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

Originally posted by beebs
As you can see, buddhasystem is very antagonizing...

Please read what's written on that page. From the very condescending "poor soul" to "foolish" -- no, these words were used not by me. Antagonizing? Nah. Just tired of seeing another piece of quackery being heralded on ATS.

and apparently has enough time to argue that he knows better - but will never take the time to study the material which is being discussed.

I carefully watched the video of the "experiment". There is no evidence of black hole, contrary to what Marko claims. I agree his donuts look pretty cool. That's where their usefulness ends.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


reply to post by buddhasystem


Neither one of you will even take a whole post as a whole post. You split it into the most easily attackable bits and then 'elbow yourselves above it' while making tangential generalizations to avoid addressing the information presented directly.

This has been what you have done the entire time, and it is your ideology.

Anything of substance is ignored in order to feel big about something small.

This is the difference between experimental and mathematical physics and theoretical physics.

I appeal again to these quotes:

Here are some statements by physicists that take the opposite position on understanding:

"Never make a calculation until you know the answer." -- Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, pg 60.

"Our mathematical procedures seem to obscure our intuitive and imaginative understanding." -- Bohm, Foundations of Physics 5, 93 (1975).

I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all if we just apply working mathematical rules; that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with." -- Dirac, Physicist's Conception of Nature, pg 11.

In any case, the typical education of a physicist tends to ignore the issue of interpretations.

As you can see, we are approaching this discussion from TWO DIFFERENT SIDES, and have been the entire time.

Back to exactly where we were a few pages ago. All these claims for Haramein, Rodin or whoever - but are they empty claims, or do they have some substance to them?

Can you give a single claim that you're prepared to discuss and examine in detail, one that has some real meaning in terms of what can be observed in the universe we're in?

By claim, I mean anything at all that you think is a reason to believe that any idea of physics they've come up with has any connection to the real world. Anything at all. But something that you'd be willing to focus on.

If you think you've done this already, well forgive me.... please run it by me again. Be as clear and as pithy as you can. Let's try to get to the heart of something they've achieved. Whaddya say?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

 

What is a realistic model of real protons and real black holes?

Quantum field theory and general relativity.

Originally posted by beebs
Neither one of you will even take a whole post as a whole post. You split it into the most easily attackable bits

Whining much? Over and over, you make statements which you later fail to explain, and then insist that you see some "big picture". Well, see what you may but it has no connection to reality, which is tested by exactly asking question about various bits of your "theory", and if it turns that it's "easily attackable", that is certainly not my fault but yours.

Anything of substance is ignored in order to feel big about something small.
This is the difference between experimental and mathematical physics and theoretical physics.

I'm confused now -- which physics do you claim you are practicing?

reply to post by buddhasystem
My feeling too.

If Beebs or anyone else has anything to share that has any connection to reality, I'd like to hear it. All we ask is that we're allowed to ask some questions about what you're saying and about what you think it means. Because that's what many people naturally do when they're interested and are trying to figure out if there is truth in something.

That's what I'd like to see.

why don't you point out what you think is incorrect in the theory, and then we discuss it? we're the ones putting the theory up for discussion in the first place, which means we already think it interesting enough or maybe even plausible enough to put it into the minds of their peers...it makes more sense for the skeptic to voice complaints, not the person proposing the theory. buuuut you can't really do that until you actually go through and attempt to 'learn' the theory from the perspective of the theorist's own teachings. since the skeptics here are unwilling to do that then we don't have much to talk about.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
why don't you point out what you think is incorrect in the theory, and then we discuss it?

Because I don't see that they've achieved anything. Have they achieved anything?

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
why don't you point out what you think is incorrect in the theory, and then we discuss it?

Because I don't see that they've achieved anything. Have they achieved anything?

you're essentially refusing to look at the nuts and bolts of the theory because you're literally ignorant of the facts. (you're ignoring professionally peer reviewed data, which we have not been so ignorant of). in order to come to an educated conclusion about the theory a person should ... study the theory

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
it makes more sense for the skeptic to voice complaints.

