out of an atom it's learning about your experience and feeding it back to the atom

I see on Haramein's website that the Schwarzschild Proton paper has been cited in a paper published by the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS). The paper is entitled "Relational Self-Similar Space-Time Cosmology Revisited" by John J. Kineman, Ph.D. of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado.

Here's the beginning of the ABSTRACT:

A ‘Relational, Self-Similar’ cosmological model based on a contextual relation between
local and non-local space-time dimensions was reported by the author in 2000. That
model was based on a radially expanding ‘Minkowski-space’ geometry for general spacetime,
superficially similar to E.A. Milne’s ‘toy’ model of the 1930’s (Milne, 1948), in
that its geometry is based on Special Relativity and the Hubble expansion alone,
irrespective of general gravitation. Cosmologists have recently noted a “surprising”
agreement with Milne’s mass-less model and evidence for expansion at or slightly above
the critical universe mass density (Omega = 1). An explanation for this agreement can be
found in the self-similar, dynamically expanding geometry of the relational cosmological
model discussed here, which unlike Milne’s model, treats space-time expansion as an
intrinsic scale change resulting from relationship between local and non-local realities;
rather than a ‘kinematic’ movement through pre-existing space as Milne imagined. The
internal geometry of this cosmology is a complex, self similar relation between a nonlocal
domain represented by dimensions in an imaginary number domain, and locally
measurable space-time, as a real number domain. The effect of general mass-density
(gravitation and the General Theory of Relativity) was not resolved in the earlier model,
but is now interpreted as a scale change under which the basic self-similar geometry
remains invariant with respect to any evenly distributed mass-density, because the
general gravitational effect is itself a self-similar scale change that alters local space-time
measurements. The effect is thus detectable only in mass density anomalies, the general
gravitation being non-detectible by local measure. These results suggest an interpretation
of space-time in which the effective roles of ‘special’ and ‘general’ relativity are
exchanged, such that Special Relativity holds for the universal geometry and General
Relativity holds locally, governing the dynamics of local mass density anomalies. This
view eliminates the need for ‘dark energy’ to correct the standard models . . .

Haramein's paper is cited on pages 5-6 under GRAVITY:

. . . That is precisely the condition that Haramein (Haramein, 2009) has described for the ontology of protons, providing the interesting result that a sufficiently large but finite mass-density would ‘hide’ itself inside “Schwarzschild protons” before reaching the singularity. . . .

reply to post by Mary Rose


envs.colorado.edu...

This ancient knowledge actually provided the primary basis for the profound shift to post-modern science in the West led by the early quantum theorists who were strongly influenced by Vedic studies.

Enough said.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yeah I noticed at the end of the paper:

CONCLUSION

Einstein once said that light is the ultimate mystery. If so, then space-time can be no less
so, for the speed of light defines the relationship between space and time and vice-versa.
In the radial geometry the time-vectors in local space theoretically converge at a
historical singularity (the big bang). The geometry dictates an infinitely converging
logistic spiral for light paths, as seen in the diagram, and consequently self-similarity of
the general continuum. In a sense, it produces special relativity as a consequence of
perception and implicit order, which is represented by the imaginary radial domain in the
diagram. This convergence, however, is not an assumed ‘fundamental’ time frame as was
the case in Milne’s interpretation; it is a self-organizing result of the self-similar
dynamics. It is more an implication of the present than a fact of the past. Actual light
paths do not reach to that historical singularity except as an infinite projection. Rather
than seeing this geometry as generating future space-time, it is as appropriate to see it as
generating the past.

Consequently, any two frames of any orientation will implicate such a universe behind
their point of interaction. In other words, in a vector field of random space-time
orientation, every interaction establishes an historical space-time organization.
Whichever one an observer maintains will present a view of all other vectors being
subsumed into that frame of reference asymptotically over time, because differences will
scale logarithmically into the apparent point of general origin. The model thus describes a
form of self-organization in which a ‘big bang’ singularity will naturally appear
observationally (with relativistic, but not intrinsic reality).

It is obvious that the model implies two simultaneous descriptions of the universe; one of
its undifferentiated ‘prior’ nature as a unitary ‘whole’ and another of its differentiated
aspects in local space-time definitions (or “selections”). The relationship between these
domains, as with Rosen’s modeling relation, is a two-way causality. In this sense it
conforms to a Rosen modeling relation, describing a self-informing, self-organizing, and
perhaps self-generating universe that is connected by information relations. Since the
model does not say which domain is ‘prior’ to the other, it describes a ‘loop’ causality (a
mathematical ‘impredicativity’), where it is equally valid to say that the general geometry
of space-time causes local space-time to emerge, and that local space-time interactions
produce the general geometry. The removal of such causal loops from physical theory is
precisely what allows the definition of mechanisms (Rosen, 1991a), and therefore the
model presented here describes fundamental existence as something beyond a
mechanism. This relational understanding of the diagram is crucial to understanding that
there is no central frame of reference implied, no ‘fundamental’ set of world lines (as in
the Milne cosmology) and no local experience of a big bang (that might, for example,
show up in developmental histories of celestial objects), other than the reality of its
relativistic effects in different frames. We do not need to decide which domain,
undifferentiated or differentiated, came “first” in this model; they are represented as a
complementarity. One may presume a unity beyond either description, but in the model
that unity is represented by light, which defines the relationships.