I don't agree at all. All kinds of people speak all kinds of bullcr@p all over the internet. Making empty claims is easy. If they refuse to provide any substance to it, why should anyone take them seriously?

But I'm trying to be accommodating and open, so... if you prefer to look at my choice of material than choose your own, then regarding Haramein, I'm very happy to oblige. How about the very same one that I've been asking about over the last several pages:

The attractive force between two protons in Haramein's paper (which he gives in his paper as 7.49x10^47 dynes) is not just slightly bigger but 227,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger than it would need to be to hold two protons together against the Coulomb repulsion (which he gives in his paper as 3.3x10^6 dynes). But two protons don't hold together at all (you can search on the web for evidence of diprotons if you wish). Therefore the proton-proton force derived in Haramein's Schwarzschild Proton paper (which is the whole point of Haramein's most celebrated paper) is not only wrong, but wrong by an almightily ridiculous margin.

That's pretty straightforward, if you'd like to take it on.

Or, as I said, just say what you think they've achieved, and let's have a look at it.

The choice is yours. I'm being as plain and as open as I can.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
it makes more sense for the skeptic to voice complaints.

I don't agree at all. All kinds of people speak all kinds of bullcr@p all over the internet. Making empty claims is easy. If they refuse to provide any substance to it, why should anyone take them seriously?

But I'm trying to be accommodating and open, so... if you prefer to look at my choice of material than choose your own, then regarding Haramein, I'm very happy to oblige. How about the very same one that I've been asking about over the last several pages:

The attractive force between two protons in Haramein's paper (which he gives in his paper as 7.49x10^47 dynes) is not just slightly bigger but 227,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger than it would need to be to hold two protons together against the Coulomb repulsion (which he gives in his paper as 3.3x10^6 dynes). But two protons don't hold together at all (you can search on the web for evidence of diprotons if you wish). Therefore the proton-proton force derived in Haramein's Schwarzschild Proton paper (which is the whole point of Haramein's most celebrated paper) is not only wrong, but wrong by an almightily ridiculous margin.

That's pretty straightforward, if you'd like to take it on.

I haven't said a single word about Haramein. I don't know what you're referring to and I don't know why you brought it up now...but i would comment that scientists once saw the earth as flat, but turns out it's not.

you said this: " If they refuse to provide any substance to it, why should anyone take them seriously?" I've provided references to the "substance" of the theory, it's very easy to find. My point here is that you completely ignore the possibility of studying the "substance" of this theory with your own two eyes.

as for what i think Marko Rodin's work is capable of accomplishing:

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
you're essentially refusing to look at the nuts and bolts of the theory because you're literally ignorant of the facts. (you're ignoring professionally peer reviewed data, which we have not been so ignorant of). in order to come to an educated conclusion about the theory a person should ... study the theory

edit on 1/31/11 by metalshredmetal because: spelling

I discovered today that Bob made a few very detailed posts on the subject of Haramein, in his own blog. I was impressed by attention to detail and painstaking analysis. You accuse an apparently educated and detail oriented person of ignorance? That's rich.

Rodin goes on record to make specific claims, which are not verifiable. If he says that there is "ether" and there is "emanation point", he better be able to prove it. What he did so far was to tattoo a numerological table on the surface of a donut and then call it something like "flux reactor" or other such cr@p.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
I haven't said a single word about Haramein. I don't know what you're referring to and I don't know why you brought it up now..

Well you apparently made a post on the topic that doesn't have to do much with with the thread, with exception of both being an example of quackery. Then you proceed to ask participants why they mention Haramein. Because that't the title of the thread, dammit!

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
I haven't said a single word about Haramein. I don't know what you're referring to and I don't know why you brought it up now...

Did you happen to notice the title of the thread?

It's about a unified field theory by a guy named Nassim Haramein. He also claimed to have solved the dark energy problem, as did Rodin which is how we got to comparing and contrasting the dark matter solutions by Rodin and Haramein, but at least Haramein was still part of that comparison.

If you're not here to discuss Haramein, the topic of the thread, and you prefer to discuss Marko Rodin, there's a thread about him here:

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

It's better to discuss the correct person in the correct thread though if you want to compare and contrast the models of Haramein versus Rodin or other friends of Haramein that could be done here, as long as Haramein is in the discussion somewhere.

Edit to add: I made a post in that thread for you mostly about Rodin.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
you're essentially refusing to look at the nuts and bolts of the theory because you're literally ignorant of the facts. (you're ignoring professionally peer reviewed data, which we have not been so ignorant of). in order to come to an educated conclusion about the theory a person should ... study the theory

edit on 1/31/11 by metalshredmetal because: spelling

I discovered today that Bob made a few very detailed posts on the subject of Haramein, in his own blog. I was impressed by attention to detail and painstaking analysis. You accuse an apparently educated and detail oriented person of ignorance? That's rich.

Rodin goes on record to make specific claims, which are not verifiable. If he says that there is "ether" and there is "emanation point", he better be able to prove it. What he did so far was to tattoo a numerological table on the surface of a donut and then call it something like "flux reactor" or other such cr@p.

you said this: " If they refuse to provide any substance to it, why should anyone take them seriously?" I've provided references to the "substance" of the theory, it's very easy to find. My point here is that you completely ignore the possibility of studying the "substance" of this theory with your own two eyes.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
I haven't said a single word about Haramein. I don't know what you're referring to and I don't know why you brought it up now...

Did you happen to notice the title of the thread?

It's about a unified field theory by a guy named Nassim Haramein. He also claimed to have solved the dark energy problem, as did Rodin which is how we got to comparing and contrasting the dark matter solutions by Rodin and Haramein, but at least Haramein was still part of that comparison.

If you're not here to discuss Haramein, the topic of the thread, and you prefer to discuss Marko Rodin, there's a thread about him here:

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

It's better to discuss the correct person in the correct thread though if you want to compare and contrast the models of Haramein versus Rodin or other friends of Haramein that could be done here, as long as Haramein is in the discussion somewhere.

i'm NOT the person who first brought up Marko Rodinin in this thread., in fact i think you were. all i remarked on was that i would like to see someone debunk his work. AFTER i said that you and the other clown proceed to go on about whatnot...

and just because I care about you, i'll let you know that i'm not discussing this any longer because you're obviously not getting my point. so we can both save some energy, unless that's too theoretical for you.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal

My point here is that you completely ignore the possibility of studying the "substance" of this theory with your own two eyes.

Dropping the animosity for a second and coming back to the idea of substance: don't you want to stand up for Marko and specify and defend a single claim that he's achieved anything that relates to the real world?

Fair enough if you don't. Just so long as we're clear.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I discovered today that Bob made a few very detailed posts on the subject of Haramein, in his own blog. I was impressed by attention to detail and painstaking analysis.

Yes. A while back, I spent quite a few hours on a Saturday going through Bobathon's blog, and not only were his blog entries informative, but the patient way he responded to people with questions and comments was amazing to me. It's obvious he put a lot of time into that.

Now Mary, you claim to be a researcher, but have you read Bobathon's blog? If you're really a good researcher and you want to look at both sides it's a good source to read. He even responds to other people like you who have similar questions to you so you may get some insights from that. Beebs, even you might learn something from it though you might think some of the details are "reductionist", but sometimes in science that's where the "rubber meets the road", in the details.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
as for what i think Marko Rodin's work is capable of accomplishing:

I watched this video earlier today, and that's where the speaker says that there will be cure for all disease, unlimited energy, and food, for all and easy intergalactic travel. I don't see how that's possible with the results we've been shown so far.

Further, at around 2:50, Randy says that with Rodin's diagram (which he somehow calls "equation" you can do "all the functions of all the branches of math instantly". That's just sheer idiocy.

What does hexagon have to do with polarized light? Mind you, there is more than one kind of polarization.

"Everything is a coil" -- bull
"Nuclear reaction is doubling" -- bull
"At the center of electricity is magnetism" -- bull
"It's a higher-dimensional energy known as tachions, monopoles, gravitons" -- bull.

Ad infinitum.