It is worth noting that application of the model to cosmology was to test its general
relevance as a theory of space-time perception (or interaction) involving a basic
relationship between the material world and its origin in formal aspects of nature
(Aristotle’s formal cause, Bohm’s “implicate order,” and other similar concepts). The
relationship being modeled is a fundamental principle of representation and actualization
(or “realization” as Rosen called it). It implies a certain kind of information process
within the fabric of nature (Kineman, 2007a; Kineman, 2007b). This view of fundamental
reality is also consistent with ancient Vedic and Upanishadic concepts derived from
ancient India and Indus Valley Civilizations, that nature is fundamentally a relation
between locally realized ‘existence’ that is sensible, and non-local, non-measurable
existence that is systemic (incorrectly referred to in many texts as ‘non-existence’). It is
represented in the concept of an Akashic field; a domain with which measurable reality
has formal cause information relations that in some way ‘record’ events and relate them
to other events. Such concepts have been handed down through the ages through all
naturalistic philosophies in concepts of a “fifth essence” (literally, ‘quintessence’). Over
and over, such concepts were proposed as either a material or an efficient cause to sit
with the traditional mechanistic laws of nature, and, impossibly, to account for its origins.
Repeatedly such ideas were disproven. Today we still seek for explanations of such fifth
essences in measurable forces or material. Such is the case of ‘dark matter’, suspiciously
proposed as being undetectable but nevertheless having a repulsive force in exactly the
quantity needed to reverse the attractive force of known matter. Such a proposal is a clear
indication that a new theory, not a new substance, is needed. It is a logical necessity that
such phenomena appear at a higher causal level, as Aristotle proposed in his concept of
formal cause.

Interesting.

reply to post by Mary Rose

The Kineman article was discussed earlier on this thread. It's gibberish.

Originally posted by Bobathon
If it had been peer-reviewed, then yes, it would be irresponsible of the reviewers. The whole point of peer-review process is supposed to be to identify fundamental problems with the paper, so it really should be done by people who understand the subject and are able to spot them. I don't think it was, though

The forum where the paper was (or was not) reviewed is lacking in physics expertise, and I don't mean it in a negative way -- they study systems etc and I won't pass judgment on their stuff. What I see here is Dr.Kineman was involved in eco-science and some preservation effort etc, and isn't versed in physics himself. He's also noted for using Vedantic teachings in his research. So to me he seems like a typical user of New Age crystals, no offense meant.

I guess one could make a presentation at a conference on Algae and quote Haramein, and it may pass.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I see on Haramein's website that the Schwarzschild Proton paper has been cited in a paper published by the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS). The paper is entitled "Relational Self-Similar Space-Time Cosmology Revisited" by John J. Kineman, Ph.D. of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado.

Here's the beginning of the ABSTRACT:

A ‘Relational, Self-Similar’ cosmological model based on a contextual relation between local and non-local space-time dimensions was reported by the author in 2000. That model was based on a radially expanding ‘Minkowski-space’ geometry for general spacetime, superficially similar to E.A. Milne’s ‘toy’ model of the 1930’s (Milne, 1948), in that its geometry is based on Special Relativity and the Hubble expansion alone, irrespective of general gravitation. Cosmologists have recently noted a “surprising” agreement with Milne’s mass-less model and evidence for expansion at or slightly above the critical universe mass density (Omega = 1). An explanation for this agreement can be found in the self-similar, dynamically expanding geometry of the relational cosmological model discussed here, which unlike Milne’s model, treats space-time expansion as an intrinsic scale change resulting from relationship between local and non-local realities; rather than a ‘kinematic’ movement through pre-existing space as Milne imagined. The internal geometry of this cosmology is a complex, self similar relation between a nonlocal domain represented by dimensions in an imaginary number domain, and locally measurable space-time, as a real number domain. The effect of general mass-density (gravitation and the General Theory of Relativity) was not resolved in the earlier model, but is now interpreted as a scale change under which the basic self-similar geometry remains invariant with respect to any evenly distributed mass-density, because the general gravitational effect is itself a self-similar scale change that alters local space-time measurements. The effect is thus detectable only in mass density anomalies, the general gravitation being non-detectible by local measure. These results suggest an interpretation of space-time in which the effective roles of ‘special’ and ‘general’ relativity are exchanged, such that Special Relativity holds for the universal geometry and General Relativity holds locally, governing the dynamics of local mass density anomalies. This view eliminates the need for ‘dark energy’ to correct the standard models . . .

Anyone know anything about the year 2000 cosmological paper Dr. Kineman references?